… Debian was on twitter??

… Is this a bit? Because thats some unhinged shit to believe if you’re being serious.

Just to be clear here, Putin isn’t responsible for all the worlds evils, that’s just… well, dumb. Sorry but like, who in their right mind could believe that? Seriously, I don’t know how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion.

And hell, he’s not even responsible for all the evils in the US. But he’s very openly and publicly working with the far right parties here, who are in their turn very open about working with him, and that makes him a very relevant current figure. Not… sure what part of that is a revelation.

Er… no, he’s just responsible for all that evil he’s unabashedly doing right now. And is working very closely with the fascist party in our government. As a result, he’s become an important figure in the political landscape of the US.

Seems like the answer is yeah!

That’s because the problem also applies to the arrangement of files on hard drives and in databases, where the items to be arranged could number in the billions.

Since when are we taking the CIA’s word on anything?

Err… About what, though. Please, have mercy on those of us with 15gb monthly bandwidth caps but that still very much care about the egalitarian ideals of 3d printing :(

It really concerns me how few people recognize this series as satire.

This means they’re declining to have the case brought forward before the Supreme Court, effectively ruling against the petro companies. It’s really quite a surprising turn of events.

I know many many artists, and none of them would resist an offer to do what they’re passionate about in exchange for lots of money. Or to do what they’re not very passionate about in exchange for lots of money. Or even something they downright hate doing, in exchange for lots of money. Having lots of money means you can invest in those things you are passionate about.

Shoo! Don’t make me get the broom!

Is this what passes for bait these days? Shoo, go on, git. Back to your imageboard.

Have you got anything to back that up with? Because the problems with nuclear power have been almost exclusively caused by conservative governments. The ludicrous licensure requirements are the largest factor in driving the cost of nuclear facilities so far out of the realm of feasibility, and those have been imposed almost exclusively by conservative governments (with a special shoutout to Al Gore Okay that’s unfair, his legislation on nuclear power was largely based on anti-corruption ideals and not the ideals of the anti-nuclear movement)

We sure can’t slip anything by you, can we? Curses…

While clearly biased and theres some wording and cherrypicking of studies (that isn’t very egregious, to be clear!) that I’d take issue with in a more formal setting, the content of the article thru to point two are really quite an alright summary of the issues and raises some very valid questions the industry has yet to answer.

However it throws itself off the credibility cliff riiiiiight around this point:

In any event, regulators are loosening safety and security requirements for SMRs in ways which could cancel out any safety benefits from passive features. For example, the NRC has approved rules and procedures in recent years that provide regulatory pathways for exempting new reactors, including SMRs, from many of the protective measures that it requires for operating plants, such as a physical containment structure, an offsite emergency evacuation plan, and an exclusion zone that separates the plant from densely populated areas. It is also considering further changes that could allow SMRs to reduce the numbers of armed security personnel to protect them from terrorist attacks and highly trained operators to run them. Reducing security at SMRs is particularly worrisome, because even the safest reactors could effectively become dangerous radiological weapons if they are sabotaged by skilled attackers. Even passive safety mechanisms could be deliberately disabled.

What in the fearmongering fuck is this? "Oh no, terrorists!" And it’s debunked on the first page of one of its own sources. Regulators have NOT put any pathways in place to “exempt SMRs from many of the protective measures.” If you read the sources, what they have done is put in place guidelines for the evaluation of the current measures, to judge if those measures merit being re-evaluated. Its a path for a path to judge if maybe we should have a path.

And fucking hell, yes of course they would have smaller security contingents, the installations are physically smaller! There’s less to guard! Thats in no small part the point!

Look there are a lot of problems with SMRs and even more questions we just don’t have answers for yet. Those questions need answers before any progress can be made with SMRs. The benefits of lower transmission losses, dedicated power generation for industrial complexes being at all beneficial, or remotely finalized designs for the reactor technology needed here are all MASSIVE outstanding issues that have yet to be solved.

But this shit? "we cant have this source of green energy because terrorists!!!"

Fuck off with that.

There are more than enough issues with SMRs to justify extreme skepticism, hell microsoft wanting a bunch is probably reason enough to abandon the whole concept. We dont need to stoop to disinformation and blatant lies, what the fuck. This is why “nuclear bros” (Which great idea, lets “other” the critics, that’s not a red flag at all…) get so much traction, because they dont stoop to conspiracy theory tropes to support their arguments.