Accujack

67 ms·

691.
by Accujack 7y ago
You're forgetting that many people in America have lived through revolutions. We're the great melting pot of people who had to come here because our military destroyed their home countries.
692.
by Accujack 7y ago
>"They have the guns but we have the numbers." Yeah, But you know who has more guns? The remainder of the US Population who thinks things while flawed, are fine and will get better. The remainder of the US Population who wants
693.
by Accujack 7y ago
That's partially true. However, the middle class will continue to shrink, because the 1% have made it very difficult for anyone to join it and even harder to stay in it. We're on a timer to the bulk of the population being econom
694.
by Accujack 7y ago
>why countries are letting those small, insignificant islands and countries manage all this wealth Enlightened self interest. Those "insignificant" islands are generally speaking countries. By showing respect for the rule of
695.
by Accujack 7y ago
It's obviously not true in a world with nuclear reactors. In fact, widespread use of nuclear would make hot water cheaper for everyone and greatly reduce wastewater production - used water (even sewage) could be distilled into clean wa
696.
by Accujack 7y ago
"Sustainable" or "Unsustainable" are imprecise terms. Our Sun is unsustainable long term if you think in terms of billions of years. What matters to many people here is whether a given use of energy makes a significant
697.
by Accujack 7y ago
Hard water makes it difficult to keep mist nozzles unclogged, and I'd also consider whether aerosolizing minerals in the water would be good for lungs, not to mention the potential for added deposition of minerals on surfaces in the sh
698.
by Accujack 7y ago
Closing the loophole in the law that lets them treat workers as "contractors" rather than employees is going to torpedo their whole business model.
699.
by Accujack 7y ago
It is, except that people are discovering that the programs faithfully learn from their training material, even including traits and biases present that are not consciously included by the person that selected the training data. It seems a
700.
by Accujack 7y ago
Hmmm, interesting. I wonder to what level this is an actual threat vs. something the media came up with? It being such a hot button for people in that region would seem to also make it a potent way for politicians to gain support.
701.
by Accujack 7y ago
You're missing the main thrust of their effort. It's not to individually tailor ads, it's to study consumer behavior to the point where they discover what actions they can take to cause the effect they want. The idea is simi
702.
by Accujack 7y ago
> I'm perplexed as to why they are trying to do this. Money, as always. >They're probably not going to earn any significant amount from providing a checking account. That depends on specifics of the accounts and how they wor
703.
by Accujack 7y ago
>the recent prevalence of foreign, disease carrying mosquitos are the two biggest policy issues This is a weird idea. Are you arguing that native mosquitos carry fewer diseases? Also... I can agree that health care is #1, but mosquitos
704.
by Accujack 7y ago
Okay, exhaust water from engines does not add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in significant quantity to increase the rate of climate change - that happens naturally according to the temperature of the atmosphere. Not sure what I was th
705.
by Accujack 7y ago
This is interesting for cleaning up internal combustion engine use, but it's not so useful for climate change because although burning hydrogen doesn't produce carbon dioxide or methane, it does produce water vapor. See this page
706.
by Accujack 7y ago
By the US Government, nuclear regulatory agencies, the state governments, and above all ignorant people who are afraid of the word "nuclear" and anything associated with it, because they've never understood the idea that nucl
707.
by Accujack 7y ago
>After Chernobyl we were promised nothing like this would ever happened again because that reactor was so bad, and bla bla bla. Oops then Fukushima happened. This is remarkably sloppy logic. Chernobyl was a questionable design. Fukushi
708.
by Accujack 7y ago
Not probably, it definitely has.
709.
by Accujack 7y ago
>Which "new design" provides safe reactors that are cheaper to build? A trivial Google search for "molten salt reactor cost" or "new reactor design cost" can find this. Here's an example: https:/
710.
by Accujack 7y ago
>You state that as if it's a fact. Because it is. If you Google it, you can find plenty of sources that state exactly this. Even anti-nuclear activists generally agree that economically nuclear power is cheap per kilowatt hour sim
711.
by Accujack 7y ago
They can aid in mitigation of present limitations, IE they can move some power from areas with renewable energy available to areas without it. Even that paper states they're only part of the strategy, however. There is a huge differen
712.
by Accujack 7y ago
>The costs for reactors currently built are ballooning Yes. Current reactor designs are a non-starter, especially considering the regulatory mess around them. Years of them being an easy target for new "safety" laws because p
713.
by Accujack 7y ago
There are designs that are new or newer that have only been implemented at small scale, or in a single test instance. Molten salt reactors, traveling wave designs, even thorium energy amplifiers. You're right, though, we need new react
714.
by Accujack 7y ago
Almost certainly impossible. It's not a matter of newer technology, it's just that DNA doesn't work that way. You'd have to have some kind of weapon targeted to a specific person's entire genome (based on a sample
715.
by Accujack 7y ago
You need to do some more research. This is impossible now, and likely to remain so.
716.
by Accujack 7y ago
You could argue that they're biased, but you could also argue that they're the most knowledgeable people available. If you don't like those sources, look around. There are lots of government studies in many countries availab
717.
by Accujack 7y ago
You know that almost all the reactors in the world are corporate run, right?
718.
by Accujack 7y ago
The cost of building a plant with old technology is high. That's because it's been over-regulated and because it's old tech. Newer plant designs will be cheaper to build and simpler. They will need to be regulated different
719.
by Accujack 7y ago
It sounds like you need to do more research. It's not a matter of what power is cheapest, it's a matter of what serves the needs of the population without generating fuel for climate change. Renewables aren't enough, period,
720.
by Accujack 7y ago
>to suddenly abandon renewables now in 2019 when wind and solar is seeing staggering success and really impressive price drops while every nuclear reactor is profoundly delayed and over budget is simply odd. No one's suggesting aban

More ›