Krasnol

29 ms·

421.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Probably? There surely is no way back. Not only Germany has turned they back on nuclear. Germany has replaced what nuclear has generated years ago and is on track to decommission all its coal plants. No reason to waste money on nuclear anym
422.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Just clear and update your ublock cache. No banners here on FF.
423.
by Krasnol 3y ago
> Yes, renewables and energy storage are good things too but the modern world is built on cheap energy and the more the merrier. Yes, this is also why China invests more into renewables than in nuclear: https://cleantechnica.c
424.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Oh god...you brought up what I pushed far away. That echoing pain though the whole floor. You couldn't even talk him out of it because it's sooo healthy....yeah maybe for your wrists, surely not for my psyche.
425.
by Krasnol 3y ago
> You assert that Apple has a specific intent and goal concerning bullying; “what is already happening” proves very little in that regard. I assert that a company like Apple would have no problem with interoperability of their messenger.
426.
by Krasnol 3y ago
If toxicity based upon bubble shame becomes a norm. You should actually be ashamed of yourself as a company, but I guess these days shame came out of fashion.
427.
by Krasnol 3y ago
I don't know how any of those examples are supposed to help in this situation. You have exactly two relevant phone infrastructures in the Western World. One is pretty open and the other is locked. Usually it doesn't cause many pro
428.
by Krasnol 3y ago
The fact that your dad (and our all moms and dads) get spam, and we don't (or less) doesn't have anything to do with the messenger. Just google "spam on imessage". It is because your dad has people in their contacts who
429.
by Krasnol 3y ago
> I have yet to see anything substantial that serves as evidence that Apple is intentionally Like what? What do you need here, additional to what is already happening? A letter signed by the CEO? Seriously? The evidence is right before u
430.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Come on. It's such a known problem in the US that even people from other continents know about it. It is nice that it works for you, but do not play stupid here. You know it's huge.
431.
by Krasnol 3y ago
You make it sound as if it's something innovative or special. It is not. The only reason it's causing problems is that it is an intentional tool to drive users as OP into the environment through the external pressure from his peer
432.
by Krasnol 3y ago
So what you say is: this early prototype might be hard to see if it's not close up? I mean, this will be worse if the tech advances no?
433.
by Krasnol 3y ago
It reminds me more of the TNG episode "The Game" where Wesley Crusher brings back that addictive game device: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/The_Game_(episode)
434.
by Krasnol 3y ago
I can't believe that you seriously displayed one more time your ignorance about the role of Belarus in the Chernobyl fallout. Don't you have any shame? How can this happen? How can't you get any doubt and at least spend a few
435.
by Krasnol 3y ago
I don't even think they want to fix it. They just want to see money. Some form of "tax" per prompt or other ridiculous "models". This is such a nice, profitable opportunity. Much better than pay per view or subscrip
436.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Dito
437.
by Krasnol 3y ago
This is just the first charity I got from google. There are a dozen more. It's ridiculous that the freaking consent form of a website is your argument now. How are you not ashamed, posting this? And no I didn't go through the WHO
438.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Wow, didn't expect this to get so ugly. What you people do to protect this dying technology is quite disgusting. This is not the only charity, and seriously? You didn't know why Belarus? You are not aware of damages to the genome?
439.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Parroting opposition and right wing German Angst scenarios won't bring nuclear back. Its capacity has been replaced years ago. The "deindustrialization"-meme has been created when BASF started crying for subsidies because the
440.
by Krasnol 3y ago
> Ok, please explain what you mean by "results of radiation throughout generations". https://www.chernobyl-international.com/ > Or how nuclear power in France can go wrong if you didn't have either a Ch
441.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Dams are being removed for even less dramatic reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal For environmental reasons, for example. Meanwhile, France is heating up rivers, so fish have to die for their failure to
442.
by Krasnol 3y ago
> Once again: nuclear is either the safest or one of the safest forms of energy we have. Hydro is less safe, Wind is less safe (thought not by much). Solar is about the same. This "assessment" is base upon a single image which
443.
by Krasnol 3y ago
So this is it now? Some virtual public you made up is supposed to be your scapegoat to cover up the fact that nobody even remotely sane wants radioactive contamination for 11 (or even one) year? This must be a joke...and just like nuclear:
444.
by Krasnol 3y ago
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12102023/inside-clean-ene...
445.
by Krasnol 3y ago
No it doesn't.
446.
by Krasnol 3y ago
I like how you went for this and didn't even touch the actual topic anymore. Pretty representative.
447.
by Krasnol 3y ago
How is this supposed to be reassuring that you can return after 11 years? Or even after 1 year? Are you joking? Can you imagine telling the whole of Luxembourg that they have to just stop existing for 11 years? Or just Antwerp? In what mad
448.
by Krasnol 3y ago
Sure. Nothing bad about millions of tons of contaminated soil in plastic bags... Seriously? This is a HUGE waste of money. It's a waste of money on top of waste of money, and we're talking only about soil. No houses, streets, infr
449.
by Krasnol 3y ago
> I know. It is incredibly dishonest to use Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power. Why did you do it then? I didn't. Also, the argument that "event x is not valid because it can't happen this way anymore" is
450.
by Krasnol 3y ago
You can still build new homes on that land once it's dry. It's not contaminated with radioactivity. Imagine one of the old French reactors "going nuclear" right in the middle of dense populated Europe. It looks like a de

More ›