cauch

64 ms·

571.
by cauch 4y ago
Fessenheim is the proof that the state of the other nuclear plants is not the result of the greens: Fessenheim only does not explain why the other nuclear plants are in disarray. The situation for Fessenheim is in fact more complicated (the
572.
by cauch 4y ago
What do you mean by "better"? Planes are faster and more convenient, but they are polluting more, which has long term negative impact. If you want to know what is "better", you need to put everything in the balance. And
573.
by cauch 4y ago
> We've had numerous examples now of how pseudo-environmental policies destroyed economies and energy infrastructure in europe ... france leaving its nuclear infrastructure to rust I'm the first one to criticize pseudo-environm
574.
by cauch 4y ago
Laws should not be decided just based on what is good for you in particular, but in considering what is the most efficient in average. Sure, you may have an easy access to the airport outside the city centre, but people in the city centre,
575.
by cauch 4y ago
Two things come to mind when reading this. First: "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise" That's the trick, right? Reality sho
576.
by cauch 4y ago
> How do i know? It has happened to me. Something happened to you. But it is not a "reproducibility problem". I guarantee you, at CERN, several teams, and several experiments, reproduce the results without sharing the code. The
577.
by cauch 4y ago
> Code is little more than a very formal way to describe an algorithm, the difference between a detailed algorithm and a piece of code is very small in many cases. And in the cases where the given algorithm is general and no code is give
578.
by cauch 4y ago
> If I say "Islamic fundamentalism should be the norm" I will fully expect to be boo'd at, shouted down, blocked, shunned and made unwelcome. That tells me my views are not welcome. I can choose to stay, and keep using my
579.
by cauch 4y ago
> Any platform that actually catered to every neurosis would be totally silent. Well, it's a false dilemma: you don't need to have either a law that force all moderation to be identical everywhere or having places that are abso
580.
by cauch 4y ago
Not sure I see what you mean. First, I did not say "freedom of speech is ...", but "you don't really have freedom of speech if ...". It's a bit like saying "you don't really have freedom of movement i
581.
by cauch 4y ago
> Wut? How does free speech infringe on free speech, exactly? I think the idea is that you don't really have free speech is some group of people are afraid to speak, which is what you have when it's not well moderated. It'
582.
by cauch 4y ago
What you are talking about is important, but it is not what corresponds to the notion of "reproducibility in science". Ideally, what we need is being able to 1) reproduce from scratch, 2) rerun the experiment with the code used (w
583.
by cauch 4y ago
> but it seems modern science gave up on the whole reproducibility thing. It looks like you don't understand the definition and the point of reproducibility. If you just click on a button to recompute the results from the same code,
584.
by cauch 4y ago
It's a details, but I keep seeing it: > Yet, [the scientists] struggle to move away from Python, because of network effects, and because Python’s beginner-friendliness is appealing to scientists for whom programming is not a first l
585.
by cauch 4y ago
And? My point is not that nuclear plants are unique, and that no other industry shares some similarities, my point is that nuclear plants are a risky investment, and that it explains why the investment does not simply increased when the oil
586.
by cauch 4y ago
Well, renewable power saw their investment increased, I think. I think the reason why the investment in nuclear power did not increase is because nuclear is very much not an attractive investment. Such project needs a LOT of money just to s
587.
by cauch 4y ago
Fair enough. If you don't want to, you don't have to. On my side, my quest to understand why the EFF is somehow bad now continues. The closest I've got was so far was people who, after few exchanges, showed that they don&#x27
588.
by cauch 4y ago
Can you clarify of how EFF abandoned their core mission? From what I see, EFF was not public on why Gilmore was removed. According to wikipedia, Gilmore described the parting as amicable, so probably the decision of EFF is not too strongly
589.
by cauch 4y ago
At first, I thought you had a good point. But apparently, the study is already exploring this effect. So, now, the situation is that you have seen a study with results that you don't like, have come up with a reason why the conclusion
590.
by cauch 4y ago
But the variable they used shows a statistically significant influence. They could have come up with a variable that is "the first letter of the first name", but then, the result will not show such strong difference between the gr
591.
by cauch 4y ago
Nobody is pretending that today's wind farms are the result of someone gluing their hand to a road in June 2022 (the fact that you are framing the discussion as if it is the case is not a good start). But it is incorrect to say that it
592.
by cauch 4y ago
Hm, I'm not on the side of those annoying activists, but I think your assertions have no ground. Existence of "extremists" usually helps "moderates" make things change. Without the "extremists", the "
593.
by cauch 4y ago
Having annoying activists is unavoidable, especially as long as we also have climate change deniers or climate emergency underestimaters, and therefore, we should learn to not be deterred to still do the right thing. People opinions on what
594.
by cauch 4y ago
I'm not fan of communism, but was not the first man in space from a communist country? I agree that progress is more impressive under capitalist countries (and that capitalist countries have other very useful advantages, such as not ha
595.
by cauch 4y ago
The fact that progress exists does not technically constitute a counter-example. Maybe in a parallel world, where capitalism does not exist, the progress is 10x faster, or the funding is 10x more important. Maybe the capitalism needs some p
596.
by cauch 4y ago
What you say is far from being obvious. What is the ground mechanism that, according to you, will make "adversity recognize adversity even if the circumstances are different"? In fact, from what I see, it's usually the opposi
597.
by cauch 4y ago
Why do you say "no one is willing to reinvest in it"? They are investing right now in other sites, so, basically, what is happening is equivalent to "this wind central just profited that it needed a recycle to move in another
598.
by cauch 4y ago
Nope. The article explains that the wind central was, since its construction, planned to have a given life span. It is incorrect to say that they are replacing wind by coal. What they are doing is closing wind that reached its end of life,
599.
by cauch 4y ago
The problem is that because we need to progress in 5 years, it means that by 10 years we will hopefully have way more renewable solutions, which is cheaper than nuclear. So, investors don't want to pay for a nuclear plant that will be
600.
by cauch 4y ago
The situation is of course more complicated than that. The grid is like a big Tetris board, and nuclear power plants are big multi-prong pieces: they can be good to cover a large surface, but sometimes, they block situations were a better c

More ›