lwhi

49 ms·

1. 751.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   Why not build in abstraction? If you have a middleware that lets you swap providers, you can start off with a ready made solution and switch if necessary. Obviously, this still means you need to maintain control over your data; but that&#x2
2. 752.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   Will this really destroy the market?
3. 753.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   Is this clever spin? It feels like quite an obvious play to me ..
4. 754.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   Exactly.
5. 755.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   I'm one of the few people demonstrating an opposing view. That's not the same as being uninformed. This is not the only route we have available. That in itself is a fact. You seem to believe that without nuclear power we'll h
6. 756.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   'Chuck it in the sea' has been the answer proposed by many industry scientists for a long time now. Even supposed small changes are being seen to have an effect on ecologies and food chains [1] [1] https://e360.yale.edu
7. 757.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   That's the nub of my whole argument. I see nuclear energy via fission, as too a big risk.
8. 758.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   I see this as market manipulation. Tesla hasn't suddenly become aware of information not available when Tesla initially announced they'd accept bitcoin as payment.
9. 759.▲
   by lwhi 5y ago

   That's an interesting link, and point; but my understanding it the water is contaminated.
10. 760.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I notice you didn't come back to me on my last point. Maybe that's something we can agree on ;)
11. 761.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    The scientific community is wide. You can speak for yourself, and perhaps even the community of nuclear scientists as a whole. It stands to reason a group of scientists working towards developing nuclear power are going to be proponents.
12. 762.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    > There's no such thing as truly clean power. Yet
13. 763.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    There's a lot of opposition to this plan, as mentioned in the article. > Anyone that complains about the trace amounts of tritium had better be thousands of times more upset at coal power. It's possible to be upset by both. If
14. 764.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    Sorry, but you can't speak for the scientific community. The scientific community is varied, and has a plurality of voices. Without wanting to be rude, this kind of rhetoric feels closer in spirit to the kind of lobbying that might be
15. 765.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I think it's the fact that it's a stop gap that worries me the most. Imagine being alive in thousands of years, having to mind the 'very little waste' that stopgap produced. I think I'd consider the generations that
16. 766.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I saw a report that the reactor at Chernobyl is in danger of starting a new nuclear reaction [1] Fukushima is going to release the waste water into the sea [2] [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2277195-nuclear-re
17. 767.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I have a belief that human ingenuity will be able to generate truly clean power. If you believe that too, then this period of nuclear usage, is a transitory period. If this transitory period has the ability to create substances that will po
18. 768.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I can understand that technological improvements will have improved safety and efficiency. I definitely agree that we need a spread of technologies to provide for our energy need. I'm not convinced nuclear needs to be part of that solu
19. 769.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I think it's foolish to think we have things 'right' now. In 1967, I'm pretty certain the engineers responsible thought they had it everything in order. I take the view we will always fuck up. With nuclear, the fuck up w
20. 770.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    This is a good point, 'how much’ is an important question. But then, it seems society sometimes make the decision to take somethings off the table entirely. I look at the accident at Fukushima, and earlier (when I was small child) Cher
21. 771.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I've just read through the comments, and can't really see anyone else making this point .. so I'm assuming it will be unpopular. Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Logically, renewable and storage on a microl
22. 772.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    Why do people not get as excited by the prospect of renewable energy?
23. 773.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    To the down-voter - please elucidate your displeasure.
24. 774.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    Not my model yet (unfortunately)
25. 775.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    Feels to me like this could _partly_ be a line of attack. The fight for advertising and tracking on the open web is being lost, which is detrimental to Google. If you have your own ecosystem, what does it matter?
26. 776.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I just checked for an update for my TP Link Rouer, nothing yet. How likely are large manufacturers likely to react to this?
27. 777.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    Agree! We need to regulate markets to prevent FAANG domination.
28. 778.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to think maybe tech isn't going to save us after ..
29. 779.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    You're missing my point. The fact these CEOs are only concerned with profit, and the fact you drew a comparison between these ventures and colonialism .. is a very apt summary. You used the word 'perfect'. It's perfect i
30. 780.▲
    by lwhi 5y ago

    It's the world we live in. But to say the situation is perfect, is quite simply a lie.