marmetio

12 ms·

91.
by marmetio 4y ago
That's true about the de facto ban. I just meant that sometimes there needs to be regulatory pressure. The pressure isn't painless. Either stock up or find a new lamp that has a small business exemption or some other circumvention
92.
by marmetio 4y ago
Amazing. You even redrew the figures with translated labels. Also, your website design is objectively better than the original.
93.
by marmetio 4y ago
Can you clarify, approval rate of what exactly?
94.
by marmetio 4y ago
Ah, I see. I think the rules just say what the minimum efficiency should be. It's up to industry to develop alternatives and invent solutions for the new edge cases, which doesn't always happen quickly.
95.
by marmetio 4y ago
They could have been more clear, but the public debate is over whether the expanded scope will be beneficial or detrimental. The value of C-SPAN in general is not in question.
96.
by marmetio 4y ago
The government accepts public comment for regulation changes, as they should since the public is a stakeholder. But there's no standing to argue against the concept of a mandate in general. The government regulates public utilities, an
97.
by marmetio 4y ago
I think there were legitimate concerns about mercury in CFLs. But I do remember some people in the media who were more passionate than they were coherent.
98.
by marmetio 4y ago
The natural niche that Fortran has found for itself is largely closed-source, non-collaborative. Same with Ada. The tools continue to be developed because companies spend enough money on them. They don't really need an open community t
99.
by marmetio 4y ago
The author starts with the implicit assumption that the companies in the target audience will not be able to restart the metaphorical engine, which is why they recommend letting it idle. They tactfully don't call attention to the fact
100.
by marmetio 4y ago
Software allows more gradual consensus-building throughout the product lifecycle, while car companies have to reach consensus earlier and between more stakeholders simultaneously.
101.
by marmetio 4y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if the result varied by country.
102.
by marmetio 4y ago
I think they're challenging the validity of what's in the user license agreement. Companies can put whatever they want in there, but not everything is enforceable.
103.
by marmetio 4y ago
> You've only repeated the assertion that anyone who has any objection to nuclear is irrational I already explained I never said that, much less repeated it. Clearly I'm not really a participant in this conversation. If you wan
104.
by marmetio 4y ago
My understanding is that you think I've offered you a rebuttal with new information to anything you might challenge me with. I haven't. I originally offered a meta-comment about the way that people discuss the topic, in response t
105.
by marmetio 4y ago
Quote yourself responding to any of the numerous times I said you misunderstood me, where you demonstrated an attempt to understand why I was saying that. You're sick in the head.
106.
by marmetio 4y ago
The only words I have are the ones you put in my mouth. If you don't like them, stop putting them there.
107.
by marmetio 4y ago
You fabricated 99% of what you accused me of saying and then called me a gas lighter, cry bullier, a poor communicator, and a word game player. You're a psycho.
108.
by marmetio 4y ago
> Your gaslighting is not as subtle as you think it is. > The gaslighting was referring to the industry's messaging as a whole and you knew this I guess "your" means "the industry"? I'll go add that to th
109.
by marmetio 4y ago
Quote me gaslighting you. You accused me of it twice without evidence. First time, you thought I wanted you to believe people, and that since you didn't, you were panicked. I never said that. You did. The comment I linked explained to
110.
by marmetio 4y ago
Well, you did prove my point. I said nuclear the wrong way, and you had a meltdown. Again, I didn't make any arguments against you. You put those words in my mouth yourself. Three times I told you point-blank that you misunderstood me,
111.
by marmetio 4y ago
> Fukushima has severity 5 risks > Firstly that Fukushima was a severity 5 event rather than a severity 2 event. What are you angry about this time? A 5 is any risk we don't want to accept in the future. Unless you're ok wit
112.
by marmetio 4y ago
Well, the summary you gave in the first paragraph is wrong. I'm running out of ways to say the same thing over and over again. I DON'T WANT TO CONVINCE YOU TO BE OK WITH RARE EVENTS. I don't want to change your risk-tolerance
113.
by marmetio 4y ago
Either you haven't read the comment like I asked, or you're wilfully ignoring me. Again, I don't want to change your risk-tolerance. Do you understand what that means?
114.
by marmetio 4y ago
In your mind, I'm trying to convince you to accept a risk that's unacceptable to you. But I'm not. I don't want to change your risk-tolerance. It's very laborious explaining that to vehemently anti-nuclear people. P
115.
by marmetio 4y ago
Risk has two components: severity and likelihood. Typically on a scale of 1-5 each. Fukushima has severity 5 risks, and some people are willing to accept them as long as they think the likelihood is 1. But not you, and that's fine. Me
116.
by marmetio 4y ago
Same with LTspice. Works better if you have a keyboard where the function keys are physically separated into groups.
117.
by marmetio 4y ago
You're illustrating the problem I described originally. When it's time to discus nuclear, people like you can't do it. You deflected by changing the subject to comparing different energy sources.
118.
by marmetio 4y ago
Is this another tactic to reject nuclear, or are you just wandering off-topic?
119.
by marmetio 4y ago
You've lost me.
120.
by marmetio 4y ago
I'm not a marketing person. I have no idea how they'll address past bad behavior, dispel common myths, or educate about fundamentally new technologies that eliminate old problems. I'm just saying they'll eventually have

More ›