palata

17 ms·

451.
by palata 4mo ago
> It hasn't managed to displace fossil fuels in over 70 years - a feat that renewables have done within 20 years. Renewables are not remotely displacing fossil fuels. Look at fossil fuel consumption.
452.
by palata 4mo ago
An earthquake will not suddenly take the waste from hundreds of meters underground and throw it in the air. I mean, assuming you store it in a reasonable place.
453.
by palata 4mo ago
Again, destroy a dam and you get a catastrophe. Don't do anything in particular and watch how many people die in the mid-term due to climate change. It's all about risk management.
454.
by palata 4mo ago
Not opposed to defence in principle. But Switzerland's army has proven, repeatedly these last few years, that they are incompetent. From understanding a multi-billions contract before signing it to selecting relevant technology (dron
455.
by palata 4mo ago
Nuclear plants are useful, for one. > It is now economically non-viable. Nuclear is about the next 50+ years. The economy will explode long before that. Nuclear plants are a way to produce energy in a world without cheap oil. That change
456.
by palata 4mo ago
I can't say if this is uninformed or sarcasm?
457.
by palata 4mo ago
> Mine is a net producer for example. All year? And do you mean you "inject" more than you "pull", or do you mean that you can live without ever pulling anything from the grid? Because "being a net producer overa
458.
by palata 4mo ago
> I'm a lftr enthusiast, but everyone needs to keep in mind that fission is just fundamentally economically non-competitive compared to solar and wind. We're talking about a world were oil is going away. Switzerland is already
459.
by palata 4mo ago
Also wind turbines kill birds and bats, it is an actual problem to be put in the balance. The balance being: do you build a ton of those turbines, or one nuclear plant?
460.
by palata 4mo ago
> It is far from boiling, but these limits are there to avoid killing all life in the rivers. Note though that those limits exist just like the emission limits for WiFi: it was a sane number when it was decided. It's not clear at al
461.
by palata 4mo ago
Cannot be worse than wasting many billions in F35s, can it?
462.
by palata 4mo ago
> we'll have figured out a renewable energy concept that'll handle the load by then That's a very, very risky bet you're taking here. We know nuclear energy really well, and you're suggesting we ignore it for som
463.
by palata 4mo ago
Let's distribute the risk everywhere, what could go wrong?
464.
by palata 4mo ago
That's not it. Everyone in Zurich studies French at school, if you speak slowly to them in French, it's pretty likely that they will understand a lot of what you say (if they are familiar with the context of course). Similarly, if
465.
by palata 4mo ago
What if you destroy a dam? It would be catastrophic too... but nobody votes against dams for some reason.
466.
by palata 4mo ago
One thing I want to mention about "safe" nuclear plants: dams are very, very big risks. Destroy a dam and see the result... People are scared of nuclear plants in the same irrational way they are scared of terrorism. It doesn&#x27
467.
by palata 4mo ago
Whether or not that's the case, the problem is that if you put together all the nuclear, solar, wind and hydro we can manage, we will still have less energy than what we get easily with oil. I don't get why they even compete again
468.
by palata 4mo ago
> the systems were just too expensive. Maybe, but the world is changing. What is safer: some nuclear incidents once in a while, or +4 degrees in the world and a whole strip of land around the equator becoming unlivable to the human speci
469.
by palata 4mo ago
> given how much cheaper solar and wind have gotten In a world with a lot of oil. How does that evolve when we don't have enough oil anymore? Feels like renewables are extremely distributed, which sounds like it may be harder to man
470.
by palata 4mo ago
> Ah yes, environmentalists have been running the world for the last few decades. No need to run the world: in the last decades, some environmentalists have been lobbying against nuclear energy and in the end, the people in many countrie
471.
by palata 4mo ago
While I agree with you, I think it's diverging from the initial point. The original take was "LLMs are very much like playing an instrument". I think they are very much NOT like playing an instrument. While different musician
472.
by palata 4mo ago
Microsoft Authenticator works on my GrapheneOS (not rooted).
473.
by palata 4mo ago
First, I believe that it does not work to call it "Linux" in that context. There are tons of different Linux distros that vary in stability, and second stability depends on how much the user will break the system. All Linux distro
474.
by palata 4mo ago
Feels like the typical toxic-CEO discourse: "I can make mistake, that's expected, but if you do I will fire your ass". Musk does that, too. This fake humility in saying "I am human, I can make mistake" as a way to a
475.
by palata 4mo ago
Gentle reminder of one kind of issues coming with AI: * Whoever controls it can leverage it to gain a competitive advantage and reinforce inequalities: a country can decide to prevent other countries from using it. * Whoever controls it doe
476.
by palata 4mo ago
Those are fair points indeed. Let me try to elaborate on my opinion of EA: > that awareness of Goodhart's law doesn't mean "never trying to objectively measure anything at all". Goodhart's law doesn't say &q
477.
by palata 4mo ago
I like that take. There is a tendency in the software world to dream about becoming the BigTech we all hate. I believe that the people who want Firefox want it because it's different, just like the people who want Linux want it because
478.
by palata 4mo ago
To me it sounds a bit like this: "Look. I see that it doesn't work. I want it to work, so I will continue trying, even if it fundamentally cannot work. I am not interested in thinking about whether or not it can work. I am interes
479.
by palata 4mo ago
> I'm not sure how we solve this, other than having management come from engineering. I disagree with the implied idea here that "engineers are better managers". The solution is to have good management, not to assume that
480.
by palata 4mo ago
> But you can learn to phrase your WTFs about your colleague's code politely and constructively. I see a fundamental difference between thoughts and whatever words I pronounce. You're saying "you should share your thoughts

More ›