It’s the year of the Linux desktop.

My first theory was that it was just Naomi Watts’ character’s masturbation fantasy laid out on film. I still have to watch it a second time to confirm though 😬

CANDU reactors are pressurized heavy-water reactors not Fast-neutron reactors.

Since there are economic, ecological, conceptual and engineering problems, only five Fast-neutron reactors are operational at the moment. Three in Russia, one in India and one in China. Not surprisingly these are countries that also have an interest in producing weapons grade Plutonium, which FNRs are capable of.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2968/066003007
https://spectrum.ieee.org/china-breeder-reactor
https://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs15glaser.pdf
https://energypost.eu/slow-death-fast-reactors/
https://sussex.figshare.com/articles/report/

And while nuclear energy production peaked 1996 at 17% and was nowhere near overtaking fossil energy production in it’s 70(!) year long existence, Renewables will overtake fossil fuel power production in 2025, with only minute risks for the biosphere.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-power-set-to-surpass-coal-globally-by-2025/
https://www.renewable-ei.org/pdfdownload/activities/REI_NuclearReport_201902_EN.pdf

So why cling to an outdated technology when there are viable solutions at hand, which are nowhere as complicated and dangerous as nuclear fission? It’s the monetary interest of a dying nuclear industry and its lobbyists.

Here’s some reading material: https://www.bmk.gv.at/en/topics/climate-environment/nuclear-coordination/fairy-tales.html

It would be nice to see this train wreck of a privacy nightmare be banned rather than sold and perpetuated. Let’s take FB and Google down in the same sweep and take back control of our data. This *** had been going on for too long.

This is referring to the paradox of tolerance.

1. It’s a paradox because if you suppress other opinions you yourself become intolerant.

2. I agree that actions have to be regulated as they are by laws. But opinions and thoughts are free and this freedom is absolute.

Even Popper acknowledged that it’s a paradox and stated: I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

These thought are also formalizef by Rawls: Rawls asserts that a society must tolerate the intolerant in order to be a just society, but qualifies this assertion by stating that exceptional circumstances may call for society to exercise its right to self-preservation against acts of intolerance that threaten the liberty and security of the tolerant.

The dedicated reader might notice that he refers to acts of intolerance but not to opinions.

Popper, Karl (2012) [1945]. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge. p. 581

Rawls, John (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. p. 220

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. If a Nazi wants to think and articulate nazi things, it’s on us as a society to argue against it, not to forbid thoughts. Here’s a interesting article of the culture of denouncing during Nazi and GDR times:

https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/creating-a-culture-of-denunciation/

And about the concept of freedom of thought: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought You might recognize that especially repressive regimes resorted to curtail freedom of thoughts in the past.

Don’t denounce. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

Apple adheres to the principle of form over function, instead of the old but still valid form follows function design principle. But TBH I never liked their stuff or their over the top big cheese attitude. So it’s not a disgruntled apple user writing this.

Foucault’s pendulum by Umberto Eco. Just thinking about it makes me want to read this masterpiece again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault's_Pendulum

Hers an interesting article on the dangers of Thorium reactors, including nuclear proliferation concerns: https://www.nature.com/articles/492031a

Here’s an article detailing why nuclear power production is not climate neutral. There a lot of CO2 emissions involved in nuclear power production: https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-nuclear-energy-good-for-the-climate/a-59853315

Fossil fuel is IMHO no alternative and will only play a minimal role after 2038. Most of the countries, that have pledged to become climate neutral by 2050 will build new nuclear reactors to achieve this. So there will probably be enough energy to go around and Germany can buy such energy if the transition to 100% renewables did not work out as planned. But if it works out we will have a viable way to produce energy in climate neutral way without the hazards that accompany nuclear power production. If this can be proved to work, other countries would be able to emulate this strategy. IMHO this is an opportunity we can not let go to waste.

Being against nuclear power does not make me a fossil fuel proponent. We should aim for 100% renewables. Also nuclear power very much hurt tens of thousands of people by causing cancer in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/lisbeth-gronlund/how-many-cancers-did-chernobyl-really-cause-updated/

That’s a valid point. There is no consensus yet. But what’s the worst that would happen if we can’t achieved this goal in Germany, when we try? We will buy french nuclear power again. But what happens when it works out? Germany will be climate neutral and will be independent of nuclear power. No fission material is required, no uranium mining will be required for power production. So there’s the possibility to mitigate the negative impact of uranium mining, while getting rid of the dangers of nuclear power plants and not creating more nuclear waste for future generations to take care of. IMHO that’s a great opportunity that we should seize.

Sorry but I completely lost the overview🤣 it’s been some time now and I don’t know how many comments us two have posted. Next time we’ll discuss functional vs. imperative programming and it will get even worse, hrhr

Research into this topic is fairly new, with very few studies published before 2009, but has gained increasing attention in recent years. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.

https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.apenergy.2020.116273

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-05843-2

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/cheap_safe_100_renewable_energy_possible_before_2050_says_finnish_uni_study/10736252

https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.rser.2021.110934

Can you provide sources for this claim? It will not be easy to achieve climate neutrality by 2045 and Germany is currently struggling to achieve this. But I think it’s entirely feasible. Here is a source to back up my claim: https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/climate_action__figures_2019_brochure_en_bf.pdf

Can you substantiate your claim by offering a source, or is this your personal assessment?

Yes and again: Being against nuclear power production does not mean I’m a fossil fuel proponent. I think we have to get rid of both and achieve 100% renewables which is entirely feasible according to recent studies. Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible.

Source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy