Ugh, don’t get me started. By “American Christians” I assume you mean “Christian Nationalists” … Christian Nationalism is about as Christian as the moon is made of cheese:
But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ…
I work at a father son activity centre…
That’s great!
…you would be shocked at how few women I see spending time with their own children!
I’m not at all shocked. Selfish behavior isn’t exclusive to men. Women are also deeply flawed humans.
These are US based and based on separated parents.
I provided non-anecdotal evidence, and you shit on it? What are your priorities?
Selectively observing statistics doesn’t give a good representation of real life, but shitting on other people for selectively observing statistics doesn’t help, either.
If you’ve been alive for more than 30 seconds, it’s not just anecdotal. But to appease the challenge, anyways: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf There’s a massive imbalance between custodial fathers and custodial mothers. Even worse is the imbalance in child support negligence.
Can we please just admit that there are normal biological/social/economic/perceived/identity differences between men and women? That’s not to say all of those differences are good or desirable, or that they are without variation, but can we at least recognize the state of our world without shunning those with different viewpoints?
Harsh words. After all, Rankine is best.
I think we’re done here.
On that we can agree.
No, let’s make that 20 years of more environmental destruction.
Okay, hold up. Just take a minute here to breathe. Nobody’s arguing against renewables. They, just like nuclear power, are a part of a healthy, diverse mix of technologies which will help displace fossil fuels. That’s the whole point: get rid of fossil fuels where we can in whatever way we can.
make the leap to nuclear … in 10-15 year’s time
We already did. 70 years ago. Then the fossil fuel industry successfully replaced existing nuclear generators with coal-fired plants.
If I was a fossil fuel lobbyist I’d be pushing new nuclear hard.
Are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel lobbyists do the exact opposite of what fossil fuel lobbyists have been recorded doing? In other words, are you trying to argue for a proven falsehood?
If so, we have a term for that: alternative facts. Go try and deceive someone else.
Cost is cost … [in 70 years] it’s not got cheaper, in fact the opposite has happened.
I suppose you must still think a loaf of bread still costs the same it did 70 years ago, too. Prices are malleable thanks to the free market … and government subsidies. Why would anyone be so anti-nuclear when it’s another valuable tool for displacing fossil fuels? Are you shilling for the oil and gas industry?
Absolutely; but it’s hard to go that deep without someone arguing about hairs and how to split them. It’s kind of stupid to be arguing which is “safer” when both are orders of magnitude better than fossil fuels. In order to successfully displace fossil fuel generation, we’ll need to emphasize all the others: nuclear, solar, wind, pumped hydro, grid batteries, geothermal, etc. None of them are one-size-fits-all. They’re all tools in the toolbox for designing an energy system that works for any given context.
That’s fair: construction workers aren’t magically able to construct more than one reactor over those 10 years. It was late at night and I also lost track of the original point of this whole thread. The study cherry-picked rooftop solar, as opposed to utility solar, in order to prove a point. Nuclear power is safe. Fossil fuels are not safe.
Also, construction of solar panels has more deaths because of the workers involved. The “construction team” adding panels to your house may be just two guys on meth. If the same two guys worked on a nuclear plant, they would have equally high fatalities. If you used the construction workers from a nuclear plant to do a basic home solar panel installation, it would virtually eliminate fatalities due to better safety.
Even if every construction worker was hopped up on whatever you can imagine, it wouldn’t even matter.
It takes 2 workers to install 10 kW in solar panels that (might) last 15 years. That’s 75 kW-years of energy per construction worker.
It takes 1200 construction workers to build a 1000 MW reactor which will operate for (at least) 50 years. That’s about 42 MW-years per construction worker, or 42000 kW-years per construction worker.
Nuclear construction could have over 500x the accident rate of rooftop solar installation and still be safer. Try again.
nuclear is fucking expensive and takes a long time to build
So what? Cost is relative to supply, demand, and political willpower. Also, I suspect it’s much cheaper than carbon recapture.
Given this, why would you be in favor of nuclear?
I think you’ve lost the point entirely. The question is “what do we need to effectively generate electricity without fossil fuels?” Nuclear is one such answer. Heaven forbid we encourage the development of more than one thing at a time.
You’re right that keeping European Honey Bees (Apis mellifera), even though they are introduced/invasive to North America, isn’t usually detrimental to native pollinators. However, Apis is in no way in danger; they are an agricultural livestock.
Point is, saying you’re “saving the bees” by keeping honey bee hives is like saying you’re “saving the birds” by keeping chickens. Weird flex, but okay.
Hard disagree. This is a problem every web service has had to deal with since the beginning of the web: what happens when a host (either the machine or the person) stops working? How do you keep the service up?
Centralized services solve that problem with internally funded, transparent redundancy. Federation solves the problem with externally funded, highly-visible redundancy. They’re still the same solution, just a different way of going about it.
You could argue that user identity is lost due to the discontinuity between instances, but that’s probably something the Lemmy devs could fix without too much hassle.
Care to elaborate?
Ahh, okay, so nothing new under the sun: Hipsters hate normies and September never ended.
Although I’m under the impression that Mint and Pop have taken a bite out of the “beginner desktop” market, Ubuntu is most of what I observe in the office when everybody else is booting Windows.
I can understand selecting for novelty; I’m usually in that camp. But novelty shouldn’t come at the expense of an argument to IT departments that they should support at least one Linux distro.
For those of us still naive … Why does Lemmy say “Ubuntu bad” now?
There are only two hard problems in distributed systems: 2. Exactly-once delivery 1. Guaranteed order of messages 2. Exactly-once delivery.
Martin Fowler has a pretty good collection of these.
Momentum. And it’s likely most people won’t be about to tell, or regularly run comparisons to find out for themselves. Theres enough value added to Chrome that people kind of assume it’s “the best” … It took me years to convince my boss to switch, but the one thing that did it for him was just that the PDF viewer is better in Firefox.
People have weird preferences that don’t always line up with what software developers expect.
Brilliant. I’m saving this imagery for later.