I think one of the Lemmy devs is German too

It all boils down to the question if we should care about people arguing in bad faith.

Carlson proved to be Putin’s mouthpiece, everything he says follows an agenda, which is, as mentioned in the article, to divide the US.

Does it matter that he and a lot of people on social media just play pretend because they want to hurt Bidens chances of reelection?

I think it should be allowed to be pointed out, even though they’re not wrong. They just don’t care about Palestinians. For Carlson at least that much is obvious.

I think you’re mixing things up a bit. LineageOS, GrapheneOS etc. are not what people refer to as “mobile Linux”, mobile Linux would be Ubuntu touch, mobian etc.

Btw. do you know about Sailfish OS?

“In the short term”

The main problem is that all this theory doesn’t track with reality.

The mean construction time for nuclear reactors worldwide is 9.4 years and the US seemingly only finished one reactor (Watts Bar 2) in the last ten years which took 42.8 years to complete and ended up costing more than 12 billion. Watts Bar 1 was finished after 23 years and two others were abandoned, one by TVA after 47 years.

Correction: Unit 3 of the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor (Vogtle) was finished in 2023 in only 14 years costing 34 billion, while Unit 4 is still in construction.

The reason why China was able to build 39 reactors in a short amount of time is because they are using them to increase their nuclear arsenal. Projects like this tend to go faster if a dictatorship wants it to be done no matter the cost, public opinion and safety concerns.

Air and sea temperatures, ice shelf thickness etc. going back to fit perfectly with the current models and 2023 going down as a “freak occurrence” is, at least in my opinion, highly unlikely.

But it’s also missing an important point: this is a scientific problem and realizing that we were not able to predict what could potentially happen in just a few years in the future, is worrisome in its own regard.
“Uncharted territory” basically means that scientists confirm it’s anybody’s guess what is going to happen next, since they don’t understand why it’s happening in the first place.

“It could imply that a warming planet is already fundamentally altering how the climate system operates, much sooner than scientists had anticipated.”

Nono, it was the CIA, planting false information! The huge attack on multiple fronts at the same time was meant to fail, all just to disprove the “3 days”-propaganda!

But even with all this effort, the brainwashed westerners are still to stupid to see that!

Yeah. I bet you also thought Russia was going to take Kyiv, too.

Here is a copypasta from another user:

*When it comes to generating electricity, nuclear is hugely more expensive than renewables. Every 1000Wh of nuclear power could be 2000-3000 Wh solar or wind.

If you’ve been told “it’s not possible to have all power from renewable sources”, you have been a victim of disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. 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.

This is all with current, modern day technology, not with some far-off dream or potential future tech such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors or breeder reactors.

Compared to nuclear, renewables are:

• Cheaper
• Lower emissions
• Faster to provision
• Less environmentally damaging
• Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel
• Decentralised
• Much, much safer
• Much easier to maintain
• More reliable
• Much more capable of being scaled down on demand to meet changes in energy demands

Nuclear power has promise as a future technology. But at present, while I’m all in favour of keeping the ones we have until the end of their useful life, building new nuclear power stations is a massive waste of money, resources, effort and political capital.

Nuclear energy should be funded only to conduct new research into potential future improvements and to construct experimental power stations. Any money that would be spent on building nuclear power plants should be spent on renewables instead.

Frequently asked questions:

• But it’s not always sunny or windy, how can we deal with that?

While a given spot in your country is going to have periods where it’s not sunny or rainy, with a mixture of energy distribution (modern interconnectors can transmit 800kV or more over 800km or more with less than 3% loss) non-electrical storage such as pumped storage, and diversified renewable sources, this problem is completely mitigated - we can generate wind, solar or hydro power over 2,000km away from where it is consumed for cheaper than we could generate nuclear electricity 20km away.

• Don’t renewables take up too much space?

The United States has enough land paved over for parking spaces to have 8 spaces per car - 5% of the land. If just 10% of that space was used to generate solar electricity - a mere 0.5% - that would generate enough solar power to provide electricity to the entire country. By comparison, around 50% of the land is agricultural. The amount of land used by renewable sources is not a real problem, it’s an argument used by the very wealthy pro-nuclear lobby to justify the huge amounts of funding that they currently receive.

• Isn’t Nuclear power cleaner than renewables?

No, it’s dirtier. You can look up total lifetime emissions for nuclear vs. renewables - this is the aggregated and equalised environmental harm caused per kWh for each energy source. It takes into account the energy used to extract raw materials, build the power plant, operate the plant, maintenance, the fuels needed to sustain it, the transport needed to service it, and so on. These numbers always show nuclear as more environmentally harmful than renewables.

• We need a baseline load, though, and that can only be nuclear or fossil fuels.

Not according to industry experts - the majority of studies show that a 100% renewable source of energy across all industries for all needs - electricity, heating, transport, and industry - is completely possible with current technology and is economically viable. If you disagree, don’t argue with me, take it up with the IEC. Here’s a Wikipedia article that you can use as a baseline for more information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy *

Here is some info about the only construction projects in the US from the last 25 years:

• The V.C. Summer project in South Carolina (two AP1000 reactors) was abandoned after the expenditure of at least A$12.5 billion leading Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy in 2017.

• Vogtle project in Georgia (two AP1000 reactors). The current cost estimate of A$37.6-41.8 billion is twice the estimate when construction began. Costs continue to increase and the project only survives because of multi-billion-dollar taxpayer bailouts. The project is six years behind schedule.

• The Watts Bar 2 reactor in Tennessee began operation in 2016, 43 years after construction began. That is the only power reactor start-up in the US over the past quarter-century. The previous start-up was Watts Bar 1, completed in 1996 after a 23-year construction period.

• In 2021, TVA abandoned the unfinished Bellefonte nuclear plant in Alabama, 47 years after construction began and following the expenditure of an estimated A$8.1 billion.

More information

“Hysteria”, that’s one way to belittle people.

What’s your implication? That this island which belongs to Taiwan should be controlled by mainland China because it’s closer to it?

Something like this I guess. You can also add the air quality as a layer on top of GMaps. They probably didn’t do it this way because “weather” has more than one variable. A rain-radar-layer would be nice though…

I’m not putting words in your mouth, that’s what you said in your comment:

Only 40% voted for the DPP. 60% voted against the DPP. It’s just the 2 more pro-China parties got their vote split.

No evidence the TPP wants to fight to keep their freedom? From the article you linked:

China_ must know that it will have to pay a high price if it invades, said Ko.

And I already posted this from your article but here again:

The ruling Communist Party in Beijing counts Taiwan as part of its territory and has already threatened to use military means to force reunification. Ko said China demonstrates this every day, which is why Taiwan has no choice but to move closer to its ally, the US.

China is the one threatening with an invasion, but it’s the fault of the westerners?

Also: why so aggressive? Isn’t that a bit too western for you?

Engaging with China is a really broad thing to say, from the article that you posted about the TPP:

“Taiwan’s relationship with China is based on two principles: Deterrence and communication,” said Ko Wen-je from the TPP People’s Party in Taipei on Friday.

…

The ruling Communist Party in Beijing counts Taiwan as part of its territory and has already threatened to use military means to force reunification. Ko said China demonstrates this every day, which is why Taiwan has no choice but to move closer to its ally, the US.

You said the TPP is pro-china, like the KMT, but to me it doesn’t read like that at all. China wants reunification, the TPP is highly against that and is willing to fight for their freedom.

They don’t even consider themselves Chinese anymore, why would they want to reunite?

Copilot/Bing Search might put a big dent in that in the future. People will just ask an AI instead of “googling”.