Maybe this guy should just get a quad toaster instead of two double toasters?

Depending on the design they might still have a CPU, but it wouldn’t be where the quantum wizardry happens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBF_mDFgtH4

um akshually quantum computers have a QPU not a CPU

☝️🤓

Upskirting? But cheerleaders wear sports shorts under the skirts because they routinely do moves that flip up their skirts?

Zuck@threads.net

Go eat some worms you reptilian fuck.

Its actually like talking to brick wall.

I think I’ve wasted enough of my time trying to explain things to you just for you to play dumb.

they are just trying to twist words to make it sound like maybe there’s some equivalence here. Have some statistics from Australia. You can look them up for your country if you care:

and

If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.

and I get that pointing this out is completely pointless because you’ll just say “That not what i was implying” without offering an explanation as to what you’re actually implying or having the self awareness to realise my original comment was saying “Which im sure isnt what you’re trying to say, but its the insinuation you present whenever you bring up stats like these.”

But then you both doubled down on defending that insinuation as well as denying you insinuated it. Which is insane and leads me to believe you did actually intent to say.

I didn’t realise you were asking a question. Yes I did interpret it that way, as I believe “consequences” has more association with facing the consequences of your own actions than the physical affects of abuse. So I don’t think this is some big gotcha moment like you’re claiming.

Women are far more likely to be killed by men than vice versa

And men are more likely to take their own life due to suffering abuse, does that not count as a “consequence”

revealing about the kind of person you are, and you don’t want that revealed because deep down you know exactly what kind of person you are

And here we go with the redditor mentality of trying imply you can physcho-analyse me to be some horrible person because I dared to disagree with you on the internet. I have been polite with you from the start and all you’ve done is act like a child that cares more about “winning” an argument than anything else.

But yes I do know what kind of person I am, someone that’s survived DA and has has to fight people like you constantly who want to dismiss it because “☝️🤓 well Women are more often victims of abuse than men” which is exactly the argument you started with and have been simultaneously defending and denying you’re even making this whole time.

Americans please, I’m begging you, if you actually care about this, go organise a protest this should be on the level of the George Floyd protests.

So you admit to pulling the claim that men are less affected by abuse then women completely out of your arse based on nothing but your own sexist ideas?

Not true, the first guy he shot was armed with a plastic bag.

Because most people that use it aren’t African and many aren’t American.

You didn’t factor in that nuclear only takes forever because we haven’t done it in a long time and have lost all of the knowledge and skilled builders that know how to do it.

I didn’t, because its not true.

France has been building new reactors consistently since they started in the 50s and yet their latest reactor Flamamville 3 has been under construction since 2007.

The only people that can do Nuclear quickly are China through a combination of lesser safety standards, their totalitarian government, and the massive scale at which they are building them.

know you touched on it but the battery storage needed to make wind reliable would be enormous.

You don’t need batteries to make windows viable, there are lots of solutions, the most obvious being to just overbuild it.

I’m a firm believer nuclear and renewables are what we need to be spending our time and money, not one or the other but both

I’m not, nuclear just doesn’t make sense to build right now, nuclesr is a medium tern solution to a long term problem that needs immediate solutions.

You get way way more MWs per $ with wind. Wind farms can be built in 6 months and start generating power immediately. Even the fastest NPPs can’t compete. Wind farms can be built anywhere because they take no workers to operate and requite much less lightly skilled workers to maintain and no water to oeprate (so arent affected by droughts). They are less hindered by planning regulations, nimbys and protest groups, can be built onshore or offshore and also don’t have the chance to make an area uninhabitable for generations.

The only advantages nuclear has is a smaller footprint which is mitigated by wind being dispersed and stable output. Which is something that can be compensated for in wind.

Well when you consider that reactors at the time werent as safe as they are now, and that we had several high profile nuclear reactor failures at around the same time, that were all pretty narrowly stopped from becoming even worse disasters and all those reactors were “Perfectly safe” until they werent and also just how deeply awful the effects of radiation is. Do you think its actually “fear mongering” or reasonable concern? I suppose the difference depends mostly on which side of the argument you are on.

So if nobody brought this up, why did you write that edit and bring up these statistics?

I didn’t say that, nor did I insinuate it.

You did though.

this is just rates of violence, of any kind. It says nothing at all about the consequences of that violence. I’ll bet if you looked into that it’s worse for women too. If you’re wondering why so many categories don’t have rates of violence against men, it’s because they have a “high relative standard error”, which is statistics speak for “the rate is so low we can’t properly measure it”.

And you also pull the claim of “women get harsher sentences when they commit DA” out of your arse too.

Does it not get exhausting to constantly get butthurt over the most trivial bullshit you read online?

In any case, why not fix the issue rather than just shutting the plant?

Because just patching up an old faulty nuclear power plant thats past its expected service life is a recipe for disaster. Hence why we have service lifetimes for these things in the first place?

And that does not make the headline “inflammatory.” It is accurate

It absolutely is inflammatory. Its specifically trying to conflate environmental concerns of polluted groundwater with carbon emissions, to make it seem like the people who voiced those concerns are idiots.

You cant really just keep “modernising” ancient reactor designs forever. Eventually you’ll need to close them down and build something else.

And realistically it makes way way more sense to build Wind power than nuclear to get us to carbon neutral. We can build a 50mw wind farm in 6 months.

For comparison Hinkley Point C in the UK was announces in 2010 and is currently expected to be commissioned by 2029.

That means if we built wind instead we would have built 1900MW of capacity in the time it would have taken to build the NPP and by the time the reactors would generate power for the first time the wind farms would already have generated 17 GW/years of power. If we stopped building more wind farms when the NPP completed it would take the reactor 14 more years just to catch up to the wind farms. And if we continue to build wind farms nuclear literally never catches up as total wind capacity would overtake the capacity of the NPP by year 13.

Yes you can make arguments about the uptime of wind, but I think ive made my point. And thats not even factoring in the cost/MW of capacity.