HN user
Many people keep offering advice to consider a VPN and while VPN is very usefull, I have not yet come accross a reason why not use ssh auth. Like what can actually happen? From my pov the risk of running all sorts of userspace software with internet access is much greater, even without port forwarding.
Reader mode in Firefox worked for me, one click.
Exactly. The issue today is that even if you optimize your OS and DE to be very memory efficient, it matters very little as soon as you open a modern web browser. And without a modern web browser a big part of the online experience is broken.
This response sounds very much like LLM. "You've hit on a core part of our mission.". lol
I understood that their point was not that Docker makes it slow, but that if it needs Docker to run, it probably needs a complicated environment which makes it slow.
How would you form this response to make it less condensending and patronizing? I won't judge if it is patronizing or not because I'm not very good at this kind of thing but would like to understand the issue.
They already create periods of abundant electricity, which is why we have negative prices. In practice this means you have to pay the producers for the electricity and then pay once more someone to take it and use it. This could be solved by removing the guaranteed purchasing price and dispatch priority, but then the entire solar economy becomes a lot different.
While periods of abundant electricity might seem like a good business opportunity, it turns out it is not easy to efficiently use huge amounts of electricity that come and go according to the weather. Most factories need to have reliable production to be economical.
Solar energy has a place in the modern grid but some crucial information is missing from this commercial. Energy return on energy invested. When you calculate the amount of land, mined resources, labor, waste disposal issues and other resources needed to make the dream building a vast excess of solar, upgrading the grid to accommodate it and storing energy in hydrocarbons or even hydrogen, you begin to realize how far fetched this dream is.
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. We will use the technologies described but when something sounds too good to be true, it is.
But the hype is huge. Hydrogen has much more people working on it in the EU Commission than nuclear despite nuclear being the biggest single electricity source in EU and hydrogen still in the prototype stage.
I agree. Prehaps my wording that civilian use has nothing to do with military was too strong. There were other examples of civial programs in the past (like RBMK) that complemented military use very well. I'm frustrated because this argument is used to bash nuclear power, but never other energy sources. In general it helps to have developed technology and energy abundance to develop military tech and any technology can be missused.
Civilian nuclear power is not needed to have a weapons programs, it can help tho.
I know this is the internet but you have no idea what are you talking about. Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear arsenal as the spent fuel from modern reactor is not viable weapons material. There are many countires that have peacefull nuclear power programmes and no nuclear weapons and there are also countries that heave nuclear weapons or even their own nuclear weapon program, but no nuclear power.
France has nuclear because oil was expensive and they didn't have many other alternatives like the Germans.
May I introduce you to our lord and saviour nuclear energy.
It would be if we added way more tritium. We are adding a very small amount compared to what is already there naturally and even that will decay away.
You have completely missed my point. Every time you drive to work or flush your toilet you make an impact to the environment. How do you justify this action? Is it ok because you think that the impact to the environment is small? Will the end result of your action be a "massive destruction of the ecosphere"? Maybe it will be, but you have no other choice in life than evaluate all impacts and improve where you can and where it matters most.
Well actually, at 1/40 the regulatory tritium limit for drinking water, it is perfectly suitable for any backyard and/or swimming pool.
I suck at spelling.
Yes, I am a researcher and a Ph.D. student in the field of nuclear reactor physics. I regularly operate and do experiments on a research nuclear reactor. My name is in my hn username and I have no problem defending my claims. I also own a popular TikTok account where I do science communication about nuclear reactors. My information about the water discharge comes from reports by IAEA, who is the authority on the matter.
Tritium is already present in the ocean naturally and we are not talking about Nuclear Waste, as the title suggests, but clean water. We also cannot compare the tritium with mercury, because tritium, even if released in the ocean, decays away. Mecury, on the other hand, stays forever. The concerns that the water will affect marine life might be well intended but will cause more harm than good. In the worst possible case, this water will do less harm than what the other industries are releasing routinely, including water treatment plants. If you want to put your energy into preventing dirt from getting into the ocean, look literally anywhere else. People are dying every day due to fossil fuel caused pollution, because we are irrationaly overestimating the dangers of nuclear power which are and have always been the safest and cleanest way to produce electricity. These deaths are SOLELY a consequence of fear-based decision making. I cannot envision a bright future if we don’t start evaluating the consequences of different scenarios with a scientific approach and stop taking decisions based on feelings.
Edit: spelling of tritium
Shows up as "Video not available". No reason provided. Anyone else experiencing this?
That's not true. We can use breeder reactors to produce more fissile material. Also, the "80 years" estimate does not include uranium reserves that are not currently being exploited. There is plenty of uranium in the ocean and it is constantly being replanished from the ground.
The view is based on some false assumptions. Nuclear reactor fuel can be efficiently recycled. Besides, the reason why storage of nuclear fuel is expencive is because nuclear industry actualy takes care of biproducts of operation, unlike other industries that produce equally or more dangerous chemical waste. It is also not true that a system failure would "devastate huge territores". No PWR accident had major consequences on human health, even in Fukushima there were no fatalities from radiation. Statistically nuclear power is the safest form of electricity. The largest storage battery (Australia) can replace a NPP for about 10 seconds. In winter you might have no sun and wind for weeks. This is why you are, and will continue burning fossil fuels in Germany.
Decreasing price of batteries is the most important step in decreasing air pollution and CO2 emissions. Is it? What good does an electric car do if the electricity was produced using fossil fuels?
To another fossil fuel? May I introduce you to our lord and savior nuclear energy?
Nothing is 100% safe, who said Nuclear power is? Nuclear power always has been and still is one of the safest ways to generate electrical power and this is what counts. Solar power for example causes a lot of fatalities due to accidents that happen during installation and has it's own environmental problems, yet nobody talks about it.