jboog

Please feel free to point me to any developed country that has successfully replaced fossil fuel and nuclear baseload generation with renewables and energy storage.

I'll save you the time. No one has done it. And no, not because evil mustachio-twirling Koch brothers are pulling the strings. Because the technology does not exist at scale to do this.

Or do you want to continue with your speculative science fiction daydreams?

I'm glad you can google "energy storage" and click on one of the first links but literally none of these are currently capable of replacing baseload nuclear and fossil fuel energy generation.

You can listen to the people who work in this industry and have studied it deeply or you can keep googling furiously for webpages that support your magical thinking.

Absolutely none of this changes the undeniable fact that "storage" is incapable of meeting the demands of baseload power generation currently provided by Nuclear and fossil fuels.

We aren't anywhere close and won't be for many years which is why it's so absolutely ridiculous how green activists implicitly endorse using coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels which kill tens of thousands of people every year and are cooking the planet, when we have nuclear, which kills no one, and does not contribute substantively to climate change.

It's almost like the activists care more about posturing and magical thinking than they do "saving the planet"...

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology.

All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.

When precisely did "the nuclear lied"?

Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology.

We are being told on the one hand that climate change is an existential threat to tens (hundreds?) of millions of people. Oh but actually we can just refuse to decarbonize our energy production because maybe someday 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now there's a true "green" renewable energy I guess.

it is literally impossible for renewables to replace fossil fuels given current technology and anything on the horizon for at least the next decade, probably much longer.

So that leaves...Nuclear.

So again, why are you fear-mongering about how "dangerous" nuclear is when it's a tiny tiny fraction of the real danger of fossil fuels?

I thought climate change was like an urgent crisis or something....?

If "activists" stopped spending all their time fear-mongering about how expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming nuclear is we could have had massive government subsidies to almost entirely end fossil fuel production for energy!

So little nuclear has come online since 2010 partly because of fear-mongering from activists and people for the last 20 years complaining that Nuclear takes too long to build.

If only 20 years ago people realized all our climate and energy problems wouldn't be solved and we should build the safest, cleanest and only technology to prevent climate change caused by energy production...

Why leave out the cost of fossil fuel power sources throughout history?

And deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions which is in the tens of thousands per year.

Fukushima and Chernobyl combined are a tiny fraction of FF emissions/deaths/costs.

Buzzfeed has some legit straight-news reporting though that have had some good scoops the past few years.

But yes most of it is clickbait

That someone can get rich gambling is not some new insight!

Most of the WSB equity analyst is the equivalent of the blackjack player sure he's going to win it big because Mercury is in retrograde!

Yeah, I agree it's totally gambling.

There's also the thing where buying equity in a company can seem very simple because you see something like Apple where they made a cool thing and obviously their stock went up. People just have no idea about how complex the markets are.

They also don't remember the very smart people who claimed the Iphone would be quickly overtaken by Android and other cheaper alternatives (Clay Christensen predicted this a guy generally very smart on tech/business)

Hindsight always makes it seem like it was easy to pick the great companies that were OBVIOUSLY going to do well.

They don't understand how incredibly sophisticated professional investors are who dedicate their lives to it, and on average even THOSE people don't 'beat the market'.

It's always interesting how the great investments are always so obvious looking in the rear view mirror.

"They're "fundamentals". Did I look at their balance sheet, no."

Please for the love of god tell me you are trolling right now.

No what you don't understand is that no one else in the market had caught on to the fact that AMD was the main competitor to Intel!

If only we had known way back when!

Because a company is going to exist doesn't mean it's going to jump 10x+ in value in a few years.

I remember following the WSB AMD memery several years ago and no one really predicted what would actually happen over the ensuing years.

Intel shit the bed on some key foundry investments and AMD had some chip breakthroughs to capitalize on their screwup.

So yeah, some people ended up being right that AMD would do well but I never saw anyone predict WHY.

ANd I can point you to many many that were predicted to do gangbusters and never amounted to anything, funny those always get forgotten.

Ben Graham said many decades ago that over the short term the market is like a voting machine but over the long term it's a weighing machine.

There have always been periods of irrationality in the markets but there's no reason to believe that equities are fundamentally untethered from their inherent value in perpetuity.

Eventually most of the overnight WSB stock picking geniuses are all going to lose their shirts and we'll see less of this GME nonsense. They make up a tiny fraction of trading volume anyway.

It happened in '07-08, late 90s dot-com bubble and about every decade or so before that for different reasons

If you read some of the posts on WSB a huge number of people just really have no clue about capital markets, investing, or basic business sense.

I don't know how many times I saw people claiming GME would go to $1000 because the new CEO has a brilliant new scheme to turn the company around by going digital! Why "going digital" in 2021 means your company is worth 100X what it was a few months ago I'll never quite understand. I guess no one had yet discovered the opportunity of these computer machines and the World Wide Web!

Or "it's the short squeeze" By people who didn't even know what a short was 72 hours before, long after the shorts had covered their positions.

Sure some people acknowledge they are essentially gambling in equities, but tons of people truly think they have some stunning insight into a business because of some anonymous WSB shitpost they read this morning.

Yeah reviews are a shitshow almost no matter what.

It's human nature to be predisposed to leave reviews when you have a bad experience.

Then you have those f'ing weirdos who leave reviews like "Burger was really good and all but the food I had at the French Laundry was way better! 2/5 stars!" at a local pub or something.

And then if the owner gets caught up in some shit that hits the news the reviews get brigaded by trolls who don't even live in a 500 mile radius or have any intention of ever going.

If you're truly interested in finding a good place to eat or get your oil changed or whatever there are far better methods than Yelp or google reviews.

Yeah reviews are a shitshow almost no matter what.

It's human nature to be predisposed to leave reviews when you have a bad experience.

Then you have those f'ing weirdos who leave reviews like "Burger was really good and all but the food I had at the French Laundry was way better! 2/5 stars!" at a local pub or something.

And then if the owner gets caught up in some shit that hits the news the reviews get brigaded by trolls who don't even live in a 500 mile radius or have any intention of ever going.

Yeah, well stated.

The incentives are definitely misaligned. Viewers want and expect accuracy, but most of all what they want is to be entertained and most aren't going to look to hard to see how accurate a really entertaining doc is.

And as you said the incentive for filmmakers is to produce the most entertaining doc possible to get more butts in seats and more streams which means funding and continued work in the industry. Accuracy doesn't really play much into what gets produced and released.

I'd go even further and say that the way most people treat "documentary" to be equivalent to "unbiased recitation of factual events" is problematic itself.

I love docs but often research the subject after watching and it's INCREDIBLY rare to see a doc that doesn't play fast and loose with the facts for the sake of creating a dramatic arc or thrilling moments.

It's ESPECIALLY true in "true crime" docs. The director has an idea of painting the subject as either sympathetic guy who was wronged by a corrupt system (Making a Murderer) or evil mastermind (The Jinx) just to give two recent examples.

Turned out years later the giant reveal at the center of The Jinx which made it such a viral hit was 100% manufactured by the director cutting up audio to make Durst say things he didn't. He also lied to the police about the audio so it wouldn't spoil the ending of the doc.

Jarecki never had to apologize for the blatant dishonesty in the doc, never had to give back the Emmy. It's still universally acclaimed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/arts/television/robert-du...

Sorry to rant, but the "documentary" film industry is a fucking joke. I have so many more examples...

Counterpoint: Most people get WAY more value out of their Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max subs than they ever did paying Comcast $200 a month. And at a fraction of the cost!

People on these forums just can't fathom the idea that they aren't the "average" consumer. They think because game passes don't make sense for THEM, that it's a bad idea.

Therefore any decision made by game developers are awful, they are all idiots, people who spend time on niche tech/gaming forums are all geniuses who understand their market better etc. etc.

1. You don't need a $300 GPU to play modern games on a gaming PC. 2. Sony and Microsoft subsidize the cost of the hardware. They lose money on every console that goes out the door and make their cash on online passes, accessories and individual games. After a couple years the cost to produce goes down and they start to make some margin on them.

This is the way they've been doing it for several console generations now.

No my rebuttal is that if your solution is laughably extreme and unserious.

You can advocate for Soviet style collectivization and liquidating all businesses in the US if you want but no one outside of SF is ever getting elected on it in our lifetime.

You're Right!

The sentence devoid of context is misleading!!

But the thing is cherry-picking a single sentence without its proper context is misleading if not downright dishonest itself.

I was clearly talking about COAL/FF DEATHS IN THE US. Why would I then go on in the very next sentence to compare that to WORLDWIDE NUCLEAR DEATHS?

Then in the NEXT SENTENCE, I bring up Fukushima and Chernobyl and say basically "if you want to count them then...."

Nothing about my post was misleading.

" If this kills a business then so be it. Businesses are not entitled to"

or

"Yeah my policy is toxic political poison that will ensure the defeat of any politician who runs on it outside SF and Manhattan but SO WHAT?"

Why would I start talking about coal deaths in the US, then immediately broaden it to worldwide nuclear deaths. Lie about Nuclear deaths by only counting US, then immediately after lying bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima to prove I lied or something??

You're trying to ascribe malice and dishonesty because you happen to disagree with me. I don't know why the internet does this to people