You can certainly try to use the power as much as possible, or sell the energy to a country with a deficit. But the problem is that you would still need to invest a lot of money to make sure the grid can handle the excess if you build renewables to cover 100% of the grid demand for now and in the future. Centralized fuel sources require much less grid changes because it flows from one place and spreads from there, so infrastructure only needs to be improved close to the source. Renewables as decentralized power sources requires the grid to be strengthened anywhere they are placed, and often that is not practical, both in financial costs and in the engineers it takes to actually do that.

Would it be preferable? Yes. Would it happen before we already need to be fully carbon neutral? Often not.

I’d refer you to my other post about the situation in my country. We have a small warehouse of a few football fields which stores the highest radioactivity of unusable nuclear fuel, and still has more than enough space for centuries. The rest of the fuel is simply re-used until it’s effectively regular waste. The time to build two new nuclear reactors here also costs only about 10 years, not 20.

Rather continue with wind and solar and then batteries for the money.

All of these things should happen regardless of nuclear progress. And they do happen. But again, building renewables isn’t just about the price.

Some personal thoughts: My own country (The Netherlands) has despite a very vocal anti-nuclear movement in the 20th century completely flipped now to where the only parties not in favor of Nuclear are the Greens, who at times quote the fear as a reason not to do it. As someone who treats climate change as truly existential for our country that lies below projected sea levels, it makes them look unreasonable and not taking the issue seriously. We have limited land too, and a housing crisis on top of it. So land usage is a big pain point for renewables, and even if the land is unused, it is often so close to civilization that it does affect people’s feelings of their surroundings when living near them, which might cause renewables to not make it as far as it could unrestricted. A nuclear reactor takes up fractions of the space, and can be relatively hidden from people.

All the other parties who heavily lean in to combating climate change at least acknowledge nuclear as an option that should (and are) being explored. And even the more climate skeptical parties see nuclear as something they could stand behind. Having broad support for certain actions is also important to actually getting things done. Our two new nuclear powered plants are expected to be running by 2035. Only ten years from now, ahead of our climate goals to be net-zero in 2040.

People are kind of missing the point of the meme. The point is that Nuclear is down there along with renewables in safety and efficiency. It’s lacking the egregious cover up in the original meme, even if it has legitimate concerns now. And due to society’s ever increasing demand for electricity, we will heavily benefit from having a more scalable solution that doesn’t require covering and potentially disrupting massive amounts of land before their operations can be scaled up to meet extraordinary demand. Wind turbines and solar panels don’t stop working when we can’t use their electricity either, so it’s not like we can build too many of them or we risk creating complications out of peak hours. Many electrical networks aren’t built to handle the loads. A nuclear reactor can be scaled down to use less fuel and put less strain on the electrical network when unneeded.

It should also be said that money can’t always be spent equally everywhere. And depending on the labor required, there is also a limit to how manageable infrastructure is when it scales. The people that maintain and build solar panels, hydro, wind turbines, and nuclear, are not the same people. And if we acknowledge that climate change is an existential crisis, we must put our eggs in every basket we can, to diversify the energy transition. All four of the safest and most efficient solutions we have should be tapped into. But nuclear is often skipped because of outdated conceptions and fear. It does cost a lot and takes a while to build, but it fits certain shapes in the puzzle that none of the others do as well as it does.

“You know you don’t need to bring a dead horse every time you want catering right, Jim?”

The thing is, I’ve seen statements like this before. Except when I heard it, it was being used to justify ignoring women’s experiences and feelings in regard to things like sexual harassment and feeling unsafe, since that’s “just a feeling” as well. It wasn’t okay then, and it’s not okay the other way around. The truth is that feelings do matter, on both sides. Everyone should feel safe and welcome in their surroundings. And how much so that is, is reflected in how those people feel.

The outcome of men feeling being respected and women feeling safe are not mutually exclusive. The sad part is that someone who is reading this here is far more likely to be an ally than a foe, yet the people who need to hear the intended message the most will most likely never hear it nor be bothered by it. There’s a stick being wedged here that is only meant to divide, and oh my god is it working.

The original post about bears has completely lost all meaning and any semblance of discussion is lost because the metaphor is inflammatory by design - sometimes that’s a good thing, to highlight through absurdity. But metaphors are fragile - if it’s very likely to be misunderstood or offensive, the message is lost in emotion. Personally I think this metaphor is just highly ineffective at getting the message across, as it has driven people who would stand by the original message to the other side due to the many uncharitable interpretations it presents. And among the crowd of reasonable people are those who confirm those interpretations and muddy the water to make women seem like misandrists, and men like sexual assault deniers. This meme is simply terrible and perhaps we can move on to a better version of it that actually gets the message across well, instead of getting people at each other’s throat.

The thing is, games have a minimum difficulty to be somewhat generally enjoyable, and the game designers have often built their game around this. The fun is generally in the obstacles providing real resistance that can be overcome by optimizing your strategy. It means that these obstacles need to be mentally picked apart by the player to proceed. They are built like puzzles.

This design philosophy - anyone who plays these games can tell you - is deeply rewarding if you go through it, because it requires genuine improvement that you can notice and be proud of. Hence why there is often a limit to how much easier you can make games like these without losing that because you forget the obstacle before even realizing it was preventing you from doing something.

It’s often not as easy as just tweaking numbers. And often these development teams don’t have the time to rebalance a game for those lower difficulties, so they just don’t.

Honestly, the first wojack could be quite mad too, because often making an easy game harder also misses the point, where the game is just more difficult, but doesn’t actually provide you with that carefully crafted feeling of constant improvement. Instead some easy games can become downright frustrating because obstacles feel “cheap” or “lacking depth” now that you have to spend a lot more time on them.

But making an easy game harder by just tweaking the numbers is definitely easier on the development team, and gives existing players a chance to re-experience the game, which wouldn’t happen the other way around. But it’s almost certainly not a better option for new players wanting a harder difficulty.

At the end of the day though, often there are ways to get what you want. Either by cheating, modding, or otherwise using ‘OP’ usables in the game. Do whatever you want to make the game more enjoyable to yourself. But if you make it too easy on yourself you might come out on the other end wondering why other people enjoyed the game so much more than you did.

Lets be real - This isn’t going to change on it’s own. The only way for it to change is if everyone collectively took a stand against it. Which simply just won’t happen. The most reasonable thing to do is to focus your energy on collectives that actively reject such practices. Oh hey, you’re already in one: Lemmy, good job. As long as we work together to create a small corner of the internet that remains true to what the internet should be, we can grow it and create a better internet in the long term.

First: They did actually end up removing this and making it configurable, check the bottom of the page. In a vacuum, the idea to stop cut-and-clear racists and trolls from using Lemmy is not something that’s too controversial. Sure, they are being hard asses about changing their mind and allowing instance owners to configure it themselves (and I’m glad they changed their mind). But there’s a big overlap between passionate and opinionated people, so they have to be at times to ensure a project doesn’t devolve into something they can’t put your passion into anymore.

Second: I mean… what do you expect? In the issue above they actively encourage people to make their own fork of Lemmy and run that if they don’t like something from the base version of Lemmy, so I kind of would assume they do as they preach. Instance owners also have the option to block communities without defederation. Lemmy.ml is basically their home instance. If anything this is a reason not to make an account on lemmy.ml, but as long as that doesn’t leak into the source code of Lemmy, who cares?

It’s because the current version has nothing wrong with it. If the Lemmy devs should choose to sabotage the Lemmy software, you’d be surprised how easily that happens when it pisses off all the instances and their owners. Instances will simply refuse to upgrade. And like most things, eventually some fork will win the race to become the dominant fork and the current Lemmy devs would be essentially disowned. Different forks also doesn’t necessarily mean API breaking changes, so different forks would have no issue communicating (at least for a while).

This was my gut reaction as well, but dont do this, the makers of uBlock Origin warn against it! https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/wiki/solutions/youtube/detection-faq/

Can’t I just hide the pop-up with uBO’s Picker?

No. Cosmetic filters don’t stop the message - they just temporarily hide it from view. The anti-adblock script will continue to run in the background and will eventually block you from watching videos. Please don’t use, share or recommend using any of those filters and don’t report any issues when using them.

If it’s a fairly inconsequential service (no payment/personal info, nothing lost if it gets hacked), you can just generate a far shorter password. Even randomly generated passwords can be remembered eventually if you have to type it enough times, and that’s still better than the same one.

If it’s not inconsequential, I’d be questioning if my money is well spent on a sadistic service that makes my life hell trying to have a minimum level of security. I would say that even if it wasn’t a generated password that you have to type over.

It’s the choice between trusting one company (or if you self host, trusting yourself) to have their security all in order and properly encrypt the password vault. Using one password for every site you use means that you have to trust each of those sites equally, because if one leaks your password because they have atrocious password policies (eg. storing it in plain text), it’s leaked everywhere and you need to remember every place you used it before.

Good password managers allow audits, and do at times still get hacked naturally (which isn’t 100% preventable). Yet neither of these should result in passwords being leaked. Why? Because they properly secure your master password so it can’t be reverse engineered to plain text, and without the master password your encrypted password vault is just a bunch of random bytes. And even in the extreme situation it did, you know to switch to a better password manager, and you have a nice big list of all the places where you need to change your password rather than trying to remember them all.

Human memory is fallible and we want the least amount of effort, because of that we usually make bad passwords. Your average site does not have their password security up to date (There’s almost a 0% chance not one of your passwords can be found here). If you data is encrypted accordingly, it doesn’t matter if it gets leaked in any way or stolen by some rogue employee, so long as they do not have your master password. So yes, I’d say that’s a good idea.

You know this one’s dated because I’m pretty sure by today’s standards having only a C: drive is quite unusual. Hard to find statistics on it but I’d wager most people have at least 2 storage devices, especially an SSD / HDD combo is pretty popular.