The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it’s weakest link in terms of safety.

Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.

Probably because trains are limited in both weight and volume compared to ships and also less efficient. If you have this short route and know it’ll need this amount of cargo shipped it likely makes sense.

This single ship can carry more containers than any train could be expected to pull, likely by at least one order of magnitude.

All in all I’d guess the advantages are roughly:

• Reduced staff
• reduced energy use (land based shipping is less efficient almost by default)
• no need for infrastructure except ports (if you assume there is no train line or this shipping would move existing lines over capacity building this ship is likely cheaper or at least in line with 300km of rail)
• simpler logistics (loading / unloading)

Disadvantages:

• Speed (a train would likely move at 3-5x the speed)

I would also not expect the risk for catastrophic fires to be all that high. This ship has the batteries be containers. So once you’ve designed a container that is a large battery, you’ve already spent so much that a proper BMS including proper battery fire suppression as well as proper breakers/contractors are things you’ve built into it without even thinking about cost. The separation provided by building containers as the battery is the next line of defence if one container fails spectacularly, it also allows the batteries to be maintained on land, much cheaper than if they were part of the ship.

I’ve been playing beamNg for 4+ years and it’s been in ea the entire time since 2015, possibly the best car game you can get for 20€.

Slay the spire I’ve also owned since early access, it’s maybe the most beautiful single player card game to exist. Although it only spent 1-2 years in ea.

Don’t be the first to buy ea games I guess but if the game is already fun why not.

Video

If sapolsky is to be believed we have the natural inclination to view in- and out- group as part of our brain. Everything else is learned or a coping mechanism. I guess this is why people propose lived multiculturalism especially during childhood as a solution to xenophobia.

No matter if he can be believed or not on this fact the book is fun wiki

Rojava wants a few words.

You are right but also wrong at the same time. People might be able to be antisemitic without being Nazis, but if they are in this way afraid or in rejection of ‘the other’ they’ve certainly at least been taught this kind of thinking by a fascist that tries to exploit both them and ‘the other’ for their own gain. In this way the Israeli right wing Government as well as IDF and police are thoroughly fascist just as much and in exactly the same way as Hamas are. “no blacks, no dogs, no Jews” can not be put up by a person that hasn’t been taught to reject others in this way, this rejection is the fascist lie they have internalized, and it is the reason why we call them a fascist.

The splintering of this concept of rejection into, antisemitism racism homophobia Islamophobia patriarchy … isn’t useful when trying to reject the ideas of their suppression, it only muddies the waters. They are the same struggle against unjustified oppression, in parts of which we may be a benefactor, and in other parts we may be oppressed, this shouldn’t make their existence any more justifiable.

To cowardly to scream so I hiss at the mirror instead.

Only if you see no alternative does treating them as the same actually benefit the crappier, if you realise resonably well that they are two sides of the same coin, and realise that this coin doesn’t create much good, it just exploits people. You can vote so that the less crappy ones survive as long as the really crappy ones are a threat, but also fight against the liberals as well if they are currently keeping you down.

Sure it might be hard to imagine a socialist US but if that’s not the goal then you might be missunderstanding the meme quite frankly.

Not accepting Wikipedia as some reasonable baseline for truthful or commonly accepted definitions is the sort of hill I wouldn’t want to die on but sure. Especially for content that is so politically contentious Wikipedia usually settles on a reasonably holistic description where other outlets will leave out downplay or politically color certain parts of definitions, obviously this happens there too, but it’s more likely to be corrected especially on divisive Issues. I mean you can go ahead and read the discussion page related to a topic and find out why and how sections came to be.

I’m not trying to lecture you I simply think that having any discussion is impossible if there is no shared understanding. Which is why I deferred to Wikipedia simply the most common database of knowledge in the world. The articles there might show me to be ignorant, but unlike you I’ve at least read parts of them with the intent to understand the information provided. Which I do to some extent not to completely accept what is said there but just to effectively communicate with other people, because Wikipedia gets close to a common definition for anything you might be talking about.

It’s not about a completely factual definition because the topic is way to complex and nuanced to have one that isn’t at least several long books, everyone lacks understanding of the topic because it’s impossible in many ways to have a complete understanding of it. That’s why it’s a philosophical topic and not a natural science, the topic is currently completely impenetrable for the scientific method alone.

It is interesting and important to discuss precisely because it’s so hard to grasp, so multifaceted and so central to all of our lives at the same time. And as I said before if we can’t agree on baseline definitions all that potentially interesting discussion is lost on us.

I don’t even really know where to start. First is probably that you don’t get to define words on a whim and that your definition of both capitalism and socialism lacks understanding. Just read the Wikipedia entry for both and you’ll find them better defined within the first sentence of their respective entry.
And honestly I’m too tired to properly explain all the traps you fell into after that so good luck with your Libertarian socialist dream or something idk

I’m not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that’s one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.

This might be true in some sense of talking about this topic but putting economic freedom as the marker for capitalist/socialist tendencyes of a country is a strange choice. No normal person will go yeah these two social democracies are actually more capitalist, than the 5 companies that make up the US government.

Idk in my world Denmark and Slovenia aren’t as capitalist as the US while being significantly more democratic.

And you are ignoring the appeal of an obvious joke that’s designed to be annoying to liberals/centrists and whatever. But also just be funny to everyone else. This sub is memes the twitter account is obvious ragebait/ shit posting just from the name alone…

The key here is “enjoyable” not “making their lives miserable” it doesn’t matter whether anyone actually suffers or any change is enacted, it’s a joke it’s primary purpose is to be funny. It’s secondary or tertiary purpose might be propaganda or education or whatever, it’s still mostly just funny, for people that get it at least.

The joke here is on some level obviously includes the absurdity of arguments constructed against a nonsense critique trying to defend a system that the people arguing don’t even really realize the joke is critiquing. Which is why the account tries to amp up the absurdity with their (non) dismissal of the pointles arguments.

To pull this whole joke into a more centrist perspective it’s like posting whatever inclusive or “woke” idea on /pol/ and just typing nonsense as the replies to the highly structured but deeply misunderstanding shit that /pol/ will dream up on that given day. And having a great laugh about it.

Just that we exchange /Pol/ for twitter which is now apparently partially musk dickridig and as such a conservative late stage capitalist realist echo chamber. And we laugh at the stupid defenses they spin up for a non attack on their chosen saviour. Where the point of the joke is so obviously not understood by the people replying, but obviously understood by people voting here.

And probably only partially understood by you, and or me, but that’s something we don’t need to get into, because if we do, we are again missing the point of the joke.

For this question it’s important to understand that there are positive and negative rights, a positive right might give you the ability to do something like shoot a gun, a negative right might be a right that forbids killing you, both are very important and are often in conflict with one another.

Knowing this a 40h work week and paid vacation of 5 weeks is a negative right forbidding your employer from exploiting you for more than that time. On the other hand social security and similar things are positive rights allowing you access to resources where otherwise you wouldn’t have any/enough.

Keeping this in mind and assuming that economic rights are generally the most important for freedom under a capitalist system, because fundamentally almost every positive right you want to use also requires you to have money. And assuming freedom is greater if more people are reasonably free than if few people are completely free.

wealth Gini

Europe I’d say.