Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | philwelch's commentslogin

The only reason nuclear power facilities get decommissioned is because anti-nuclear politicians panic and force them to shut down. Sure, there's an ongoing cost of maintenance and replacement, but once you have a nuclear power facility, there's no reason for it not to continue generating power indefinitely. We're not going to stop needing or wanting more energy.

You throw the radioactive waste in a breeder reactor and make more fuel out of it. It's really not that hard.

They consider the concrete around the plant's parking lot to be nuclear waste though (I'm not kidding, that's how the French regulations works).

> If you're an ecologist, it's a bad investment because it takes us in the wrong direction (more energy consumption) instead of going the way of degrowth.

What a horrible, nihilistic philosophy. Disgusting that anybody takes it seriously.


Taken to it's logical end it's quite literally just anti-human. Their ideal outcome is a suicide pact.

No, it's not a suicide pact. If it was just a suicide pact, they'd get it over with and leave the rest of us alone. It's a homicide pact, a genocide pact for the entire human race.

And we have tried it too! There have been energy shocks before, where the price of energy spikes and causes corresponding drop in energy consumption, leading to degrowth.

They only talk about the benefits in the abstract, but not what an energy shock actually means. It means people can’t afford to pay for heating and freeze to death. It means factories close down because the inputs are too expensive. Construction stops because the raw materials (steel, concrete) are too expensive to manufacture, and people don’t have money to pay for new homes.

We have done all these things just in the last 4 years! So why should we do more of it instead of just building more renewable energy?


degrowth is compatible with increasing standards of living for 99.5% of people all the while being able to then actually preserve these standards up in the future.

our current model produces growth without proportionally increasing standards of living, and accepts that livelihoods will collapse all over Europe and Africa as it becomes increasingly hostile to agriculture due to climate change.

think of the viability of degrowth as a policy within the prisoners dilemma of global capitalism as you want, but please come up with a more serious critique that doesn't equally indigte the staus quo


None of that is true.

Or conversely, if you have cash income you need to launder…

Sounds like a great idea for a movie, or even a TV show ;)

Outlook and Teams are both web apps, or at least they were when I last used them. Even if you download the "native" app it's just Electron. I haven't had trouble using either of them on Linux.


Outlook is native. There is the new web version that it says don't use (yet)


Which sends your login data straight to microsoft


Those are an order of magnitude higher doses than recommended.


It seems common for taxi drivers to form a government-sanctioned cartel in order to limit the amount of competition. In the US this traditionally took the form of local taxi medallion systems, where there was a hard quota on how many taxis could be in the city. London's barrier to entry, unlike ours, at least guarantees a level of competence, even if it's excessive.

At least in the US, Uber and Lyft basically went around the taxi cartels. I'd assume that it wasn't easy for that to happen in Sweden though.


I was going to make the same wisecrack, but in seriousness I assume they're counting elderly retired taxi drivers as taxi drivers even if they stopped working years before their deaths.


They’re working off occupation as reported on death certificates, so they say they are assuming it’s still accurate.


Probably. I was just being a smartass, really.


Even I think ten years ago, my Levi’s would consistently fail within a year. Switched to cargo pants and haven’t had that problem since.


> If you’re a single-issue abortion voter, yes the US democrats tend to propose fetal viability (22 weeks or so) as the limit

No, the standard Democrat policy is to allow abortion on demand at any point prior to birth—40 weeks or so.


It’s fortunate we’re on HN to easily identify this comment as sarcasm, but can you imagine being so ignorant as to believe this? What kind of brainwashing is required to think one could get an “abortion on demand” up to birth?

Truly such a belief could only come from the lowest IQ amongst humanity.


That's the law in Colorado, DC, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont, all of which are blue states.


Prove it


Democrats opposed the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and multiple blue states allow abortion at any point prior to birth.


This is false. Not sure if propaganda or ignorance of infowar, or lying for the fun of it, but 100% false.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: