SemanticStrengh

hey that's called modern physics open-problems

native UIs are generally slower than web, although at least it seems they are using the chromium 2D renderer Skia here

The dumbification of software.. I guess it follows and self-amplify the global inversion of the Flynn effect..

great analysis

No pheromones are not necessarily direct commands. For humans they simply afr as exogenous neurotransmitters that can alter mood and attraction level but to minor extent, it is not a love filter. Some pheromones are also slightly repulsive.

As a reminder, human pheromones have effects empirically. However despite the proven studies, there is no third party lab tested legit Pheromone seller out there that I know of. There are sellers but no idea how pure is their product..

> Speaking of arousal, most females won’t willingly have sex with someone before kissing them and use kisses to gauge commitment, while males generally view them as a way to advance to sex.

I mean how true is that? I'm pretty sure women can bypass the kissing step from time to time willingly

Do people genuinely like the tongue? I mean there's pleasure in biting lips but tongue to tongue don't bring feelings to me?

In case you don't know, you can convert spotify to youtube playlists via e.g. https://soundiiz.com/

It's been a while I haven't felt goosebumps, I used to feel them a lot when discovering new aesthetic songs. I guess ASMR can still give me some but it would be nice if there was an online recommender system/community for songs that especially are prone to give goosepumps, beside this specific playlist. ideally one would look for goosebumps inducing zick constrained within a specific genre. I love to see if people get goosebumps with a high probability at the same time in a song.

the representative voters in a representative democracy are equally deficient and in opposition to a direct democracy, are additionally gamed by PR campaigns that create an artificial partitioning of mental share (mindshare) of brands (political parties). However the persons voting the actual laws, while demagogous and victim of monetary conflict of interests, are humans that are paid to study proposed laws or to propose laws and then to deliberate together. While those people are extremelly deficient, the mere quality of being full time paid is still transcendant over the layman mental abilities in government optimization, while however extremely insufficient in comparison to the utopia a science/evidence based government would create.

when the spec is inherently broken an impl can't do shit. Don't you realize the absurdity of deffering the decisions of multi-domain highly technical topics to laymans that have an attention span of 3 milliseconds and a remarkable lack of erudition and critical thinking? Epistemology isn't even taught in schools, the joke is at its peak

hey it would be nice for watching the timelapse to be able to zoom during the video, any tool to do that? maybe https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/youtube-zoomer/bgd...

Liquid democracy is not a power structure that maximize truth seeking.

> Nuclear power plant cost varies dramatically by country and period. Lovering, Yip, and Nordhaus compiled historical OCC data in their 2016 paper.[2]

What is the overnight construction cost for China and Russia??

Only some boards although there was one with a lot of connections thatbwas smooth so I dunno.

You might wanna consider the file system access api on chromiums https://googlechromelabs.github.io/text-editor/ There is both a public and a private filesystem mode.

> do we just wave a magic wand

We have at least 6 magic wands: 1) if the VVER 1200 truly cost 1.4 billion to construct in 4 years, nuclear economics are saved. 2) building a lot of marine nuclear plants https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#economies-of-scale-... They require far less concrete (no need to protect against seisms) and much less redundancy because the cooler (water) will always be there (the ocean won't disappear) hence preventing radiations escalation in a passive way. 3) using disruptively simpler/cheaper models https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazi... 4) using more complex but significantly more efficient models (I'm mainly talking about the underresearched supracritical reactors) 5) if SMRs are not a scam and can really have a fordism era 6) rationalizing et reconciloating regulations with cost effectiveness.

> I've been asking "which regulations" for years, nobody has ever, literally ever pointed me to which.

Well it looks like you have been asking in the wrong places: https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#public-concern-grow...

The system needs voltage

The reason we don't have reactors that recycle nuclear wastes is because ecologists have attacked the next-gen model with a bazooka. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Rocket_attack This is why we can't have nice things, the ecologists have prevented the solutions from the issues that legitimate their political existence. In germany and in the U.S the shutdown of nuclear has been a blatant lobby too.

construction cost?

but somehow 229K is Okay? Where is the limit

yes so 5 billion per plant and ~4 year construction time. However some of this cost might be a lucrative margin for russia? The estimated construction cost of a VVER 1200 on wikipedia is 1.4 billion. 1.5 with interests. The rest would be frozen money for operating the plant during its 60-80 year lifespan? Or constructions costs would be higher than estimated? Expected annual generation is 35 billion kWh when complete.[2]

> Nuclear power plants take too long to plan, build and bring online. IIRC it's at least 11 years

It's crazy what people come to believe. To generalize the pathetic bureaucratic failures like the EPR to all model couldn't be farther from reality.

Russian commercialized VVER 1200 models take 57 month to build. Their successor, the VVER-TOI take 40 month, so 3.5 year to build. It output 1300MWe Besides the russian competitive advantage, China build plants in 6 years.

for 4 AP1000 they are building ~20 CAP1000, westinghouse should never have sold they patents for a penny.. Also they are obscoleting westinghouse with their 4 planned CAP1400 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

That's not the point, construction costs should be ~< 8 billion. current mini reactors cost 1 billion per unit (although I expect those costs to shrink) However 2000 employee is absurd and only a result of insane paranoid regulation and also because those plants were designed before modern computer science, therefore they probably underexploit sensors, and semi-autopilot abilities or autotuning. Russian models are actively reducing the needed number of employee for maintenance: construction cost: Specifications include a $1,200 per kW overnight construction cost 54 month planned

requiring about 35% fewer operational personnel than the VVER-1000

This was for VVER 1200 however the new VVER TOI will be the first to use software? > United information space is a multi-platform software and hardware complex intended for control of the engineering data for engineering, designing, as well as arranging communication between territorially-distanced project participants.

edit: can someone help me calculate the construction costs of a VVER 1200 ? it output ~1200MWe of energy Specifications include a $1,200 per kW overnight construction cost if 1 MWe is 1000Kwh (don't know if we're talking per hour..) then total construction cost would be 1200 * 1000 == 1200000 dollars 1200000 is a mere million, that doesn't make any sense, how to calculate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#:~:text=Specifications%20... edit I was dumb the equation is 1200 * 1000 * 1200 == 1440000000. Therefore, if that is to be believed, a VVER 1200 produce 1200MWe and only cost 1.4 billion in construction costs (without the small interest rate and the operating cost) That is extremely cheap, the pathetic and hyped small reactors from rolls royce cost 1 Billion per unit and produce < 200 MWe... That makes the VVER 1200 6 times cheaper and probably the cheapest energy source on earth (again assuming those numbers are true), and the VVER TOI successor should be even cheaper given it is constructed in 17 months less.

It's a tragedy

Do you have news on Westinghouse? Is had filled bankruptcy, did they survive? how? Are they in maintenance mode or do they pursue evoltution of their models? China has bought their patent and is in the process of upscaling the original Westinghouse design, is westinghouse still collaborating with china? Have they abandoned their own models? It seems according to their website they are joining the small reactor fad..

Russophobia aside, the next-gen russian nuclear model (first exporter in the world, of nuclear plants) is built in 3.5 years, which is state of the art. And at the same time has a high throughput (1300MWe) (much higher than the billion dollar mini-reactor fad) and state of the art longevity. It's very difficult for me to find the actual prices, of the different nuclear plants models competitors, but since most of the cost is construction cost and 3.5 year is SOTA, I assume, if Russia price them reasonably that this will shift the balance of nuclear energy competitivity worldwide. (china nuclear is already price competitive however they don't export (yet?))

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER#VVER-TOI If anyone has more info on those seemingly disruptive VVER-TOI, please share