A habit tracker that allows for more flexible goals than daily ones, such as N times per period.
225 karma · joined June 16, 2018
A habit tracker that allows for more flexible goals than daily ones, such as N times per period.
Nuclear power is currently by far the most expensive way to generate electricity. And this despite the fact that the insurance sum for the power plants is capped and the remaining risk is assumed by the state and the money that was invested for final waste storage will predictably not be sufficient either. Our early attempts for final storage since the 60s have failed and since 2013 we have been planning how to recover hundreds of thousands of barrels from a salt mine from which radioactively contaminated brine is leaking. And we have yet to find a suitable repository where long-term safety can be guaranteed.
It's not true that Germany has no seismic activity btw.
We have not yet found a geologically suitable site in Germany. In contrast to the less disturbed granites of Finland and Sweden, the formations occurring in Germany are more fractured and thus less suitable. Currently, several salt and clay blocks are being investigated for their suitability as repositories, but they have other problems. (Water solubility for salt and lower stability for clay).
"According to the report of the Repository Commission, the final disposal of highly radioactive waste in Germany will drag on well into the 22nd century. The commission expects the end of emplacement to occur between the years 2075 and 2130, while the "state of a sealed repository mine should be reached between 2095 and 2170 or later." Accordingly, highly radioactive waste could be housed in interim storage facilities until after 2100. At the same time, final storage costs are projected to range from about 49 billion to 170 billion euros; significantly more than the 23 billion euros in payments transferred by nuclear power plant operators to the government for this purpose on July 3, 2017."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endlager_(Kerntechnik)#Weltwei...
Funny, I find it interesting that they want to pay a bugbounty even though nobody asked for it. But I guess paying hush money is just cheaper than having to seriously fix the issue.
One problem with taxes on addictive substances is that they have little effect on consumption behavior. A higher tobacco tax makes smokers poorer, but only very few will smoke less as a result.
With sugar I could at most harm myself, not others. A tax on sugar but not on fat would be discrimination of one diet form or even lifestyle over another. I can offset a lot of sugar with a lot of sport myself.
Sugar has a relatively high caloric density and can be addictive, leading to obesity. However, you can eat large amounts of sugar if you do a lot of sport, for example, and then burn off the calories again. Then you don't get diabetes from it either.
What I've seen from him, he always shows a clear bias towards Tesla.
> Can you give me an example of something Sandy Munro has said which IS NOT something good about a Tesla product, where he has clearly sacrificed engineering concerns?
When I say he's a Tesla shill, it's specifically because of the positive things he says about Tesla.
For example, here [1] he claims that the FSD Beta is currently at level 4 and "full self-driving" is just around the corner. Do you agree with that?
[1] https://twitter.com/alex_avoigt/status/1388838246705152001
If I thought my boss was technically clueless and needed to say something nice about him, I would probably phrase it the same way: "He's obviously a pretty incredible person in many ways. I'm still trying to really map out his superpowers. He has incredibly well developed intuition in many aspects where he makes the right judgement calls in what I perceive to be a lack of information. Because he's not in detail about all the things but his judgement is extremely good. I still haven't fully understood how that happens."
Anyway, I really just wanted to point out that 50 years ago it was apparently possible to develop spaceships in less time without a "move fast and break things" approach.
Also consider that it took NASA about 9 years to fully develop the Space Shuttle from ground up and they didn't lose a single vehicle during testing - 50 years ago!