natmaka

> 2203 is around of the average aviation deaths per year

Planes have no equivalent, replacing them would be difficult. Nuclear can be replaced by industrial renewables.

Moreover planes induce a very tiny risk for those who don't use them. Nuclear threatens even distant people (in space and time).

Note: my own brother died during to a jetliner crash (Swissair 111).

> a lot of the costs are also because of the extra abundance of caution due to irrational fear

Those requirements aren't irrational, they are devised after studying incidents and accidents.

> - properly cleaning up a coal

True, but not pertinent as very few (and not me!) suggest deploying coal plants. This is about nuclear vs. renewables.

> The number of victims

This is a truism, in which way is it pertinent?

> this is something being pushed onto the general population.

This is an unsubstantiated opinion.

>> it is quite difficult to envision a solar plant or wind turbine fleet cause such disaster

> No shit if the energy production is more spread out the incidents will be more spread out as well. And easier to ignore. But not doing less damage in total.

Err... In your opinion when a tsunami (or anything else) destroys a solar plant or wind turbine fleet an emergency evacuation is in order (just as during a major nuclear accident, due to the potential release of dangerous material)? Is it a joke?

Does "television" here means "lies"? In such a case I already answered: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43328808

> government forcing it citizens to pay directly doesn't make it any less government funded

Sorry, I'm lost. What is "forcing it citizens to pay directly" referring to?

The officially recognized effects of the nuclear accident are major (2203 victims and a huge and expensive cleanup effort): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident_cle...

This is not 'manipulation' but raw facts.

They took notice.

Moreover it is quite difficult to envision a solar plant or wind turbine fleet cause such disaster, therefore the "but we NEED to be exposed to such ordeal!" became moot during the 2000's.

It was not about caving in but about democracy, that is to say respecting what a vast majority of electors wanted.

Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29173164

Effects: https://x.com/HannoKlausmeier/status/1784158942823690561

> listen to anyone

In late 2010 Germany decreed a 12-year delay for their nuclear phase-out plan.

Then in March 2011 the Fukushima nuclear accident happened, and public opinion took notice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#Chang...

France, shock-full of nuclear... now leads the european pack of nations buying natural gas from the US and also from Russia.

https://energyandcleanair.org/january-2025-monthly-analysis-...

>small state is internally democratic and its government has to serve the individual

For many reasons (one being the risk induced by endogamy) it is way more difficult for masters of a small state to bar the individual from knowing what is going on outside, to escape... It fosters a healthy pressure on potential or effective abusers.

> Peace

Search for "Duke of Tyrol": https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leopold-kohr-the-bre...

((quoting the source)) >> Kohr states that a disunited world would do away with territorial disputes and conflicts since cultures that currently demand autonomy will receive it, and disputed territories such as Alsace could become autonomous or sovereign instead.

> wrong

This is a suggestion, not a prediction ("could").

((quoting the source)) >> circumstance that illustrates the main difference in the manner in which Russians and Americans organize their respective empires. We proceed with seduction where the others use force. We assimilate the world through our goods, the others through their ideology. While the unity of the East is brought about by every Czech, Russian, or Chinese becoming a communist, the unity of the West is created by every Frenchman, Dutchman, or Italian becoming an American. This is preferable, I presume, but it spells national extinction for the peoples concerned all the same. We may say that, as Americans, they will at least be free, but so will all Czechs or Chinese once they have become convinced communists. Assimilation does not destroy freedom. It makes it meaningless.

> A prediction completely wrong

As a Frenchman or (remote) Russian origin living in China since 2017 I disagree.

L. Kohr (who was the inspiration of "small is beautiful"), shows how and why it is of paramount importance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Kohr#The_Breakdown_of_...

Over-produced electricity can be stored by the private party in a local vehicle/wall battery.

Through a grid it may be sent to a plant which will produce green hydrogen, or to a dam (pumped-storage hydroelectricity)... or sent to another region (even quite remote, via some (U)HVDC line) which will use/store it.

AFAIK DOGE's personnel is young, and therefore probably cannot tackle the pressure from the POTUS cabinet ("you have a few days to establish everything we asked for"), hence the "Move fast and break things" effect.

It seems to me that the decision to rename the Gulf of Mexico isn't the crux of the matter. Whether this decision is useful/justified is a totally different matter.

Isn't renaming a place rather common? Even nations were recently renamed (Swaziland, Macedonia).

Therefore the software (database included) managing the data (used by the USGS earthquake's) probably offers a way to rename a place.

Is there any documentation exposing how to perform such a renaming? Is it up to date and accessible (or did someone modify/hide it in order to annoy DOGE)? Was it not strictly followed by the person(s) who tried to rename this Gulf? Are all technical thingies associated to such a renaming free of major bugs?

If all answers to those questions are "yes" then the person(s) who tried to rename is the sole culprit.

If there is a single "no" then at least another person should be put into scrutiny.

IMHO part of the problem stems from teaching without carefully stating the nature of what is explained. A teacher should check that the audience reasonably knows what 'convention' means, how it differs from 'abstraction', 'truth', 'theory', 'measured fact'...

Bonus: explicitly recognizing that many terms (along with other conventions) aren't adequate. According to the knowledge of those who coined them they appeared adequate at the time, and replacing them may induce confusions, would condemn existing knowledge and writings, and isn't perfectly effective as the new convention may even prove inadequate later. I used to say that we may consider them as tributes to the the wonderful people who coined them.

Bitcoin's value: from mid-2022 to the end of 2023 it hovered between 20k and 30k USD, then 57k to 70k from February 2024 to October 2024, then from 90k to 110k since.

Therefore during 2024 people having or obtaining it tend to keep it instead of spending it. Is it surprising?

It is not about cost but about availability: without any breeder a reactor needs way more (at least x30, up to x100) uranium.

"identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg ((...)) At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium

In other words the already precarious and degrading case of nuclear as a sound investment further degrades with each and every new reactor, up to the catastrophic "no more uranium for a reactor not yet amortized".

Nuclear now produces, worldwide, about 10% of electricity which is less than 25% of final energy: nuclear produces about 2.5% if final energy.

Build reactors to have it reach about 7% and there is not enough guaranteed uranium for all reactors to produce 100% of their theoretical output for about 40 years => from an investor's viewpoint it is moot.

Exploration is a bet: the uranium bubble (2007) triggered an impressive exploration raise, which had very insufficient results (reserves: + ~15%).

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions we have to electrify numerous applications and therefore will need at least 2x more electricity: those ~7% (of current electricity demand) will then be ~3%.

Tripling the nuclear output this way means maintaining the (already old) fleet of reactors and building approx 600 more. Before 2050?!

In the event of a nuclear 'renaissance', those limited uranium deposits will be subjugated by superpowers. In the event of a serious accident all hope to amortize may be instantaneously lost.

No industrial breeder => game over.

AFAIK it is a well-known estimation, and 'fringe' may be considered weird given its main author's pedigree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

> The highest estimate for Chernobyl is 60,000

Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

> illusion that the technology was cost-competitive with fossil fuel generators

The hope, then, was to quickly obtain an industrial breeder reactor in order to considerably reduce (or even suppress any) dependency towards uranium providers (there is no known similar trick for oil/methane).

It failed, and it may be a major cause of the current nuclear demise.

Breeding is a counter-example. Fermi envisioned it in the early 1940's.

Lab breeder reactors emerged during the 1950's and were satisfying in the 1960's.

Big projects aiming at obtaining an industrial reactor were aplenty, worldwide, during the 1970's through the 1990's.

They all failed, and remaining efforts are quite sparse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Notable_reacto...

Obtaining something adequate (raw size, reliability, safety, ease of use...) isn't always easy.

The quest of an industrial nuclear fusion reactor may tank this way.

> Renewables are outpacing nuclear at such a pace that you could legitimately wonder why to bother with such projects at all.

Indeed, especially as renewable will more and more eat into nuclear 'baseload', lowering its load factor and therefore raising its total production cost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg

> PG's optimizer is designed to be very fast not very thorough

Some parameters weight on this policy: geqo_threshold, geqo_effort, constraint_exclusion, from_collapse_limit, join_collapse_limit, jit_above_cost, enable_partition*...

As requiring heavy query optimization usually slows simple queries down, this is a matter of context.

Indeed, my point was about "faster" (in the title).

Numerous non UE members sell electricity to members (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Ukraine...), including the United Kingdom.

Indeed, and it is better at continental scale: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-...

France, albeit enjoying even better offshore wind potential than the UK, is even worse as it only starts to deploy turbine fleets.

RFC2119 to the rescue: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2119

It enhances the throughput (on average everyone waits less) at the price of a higher max latency (some, who posted a request mobilizing a very-recently-out-of-cache-index, will wait way, way more...), isn't it? In the real world those worst cases quite often kill such optimization.

The (data size / cache size) ratio and queries local (in time) dispersion are key.

Nuclear nowadays produces ~70% of France's electricity and renewables are booming: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

Two close calls (level 4) in 1969 and 1980 (at Saint-Laurent-des-Eaux): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Laurent_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

It's not only about power but about unbalancing the opponent in order to obtain a knock-down. A weak hit making him fall is better than a massive blow (especially on hitting a strong body area).

Some did, however there were no Soviet jets at the time of this story.

Indeed! The man who told me this did not know the reason but his hypothesis was indeed that they wanted to get drunk.

Thank you for the details. I heard about Russian women hiding their perfumes for men not to find (and drink) them...

In France, around 1985, an old man said to me that just after WW2 he was, as a French soldier, working in Germany in some airfield or military site which was then used to host Allied soldiers of various nationalities.

They had a problem with Soviet soldiers dying due to some poisonous/toxic substance they consumed.

It lasted for days, maybe weeks. Nobody had a clue.

Then they realized that some/many Soviet soldiers had discovered a tank containing jet fuel and secretly drank from it. Those who drank too much or were too weak just died, but other ones weren't deterred.