notacop31337

IMO (and I'm talking from a perspective here that I believe aligns with their incentives) it's basically at this stage rational self interest, and I'm not talking about survival lol. Straight up makes sense investment wise because companies are starting to be shamed (rightfully so) for not being green, so there's a business case for increased investment returns on your capital, also with some of the carbon credit type deals (an area I have little knowledge of other than it being "important"), being able to trumpet cleaner production processes means that your product will be chosen over another. I figure there's a fundamental shift in the market coming, and I (and others who want to see their investments grow and not shrink) want to be on the wave.

The issue currently is that we have gone from around 88% fossil fuels to 83% fossil fuels in the last ~2 decades.

Electricity and power make up around 20% of global use, with manufacturing taking a portion of the pie closer to 30%. Migrating those systems is a very large hurdle, but I'll admit that whilst doing some investing around this recently, it seems to be a clear target by many organisations. Migrating traditional manufacturing processes for chemicals and base materials is going to have a massive impact on the overall situation.

In saying all this, the idea that we will be anything close to decarbonised by 2030 is a joke of epic proportions, the scale of the problem is mind boggling. Not that that means we shouldn't try, as it's a very necessary goal. But I actually think being more realistic about the scale of the issue is more likely to generate more interest in crafting fixes, as opposed to these bullshit goals that in many ways, make the problem sound solveable within the timeline. Which it isn't.

Cheers for the great comment mate! I replied to you initially and I am still learning about this very vast topic, I try not to take a partisan approach to this stuff as it is obviously important, always trying to update my understanding and I do change my position as I learn new stuff.

It's interesting to hear that the recycling processes have changed, how recent of a change is this? I took my viewpoint from what seemed to be a overwhelming amount of (what I consider to be non-biased) resources, around the panels "being" recyclable, but not actually being recycled. And I don't think it's unreasonable to be wary of toxic waste given the entire purpose of this thing is to clean up our energy system etc.

I also wasn't aware of the decommissioning being bonded, cheers for that.

Do you think there's a difference between (what I assume for you is) the US and other countries progression along the lifecycle of solar? I feel like in Australia where I am, a lot of the articles I'm seeing are bringing up that what you've mentioned as solved problems, don't seem to be here. I will admit though that we are fairly useless being an economy that derives so much from coal exports.

Yeah so the pricing thing I do understand, but I also just think it's important to continue nuclear as an option anyway for future improvements and general management of brain drain.

Cheers for being chill, I find topics so divisive these days, I never mean to come across and ignorant of other opinions and I try to engage and not just be a "this is my tribe and I'll die on this hill", this problem is too important for it to be a "I'd rather be right" type deal.

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, but funnily enough, based on the current methods, yes.

That's not to say that the blades are more dangerous than the nuclear waste, just that the nuclear waste has many years of waste management engineering behind it, due to its danger. So there are defined processes of management that are well tested, well designed and well implemented.

Processes for blades currently are just bury them in landfill, which causes a bunch of unmitigated issues.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turb...

The idea that we "just bury" nuclear waste in the same way a dog buries a bone, is kinda funny, but very far from reality.

This also doesn't even touch on nuclear waste recycling, which is enormously beneficial.

Whilst I understand that in reality the costs will always win out, I think only addressing the cost aspect is a strange way of tackling the issue given that cheap energy has gotten us where we are.

Not to mention that you're comparing costs unfairly, given the costs of nuclear include the costs of processing and storage of waste output, and nuclear is the only energy source in which we control all outputs and have dedicated and well engineering processes for dealing with those outputs.

I think that people are being completely unrealistic regarding the cleanliness of solar and wind, currently we bury the blades and we just turf the panels, both of which are hardware that needs to be upgraded. The heavy metals in panels do not break down at all. Which is funny given everyones focus on the radioactivity of nuclear waste, which even though takes a long time to completely stop being toxic, does actually stop being toxic.

I think there's a happy middle ground, and we need a good mix of sources, but people are comparing on features that they want to compare on, and ignoring others.

I feel that music and calculus are very different to history. I believe that history should be a fundamental course taught all the way through, we can't understand where we're going if we don't understand where we came from.

It's very unlikely that you're able to get OP $100 million in assets...

Fundamentally believe every technical person should read "The Idea Factory" on the origins of Bell Labs, and what technical leadership looked like in an organisation that had an outsized effect on our world.

Depending on the country it can be varying levels of "illegal", in Australia, Police use encrypted radio devices, P{01-99} <- some number tagged with P, I can't remember. Whilst police use encrypted comms, other forms of emergency response (the primary one being Ambulance service) use POCSAG, which is entirely unencrypted and a paging protocol, it's also used in hospitals.

Listening is not illegal, but recording or redistributing "is illegal", however, it's not clear whether it's actually illegal or it just depends how and when you use it and what you do with it. There was a kid here that brought it up with the police and was harassed over it, I believe he made a website to broadcast it over a web page and was given a stern telling off. Which tbh is fairly valid as it has horrific amounts of PII in it.

> That's also when I learned that many people don't want to listen to statistics unless they agree with their own preconceptions.

This has been my experience with bodycam footage, I've found that there's been quite a few heavily protested police involved shootings that when looking over the footage and the facts of the situation, were by the book and completely justified, yet no matter how many times you say to someone "you do know there's footage of the entire event, uncut and unfiltered", it doesn't seem to matter.

EDIT: I just remembered what my throwaway username is.

I bet you've got a fucking sweet beard though.

Hey mate, I've been going through a bout of depression recently, and I wanted to thank you for your comments on HN, this one and many of your other posts have made me laugh so much and have put a proper smile on my face, I'm sitting at my desk in such a good mood. I enjoy your form of comedy.

Thank you.

I understand the idea of moving "iteratively" etc, but this is a major thing for me when projects are mentioned as "only took a week to get this all done" yet a lot of commonly accepted best practice is left by the way side.

Thanks, I just realised I'm a gigantic fucking nerd. I unironically thought this is something many people would care about.

I love this idea, maybe we can put it alongside the taxation class along with all the other shit that should be taught to create sensible, well adjusted humans.

From your perspective, given that Thorium salt reactors are part of India's 3rd stage Nuclear plan, where is this technology in general? I assume that they're leading the pack, but I don't really know.

Anyone know of any software work being done around Nuclear? I don't care what it is, just looking to play a bit more with the space, Open Source, data sourcing. I really mean I don't care what it is, just wanna learn a bit more about it and be a bit more involved.

I feel the same way, a lot of the time I'll have a browse at reviews to get a bit of context on an album, and at some level pay more attention to the aggregate review score than I do individual ones. However I will admit that occasionally a review sticks with me, the most recent example being Within Destruction's Yokai, I believe the term used was "Weeb Core" and I now refer to a lot of deathcore bands that have added cringe levels of Japanese influence or trap beats as weeb core.

I've had some thoughts around this issue more recently after moving from DevOps -> Software Engineering.

I love the idea of cross functional teams, but from what I have seen of the most recent implementation of it that I'm working in, there are as always, issues of definition around what a cross functional team actually is and should be.

IMO grabbing a bunch of backend SEs and making them handle their own DevOps is a joke of Academy Awards host level proportions. The shit I see as an ex DevOps dude is horrific. The notion that a bunch of people who've never done the role can somehow figure it out without specific training doesn't work, from my experience.

A cross functional team should actually be cross functional, where you have an engineer, whose specialty is the work you intend for them to complete within that team. Otherwise we're just being overburdened with extra shit that we frankly will never get the time to actually complete in a meaningful way, and it just generates more and more technical debt.