There's so much misunderstanding of nuclear it's crazy.

I'm not opposed to nuclear in principal, but having read reports like these, and looking at the costs for design and construction, it just doesn't seem viable in the time frame we have.

There are plants started in the 70s that are still being constructed today.

Almost had me.

>The team has not shared how the cheesecake tastes

The most wanted question is still unanswered in the end.

Guess you weren't doing your job well enough of playing the ostracized, unrecognized, and unappreciated informal subject expert.

You're arguing with a free market fanatic. He'll just completely ignore what you say and continue to spam the same bullshit. He's been doing it for years on behalf of a libertarian lobby.

In his mind, anything other than a pure free market solution is communism. It's his holy war!

Safety while charging?

malarkey. the vast majority of car trips are not 400 mile round trip journeys to another country.

How about women would love to get an electric car but they have less money to spend on a car, captain obvious

> nasty PEOPLE repurposing AI to nasty ends

So...the owners, then?

>Women were twice as likely to say they were concerned about their safety at public charging stations. Unlike gas stations, charging stations do not have employees on site and tend to be more out of the way — often they are situated in the back of parking lots. And in comparison to the five minutes it takes to fill up a car with gas, electric cars require at least 30 minutes to recharge.

How does this work?

Is it like a very tiny factory and the arm just moves around to make a slice of cake?

You still need a base load. Storage technology for wind and solar just isn't there yet in terms of cost feasibility, so that leaves natural gas or nuclear as base loads.

For those who didn’t read the article the two moons in question are Miranda and Ariel.

"Men are more willing to adopt new technology, especially when it comes to cars" - Captain Obvious

Some selected quotes from the article, highlighted for reading convenience.

>A survey conducted last January by consumer advocacy nonprofit Consumer Reports with over 8,000 respondents offers some insight as to why this gender gap persists. Men were both more familiar with how electric car charging works and more likely to have been in an electric car than women.
>
>...
>
>Women were twice as likely to say they were concerned about their safety at public charging stations. Unlike gas stations, charging stations do not have employees on site and tend to be more out of the way — often they are situated in the back of parking lots. And in comparison to the five minutes it takes to fill up a car with gas, electric cars require at least 30 minutes to recharge.
>
>...
>
>More importantly, those who buy electric cars tend to own their homes, meaning they can install chargers and plug in their cars overnight, negating the need to use a public charger for day-to-day commutes. For women and people of color, who are less likely to own homes and are more likely to live in multifamily dwellings where charging stations are often not part of the parking infrastructure, charging their cars becomes an additional task.

[removed]

The ecosystem that sustains all life is aggressively being destroyed with reckless abandon. Idk how long it will take but that’s eventually going to render the planet unlivable and when you combine that with lethal pandemics and some nuclear frosting, those will be the extinction events.

[removed]

My wife loves her Mach E. Hopefully, she's one of many bucking this trend.

The US is pouring more money into electric vehicle infrastructure and rebates, but safety and affordability could be behind the gender gap between men and women owners.

You'd be surprised by the kind of backlash posting stuff like

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/nuclear-energy-too-costly-and-too-late

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J

can incur every time somebody drags up nuclear as "the obvious solution".

The nuclear and the fossil fuel industry are often two sides of the same coin.

I prefer “dumb” tech that requires a certain level of interfacing with it manually. My car is a 6 speed with actual buttons, I use a turntable, Alexa is not allowed in the house, my fridge gets cold and has a light that turns on when I open it. I also went into a career that will be impossible for AI to take over. I don’t know what the future holds based on how fast AI is progressing, but I can safeguard my future to a certain extent by stepping off the automation treadmill as much as possible and avoiding the use of technological advancement whenever it’s reasonable to do so. My systems and methods work so I don’t see the need to change it at least until we get some clarity as to what is exactly going to become of this AI revolution.

My convection oven was $3300 CAD. My air fryer, which I use many times more, cooks faster, is easier to clean, and doesn’t warm up my whole kitchen, was $60 CAD.

Second time I've seen this recommend this week. Will have to check it out

OP is asking a hypothetical question, not claiming this is true today.

Yeah, I agree. If you take the prompt seriously - that nothing a human can do would be better than an AI doing it - humans will focus on the experience of being human.

Arguably it's what we should be primarily focused on now, it's just we forget because of bills and what have you.