I always realize how bad this is when I go to the hardware store. Other than any other place I go to, it got a HUGE parking lot in front that’s just an asphalt wasteland with no tree in sight. The increased heat is immediately noticeable.

Given fascism currently focuses on trans and black/non-white people and actively tries to separare them from the community: Yes. Yes it did.

You should educate yourself about how those AI image generators came to be, 'cause you just showed everyone that you have no damn clue.

“What does it matter if the cocoa farmers get extorted, I just bought the chocolate for a fun occassion.”

Perhaps this way it’s more understandable.

Wait until people come up with other, older things to be nostalgic about. Like Shoop da Whoop or Ronald McDonald Insanity. Peak 2000’s internet brainrot.

There’s also an additional middleground between them, Slowroll. Still a rolling distro but slower with feature updates for additional stability.

Leap tends to be rather outdated as it keeps binary-compatibility to SLES. Of course makes it as stable as possible, but also more often than not uncomfortably lacking behind.

To be fair, OpenSuse is an umbrella of multiple distros other than Debian and Arch. There are

• Leap (Stable, binary-compatible to SLES)
• Tumbleweed (Rolling)
• Slowroll (Rolling but slower, duh)
• Aeon (Immutable w/ Gnome)
• Kalpa (Immutable w/ KDE)
• Factory (unstable)
• MicroOS (Immutable for Server)
• Leap Micro (Immutable, binary-compatible to SLES)

And then of course the whole Enterprise stuff around SLES (Suse Linux Enterprise Server). There’s definitely a need to specify what “OpenSuse” actually means in any given context. 😅

I agree though, it’s god damn great. The bootable btrfs snapshots that are set up by default in particular.

Would’ve been nice for them, wouldn’t it? Given they are also the authority for who gets those god damm keys.

Always the same with the corposcum.

They’re concerned about “their” people, because it’s declining only in rich countries and those tend to see themselves as “better” and don"t like “unregulated immigration” (while the regulated one costs shit tons of money). Also those who bring thst up are usually right-wingers.

Or to say it bluntly: Xenophobia and racism.

Perhaps they also fell asleep during the movies. I certainly know I did.

It would risk “our” wealth.

But at least we now have thousands of individual humans who’re as wealthy as whole countries! Truly an achievement. Now keep working, slave.

What’s the third anime’s name?

What the hell is a “Liberty University”? Do I even want to know?

To be clear, nuclear isn’t inherently bad. Indeed it will most likely be very important to massively reduce CO² emissions quickly and cover bigger chunks of the base-load of our energy infrastructures. However to argue that nuclear could be cheaper or even a replacement for renewables is just completely and utterly wrong. Neither can it be less expensive in any universe, nor is it able to replace renewables since nuclear reactors are very slow regulators (indeed the slowest - they’re best at delivering a lot of power constantly). Meanwhile solar can literally be simply switched off, and “rotating” renewables be turned into or out of wind / water flow / whatever else.

To quote some studies, this one from the Deutsche Bank has the following to say:

For nuclear power plants, different statements on the LCOE can be found in the existing literature. The U.S. investment bank Lazard estimates it at about 14 to 21 US cents per kWh for new nuclear power plants (in the US; for comparison, onshore wind power: 2.4 to 7.5 US cents per kWh). The cost of treating radioactive waste is explicitly not included here. In its latest Word Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency (IEA) put the LCOE for nuclear power plants in 2030 at 10 US cents per kWh in the US, 12 US cents per kWh in the EU, and 6.5 US cents per kWh in China. Wind and solar power are cheaper in all three countries/regions. For the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant that is under construction in the UK, the operator has agreed a guaranteed power purchase price of 10.7 pence per kWh. The LCOE of investments in extending the operating lives of existing nuclear power plants is significantly lower than that for new nuclear power plants. According to an IEA study from 2020, they ranged from less than 3 to less than 5 US cents per kWh.

Meanwhile the World Nuclear Report focuses on the LCOE which might be better suited for comparison (and even that says nuclear is 2 to 3 times more expensive) and points out massive delays and problems with nuclear reactor projects.

All of this doesn’t include the dependency problems (only very few countries can produce refined uranium rods), and even specifically excludes the long-term costs. And “It’s cheaper if you remove lots of the regulation on the most powerful and dangerous technology humanity ever developed” is probably the worst take one can have. Just as a reminder, the very reason for the almost total blackout on the Iberian Peninsula (Spain & Portugal) recently was due to miscommunication and a lack of proper regulation. It wasn’t the renewables (the power stations that started the cascade were mostly fossils, and the energy companies didn’t care enough to keep sufficient reserves that day), no matter how much right-wing media wants you to believe that. Enormous, continental grids would become unstable if we build it upon badly regulated nuclear reactors.

Still far away from commercial viability though, nothing we can count on right now.

Personally I see this rift in the trans community rather often (although not as much right now anymore, there isn’t much room for controversial arguments when being threatened from ‘outside’). On one hand the absolute majority will tell you that they “wished to be born in the right body”. On the other hand many dislike or even reject science into how being trans happens (like this study) out of the very reasonable fear that it will be used to, again, pathologize our existence or outright eradicate us. I’ve heard similar hard questions and controversial discussions from other communities over the years as well. They usually somewhat reach academic circles at best but are never really discussed in public.

In the end it boils down to what the ulterior motive behind the science or technology is; care for- or eradication of humans (or their natural expression). And of course where we out the line between the definition of diversity and illness, something society has a really bad track record for.

Hate to break it to you, but nuclear power isn’t cheap, that crown goes to the renewables (unfortunately even fossils are cheaper than nuclear). Arguably rather reliable and ‘acceptably’ clean though (if used in good locations with sufficient cold water and with modern technology & proper recycling concept).

Edit: After looking up the most current studies regarding nuclear power I found out that by now fossils are indeed more expensive than nuclear (although nuclear usually gets calculated without the costs of permanent waste storage, so… who knows). So disregard what I said about that. 🙃

Unless you have conducted all the experiments leading to that theory yourself, which i doubt, because you don’t have particle accelerators readily available, you will have a basis of “scriptures” and “scholars” whose judgement you trust and follow.

That’s nonsense. The difference is that you can conduct all those experiments on your own, and every further experiment is based upon earlier discoveries creating a chain of rationality. Also, if something is proven to be wrong or phenomenally unlikely we adapt our worldview to those facts, not the other way around. What’s trusted is the scientific method, not individuals and what they wrote. Some scientists simply become more trustworthy as their track record for applying the scientific method is immaculate, both by making discoveries as well as happily accepting when their assumptions were wrong. A well educated and critical mind is absolutely capable to read most studies and get a general understanding of its quality (of course those about particle physics require more knowledge than those about homeopathy). Meanwhile with religious texts it’s inherently impossible to come to any sensible conclusion that isn’t derived from yourself and your own opinions and emotions.

tl;dr Science and Religion are inherently incomparable as one derives truth from systemic processes and measurable facts, while the other derives “truth” from everyone’s worldview and emotional state of individuals. There’s no inherent reason to believe the latter (some random thing about some god).

Bad people instead suffer eternal tinnitus I guess.