matlag

Looks like it's happening already. Natural disasters are on the rise, costing billions, insurance companies start bailing out of some area. I was also wondering if international help would come back every year to address a fraction of the wildfire in Canada, Spain, Italy, Greece, and soon pretty much everywhere.

Pretty sure the cost of the disaster is soon going to be unbearable and we'll start abandoning places and infrastructures instead of rebuilding (not officially, of course, we'll just "push back until conditions allow to rebuild" and forget about it as more disasters will occur).

It will be a slow death, though.

Theyve had to start shutting down nuclear reactors in summer when water levels get too low,

This is a fake news. Period.

Some reactors had to REDUCE THEIR OUTPUT because otherwise they would exceed the temperature increase they're allowed to cause in the river, this to preserve life in the river. No reactor was shutdown because of a low water stream.

What happened last year is a systematic defect was found in an external protection layer, and the decision was made to fix all the reactors having the same potential defect at once. The work took longer than expected, and that caused France having very limited capacity for months, causing worries about power outage.

Not to say it could never happen in the future, but it didn't yet.

So is it better to start a nuclear project and hope it can start reducing coal & NG emissions 10 years from now? Or is it better to add solar and wind capacity constantly and at a fraction of the price per MWh?

It's better to do both!!

Nuclear is not more expensive than solar and wind. And today's paradox is solar and wind are cheap because oil is cheap...

Besides, comparing the 2 is totally misleading. One is a controllable source of electricity, the other is by nature an unstable source, therefore you need a backup source. Most of the time, that backup is a gas plant (more fossil fuel...), and some other time it's mega-batteries projects that need tons of lithium... that we also wanted for our phones, cars, trucks etc. Right now, every sector is accounting lithium resources as if they were the only sector that will use it...

And then you have Germany, that shut down all its nuclear reactor, in favor of burning coal, with a "plan" to replace the coal with gas, but "one day", they'll replace that gas with "clean hydrogen" and suddenly have clean energy.

There was a time when nuclear was the right choice, but now it is just not cost effective nor can it be brought online fast enough to make a dent in our problems

So we'll have very very exactly the same conversation 10 years from now, when we'll be 100% renewable but we'll have very frequent power outages. People will say "we don't have time to build nuclear power plan, we need to do «clean gas/hydrogen/other wishful thing to burn»". And at that time, someone will mention that we will never produce enough of these clean fuel but ... How many times do we want to shoot ourselves in the foot??

I think you’re forgetting that once the waters from a dam break dry up you can rebuild…a nuclear accident has the potential to poison the land for generations

In the years to come, we're going to lose much more land just because it won't be suitable for human survival, and that will be on a longer scale than a nuclear disaster. Eliminating fossil fuel should be the sole absolute priority, and nuclear is one tool to achieve it.

For many "lurkers" of reddit, the protest brought some attention to the issue and reddit's disdain for the moderators.

I think it helps with the migration if the communities are not taken by surprise when a mod declares a migration.

Ah, too late! I deleted it right after writing my comment. I missed that opportunity.

Part of me hopes the raw number of users will drop at least a bit, that would be terrible for the valuation of the company...

But the other part of me has already moved on. Lemmy is fine, I don't really need to look back.

Well, we're talking about 2 different things here:

1.Does the victim in an abusive reationship ackowledge it is abusive. You'd be surprised how many victims don't. And that does not make them a tiny bit "less" victims.

2.Once the victim acknowledges the abusive situation, how much support is offered to help the victim, and yes, very often, the answer is close to peanuts, and that's quite a shame. But that's a whole different issue.

Spez's comment on moderators showed the world he's not a tiny bit better than Marck "They trust me, dumbfucks!" Zuckerberg.

Yet so many people willingfully trust him with their most personal sensitive information until it's too late.

https://www.insider.com/nebraska-teen-sentenced-jail-abortion-police-facebook-2023-7

Even with that, you still don't see FB users running away from the private data collection and resell platform.

It will be very hard for some moderators to leave because they put so much work in reddit, and leaving would force them to admit they were used by someone who despised them the whole time, and there is no hope he would ever change.

It's similar to women who can't leave their violent companion: they want to believe in something that does not exist, and will stretch their perception of reality to avoid admitting they're wrong.

I do not despise the moderators who won't leave. I pity them.

With all that said, this remind me I wanted to permanently delete my reddit's account. I won't contribute to a BS "users" numbers...

Selon le Gorafi: https://www.legorafi.fr/2023/07/20/remaniement-aurore-berge-nommee-ministre-en-charge-de-la-recuperation-politique/

Attention aux excès d'optimisme. Il n'a calmé personne. Il a rétabli l'ordre à coups de matraque, de gaz lacrymo et de LBD. Autrement dit: en remettant le couvercle et avec un bon coup de scotch pour le faire tenir... encore combien de temps?

Aujourd'hui finalement installé au Québec, mais j'ai grandi à Calais et étudié à Lille

The worrying thing here is the assumption that we can choose...

The world has 2 billions individual cars. Lithium extraction rate may not be sufficient to make 2 billions cars by 2030... and that's assuming we don't need lithium for computers, smartphones, but also not for batteries for the grid (because no solar cell works at night and wind farms are not on demand erther), and... not for electric trucks! Then comes the question of the other metals: copper, nickel, cobalt, ...

Trains will not work everywhere for everyone, but not deploying them now and fast will be a severe issue for North America when resources will get scarce.

We need a smart mix of trains, buses, subways, tramways, shared vehicles, bikes, everything but one individual car per person. That era will come to an end because we're closer to the bottom of our planet's natural resources stock than the beginning.

There's not even a real option of keeping gas cars a little while more, as cheap oil is also coming to an end.

The difference between accepting this and "choosing" individual cars is how ready countries will be when resources will get scarce. It may get ugly...

Based on https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120114/how-does-facebook-fb-make-money.asp 39$/user/year for Facebook & Messenger alone. In a country of 5-6M people, let's say 5.5M, with 70% of the population being users ( from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/584917/facebook-users-in-norway-by-age-group/ ), that gives ~3.85M users * 39$ = 150.15M$/year, 12.5M$/month, or 417k$/day. Norway is a rich country, so one should assume a Norway user's revenue is higher than the 39$ average.

So, 100k$/day is certainly a decent figure for Norway's operations, meaning a local Facebook senior manager must be in panic right now. But Would that local senior manager have any power to change anything given Norway is such a small market but yielding would set a precedent for all other EU members? That's what is at stake!