See, I watch Adam Something videos from the point of view that he’s not really talking about America. He’s talking about European politicians looking at terrible ideas from America and trying to replicate them.

This is a pretty good example. America wouldn’t do this, exactly, but it’s a step towards our terrible bike infrastructure. The other poster had the right of it: in America, the sign wouldn’t be there at all, but the intersection would still be badly designed.

Yeah, let’s face it: the USSR collapsed for a reason, and its MIC was already failing by the time it did.

The problem Marx didn’t foresee is that capitalism can sustain itself until it destroys us all. In Nazi Germany, this left the country a bombed out pile of rubble. In modern times, it’s global warming.

First Past the Post doesn’t guarantee complete nationwide hegemony of two parties. There can be areas where the vote is between a mainstream party and a regional party, because the other mainstream party doesn’t show up. This happens in the UK all the time.

They don’t take a lot, but those seats are enough that the big parties often have to work with them to cobble together a majority.

Nor is First Past the Post the only factor. There’s plenty of southern states that have runoff voting. Their last century of state level offices are just as filled with Democrats and Republicans as anywhere else.

The US is unique in that not only are their only two real parties, but those two parties dominate at every level of government.

No way they’re replacing the bigger ones, like the Moskva. That one was built in a yard that’s now in Ukraine, and Russia hasn’t gotten that part back. Even if they did, Ukraine hadn’t really maintained it.

It was also launched in 1979, and they haven’t built anything that size since the USSR fell.

They’d have to rebuild the infrastructure needed to build the ship. These losses are irreplaceable.

On the tank side, some planned updates/replacements for the Abrams were very suddenly canned and went back to the drawing board. The DoD didn’t say why, but a good guess is that they saw how things were going for tanks vs drones in Ukraine, and decided that these new designs would be obsolete before they’re built.

China built a few Ap1000 designs. The Sanmen station started in 2009 with completion expected in 2014 (2015 for the second unit). It went into 2019. The second, Haiyang, went about the same.

This is pretty similar to what happened in the US with Volgte.

And 5 years is what nuclear projects have promised at the start over the years. Everyone involved knows this is a gross lie.

Nuclear is nothing bog standard. If it was, it wouldn’t take 10 years. Almost every plant is a boutique job that requires lots of specialists. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design was meant to get around this. It didn’t.

The experts can stay where they are: maintaining existing nuclear power.

Renewables don’t take much skilled labor at all. It’s putting solar panels on racks in a field, or hoisting wind blades up a tower (crane operation is a specialty, but not on the level of nuclear engineering).

Then we just move the problem. Why should we do something that’s going to take longer and use more labor? Especially skilled labor.

Money is an imperfect proxy for the underlying resources in many ways, but it about lines up in this case. To force the issue, there would have to be a compelling reason beyond straight money.

That reason ain’t getting to 100% clean energy in a short time. There is another: building plants to use up existing waste rather than burying it.

Earthbound is a somewhat more traditional rpg with a lot of grinding/random combat.

One of the things that makes ChronoTrigger approachable is that all combat is prearranged by the design of the areas. You get the XP you need just by traversing it. Makes it easy compared to other rpgs from the time go. Take that as you will.

… it’s currently not possible to store the renewables anywhere

Every time someone argues this, it’s immediately obvious they haven’t actually paid attention how the storage market has been progressing.

Next, you’ll probably talk about problems with lithium, as if it’s the only storage technology.

If you’re going to do that, then also consider the co2 output of all the concrete needed for nuclear power plants.

No, you just pay out the nose up front.

If I had money to invest in the energy sector, I don’t know why I should pick nuclear. It’s going to double its budget and take 10 years before I see a dime of return. Possibly none if it can’t secure funding for the budget overrun, as all my initial investment will be spent.

A solar or wind farm will take 6-12 months and likely come in at or close to its budget. Why the hell would I choose nuclear?

But the technology to rely entirely on renewables isn’t really there either.

Yes, it is.

https://books.google.com/books/about/No_Miracles_Needed.html?id=aVKmEAAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description

This is a book by a professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering that goes into the details. We don’t need nuclear. All the tech is there.

Except we have better options than we did 10 years ago.

I’d be all for nuclear if we rolled back the clock to 2010 or so. As it stands, solar/wind/storage/hvdc lines can do the job. The situation moved and my opinion moved.

Not sure about GP, but that’s basically what we did under “SAFe” (Scaled Agile Framework). PI planning means taking most of a sprint to plan everything for the next quarter or so. It’s like a whole week of ticket refinement meetings. Or perhaps 3 days, but when you’ve had 3 days of ticket refinement meetings, it might as well be the whole work week for as much a stuff as you’re going to get done otherwise.

It’s as horrible as you’re thinking, and after a lot of agitating, we stopped doing that shit.

I demand an RFC making this official.

Cops are government employees, and hopefully the government cares about losing $175k over bullshit their employee did.

Yeah, they can afford to lose one or two, but if we all start flipping off cops and start getting charged, it’s going to add up.

It’s a correct proof.

One way to think about this is that we represent numbers in different ways. For example, 1 can be 1.0, or a single hash mark, or a dot, or 1/1, or 10/10. All of them point to some platonic ideal world version of the concept of the number 1.

What we have here is two different representations of the same number that are in a similar representation. 1 and 0.999… both point to the same concept.