Mutjake

For radionuclides more long-livd means less radioactive per unit of time, though. Of course uranium compounds can be toxic in the chemical sense as well, but I’m unsure if uranium compounds make it to the top threats in that list compared to e.g. arsenic and lead.

Of course radioactivity needs to be respected, and the exclusion zone is there for a reason due to factors such as hot spots.

If some business is defensively buying off all the competition, that’s an easy ATM for a serial entrepreneur, especially if the large business is price gouging: found a competitor, grow it e.g. with some like-minded funding, sell it at a premium. Wait for the clauses of the contract to run out, and rinse and repeat.

The defensive acquisitions can work on domains with gravity effects to a degree, but those are domains are far from being the total market.

Complex systems are difficult to predict or reason about, especially in turbulent times, and when only partial information about the world is available, and only part of it is accurate. Nothing new under the sun. If you’d always know what’s going on, you could categorically beat the market or make central planning to work flawlessly.

Well, it’s a medication designed for diabetes (the weight loss variant has a higher dosage and different brand name, Wegowy or so), and for diabetes the usage is, by default, permanent. Unless it is replaced by other medication or if the lifestyle changes make the insulin resistance not be an issue any more.

The unfortunate side-effect is also that as US does not honor guarantees given in the Budapest memorandum, no country is going to give up nuclear weapons trusting contracts, and that European nation states (and possibly Canada, Mexico) will draw the conclusions on how to best get functional security guarantees ie. have own nuclear stockpile. This has been the status quo USA has bought by being a security provider, and by betraying it the downside is to returning to the nuclear armageddon scare of the cold war — if a European country nukes Russian territory, the retaliation might well bite back to the US soil. If Europe got too cozy with conventional warfare capabilities, the US got too cozy with the idea that they’re providing security out of the goodness of their hearts instead of it being a geopolitical bargain where they receive certain advantages as well.

My client dies the logging, and I can e.g. grep decade old logs. I’m not sure if you can get same level of access to Discord logs (=export them). I guess Discord bot that logs everything as a historian is a partial solution (I guess log bot cannot catch DMs).

IRC <3 Still daily driving it with some friends. I wouldn’t be surprised if my Discord chat history was unavailable in a decade, so IRC is a nice option to run on the side. There’s value in simplicity, and I admit the risk of sounding like a tech hipster.

Well, to be fair ”from foo delete” would do the same I suppose :-D Unless there’d be an explicit end to the statement to designate you really want to delete everything. Which might not be a bad idea. Or make ”where …” mandatory and bring in ”delete_all” or ”delete everything from foo” as a syntactic guardrail. This is equally implementable, whichever the order of ”delete” and ”from” would be.

I sort of feel the same…but on the other hand if you consider ”delete from” exists also, it’s not completely unsensible to consider you first tell what operation you’re about to perform to the data. Would be nice to start with the source entity name for sure. Dunno what ”select 1” would look like, I guess the from foo would be optional.

Random saturday ramblings, sorry about that :-D

Probably an unpopular opinion, but as an Apple user it is okay for me to pay 30% extra (which I often do instead of using Android and getting certain apps for free), so I avoid having to sideload Epic/Facebook/whatnot stuff from their own mandatory app store + having the hassle of figuring out if there's a subscription model and how difficult it is to terminate, how to handle refunds, what darkpattern analytics are included in the appstore binary etc. etc.

If you need certain amount of money per user for the product to be profitable, raise the price to account for Apple's cut. But please do not force me to install app stores from companies which have their lifeblood in data brokering my life. At least I have an understanding with Apple that if they go haywire with that stuff (like it was close with the whole CSAM scanning debacle which damaged my trust in Apple and I started considering alternatives) they will lose my hardware purchases as well.

I like to think this via car analogy: you have similar ecosystem with car infotainment system platforms, but there the cost of switching is often minimum tenfold. Game consoles are an analogous platform to phones with similar pricepoint in switching costs. Of course phones are much more present in our daily lives for the most part of the population. But I suppose the similar burden would easily hit those platforms if legislation would be imposed, and it would come with both upsides and downsides depending on one's viewpoint.

In 100k years there’s much less need to process it anycase, the waste is very front-heavy in its radioactive harmfulness. Of course it’s still chemically harmful later on, but it does not differ from other heavy metals and is leagues better disposed of than all the lead, cadmium, arsenic, and other such stuff we have laying around (which does not decay at all).

We do have large peat reserves (AFAIK some estimates compare the total amount to Norway’s oil reserves), but usage of peat has been decreasing/phased out for climate and environmental reasons.

Yeah, and to my understanding we're not specifically looking for it as the uranium isn't really that expensive at the moment. The largest plant in Finland needs 128 tons of uranium for the fuel to be fully loaded which on a quick calculation is $57 per pound * 2.2 pounds per kilo * 128000 kilos = around $16M and based on a quick search it lasts from three to five years.

Since the fuel is cooled in water ponds for decades before it is processed, even in the case of a nuclear industry boom there's ample lead time to alter the plans if running out of materials seems to become an issue. I'd be much more worried about usage of oil as it is the base material for a lot of different things like medicines, and we're burning the stuff away (granted, we can do synthetic hydrocarbons, but the whole thing with oil is a bigger problem in my books than running out of uranium; it's still there to be retrieved if it really comes down to it).

As a Finn I think this is the correct way. To add to some other comments here I presume uranium is so abundant even if we multiply our usage that the opportunity cost of reusing the spent fuel is not a major issue. We have a lot of spent fuel in places like the bottom of the ocean we can tap into first. There are a lot of different materials we're burning or burying even if it might be useful in the future, I'd look into repurposing those first as they carry a much bigger risk in e.g. polluting the ground water before worrying about a marginal amount of global spent fuel being buried (you need to account for the fact that we are a small country with non-optimal geography, it is less probable that it would be viable for us build processing facilities to recycle spent fuel as it is much more viable in e.g. France where there is much more raw materials available relatively close + shipping the spent fuel from Finland is probably quite expensive as especially in the current geopolitical setting we are somewhat of an island logistically).

Take what I said with a grain of salt as I am not an expert in the matters of nuclear technology, just sharing my layman's viewpoint. It's probably a complex system so I'm not sure if anyone has definitive answers as it all depends on the amount of nuclear power the world is going to build, how the reprocessing technology and know-how develops, how the alternative means for electricity production develop etc. etc. -- so we can only make educated guesses for now, but I see that we're making a good compromise here with the marginal amount of the global spent nuclear fuel we possess considering our options. For other parts of the world the equation probably plays out differently, e.g. not having suitable solid bedrock to utilize might be an obvious showstopper.