shadowfaxRodeo

It’s not dangerous?! Somebody tell the nuclear power companies. They’ll save so much money on security and safety. They could have a side hustle doing tours for school kids.

Of course it’s safe! This explains why Fukushima has such a thriving beach front community — and why three-mile island is such a tourist hot spot.

I guess that means dirty bombs aren’t dangerous? I guess nuclear weapons aren’t dangerous either!! Someone tell the CND, they’ve been wasting all their time protesting.

Wait, this is huge, the biggest conspiracy of all time. what about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they must be in on it too. Did they fake it?! Was the Cuban missile crisis an inside job? Is the Bikini atoll an advertising ploy for two-piece swimwear?

Does e=mc^2 or are Oppenheimer and Einstein sipping mojitos in the Bermuda Triangle with Elvis and Tupac?

> That doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. I don't know what you're getting at.

I'm explaining why I'm against building nuclear power plants — it's a very simple point really:

- Do nuclear power plants require stability to be safe?

- Is the world becoming more or less stable?

All the other stuff sounds like a conspiracy theory.

You could make the exact same argument about nuclear energy. The same promises were made, and it has failed to deliver.

It doesn't address the main issue of nuclear — it's incredibly dangerous. For nuclear to be safe you need human security, human experts, funding, you need to not have tsunamis, earthquakes, pandemics, wars, terrorism, economic collapse.

That's not a promise nuclear can make — especially given that we've almost certaintly have passed tipping points that will make unrest and extreme weather likely.

At this point it's not about stopping the climate crisis, it's about limiting the damage, and preparing society for the inevitable consequences.

If you think there's no prospect of coal consumption going down, then we're headed for global calamity.

Knowing that it's a likely scenario that the world becomes wildly unpredictable, it's not responsible to also build nuclear reactors that require stability and maintenance to be safe.

I don’t think you’ll find many anti-nuclear people on HN that are also pro-fossil-fuel.

It’s a false choice, we can choose to not use fossil fuels, and decrease the risk of nuclear meltdowns and dirty bombs at the same time.

This is a false choice.

As the world gets more unstable due to climate change — an increased risk on pandemics, civil unrest, extreme weather events — do we really want abandoned nuclear power stations added to the mix?

So, don’t do either. use way less energy, rely on renewables and batteries for the rest.

Because it doesn’t collect personal data to sell to advertisers.

This is an excellent point.

I’m no influencer, but i do have a big family and lots of very close friends. I’m very lucky.

Many people are isolated and struggle to make and maintain friendships — especially over the last year. They don’t have the luxury of being able to take a stand.

Which messaging app do you think most people would join… one with nobody else using it, or one with everyone else using?

My issue is with Facebook, not with the network effect itself. Happy to use the network effect to get people off Facebook.

Understandably, people who don’t use WhatsApp, don’t think it’s weird that other people don’t use WhatsApp.

People who do have WhatsApp, probably have it, because most of the people they know have it.

I got rid of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp about 4 years ago. Facebook and Instagram was easy, but people who have WhatsApp really think you’re weird for not having it.

Deleting WhatsApp, while annoying for me personally, has resulted in many people I know joining Signal or Telegram — the network effect can be broken by being belligerent.

If you don’t want to have a conversation about why you deleted WhatsApp, simply say it’s a moral issue, nobody wants to know.

I've tried it out, I'm still getting smaller AVIF files with dithering. Not like the saving you get by using a dithered png instead of a jpeg.

Depends on a lot of factors. You can keep turning the quality down on avif and get it lower than a dithered image. At some point I'd prefer the crispness of a dithered image over a blurry full color image.

Also, avif seems to do a really good job of lossy compression on dithered images.

But you can also use a dithered AVIF — and save even more.