The GNU Taler prevents that by hiding that you ever bought a Dildo.

I mean, not really right? The government can still ask the webshop, that probably took your name and address. Or the PSP that facilitated the transaction, they likely know too. It's not like Visa/MasterCard/banks are the only parties that know it now, and the others are usually also beholden to laws that let government agencies query things.

Nuclear doesn't make sense for that purpose because it'd have to quickly be able to spin up and down. Most reactor designs aren't really able to do it quickly in normal operations, and those that can can't do so in a way that makes any economic sense. They're financially outcompeted by their alternatives.

Storage is the solution, which we can build today in a viable way and is rapidly becoming cheaper and cheaper.

The financial case for nuclear today is shoddy at best. It's why no company wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole unless heavy government subsidies are involved. The case for nuclear in ten years is, given the continuous advancements in renewable energy costs and battery storage tech, almost certainly dead.

I assume it means smoking the weed (turning it into gas).

That's not what he's saying, he says that due to Apartheid there are still some racial tensions and it's also a reason for said unemployment and poverty.

Interesting, for me there's a fairly clear difference in the colour blue:

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 SCOOOOOTLAAAAND FOOOORRREEVVVVAAAAAAHHHH 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

We're solving for the same problem. There is no path where nuclear is the most cost-effective solution.

If money is no concern, the fastest, most certain-to-succeed solution is mass-mining for battery materials, massive investment in things like sodium-based batteries and a huge investment in battery production capabilities. Scaling up solar provides the power, the batteries provide the storage. That results in net zero.

Nuclear takes decades to build. "Reactivating" Germany's old and derelict reactors beyond their shelf life is dangerous and doing it safely is probably about as fast as building a new, higher capacity reactor. Which is to say, it's very, very slow. And even then, you'd need dozens if not hundreds of reactors to meet the total power demand (France alone has 50+). There's geopolitical concerns too, as reactors run on fuel that is not available in most of the world, some of the highest producing countries are either Russia or firmly in their backyard. IIRC Canada and Australia also produce a bit but not enough.

And then there's the fact that we do not have nearly enough qualified people to build and run all these nuclear reactors. Meanwhile installing solar panels and battery packs is comparatively dead simple, and we have plenty of people who can do it.

Nuclear simply produces less MW per penny invested than renewables do. It's slower to build. The "option C" as you present doesn't work, because it implies an option D: 4MW of clean power, with no dirty MW after X years, for 4X money. The total carbon emitted is simply lower if nuclear is skipped and renewables are prioritised instead.

Remember as well, that nuclear only starts producing once it's fully done. Renewables we can add to the mix today. Every MW of dirty energy saved now has a cumulative effect on the total emitted carbon.

Nice proof there?

Wray initially came out saying it was still unclear if Trump was hit. After investigation it was concluded he was.

I cited sources and showed evidence, you haven't shown anything. Either find some proof for your assertions or admit you were wrong.

There was nothing in between Crooks and Trump that was hit and could have launched shrapnel at Trump. And it's hilarious to think the USSS "hip-checked" him when we have clear photo evidence of two skin-grazings on his ear.

Never really noticed a difference tbh, I think it's mostly similar.

No, this is not the case. The alternative for on-demand is batteries, not nuclear. Building sufficient battery capacity is often already cheaper than nuclear and by the time a nuclear reactor is finished building it's guaranteed to be much cheaper. Nuclear is also terrible at being on-demand: it's extremely expensive to shut off and restart, and pretty slow at it too. That means that it has to compete with cheap renewable energy at peak hours, which it easily loses. So you'd either have to subsidize it to keep it open, or force people to buy nuclear power which makes power more expensive (see France which has to subsidize the reactors, requires people to buy that power and as a result is constantly having to subsidize the people's electricity bills too, covering a part of it. It costs the French government billions every year).

Nuclear also doesn't help to get you off coal and gas quickly. It's extremely slow to adopt.

Economic considerations are important. If you get can 1MW of clean power for X money, or 2MW instead, which is best to use? Less money spent per green MW means more green MWs in total.

For the environment, it's likely best (eg lowest total emissions) to invest in renewables and storage, and to fill up the gaps during this adoption with gas. Gas is not great but it's much better than coal, it's great at on-demand scaling and it's pretty cheap. This frees up enough money to keep investing in renewables which accelerates adoption.

The point is that no sane company touches nuclear with a ten-mile pole unless heavily subsidised, because it's economically very challenging (if not impossible) to get it to run at a profit. It's essentially a big money sink that also produces power.

Whereas alternatives, like renewables, cost a lot less and have a much more immediate return. It's why companies do like to invest in those.

Nuclear as an option is badly outclassed economically.

Factcheck showing no images or video of broken glass nearby: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-rumor-shards-glass-232900180.html

FBI also confirmed the bullet lightly grazed him: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/07/30/congress/no-doubt-trump-was-hit-by-bullet-00171861

(Paywalled) NYT analysis also suggests it was a bullet: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/us/politics/trump-shooter-bullet-trajectory-ear.html

Independent forensic experts also weighed in stating it's extremely unlikely it wasn't a bullet:

Diaczuk echoed the Times’ findings, pointing out that there were no objects between Crooks and Trump that logically could have created flying debris, and that the podium and seats behind Trump happened to be positioned in such a way that the laws of physics made it unlikely he was hit by a fragment of either, he told The Independent.

Do you have any evidence that shows where the supposed glass shrapnel came from? I understand not liking Trump (I detest him too), but come on. It was an assassination attempt, he was very lightly grazed by the bullet.