weavejester

The water source is used only for cooling; the heated steam is condensed and fed back into the reactor in a closed loop. While cooling is more difficult in space than on Earth, it's not impossible.

All sources of power require some amount of mined materials, even if its just in construction. Nuclear waste is much less problematic than CO2 emissions, and nuclear power has the advantage of providing a consistent base load.

Is a catastrophic, world-ending feedback loop likely based on what we understand? The IPCC reports paint a grim future, but I don't believe any has suggested that it's likely the entire Earth will be rendered completely uninhabitable to human life.

If a system is poorly understood, then by definition it cannot be factored into predictions. When we say something is "unlikely" we mean "it is unlikely based on what we understand". I don't think it's very useful to ask, "Well, is it unlikely based on what we don't understand?", because that's not a question that can be answered.

No; at least, that's unlikely. But parts of the world that are currently habitable will be made inhabitable, and biodiversity will continue to fall. We'll likely see more extreme weather events, increased migration from areas that are too hot or underwater, and issues with global food supply. Coral reefs may completely disappear.

However, progress is being made, and while it's not as quick as we'd like, carbon emissions for modern economies like the US and EU are on a downward curve. In 2021 EU's carbon emissions were back to pre-1967 levels, while the US's carbon emissions were back to pre-1979 levels (Source). So there's cause for hope; the worst thing we can do is give up. Everything we do now lessens the scale of the problem in future.

Unlikely; a quicker victory against Russia would be more damaging politically to Putin, and a "weaker" Russia isn't necessarily a less dangerous Russia, as nukes don't need a lot of manpower to operate.

The problem is that the GPL states:

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

Red Hat are arguing that they are free to punish customers from exercising their rights under the GPL, and that punishment does not constitute a "restriction", even though its done specifically to discourage people from exercising those rights. Whether Red Hat have found a loophole is something for the courts to decide, but it's clearly against the intention and spirit of the GPL.

Cookies can only be read by the same domain (or subdomain). So a cookie set by lemmy.ml couldn't be read by lemmy.world, as their domains are different. This is called the "same-origin policy", and applies to all forms of local storage in browsers.

This is something for the courts to resolve, but it seems to me that there's a good argument to say that threats of future punishment (explicit or implied) would constitute a "further restriction" under the GPL.

I don't believe this would be possible without relying on a userscript or a centralised site.

It doesn't seem likely that would be allowed, as it would arguably constitute a restriction on distribution, which the GPL explicitly forbids.