The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it’s weakest link in terms of safety.

Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.

Video

If sapolsky is to be believed we have the natural inclination to view in- and out- group as part of our brain. Everything else is learned or a coping mechanism. I guess this is why people propose lived multiculturalism especially during childhood as a solution to xenophobia.

No matter if he can be believed or not on this fact the book is fun wiki

Rojava wants a few words.

You are right but also wrong at the same time. People might be able to be antisemitic without being Nazis, but if they are in this way afraid or in rejection of ‘the other’ they’ve certainly at least been taught this kind of thinking by a fascist that tries to exploit both them and ‘the other’ for their own gain. In this way the Israeli right wing Government as well as IDF and police are thoroughly fascist just as much and in exactly the same way as Hamas are. “no blacks, no dogs, no Jews” can not be put up by a person that hasn’t been taught to reject others in this way, this rejection is the fascist lie they have internalized, and it is the reason why we call them a fascist.

The splintering of this concept of rejection into, antisemitism racism homophobia Islamophobia patriarchy … isn’t useful when trying to reject the ideas of their suppression, it only muddies the waters. They are the same struggle against unjustified oppression, in parts of which we may be a benefactor, and in other parts we may be oppressed, this shouldn’t make their existence any more justifiable.

To cowardly to scream so I hiss at the mirror instead.

Only if you see no alternative does treating them as the same actually benefit the crappier, if you realise resonably well that they are two sides of the same coin, and realise that this coin doesn’t create much good, it just exploits people. You can vote so that the less crappy ones survive as long as the really crappy ones are a threat, but also fight against the liberals as well if they are currently keeping you down.

Sure it might be hard to imagine a socialist US but if that’s not the goal then you might be missunderstanding the meme quite frankly.

Not accepting Wikipedia as some reasonable baseline for truthful or commonly accepted definitions is the sort of hill I wouldn’t want to die on but sure. Especially for content that is so politically contentious Wikipedia usually settles on a reasonably holistic description where other outlets will leave out downplay or politically color certain parts of definitions, obviously this happens there too, but it’s more likely to be corrected especially on divisive Issues. I mean you can go ahead and read the discussion page related to a topic and find out why and how sections came to be.

I’m not trying to lecture you I simply think that having any discussion is impossible if there is no shared understanding. Which is why I deferred to Wikipedia simply the most common database of knowledge in the world. The articles there might show me to be ignorant, but unlike you I’ve at least read parts of them with the intent to understand the information provided. Which I do to some extent not to completely accept what is said there but just to effectively communicate with other people, because Wikipedia gets close to a common definition for anything you might be talking about.

It’s not about a completely factual definition because the topic is way to complex and nuanced to have one that isn’t at least several long books, everyone lacks understanding of the topic because it’s impossible in many ways to have a complete understanding of it. That’s why it’s a philosophical topic and not a natural science, the topic is currently completely impenetrable for the scientific method alone.

It is interesting and important to discuss precisely because it’s so hard to grasp, so multifaceted and so central to all of our lives at the same time. And as I said before if we can’t agree on baseline definitions all that potentially interesting discussion is lost on us.

I don’t even really know where to start. First is probably that you don’t get to define words on a whim and that your definition of both capitalism and socialism lacks understanding. Just read the Wikipedia entry for both and you’ll find them better defined within the first sentence of their respective entry.
And honestly I’m too tired to properly explain all the traps you fell into after that so good luck with your Libertarian socialist dream or something idk

I’m not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that’s one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.

This might be true in some sense of talking about this topic but putting economic freedom as the marker for capitalist/socialist tendencyes of a country is a strange choice. No normal person will go yeah these two social democracies are actually more capitalist, than the 5 companies that make up the US government.

Idk in my world Denmark and Slovenia aren’t as capitalist as the US while being significantly more democratic.

But only for the 4 weeks a year you spend in unusually cold weather, the other 48 it’s more efficient.

It’s not like truly arctic places are a reasonable application but the overwhelming majority of our population lives south of Quebec and north of Wellington. So it’s not a relevant point, everyone in the Arctic can just use resistive heating or burn fuel, and if we get everything else on heat pumps we reduce our enegy use by a factor of 2-3 regardles.

And you are ignoring the appeal of an obvious joke that’s designed to be annoying to liberals/centrists and whatever. But also just be funny to everyone else. This sub is memes the twitter account is obvious ragebait/ shit posting just from the name alone…

The key here is “enjoyable” not “making their lives miserable” it doesn’t matter whether anyone actually suffers or any change is enacted, it’s a joke it’s primary purpose is to be funny. It’s secondary or tertiary purpose might be propaganda or education or whatever, it’s still mostly just funny, for people that get it at least.

The joke here is on some level obviously includes the absurdity of arguments constructed against a nonsense critique trying to defend a system that the people arguing don’t even really realize the joke is critiquing. Which is why the account tries to amp up the absurdity with their (non) dismissal of the pointles arguments.

To pull this whole joke into a more centrist perspective it’s like posting whatever inclusive or “woke” idea on /pol/ and just typing nonsense as the replies to the highly structured but deeply misunderstanding shit that /pol/ will dream up on that given day. And having a great laugh about it.

Just that we exchange /Pol/ for twitter which is now apparently partially musk dickridig and as such a conservative late stage capitalist realist echo chamber. And we laugh at the stupid defenses they spin up for a non attack on their chosen saviour. Where the point of the joke is so obviously not understood by the people replying, but obviously understood by people voting here.

And probably only partially understood by you, and or me, but that’s something we don’t need to get into, because if we do, we are again missing the point of the joke.

I think the fundamental issue left is just that I don’t accept one standard to ever be good enough for all direct message communication, I also hope EU legislation will make the situation better. But I also believe we should know our tech and use it because we have a good reason to.

In the end of the day making good open standards should probably be easier than it is. More generally I think closed tech (IP) shouldn’t exist, but neither good standards nor open tech exists in the real world unfortunately.

So as a consequence I just want people to make informed decisions to exploit what already exists in accordance with their own demands, whether I get them there by bullying or teaching or discussing is mostly just semantics to me. And if a group or person uses what seems from my perspective to be a bad tool, it is in my view a disservice to myself and them not to at least try a little to get them to use it.

Ty for the conversation as well, I had a feeling that you were actually trying to understand what I wanted to get across so I just sorta kept talking…

Generally I often notice people here are closer to me in position which makes for more interesting discussion, but it can also take quite some time to get to the actual disagreements because the disagreement are so slight.

I’m not sure how you come to this staggering conclusion, an honest attempt at teaching is completely impossible without empathy, but yes it sometimes involves conflict, the important thing is to be patient, and invest what you can give into people you actually care about. I would hope that includes your parents, but I understand it might not.

Well if someone is stupid and my bullying gets them a bit out of their stupidity I don’t think it’s too bad. Also this is largely not a problem where I live, my mom asked if we could use signal because she disliked WhatsApp because of privacy, and I just installed signal, my dad still uses WhatsApp, my friends and I use telegram and discord. I’ve actually never had to do any real bullying because in the real world everyone understands the issue enough for us to get somewhere sensible.

It’s neither rude nor pointless to explain software to users who are less adept with software, sometimes it won’t work but, it also sometimes does just work, especially with chat apps, it’s literally just replacing an icon, because on the UI side they are very similar. And I hate to tell you this but not providing tech support if you are good at it also just doesn’t help, it just makes us collectively stupider. Sure don’t burn yourself out on users who can get nothing right, but like teach your parents colleagues and friends some fundamentals that you seem to understand, if only because it makes your life easier.

Yes I can’t do shit about communication systems not being standardized to the degree I’d like and with the features I’d want.

So what I try to do is try to bully people until they use an app that everyone can be relatively happy with, SMS is essentially the only one I don’t accept because it’s 20 years old and doesn’t behave sensibly for the modern area.

I can understand that standards help interoperability but realize that for SMS, obviously that has failed because apple has rejected RCS for now and developed a default experience that is better. I don’t control any of that shit. I can just tell people to install chat apps if they want to talk to me. And I can bully them if they don’t.

The network is a network of communicating software so the standard can be installed by default or after the fact, it doesn’t make a difference if everyone would just install software. Being angry at apple or WhatsApp or whatever for not writing a messenger you like is sorta stupid, they are companies they’ll never do what you want, being a angry at users that refuse to use options freely available to them can at least improve the situation for me because they can install what I, or they want to use.

The thing is it’s a specific standard that just hasn’t kept up, you shouldn’t be married to any software, and you should be able to decide yourself what you use, I can’t change what big tech does with their software, but I can call people stupid for not using the ability of their computers to run custom software.

I despise the trend of people not realizing what they legitimately can do with their hardware, because they were just too scared to install software. I so often stumble upon people who can’t accomplish simple tasks because they are terrified of installing software, and this messaging thing is definitely one of these issues.

Essentially if you are given a library of software, and you have a problem that is solved by installing software, why would you not install software, it’s mostly free, and requires only the briefest thought about what you want and where you can find it.

Because it provides a better experience, weather it’s WhatsApp telegram, Signal threema or even discord or teams, they all provide a significant feature advantage over SMS. This starts with properly handling multimedia, not giving your number up to everyone else, proper groups, your messages living in the cloud for proper multi device functionality, your messages living unencrypted only on your device… There is plenty of real advantages with their associated side effects.

SMS as a standard is simply too old for modern expectations, this doesn’t make modern expectations stupid just because the standard is not being kept up to date. I have not written a single SMS since 2013 or so, and my life is better for it. Also there is definitely open third party chat apps that provide an open standard that can just be installed as one of a few apps, the problem here is that potentially no one is using them.

The main advantage of a computer in your pocket against earlier phones is that you can fundamentally install any software you want, not just what the device manufacturer deems acceptable, so why would anyone not take advantage of this for messaging is beyond me.