The same was said about the single market, we're leaving that now contrary to statements by:
Owen Paterson
Daniel Hannan
Nigel Farage
Matthew Elliot
Arron Banks
Broadcast TVs are using this to cram more ads in the same timeslot as you said, which is IMO somewhat unethical, as it alters the experience for everyone.
In Netflix's case, they're merely adding the option to do it, they have absolutely no plan of speeding up or slowing down the content by default.
It's as if Judd Apatow didn't read the article he's referring to.
Coal power stations produce around 5-10 tonnes of radioactive waste every year. This seems to be ignored for the most part when discussing nuclear energy.
+1. Just to add an explanation, they do so by taking naturally occurring radioactive particles that would otherwise remain locked deep into the Earth, and putting them in the atmosphere.
This should be common knowledge, but almost no one knows it.
how does the rate of radioactivity added to the air compare to farming? Plants with deep roots also extract radioactivity from the ground and then we eat it.
this is a serious question, which of course ties into the concept of "banana equivalent dose", which helps to contextualize claims about radioactivity.
For one thing, plant life is merely repeatedly recycling the mineral content of an only slowly-varying topsoil, while coal-burning is adding new sources.
It is not useful to use the many failings of coal as a fuel to promote nuclear power. Nuclear power does not compete against coal, it competes against wind/solar and natural gas.
The constant refrain of 'but coal ..' from nuclear advocates is just an admission that nuclear power is un-economic and unable to compete in the marketplace against the best options.
Nuclear power does not compete against wind and solar, as wind and solar are intermittent power sources. Nuclear is a firm energy source, in that we can use it to create steady-state power during periods that intermittent sources are not available. Coal is also a firm energy source, so coal and nuclear definitely compete.
This mis-states how electrical generation markets work and relies on the fallacy of "baseload", which is an artifact created by the past-grid domination of large thermal plants for generation.
In my market (Texas/ERCOT) there is no separate market for "firm" power. You either run or you don't on an every-15-minutes basis. You are either a price "taker", or a price "maker". In this market the NPPs are always, always, price "takers".
They absolutely compete with the price makers, which are always either wind, solar, or most commonly, natural gas.
Coal is always a price "taker" in this market as well.
Whether a generator is a "taker" or "maker" in terms of pricing is a function of the economic impact to it of not running in a given bid segment, and its ability to compete in the bidding for the "last MW" of the bid-price stack.
Large thermal plants like NPPs rely very much on the economics of being able to get premium pricing for every single minute of the day and night. In a competetive market they can't do that, because gas/wind/solar can under-price them by very large margins. So the NPPs become un-economic to run (if already running), and very much un-fundable to build as new capacity. The same market force applies to coal.
Your rationale does not address the core argument of the piece, which is that as reliance on intermittent energy sources approaches 100%, their cost will rise steeply.
It's not necessary to do a piece by piece rebuttal of a professional "skeptic", who is a neuroscientist, and whose reasoning relies on someone who worked at Shellenberger's "breakthrough institute", which existed solely to provide pseudo-scientific buttressing for the message that renewable energy is bad, and the climate change, if it's happening, isn't really that bad.
You are essentially using Shellenberger-provided articles as proof that Shellenberger isn't a con artist. It's all bunk. Top to bottom, same game plan.
I refer to them because their arguments make sense to me - they seem measured and nuanced. I've encountered a lot of pseudo-science, and this has none of the hallmarks that I associate with it. The argument is not that renewables are bad, but they alone are not enough. Can you point to something that provides a counter-argument?
Once you combine them with storage and peakers, intermittent renewable sources do compete with other base load providers. It's still a work in progress, though.
Unfortunately, in practice nuclear does still compete against coal. It would be wonderful if the choice was between nuclear and renewables, but that is not yet where we are.
Nuclear is still the lesser of the two evils compared to coal and oil, which are very much the only other option in many cases.
Then why do i keep hearing that germany has been producing a lot more pollution since they stopped nuclear power because of coal and gaz being used as a subsitute source of energy ?
Because people are misrepresenting facts (aka. lying)
Germany did not stop using nuclear power, it started phasing it out (which had actually been planned long before Fukushima), and has not been producing more pollution because it has in fact been replacing coal and gas as well as nuclear with renewable sources: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
From 7th May PayPal have lost my business, as has any business which uses paypal exclusively. This is a completely customer hostile stance and shows capitalism at its worst.
Capitalism is free market which allows you to switch providers freely and, if enough people agree with you, it will eventually create a market force that will make PayPal step back or lose it's business.
It may be greed and lack of sight from PayPal side, but capitalism tends to adjust itself.
Sadly in the US its creditcards or PayPal. Banking system is archaic as hell, no innovation in decades. The big American banks could digitalize and utterly rape PayPal if they wanted but why bother?
Can I really switch payment processors freely as a consumer? Or is my choice mostly to eat higher prices (^F “cost of doing business” to see my other comment), or not shop using PayPal?
Isn’t the point of “disruption” so popular in startup culture to leverage the agility of smaller enterprises (and even a pitch used to rise capital) the tool to fight old paradigms? My point being that it isn’t “capitalism” fault, but that the markets are lagging behind the demand and it will fix itself eventually (again, see Stripe efforts in this matter for example).
PayPal is long past the startup phase, though. They're a very well established player, and as such they have power they can leverage. A lot of people feel bound to use PayPal despite disliking the way they operate. That by itself is a sign of the market not doing what it's supposed to do in the ideal case.
Markets certainly don't always automatically fix itself. They require oversight and regulation, or else they tend to result in cartels and monopolies. The free market is great when it works well, but quite often it needs a bit of help.
A harmless offence by Apple? Consider that AI facial recognition is already known to have a bias which disproportionally affects people of colour [1]. Then consider that in the US the police also have documented bias against the same group [2]. This particular incident may have had a relatively small effect on this individual, but the potential for harm for this group of people when using this technology is increased by its use. That to my mind makes its use unacceptable for law enforcement, at least until this bias is addressed and corrected.
If police officers are more likely to stop a black person, then yes, black people will be caught doing more crimes than other groups.
That doesn't say that other groups don't commit just as many crimes, it means that they get caught less frequently because they're not black (and therefore not stopped as often).
I expect to see such a foolish argument on t_d, not HN.
why are they more likely? beacuse that group commits more crimes? cops stop people in some neighborhoods more often too because those places have more crime. its just facts.
getting caught less frequently? you mean because of committing less crimes? the same data shows up even when the police officers are black.
Ok, I accept that Vox is not the best source of information on this matter. Here is a compilation of studies where the author has tried to include either peer-reviewed studies or reviews of data that tend to speak for themselves and don’t require much statistical analysis. he notes that most (but not all) of these studies do factor in variables that address common claims such as that the criminal-justice system discriminates more by class than by race, or that racial discrepancies in sentencing or incarceration can be explained by the fact that black people commit more crimes. And he's also included a section for studies that do not find bias in various aspects of the criminal-justice system. There are far fewer of these, though he is open to the possibility that he missed some.[1]
Check out the Mui wood display (https://mui.jp/#en). It seems as though it would fit a kitchen display quite nicely. When not in use it doesn't even resemble a display of any kind, it is a little pricey though.
Very interesting to see how a particular style of game can have beneficial effects on attention. I wonder if the opposite is also true, although I'm sure there's some ethical issue with trying to find out.
