No, I’m saying that both water vapor and more harmful emissions are similar from an aesthetic perspective - which is why some laymen are under the impression that nuclear plants have harmful emissions.

This isn’t a discussion of emissions, it’s a discussion of aesthetics.

The U.S has no moral high ground to stand on here, especially under current leadership.

Subways give zero shits about inclement weather.

Spotify and Major Music Labels

RTOs are most often a “one free layoff”-card that businesses play, so firing someone for criticizing it is very much in line with the underlying intent of the policy.

Savoury, funky, sour, fermenty. It’s a pretty complex flavour.

You’re not expected to buy at and try alone, and the chances of getting an invite to such a party are pretty slim, all things considered - this is only really consumed in a specific region of the north, moreso by the older generations than the younger ones.

It’s far from a must-try experience, though. You can rest easily having made peace with never trying it.

It’s not going to be a 100% effective tool, but it doesn’t have to be. We have other means of dealing with criminals.

In this scenario, a long prison sentence along with a permanent ban on operating vehicles seems warranted.

Complete hands-off no-review no-technical experience vibe coding is obviously snake oil, yeah.

This is a pretty large problem when it comes to learning about LLM-based tooling: lots of noise, very little signal.

So far, there is serious cognitive step needed that LLM just can’t do to get productive. They can output code but they don’t understand what’s going on. They don’t grasp architecture. Large projects don’t fit on their token window.

There’s a remarkably effective solution for this, that helps both humans and models alike - write documentation.

It’s actually kind of funny how the LLM wave has sparked a renaissance of high-quality documentation. Who would have thought?

Surströmming is an interesting case. Most of the country does not eat it, and it’s not the kind of thing you usually go pick up in a restaurant - eating Surströmming is an occasion, one that warrants a special feast that you arrange at home and invite friends and family to.

Most of the videos online (intentionally) eat it wrong. Don’t open cans indoors, don’t drink the liquid and don’t eat the fish themselves without anything accompanying them.

To eat surströmming properly, you want to first open the fish and clean out the bones, then make them one component in a flatbread sandwich (hard flatbread is traditional) along with butter, potatoes, chopped red onions, sour cream, and chives. They should then be accompanied by large quantities of snaps, hard liquor consumed as shots.

Surströmming is kind of like fish sauce - the production method is similar, they both smell kind of wild, and taste very different from what they smell. I also think they serve similar culinary functions - surströmming is in my opinion best thought of as a condiment adding interesting flavours to the dish they are used in.

The smell is ghastly though. I was not a fan of the Surströmming parties my parents hosted as a kid, and tried my best to stay clear those days.

All good!

For checking out the true Classics of Swedish cuisine, look for dishes belonging to the Husmanskost-family. Pytt i panna is one, meatballs is another, fried pork with onion sauce is one of my all-time favourites.

Haven’t had pickled beetroot yet, though.

It’s pretty alright. It’s my favourite way of eating beetroots, which I guess isn’t saying much given that I’m not that into them.

That’s not how grids work and I think you know it

Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.

The 90’s are irrelevant when it comes to discussing renewables. The price has dropped by 99% since then. It’s literally not even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, we would probably have been in a better place if we built nuclear in the past. Hindsight and everything. Does that mean it’s wise to do public investment in nuclear today? Not even a little bit.

We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.

Zero grounds for this being the case.

2 people, about €300 spent in grocery stores monthly, with the caveat that both of us get some level of food at work.

You’d have to bundle a whole lot more to get it to run. It’s not strictly speaking out of the question though

I’m not anti-nuclear, as is beyond clear from the post I wrote.

I even spelled out in my post that we should keep the ones that exist running.

Rushing regulatory for a construction project where failures are as severe as they can potentially be with nuclear is beyond deranged.

Getting to the timelines you’re mentioning would require a mature nuclear industry with standardized builds, something which would take more than a decade to develop, at a steep premium.

Again, I support any investor willing to go there to do so, but there’s a good reason none do - these things quite simply do not pencil out.

Allow existing nuclear to keep operating? Yes

Allow new nuclear to be built, assuming the constructors fully finance and assume the risk of the project themselves? Also yes

Subsidize nuclear over renewables? No

Allow nuclear to be used as a wedge for the fossil fuel propaganda machine to keep their emissions going, since building nuclear takes decades and costs far more than renewables, displacing potential investment in renewables? Not a chance in hell

I have nothing ideological against nuclear, but it is way overdue that nuclear boosters face the music and acknowledge what role the technology is having in the political landscape at the moment.