News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy by pmiller2 on Friday September 27, 2019 @08:54PM (#21097629)
I can say that: fusion is objectively better than fossil fuels because it’s a sustainable source of energy that doesn’t destroy future generations’ prospects for a decent life. If you were to calculate the real costs of fossil fuels, including the effects on climate, I’m sure fusion comes out ahead. We don’t consider those costs typically, so we’re effectively externalizing them onto future generations.
Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy by mypalmike on Friday September 27, 2019 @09:51PM (#21097854)
It's hard to say a hypothetical energy source (commercially-viable fusion) is objectively better than one that actually exists.
Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy by pmiller2 on Friday September 27, 2019 @10:04PM (#21097902)
A hypothetical, completely clean energy source is objectively better than one that emits greenhouse gasses, on its face.
Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy by LanceH on Friday September 27, 2019 @11:45PM (#21098290)
I'll counter with a hypothetical way to clean up greenhouse gases using fossil fuels.

That is, until something can be put into production, it is not a superior product.

Re:Dog-walking startup Wag raised $300M, then things got messy by pmiller2 on Saturday September 28, 2019 @12:33AM (#21098470)
Ok, let’s add “renewable” to the equation. How do fossil fuels stack up to a clean, renewable source of energy?