News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Vertical farming does not save space by throwaway894345 on Thursday February 18, 2021 @04:36PM (#26185978)
The sunk cost fallacy is about continuing to incur additional sunk costs. The parent is arguing that we're going to have to pay $X/year to manage the nuclear waste we've already incurred and that the cost is fixed--adding more nuclear waste isn't going to increase the cost. Whether those claims are true may be up for debate, but it's certainly not a sunk cost fallacy.
Re:Vertical farming does not save space by marshray on Thursday February 18, 2021 @04:46PM (#26186118)
He's arguing (to paraphrase) "Because we've already incurred such costs we should continue or even expand the policy which caused them."

Claiming that hazardous nuclear waste represents a fixed cost no matter how much you generate is simply absurd.

Re:Vertical farming does not save space by charlesju on Thursday February 18, 2021 @06:41PM (#26187427)
Do you have any data that says the cost (ie. money or security) is materially increased from this point forward given the space to store is truly small.
Re:Vertical farming does not save space by marshray on Friday February 19, 2021 @02:25PM (#26196937)
No, because the US currently has no such long term storage facility in operation.