haweemwho
Now combine that with nuclear winter and resulting consequences for crops and lifestock. We don't all need to die directly from bombs. Just a minor disruption in stability and hunger and civil unrest do the rest.
[1] It's pretty fascinating how vulnerable our societies are. Other results are things like .. 3 days power outage and you'd also be on the verge of civil war if government doesn't immediately pour in enormous resources in crisis management.
I'd turn your argument around. We seem to not care about any of the N-1 species. Why treat the remaining one specially? Because we belong to it? I don't find that convincing. Maybe we're focusing too much on individual freedom that suddenly caring about the species as a whole seems is odd. The population around me, as a whole, is giving pretty few f*ks about me. I basically just return that attitude.
Or, to formulate it differently, I'd get on board caring about not just the survival but flourishing of our species, if we'd extend that courtesy to all the other species around us.
Even if you are laid off at Google or Facebook, with those on your resume, anybody will take you, unless you are some weird incompetent fluke. If you didn't get a new grant, you'll have a hard time in academia. Good luck switching institutions once you are unsuccessful in the grant game.
This.
Even with tenure in place, I'd never go to academia. So much politics, worry about grants, immobility in what to do research in, low compensation compared to industry jobs, so much frustration, frustrated and bitter colleagues... It's terrible. I love working with colleagues that all have the best interest of the workplace in mind. I find that in industry a lot. In academia it's really rare.
You'd be shocked how many people in the software industry regard Turing machines as some esoteric construct that is of no value and wasn't necessary for the invention of the iPhone or Javascript.
Sounds like reflection to me, if anything.
The sentence is just as disingenuous as the initial sentence that I criticized.
Directly? Probably not. But the contamination from fallout is more than sufficient to poison a significant fraction of humans over a not-too-long time horizon and provide everybody else with a significant cancer risk. The ensuing chaos and resulting breakdown of civilization will do the rest. Don't believe it? Ever seen the panic when toilet paper is at risk to run out at Walmart?
Those who still remember the Chernobyl disaster are aware what that meant for Europe. A single plant, and everybody got warned and could take precautions.
Eh, what? That's not a very nice thing to say.
> So tell me
No, I don't need to. I refuted a claim. You can move the goal posts, but I won't participate in that game.
Obviously a coal plant emits more CO2 than a nuclear fission plant. But the criticized sentence contained the words "carbon free". Which is just not true. I don't see how pointing that out is FUD.
Nobody claimed that other species do. That has little to do with the question of why I should care about our's surviving.
That is not the truth. The typical fuel cycle in fission plants is 3-6 years.
"But it does!"
"Well so does every other foo!"
You see that this is not a good argument, don't you?
Celebrate.
Sure people don't charge their Tesla at noon when solar production peaks, but saving that until the evening when the 15 miles use of the car battery need to refill is not a significant engineering challenge. Running a nuclear power plant is magnitudes harder.
> All those factors are usually brought up in detail for things like solar and wind plants. It's just disingenuous not to count them for nuclear power.
I did not talk about how much energy is provided or what to do about freight haulers.
> If you believe that carbon emissions are an existential threat to human survival
FWIW, I don't believe that. Humans will survive, unless we do something like a nuclear weapons armageddon, but that's not because of climate change. Not directly at least. Those of us in privileged will have an easier time adapting to a changing climate, the rest of our species won't have it so easy. And later generations will need to live with the consequences as well. But they will adapt too. If they've never seen a frozen north pole, it will not be odd to them.
Even if it was an existential threat to human survival, I wouldn't care. Why would I? It's a species that mostly doesn't care about other species survival. Did you recently check how many species we have brought to extinction? Over 90% of large predatory fish are gone (shark, tuna, ...). Buffalos almost went extinct. Gorillas, sea turtles, .. I don't think the human species has much moral ground to argue it should survive and I won't move a finger to help.
I mean, you can try, but then energy shortage is not on top of the list of problems that the population has.
Ramping up from 40% to 100% increases land use by orders of magnitude? Did I miss something?
If this sounds too complicated an engineering challenge then let's not even start to talk about the engineering challenges that would make nuclear safer than it is today. That's a whole different ballpark.
You can stop reading right there as this immediately identifies this piece as disingenuous at best, more likely though propaganda.
The whole process is definitely not "carbon-free". Uranium extraction, transport and processing produce emissions. Building the plants and maintaining them does. Eventually demolishing does. Transporting the used fuel as well as building and maintaining storage facilities does.
All those factors are usually brought up in detail for things like solar and wind plants. It's just disingenuous not to count them for nuclear power.
I'm wondering how this squares with the tendency of formal language theory folks to push for functional languages. It's clearly a preferred approach if rigorous correctness is your main goal, but don't functional languages like Haskell suffer from the fundamental issue that reasoning about runtime performance is really hard?
Something does not add up here. The original article claimed that an employee saw the mouse pointer move and do things, like a ghost, or a hacker who had taken over the machine remotely. Now they say the employee made a mistake and alerted a superior. And was not fired for it, cause if people make mistakes, they should speak out, and punishing them would set precedent and next time somebody would keep quiet and not point out the error.
All fine, but these two stories don't match. Did the mouse pointer move without the employee doing this or not? It's one thing to click incorrectly, but did they actually say that the mouse pointer moved? If so, that's a blatant lie and they should obviously be fired for it. If not, then whoever made up that story should be fired for it. Somebody didn't tell the truth here, and there should be consequences for it. Honest mistakes can be forgiven. Making up things can't.