tb_

You mean the underage “dating” servers?

this can’t be an accurate or reasonably accurate depiction, these are two completely different storms in a different category after all.

What do you mean? This shows the differences between the two.

But you just said

Mozilla could have focused on being user-supported through fundraising like Wikipedia.

It is an option.

Clearly it isn’t working well enough for them.

It’s a long one, but Climate Town did a great video on this.

You can donate to Mozilla.

Perhaps they should’ve put that more front and center. But if they add a prominent donate button the people on here would probably lose their shit too.

True. But as long as that isn’t the case, may as well fix the wording and raise awareness.

Or plastic greenhouses

We’ll find someone else to blame, like women!

Wait, no–

Magnetic field ≠ electric field

Especially considering buybacks used to be illegal.

No points for guessing which president legalised the practice.

In the US it tends to be the other way around 🥁

So do most “alternative” search engines, often with some of their own spice on top.

I know Startpage happens to use Google in their back-end, but Google’s policy is a lot more restrictive than Microsoft’s given their market position.

I thought captcha’s worked in a way where they provided some known good examples, some known bad examples, and a few examples which aren’t certain yet. Then the model is trained depending on whether the user selects the uncertain examples.

Also it’s very evident what’s being trained. First it was obscured words for OCR, then Google Maps screenshots for detecting things, now you see them with clearly machine-generated images.

I don’t think 100% renewable is the way to go, given that energy output can vary.

And as long as any amount of fossil fuels are left in the energy supply chain, I’d rather they be replaced with nuclear. Even if it’s more expensive.

I’m not making the decision so it doesn’t matter.

Perhaps not directly, but assuming you live in a democracy your vote does matter.

It may not reduce the delta, but we gotta cover the base load somehow. Nuclear is ideal for that job.

I’unno, read the article.

Nuclear doesn’t reduce the difference between supply and demand.

How does it not?
There’s a certain “base load” to any power grid which could easily be done by “inflexible” nuclear powerplants.

Sodium doesn’t address the problem with EV weight.

Inefficiency is fine if you have an abundance of energy.

Running a country exclusively on renewables comes with its own costs in storage and emergency solutions.
I’m not saying “go exclusively nuclear” either. Supplementing it with renewables should be done.

2024, you mean?

I’m not a fan. I prefer watching in theatre mode; when opening comments it closes theatre mode.

Going 100% renewable is going to require an immense amount of storage, nevermind their instability. Any base load we can replace with nuclear is going to lessen that burden.

EV’s are heavy and require a ton of rare Lithium.

Using over capacity to generate hydrogen seems to me like a way to solve that. Hydrogen which in turn can be used to power cars, trucks, ships.

I don’t see how nuclear would slow the transition away from oil and gas.