The costs of climate change are costs the people and our governments have to bear; just look at the billions in damage done by the recent hurricanes.

Those costs are a subsidy to the “cheap” fossil fuels we’ve been using. In fact, fossil fuels receive a ton of subsidies upfront too. Nuclear can be subsidised too.

I don’t have faith our governments will switch to 100% renewable, and any fossil fuel is too much fossil fuel given how far we have already gone. We need to actively start scrubbing CO2 out of the atmosphere, and we’re going to need as much power as we can generate for that.

Nuclear is expensive because it’s relatively rare. Economies of scale don’t apply to it as is. If we start building, it will become cheaper. Not cheap, perhaps, but cheaper. And it’s a cost worth paying. We are already paying the price for the “cheap” fossil fuels.

And I think, you have absolutely no idea how incredibly expensive nuclear power is.

Less expensive than whatever the fuck we’ve been doing with our climate these last 100 years. But those aren’t direct costs, so who the hell cares.

Big names attract followers, whether you like it or not. A certain name being on a certain platform may be the deciding factor for a hundred others. So it becoming easier to post everywhere, giving others more choice, is a good thing.

It’s dead now

But what if it turns out we do need it in 10 years?

All renewable everything is cool, but that’s also going to require a lot of storage for the days where it isn’t so windy or sunny. I think having nuclear to cover (some of) the base load on the grid will be very helpful.

• Where we should keep the waste, since we have not yet found a place for the decades’ worth of nuclear waste we already have.

Pumping all of our waste into the atmosphere is a much better solution!

How should we get nuclear plants running in any time frame relevant to our current problems?

If we had started building them the first time that question was asked we’d have them by now.

There’s also one in the UK Tom Scott did a video on.

They are desperate for children though

Vivaldi is my backup browser, but I don’t want to contribute to Chromium’s market share so Firefox it is 99% of the time.

It’s not like the Republican house thwarted all of Biden’s efforts either

Yes but actually no because the massive IP holders will still sue the everliving shit out of you.

They’ll happily take your art though.

For added perspective: spending a million as a billionaire is the same as spending $1 when you have $1000 in your bank account.

It is utterly meaningless.

I assume it blocks something from loading, but I wouldn’t exactly know. I haven’t looked into it.

Ah, I guess I read over the first bit to where you mentioned the rebrands, which didn’t include Safari.

To still add some useful information: all browsers on iOS are rebranded Safari, because Apple only permits their own browser engine.

(The EU ruling may change this, however)

No. A hamburger menu has bars, not dots.

Apple also maintains their own browser engine, but that’s Apple.

I just wanted to add to it

Given the context of the video, I think they’re pretty funny.

Testicles are just descended egg sacks

I quite liked Stephanie’s video about Veilguard’s forced “guyversity” and “himclusion”.

Public transport does not need to make a profit.