Lurker > emblem-man

We should build more housing

MangaBroski posted...

So my answer is no. A country where people are terrified to exist because of who may be in charge cannot be the greatest.

This is any democratic country though isn't it? Anyone, with enough votes, can eventually give themselves the power to fuck things up for a certain group of people.

darkace77450 posted...

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4714673-pentagon-refutes-claims-israel-used-us-pier-for-hostage-rescue-mission/

But Pentagon spokesperson Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters the pier was not used for the special operation to rescue hostages kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7, seeking to dispel some of the inaccurate social media allegations about the raid.

The pier facility, including its equipment, personnel and assets, were not used in the [Israeli militarys] operation to rescue hostages in Gaza, Ryder said. Any such claim to the contrary is false.

Ryder acknowledged there was some type of helicopter activity near the pier, but he referred further questions to the Israeli military as to the nature of their operation because it was not associated with the U.S.-pier operation.

Is this still what we know? That they were essentially close to the pier (how close? A mile away? Right next to it?)

The risk was always that if you drill it into their heads to not vote in the primaries, you end up just lowering enthusiasm and the "vibes" end up being bad. And you don't want that bad vibes to lead to low turnout. Let's hope that doesn't happen though

LonelyStoner posted...

I like my idea.

I'm guessing you probably mean a rent increase cap or something?

What's funny is those same people having an issue with this, would then probably vote against the idea of having new homes built in their neighborhood.

Persona posted...

landlords suck as a concept period but it's easy to forget that their suckitude is just a more easily identifiable & understandable suck than companies worklording people

Should homes be able to be rented by people? Or maybe you have a specific definition of landlording

I have no knowledge of this, but that's disappointing and hopefully it's a tech that can be improved upon.

If it doesn't work though, they should wind down the program. If they had good reason to believe this was viable tech, but it's just not working out, then it is what it is. It's good to try out new methods as long as they're able to pivot and cancel as needed.

If this was essentially a scam from the beginning, then bad on them

Tyranthraxus posted...

Well heat by itself isn't a problem, it's the GHG that retain the heat for long periods of time that's the issue.

You're correct, I misunderstood

saspa posted...

Wonder if solar powered AC can be a thing. Have the sun's rays power the very thing that's keeping us cool from said rays.

It is. Solar powered mini splits already exist.

Tyranthraxus posted...

From what I understand, most of the climate change from ACs is the result of the energy needing to power it emitting carbon. The AC unit itself shouldn't be emitting carbon it's just using compressed air to make a cooling breeze.

I think a little bit of heat is emitted, but yeah, the issue is mainly the power generation.

Heating does as well, mainly due to the energy source mostly being gas rather than electricity(and as we use more clean energy, are electricity is regularly getting cleaner). And when heating, there's usually a bigger delta compared to cooling. For example, it's a bigger delta to go from 30f to 70f versus 100f to 70f

But yeah, heat pumps should be used more in the future as it's more efficient in both cooling and heating.

DnDer posted...

It's really sad when Israel had made Palestine so imporverished and economically depressed that the citizens are forced to get paid by the terrorists just to eat.

That's what a ghetto kind of is, so it's not like this outcome wasn't by design, and part of the decades-long slow-roll to ethnic cleansing and genocide...

Yes, fuck Israeli leadership and fuck Hamas

ssjevot posted...

I see this topic got blasted with the usual anti-nuclear talking points. Data speaks for itself:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/214399d4.jpg

Yep. It's why I think this change might end up being a big deal as well:

The NRC is also tasked with rewriting its mission statement to avoid unnecessarily limiting the benefits of nuclear energy technology to society, essentially reinterpreting its raison dtre to include protecting the public against the dangers of not using atomic power in addition to whatever safety threat reactors themselves pose.

You can't just say nuclear is dangerous, you now have to say how/why it's dangerous compared to having to use some other type of energy instead.

Diceheist posted...

This is a country where Elon Musk sunk high speed rail in California because he prefers cars over trains.

The rich have too much influence here. They don't need public transportation or affordable housing, so it isn't prioritized.

Regular people sink public infrastructure just as much as the rich. I'm thinking of like town/city councils who don't like how a building looks aesthetically and will delay and slow it down.
Or people who sue public infrastructure projects do that they don't get built out.

It's a mistake to think it's solely the fault of the rich. It's also the fault of regular people who don't like change and don't want their environments to change.

I say this because it's really all our faults and it's useless to say "blame the rich". When home owners crowd a city council meeting in order to stop new housing being built, that's not the rich.
When an environmental group sues to stop the govt from building transmission lines, that's not the rich.
The rich fuck things up as well. It's just...it's all of us man.

Better at building homes quicker
Building clean energy
Building public transportation
Building roads

We could be doing so fucking well and just have so much abundance of we just didn't suck at building physical things cheaply and quickly.

Also, fuck Hamas
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2eem7e7v30o

Ms Sagi describes how, when she was first taken into Gaza, she and some other hostages were hidden in a family home with children, but the following day taken to an apartment in the southern city of Khan Younis because it was "dangerous".
The apartment owner, Ms Sagi said, told them his wife and children had been sent to stay with his in-laws. The man, she added, was a nurse.
She said students were being paid to watch over them. "I heard them say... 70 shekels [14.82; $18.83] for a day," she said.
"It's a lot of money in Gaza because they have no work. And if you have work not with Hamas, it's no more than 20 shekels for a day," she said.

When they got into the city, Ms Sagi said, they were taken to a hospital - which she believes was southern Gaza's main hospital, Nasser - and told: "You are staying here."
Ms Sagi said: "People say that they are not involved. They're involved... and getting money for each of us."
Testimony from a number of other released hostages places 10 hostages in total at Nasser hospital, one of whom remains in captivity.
When asked by the BBC to comment on Ms Sagis allegations, the hospital's director, Dr Atef al-Hoot, denied that any hostages were kept there and said it only provided humanitarian services.
The Israeli military has previously said its troops detained "about 200 terrorists who were in the hospital" during a raid on Nasser hospital in February, and that they found ammunition as well as unused medicines intended for Israeli hostages.
Hamas has denied Israeli claims that its fighters have been operating inside Nasser and other hospitals across Gaza.

VFalcone posted...

Yeah but Lebanon is its own country, unlike Gaza. You can't just go to war with Hezbollah without going to war with Lebanon themselves. It's like shooting up Mexico because of a cartel attack in Texas. The cartels are powerful, organized groups but they aren't actually the leadership nor do they represent Mexico (yeah I understand that could be twisted a bit considering their illegal power). Shoot up Mexico and you have to fight the cartels AND the military because they obviously won't be okay with that either.

What I'm trying to say is, this is a really bad idea.

Any additional war is bad, I agree. I was just pushing back a bit on the comment that it was being done purely as land grab.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I was saying it more tongue in cheek to him since he mentioned making it illegal for cyclists to be on the road.

I mean, I do agree we should have protected bike lanes for cyclists, but I'm aware it's not a popular item due to drivers.

voldothegr8 posted...

Honestly, government simply needs to make it illegal for cyclists to be on roads with motor vehicles. This asshole is a total piece of shit and I hope they throw the book at him, but these incidents, accident or not, would be severely reduced if we just kept cyclists off roads.

We should reduce the size and number of car lanes to build protected bike lanes.

WTF is happening in this topic

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

his post that he responded to included ways to help promote clean energy.

I think they used that to show that stunts arent the only way this can be accomplished

Yes this.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/8/8e7d9adc.jpg

I hope that person is trolling

emblem-man posted...

Not much. The question is if their limited money and influence can be put to better use?
I don't know much about the UK, but in the US a much better usage of time would be to influence permitting reform in states and nationwide to allow for the building of clean power. Or to allow for building new transmission lines for all the new clean tech we're building. We literally have issues where due to bad laws and people not wanting to see transmission lines, we can't build transmission lines fast enough to incorporate new power that we're building.
Go convince legislatures for permitting reform. Go convince cities to make it easier to build dense homes, etc.

They can do more than just create stunts.

theAteam posted...

Be careful when talking about "planned" projects. I develop them for a living and the number of projects that are in the pipeline vs the ones that actually get built are very different numbers. It is continuously getting more difficult to develop and build solar as local opposition gets more organized, regulations get tighter, and the more ideal/easier to build places get developed (meaning more up front cost and effort to get planned projects off the ground). You can talk about lowering costs all you want but if you get stonewalled by the local municipality because some Koch-backed opposition group filled the local zoning board with anti-solar nutbags in the last election you're not building, period.

Rising interest rates killed most the solar development in my last company to the extent they had a huge wave of layoffs last year. This was a company that was building 10-12 large scale projects per year at one point. Financing is always a challenge and is becoming more so when the returns required by the financiers need to be higher, while you're spending more of your own cash to get projects to a point you can even put it in front of a bank to review for investment.

Make no mistake projects are still getting built and at a good clip but it's only going to get more difficult to build from here, not easier.

This is not even to touch on lack of transmission infrastructure to get power from the sunny places you can feasibly build to the cities where you can't. Nuclear you could have more locations where you can build closer to places you need it.

I do think solar has a large role to play in the future but I also think it's going to take a variety of sources to get us where we need to be i.e. away from fossil fuels. Both renewables and nuclear can co-exist to achieve that.

*Sigh*
I know man. Gotta be optimistic though.

It's insane how a barrier is people blocking these projects from being built. We can't even fucking build transmission lines.

Per.jttjng reform is what's ultimately needed

TMOG posted...

How much money and influence do you honestly believe these protesters have available to them?

Not much. The question is if their limited money and influence can be put to better use?
I don't know much about the UK, but in the US a much better usage of time would be to influence permitting reform in states and nationwide to allow for the building of clean power. Or to allow for building new transmission lines for all the new clean tech we're building. We literally have issues where due to bad laws and people not wanting to see transmission lines, we can't build transmission lines fast enough to incorporate new power that we're building.
Go convince legislatures for permitting reform. Go convince cities to make it easier to build dense homes, etc.

TMOG posted...

People missing the point that they target things like Stonehenge and the Mona Lisa for visibility, not because they legitimately think that they'll get the oil companies themselves to feel bad and stop.

They're trying to get their message out there in a way that regular people will actually take notice of. Nobody gives a shit if soup or paint is thrown on the windows of a skyscraper or an oil rig, but throw it on Stonehenge and now EVERYONE is talking about it.

Regardless of the optics you know who they are and what they want. Mission accomplished.

And it's a bad mission if that's all they want. We stop using oil by building new technologies and methods that allow for a transition away from oil. They should focus on improving the ability for us to do those things.

I mean, we've been running nuclear power in the US for decades already and any new ones that get built will only be even safer.

But yeah, solar is going to end up being the ultimate winner

Prismsblade posted...

And any politician hard on it backs down every time when prices rise.

That's always been the issue. People don't like seeing prices rise and they will vote out politicians who make things more expensive regardless of if it's for a good reason.

I just find it weird because we're like in a clean energy book with solar, wind, and batteries only getting cheaper and more accessible. This is an area where they could realistically be putting more effort in lobbying for bills to make building those things even easier and hyping up companies doing the clean energy tech.

Maybe this is how we convince people that the Biden admin actually has been instrumental in canceling a shit load of loans

https://x.com/curious_founder/status/1803442306818740378?s=19

Solar and batteries are expected to make up 80% of new power capacity this year in the U.S.

Both technologies are going to shatter the records they eacLast year, the U.S. added a record 19.3 GW of utility-scale solar capacity.

That was a big year and represented 72% more than 2022. But it's nothing compared to what's in store this year.

By year's end, the U.S. is expected to add 37.5 GW of capacity (94% y/y growth).h set in 2023.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/d8a1eea0.jpg

Last year, the U.S. added a record 19.3 GW of utility-scale solar capacity.

That was a big year and represented 72% more than 2022. But it's nothing compared to what's in store this year.

By year's end, the U.S. is expected to add 37.5 GW of capacity (94% y/y growth).

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c4dc0959.jpg

https://x.com/curious_founder/status/1803442314003480603?s=19

bigblu89 posted...

Agreed, it's not until "Big Solar" is established that it will get any sort of momentum as the true future of renewable energy.

The past 3 years has been huge for solar in places like California and Texas and is crowding out coal and natural gas.

Big solar already exists and is probably going to be the main clean energy just due to how cheap it is. And batteries are only getting cheaper

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9b8167dd.jpg

Cemith posted...

This is a good post

But seriously how much cleaner is Nuclear than Solar? Obviously solar tech is behind in terms of efficiency but doesn't Nuclear leave behind toxic waste?

Solar is cheap is the main thing and has seen huge increases the past couple years.

It's more that nuclear can be done over less land and can be used 24/7. But batteries and wind also exist which helps with the intermittency issues.
We need all of them. Nuclear, solar, batteries, wind. They all have their use cases.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/48fc47a7.jpg

I saw that video earlier this morning. Fucking insane.

Aloc posted...

Too bad germany is using coal

Lol, Germany. Still can't believe they shutdown their nuclear plants.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Reactors can be built in areas where disasters do not occur. I would be very much opposed to building a reactor in the southern tip of Florida. I would not be opposed to building one in Ohio.

Honestly why a lot of farming is weirdly done in Arizona. Apart from the water issue (which isn't a small issue to be fair), the environment is pretty disaster free and relatively stable.

Sadly, there's probably truth to the idea that more things get done in Congress if media doesn't cover it beforehand. Less opportunities for legislatures to grandstand and perform

VFalcone posted...

All an excuse to steal Lebanese land and expand settling grounds

Ehh, Hezbollah has been shooting rockets at them for months..it's not some random incursion into their land

Don't know about greatest since people will define that differently, but it's a one of the best countries for sure.

Hmm, is this in regards to the dating scene?

Bump

Bump

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/congress-advance-act-nuclear-power_n_6670a926e4b08889dbe5e626?ivrf

The Senate voted nearly unanimously Tuesday evening to pass major legislation designed to reverse the American nuclear industrys decades-long decline and launch a reactor-building spree to meet surging demand for green electricity at home and to catch up with booming rivals overseas.

The bill slashes the fees the Nuclear Regulatory Commission charges developers, speeds up the process for licensing new reactors and hiring key staff, and directs the agency to work with foreign regulators to open doors for U.S. exports.

The NRC is also tasked with rewriting its mission statement to avoid unnecessarily limiting the benefits of nuclear energy technology to society, essentially reinterpreting its raison dtre to include protecting the public against the dangers of not using atomic power in addition to whatever safety threat reactors themselves pose.

The NRC is also tasked with rewriting its mission statement to avoid unnecessarily limiting the benefits of nuclear energy technology to sociThe legislation marks the biggest change Congress has made to U.S. nuclear regulations since then-President Richard Nixon signed the 1974 law establishing the NRC and disbanding the Atomic Energy Commission, which was seen as too promotional of the industry it oversaw.

A law enacted in 1982 set the groundwork for how the U.S. deals with nuclear waste. A 2005 statute added new security measures and pumped money into researching reactors. In 2019, Congress passed a bill directing the NRC to update its approach to newer types of technologies.

Then, in 2022, Biden signed his historic infrastructure-spending laws that directed billions of dollars to test, restart and run nuclear reactors, including reopening plants that had been shut down for financial reasons.ety, essentially reinterpreting its raison dtre to include protecting the public against the dangers of not using atomic power in addition to whatever safety threat reactors themselves pose.

Sounds good

VideoboysaysCube posted...

Sleep is the most broken. You get the health benefits associated with extra sleep, and you're essentially gaining a half hour each day. Over the course of your life that can really add up. Pretty much all the other powers have workarounds, but there's no method of gaining extra time.

Yeah but to be honest... I wouldn't be doing anything productive with that extra half hour

emblem-man posted...

I am curious if there is a difference between population coverage and agency coverage. As in, if the agencies not reporting are really small town agencies, then it doesn't really matter. What you really want is the vast majority of the population to be covered.

Just saw this
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/e/ec9a2dfb.jpg
https://x.com/Crimealytics/status/1801413408064995515?t=wOVNdFWT7fRD06ko0xh71Q&s=19

https://x.com/Crimealytics/status/1801414155435708863?t=fh4ZZLLofyA6zig92Fnq0g&s=19