Voting for Biden/Dems isn’t much of a plan either, it’s just stalling. But you need to stall for something, you need something that you are buying time for.

In regard to third parties, my country has a different system, a parliamentary one (technically semi-presidential, but for the purposes of the topic, it’s parliamentary), but nevertheless, up until recently we had 2 major parties, and so far only one of the 2 ever won an election, and all my life I’ve often heard the argument of “useful vote” (“voting for someone else is a waste of your vote”) as a justification to vote for one of them, even from journalists and pundits. But the far right, for one reason or another, simply didn’t care about a “useful vote”, and just voted for who they wanted; that is why in our last elections, and for the first time since we’ve had elections, everyone was now talking about 3 choices for a useful vote.

I know it’s a different system, but the point of the story is that you are engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Neither democrats nor republicans will ever want to change the system because it will hurt them. Voting blue instead of red is a stalling tactic to stop/delay the fascists, but it doesn’t actually solve anything.

For my comment specifically I’m not worried about the economy, but the unit cost of energy. Simply put if nuclear has a higher unit cost that means we can’t replace as much fossil fuel generation vs other lower unit cost sources of energy for the same price.

I’ll put it another way so you might better understand my point: what would you have said 10 or 15 years ago when someone mentions that solar is a bad idea because it would cost more? Because up until recently it did cost more, and people did use it as an argument against it. And now your (and other people’s) main criticism of nuclear is that it’s not as cheap as an energy source that we’ve been heavily investing into for a decade.

You have, however, picked a very specific and unlikely event here

I showed several examples. The ones you mentioned, such as earthquakes, are not likely to affect one source more than another, but events which block out the sun obviously disproportionately affect the production of solar energy.

it’s no longer the cheapest or fastest way to achieve that

Neither was solar when we started to invest in it, as I mentioned earlier. That came from improving and investing in the technology - which also bumped solar into the safest energy source, right after nuclear, which used to be the safest.

You don’t need sunlight to grow crops, you just need energy; which in this scenario would require an energy source that is not the sun.

And you’ve said absolutely nothing of substance while misconstructing what I’m saying and engaging in the type anti-science behavior that were it to come from climate deniers this community would rip on.

Firstly, the “planet killer” example, was just an extreme example to demonstrate how an unexpected climate event can render solar panels completely useless. Another example I gave you was ashes from volcanic eruptions. This is simple deflection and bad faith argumentation. Secondly, let’s continue on “planet killer event” anyway:

and if it happened now

And if it happened in 20, 50, or 100 years? Is your argument “I think if it happens now we’re fucked, so it’s pointless to prepare for the eventuality of it”?

the dust cloud would essentially kill our civilisation as we know it. a small percentage of people would survive, and it wouldn’t matter if they had nuclear power or not, there are other power sources other than solar

How would it kill civilization as we know it? Define “civilization”, and tell me what it would look like in that scenario, and why it’s not worth to try to minimize its destruction. And what leads you to believe only a small percent of the population would survive? And are they not worth preserving? Because even a small percentage can’t eat or breathe dust, and as I said, with enough power you can grow food, have clean water, and make breathable air. And what other power sources are you referring to? Nuclear is the second safest energy source after solar by a distant margin, and except for maybe wind and solar, it’s also the most environmentally friendly - which is important given these power sources would have to be setup in advance of the events in question, which could take hundreds or thousands of years to happen.

I’m tired of arguing this, especially with someone who doesn’t seem interested in arguing in good faith and is quite stubborn in remaining unscientific, so I’ll be leaving it at this.

then I think we have bigger problems

Care to point them out? As I’ve said, and expect to be common knowledge on a (I would expect) scientifically leaning community, the dinosaurs weren’t killed by the meteor, their death was caused by the blacking out of the sun. You have access to energy, you can make air filters, grow food, purify water. If you don’t have energy, then you die.

Regardless, this is a deflection from the main point, that was merely an extreme example, even volcanic eruptions could cause huge disruptions if you depend too much on solar power.

sight

The meteor didn’t kill the dinosaurs, it was the dust cloud that did so by blacking out the sun. If you have sources of energy that are not reliant on the sun, it is very much possible to survive it. You can use artificial light to make grow food, and you can even make air processors if plants start dying. But you can’t do that if you have no power.

I already mentioned 2.

Or think back to the extinction of dinosaurs, where after a meteorite crashed into earth the sun was blocked by dust for several years.

Picture a super volcano eruption covering the sky in ashes for thousands of miles

Here’s a quote from the wiki on super volcanos:

Large-volume supervolcanic eruptions are also often associated with large igneous provinces, which can cover huge areas with lava and volcanic ash. These can cause long-lasting climate change (such as the triggering of a small ice age) and threaten species with extinction. The Oruanui eruption of New Zealand’s Taupō Volcano (about 25,600 years ago) was the world’s most recent VEI-8 eruption.

Also, you wouldn’t need it to cover all of Australia to be disastrous, just enough to block a significant amount of solar farms.

Lemmy most of the time: Makes fun of people always bringin up “the economy” as if that’s what’s really important

Also Lemmy when it comes to nuclear: “But the economy!”

What happens in case of a sudden abnormal weather event that blocks out most of the sunlight? Picture a super volcano eruption covering the sky in ashes for thousands of miles. Or think back to the extinction of dinosaurs, where after a meteorite crashed into earth the sun was blocked by dust for several years. Or just think about northern European countries that barely get any light in winter; Portugal is a very sunny country, we have invested a lot into solar, and sometimes we still get energy from Spain (who use nuclear btw).

Also, I’ve been hearing this whole “it takes too long to build nuclear plants” since at least early 2010s; imagine where we’d be if we’d just started building plants then. I can picture the same thing being said in 2035-2040, while fossil fuels still have not been completely dropped.

This getting heavily downvoted with no replies shows just how much of anti-nuclear is simply based on propaganda and fearmongering, not science. Nuclear is the second safest energy source in the world, nearly tied with solar for first, and actually was the first until not too long ago. And that is despite the heavy investment into renewables and disinvestment into nuclear. If anyone is that worried about the dangers of nuclear to people and the environment, they should turn their attention to hydro-energy (not to speak of fossil fuels, obviously).

What are even the major disasters regarding nuclear? One, Chernobyl, was in the USSR in the 80s; does anyone remember what phones looked like in the 80s? The other was in Fukushima, which is located in a country known for earthquakes and tsunamis, and it was not build to handle such events; and it still was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl. I think I’ve also heard about one in the UK, but that was in the fucking 50s, and even smaller than Fukushima.

Until a weather event blocks out most of the sunlight. An extreme scenario would be what happened to the dinosaurs, however smaller scale versions or that, such as large volcano eruptions, seem entirely possible and could heavily restrict the amount of sunlight you have access to for long periods of time.

Portugal lies in Southern Europe, we get plenty of sun, and we make heavy use of solar, but that still isn’t enough sometimes, and I’m pretty sure we sometimes get our energy from Spain, who themselves use nuclear.

Ah, thank you for the explanation, I think I get it.

I don’t know about this in depth, but from what another user in this thread said, a flatpak can’t ask a portal to have access to two files at once. If I’m understanding correctly, that would explain why Librewolf needs permission to access ~/Downloads, since it can be downloading more than one file at once, and it needs access to all those files in ~/Downloads at the same time.

EDIT: I got a bit mixed up with what you were saying, but nevertheless, if this is true, then Librewofl would still need permission to access ~/Downloads and so be marked as “potentially unsafe”.

Not for the average/casual user, which is why this post exists.

The average person will look at that and see the ‘!’ in a triangle and became scared of what it can do to their system, even though it has no more permissions than a system package. Alternatively, they will become desensitized and learn to ignore it, resulting in installing flatpacks from untrusted and unverified sources.

Overall, I just think the idea around having to sandbox all flatpaks is not a good idea. To give a concrete example, Librewolf is marked as “potentially unsafe” because it has access to the download folder, but if I want to use it to open a file that isn’t in “downloads” I have to use flatseal to give it extra permissions - it’s the worst of both worlds! Trying so hard to comply with flatpak guidelines that it gets in the way of doing things, and still not being considered safe enough.

Man, a lot of comments on here are giving me reddit debate lord vibes. People talking about “the truth matters”, but the way a lot of them are saying, it sounds like they just want to ego boost and dunk on/bully someone that they perceive as inferior; which I suppose could also be called “asserting intellectual superiority”.

Chances are that any argument you use on them is something they’ve already heard, and the more you push and demean them the more defensive they will probably get, and the harder it will be to convince them. And even if you did manage to pressure and shame them into believing the earth is round, that won’t suddenly make them good critical thinkers.

I was watching but I wasn’t home; I usually only show up here if I’m watching alone at home.

Maybe it’s because I’m a Portuguese fan but I was on edge the whole time! I wish it had been more boring for me 😂 I was shouting Diogo Costa’s name at the end

And so they vote republican?

Either way, not much else is gonna matter when the planet is too hot to live on, and entire Islands full of people go underwater, and no other country is willing to take in the refugees.

Sorry if I sound so evangelical about this shit, but that’s because I’m fucking surrounded by these “80% who total care” people, and I see how they live their lives and the decisions they make. It’s fucking lip service and pushing of the responsibly on to other people while hoping you don’t have to make any changes in your life. Or, at best, it’s complete fucking ignorance.

So 80% want stronger climate action? But not enough to vote for green parties, and even not enough to not vote for anti-climate action parties?

Using the US as example and assuming the Dem/Rep split is about 50/50: if all Dem voters want “stronger climate action”, then that means 30% of Rep voters are voting for anti-climate policy while claiming to want stronger climate action.

Sounds to me like those 80% don’t really know how bad the issue is or how much needs to be done. Which means they are lying to themselves or to others, and this number is actually meaningless. That’s the point the user above you is making, and it seems you agree.

Yes.

Do Democrats all agree 100% with each other? Do Republicans? They still manage to get together to vote for those parties. How many single issue voters are out there?

But I’m expected to believe 80% want significant climate action or have any clue what that would really entail, but can’t get together and vote for a green party? Perhaps if by “stronger climate action” they mean more electrical cars and recycling bins, or maybe these 80% even include people who want more green coal, but I’m sure we both know that doesn’t mean really mean anything.

You can’t assume from people voting for one of the only two parties that can win an election

The survey says 80%… that is enough to get any party to win. Hell, if you dare to dream high enough, that number is high enough to completely set the current government to the side, deny their legitimacy, and make a new governmental system - like one which is not a “first-past-the-post system”.

The argument of “only two parties that can win” is nonsensical in this context, no offense.

Either way, the US is not the only country in the world, and it’s not the only example the other user gave. Even if we ignore the US, how do you justify this in other countries that don’t have a first-past-the-post system? Like I said in another comment:

Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up.

People don’t like that, and it affects how they vote.

For example if we do something relatively small like ending beef subsidies here in the US, then ground beef will double or triple in price, and people will naturally consume much less.

And you think people will be okay with that and just let it happen? A politician does that and not only are they not elected again, they might have protests and even riots on their hands. You can’t post c/vegan without non vegans showing up and being disruptive. Which begs the question: why would politicians ever do it when they know this?

You can’t have systemic change if people aren’t willing to change their lives in the first place. People often say they want this or that, but don’t actually stop to think what that requires. Survey’s also show that most people want carbon taxes, but look what happens when the price of gas goes up. What do people think carbon taxes will do? Well, the answer is they don’t really think about it; they just think “tax for company to help climate”, and that’s where it stops.

If you want systemic change, then you also need to acknowledge and raise awareness to the need to take accountability and change our own lifestyles, otherwise that systemic change will never work. Going around saying we could all “change our lifestyles and it wouldn’t matter” and that “what we need is systemic change” in response to people talking about taking personal accountability, does, ironically, very little to bring about that needed systemic change; or at least that’s my perspective.