There is more to the calculation of risk than just looking at this data. You know very well how large the impact of individual disasters is.

Sure, nuclear could be much cheaper! But it would also be much less safe, because all the regulations and “legal stuff” are what forces the people running the plant to run it in a safe way. The same goes for renewables, but if renewables fail, they don’t contaminate the surrounding area for decades or centuries, so there are far fewer of these regulations. If you disagree, I challenge you to provide examples of unnecessary regulations that make nuclear so much more expensive. Show us the numbers.

It also saves on space where renewables can cause greater environmental impact in terms of taking up space or wildlife fatalities.

There are many great ways to deploy renewables so they support the environment. Have you looked at the environmental impact of the mining required for nuclear plants? The impact they have on the rivers they use for cooling, and so on?

Again, weird you don’t mention wave or geothermal at all as renewables that have access to near constant power generation.

It’s pretty weird that “renewables” somehow doesn’t include those for you.

Because everyone knows there’s literally only fossil fuels and nuclear energy, nothing else.

Sure, and the next catastrophe will have some good reason too, yet it will happen due to human error and greed.

Hate to break it to you, but with a limited amount of money you can only increase your generation so much. Choosing a power source that’s less efficient from a monetary perspective means you can displace less fossil fuel.

Read a book on mathematics if you don’t believe me.

Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.

No, it’s not about privatized groups. Even the government has limited money (they can print more, but that leads to inflation). This means the money should be spent efficiently, so we get the most out of it. Nuclear is - by far - the most expensive form of energy we have. We can build more renewables + storage with the same money.

Is the economic sense really a good argument? That implies that a privatized group needs to make profit, all external effects paid for, and still be able to give you a good price.

The only way to make an expensive energy source cheap is by subsidizing it. We’ll get more out of the same amount of money if we build cheap energy sources.

Ah yes, that’s why we should invest money into an expensive form of energy instead of a cheap one, that will help us displace fossil fuels!

So we made a mistake, and to make up for it, we should make another one?

No, renewables have to be replaced by nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly expensive (the most expensive form of energy we have). If you don’t run it at capacity 100% of the time, it’s even more expensive.

All that money can either produce a small amount of energy if we go with nuclear, or a larger amount of energy if we go with renewables.

Grid-level storage is getting more and more efficient - a couple of years ago, the combined cost of renewables + storage got smaller than the cost of nuclear. Nuclear is still getting more expensive, whereas renewables + storage is getting cheaper and cheaper.

Chernobyl shouldn’t have happened due to safety measures, yet it did. Fukushima shouldn’t have happened, yet it did. The common denominator is human error, but guess who’ll be running any other nuclear power plants? Not beavers.

Yeah but this is for areas that don’t get enough sun or wind to meet their energy needs.

Which is almost nowhere. There can be intermittent issues, but those can be overcome with a larger network and grid-level storage.

The make small scale nuclear reactors as well.

Which are less efficient, so even more expensive.

And cities themselves, being supplied by nuclear plants, are juicy military targets too. If a bomb lands anywhere near a city including the plant, it’s bad

Not sure what your argument here is, because no matter what kind of energy production you’re using, bombing a city is always bad. But it’s much easier to cause great harm with nuclear than renewable generators.

The sky color is part of the training data. How did the LLMs include the training data before it existed?

Not fined, just banned.

Hm… Is his mouth open? I could be convinced to shart in his general direction.

Eh, things have gotten better, and there are tools that make these tools respect them.

Shaw!

I have good news and bad news:

A specification already exists. https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/latest/

That’s not how R&D works. It’s really rare to have “progress across the board”, usually you have incremental improvements in specific areas that come together to an across-the-board improvement.

So we’d be getting improvements slower since there’s much less profit from individual advancements, as they can’t be released. What’s the advantage here?

I keep hearing this, but I honestly don’t like both VA & facial expressions in Control. Both are usually incredibly wooden and stiff, with the facial expressions veering hard into the uncanny valley, but without redeeming stylized highlights.

I never understood this kind of objection. You yourself state that maybe 10% of users can find some good use for this - and that means that we should stop developing the technology until some arbitrary, higher threshold is met? 10% of users is an incredibly big amount! Why is that too little for this development to make sense?