I think it’s an error. It’s should likely be Nissan Quashqai. Or Hyundai ix35/Tucson.

You basically need a few conditions to be met to make this useable: tide needs to be high enough, there needs to be suitable geological formation that enables building of such power plants, it has to be publicly acceptable to build there, and you need to connect it to the grid. The last two can especially cancel eachother out.

However, this assumes you use potential energy. What you are envisioning might be more like current power (so kinetic energy) where I’m not sure what the limitations are. Perhaps it’s not too practical to build huge plants underwater in locations with relatively constant current and connect them to the grid

Hehe, I walked right into this one. You’re right. I totally failed at trying to be a smartass.

Why are you comparing fossil fuels and nuclear “per tonne” that makes no sense. You replace tens of tones of nuclear fuel per year any you burn millions of tones in a comparable fosil fuel plant.

And regarding the carbon emissions from enrichment… Just use nuclear to power your enrichment plants. This way your emissions are extremely low because you don’t need much fuel and you use nuclear energy to produce nuclear fuel. French example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Plant

With energy positive here I mean useful energy positive, so electricity or high temperature heat.

You are technically wrong, the worst kind of wrong :)

DT and DD fusion reactions release energy. More energy than is put in. It’s the whole system that hasn’t been energy positive. We’re close to breakeven in terms of plasma (heating power vs fusion power, and it’s not like heating power is lost from the system it still heats the reactor) but to be useful fusion power needs to be >10x heating power so the whole system is more than self-sufficient.

(Established) scientists have a long history of ignoring new theories not science itself. But that’s because at the end of the day scientists are still human.

Science is not great at working on a very short time scales. But give it enough time so more evidence is gathered and possibly some stubborn influential people (that can’t accept a new theory) die and generally we get closer and closer to truth.

It all depends on what is actually trying to be communicated. With your definition most meals would be plant based so why even bother to say it. With definition where plant based means no animal products it communicates that it is fine for vegans and it’s likely less offensive for people allergic to word “vegan”.

It all depends on what is actually trying to be communicated. With your definition most meals would be plant based so why even bother to say it. With definition where plant based means no animal products it communicates that it is fine for vegans and it’s likely less offensive for people allergic to word “vegan”.

Language is interesting in this way. Same words in different contexts mean different things.

“Based on true events” = “Contains traces of what actually happened”

“Plant based” = “Does not contain animal products but can contain mushrooms even though they are not plants”

Homo sapiens also doesn’t originate from Europe.

How far back does it count? Humans originate from Africa so everything we do can be seen as Africans doing things with stuff from all over the planet. Or perhaps even that is not far enough. What’s the origin of the first mammal… The only contestant is change and life is good at mixing things up.

There’s also survivorship bias. All the crapily designed cars from 30-50 years ago are long scraped while some of the well designed ones are still around. With “current” cars you see the whole spectrum.

I guess the communities have to be of certain size to function and to feel welcoming to post into. For the first point you definitely need enough active users to make it feel alive but the second point is probably very person dependent. To me commenting in the big subreddits felt to much like showting in a very crowded space (so I didn’t comment much) while currently on Lemmy they feel more comfortably sized and somehow more real.

Perhaps for the same reason I never really “got” twitter. I understand it’s usefulness for journalists or celebrities but for me it was too close to screaming into the void to be useful/comfortable.

As for Reddit, many people will probably stick to it simply through the force of habit.

“It worked so far. I wonder what I’m doing wrong now. I’m probably slipping. I just need to try (to be an asshole) harder.”

Indeed. Nicely worded.

And couple this with the fact that we are actively being conditioned that it is up to us to change things: “it’s your personal footprint that matters”, “vote with your wallet”… It’s not even that I disagree that personal action is important. It’s mostly that these narratives are a way for the corporations and governments to shift the blame from systemic to personal. And then we end up with feelings of paralysis because you can only do so much and guilt about not doing enough.

For me it comes down to basically having more and more things to feel worried/anxious about and fewer and fewer things to feel excited about every year. Partially I guess it is normal part of aging (but I’m supposed to be in my prime year for fucks sake) but there are also objectively shitty things that make it difficult to be hopeful that my mood/feelings about the world will improve. The acceleration in enshittification of the internet doesn’t help. At least Lemmy is a breath of fresh air in this regard.

Indeed. It takes time.

And there needs to be an actual alternative to driving. You can’t just make driving worse and expect results. I’ve found that even small positive changes in alternative methods of commuting can have disproportionately positive effect. For example at work we simply installed better and more bike racks and it seems that after a while we have maybe twice the number of people regularly cycling compared to before. Basically because cycling accommodations got nicer a few more people started cycling and then others saw that it is not only feasible but also enjoyable so they started cycling… If we could only fix few sections of the road leading to our facility… Once can dream.

But yes, change takes time.

One of my first weird (culture shocky) experiences from USA (Tennessee) during my first trip there was with a drive thru.

I wanted to grab something to eat in the evening and there was a fast food place just across the street from my hotel so I decided to walk there. Once there I realized that the main part of the restaurant is closed and only drive thru was open. Then as I was there on foot they wouldn’t serve me so I ended up walking to a petrol station down the road to actually buy something to eat which was quite scary as there were no sidewalks and I had to cross 6 lanes to get to the station.

Two things to consider:

1. Humans need to eat. The land needed for agriculture already covers significant percentage of the habitable land. About half based on our world in data [1]. Yes most of this is due to livestock so this can be significantly reduced but still.

2. Other species also need space to live. Even if you look at it in s strictly selfish fashion and disregard the right of other species to exist - we are part of the ecosystem so if it dies we die.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use