this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
394 points (94.4% liked)

Technology

59669 readers
2935 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"There's no way to get there without a breakthrough," OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said, arguing that AI will soon need even more energy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, still not radioactive nasty though. Don't get how you are all so naive. The only reason most countries have a nuclear program is so they have nuclear weapons.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

The only reason most countries have a nuclear program is so they have nuclear weapons.

The only reason most countries have a nuclear program capable of generating plutonium products is to build nuclear weapons*

FTFY

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You are right it isn't very radioactive and a lot harder to control, not like I designed air scrubbers for 4 years of my life or something.

The only reason most countries have a nuclear program is so they have nuclear weapons.

Citation needed.

A pity decades of OPEC propaganda has worked so well.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ahh you're not naive you are biased. Anything you say is effectively propaganda. Jog on.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a valid point in this case and I'm not attacking your character, I have respect for engineers/designers especially when it comes to reducing pollution. Rather I am attacking your position, which is not without bias, would you not agree on that?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If you mean that I am biased towards following evidence over feelings and like facts over propaganda then yes I am biased. Generally I am not convinced by "nuclear power bad because nukes bad and they are exactly the same according to a Jane Fonda movie I saw".

Nuclear power produces very little pollution and it is of manageable types. Once built it can pretty much outlast any energy source. It is very reliable and can produce energy at the same price for long periods of time. Renewables definitely have their uses and I would be happy if they displaced all fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I totally agree with your second paragraph... but, I honestly worry about bad actors. We see it enough with war. I just don't trust other people to not use the leftovers or to destroy the reactors to not create massive damage. It's seemingly the nature of man.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

Right except the kinda of plants that generate energy aren't the kinds that are good at making atomic weapons. What about Germany and Finland? Both have a strong nuclear reactor program. Do you worry about them starting a nuclear war?

I am more worried about soft power. Everyone knows nuclear war is suicide. You know what is not suicide? Using Twitter to break up the EU, hacking a server so you can embarrass a candidate you don't want, funneling money to get the mafia connected candidate you want in. With about as much money as a small city budget has Russia managed all that. Nukes are so 1950s.