Nuclear threats never went away. There's a proxy war between nuclear powers happening right now. India and Pakistan just had a spat. Seems like some American elites want to fight China.

Sometimes I wonder if nuclear winter will cancel out climate change.

You don't understand Texas's powergrid. It's a free market, there is little planning or foresight. Large scale power production is provided by hundreds, possibly thousands, of independent producers who can turn their production on as they see fit, in other words, when it's profitable. Therefore backup generation for solar is already present. If there's not enough, then the market will dictate how much to build and where. That's how it works in Texas.

instead of dumping the volatility on ancillary services, which get less revenue, because of their off-time, accommodating wind and solar.

Free market, they can deal with it. Yes, it's a dumb system, but thems the rules in Texas.

A mandate like this makes room for reliable energy rollout, basically more support for natural gas, and presumably batteries, instead of just crowding out the preferred energy types.

This bill is clearly designed to stifle renewable production in favor of fossil energy. Requiring one mode of production to have or purchase backup generation isn't fair in the current market system. Do away with the market system first before putting a thumb on the scale.

Also preferred energy types? Energy types with the least amount of emissions should be preferred. Not gas, not coal, not oil, or whatever else Texas wants to burn.

Analysts read the decision as the US government sending a stern warning to counter the calls for independent nuclear armament that have recently been surfacing in South Korea.

Here's the real reason.

The river was the best option?

This is just fearmongering. Oh no the sneaky Chinese cars are mapping our potholes...

Here's some pics: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yjf73vy_VRo/T6rqS_Yec_I/AAAAAAAAAFQ/nAKPcFeo87w/s1600/durendal.jpg

https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/embedded-stone-in-Rocamadour.jpg

Did this leak happen before or after NYT published an investigation detailing how Israeli forces were raping and torturing defenseless Palestinian detainees brought in from the Gaza Strip?

Ffs. Russia is not going to fight NATO. Why'd they attack Georgia in 2008? Answer: To prevent them from joining NATO. Why'd they attack Ukraine? Answer: to prevent them from joining NATO. Russia is not dumb enough to fight anything that can throw nukes, that's why they're preventing the NATO umbrella from covering (what they consider to be) their sphere of influence.

The prices of cells have decreased for the fourth week in a row, according to OPIS data. Due to the acute lack of downstream demand, cell makers have been engaged in a price war; they have to compete to cut prices in order to encourage demand and increase sales volume, according to a cell manufacturer.

So is this good or bad? Lower prices are always better imo, but it's concerning that there isn't enough demand to match the supply.

Lemmy feels very different to me as well. People seem more mature, skeptical, genuinely left-leaning, interested in discussion, and the moderation isn't totalitarian. Plus Reddit really seemed like it was controlled by moderators with an agenda. I'm not a flagrant asshole (I think), yet I was banned from a few subreddits for not following seemingly arbitrary rules. For example, I was banned from my city's subreddit for making a post asking a question that wasn't directly about the city, it was more about the state's culture/history. I just wanted to know what my neighbors thought. Apparently someone decided that wasn't what the subreddit was for.

The "it's not economical" argument is used very often for numerous topics and it always begs the question: not economical compared to what? Is the purportedly more economical choice accounting for every externality it creates? Is it only economical because it already exists? Are there reasons we should stop doing the economical option? Lastly, what unaccounted for benefits might materialize if the uneconomical choice was pursued anyway?

So in this particular situation, we're comparing the costs of building and operating high speed rail lines in the US to maintaining highways, hundreds of thousands of vehicles, airports, and planes. We should also account for the externalities created by using this infrastructure, so a shitload of carbon emissions plus the negatives of car culture and flying is just an awful experience.

We should also consider what may happen if high speed rail was built anyway. I bet there would be so much more medium distance travel, people would be going on day trips to cities they wouldn't have considered before. Previously unknown and forgotten areas of the country may be revitalized. Who knows what cool stuff could happen.

Anyway, it really sucks when people use the "iT,s nOt eCoNoMiCaL" argument because it's probably not true when everything is taken into account.

To those complaining about streaming services, I've been using free alternative streaming websites for years and haven't had an issue.