• prototyperspective@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      Thanks, spending lots days on going through the >2k studies, criteria-based selection and integrating most of these into Wikipedia (the image itself takes less time). Happy to see it’s appreciated.

  • I Cast Fist@programming.devEnglish
    13·
    1 year ago

    Got curious about the "new nuclear is a costly and dangerous distraction" in climate change mitigation

    Went after the source, and the gist of the idea is “going nuclear takes too long, is more expensive than renewables and we need change NOW”

    As for the carbon tax being better when going after the rich (because they’re the biggest consumers of luxury goods): NO SHIT SHERLOCK

    • prototyperspective@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      Yes, the issue is that many of the most obvious things are not getting researched or substantiated. Moreover, the two studies provide useful data on this. Costs stats

      Sadly, many of the most valuable things scientists could investigate are no-shit-sherlock things. These are highly impactful and important studies. I’ve been tracking over a thousand of the top studies per month for over three years, since recently even with extra attention to policy-relevant studies as these are rare and often drown. I could give lots of examples of similar cases such as this recently featured first review of measures to prevent risks from bioresearch/labs or yet unstudied things with nothing to cite.
      Maybe that inspires some to become scientists themselves because that is required to be able to meaningfully publish valuable research on such subjects that matter in the real world.