It’s not just the US, it’s been happening for years in other countries like the UK as well.

Traditionally there has been one party that is for working people and another for capital and the owner class.

The right has been getting further and further into far right authoritarianism. That posed a problem for the Dems going back to the Clinton Presidency: do they stick with being the party of working people or do they try to have their cake and eat it by tacking to the center and assuming that the working class will continue to vote for them no matter what?

It largely worked for a time and gave Obama two terms but ever since then they have been susceptible to criticism that they’re out of touch, elitists, entitled, and that they look down their nose at working people whilst still assuming that they will get their vote, which opened the door to Republicans.

You can’t serve two masters for very long, you can’t be the party of working people while being run by upper middle class graduates. You can’t claim to care about the people with the least while cozying up to CEOs and megadonors. Sooner or later it all falls apart, as it did with Hillary Clinton’s run, where working people disliked her elitism and she didn’t have enough support from elsewhere to make up the shortfall. That should’ve been a warning. Instead they doubled down.

The problem in the US is that there are only two viable parties. The Dems won’t go back to being the party of working people because they wouldn’t know how to do that even if they wanted to. What happens when the Trump Presidency turns out to be a disaster?

See, this is why I rent.

I’d like to turn him off now.

Just as well. If you turn him on he offers to buy you a pony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgBiM63bBy8

Deer on the road is an edge case that humans cannot handle well.

If I’m driving at dawn or dusk, when they’re moving around in low light I’m extra careful when driving. I’m scanning the treeline, the sides of the road, the median etc because I know there’s a decent chance I’ll see them and I can slow down in case they make a run across the road. So far I’ve seen several hundred deer and I haven’t hit any of them.

Tesla makes absolutely no provision in this regard.

This whole FSD thing is a massive failure of oversight, no car should be doing self driving without using cameras and radar and Tesla should be forced to refund the suckers customers who paid for this feature.

And then actually shooting something into the sun is harder than just blasting it out of the solar system.

This is fun to play with: https://trinket.io/embed/glowscript/6642756b52?toggleCode=true&start=result

I recently moved to Affinity Photo with no complaints but I’m not a power user.

Maybe clinics should start mailing out Faraday pouches ahead of appointments?

I’m sure they don’t need the extra expense but this is fucked up.

It’s way cheaper to build storage than new nuclear.

Posting this again because some people don’t realize just how expensive nuclear really is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity

I can’t recommend pfSense enough.

Either you’re trolling or you have trouble with reading comprehension. Either way, easy block.

No, I said this

If only we had some way of storing energy for use later. Oh well.

Not this, as you claim

Right, and I replied to a comment where you claimed we can just use batteries to replace everything but renewables.

Why are you making stuff up?

This you?

We do not currently have the battery tech to have a fully renewables-powered grid where batteries are used for the regular dips in production wind and solar have.

We likely won’t have infrastructure like that in place for decades.

Put up or shut up.

That’s not how this works. You made a tall claim, without sources. Now it seems you’re not willing to provide proof to substantiate it. Why?

Can you back this up with links to reputable sources?

Renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power suffer from “intermittency”, meaning they do not consistently produce energy at all hours of the day.

If only we had some way of storing energy for use later. Oh well.

You do need a baseload,

Did you read the link in my post that you’re replying to? It’s from a former Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner.

Here’s another article on the subject:

“The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids.”

https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210

I’ll skip over the rest of your comment as it’s not really relevant.

But nuclear, even with its high initial capital cost and long build time, still does provide energy cheaply

It literally doesn’t. See the graph I posted.

and will last for a lot longer than solar panels and wind turbines,

Nobody is arguing that. We’re talking about cost and base load.

nuclear can be easily and quickly ramped up or down depending on the load required.

This is absolutely not true. It’s also worth noting that nuclear needs to operate as close to 24/7/365 to be economically viable. It’s a source of base load power, it’s not dispatchable and can’t be used as a peaker plant.

Sure, it’s a negligible amount but OP was saying that nuclear would be competitive on cost if only red tape wouldn’t keep pushing the price up. Their contention was that less shielding would substantially lower the price of new nuclear but so far I’ve not seen anything to support this argument.

See my comment here:

https://lemmy.world/comment/12905132