Who said it was an acceptable scenario? That’s not been suggested.
You’re saying we should belive any story that makes nuclear war sound even worse than it obviously is regardless of its scientific accuracy. Science should be objective truth not whatever serves the agenda you’re trying to push, even if it’s objectives are good.
It is worrying to see the total disregard for truth people have here, especially while calling out someone else as dishonest.
There’s no way to misinterpret what he said accidentally as he explained what he meant, it’s just a full and easily disprovable lie of a headline.
Yeah, especially in the southern hemisphere, a few centuries later we might have slightly different genetics through rapid evolution via population collapse but we’d probably be back developing with a bit more accurate folk knowledge and probably actually a lot of remembered tech.
It’d be terrible to the people it happened to but barely a blip in the life history of the planet from the first evolution to the last lifeforms leaving or dying.
This sort of obviously emotionaly driven vitriol makes it look like you want people to belive this regardless of if it truth as you feel it serves an important goal. The other person on the debate has shown an understanding of the issue and history of this topic while remaining civil, I don’t see you counter any of his points or raise any evidence in your favor outside gishgallop links which you provide without explanation or demonstrated understanding.
I don’t know or really care who’s right because it’s meaningless but you certainly don’t look like the person with a valid position here.
Don’t worry it probably won’t be long before the houthi rebels or some other terrorist state backed crazies manage to successfully launch an attack on a nuclear power station somewhere then you won’t have to keep hearing about three mile island, chernobyl, Fukushima, the windscale fire, sizewell leaks, or any of the other times nuclear power has gone dangerously wrong.
Thankfully Isreal doesn’t have nuclear power plants because it’s obviously too dangerous, let’s hope Russia, Iran, China, or any other well funded powerbase don’t get pushed into a corner and see funding an attack on a western nation as a viable response. Or some wacky religious group, race war proponents, attention seeking crazies or any of the usual suspects get as lucky as the 911 hijackers.
It’s much better than the alternative, yes cancer rates shot up and a huge area of once beautiful and productive land is contaminated but if we had rooftop solar then rich corporations wouldn’t be able to manipulate us with price spikes and lock us into being helpless without them.
The rich need to have power over us and centralized power generation controlled by the ultra wealthy is the only option that let’s them have that dominamce so every propaganda bot must ignore all the safety risks, spiraling economic costs, and political bullshit so they can push for it and divert money from.far more viable and effective alternatives.
It’s funny a good open source washing machine with wifi could be amazing, would allow for so much more control by letting you modify programs and view diagnostics but proprietary hardware is never going to let you do the good stuff because the you wouldn’t need to buy the more expensive but physically almost identical models.
That’s a flat out lie, I use it for code all the time and it’s fantastic at writing useful functions if you tell it what you want. It’s also fantastic if you ask it to explain code or options for problem solving.
So if an American drinks a beer in a German biergarten or in a park in france they should be charged with violating the open container law?
Also a criminal record can fuck your life in a myriad of ways, if like me you fall in love with someone from another country and you both have weed charges neither country will let you live together even decades later destroying what’s probably your only chance at happiness.
These rules are needlessly cruel and absurd.
Why does her living in the US for six years change anything? That doesn’t debunk the claims made by the right. If anything it bolsters them because it shows a lack of integration even after so long.
Also instead of attacking the right about every news story isn’t it important to anyone to actually talk about the real and genuine problems here? Avoiding actual issues might help dunk on the right in our lefty clunhuts but it doesn’t fix anything or help anyone and it just makes the right more popular
Dang kids don’t know how to tune a TV or do the tappets in their car!
They’ll be screwed if they find themselves in 1980!
If it helps i can explain how lemmy thinks,
Elon does nothing at his companies and is lazy and stupid, also Elon is intricately responsible for everything which happens at his companies and so everything they do is bad.
They will believe any ‘Elon bad’ story because they’re desperate to, largely because he said some bad things on Twitter and is bad at memes. They will also assume any Elon related thing is bad because to them reality is a team sport and if someone has differing political opinions they must be not only ontological evil but stupid and bad in every way.
It’s hilarious to me when people complain about jobs like this training AI, oh you watch videos and it’s hard to concentrate after a while? Welcome to actual driving jobs and factory work!
Before automation people stood at machines doing the same repetitive task for 8 hours a day or longer and if they lose concentration they could lose a limb.
Automation and computation has made what would have been absolute plum luxury jobs less than a hundred years ago seem burdensome and ‘dystopian’ to our modern sensibilities, I have no doubt that we will likewise see the mental and physical effort of driving as well as the danger of it become as unconscionable as threshing or machine operator work is to us now.
‘This company I like must secretly want us to hack their code because I am a good person and they are good people so we must think exactly the same!’
OK buddy, tell yourself what you need to.
It’s funny that any time these companies are brought up everyone says they’re dangerous yet the second one listens to the sorts of studies about negative affects that get quoted here all the time everyone suddenly decides actually its censorship or brainwashing or corporate greed and that it’s evidence they’re evil…
Scientific studies said this content can harm developing children so they made efforts to mitigate harm, is it really so hard just to say ‘oh thats good, well done’ and if so then doesn’t that tell you a lot about your own motivations?
Because it’s not God making the choices it’s an algo, God would know what you want bur an algo needs data - if there is a popular video that lots of people who watch content you like watch then it makes sense they see if you’re interested.
It does the same with everything, your just notice the stuff you hate more, right wingers claim youtube and Facebook push woke stuff for the exact same reason.
The problem is youribe can only have one page of information and that has to be the front page offering old, new, expected and unexpected content in one easy to view list.
You know what would happen if they had a second list that only showed your subscribed content? Literally no one would click on it and everyone would complain it doesn’t exist, they proved this in a test where they had that exact feature on every single person’s page since they started but here we still are people complaining that their subscriptions don’t always show up on the fyp (algo page)
And isn’t this the one people keep posting the dramatic headline without mentioning the damage only lasted until sunrise?
Peer reviewed science gets overturned by other peer reviewed science all the time, the other person also had peer reviewed science so you don’t get to just wave yours and win.
And yes your agenda is very obvious, you take the side of not wanting to be in a nuclear war - I think that’s pretty much a universally agreed upon position.
However you also have another facet to your opinion which is almost as universally disagreed with as your other position is agreed with - you think that science should be falsified so it seems to provide answers which suit your social and political aims rather than it being an effort to understand the world and reach a truthful and valid conclusion.
You were very aggressive and rude to someone who did nothing more than provide more context and dissenting evidence in a discussion about science, that’s not a good way to behave.