• Hucklebee@lemmy.world
    0·
    24 days ago

    Erh… yes… ehm… fine weather today, right?

    I awkardly gaze to the ground while I wait for the elevator to arrive at the right floor.

  • bluGill@kbin.run
    0·
    26 days ago

    the main lemmy developers are evil people, and they also admin the lemmy.ml instance. Stay away. other lemmy instances are admired well enough, but look for a mbin instance just to give the lemmy devs less power.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      0·
      25 days ago

      Currently, lemmyverse.net doesn’t appear to be indexing mbin servers, which is a drawback for finding communities on them. It isn’t indexing all kbin servers, either, and the kbin results are only available via the hamburger menu, not mixed in with the lemmy results.

      • bluGill@kbin.run
        0·
        25 days ago

        Mbin is not lemmy. It interoperates with lemmy but is otherwise different. Thus they strictly should not. Though you can make an arguement they should, it is the decision of the site owners and so while I think they should index mbin I won’t fault them for not.

        • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
          0·
          25 days ago

          Mbin is not lemmy.

          No, but how many users out specifically want results from one instance type? I can imagine that someone might, but I’m pretty sure that virtually everyone is agnostic.

          I don’t think that the lemmyverse.net guys are opposed to it. They did put in kbin support (though it seems to be partly broken ATM). I just think that it hasn’t been updated. And that makes it hard for mbin communities to get visibility.

        • stoy@lemmy.zip
          0·
          25 days ago

          I see that there is a lot of posts removed due to breaking Rule 1, but I can’t see what community you posted to to check what rule they claimed you violated.

          Please tell me what community you posted in so I can look at the rules and form an unbiased oppinion.

          I did find other posts about how lemmy.world admins are terrible, but so far I have only seen anecdotes either way, and untill there are proven trends that tells me otherwise, I will refrain from bashing either side.

          • OpenStars@discuss.onlineEnglish
            0·
            25 days ago

            Supposedly the modlog is being altered to remove the rejection reasons so that the posts are removed, but via database alterations rather than the traditional process, so a very serious accusation of deceptive admin practices. Someone would need to be running their own instance to see this, and get to the modlog quickly enough, and take screenshots both before and after the event - which reportedly has happened, as described in the comments section of that post.

            Separately, regardless of whether the modlog itself is being abused, those admins are reportedly also banning people from communities that they have never commented in, for comments made in other communities. That is a lot easier to see happening, bc the record is retained in that case. And tbh that might even be understandable for reasons of spam or promoting violence or some such, but for merely disagreeing with the statement it is a rather extreme response that represents an abuse of admin power.

            Those admins write the Lemmy code - they are worthy of respect for that no matter what. However, they are losing trust in their ability to administer an instance in anything close to a fair manner (vaguely similar to Ernst and Kbin).

            I realize that it’s a lot of comments, and it is now spreading to be discussed in multiple posts - e.g. our comments here as well as the linked one - but the screenshots are available if you want to view them. Or indeed, look at the raw modlogs themselves, for the second but not the first issue. You don’t need the community name btw, just OP’s name and the instance (Lemmy.ml) should be sufficient, here this will get you started: https://lemmy.ml/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=2502607.

          • bluGill@kbin.run
            0·
            25 days ago

            Check the mod log yourself. I don’t know how to link it, but it doesn’t take long to find an on topic comment with a ‘right wing’ slant removed in my experience. If right wing comments break rule 1 then I don’t want to be a part of anyplace with rule 1.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    0·
    25 days ago

    If tripping has turned ugly for you, but you love the potential of psychedelics, then you should seriously consider doing some kind of shamanic ceremony, instead of your next random death-metal-concert-on-shrooms-in-a-strange-city or whatever your usual pattern is.

    Set and setting really matter a lot, and ceremony has culturally evolved as a very healthy and productive setting.

  • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
    0·
    26 days ago

    Nuclear power plants won’t help solve the climate crisis.

    They take too long to build.
    While the risk of a catastrophic failure is very low, its effects are so bad they can’t be included in any sensible risk assessment.
    They prolong the dependence on energy companies that are too big to fail and can therefore blackmail the government.
    They depend on enormous amounts of water for cooling, at a time when rivers frequently get too warm for that due to climate change.
    They run on a non-renewable fuel source that is imported from politically instable countries.
    And when you include the cost of building them, insuring them, dismantling them and dealing with their waste, they’re simply not economical.
    The only way to run them is with massive subsidies and unconditional securities from the state. I.e. tax money being funnelled to big corporations.

    • Vanth@reddthat.comEnglish
      0·
      26 days ago

      Nuclear plants as we have them today won’t help solve climate change. Nuclear plants don’t have to look that way though.

      https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design

      There are other design concepts kicking around out there. A small enough, modular enough, self-contained enough reactor running off material so low-grade it’s not a viable terrorist target, plus a healthy dose of government subsidization and willingness to keep giant private utilities from gaining a monopoly. The political stars would have to align but it’s not impossible.

      I don’t see it happening in the US unless it somehow attracts the libertarian/rugged individual streak and ppl want to run their own local reactors so they can stay independent of The Man.

      • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
        0·
        26 days ago

        How long from “design concept” till enough are tested, certified and built to help combat climate change? We have about 20 years left to transform our energy sector if you’re optimistic. Building one with the old proven design takes about 15 years.

        • Vanth@reddthat.comEnglish
          0·
          25 days ago

          The technical design was done in 2020. It took two years for the design to be approved by the US department responsible for approving such things and it will take until 2029 to get an actual plant approved and built. That’s why I said probably not in the US and only with a lot of political will.

          There’s no climate change solution that won’t take significant political will.

          • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
            0·
            25 days ago

            But there are solutions that simply require building more small units of something that’s been built in large numbers for the past decade.

            • Vanth@reddthat.comEnglish
              0·
              25 days ago

              Are you talking about nuclear or other as these “simply build smaller” solutions?

                • Vanth@reddthat.comEnglish
                  0·
                  25 days ago

                  Oh. Well, those also have resource constraints (hazardous and rare materials used in solar panels, batteries for both if that is method of storage), storage constraints (saving energy for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing), economic constraints (still more expensive than burning coal and oil) and political constraints (people don’t want solar panels or wind turbines in their backyard + political will to stand up against oil and to offer incentives that make solar/wind financially viable).

                  Same themes as the challenges to nuclear.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          0·
          25 days ago

          Building one with the old proven design takes about 15 years.

          Source? I’d say the median is closer to 8, 15 years is more like the worst 5-15% percentile.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        0·
        25 days ago

        Wtf are you talking about? Nuclear power facilities are freaking huge and have top notch security. You ain’t getting anywhere near any place you could ever do any damage. And since everybody who’s supposed to be there needs clearance, it’s easy to have strict security protocols in place. Anybody who isn’t supposed to be there or takes anything in or out they aren’t supposed to is identified easily and taken care of.

        Any nuclear facility is more worried about espionage than any kind of attack. Even if you are able to bomb a part of it, worst case it will be shutdown for repairs for a while and maybe kill a dozen or so people who are near the bomb as it goes off. Something like a crowded square in a city centre is a much easier target for terrorism and probably has more impact in the causing fear department than bombing some energy facility.

        So no, denying nuclear power based on fear of terrorism isn’t only unfounded, it’s also exactly what the terrorists want. Fuck them guys, don’t give in to fear.

        And in case you don’t know: a nuclear power plant is not a nuclear bomb, it can’t become a nuclear bomb and it doesn’t contain any materials to create a nuclear bomb. Just because they both contain the word nuclear and work on a fission principle, doesn’t mean they are the same thing.

        (I blame the recent Chernobyl series for fueling the fear of nuclear once again. You should know that whilst it is a good series, it is not a documentary and they dropped the ball hard on all the science parts)

        • nicerdicer@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          25 days ago

          These all are valid points. From the technological point of view nuclear technology is pretty safe and the margin of error is rather low. There are many redundant fail-save measurements to retain a save operation. But if something will happen, it will be devestating. Most famous incident is Chernobyl. Also, nuclear waste management is a huge issue. Not many (if any) locations for waste storage have the capability for eternal storage. The Asse II mine for instance is a former salt mine which has been re-purposed as a deep geological repository. It was supposed to last alt least several thousand years. After only 30 years of usage it has been detected that water seeps into the vault which leads to corrosion of the barrels filled with nuclear waste which will result already resulted in a release of radioactive elements. This is how the barrels were handled and stored. I am no expert but thirty years into almost eternity is a pretty bad figure.

          And there is another thing - and in my opinion this is a really serious one: Nucular power plants are operated by corporations within the private sector. This means that such a power plant is conducted with an economical focus (= profit). The incentive to make profit will result in skipping maintenance, bribing inspectors and downplaying any technical difficulties. Even when assumed that all the other issues (waste management etc.) are solved, every technical malfunction that resulted in the leakage of radioactive material woult be not be made public voluntarily. There were many incidents that have been made public, because the law required them to do so.. The hidden number of incidents that were not required to be made public is probably much higher.

          • Thorry84@feddit.nl
            0·
            25 days ago

            Yes military targets, as are most energy production facilities. Any part of critical infrastructure is a prime military target. Just ask the people of Taiwan.

            This has nothing to do with terrorism and certainly isn’t a reason not to build them. Whatever replacement you have for them, would then become the target. This is common sense.

            I would also say that being energy independent is a deterrent to all out war, as it removes leverage one party may have over another. With a balanced field of power, total war becomes less likely.

            Also by the time Western Europe / Mainland US is under military assault and our allies can’t protect our critical infrastructure, we have much bigger concerns.

      • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        25 days ago

        Honestly if the UK can spend a couple of decades with half a hiroshimas worth of high explosives sitting unguarded within sight of London I think a nuclear facility with actual security will be fine.

    • x4740N@lemm.eeOP
      0·
      25 days ago

      This highlights issues with using capitalism and some human mindsets

  • RagingHungryPanda@lemm.ee
    0·
    25 days ago

    You guys and gals a pretty cool! Ok, a lot react way too hard at stuff (I’ve done it a bit too, check my comment history). But overall, a reasonable online space.