Yeah, especially since even self-driving cars prove to be a much bigger headache to accomplish than anticipated. If we cannot even figure those out in so many years, it will take even longer to add a whole other dimension to all the variability.

Thanks for all the informative sources. First of all, I think you are probably right that it is a political or rather economic problem, not necessarily a scientific one. Capitalism doesn’t give any incentive to care for the environment or to recycle anything if it isn’t profitable. And politics are heavily influenced if not driven by capitalism.

But then, seeing the various articles you provided about nuclear waste storage, I didn’t really get the impression that it is a solved problem. Sabine Hossenfelder spends a very long time talking about what nuclear waste is but only mentions problems with storage for hundreds of thousands of years for a very short time. And also Elina Charatidsou doesn’t even mention potential problems of geological changes etc. And the facility she is presenting is still in the research stage. So where are the solutions for a long-term storage that guarantees safety? Nuclear waste may not be as problematic as it is made out, but real solutions look different to me.

Very interesting also the point about recycling nuclear waste. I haven’t even heard of it and it sounds like a really good thing to do. We’d still have very high costs handling and storing it, but only for a few hundreds of years at least. Although it seems like actually applying this is still not really planned by most countries and even then the problem of nuclear waste doesn’t go away fully.

Yes, I get that. But I think we should just keep in mind that it is no sustainable or long-term solution. Since many people have started talking positively about nuclear energy in the last few years, I think it is important to remind everyone of the problems that arise with it.

Can you show me any evidence for that? I’m really curious how we could develop a technology to safely store nuclear waste for millions of years. I mean, on that time scale you’d even factor in changes in geology and all kinds of other factors. Sure, there are definitely people who say that “it should be fine”. But how can you reliably model geology on that time scale? You simply cannot. So I would definitely disagree with your statement that storage is a solved problem.

Yeah sure, coal plants obviously have to go. But why not invest in sustainable energy production?

Nuclear waste cannot just be buried, unless you don’t care about polluting huge areas with radioactivity. In Germany, there have been decades long debates where to store nuclear waste and even to this day there hasn’t been found a good storage for the waste we produced in the 70ies. And this shit costs billions of euros that the company profiting of the plant doesn’t have to pay but that in turn society has to pay.

Hm, on the one hand this could be survivorship bias, i.e. only a lucky few scripts in stone have made it through. If you left enough of these glass discs or other modern media in very specific conditions they might also withstand thousands/millions of years maybe?

On the other hand, I think the amount of data and the corresponding resolution is important, too. If you’d try to store petabytes (or more) worth of data you’d have to carve really really tiny scriptures into stone unless you want mountains of stones just to save some bits of data. But the moment you scale your resolution up and your data engraving gets much smaller, you’ll also get a much more error prone, susceptible system. So even stones with tiny scriptures would certainly not be able to survive millions of years (at least the vast majority of them).

Oh wow, so even more radioactive waste that will afflict thousands of future generations and the environment for a tiny amount of produced energy now :(

Wäre aber auch irgendwie scheiße gegenüber allen anderen Lebewesen, die dann deswegen drauf gehen…

Fair points, you’re certainly right about the lack in quality of the article. And I totally get why you feel offended by something with a sexual or even bdsm connotation immediately being considered derogatory or scary. I think this is really a counterproductive statement for someone to make if they wanted to talk about offensive language. Shaming sexual deviancies is offensive in of itself.

As far as the article goes, the word gimp isn’t necessarily seen as problematic because of its sexual reference but rather as a derogatory term for disabled people. And just because many people agree that they don’t care, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care. Democratic decisions fall flat when they deal with issues of minorities. The large majority of people doesn’t care about disabled people. So basing ethical considerations on the majority’s opinion is really no good idea. Same goes for other discriminatory language and slurs where always the same arguments are presented. I think the article does a great job of portraying the gatekeeping biases of such discussions.

deleted by creator

Great video, thanks! Regarding the over representation of certain concepts/things I have been disappointed from day one by generative AI. If you want it to draw you something obscure it miserably fails and tries to fall back on stuff it knows. Also all the discriminatory biases generative AI has about different people because of lacking data sets. It is very obvious that it cannot “outperform” its own data input (like the exciting curve in the video) but that it will rather stagnate.

Hm, aber was würdest du denn dann denken was passieren muss? Natürlich sollten wir fen Kapitalismus abschaffen und uns von mir aus anarchistisch organisieren. Aber das ist ja wenn überhaupt erstmal weit in die Zukunft gedacht. Jetzt müsden wir mit unseren momentanen Gegebenheiten versuchen, so viel wie geht zu verändern. Manche Menschen nehmen dafür staatliche Repressalien in Kauf. Andere machen ihren Unmut auf den Straßen bemerkbar. Andere versuchen klimaschädliche Industrie so gut es geht lahmzulegen. Und wieder andere versuchen über Politik oder NGOs einen wandel hervorzurufen. (Und diese aktiven sind in der Mehrheit vor allem junge Leute.) Natürlich scheint das alles gerade erstmal wenig zu ändern, aber was würde denn noch mehr gehen? Vor allem wenn, wie du es beschreibst, viele Leute trotz all dem einen scheiß drauf geben und weiter fleißig konsumieren…

Yes, it is really a frustrating situation. Since you seem to be a man, maybe you can be a good example to your nephew? But well, not so easy either unfortunately :(

Ja, das ist generell die Krux. Menschen würden sich gerne als “gute” Menschen sehen, aber eben auch gleichzeitig nichts von ihren Lebensstil aufgeben wollen. Das führt bei den meisten in so eine Doppelmoral, wo z.B. Fleischessen zwar als schlecht gilt, man den eigenen Fleischkonsum aber trotzdem damit rechtfertigt, dass es ja nicht so oft vorkomme oder von “glücklichen” Tieren sei etc. Und dann wird man als Klimaaktivist:in oder Veganer:in von so Leuten angekackt, weil man ihre Doppelmoral auffliegen lässt…

Das ist sicherlich auch Effekt der Bubble in der man lebt. Kann mir vorstellen, dass den ganzen jungen Menschen, die FDP oder AfD wählen (vor allem also cis Männer), das Klima völlig egal ist. Die haben sich dann aber auch konservativen Werten verschrieben und versuchen möglichst ihren eigenen Lebensstandard auf Kosten anderer zu sichern. Aber wenn du dir wiederum Bewegungen wie FFF und so anguckst, merkst du, dass es wirklich sehr sehr viele junge Leute gibt, für die das Klima sehr wichtig ist. Ich kenne z.B. kaum Leute, die irgendwo hinfliegen würden oder die ein Auto haben (oder die Fleisch essen würden).

ETA: dein “Ökohippieveganerspinner” klingt so, als ob du das deswegen so abwertend sagst, damit du dem ganzen die Legitimation entziehen kannst. Mittlerweile gibt es aber dennoch sehr viele Menschen, die vegan und öko sind. Kein Grund das als Spinnerei zu beleidigen, nur weil es was anderes ist, was du nicht gewohnt bist.

Yeah, it’s pretty disheartening and even frightening. I don’t know how to educate men on feminist ideas and get them on board. And being antifeminist doesn’t even benefit them that much. There are so many men living their life miserable and ending up in jail because of their toxic masculinity and societal expectations of men. And I’m certainly interested in helping cis men get better, reconnect with their emotions and learn about emancipation. But at the same time I don’t see how people who are not cis men can do so much to really help them. We are pretty busy surviving them and supporting each other.

Nope, I disagree. I see shades of gray and have some few friends that happen to be cishet guys. But I know very few cis men that are not bigots, feel entitled, treat women like inferiors, etc.

But, do you agree with the original statement I replied to?

Oh hello, you again! Sorry, won’t discuss with you any further about this topic. Nothing new to be said and you newer replied to all the scientific studies I gave you why a high percentage of pwNPD tend to abuse others.

It seems very annoying to me when cishet dudes whine about how hard they have it. It might be true, but the problem is usually that they’ve been brought up with a misogynistic worldview and hegemonic masculinity. That’s what I referred to by calling them detached from reality.

It is like a narcissistic person telling you how hard their life is while abusing you. You can empathize with them because they sure have a hard life. But as long as they’re not self-aware and reflect on their doings, I won’t have much empathy with them. Same goes for cis men.