Not sure, how active development is right now, but EdgeOS got forked from an open source devian based distro after that went commercial.
But EdgeOS was not the only fork, another one was VyOS (vyos.io). Pretty sure, that EdgeOS has done larger steps forward, especially, since it was bound to the hardware's developer.
The distribution was called Vyatta. VyOS is now very actively used and developed, it's way ahead of EdgeOS since that's been basically dead for years. EdgeOS was basically just a nice web UI over Vyatta but the one key point was that the EdgeRouters had hardware acceleration (Cavium CPU with offload, but Cavium got acquired by Marvell since) and only EdgeOS has the proprietary binary blob and integration that you need to use that on the EdgeRouter hardware.
So even though VyOS exists as the modern day Vyatta fork that is active and fully-featured, you can't really run it on the EdgeRouter hardware and since Ubiquiti stopped development, they're basically e-waste.
I still run one in a network but really shouldn't, since Ubiquiti are very rarely shipping security updates...
Funnily enough, they've just released an update! Yes, I was taken by surprise a bit.
EdgeRouter 3.0.0 [1] adds official wireguard support (I've been using the "wireguard-vyatta-ubnt" package from Github [2]), UI changes and some other improvements/fixes. I haven't tried it yet but will. I have an Edgerouter3-lite and an ER-X.
I'm shocked! Literally two years of basically zero activity since the last hotfix release...
The new GUI looks nice and Wireguard is great! Not all good news sadly though, users in the comments there are pointing out that the kernel has hardly been patched from the versions two years ago... At least some packages like OpenSSH, dnsmasq etc. have had updates.
the one key point was that the EdgeRouters had hardware acceleration
The EdgeRouter Lite used a Cavium SoC, the EdgeRouter X family used a 32-bit MediaTek SoC. Hardware acceleration was buggy on both and is/was known to cause packet corruption.
The main problem with the EdgeRouters was that Ubiquiti was basically just assembling off the shelf stuff. They didn't have the ability to fix SoC issues (or motivate the manufacturers to fix them). For years they didn't have the ability to do much Linux dev work either so the ER families languished on an end-of-lifed'd version of Debian. That experience and realization only motivated me to avoid future Ubiquiti products.
There certainly seems to be a genetic component to sexuality (as well as gender identity). It's not the only factor though: for example, there are epigenetic factors like the more older brothers you have from the same mother, the more likely to are to be gay.
Too much competition of one type makes it advantageous to flip the script eventually for a small percentage of the population, despite that having other (often heavy) costs?
Lefties have been a pretty stable part of the human population for a long time for similar reasons it appears.
I actually never understood why it has to be immutable (in the context of civil rights). IMO, it's a red herring. Because if it was about free will, then people would still need the right to choose what they want to be — and that needs to be respected if it harms no one. So, genetics or not, that just shouldn't matter?
As I see it, this is to point out that attempts to change sexual orientation are doomed to be unsuccessful - and these are, in most cases, either forced or caused by peer pressure. I personally haven't heard of any case of a person doing a full 180 degrees from gay to straight who would not be motivated by religion.
It is not uncommon in the transgender community when someone transitions they will do a "full 180 switch". And of course this is never motivated by religion.
This was actually one key point in helping me understand and figuring out the biology and genetics behind gender dysphoria and the rest of the LGBT.
Here is a presentation that I gave last summer. Slightly out of date with some details given what has been learned since, but the main aspects are all there. The presentation focus's primarily on explaining the gender dysphoria aspect the second half touches on the rest of the LGBT. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PdGQlNfY39JX9iPowsBh... Overall it is complex with many possible variants.
Given the sensitive nature I am not rushing to publish, but working on getting it right. Once the key aspects were figured out there is a ton to investigate in this area.
Sorry, but this doesn't explain anything to me. You've traced genetic mutations that cause an array of ailments and conditions spread all over the body, and propose that taking vitamin B will cure them all?...
Sorry if you were looking for a single SNP or something simple. If that was the case this would have been found long ago. Same goes for a b vitamin. Giving vitamin b wont "cure them all". This is complex and happy to discuss over phone / email if you are serious about understanding it.
Attempts to guide sexual orientation, either forced or self-guided, are not as straightforward for bisexual people (pun intended), seeing that the literature in sexology describes some successes that would confuse some less wellread people.
Ho man, do you think that actually is how society works?
The reason religious groups tend to be so anti-gay (and in many prominent cases anti-birth control, anti-prostitution, pro-‘getting married and having kids’), is because those absolutely do directly correlate with increasing population and pro-social control of the population.
At least in an environment where how many soldiers you can field and how well you can direct your population to do what society wants (as compared to what the individuals want) matters. Which is pretty much all of history, with some very rare and historically ephemeral exceptions.
Most of the world still operates this way, and we’ll likely go back to operating this way in a generation or three anyway. It’s pretty fundamental to our biology and at least historic human social dynamics and economics.
Supporting - it’s the wheel. These patterns exist because they are self propagating and work well enough to reproduce faster than they get destroyed, unlike other less common patterns. Additionally, many of these behaviors involve deeply ingrained behaviors that have evolved during humanities entire existence. They may be subverted, redirected, controlled, confused, etc. but they aren’t just going to actually disappear.
I see no evidence that other potential options currently in play are as good or better at reproducing, so eventually, the ‘old’ patterns will win out. Albeit fit to the current context.
I suspect we’re in the equivalent of the pre-Victorian era right now. I suspect the current dynamics will trend towards harems of voluntarily ‘kept’ women (on the lower status side for the women) and ‘in charge’ women in the high status side with staffs of ‘kept’ men, and lots of sexless men/Johns, until it breaks and we rotate again.
Notably, these dynamics have occurred many, many, many times over human history.
The dynamic with Will Smith seems to be an example of the latter, for instance. Most male pro sports players, actors, and businessmen being the former.
Against - birth control is a major change in human reproductive ‘physics’ (similar to nuclear weapons in the ‘physics’ of war).
So maybe something else entirely will emerge. I currently don’t see any clear winners though on that front, not that we aren’t trying. I see a massive shift towards it, actually, as people ‘get what they want’ more effectively in the short term, allowing those able to play the long game better to prosper.
The societal backlash is building though, and in 20-30 years when the current generation of women no longer get the benefits they previously enjoyed (and/or their kids are old enough to vote), we’ll see it. If we aren’t already.
Counter-Against - while we haven’t had any new world wars since inventing the nuke, it’s not like shooting/bombing/invading has stopped, has it? It’s just switched to a different presentation of the same shit.
We are getting more efficient at maximizing the damage and speeding up the iterations though.
In developed capitalist economies children become liability, and not an asset. This is why fertility rates all over the world get rapidly decreased, even in homophobic societies.
I don't think the global fertility rate is in any way impacted by LGBT people not having children, even if it's a factor, it is just minuscule compared to the effects of e.g. better education and living in a post-industrial economy.
And what happens when education stops getting better or is unattainable for a lot of the population, and material wealth stops increasing per capita?
And because labor is so expensive, it’s hard to live/get things done?
Like….. has been increasingly the trend?
We have a ways to go, but population decreases leave a vacuum - and nature abhors a vacuum.
Birth control allows us to resist nature, but at some point someone is going to come up with something that neutralizes its effects (ideological, I’m guessing), and that person/group is going to reproduce to fill the vacuum.
LGBT doesn’t need to materially impact the numbers to be targeted - they just need to be clearly having an easier time while the other groups are ‘working harder’. That is more than sufficient to get demonized/‘other’d’/targeted, etc.
However, if left ‘unchecked’ (in a religious/societal sense), I’d be shocked if LGBTQ didn’t move the population growth rate needle at least 5-10%. Maybe as much as 25% if we count bi/trans/aro/childless by choice/BDSM/poly in the mix - anyone not producing children in the socially ‘right’ way.
Society wide? That is huge.
At least based on all the conservative sex scandals, and wives who suddenly learn their husbands have a side boy toy (or are going to the nearest public park or gay club at 2am), and women I’ve know that suddenly realize they’re actually lesbians when they’re 40.
If you claim it’s not immutable, you enable quacks who torture people thinking they can “convert” them to “straight” and promise parents that they can “““fix””” their kids.
Conversion “““therapy””” does not work, it is torture and has never worked but religious nutjobs keep insisting because they think it’s a choice, or because they like it, or because they think it’s their duty to “fix” people.
This isn't the basis: even if such a thing were a choice there would be no good reason to persecute those who made that choice. Secondly, such things can be immutable or at least very hard to change even if they are not affected by genetics.
There are plenty of ‘good’ reasons to persecute people for making choices like this - like for instance if someone themselves was forced to pretend they weren’t gay, hates themselves and society for it, and is pissed off that someone else might not be forced to do the same.
Or at least that’s what I’ve noticed seems to happen sometimes.
If society feels it’s important that everyone ‘follows the plan’, those folks will be recruited into places of power and give atta-boys every time they make the news, no?
And considering how much (often scary and unfun) work it is to raise kids, and how hard it is to deal with the opposite sex (for both sides), a large portion of the population will happily tell society to go fuck itself and party unless someone like that ‘holds the line’.
Hard for society to grow and be strong when it’s easy to ‘dodge the draft’, as it were.
I think that exaggerates the argument into something brittle and thus weaker. Immutability is sufficient but not required.
The issue isn't whether something can technically be changed or not, the issue is whether it is wrong to coerce people in that direction.
Imagine if tomorrow someone invented magic (de)tanning bed where a few weeks of treatments would permanently change your skin color. Would that new capability suddenly make it acceptable for employers to hire only certain shades?
For that matter, we can talk about things like discrimination on the basis of religion, which has already been mutable for all recorded history.
The basis of the civil rights movement and the LGBT+ community is not, to the best of my understanding, that these characteristics are immutable on the basis of genetics.
In fact, this breakthrough research is the first to link human bisexual behavior to any gene. Which actually should have been the focus of the article.
Yeah, I mean think what you want about trans people but to say acceptance of different sexual orientations is because it's an immutable quality but that gender dysphoria, the well documented medical disorder that has resisted all forms of therapy based treatment and reconditioning -- that causes such constant distress that it drives sufferers to suicide isn't also based on the idea that it's an immutable quality is nuts.
I can't fathom how people believe that subjective tinnitus exists and (at the extremes) causes a constant distress that drives people to suicide despite the fact that all evidence of its existence is self-reported by sufferers but then turn around at gender dysphoria and be like, "seems fake."
If it is meant to describe sexual attractions, and since he is cherrypicking letters he likes in what is actually an unified political movement, and to be facetious, shouldnt it include the most popular sexual attraction type?
The article is literally about bisexual and same sex behavior. So in this case it would not make sense to include heterosexuality, even though that is the most common.
Although immutability is the basis for the LGBT+ political movements, it is known that in some cases sexual orientation fluctuates over time or even flips either way by itself, although there is no known and reliable way to force such changes at will.
> Renewables are not a complete solution, you need a backup for when the wind down't blow and the sun don't shine.
You can't just switch off and oon a nuclear plant. It is not good as a backup solution.
> But turning off perfectly fine reactors that have already been paid for and are producing tons of CO2 free electricity in a so-called "climate emergency" is incompetence that's indistinguishable from malice.
Well, while this is by no means scientifically sound, between 2011 (the year Merkel decided to get rid of the nuclear power plants) and 1954 (the year the first such power plant got available for civilian production) there were two worst accidents and one half. Using this data there was a catastrophic accident every 22.8 years, luckily not in our neighbourhood.
> You can't just switch off and oon a nuclear plant. It is not good as a backup solution.
That turns out not to be the case. For example, the French stations are built so they can easily manage a much larger range.
However, this is backwards. Or as I put it elsewhere: if the logical choice in a particular situation is a really stupid choice, you need to examine the decisions that got you in that situation.
Although turning nuclear power plants on and off again is possible, it is stupid. Just keep them running! The illogical choice that gets you in the situation that nuclear is "a bad fit" is making an unreliable, unpredictably intermittent power source your primary. That just makes no sense whatsoever.
> two worst accidents and one half.
1. Even with those accidents, nuclear is still among the safest power sources.
2. The negative effects of the accidents were far less than is generally assumed in the wider public.
3. The Tchernobyl reactor was inherently unstable. We don't have any inherently unstable reactors in the West. And last I checked the RMBK-1000 was retrofitted to no longer have the instability. And Ukraine is not just keeping nuclear power, but is among the states that have pledged to expand it 3-fold.
4. The Fukushima reactor was damaged by an unprecedented Tsunami that killed 15000 people. Whereas the reactor accident itself killed zero. We don't have Tsunmais in Europe, and if we ever get one, the reactors will be our smallest problems. Just like the reactor was the smallest problem with the Tsunami in Japan. Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold.
5. The deadliest accident of a power-generating technology was a dam that broke in China in 1975. It killed >15000 people, destroyed upwards of 4 million homes and displaced 11 million people. Not only did no country whatsoever get out of hydro-power, the accident is virtually unknown in the West.
6. The Bhopal chemical accident killed upwards of 4000 people and injured half a million. No country disbanded their chemical industry as a result.
> The Fukushima reactor was damaged by an unprecedented Tsunami that killed 15000 people. Whereas the reactor accident itself killed zero. We don't have Tsunmais in Europe, and if we ever get one, the reactors will be our smallest problems. Just like the reactor was the smallest problem with the Tsunami in Japan. Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold.
A single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years. Even today many of the reactors are not running, have been closed forever or are not save (-> the affected reactors at Fukushima). 12 reactors have resumed operations, out of 54.
If there is a severe earthquake, I bet the surviving people want to have electricity. Zero of the Japanese nuclear power plants produced electricity after the earthquake. Instead they needed electricity&cooling, to not melt. In Fukushima there was not enough cooling, so cores did melt. Now they are needing several decades to keep the melted cores under control. Costs pile up...
The government has a conservative cost estimate of >200 billion USD for the Fukushima accidents.
> Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold.
The Japanese nuclear generating capacity is very low. Less than 1/4 of their reactors are allowed to run.
"Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry".
"Introducing the current situation in Japan, Uetake (Senior Managing Director of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF)) said, “Due to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, nuclear power—which had previously accounted for about 30% of total electricity generated in the country—fell to zero percent. However, with 12 years having passed since the accident, some 12 reactors have resumed operations, and another five have passed the new regulatory standards and are preparing to resume operations.” He also pointed out that ten reactors are currently under review, and “if all of them were to be restarted, the total number of reactors in Japan would be 27, or three times the number of nine reactors in operation as of 2020.”"
Where your "3-fold" means far below the state of the nuclear industry before Fukushima. 27 reactors are half the number of what they had operating before Fukushima. They have 54 reactors. "3-fold" just means, that they want to restart some of the old reactors.
> single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years.
Comically incorrect.
The Tsunami took out a single reactor.
Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors. Just like human overreaction took out Germany's accident-free, reliable and cost-effective reactor fleet.
> Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry".
Incorrect. The elected Japanese government.
> "3-fold" also means, that they just want to restart some of the old reactors.
Interesting interpretation of the 3-fold commitment from Japan. I doubt it's actually a correct interpretation.
Let's see:
"Japan adopted a plan on Thursday to extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors, replace the old and even build new ones, ..."
"Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct. And that's just one country out of the 22 who signed the pledge. And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China.
Germany's phase out has been a great advertisement for nuclear power.
> Comically incorrect. The Tsunami took out a single reactor.
If you don't know it, the Fukushima power plant had six reactors. Three reactors had meltdowns. Four of the six reactors were destroyed. The remaining two are in shutdown since then.
The Tsunami was caused by a strong (series of) Earthquake. The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country, not just the Tsunami.
The fact is, and this is not comical, today only 12 of 54 reactors are running. More than a decade later.
> Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors.
That only shows that you are living in an alternate reality, where you are the expert and you know better than the authorities in a country, where the actual event happened. I doubt that you have any more experience of nuclear technology than the authorities in Japan.
> "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct.
You can't fully read the thing you posted? Look here:
"Under the new policy, Japan will also push for the development and construction of "next-generation innovative reactors" to replace about 20 reactors now set for decommissioning."
So they will lose 20 reactors. They also want to develop a next generation and deploy it. How many? Doesn't say. When? Doesn't say. What technology? Doesn't say. They say "next generation". Clear: 20 reactors will be decommissioned. Unclear: when and how they want to replace them. Many of the reactors to be decommissioned are probably not even running now, since only 12 reactors are online.
My guess: it won't happen. Second guess: if it happens, it'll take >30 years.
The "next generation" (then) EPR in France has cost increase estimations between four and six times. Planning and construction is now ongoing for roughly 25 years. (-> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(Kernkraftwerk)#Beginn_der... -> "Bereits 1998 wurde das grundsätzliche Design der Anlage festgelegt.")
The only thing which is sure: it will be late and extremely expensive. Plus: the decommissioning of 20 reactors will cost > 100 billion USD.
Japan is a fast aging country. Where do they get the engineers for all this from? Japan expected to lose 20% of its population until around 2050.
> And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China.
India has 3% of electricity production from nuclear. Tripling that over the next decades won't change much. 72% of electricity is generated from coal.
Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ...
You just need to check the existing capacity for various power plants and the newly built capacity for power plants from the last years. The trend is clear: nuclear stagnates and struggles to replace aging capacity. Renewable energy is massively expanding, world wide.
The reactors were fine. The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.
>> "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct.
> You can't fully read the thing you posted?
Yes I can. Alas, you don't seem to be able to read or remember what you wrote:
>>> "3-fold" just means, that they want to restart some of the old reactors.
This was false and continues to be false. They are building new ones.
> In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online.
Yes, in addition to building out nuclear and renewables, China is als still building coal plants.
Can you explain how that is related to anything? I mean, they als build cities, bridges, railway lines, ships, ...
> Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ...
Citation needed.
Nuclear is quicker than renewables. France converted their electricity to nuclear in 20 years. Germany has taken 20 years so far to try the same with renewables and we are flailing. We have the 2nd most expensive and 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. And we haven't even started on the more difficult part yet.
> ...the last years.
The underinvestment into nuclear in the last 10-20 years is a well-known problem that is just now being corrected. Linearly extrapolating the past is ... not wise. Particularly when there has been a massive policy change.
Germany is alone in the world with its Atomausstieg. The rest of the world is looking at us with pity and bemusement while they build reliable, grid-level electricity generating capacity in the form of nuclear reactors.
They withstood the earthquake. They were not shut down by the earthquake.
The one claims to know better than the Japanese authorities is the one who says they are not building new plants, just reactivating old plants. When the Japanese themselves say they will be building new plants.
> They withstood the earthquake. They were not shut down by the earthquake.
You know nothing about safety of nuclear power plants in Japan?
There is a nuclear power plant. Then there is a strong earthquake.
Technical systems will automatically shutdown the powerplant, if the earthquake is of a certain strengths. If not, it might be shutdown because of other factors (like loss of outside electricity).
Then one does not know the state of the power plant.
Then an inspection will determine the state of the powerplant. It might also be the case that damage was minor. Still the question again: is this powerplant still safe to operate? Will it survive another earthquake? Are the assumptions about the strength of earthquake still correct etc.
It will be determined if powerplants will need technical improvements, for example powerplants on the coast might need better flood protections. It is then seen if technical improvements are possible & economical.
Take for example Fukushima Daini, another nuclear powerplant on the coast:
To make it clear to you: Daini is ANOTHER power plant and not the Daiichi powerplant. It also sits on the coast and it has four reactors. A single powerplant with four reactors, on the coast. Affected by both the Earthquake and the Tsunami (which was caused by the Earthquake).
"All four units were automatically shut down (scram) immediately after the earthquake"
"The tsunami caused the plant's seawater pumps, used to cool reactors, to fail. Of the plant's four reactors, three were in danger of meltdown.[19] One external high-voltage power line still functioned, allowing plant staff in the central control room to monitor data on internal reactor temperatures and water levels. 2,000 employees of the plant worked to stabilize the reactors. Some employees connected over 9 kilometers of cabling using 200-meter sections of cable, each weighing more than a ton, from their Rad Waste Building to other locations onsite."
"The tsunami that followed the earthquake and inundated the plant was initially estimated by TEPCO to be 14 meters high, which would have been more than twice the designed height.[11] Other sources give the tsunami height at Fukushima Daini plant at 9-meter-high"
"In unit 3, one seawater pump remained operational and the residual heat removal system (RHR) was started to cool the suppression pool and later brought the reactor to cold shutdown on March 12."
"The loss of cooling water at reactors 1, 2 and 4 was classified a level 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (serious incident) by Japanese authorities as of March 18."
"As of June 2011, 7,000 tons of seawater from the tsunami remained in the plant. The plant planned to release it all back into the ocean, as the tanks and structures holding the water were beginning to corrode. Approximately 3,000 tons of the water was found to contain radioactive substances, and Japan's Fisheries Agency refused permission to release that water back into the ocean."
and so on.
The reactor was early on in a critical state and three more meltdowns were feared.
You did not do any research on what happened with the reactors in Japan.
Sad.
They had a lot of luck that this powerplant did not have the same fate as the one in Fukushima Daiichi.
TEPCO has closed the plant and it will be decommissioned.
The Japanese nuclear industry was prone to corruption, incompetence and criminal behavior. Especially TEPCO the owner of the plants:
"On March 2, 2011, just days before the start of the current earthquake catastrophe, Japan's nuclear regulators lobbed accusations of mass negligence against Tepco. It alleged that Tepco had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, one of the sites of the current catastrophe, including central cooling system elements in the six reactors, and spent fuel pools that hadn't been inspected according to regulations. The company has since admitted to having made the errors."
"At the same time, Tepco also reported to the nuclear regulatory authority that it had not only failed to do the 33 inspections at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, but also 19 further inspections at the nearby Fukushima-Daini plant."
Just shortly before the Earthquake, the reactors were claimed to be safe by Tepco.
Checking the Wikipedia page, this was a sister plant to the one with the meltdown, located very similarly and inundated by the same 14m Tsunami that was twice the height both plants were designed for.
It got a bit luckier and avoided the same fate.
So same kind of plant, same Tsunami, better results.
What exactly was your point here?
Oh, and there was corruption in the Japanese nuclear industry.
I also remember reading about those problems after Fukushima, and that actually informed my change in opinion about nuclear power:
There was corruption, they were using an old design, they disregarded new directives, the Tsunami was unprecedented.
Yet despite all that crap going on, very few people were harmed by the reactor accident, whereas a LOT were harmed by the Tsunami.
Maybe this nuclear stuff isn't nearly as dangerous as I thought?
I'm helping you with your own question: I gave you an example where a reactor was not shutdown for 'political reasons'. It was shutdown because it was a crap safety design, which almost caused additional meltdowns.
> So same kind of plant, same Tsunami, better results.
But not good results. The results were still shit: the reactors had be decommissioned.
> the Tsunami was unprecedented
Was it? Japan sits for several million years on the "ring of fire" with lots of volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, ...
The 2011 earthquake was only the strongest in the short recorded time. There are similar strong ones on the list. -> Earthquake under sea cause Tsunami.
> Yet despite all that crap going on, very few people were harmed by the reactor accident, whereas a LOT were harmed by the Tsunami.
A few 100k people lost their homes. 10k people will work in the reactors with high radiation over the next thirty years. Japan lost >> 100 billions USD worth of electricity production infrastructure.
What's worse: they built the reactors knowing that there was a chance of a meltdown, the molten fuel went through the reactor containment and was going into a concrete bed underneath, where it also was melting into it. With the Earthquake creating cracks. But the kicker: they had no idea what to do then. No plans, no technology, no sensors, nothing. They had decades time to prepare. They did nothing.
6 years after the accident they were finally able to measure radiation inside a reactor: 530 Sievert per hour...
They were completely clueless what actually happened, because all electronics (sensors, computers, cameras, robots, ...) were useless, because they all were dead because the high radiation. It will take decades to develop the technology to deal with the molten cores themselves. 880 tons of molten nuclear fuel. -> https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfukushima-decommissioni...
Looks pretty bad, when a single event can take out all their nuclear reactors for years (please don't mention your armchair expert bullshit that it was all politically overreacting on their side).
"Kan's decisions to back away from nuclear power came after an unusual number of public demonstrations. "
And of course, all this is an irrelevant sideshow.
The point is that you claimed nuclear power is on its way out.
Except that turns out not to be the case, we have had 22 countries committing to tripling nuclear power. Tripling is not "on the way out".
And it turns out that Japan is one of those countries. Something you first denied. Then you claimed they were only reactivating their old reactors. Even if that claim were correct: so what? It's an increase compared to now.
But your claim is not correct: they are actually planning to build new plants.
And of course Japan is just one country of the 22 (+China+India+...). So again, how is nuclear on the way out?
You know what is on its way out? The German Energiewende. A lot of countries were going to follow this model, but most have now reconsidered, and the few that remain are hedging, for example Belgium just extended the life of their reactors. In Switzerland, recent initiatives to turn their reactors off earlier than currently planned were rejected by the electorate, and of course they have >50% reliably hydro power.
In fact, the German public also rejects the Energiewende, around 60% say that getting out of nuclear was a mistake. I have a hard time thinking of anything in recent times that got that kind of a majority.
You found another plant that was affected by the Tsunami (not the earthquake directly), as it was a sister plant of the one that melted down and sited about the same, so inundated by the same unprecedented Tsunami.
Now you claim the Tsunami wasn't unprecedented. The Japanese disagree with you, but what do they know? About anything really. You know better than them about their plans for nuclear power, you know better than them about their Tsunamis, you know better than them what the risk/reward of nuclear power is...despite them actually having had to deal with the 2nd worst nuclear accident in history.
Coming back to the Tsunami:
"It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan,..."
"Most powerful ever recorded" sounds pretty unprecedented to me.
"The earthquake triggered powerful tsunami waves that may have reached heights of up to 40.5 meters (133 ft) "
"Among the factors in the high death toll was the unexpectedly large water surge. The sea walls in several cities had been built to protect against tsunamis of much lower heights. Also, many people caught in the tsunami thought they were on high enough ground to be safe"
So a lot of non-nuclear infrastructure in Japan built specifically to withstand or even protect from Tsunamis was...washed away by this Tsunami. To point a finger exclusively at the nuclear infrastructure that was also washed away is either ignorant or dishonest.
> And of course Japan is just one country of the 22 (+China+India+...). So again, how is nuclear on the way out?
Japan has only working 12 reactors. Tripling those will create 36. It had 54.
It's just TRYING to catch up. Other countries will have it more difficult, they need to build new ones. That will take decades and will have very little effect on a global scale, while at the same time many reactors are aging.
That's with all these numbers, it's hard to believe that you don't understand that there is not one trend to look at, there are several possible trend curves to look at. What you believe is that the most optimistic outlook proposed by the nuclear industry will actually happen. Good luck with that. There are a lot of other trend predictions possible. One would be to just calculate the current trend a bit further. That would show that nuclear fluctuates around zero expansion. I think even that will be optimistic.
> "Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..."
They still were ALL shutdown. ALL. Not a single one was running for several years. But you know better.
Now you can ask yourself why that was? You might think a bit and find out that the "political" argument is both bullshit and not bullshit:
a) Politics is responsible to govern a country. In the end it makes the decisions, and not technocrats. That's their responsibility. Politics should govern a country, not the nuclear industry.
b) "Withstood" means not that much for nuclear safety. That a reactor "withstood" one event does not mean that it will withstand the next event. To assess damage (and the reactors had damages (just read the story about the Daini reactor), to analyze the event and improve reactor safety. Many reactors had massive safety problems exposed. That's why they were either shutdown or closed.
> "It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan,..."
Recording is just done for a few years. It shows that such strong earthquakes are possible in Japan. Better prepare for the next one.
Now it is expanding. Obviously from its current base. They can't expand from some other base than the current one. And once again, Japan is one of 22+ countries expanding, with the goal of tripling by 2050. Maybe in your universe tripling means "getting out of". In the Real World™ it does not.
> Not a single one was running for several years. But you know better.
What on earth are you talking about? The fact that they were all shut down was never in dispute.
However, your claim was that they were all knocked out of operation for years by the earthquake.
That was false.
SOME were knocked out by the Tsunami. Obviously so and also never in any way in dispute, with the most prominent example the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Again, do you really believe that this was in dispute?
However, shutting down ALL of them was a political decision, a simple fact you continue to deny.
It was. Again quoting:
"Prime Minister Naoto Kan this week persuaded the operators of another nuclear plant west of Tokyo to temporarily close it to make safety improvements. And he is canceling a plan to build more nuclear facilities."
"Declining public support for nuclear power appears to be having an impact on Kan's thinking."
In what universe is the prime minister persuading operators to close a plant due to declining public support not a political decision?
"The Imperial Earthquake Investigation Committee was created in 1892"
"In modern times, the catalogues compiled by Tatsuo Usami are considered to provide the most authoritative source of information on historic earthquakes, with the 2003 edition detailing 486 that took place between 416 and 1888"
Note that they even have estimated magnitudes for these older quakes.
So in your universe, 1600+ years is "just a few years". OK.
And obviously you know better than the Japanese about their earthquakes.
> it's hard to believe that you don't understand that there is not one trend to look at,
Sigh. There are obviously multiple trends. Germany is obviously moving in a different direction (or has moved) from the rest of the world. Belgium is also still moving tentatively in the direction of Germany, but even there the momentum has slowed with the decision to postpone the shutdown. Similar in Switzerland. I would not be at all surprised if they also reverse entirely within the next couple of years.
However, it is very obviously possible to compare these trends and to combine them to form an overall trend. Just three years ago you would have been correct, the overall trend was away from nuclear, and Germany was at the forefront of the overall trend.
This has shifted. Dramatically. The overall trend is now towards more nuclear, not less. And not just hypotheticals, but official and enacted government policy. And Germany is now the outlier. Very clearly. Heck, even the German public has figured out that getting out of safe, reliable and inexpensive nuclear, even with all its problems, was a mistake.
> Hamas definitely started this particular fist-fight.
A few months before the Hamas attack, the Israeli minister of finances, Bezalel Smotrich (who also is tasked with the responsibility for administrating the occupied West Bank) said: "There is no such thing as the Palestinian people":
Did you know, that the British, during WWII, bombarded German settlements, holding mostly women, children and elderly, on purpose ("Area bombing directive")? In Germany they still call it: "Bombenterror gegen die Zivilbevölkerung", or, "Bombing terror against the civilian population". Here is the Wikipedia article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_bombing_directive
I do not take any side in this conflict. I think, both sides are monsters. But feeling this way, I can not tolerate one sided commenting, that paints one side as "reasonable" while not accepting what the other side has to endure.
I was always a vinyl guy. At least up into the late 90's, when digital sound engineering started to become on par with analog. At least for my taste.
I will never forgive myself, that I didn't buy tons and tons of vinyl at the end of the 80's, early 90's, when they could be had for cents/piece. Admittedly I was a very poor student back then, but I should have spent less money on party and more money on vinyl.
In the DIY scene (hardcore, punk, metal, etc.) vinyl was a very popular format for independent bands because it was cheap and accessible (both for the bands, their small labels if they even had one, and the fans), but I think obscurity and doing the opposite of what the mainstream is doing were significant factors as well. I used to have an absolute shitload of 7”, EPs, and LPs from random bands all over the world but I got rid of them because a good amount of it I didn’t listen to anymore, and I just didn’t have the space for a record collection. Some of those records that I got for next to nothing are outrageously expensive now in the aftermarket. With the vinyl revival that’s been happening for a few years, oddly enough some bands are going to cassette tapes for similar reasons as the old vinyl days.
I’m looking forward to the 8 track revival and the wax cylinder revival.
I wandered around the Louvre and didn't even think about the Mona Lisa being part of the exhibition. So I came from rooms, filled with huge paintings of old masters, into this small room, that was packed with visitors. I was astound and asked myself: "What is going on in here?", turned around and...THERE SHE WAS <gasp>!
Well placed beneath a sheet of the thickest armored glass I've ever seen! And she was so tiny! But: she smiled at me. And it was real! As, if this woman would be alive and you see her in a cafe two desks next to you!
I don't think she is so famous, because of this theft. She is famous, because she gives the viewer the impression of a real, alive person looking at you.
But EdgeOS was not the only fork, another one was VyOS (vyos.io). Pretty sure, that EdgeOS has done larger steps forward, especially, since it was bound to the hardware's developer.