cluckindan

> power is so cheap with renewables

Heavily disagree. A ”green” power contract typically has at least double the price of a generic one.

Polyfills/ponyfills for functionality that has been specified but not yet (widely) implemented, or just missing from some blessed runtime at hand.

HTML/CSS is notoriously bad for print.

Basic text styles are ok, but things like authored pagination, page header/footer, mirrored margins, margin notes, footnotes and references are basically unsupported or need to be hacked together.

That’s not a feature of legalization, but convenience: illegal weed is easier to get hold of even in places where cannabis is not legalized at all.

How does that make sense? Is it not more simple to amplify and reframe current events than it is to manufacture entirely new narratives?

Why don’t you show your claims to be true?

So N=1? 2? 3?

What important functionality do you feel is missing from the commonly used JS environments (node and browser) that is causing people to install it as a third party dependency?

The issue isn’t that the functionality doesn’t exist, it’s always backwards compatibility with versions where it did not yet exist.

How does that protect against credential theft? MFA required to sign published releases?

Which package manager is that, and what caveats does it offer?

Is that even true?

Pro-nuclear comes from scientifically informed progressives, definitely not conservatives.

Nuclear IS a green energy solution.

One Parkersburg, WV is already one too many, yet next to nothing is done.

Solar and wind haven’t yet solved the two major issues: producing power 24/7/365 even when it isn’t sunny or windy (or when it’s too windy).

Batteries are one solution, but the power storage requirements far surpass the world’s capacity for battery production, and come with the same caveats: rare earth metals, which need mining. Mining is a huge source of air pollution, as mining equipment is usually diesel powered, and far worse for the environment due to pollution of natural surface and ground water reservoirs.

Uranium mines have the same issues for sure, the scale is just very different.

Revisionism it is not. It was Schröder’s administration that shut down Germany’s nuclear power plants.

Where is the peace movement and so-called environmentalism rooted?

Pro-nuclear is pro-environment.

The alternatives are fossil fuels and renewables, which are both extremely anti-environment: water power require large artificial reservoirs and create flood risks, wind power kills/drives away wildlife and is almost useless without efficient large—scale energy storage and other methods of power generation, while solar also requires storage and other power generation but also requires mining of rare earth metals.

Of course we could just stop all of our industries to save power. No more production, no more consumption, no more pollution.

In the last 70 years, 600-700 nuclear reactors have been in operation worldwide, and three of them have had major accidents. You already mentioned two of them, the third is Three Mile Island.

That’s a catastrophic failure rate under 0.5 percent. Sure, the effects of a failure spread widely and can be a hazard for a long time, but personally I would want to see the same risk-averse sentiment applied to production and use of perfluorinated compounds and fossil fuels, since both of those can spread much farther and cause more of a hazard.

The cherry on top: coal power plants spread significant amounts of radionuclides into the environment.

What makes you think the Chernobyl accident was not embraced to influence European policy?

More like the robot thing to do.

Anti-nuclear sentiment in Germany was entirely manufactured; it was the product of Gerhard Schröder and similar robots who enriched themselves on Russian oil and gas.

Ironically, it is also where the so-called Green Party began.

dang, please block these links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...

”npm install” does not update the lockfile in any current major version.

At least not if you haven’t edited your package.json manually.

”TanStack maintainer Tanner Linsley said the attacker used an orphaned commit to gain access to the workflow run that stores the OIDC token, effectively bypassing the project’s existing publishing protections. He noted that two-factor authentication is enabled for everyone on the team”

Still originally a derivative of AT&T Unix. :)

> your point that shock content doesn't resonate with an audience, create demand or a potential desire to emulate what's depicted.

My point was that it doesn’t resonate with the principles of advertising. Certainly shock content can resonate with an audience, as well as create demand and desire to emulate: just look at the success of the Jackass franchise.

The kids aren’t buying tobacco because of the images, though — very few if any adults are either. I would assume they’re cutting out their collections from discarded packaging, and that they would not want to emulate lung cancer even if they saw pictures of it.

Purely guessing here, but it doesn’t seem likely that content on rotten.com would have led anyone, let alone masses of people, to become human butchers: in the OP article, the desire to emulate was limited to building narratives around the content.

Crime scene investigator or trauma surgeon, maybe those are more likely outcomes.

> to deny all of advertising

I don’t think that is true. Advertising relies on manufactured needs, portraying the hawked goods and services as things one needs to live a comfortable, easy, pleasurable or socially worthy life.

None of that resonates with shock content.

As an extreme example, you supposedly can’t sell guns by showing pictures of gun suicide victims. This is also why some governments require tobacco products to feature gruesome images of smoker lungs, cancer, etc. Ironically, kids in those countries have started collecting and trading those images cut out from tobacco packages.

Curiosity lands squarely opposite of control.

You can’t regulate the quality of things you don’t produce (or allow to be produced). You can’t regulate the sales of things you don’t sell (or allow to be sold).

BSD was originally a derivative of AT&T Unix.

Making substances completely illegal is the exact opposite of regulation, though.

It’s not so simple as ”intoxicant” being addictive.

Many ”intoxicants” are inherently not addictive and may even help getting rid of other addictions (ayahuasca / DMT / other psychedelics).

Many things are not ”intoxicants” yet are addictive.

Addiction is a feature of human physiology. More specifically, FosB turning into delta-FosB seems to be the generic marker of any type of addiction, and it directly drives addictive behaviors when overexpressed in the prefrontal cortex.

The physiology is a result of millions of years of evolutionary adaptation, and while it must have correlated with evolutionary fitness at some point(s) and in some scenario(s), modern humans are surrounded by so many novel stimuli and ways of self-stimulation that we simply have not yet had the time to physiologically adapt to the situation where some of our addictions are not actually conferring true increases in our evolutionary fitness.

So can many other things. People who suffer from psychoses will eventually have an episode, but those who use cannabis in moderation tend to suffer less cognitive impairment than the abstinent or the heavy users.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221500131...

Quit sitting around?