I refuse to enter into joinder with this discussion, but for the record:
The all-caps name, PYREX, is the de jure, natural bakeware, created of the land (borosilicate). It has inherent, unalienable rights to withstand thermal shock. It is a true vessel.
The lowercase name, Pyrex, is the corporate fiction, the STRAWMAN created under the maritime law of commerce. It is a mere vessel in name only, subject to the whims and defects of its corporate creators. By purchasing it, you are unknowingly consenting to be governed by their rules of catastrophic failure.
Do not be deceived by their fraudulent conveyance. I do not consent to being a party to this contract. I am a free man, traveling upon the land with my original, common-law PYREX.
He was a Christian and a intellectual thought leader in one of the more reasonable groups of conservative youth in the USA. You can paint TPUSA however you like but political engagement is political engagement, whether it's happening with the same color uniform you decide is the better choice or not.
Welcoming and encouraging the free exchange of thought and ideas in an open forum. Free speech and American values are based directly in morality which comes to us from a higher power. This is all quite clear in the writings of the Founding Fathers and other contemporaries, but of course nowadays "American values" is shibboleth for "Nazi dogwhistles" to some population.
Yes, you're wrong. He was very influential and a leader of the youthful conservative movement in our country. TPUSA is extremely popular. This was an abhorrent, horrifyingly public assassination of a very popular figure -- one who has been honestly quite milquetoast in terms of conservative ideology compared to other well-known figures. He wasn't even running for political office, he simply encouraged political participation, open debate, and the free exchange of ideas in a public forum. He grew TPUSA into a bastion of grassroots revitalization in community-first politics. Truly truly sickening.
Dude, if you followed his teachings you wouldn’t feel this way…
"I can't stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made up. new age term, and it does a lot of damage.” - Charlie Kirk
Dude, that quote is out of context. He said he prefers "sympathy" to "empathy" and went on to call out those who push selective empathy when it suits their political agenda. He was right.
In my country Australia, there's a backlash on self-destructive "empathy" decisions in criminal courts. Violent repeat offenders are granted bail or short sentences for violent crime, why? Because the judge empathises with their traumatised upbringing, for example when they come from a war-torn country. This pattern of "justice" has spiked crime rates including violent home invasions and stabbings.
Very interesting, can you provide any more reading on this topic in particular? Curious about how the modern private market is approaching the fuel supply chain issue in creative ways.
It's not a substantive talking point, and this forum should encourage reasonable conversations not politically-hued science fiction; a Microsoft refining and enriching fissile material to weapons-grade would be one thing in and of itself.
Let's imagine, for your sake, if Elon, Bezos, Gates and Zuck, hell, maybe Branson - they all had a handful of bespoke nukes. Starship becomes Startshit, or whatever clever branding the tech bros come up for their "private enterprise physical defense AI-driven atomic-oriented energy constraint circumvention systems" that can guarantee corporate continuation in the event of micro-scale nuclear warfare.
(this is literally the plot to Fallout, IIRC).
so okay, now they're "superpowers," somehow, in this fictional world where the instant any of these organizations begin the path to centrifugal enrichment toward weapons-grade material, the IAEA and the DOE and nine thousand other detection agencies are just going to allow it?
HN used to be a bastion, the place you'd lurk because you'd only keep learning. Network effect + time just middles the Bell.
So no, there's no need for some "censorship" when the masses can recognize and downvote stupidity. The system is working.
Awesome. I'm convinced nuclear is the only realistic path toward an energy-laden sustainable future, I've yet to understand the fear mongering beyond political faction bearing and token counting in terms of district employment numbers or some such third-order nonsense... there's nothing safer in terms of human lethality.
Molten salt reactors, micro-reactors, modularity. It's the miltech we had in the 60s, on the path to commercialization and commoditization.
It's all proven technology and the obvious exemplar is the nuclear-powered navies, micro-cities that can roam, submerged within the depths of, or riding atop the world's oceans, for decades at a time. We've been doing this for over 70 years.
It's only a matter of time. AWS has a campus in PA already next to the power plant at Susquehanna, plugged in. They're invested in small modular reactors.
Google has contracts and investments toward the same end. This fits the pattern we're seeing across big tech, and it's driven by the non-negotiable power demands of AI.
I don't balk at the climate-changists, I'm more curious about the anti-Nuke sentiments on HN; what am I missing?
Nuclear may be a big part of the future (assuming storage prices don't plummet) but it's not going to be the bulk of the power we ever receive. It'll be the 10% that stabilizes the grid and provides baseload, at most.
Also relevant given the post is also about fusion.
At this conference for progress nerds, with big arguments between solar and fission nuclear "no one wanted to defend fusion".
> Fusion promises cheap clean limitless power if only we can solve difficult technological hurdles. But we already know how to produce cheap clean limitless power. The only delay is regulatory, and fusion doesn’t solve this.
...
> the only pro-fusion sentiment I saw at the conference was a series of graphs comparing “fission” and “fusion” and showing strong performance advantages for
”fusion” in all categories. But it turned out the pro-solar faction had mischievously labeled solar as “fusion” since it ultimately comes from the sun’s solar core. It was a good trick - think of solar as a new high-tech wonder, instead of as the annoying thing environmentalists keep nagging us about, and it really does look like a miracle.
Uranium shortage, expensive builds, long timelines, unproven technology(no commercial molten salt deployments). Just do solar and batteries. It is way cheaper and proven. Going to get even cheaper when sodium batteries become mainstream, less than half the cost of lithium batteries.
The problem is that I don't trust corporations to run nuclear plants reponsibly; and if they fail to do so and I get hurt, then I don't trust society to take care of me or to hold the corps accountable.
I don't outright buy the claim that a "failure" results in you getting hurt. Nuclear disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl are acute, immediate events. You're getting 3x the yearly radiation from one cross-country flight NYC to SF than you would if you lived at the gates of a nuclear power plant for a year.
You are at a much higher risk of dying from a commercial airliner crash in your lifetime than you are of any nuclear operation - accidental disaster or normal operation. There have been zero (0) human deaths in the US from any operation or accident at a nuclear plant. There were zero human deaths from radiation at the Fukushima meltdown. In fact, more than 2,000 people died from the evacuation alone; the earthquake and tsunami killed 15x as many.
Nuclear power is safe. Carbon-friendly. Effective. Operationalized. Not scary, just malunderstood.
I call absolute bullshit on this line of thinking. Microsoft and other corporations have just as much if not more public interest in keeping their reactors safe and effective. Not to mention financial interests.
>Nuclear disasters like Fukushima or Chernobyl are acute, immediate events.
Not at all.
Fukushima costs 7 billion per year now, after 15 years, with no end in sight. Boar with meat measuring over 30 000 bq/kg was shot 30 years after Chernobyl in areas over 1000 miles away.
The things that have already happened were not acute, immediate or local, they were wide-spread and long-lasting.
And they were far from the worst that could have happened. Imagine if the fire at Chernobyl was not put out, for example.
Financially and technically nuclear makes little sense since solar and batteries are faster to deploy and much cheaper.
Nuclear power is very interesting for nations and companies that want to extract money from the taxpaying population. Microsoft gets cheap electricity now, and when the US discovers that its promise to handle the waste and liability is crazy expensive, taxpayers will have to pay for it. Not Microsoft.
Politicians and corps generally want to start multi-billion dollar projects to deliver comparatively tiny amounts of electricity 10 years from now, because it's about the money today, not about the electricity tomorrow.
Don't fall for it. We want to build cheap, distributed, uncomplicated electricity ourselves, controlled by the people who consume it.
Even if nobody gets rich from selling electricity in that scenario, there's plenty of money to be made from consuming almost free electricity.
I'm just not sure we can trust the numbers in today's America. I'm sure it's safe if they are run responsibly, but we've already got stuff like Cancer Alley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley). I'm less worried about a disaster than I am about long term radiation exposure due to cut corners.
It's too expensive compared to solar with storage.
The numbers from published analyses are clear. The revealed preferences from local market participants and foreign geopolitical rivals strongly aligns with these analyses.
If Bill Gates wants to put his money into making it cheaper per Wh, then that's great, and I support him doing this.
There was popular resistance to nuclear, and nuclear was held back, but that doesn't mean nuclear was held back by popular resistance. It certainly doesn't explain why nuclear is struggling to compete with renewables globally, even in countries without popular resistance (like China).
McMurdo was powered by a modular reactor in the 60s. It's not "hypothetical" - though I do agree it's not economically scalable, but neither is training an LLM and before OpenAI did it DARPA did it, and you'd better believe the DOD did it too. I'm saying that the technology exists, it's been proven, and it can work - the hangup is political and cultural, and it burdens me with sadness to see conversation focus on things like "omg what if microsoft put clippy on an ICBM" it's appealing to ridicule and we've enough of that tendency these days. Instead we should celebrate this! Explore and discuss it from merit and principle.
I want to like nuclear, but it's clear that many of it's proponents are red-eyed bitcoin-maxis with that strange fanatical juvenile vibe going, and it all just turns me off because it's obvious they are spouting BS. It's all just an act to pump a penny stock or because they are an angsty teen.
It's LLM slop. I have done enough of these "projects" with every major model over the last six weeks to recognize it instantly. There are non-subtle patterns I would enumerate if I weren't quite this tired.
Fair - the write up could def be cleaner and was corrected using Ollama I framed in. The bash is not slop and why I use a another name - I do not want to get wrapped up in formatting vs function - in the spirit of open source here - make it better and fully anticipating I would get comments - honestly - I do not have the skill set (or desire) to strip LLM of guard rails - it was fun and worked on it for sometime - I work database and front end and rebuild radios (part time) in the real world and needed something for a personal project/goal
