Can you show any evidence? The images clearly show no broken teleprompters. Nothing was shattered around him.
FBI initially said they were investigating whether it was a bullet or shrapnel. Afaik they never actually assessed it was shrapnel.
I’m doubting that the IDF would use human shields because I don’t think Hamas would refrain from engaging them just to protect their own civilians.
I don’t understand why you’d doubt this in the comment section of a post that quite literally has proof they’re doing it.
So my issue is essentially this: the same people who seem completely unwilling to criticize Hamas for their use of human shields have no problem going after the IDF for it. In this case, even if the criticism is valid, I still see that as quite hypocritical.
Can you show anyone who is unwilling to criticize Hamas for the usage of human shields? Everybody knows what Hamas does, they’re a terrorist organisation after all. The question is why the IDF, which is supposedly “the most moral army in the world” is doing it too. Even so, it’s deflection through whataboutism.
There was no teleprompter in between Trump and the shooter that a fragment could have hit him from. Trump wasn’t directly hit, he was very lightly grazed at best.
Multiple investigative outlets all concluded he was hit by a bullet, and the fragment theory was discredited because there was no possible source such a fragment could have come from.
The point is that the correct response to an accusation of the usage of human shields is not pedantry. When there’s multiple documented cases of this happening, the correct response is not singling out specific examples that in spirit is still the usage of human shields but following some specific definition technically might not count. This serves no purpose other than to derail the conversation into pendantry.
You also made a logic error: according to you, the IDF wouldn’t use human shields because Hamas already does. And you reason that this must mean Hamas does not care if civilians die. But the entire point of human shields is that it makes it impossible to do certain military operations because it would kill civilians. The end result with this strategy isn’t dead civilians, it hinges on the civilians staying alive (and thus your military is too). Hamas doesn’t employ this strategy to get civilians killed, they do it to protect their operations. That exact same motivation could work for the IDF too.
The crimes that the IDF are accused of also in no way compare to what’s been happening in Ukraine. By making these comparisons you seem to be trying to minimize what the IDF is doing, which in effect defends the IDF.
If that’s not your intention, then stop and reflect carefully on what your comments actually contribute to the conversation. What you name the crime isn’t what’s important here, it’s the crime itself.
The shooter was fairly inexperienced and not that good at shooting. The fact he managed to hit the ear was quite surprising already.
Most webshops don’t directly implement payment methods, they implement PSPs. And those do keep good logs. Depending on the shop keeping those logs may be required by law too.
Our best current alternative option that’s already there is sadly gas. It’s fast, cheap and emissions are not the worst of the bunch. Still bad though.
As far as battery storage is concerned, battery prices have dropped 97% in the last three decades (and it’s still dropping quite quickly). See https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline for a pretty good overview. And that’s not taking into account other forms of energy storage like water-based storage or new batteries based on sodium.
The batteries we have now are already cheap enough to purchase for individual customers, and including solar panels means it’s already possible to effectively take houses off the grid. In 10 years those prices will be 50-25% of their current price in pessimistic scenarios. Solar is dropping in price at similar rates.
Absolutely true, but it does place some question marks after the supposed benefit of Taler. Not due to any fault of Taler ofc.
The GNU Taler prevents that by hiding that you ever bought a Dildo.
I mean, not really right? The government can still ask the webshop, that probably took your name and address. Or the PSP that facilitated the transaction, they likely know too. It’s not like Visa/MasterCard/banks are the only parties that know it now, and the others are usually also beholden to laws that let government agencies query things.
Nuclear doesn’t make sense for that purpose because it’d have to quickly be able to spin up and down. Most reactor designs aren’t really able to do it quickly in normal operations, and those that can can’t do so in a way that makes any economic sense. They’re financially outcompeted by their alternatives.
Storage is the solution, which we can build today in a viable way and is rapidly becoming cheaper and cheaper.
The financial case for nuclear today is shoddy at best. It’s why no company wants to touch it with a ten-foot pole unless heavy government subsidies are involved. The case for nuclear in ten years is, given the continuous advancements in renewable energy costs and battery storage tech, almost certainly dead.
That’s not what he’s saying, he says that due to Apartheid there are still some racial tensions and it’s also a reason for said unemployment and poverty.
Interesting, for me there’s a fairly clear difference in the colour blue:
We’re solving for the same problem. There is no path where nuclear is the most cost-effective solution.
If money is no concern, the fastest, most certain-to-succeed solution is mass-mining for battery materials, massive investment in things like sodium-based batteries and a huge investment in battery production capabilities. Scaling up solar provides the power, the batteries provide the storage. That results in net zero.
Nuclear takes decades to build. “Reactivating” Germany’s old and derelict reactors beyond their shelf life is dangerous and doing it safely is probably about as fast as building a new, higher capacity reactor. Which is to say, it’s very, very slow. And even then, you’d need dozens if not hundreds of reactors to meet the total power demand (France alone has 50+). There’s geopolitical concerns too, as reactors run on fuel that is not available in most of the world, some of the highest producing countries are either Russia or firmly in their backyard. IIRC Canada and Australia also produce a bit but not enough.
And then there’s the fact that we do not have nearly enough qualified people to build and run all these nuclear reactors. Meanwhile installing solar panels and battery packs is comparatively dead simple, and we have plenty of people who can do it.
Nuclear simply produces less MW per penny invested than renewables do. It’s slower to build. The “option C” as you present doesn’t work, because it implies an option D: 4MW of clean power, with no dirty MW after X years, for 4X money. The total carbon emitted is simply lower if nuclear is skipped and renewables are prioritised instead.
Remember as well, that nuclear only starts producing once it’s fully done. Renewables we can add to the mix today. Every MW of dirty energy saved now has a cumulative effect on the total emitted carbon.
No, this is not the case. The alternative for on-demand is batteries, not nuclear. Building sufficient battery capacity is often already cheaper than nuclear and by the time a nuclear reactor is finished building it’s guaranteed to be much cheaper. Nuclear is also terrible at being on-demand: it’s extremely expensive to shut off and restart, and pretty slow at it too. That means that it has to compete with cheap renewable energy at peak hours, which it easily loses. So you’d either have to subsidize it to keep it open, or force people to buy nuclear power which makes power more expensive (see France which has to subsidize the reactors, requires people to buy that power and as a result is constantly having to subsidize the people’s electricity bills too, covering a part of it. It costs the French government billions every year).
Nuclear also doesn’t help to get you off coal and gas quickly. It’s extremely slow to adopt.
Economic considerations are important. If you get can 1MW of clean power for X money, or 2MW instead, which is best to use? Less money spent per green MW means more green MWs in total.
For the environment, it’s likely best (eg lowest total emissions) to invest in renewables and storage, and to fill up the gaps during this adoption with gas. Gas is not great but it’s much better than coal, it’s great at on-demand scaling and it’s pretty cheap. This frees up enough money to keep investing in renewables which accelerates adoption.
The point is that no sane company touches nuclear with a ten-mile pole unless heavily subsidised, because it’s economically very challenging (if not impossible) to get it to run at a profit. It’s essentially a big money sink that also produces power.
Whereas alternatives, like renewables, cost a lot less and have a much more immediate return. It’s why companies do like to invest in those.
Nuclear as an option is badly outclassed economically.
You exist in the brain, which is ruled by physical processes. Not sure what citations you need for that.
That doesn’t matter for these folks, they’ll just call him a “self-hating jew”.
The graph on the left demonstrates how employment rate influences inflation (and vice versa). The graph on the right is a historical account of inflation and unemployment in the US, which is not the same thing.
The graph on the right is subject to a lot more variables. The one on the left is also a simplified model. It’s not really one to one.
Sure, but surely it knows that that unicode is the flag of Chad, and surely it’s read articles about the similarities between the two flags?
No abnormal finding in them tiddies