DerGottesknecht

You train neuronal networks with labeled data and those captchas are used to create the labels. Its not specified in the code what a bicycle is, but in the training data.

Nah, one side demonstrated over and over that they’re not interested in a good faith discussion and won’t compromise. After the x-th debate with climate change deniers the media should stop giving them attention.

Its a wrong analogy. We have limited resources and investment in renewables are faster and more efficient. Every dollar spent on nuclear doesn’t go in renewables, so its better to focus the effort.

she was just speculating on government corruption

That “just” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Shes namedropping Rothschilds and talking about satellites which beam focused light down to earth. So while she never directly said “jewish space lasers” it is at least heavily implied by her.

But the amount of cycles is not limitless, thermal and pressurefluctuations lead to material weakness over time. And a steeper gradient leads to faster deterioration

Wind kills 0.04 per TWH, nuclear 0.03 and solar 0.02. Why is nuclear acceptable for you and wind not?

Nuclear is one pathway there, and there’s no reason it can’t be complimentary to renewables.

The reason is limited resources. Whatever we invest into nuclear can’t be invested in renewables.

K

O…you don’t know what the AWB is do you?

Assault weapons ban. I just don’t know what this has to do with a discussion about way to many firearm deaths and mass shootings. It would be a step, but unless you also regulate handguns its not enough.

Just as a reminder, this comment by another user sparked your rant about rifles:

I think having less guns in the hand of people would mean there’s less gun crime.

So thats why I added the context of handguns.

In fact this “shooting” still is showing no mass shooting motivation and these two juveniles and the others not caught used handguns.

What are you referring to?

Again, care to go check out Japan?

Conservative Society, huge conformity pressure, stigma on mental problems and more factors lead to a high suicide rate. But without access to a quick and easy way to end your life it’s harder to kill yourself.

Sounds like you are since you can’t be bothered to actually give a fuck to understand what I’ve been writing up in this thread.

Yeah, you are the only one in this thread who understands it.

Nope because everyone seems to want to ban the scary black rifle first. It’s why AWBs are constantly brought up.

The discussion was clearly about firearms.

Congrats for providing the info…I don’t know what you are getting at with this. It’s literally what I said it was.

I added some context, mainly the fucking insane amount of handgun deaths. Btw, how many rifles do you think are in the unspecified Firearms category?

No shit? Really? It’s like we have an issue with suicide and not guns

You have ton of problema and they are compounding. Easy access to guns leads to many impulsive suicides. Usa has a mental health AND an gun problem.

And you are deep in denial.

Did you know that 3xs as many people are killed with knives than ALL rifles combined each year? And 2Xs as many via hands and feet(unarmed)? And that only around 50-100 people a year are killed with the AR-15 platform, this includes the police who kill 1k of us on average a year.

Did you conveniently forget handguns in your examples? The statistic shows that firearms are the most used tool for homicides by a huge margin.

Guns: 7936 Unspecified Firearms: 5704 Knives: 1630 Hands, Fists, Feet…: 665 Rifles: 541 …

Also >50% of all suicides are commited via firearms

And we still haven’t talked about all the accidents with guns…

The USA have several big fucking problems and firearms are a huge one.

Iceland has so much renewables with water and geothermal, they can use it however they want.

Nothing in this article said anything about the police in question being corrupt of abusive of their power.

It said US Police…

Thats very aptly put. I would also like to not only work the supply side and make demand more flexible to better work with renewables. And maybe get rid of personal cars and get people to ride more bikes and so on… And if we manage to stall/reverse global warming in the next 20 years we hopefully have fusion for all of the really big energy needs.

But most importantly, we need to do everything to get rid of fossil fuels as fast as possible. And that’s where I think we agree completely.

once you have reactor designs up and running, building a lot of capacity both cheaper and quicker.

But its the same with renewables and storage, they will improve as well and most likely keep their cost advantage.

And you seem to ignore Opportunity costs again. If we build to much nuclear plants and don’t need the energy later we could have invested the money better in other areas, like education. Again, money is a finite resource.

And another reason why I prefer renewables to nuclear is decentralisation. With renewables everyone can partake in energy generation, while nuclear is only for big corporations or governments. I’d rather have a robust decentralised grid where almost everyone is consuming and producing local most of the time than a grid relying on a few huge producers, which are a huge target for sabotage or vulnerable to natural catastrophes.

If the large governmental investments go into renewables and storage we have more energy faster.

Also nuclear doesn’t play nice with a energy network with a large fluctuating renewable part. As the running cost of a nuclear plant is minimal compared to the investment there is a huge incentive to let a nuclear plant run at max output all the time, thereby blocking the grid for renewables.

Building nuclear does not mean we stop building renewables, or that we build less of them.

Money as a finite resource as of now, so money spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables and storage. And that is the number 1 priority if we want to be carbon neutral as fast as possible. And if we manage to transition to an all renewable energy system and continue to need even more energy we can hopefully start with fusion in 20 years. But in the short term i would only invest in renewables.