What you just said can be applied for any sides of any infrastructure political discussion.
If we leave nuclear waste (which is already proven not problem over and over) the next generations will come up with solutions we don’t know yet. If we leave the climate worst, by not doing what we should, they will also figure it out.
The discussion right now is about getting to a reduced carbon footprint per country fast (nuclear, in 10 or 20 years) or keep betting renewables will take less than 50 years to make an impact in reducing carbon emissions.
Year over year we see the same discussion: one side say we can’t get to environmental goals without a lot more nuclear. The other side says renewables will be enough if we just [insert trending unproven excuse].
Anyone watching it closely can tell the pro nuclear argument is being proven right over and over and renewables are aways “a few years away”. Why continue insisting on the same error over and over again, with the proof in front of their eyes?
The major mistake was made 10 years ago by not building better and modern nuclear plants to replace Diablo and increase capacity. If this continues we’ll likely see the US entering an energy crises or going back to burning fossil fuels in a few years.
The Bush administration gave out major incentives to get more power plants built, yet only a handful of projects were started. These projects ended up (like most nuclear projects) massively delayed and over budget. In the end, Westinghouse filed for bankruptcy: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...
Pro nuclear people keep acting like our lack of new nuclear power plants is due to fear or lack of vision. The reality is that corporations do not want to build them, because they are incredibly expensive and may take over a decade before any revenue is produced. Renewables are cheaper and provide fast return on investment.
The best counter-argument is that people say they are going to build a nuclear plant but a year passes and they add another year to the schedule. That problem, and not what people imagine about safety, nor the fact that the headline costs aren’t terribly attractive, is a big problem,
My guess to why he banned it now is that before he was more moderate against woke or left in general. Now that he is more openly and harshly targeting woke and Fauci, it becomes a bit more hazardous to have it up.
But this looks bad. He should have stated publicly why before banning it.
As times passes I am less supportive of how companies use ideology to weaponize regulations in order to slow down competition. How fast the COVID vaccine was created is a bit of uncovering how fast it could go when people are willing to compromise for the greater good (also talent and hard work).
It feels like the machine was created to slow down progress and now it cannot be stopped. As other comments said already, factory farming is worst than what Neurallink is doing, and vegan activists are trying to save animals for ages. On the other hand, Musk is also known for pushing hard employees, and animals is just the extension of pushing hard for breakthrough.
If not done in the US, maybe it will go elsewhere, and to what purpose? This feels to me like a very worthy cause. A huge number of other animals are used for other types of health research. I guess just because people dislike rodents they give it a pass. But what Neurallink is doing is in far fewer number than rat use for drugs, etc, and far less than animal farming. It is just the engine of regulation, competition, lobbying and patents working as it is supposed to.
The COVID vaccine is perhaps a poor example as mRNA vaccines have been something in development for quite some time before COVID. It was a technology there at precisely the right time
That is not the first time I want to understand a bit better the performance difference today between the approaches of Rust, without a garbage collector, ARC on Swift with the reference counting and other garbage collected languages, such as Javascript.
I know Javascript have an unfair advantage here, since the competition between V8 and the other javascript cores is huge over the years and garbage collection on JS is not often a problem. At least I see more people struggling with the JVM GC with its spikes in resource usage.
I've also heard that the erlang VM (be it written in elixir or erlang itself) implements GC on a different level, not to the global process, but on a more granular way.
Is there a good resource that compare the current state of performance between those languages or approaches?
If there is no provision on L1 for early termination, then the rules of this particular type of visa are entirely broken and needs fixing. I understand the reason L1 exists, I actually lived in the US under L1 myself, but there is no excuse for a country to accept a worker they deemed necessary and acceptable to migrate, and then impose such a harsh rule for edge cases. If the person needs to be let go because somehow their own fault, it is fine. But layoffs are an example where the company is at fault and the employee is the victim - in this case the minimum the government should do is to offer a fair amount of time for the person to find another job.
I would agree ethically, but unfortunately this would open a hornets nest of small fraud and abuse. On a way smaller scale, here in Brazil, every single rule that was made to protect "too much" the employee is largely exploited and breaks the system.
Don't get me wrong. The case of working only 2 days after the move is an absolute nightmare. But it is the exception that needs to be dealt with, not the reason for a rule that is hard to enforce and easy to fraud.
A lot of people older than me that accomplishes a lot more than I do have two things: They are single and never had children, and also they maintain a daily schedule of physical exercises.
To accomplish all of this with a family, I can only assume they must have an easier than most work schedule/assignments.
If we leave nuclear waste (which is already proven not problem over and over) the next generations will come up with solutions we don’t know yet. If we leave the climate worst, by not doing what we should, they will also figure it out.
The discussion right now is about getting to a reduced carbon footprint per country fast (nuclear, in 10 or 20 years) or keep betting renewables will take less than 50 years to make an impact in reducing carbon emissions.