Male 18-year-old FOSS and GNU/Linux activist and user

  • 0 Posts
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 17th, 2023

help-circle




  • Edit: Changed introductory wording to be less belligerent. I am sorry if I have caused a significant level of offense.

    Just wait for the nuclear shills to flood in and claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. Some people claim that nuclear fission is a sustainable and necessary form of power generation. It is not. Uranium extraction devastates entire landscapes, the construction of nuclear power plants is too expensive (even for SMRs, as the article explains), ergo electricity prices will climb, it is a hugely wasteful use of so many tonnes of concrete (concrete manufacturing is heavy on the environment too), it creates waste that will still haunt us for hundreds of thousands of years (finding geological structures that are guaranteed to be stable that long is difficult), and relative to the initial construction and set-up effort, they don’t provide that much energy. We already have methods that can provide us plenty enough electricity that are entirely sustainable by leveraging large-scale atmospheric aerodynamics as well as the largest nuclear fusion reactor at our disposal (the sun). There’s simply no need to go nuclear.



  • Sand is not per se the raw resource for integrated circuit production. More specifically, it is silicon dioxide, also referred to as quartz. Quartz is often found in sand, but sand does not necessarily include quartz. As far as I know, the quartz for semiconductor lithography isn’t usually extracted from sand, but rather from proper pit mines.












  • You cannot technically prove it, that’s true, but that does not invalidate the interpolated or extrapolated data, because you will be able to have a certain degree of confidence in them, be able to judge their meaningfulness with a specific probability. And that’s enough, because you are never able to 100% prove something in physical sciences. Never. Even our most reliable observations, strongest theories and most accurate measurements all have a degree of uncertainty. Even the information and quantum theories you rest your argument on are unproven and unprovable by your standards, because you cannot get to 100% confidence. So, if you find that there’s enough evidence for the science you base your understanding of reality on, then rationally and by deductive reasoning you will have to accept that the prediction of a machine learning model that extrapolates some data where the probability of validity is just as great as it is for quantum physics must be equally true.