Jesus_666

Im Netto nicht, nein. Habe ich auch so gesagt – es ist ein sinnvolles Argument, aber immer noch kacke.

Went mask off early on, caught the heart of a neurotypical. A personality consists of more than dopamine effectiveness and sometimes the rest makes for what someone considers a compelling package.

The comic does point out that the litterer is not a good person, though. You could argue that this cutesy depiction of a gleefully evil person serves to normalize misbehavior but it doesn't try to hide the fact that it's misbehavior.

I agree that Mimi is being a dick in this comic and that anyone acting like that in real life is a dick.

That being said, dropping the plastic bottle in the generic trash hole is something I could ignore. (And if your area has a bottle deposit I damn well expect you to put the bottle beside the trash can so less fortunate people can at least get your deposit – of course a gleefully evil person wouldn't do it in this case.)

Wie auch schon dem Nachbarn gesagt: Ich bin mir bewusst, dass Brüter eine furchtbare Lösung sind und sich als Kraftwerke nicht lohnen. Wir haben bisher keine andere sinnvolle Entsorgungsstrategie gefunden (die nächstsinnvollere wären 5 km tiefe Bohrlöcher). Und selbst mit diesem bisher alternativlosen Status ist diskutabel, ob sie sinnvoller sind, als das Problem einfach ungelöst zu lassen.

Sie sind halt ein valides Argument für AKWs – mit einem Haufen Gegenargumenten.

Ja, ich bin mir durchaus bewusst, dass Brüter absurd teuer wären – zumal ich extrem strenge Kontrollen einführen wurde, weil Proliferationsrisiko. Brüter sind für mich keine wirtschaftliche Stromquelle, sondern ein Teil der einzigen technisch plausiblen Entsorgungsstrategie, die wir bisher gefunden haben.

Sie sind eine auf vielen Ebenen extrem schlechte Lösung. Sie sind selbst für das Entsorgungsproblem keine gute Lösung, sie sind nur die beste, die wir kennen. Und selbst da ist es diskutabel, ob es sich statt dessen lohnt, das Problem für immer ungelöst zu lassen und ggf. mit Grundwasserkontamination zu leben.

That's my point. Being at peace with yourself only works until you have to regularly deal with someone who isn't. Of course you can isolate yourself from those people if they fail to adapt but that means you get to choose between being in a relationship and feeling tension over your neurodivergence on the one side and being alone but at peace with yourself on the other.

I'm not saying that you can't make a satisfying choice but it certainly ain't an easy one. If you get a partner who meshes well with your brain, congratulations. But a lot of people don't.

Also, making a choice about your relationship means making a choice that affects two people (or more if you're poly or have a dependent). And sometimes you can't in good conscience end a relationship because you know that doing so will majorly screw over your partner.

Life is complicated. Inner peace is a precious and fragile good and sometimes you trade that good away. Appreciate it if and while you have it.

Though, to be honest, plastic recycling is mostly a myth in in the first place. For most plastics, the "recycling" procedure consists of paying some impoverished country to let you dump them there.

Basically, every plastic bottle can be assumed to contribute to microplastics contamination sooner or later. Glass and aluminum bottles are better (as are cans); both of those are economically feasible to recycle.

Das ist tatsächlich das eine verbleibende Argument für neue AKWs: Wenn wir schnelle Brüter bauen, können wir den bestehenden Atommüll in eine Form hochbrüten, die 200 Jahre lang sehr stark strahlt statt einer, die 10.000 Jahre lang moderat (aber immer noch gefährlich) strahlt. Das macht die Lagerung zu einem lösbaren Problem, wenn auch teuer und aufwändig.

Aber: Schnelle Brüter können problemlos waffenfähiges Material brüten und haben außer der Langlebigkeit des verbrauchten Brennmaterials alle anderen Nachteile eines AKW.

Ist halt immer noch kacke, aber es gibt immerhin ein Argument.

Then you get into a relationship and feel your partner's disappointment every day because it turns out that while you have gotten comfortable with how your brain works, the rest of the world hasn't. But don't worry; tomorrow is the day when it'll all get better...

I generally find that cutting taxes is more popular with the politicians who think that reducing the debt is more important than a functioning power grid and bridges that don't collapse. Don't ask me how the hell reducing tax income is supposed to help with the deficit but it's probably built on the assumption that the ~~kickbacks~~ economic growth will make up for it.

To quote that same document:

Figure 5 looks at the average temperatures for different age groups. The distributions are in sync with Figure 4 showing a mostly flat failure rate at mid-range temperatures and a modest increase at the low end of the temperature distribution. What stands out are the 3 and 4-year old drives, where the trend for higher failures with higher temperature is much more constant and also more pronounced.

That's what I referred to. I don't see a total age distribution for their HDDs so I have no idea if they simply didn't have many HDDs in the three-to-four-years range, which would explain how they didn't see a correlation in the total population. However, they do show a correlation between high temperatures and AFR for drives after more than three years of usage.

My best guess is that HDDs wear out slightly faster at temperatures above 35-40 °C so if your HDD is going to die of an age-related problem it's going to die a bit sooner if it's hot. (Also notice that we're talking average temperature so the peak temperatures might have been much higher).

In a home server where the HDDs spend most of their time idling (probably even below Google's "low" usage bracket) you probably won't see a difference within the expected lifespan of the HDD. Still, a correlation does exist and it might be prudent to have some HDD cooling if temps exceed 40 °C regularly.