Think of crawling out from under a pile of progressively larger blankets.
Sure, you can rip your way straight up and out. But that damages the blankets. You also push a certain amount of blanket up and out with you. Instead you follow the blankets, slowly making your way upward and outward. However, as you pass, gravity and ambient pressure causes the blanket that's being displaced to collapse back in on the path of travel.
So your shockwave pops open an area of atmosphere in front of you, you move into it, and the space you just left rapidly returns to normal atmospheric pressure.
You have Cable TV struggling to bring the average cable bill to $200/month.
But you have cord cutters and people downsizing their TV package as they realize they don't need 200 channels plus 17 variants of ESPN, plus their high-def digital versions.
So networks are all rolling out their own streaming services. "ONLY" $10-20/month. With one or two shows apiece per network that are actually worthwhile.
So, if you're an avid TV watcher, your bill for Internet + streaming just so HAPPENS to be around $200/month.
Is it REALLY that surprising that people are turning to piracy to cut down a luxury bill whose price is being artificially inflated?
You can try to sweep a regressive, authoritarian measure (like Prohibition or "gun control") into the Constitution. Sure. Will it survive? NOT VERY LIKELY. Because the same document that outlines how it can be abused in this way ALSO spells out the measures required to excise such poisonous little cancers.
Sure it was. It was forced in on a wave of public pressure by a bunch of small-minded prudes who liked nothing better than to tell others what they should and should not do with their lives.
And how much space does a single 1GW reactor and it's cooling tower take up?
And start subtracting size when moving to MSR reactors, since all the Rube Goldberg super-extra-mega-grossly-hyper-redundant cooling machinery (the thing that makes up the bulk of a reactor's size) isn't required.
To steadily generate the same ACTUAL amount of power (within a 1 year period) a 1GW reactor produces you would need between 1.9GW-2.8GW of capacity. The land required for this would be between 260 and 360 square miles.
To steadily generate the same ACTUAL amount of power (within a 1 year period) a 1GW reactor produces, you would need between 3.3GW and 5.4GW of capacity. The land required for this would be between 45-75 square miles.
A 1GW reactor facility (cooling towers and all) takes up about 1.3 square miles.
The problem at that point becomes transportation. Oh, and the environmental impact of a 10,000 square mile heat island. How well done do you want any birds in the area?
And, while it's a desert, the area you'd be putting this in ISN'T DEAD. So you're destroying desert ecology.
Additionally, 10,000 square miles of solar panels is an absolute FUCKTON of waste when the panels reach EOL. And what? It all just goes in a landfill? Because, currently, there's no provisions for recycling solar panels.
And not every country has the land resources to do this.
Sorry, they still make up a tiny percentage of total renewable energy.
And the capacity to build the quantities we need for utility-grade applications would basically hijack the markets for an entire year.
You want to decarbonize NUCLEAR POWER. End of discussion. Stable baseline power. Zero carbon emissions. Add in remaining utility-grade large hydro, geothermal and augment with small hydro to bring up baseline to today's PEAK demand.
You can offset peaks in demand with renewables then.
But the real gains have NOTHING to do with power generation.
40-something percent of all power consumption in this country is from BUILDINGS.
Build better insulated, more efficient buildings, and watch demand on the grid plummet. Build for longevity and sustainability. Retrofit less efficient buildings. HVAC being offset with BTU batteries and careful timing of power use.
Then use any power excesses in the system to do things like desalinate water and carbon capture into hydrocarbon fuels which can be used to stay carbon-neutral or stored to be carbon positive.
Because if you think coating the planet in solar panels and wind turbines is going to fix everything, you're delusional.
However, they have no problem being unethical, taking their money, helping them up to a certain point, then yanking the rug out from under them. And, since it's all their platform, who're they going to complain to?
I'd think the political leanings at YouTube/Google had an affect as well.
By default, YouTube's algorithm was going to lean left, simply as a function of the advertisers, partners, etc.
But the constant "tweaking" to offset "hate speech", and to minimize exposure of certain subjects and ideas was pretty much ALWAYS going push it's mean further and further left.
At this point, it's been shown that the "Verified" system is naught but a mutual back-patting club for those whose ideals line up with those "in the fold" at Twitter, or who're simply too damn popular to be left alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Think of crawling out from under a pile of progressively larger blankets.
Sure, you can rip your way straight up and out. But that damages the blankets. You also push a certain amount of blanket up and out with you.
Instead you follow the blankets, slowly making your way upward and outward.
However, as you pass, gravity and ambient pressure causes the blanket that's being displaced to collapse back in on the path of travel.
So your shockwave pops open an area of atmosphere in front of you, you move into it, and the space you just left rapidly returns to normal atmospheric pressure.
You have Cable TV struggling to bring the average cable bill to $200/month.
But you have cord cutters and people downsizing their TV package as they realize they don't need 200 channels plus 17 variants of ESPN, plus their high-def digital versions.
So networks are all rolling out their own streaming services.
"ONLY" $10-20/month. With one or two shows apiece per network that are actually worthwhile.
So, if you're an avid TV watcher, your bill for Internet + streaming just so HAPPENS to be around $200/month.
Is it REALLY that surprising that people are turning to piracy to cut down a luxury bill whose price is being artificially inflated?
No. It's still valid.
You can try to sweep a regressive, authoritarian measure (like Prohibition or "gun control") into the Constitution. Sure.
Will it survive? NOT VERY LIKELY. Because the same document that outlines how it can be abused in this way ALSO spells out the measures required to excise such poisonous little cancers.
Sure it was. It was forced in on a wave of public pressure by a bunch of small-minded prudes who liked nothing better than to tell others what they should and should not do with their lives.
Fortunately, this was corrected.
Say "hi" to the Trade Unionists when you see them...
The point is, people don't like being preached to by their platforms.
Especially in such an arbitrary manner.
Sure, it's been fine to upload stuff like this for THE LAST THIRTEEN YEARS.
But now It's Just Not Okay!
But thanks for making us THE defacto video hosting site on the net!
Not get the fuck out of here you shitbag gun people!
I guess the term I'm looking for is "hypocritical".
And how much space does a single 1GW reactor and it's cooling tower take up?
And start subtracting size when moving to MSR reactors, since all the Rube Goldberg super-extra-mega-grossly-hyper-redundant cooling machinery (the thing that makes up the bulk of a reactor's size) isn't required.
To steadily generate the same ACTUAL amount of power (within a 1 year period) a 1GW reactor produces you would need between 1.9GW-2.8GW of capacity.
The land required for this would be between 260 and 360 square miles.
To steadily generate the same ACTUAL amount of power (within a 1 year period) a 1GW reactor produces, you would need between 3.3GW and 5.4GW of capacity.
The land required for this would be between 45-75 square miles.
A 1GW reactor facility (cooling towers and all) takes up about 1.3 square miles.
The problem at that point becomes transportation. Oh, and the environmental impact of a 10,000 square mile heat island. How well done do you want any birds in the area?
And, while it's a desert, the area you'd be putting this in ISN'T DEAD. So you're destroying desert ecology.
Additionally, 10,000 square miles of solar panels is an absolute FUCKTON of waste when the panels reach EOL.
And what? It all just goes in a landfill? Because, currently, there's no provisions for recycling solar panels.
And not every country has the land resources to do this.
Let's just say that the confidence levels used today would have been laughed at 50 years ago.
Sorry, they still make up a tiny percentage of total renewable energy.
And the capacity to build the quantities we need for utility-grade applications would basically hijack the markets for an entire year.
You want to decarbonize NUCLEAR POWER. End of discussion. Stable baseline power. Zero carbon emissions.
Add in remaining utility-grade large hydro, geothermal and augment with small hydro to bring up baseline to today's PEAK demand.
You can offset peaks in demand with renewables then.
But the real gains have NOTHING to do with power generation.
40-something percent of all power consumption in this country is from BUILDINGS.
Build better insulated, more efficient buildings, and watch demand on the grid plummet.
Build for longevity and sustainability.
Retrofit less efficient buildings.
HVAC being offset with BTU batteries and careful timing of power use.
Then use any power excesses in the system to do things like desalinate water and carbon capture into hydrocarbon fuels which can be used to stay carbon-neutral or stored to be carbon positive.
Because if you think coating the planet in solar panels and wind turbines is going to fix everything, you're delusional.
You won't be cruising down the road.
Remember!
Found
On
Road
Dead
No. They're left of center.
However, they have no problem being unethical, taking their money, helping them up to a certain point, then yanking the rug out from under them.
And, since it's all their platform, who're they going to complain to?
Uh no.
I think you'd better check the political compass test on most of the shooters in the last 30 years.
If you think they're majority right-wingers, you haven't done the research.
Hey, it worked out for the Furby, right?
=)
Who the fuck thinks this sort of thing is a Good Idea?
Spying on your employees?
Possibly exposing your business practices to another business entity (who you may or may not be competing with)?
I'd think that this sort of thing is something only a raging dumbass would do...
The most radicalized and violent are right-wing?
Hello? Antifa calling here!
I maintain a multi-stream account.
My brother uses one (he's living with me).
My parents use one.
When I feel like watching something, I use one.
It's getting used. Just, I'm not the one who's using it the majority of the time.
I'd think the political leanings at YouTube/Google had an affect as well.
By default, YouTube's algorithm was going to lean left, simply as a function of the advertisers, partners, etc.
But the constant "tweaking" to offset "hate speech", and to minimize exposure of certain subjects and ideas was pretty much ALWAYS going push it's mean further and further left.
At this point, it's been shown that the "Verified" system is naught but a mutual back-patting club for those whose ideals line up with those "in the fold" at Twitter, or who're simply too damn popular to be left alone.
I haven't had actual TV service in over a decade.
I've had my Netflix account so long I can't even remember when I started on the service.
Pretty much everything is a "try".
And past some arbitrary point, they just stop trying...
So this could, ultimately have very negative repercussions for large social media sites.
#Citation needed#
When they're removing an active driver as a failsafe?
Just rename these fucking things to "Suicide Booths".
As
You
Wish