2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
A lot of things were solved decades or even hundreds of years ago that most people today would still struggle with. I don't think someone is a total moron for not being able to derive calculus from first principles, and that's been known for quite some time. Maybe you need to read what I wrote a few times to understand what I'm saying, I don't know. I'm not going to keep repeating it.
Nuclear waste is far from solved anyway. It remains a very serious problem
"We can't have a responsible nuclear policy without taking into account the handling of used fuel and waste. It's a subject we can't sweep under the rug," a government adviser told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.
...
Since the launch of the site at La Hague in 1976, it has treated nearly 40,000 tonnes of radioactive material and recycled some into nuclear fuel that can be re-used. The waste that cannot be recycled is mixed with hardening slices of glass and buried for short-term storage underground.
But its four existing cooling pools for spent fuel rods and recycled fuel that has been reused risk saturation by 2030, according to French power giant EDF (EDF.PA)
, opens new tab, which runs France's 56-strong fleet of reactors, the world's second biggest after the United States.
...
Should saturation happen, France's reactors would have nowhere to place their spent fuel and would have to shut down - a worst-case scenario that led France's Court of Audit to designate La Hague as "an important vulnerability point" in 2019.
and her's a fun kicker in that article
The uranium in the past was sent to Russia for re-enrichment and return for use in some EDF reactors, but EDF stopped doing that in 2013 as it was too costly.
In spite of the war in Ukraine, which has made many in the West avoid doing business with Russia, EDF is expected to resume sending uranium to Russia this year as the only country able to process it. It declined to confirm to Reuters it would do so
https://www.reuters.com/business/environ...
That's ignoring the risks of accidents, terrorism, wars and unexpected geological instability, tsunamis etc
I do believe that events related to COVID made people who (correctly) disagreed with the "experts" about it often lose trust with all experts even in field that are uncorrelated with that (like election integrity).
I am not saying I personally lost trust in election integrity or in the people who claim American elections are fair (I didn't, although the USA could do better to increase trust).
but a lot of people I talk with lost trust in experts that can be connected with any party that approved o
The problem is that people rarely mention with what probability they think a claim is correct. The reason that this is a problem is that the actions that should be taken should not necessarily be the one that is better if the claim was 100% to be correct. It may be better that the claim that is 30% to be correct is the one that should be assumed when making a decision. But since most people don't realize this, experts have to sometimes pretend that the 30% shot is an 80 % shot to justify their proclamations.
Nuclear waste is far from solved anyway. It remains a very serious problem
and her's a fun kicker in that article
https://www.reuters.com/business/environ...
That's ignoring the risks of accidents, terrorism, wars and unexpected geological instability, tsunamis etc
So it's not solved because they built a site in 1976 with late 60s technology that solved it for decades, but they never bothered to enlarge it or build another.
And the other problem is that they didn't bother to build facilities to do what Russia can do ?
Yes, I agree someone born with all of the biological parts of a man cant get pregnant but I believe that a person born with all the biological parts of a man can still be a woman.
This is what the mass majority of progressives believe. Because ultimately, it just doesn't ****ing matter.
I don't know why you guys find men getting pregnant so controversial. Transgender men very obviously can get pregnant and have actually given birth. Why do you act so baffled by this? Just because you don't think transgender men are men doesn't mean it should be baffling that others do think they are to the point you just can't wrap your head around it.
Why do you pretend to not understand?
Newsweek: Nevada Analyst Says Kamala Harris Wins Swing State in Final Prediction
Nevada political analyst and columnist Jon Ralston predicts that Vice President Kamala Harris will narrowly win the swing state on Tuesday thanks to independent voters.
In a blog post on Monday, Ralston, the editor of The Nevada Independent who is renowned for his forecast predictions, said that he expects Harris to beat former President Donald Trump 48.5 percent to 48.2 percent, with 3.3 percent of the overall vote going to other candidates.
Ralston wrote in his prediction that the "key to this election has always been which way the non-major-party voters break because they have become the plurality in the state."
"They are going to make up 30 percent or so of the electorate and if they swing enough towards Harris, she will win Nevada," Ralston wrote, adding, "I think they will."
Source:
22% of democrats believe men can get pregnant.
It gets to 36% of liberal women with a college degree (so much for the value of education)
I didn't click on the article, but I can almost guarantee that they don't think people born with penises can get pregnant. They think people who were born females can identify as men, and therefore, men can get pregnant. It's that whole biological sex vs. gender identity thing.
I'm willing to bet a very similar argument was made by settlers and genociders of native Americans (bunch o' savages!!) in the 17, 18, and 1900s...to our collective loss. The right you have to take away other's beliefs now is about the same as the right we had then to do it to them---I don't think you have that right.
You don't think there's any value holding transcendent or cultural beliefs even if they're not scientifically sound?
Unfortunately I think progressives will eventually win and force
My point is that the people holding unscientific beliefs will then twist themselves into knots trying to apply science because of their unscientific beliefs.
How is a stillbirth "gods plan" but a trans person is a blasphemous afront to god?
I'm willing to bet a very similar argument was made by settlers and genociders of native Americans (bunch o' savages!!) in the 17, 18, and 1900s...to our collective loss. The right you have to take away other's beliefs now is about the same as the right we had then to do it to them---I don't think you have that right.
You don't think there's any value holding transcendent or cultural beliefs even if they're not scientifically sound?
Unfortunately I think progressives will eventually win and force
That’s not the issues .
Anyone can believe w.e he wants .
It’s when u try to impose stuff based from those aspects over science the problem .
I don't know why you guys find men getting pregnant so controversial. Transgender men wore obviously can get pregnant and have actuator given birth. Why do you act so baffled by this? Just because you don't think transgender men are men doesn't mean it should be baffling that others do think they are to the point you just can't wrap your head around it.
Why do you pretend to not understand?
I guess that's just not what the word "man" means to me. I'm fine with new descriptors for transgender men and women but I'd rather the existing definitions were left alone. Seems that the desire to modify the existing definition is linked to a desire to erase any distinction between biological sex and something else that is not biological sex. But that's probably a conversation for another thread.
Ultimately, I don't really care all that much, although my personal preference would be as above. My bigger concern is giving people like Luciom legitimate ammunition to use when right wingers are quite rightly accused of science denial.
22% of democrats believe men can get pregnant.
It gets to 36% of liberal women with a college degree (so much for the value of education)
I'll give you this: Science has been politicized by both the left and the right. Broadly speaking, the right denies science, and the left uses manipulation tactics.
I guess that's just not what the word "man" means to me. I'm fine with new descriptors for transgender men and women but I'd rather the existing definitions were left alone. Seems that the desire to modify the existing definition is linked to a desire to erase any differences between biological sex and something else that is not biological sex. But that's probably a conversation for another thread.
Rest assured, no one thinks that biological males can get pregnant. The belief that "men can get pregnant" comes from the obvious fact that transgender men who are still biologically female can get pregnant and have given birth. It's not even slightly controversial. It irritates me when conservatives pretend to be baffled by this.
My point is that the people holding unscientific beliefs will then twist themselves into knots trying to apply science because of their unscientific beliefs.
How is a stillbirth "gods plan" but a trans person is a blasphemous afront to god?
I can appreciate the solace of divinity being used to explain tragedy even if it is intellectual imbecilery
But once you use the sky ninja as a reason for oppression or justification for hate you’ve lost me
I guess that's just not what the word "man" means to me. I'm fine with new descriptors for transgender men and women but I'd rather the existing definitions were left alone. Seems that the desire to modify the existing definition is linked to a desire to erase any distinction between biological sex and something else that is not biological sex. But that's probably a conversation for another thread.
There is no desire to change the definition of biological sex.
There is a strong desire to get you riled up at the thought of a shadowy group of individuals pushing to change the definition of biological sex
I can appreciate the solace of divinity being used to explain tragedy even if it is intellectual imbecilery
But once you use the sky ninja as a reason for oppression or justification for hate you’ve lost me
Only tangentially related, but I grew up in the catholic church. I struggled with faith even as a young child, but they didn't fully lose me until the depth of corruption came out around 2000. Once the church knowingly covers up systemic child abuse the cats out the bag as far as the whole thing being a farce.
Only tangentially related, but I grew up in the catholic church. I struggled with faith even as a young child, but they didn't fully lose me until the depth of corruption came out around 2000. Once the church knowingly covers up systemic child abuse the cats out the bag as far as the whole thing being a farce.
Catholic Biden was kissing children the other day.
Rest assured, no one thinks that biological males can get pregnant. The belief that "men can get pregnant" comes from the obvious fact that transgender men who are still biologically female can get pregnant and have given birth. It's not even slightly controversial. It irritates me when conservatives pretend to be baffled by this.
Yeah, it comes down to politics, philosophies and language; not science. However, postmodern thinkers have dug their way into the sciences and are using them as a tool for activism and not necessarily a method for discovering truth. Institutions, especially in government and media, promote ideas that are, at the very least, questionable, as fact.
Rest assured, no one thinks that biological males can get pregnant. The belief that "men can get pregnant" comes from the obvious fact that transgender men who are still biologically female can get pregnant and have given birth. It's not even slightly controversial. It irritates me when conservatives pretend to be baffled by this.
Then why did more than one democrat poster jumped at the poll showing some democrats believe men can get pregnant because they thought it was made up?
Here you are claiming that's uncontroversial for democrats to claim that men can get pregnant
So it's not solved because they built a site in 1976 with late 60s technology that solved it for decades, but they never bothered to enlarge it or build another.
And the other problem is that they didn't bother to build facilities to do what Russia can do ?
France is one of the most advanced tech nuclear power countries. The power plant itself doesn't fundamentally change the waste problem much
Has it occured to you that russia might have more 'flexible' rules than France?
And theres still the the risk of accidents, terrorism, wars and unexpected geological instability, tsunamis etc
