nvermind

Exactly! And disputing it in this way just adds credence to the argument. Failing to rejection the premicr wholesale gives tacit approval that sometimes it might be the case, and sets us up to keep having to respond like this, rather than saying any argument centered on DEI is bullshit.

SLAPP, SLAPP, SLAPP

This. In a case around LinkedIn courts ruled that in the US it’s legal to scrape publicly available data. The company doing the scraping was selling that data to corporate customers, but ultimately use might depend on the information you’re accessing and under what permissions. (Not a lawyer)

Lol, popularity vs monopoly is barely more than a matter of perspective. Google argues they don’t have a monopoly on ad services, they’re just the most popular (the government disagrees).

Every company I listed attempts to stop others from entering the market. TSMC holds the lions share of the market and works hard to keep it that way. They are also one of few foundry’s manucturing the highest end chips. Just because multiple companies use them as a foundry doesn’t mean they aren’t a monopoly over certain segments of the market. (Google is used by literally everyone).

If you’re interested in how the chip market is actually dominated by very few players, check out Chip Wars by Chris Miller.

Yup, several companies have near-monopolies on microchips at different levels (Intel for CPU, NVidia for GPUs, TSMC for manufacturing) but not really TI. They used to, but pretty much lost it now.

A lot of science around trees and forest management has gone this way. Forest used to be seen as competitive areas that needed to be thoroughly managed to be healthy. Now we know that’s not true at all, and overall would be better off if we just let them be (in most, though not all cases). Same with the idea that trees communicate with each other and share resources. This was dismissed and ridiculed for a long time, but has now been pretty resoundingly proven true. Peter Wohlleben’s The Secret Life of Trees talks a lot about this.

Seems unlikely since it was posted by the guy who took the picture.

I mean, we obviously need to do both. The conversation in the thread is about nuclear, which is a supply side resource. DR and demand shaping do even more to enable truly renewable resources. Why do the demand shaping to enable nuclear when renewables are cleaner and cheaper?

This would be true, except for the fact that nuclear is terrible at filling in slack times. Nuclear power for the most part needs to run really consistently, 24/7. Better to fill gaps with a diversity of reasources, more transmission, and storage.

Basically no one outside of china is advocating for coal use anymore, so this is a BS comparison. The much more apt comparison is against wind, solar, and storage, against which nuclear is far more dangerous. Also, it’s hard for environmental damage assessment to take into account the EXTREMELY long-lived impacts of fuel “disposal”.

I like the Bourne Ultimatum theory better. We peaked there and will never achieve that high again!