I think this is the wrong read on the “threat”. One user going out of their way to spent time writing this post is a canary in the coal mine. Most users never give feedback, they just churn. This is the same reason your toothpaste has a phone number on the back - that one random person who cares deeply calls the number and provides invaluable feedback on the product.
It’s not about the one person, it’s about that person representing tens/hundreds/thousands of customers. This feedback is a gift to a product manager that listens.
It's one of the downsides of having dedicated and fervent fans. They obfuscate problems regular users are having by drowning them out with praise for Apple.
During my last weeks on the iPhone, I reached out to various Apple discussion spaces on the web for help with some problems I was having.
I was met not with assistance, but ridicule. The majority of the people "helping" were saying some variation of "you're holding it wrong" or "I personally don't have that problem" (which is such a funny quirk of the Apple fandom - I didn't ask if you are having that problem, I'm asking for help achieving a specific outcome).
You can even see examples of this sort of behavior in that post about the window resize handles for the latest version of macOS. There were Apple fans saying some variation of it's not an actual problem, that they don't have that problem, that they don't use the window resize handles anyway, or that the post was an exaggeration. Turns out it was an actual problem that Apple addressed with a bug fix. Of course, Apple fans, being shameless, will jump to reframing the discussion from "Apple can do no wrong" to "See, Apple listens! You know who doesn't listen? Microsoft!!" I get it, not a monolith, but recognizing Apple fans aren't a monolith doesn't make them less off-putting.
The final nail in the coffin for me for the ecosystem was getting called a child for *checks notes* making the adult decision to move to Android to have a phone that did the things I needed (with much fewer annoying, uncritical fans and a lot more people who genuinely want to help).
So, yes, there is a danger in letting the fandom do all the work and laughing off "threats" of user exoduses. The conduct of Apple fans coupled with Apple's ignorance to regular users' feedback soured me to the ecosystem. It would take a lot to bring me back. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.
Exactly! The fact that this has 300+ votes and is on HN's front page (and is just CONSTANTLY brought up on Reddit), should really tell you how fed up people are with the iOS keyboard experience.
I legit feel like Apple should actually make a public statement like "we hear you, we're working on it!" because it is actually bad PR at this point.
Its presence on Hacker News and Reddit tells you that the folks who use Hacker News and Reddit are fed up with the keyboard. Most people don't care. Tech nerds do, and that's not nothing, but it's not necessarily a majority either. No one I know outside of tech brings up the keyboard to me, ever.
Everyone cares, most people can't express it because they're not techies and don't know what's going on. But the keyboard is straight up buggy. Everyone is just working around it.
That's just how software works. People also care that the windows taskbar just kills itself sometimes. But they feel powerless, stupid even, so they just work around it every day forever and never say anything.
By that logic, Linux should be the most popular desktop operating system. But even most tech nerds realize that their needs are different from regular users and recommend stuff to them they wouldn’t use.
> Most users never give feedback, they just churn.
Sure, but this is a duopoly and it's not as if the competition is perfect. A lot of issues like this simply don't matter because of that. The response that goes through the PM's head is likely to be along the lines of, "What you gonna do, switch to Android? Ha!"
> This is the same reason your toothpaste has a phone number on the back - that one random person who cares deeply calls the number and provides invaluable feedback on the product.
You'll notice that tech companies go out of their way to avoid offering that option.
We're talking about iPhone here. You can read complains about iPhone online all the time. When you have more than a billion of users, lack of feedback is the least problem you concern.
as a counterpoint to that, i'm an iOS user, i use the apple keyboard every day, and it's fine? i don't really understand the complaint. it's clearly not "broken".
and i also never give feedback. there's probably hundreds of millions of iOS users out there who agree with me. so maybe don't change the behaviour just because this guy is mad?
Some states in the US have banned cell phones or other devices that can connect to cell networks. In our school district at least can connect is the key. Teachers aren’t going around testing if old iPhones have SIM cards so all iPhones are banned. (To be clear, I don’t except them to do that.)
Seems like a lot of kids would love iPods to listen to music at school like we did when I was in high school.
Thanks for checking it out. The focus of Zudoku is on making it super easy to ship beautiful API documentation. There are tons of alternatives, but we didnt feel like anything out there met our bar in terms of design and ease of use.
Zudoku is also the basis of part of our product (zuplo.com) offering so it is extremely extensible. Our managed, hosted version builds on the extensibility of Zudoku to add additional capabilities like API Key management, analytics, etc. Anyone can use these extensibility points to add their own custom capabilities.
Rate My OpenAPI uses Spectral under the hood for a lot of the checks. This is meant to be a quick (and fun) service to help people improve their API docs. Doing full linting with Spectral is complementary - and more than this tool does.
People don’t build applications on Salesforce because it’s a generic platform, they build on it because they need to integrate with the sales/crm process/data/etc.
Edit: To be clear, I’m not saying your idea isn’t good. There is tons of room for this stuff, but be careful in assuming the reason devs use Salesforce platform is because of the features. It’s usually not.
The last time I went to Woodcraft, the guy there was raving about the CNC and recommended I get one. Hard pass. Woodworking is my escape from computers. I’m sure if you do woodworking for a living a CNC is amazing, but I’ll take the slow path on this.
I actually quite enjoy the intersection of computing and woodworking that CNC provides. It's nice to be able to use my skills to make tangible things, but admittedly the CNC also intersects several hobbies I had always wanted to try: woodworking, robotics, electronics and metal machining.
There are definitely times where I just want to work with my hands in the workshop but I have plenty to do there too, so a detour to the CNC doesn't feel like it detracts from that.
CNC's are good if you are making tons of templates, making furniture, or working with a lot of sheet goods. They do take a lot of fun out of the job though, as the layout and initial cuts are usually the most enjoyable and you're left just gluing and sanding finished parts.
As a timber framer, most small to medium size shops don't use one because the upfront cost is astronomical. You need a 24' bed, 5-axis head, and probably an auto-loader because the boards can weigh up to 250 lbs. If you're cranking out identical kits and shipping them nation-wide it may make sense, but it takes a long time to get to that point. Most of my work is custom one-off projects, where it would take longer to program the tool paths and load / unload pieces than to just do them by hand with specific tools. We also use green rough-sawn wood that varies in dimensions by up to 3/16", so you'd have to probe every piece somewhat thoroughly.
As Inheritance Machining showed in his most recent video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3sjsu1FPCk) it's totally possible to beat CNCs on speed alone the first time, but impossible when it comes to mass-producing. For the hobbyist woodworker doing one-off projects in their free time, I would also say it's better to enjoy the process manually.
To an extent, I agree, but it depends on what you're doing.
A CNC can get accuracies and scale that's hard to reproduce by hand. Also, a lot of hand tools can be very hard on your joints.
Once that slippery layer on your bones between the joints is rubbed down, it never comes back and then you have painful arthritis for the rest of your life, so anything you can do to avoid grinding your hands down, you should do.
It feels like there’s an interesting parallel to tease out between photography and woodworking for software engineers. I’m an avid and reasonably accomplished photographer, and an absolute n00b at woodworking.
I own a MILC digital camera and mostly make photographs with my iPhone these days, but greatly prefer making photographs on film with medium and large format cameras. They’re not necessarily better per se, but the physical connection I get to my work from shooting on film, and then processing and printing by hand is what really matters to me.
I think there’s a time and place for digital (I love being able to send photos and videos of my toddler to the grandparents in near real time), but I find making physical artifacts to be a much more fulfilling outcome than having another couple hundred DNGs to delete in Lightroom.
>I’m sure if you do woodworking for a living a CNC is amazing, but I’ll take the slow path on this.
Similar here. I do wood carving as a hobby. I could buy some carving tools, like chisels of various shapes and sizes, and a mallet or two, but I prefer to just use a knife - a normal kitchen knife, a Cartini, somewhat more expensive than a no-name brand, but still cheap. Of course, that means that I cannot create even moderately complex pieces, but that's okay. I am still a beginner at it, and I am fine with creating only simple stuff. I just do it for fun.
After some time, I do plan to research some carving tools, and may buy a few if I get good advice on it, and if the tools seem to make sense for me.
I find carving is a very nice escape. It’s a simple process, I mostly use one or two knives to do all the work, and then you’re done whenever you feel like you’re done.
You can’t over plan it, and as you work progress is very clear.
It sure is. I forget any issues or worries I have while doing it.
What kind of wood do you use for carving?
I have used pine in the past, e.g., I once carved a spoon out of it. One advantage of pine is that, having resin, it has a good scent.
Currently I am using old teak, a piece which a sawmill shop guy gave me for free, and which I was pleasantly surprise to find, was soft enough to carve with my knife. I would have thought that it would be too hard to carve, because I have heard that teak is a strong wood, but maybe that kind of strength is not the same as hardness, in terms of physical properties of materials. I need to read up on that topic.
I use basswood, I have family who use it for firewood, so I can get big already dry pieces for free and then I cut them down to workable size with a hand saw.
It's cheaper at my local lumber store than online as well.
I haven't been very adventurous with other woods because of that.
Basswood is light and easy to carve, but it doesn't finish as well as other woods.
Because a mallet is a nice woodworking project, can be done at any level of sophistication, from whittling a handle to a piece of firewood to "impossible" dovetail joinery and embedded lead weights. Making your own tools gives great satisfaction, both when you make it, and later when you use it. Plus, if the first one does not feel perfect, you know you can always make a better one.
CNCs are great if you are doing creative work like carved panels, I'd never have the skill, time, or patience to do work like that. I really love my Shapeoko
I really like the mix of drag and drop with the ability to also write code. This is something that I always run into with tools like Zapier - they get me close, but then I need a small amount of customization that isn't built in and then hit a wall. This seems like it might be a nice solution. Congrats on the launch.
From Nate Silver: “This article is full of terrible statistical logic. Yes, it's hard to exactly quantify the risk of a highly deadly nuclear accident. By nature, tail events are rare. There is intrinsically some guesswork. But empirically the chances are very low.
The author also blatantly cheats by counting Fukushima as 3 separate accidents, as though they occurred independently from one another and didn't have a common cause like oh I dunno a magnitude 9 earthquake.“
This article is so flawed in so many ways. The most obvious issue is failing to show the actual safety statistics! I mean, at least start with the obvious starting point: that nuclear energy's record is that it is one of the safest forms of energy. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
There could be a disaster tomorrow 1000x worse than all previous nuclear energy disasters combined and it would still have been net-safer than coal (and this is excluding climate change effects, if you choose to include those.
I mean, if you want to then say "we got really lucky over the last 60+ years" I guess you can do that. In 1970, sure there were a lot more unknown risks. That was 52 years ago.
It's funny that hydro gets left off these charts, and when it's put on, it's super contentious. The worst hydro accident in history, the Bangqiao Dam failure killed ~200,000 people in one fell swoop. Wiped settlements off the face of the earth. [1]
Brown coal kills 100 people per TWh generated, coal on average about 25. [2]
Chernobyl killed 4000 (31 immediately, the rest were computed over the full course of time including forward looking estimates and counting the people who committed suicide because they feared they were 'contaminated'), Fukushima killed 0, Three Mile Island killed 0.
The US generates about 960TWh from coal per year, or 24,000 deaths. The US' coal consumption alone is equivalent to 6 Chernobyl's per year.
In general, we are not wired correctly to deal with concepts outside of our immediate neighborhood.
You can say with confidence that there are 3 people in a room. Or about 20. Or roughly 100-200-300. Or a lot. A stadium filled with 10,000 people is not different from one filled with 100,000 people - for someone who sees them for the first time.
A million times bigger does not mean anything. What is a hair x 1M? No idea.
I am an ex-physicist and I leaned to just look at the numbers and compare them when needed. 10^-18 is fine for something because I learned that but I cannot imagine it. Same for 10^23.
This is also the reason why homeopathy does not sound bad to people when it is written 100 CH on the bottle. 100 looks good. It is a 10^-100 dilution ratio.
Unless I'm misreading the chart, it seems to compare quite well to coal and oil, and in line with natural gas. Why would that be contentious?
The only quibble I'd have is that dams serve multiple purposes -- they could help prevent flooding and help out with agriculture. So in some sense a dam could be helping to save lives (apart from the obvious benefits of... having electricity). This seems like a unique perk.
I agree but one could say the exact same thing about the Soviet Union running tests at 2 in the morning at Chernobyl. So if you're willing to discount one it's only fair to discount the other no?
The Banqiao dam suffered from major flaws then from decades of a fair amount of diverse very adverse conditions and absence of proper maintenance... and it kept up. Then it took a typhoon to finally destroy it. The grotesquely bad handling continued during the crisis which followed.
A few hours of improper use were sufficient to trigger a disaster at the Chernobyl's reactor, then the authorities' reaction (evacuation, liquidators...), albeit imperfect, was way better than at Banqiao.
Chernobyl was of a flawed design with a very serious bug which was known (but classified), and it took a terrible very poorly coordinated drill to cause it to actually meltdown.
A more accurate comparison would be Fukushima, where the design was wrong (backup generators in the basement, in a flood prone zone) that survived a 9 on the Richter scale earthquake and was only damaged by the resulting tsunami (but only because the operator had ignored all the warnings about the placement and protection of backup power).
The design flaw (every equipment has some...) did not condemn it: this Chernobyl's reactor was a RBMK, many RBMKs ran for decades after the disaster, and some do run right now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#List_of_RBMK_reactors
A non-maintained flawed huge dam copes with decades of major problems then a typhoon breaks it, while a nuclear plant missing a few bricks exposed to a huge tide breaks havoc in a few hours.
The flaws in the RBMKs which were known before Chernobyl were fixed afterwards (with changes that had been proposed before Chernobyl) in the other reactors that were kept running, though. Not claiming that the RBMKs were flawless after the fact, but the specific flaw that led to the disaster was fixed.
> The flaws in the RBMKs which were known before Chernobyl were fixed afterwards
Indeed, and it shows that the design wasn't flawed to the point of condemning it: a fix was possible. Implication: even a non-major flaw can trigger a disaster.
> (with changes that had been proposed before Chernobyl)
Indeed, and it shows that even detected problems sometimes aren't fixed. This is not reserved to the USSR: Fukushima also showed it (it was well-known that the seawall/levee wasn't high enough, as recalled in my previous post here the nearby Onagawa plant had an adequate levee).
There were 2203 deaths in the evacuation. Nobody died of radiation. If you had an oil plant with an inadequate levee you’d have had to evacuate too. This is at best tangential.
Officially: 2202 deaths (attributed to the nuclear disaster) from evacuation, and 1 death from radiation.
Technically: determining the health impact of radiation is difficult and the methods are disputed. Moreover every specialist agrees that waiting at least 15 years is necessary because most induced ailments have a non-neglectable latency. Solid cancers, for example, develop in up to 15 years.
> Technically: determining the health impact of radiation is difficult and the methods are disputed. Moreover every specialist agrees that waiting at least 15 years is necessary because most induced ailments have a non-neglectable latency. Solid cancers, for example, develop in up to 15 years.
This is hand-waving and scaremongering. We have models. The models we use are the most pessimistic (linear no-threshold). The dispute is about whether we should use the more optimistic models (threshold). There's a whole debate, but rest assured, we're incredibly pessimistic.
You can of course say the same thing about cancer caused by particulate emissions, etc. You know what's radioactive and blown around everywhere? Coal fly ash. It's full of uranium and thorium. The question I have for you is over the life of Fukushima, how many people were saved as a result of not burning coal or oil?
Let's run the numbers. Nameplate capacity 5300MW for 32 years (1979 to 2011). That's a grand total of almost 1500TWh. Remember, coal kills 25 people per TWh, so it saved 37,500 people. Sorry, 37,499.
In my opinion, the deaths from the evacuation are attributable to the tsunami, not to the power plant. But even if you factor them in, that's still 35,298 folks alive today because of Fukushima Daiichi.
Even at 2202 deaths is 1.4 deaths per TWh, which is 1.4% as many as a brown coal plant would have killed, ~5% as many as a coal or oil plant would have killed, 35% as many as a natural gas plant would have killed - and exactly as many as a hydroelectric plant would have killed. Only 3X as many as rooftop solar. Even Fukushima alone makes nuclear one of the safest forms of energy on the planet. The second-worst nuclear disaster in history - in isolation - is still one of the safest power plants we have.
These plants save lives. Don't fear the spicy rocks.
> We have models. The models we use are the most pessimistic (linear no-threshold). The dispute is about whether we should use the more optimistic models (threshold).
Nobody here advocates coal. Renewables (wind, solar... power) don't emit such stuff.
> In my opinion, the deaths from the evacuation are attributable to the tsunami, not to the power plant
Most of those victims were attributed to the tsunami, the estimation quoted (2202 victims) quoted is only the small fraction of the victims (about 10%) which was attributed to factors (panic, effect on infrastructures of the evacuation...) induced by the nuclear disaster.
I mean, Bangqiao wiped out numerous settlements. On the other hand you know the remaining RBMK reactors at Chernobyl continued to operate for years after the incident, the last one closing in 2000, and only after the international community conditioned funding for the New Safe Containment installation on it. There's still a few RBMK reactors operating - after the safety retrofits of course.
> remaining RBMK reactors at Chernobyl continued to operate for years
Many reactors did continue to operate, in many sites. It shows that the design wasn't flawed to the point of condemning it: a fix was possible. Implication: even a non-major flaw can trigger a disaster.
Ok? But the bigger point is that’s not at all unique to nuclear. It’s common to a whole ton of things we do. And they can all have just as big an impact. Planes for instance. We iterate and improve, we don’t run back to the Stone Age.
Also the positive void coefficient was clearly a major flaw lol
The major difference is that for nearly all other causes nearly all victims chose to use the thing. My own brother died during a jetliner crash (SR-111), not surprisingly while he was in the plane after deciding to climb in it. I'm sad about this but I sure cannot say he didn't decide to accept the risk.
This is not true for nuclear energy: even very remote bystanders unwilling to take the risk are majorly exposed. In other words those who build or agree are exposing those who don't (along with many generations to come thanks to plant decommissions and nuclear waste).
Moreover traveling to very distant places by land or sea is way slower, and more difficult/dangerous than by using a jetliner.
This is not true for nuclear energy: we already use other types of equipment (wind turbines, solar panels...) offering the same fundamental service (and we know how to alleviate their intermittency), without any measurable risk of major accident, no long-term dangerous waste, no dependency towards a combustible... Those very equipment, and this should not come as a surprise, are more and more preferred to nuclear: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr...
Iterating/improving does not guarantee constant enhancement, nor a progress on the long-term, as any software development specialist knows. The keyword here is 'side-effects' (discovering a bug, then fixing it... and by doing so inducing a latent and more dangerous bug). Even if it did there is no way to be absolutely sure of our risk assessment because being sure implies to know each and every defect/flaw, therefore the very decision to take (or refuse) the risk would entirely lay on trust towards the specialists, leading to a vast array of major challenges (to begin with: specialists will be both judges and defendants).
No, given the RBMK architecture the positive void coefficient isn't a major flaw. It simply implies that some ways to operate the reactor (letting it gain thermal power after reaching a given low-power stage) is strictly forbidden. Each and every reactor has limitations of this sort, mainly defined as dangerous maneuvers or states duly declared to the operators as forbidden.
This approach (positive void coefficient) is intrinsic to RBMKs, there is no way to operate a RBMK reactor under another principle, and (I repeat) many of such reactors ran for decades after Chernobyl, and some operate right now. Therefore the positive void coefficient isn't a critical flaw (which would imply to immediately quit exploiting all RBMK reactors).
> This is not true for nuclear energy: even very remote bystanders unwilling to take the risk are majorly exposed.
Nah. We're all responsible for the choice. That's how democracy works.
> No, given the RBMK architecture the positive void coefficient isn't a major flaw.
The results speak for themselves.
The data on nuclear speaks for itself. Even Fukushima alone in isolation was one of the safest power plants we have, and it was the second worst nuclear disaster in history.
>> This is not true for nuclear energy: even very remote bystanders unwilling to take the risk are majorly exposed.
> Nah. We're all responsible for the choice. That's how democracy works.
If citizens directly decide upon a given subject then a referendum about nuclear energy is necessary. In nearly all nations there was none. Therefore we aren't all directly responsible.
However it could not work this way for nuclear energy because dismissing concerns (about safety, about dangerous waste long-term effects...) is sufficient and was easy: at first by declaring that all those reactors are under control, that any real problem is so highly improbable there is no real risk. Nuclear experts convinced many politicians.
This stance was tainted after each mishap (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima...), and the approach mutated into minimizing the effects of mishaps. However less and less politicians were willing to take the risk.
Renewables then began to gain traction, as more and more citizens and politicians see them as adequate and alleviating many challenges (risk, waste, dependency towards uranium...), and renewables quickly gains terrain while nuclear is more and more stuck.
The new approach is to pretend that renewables aren't adequate due to their intermittency, albeit many studies and existing technologies do offer efficient ways to compensate it.
The effect on democratic nations' choices will be clear in 5 to 10 years. However in such a context whatever the result will be pretending that we will all be responsible for it is IMO highly debatable.
>> No, given the RBMK architecture the positive void coefficient isn't a major flaw.
> The results speak for themselves.
I repeat: each and any existing nuclear reactor car suffer a meltdown, this is absolutely not specific/proper to RBMK. Moreover there is no perfect containment, in some configurations they may isolate the reactor for only a few days.
> The data on nuclear speaks for itself
It highly depends upon which data one considers, in other terms which ones are describing reality.
That is a terrible link to use as evidence. You think discussion in 2022 about what the 'safest forms of energy' is should be based on a table from 2012 that doesn't include grid scale solar PV?
Lets look at some slightly more up to date numbers:
See, nuclear does fine. Basically drawing with the cheaper forms of energy this article is arguing for that are being rolled out in ever greater numbers around the world.
Also zero people died in the immediate aftermath of Fukushima, and one employee sadly eventually died years later of a cancer that's being attributed to it after receiving an annual dose of radiation in the incident. Counting it as anything other than an indication of how safe these plants have gotten is pretty disingenuous.
The data is clear, it's the safest form of energy in deaths per TWh generated. [1]
Anyways while we fitter around and argue, China is building 150 new reactors in the next 15 years, as much as the entire world has built in the last 35. To go with their massive solar deployment. Now that's an energy grid getting cleaned up neatly. [2]
It’s really ridiculous to say that nuclear is the safest form of energy, when deaths at Chernobyl and Fukushima were prevented only by enormous cleanup efforts that will probably easily exceed $100 billion each. That doesn’t include the lost economic value of the exclusion zone, higher energy prices, etc.
Meanwhile, there has been a worldwide effort to spend billions of dollars upgrading existing reactors with enhanced safety equipment after Fukushima, which suggests that many nuclear operators had not been accurately calculating risk factors up to that point.
The more accurate statement would be to say that humans are capable of overcoming the inherent danger of nuclear energy, with enough money, will, and sacrifice.
"It's ridiculous to say nuclear is the safest form of energy when it costs so much money" is a ridiculous argument.
The cost of nuclear may be a fair argument against it, and should definitely be considered when determing our energy policy. That doesn't mean it somehow kills more people.
Every form of energy has an inherent danger that humans can use money, will, and sacrifice to overcome.
If we’ve spent more money evacuating populations from irradiated areas than on training wind turbine technicians to use harnesses properly, does that mean nuclear energy is safer than wind power?
Yes? As even after that training, fewer people have died due to nuclear energy. Cost and safety are two separate points, both need to be considered but you can't just say something is unsafe because it's costly.
Imagine someone says "you have to either pay $10 to play Russian roulette with a five chamber gun or $100 to play with a six chamber gun." Which is safer?
> It’s really ridiculous to say that nuclear is the safest form of energy, when deaths at Chernobyl and Fukushima were prevented only by enormous cleanup efforts
Do you not understand how superlatives work?
It's the safest form of energy. It's not entirely safe, alright. But pointing that out in the absolute is completely pointless anyway. We need/want energy, there's a price for it. In terms of safety, nuclear is the best. Superlative. It's better than all alternatives.
It's almost nutty to me that the number of workers who've fallen to their deaths from wind turbines per GWh is more than the number of people killed by nuclear power accidents and maintenance per GWh.
Doesn't surprise me at all really. And it doesn't even necessarily mean it's irrational to prefer living near a wind turbine farm than a nuke plant, given most people aren't turbine engineers.
I also imagine it's a statistic that will change considerably with time as we build out wind farms, especially if doing so can largely be automated.
At any rate, we need both (given the current state of affairs). I doubt the choice to build one or other is going to come down to deaths-per-GWh.
Consider that Fukushima was designed in the 1960s and that virtually no reactors with designs that date more recently than that have been built, and we have an absolute quorum that this is the safest form of base load energy you can procure.
It’s saddening to me the green movement ruined our chances of clean energy and averted climate crisis in my lifetime.
I've never understood why there has been such a strong anti-nuke sentiment among many environmental groups, but you're really stretching it to say that's what's "ruined our chances". The blatant sponsorship of AGW denialism and buying out of politicians by vested interests deserves the bulk of the credit on that front. That and weak and backward looking political leadership in general.
AGW advocacy would enjoy a significant improvement of reception if every solution other than me suffering a lower quality of life wasn’t neatly boxed out of our set of choices.
Meanwhile the politicians and celebrities who wish I would eat crickets (literally) fly on private jets to spend time on yachts that burn 500 gallons of diesel a day, and complain that my work truck doesn’t run on lithium and cobalt batteries powered by solar panel.
The empirical changes are not very low. Assuming each plant has a uniform probability of failing once every 10,000 years, that comes out to an accident once every ~50 years in one of the ~500 nuclear power plants on Earth.
We had a major radiological incident in a Polish coal plant recently. That not counting a whole power plant block failing, contaminating water and emitting tons of fumes.
It still has not been fixed as the replacement block turned out to not meet new emission standards.
Three mile island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were all extremely severe events. Also, the timing of these events does seem to support the estimated probability of a severe nuclear event somewhere in the world every 30-50 years.
It’s not about the one person, it’s about that person representing tens/hundreds/thousands of customers. This feedback is a gift to a product manager that listens.