Are you making that argument?

If that scares you, (very slight spoiler ahead)

No, it’s not. There are ways to recycle parts of the fuel rods, true, but not the thousands of tons of contaminated material that inevitably gather during operations and end-of-life of a reactor. You don’t honestly think that the only dangerous waste are spend fuel rods?

And yes, the very problem is that storage needs to take place over geologic timescales. I can’t guarantee that our government will exist 20 years from now, much less 2000. Waste storage so far was managed so corruptly and incompetently that it is already failing after 50 years. Forgive me if I have little faith whenever someone claims that they’ll just dig a hole and forget about it for a few millennia. The waste sites need maintenance, and if that ever ends might poison a region’s ground water in perpetuity.

Where will you put the nuclear waste? Germany doesn’t even have the concept of a plan where to put theirs, they are currently keeping it

a) in a corroding salt mine, that is currently leaking water and will poison the entire area’s ground water within 20 years, so it’ll have to be dug up again, which will cost many billions b) in above ground ‘temporary’ holding facilities c) shipping it off to other countries

None of this is sustainable. Until the waste problem is solved, we shouldn’t even think about building out nuclear.

Only issue I have is that custom overlays are hard to impossible to get working. Which is a security feature I’m sure, but still is annoying. I tried for a while to get AwakenedPoeTrade running, but eventually gave up.

But everyday use, not a single issue (that I’m not blatantly responsible for myself, at least)

It only accepts American domains. It knows bbc.com, but good luck with bbc.co.uk

No, what do you mean, MBFC is not US centric at all

shaking in fear?

For me it’s probably the way I self-host overleaf, a online LaTeX editor. The community version has a docker image that’s horribly maintained (because they want to sell enterprise, I reckon), and instead relies on a horrendous amalgamation of setup scripts that wrap docker compose.

What I have is a Dockerfile that pulls the image, manually installs a second version of TeX with the right dependencies, unlinks the old one and links the second one. Then for the database, it uses Mongo replsets, which be to be manually initialized. So I wrote a health check for the container that checks if the repl set is initialized, and if that fails the health check initializes it.

It’s horrendous, it’s disgusting, and it’s an all-in-one compose file to get overleaf running. Good enough.

Even then, the difference between 20 and 2000 characters is negligible

Too much pillow talk?

…oh, they’re talking about a shirt

You just discovered the field of calculus! If you look closely enough at any smooth function it looks locally linear, and the slope of that linear function is it’s derivative

Not quite what’s happening here, here the problem is if you consider geodesics on a sphere to be straight. In special geometry they are, for all intents and purposes, but in higher euclidian geometry they form large circles

You are absolutely correct, but to add on to that even more:

When we talk about space, we usually think about 3D euclidean space. That means that straight lines are the shortest way between two points, parallel lines stay the same distance forever, and a whole bunch of other nice features.

Another way of thinking about objects like the earth is to think of them as 2D spherical manifolds. That means we concern ourself only to the surface of the earth, with no concept of going below the surface or flying up into the sky. In S2 (that’s what you call a 2D spherical manifold), and in spherical geometry in general, parallel straight lines will eventually cross, and further on loop back and form a closed loop. Sounds weird, right? Well, we do it all the time. Look at lines of Longitude, for example.

We call the shortest line connecting two points in curved manifolds geodesics, as you said, and for all intents and purposes, they are straight. Remember, there is no concept of leaving the sphere, these two coordinates is all there is.

What one can do, if one wants to, is embed any manifold into a higher-dimensional euclidean one. Geodesics in the embedded manifold are usually not straight in higher-dimensional euclidean space. Geodesics on a sphere, for example, look like great circles in 3D.

You could try emailing the FSF and explaining your situation. They constantly get into legal battles over licencing and care a whole lot about open source. Their opinion is certainly a lot more expert than what any of us can produce :D

That is probably something you should ask a lawyer for, not strangers on the Internet. But I think if you make the case that you already have a lot of the groundwork for the project published under GPL, you can massively reduce effort by using that, but that’ll mean the final project will be GPL licensed as well, most people would agree that’s a reasonable trade off. Just make sure it’s written somewhere, so they can’t pull a fast one on you

I feel like a total idiot now, some time between reading the original comment and my reply my brain substituted BBC for The Guardian, sorry for wasting both our times on that :'D

My criticism still stands, because it does rate The Guardian as mixed as well.

I shouldn’t have to be the one to provide evidence, because MBFC is the site that is making the claim that Breitbart is on the same level of factuality as the BBC. They say that both had numerous factual errors over the years. I’m not disputing that, the BBC is not great when it comes to many issues. But the BBC consists of several broadcasting channels, radio and news outlets. They publish several dozen pieces a day. Breitbart has nowhere near that volume. I was making the point that volume does play a big role, because for credibility, it is the relative accuracy that counts, not the absolute number of mistakes. If you don’t see that point, we can stop right here, the discussion would be pointless.

The thing you are asking for, me providing specific counts for mistakes in reporting, is next to impossible. Still, here is an independent report, focused on statistics as reported by the BBC, that finds that in their sample about 4% of statistics were further challenged, so the number of false statistics reported is likely about that number:

https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/stats_impartiality/content_analysis.pdf

As for Breitbart, and I can’t believe I have to spell this out, here is their introduction on Wikipedia:

Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16]

If you think that these two are even remotely similar or deserve to be in the same category of factuality, I don’t know what else to say to you.

As pointed out above me, MBFC seems to think so. It gives both a MIXED rating. I don’t really get what you’re trying to argue here? Am I misunderstanding something?

If you put out 100 articles and 5 have mistakes, that is very different than if you put out 10 and 5 have mistakes. You’re not arguing that the BBC and Breitbart are the same level of credibility, right?

I hate MBFC and this bot with a passion. It’s misleading, inaccurate, US-centric and there’s no reason anyone should take it serious, especially not in world news.

no /s needed