esarbe

5 ms·

1.
by esarbe 8d ago
I don't think that also covers cleaning[1]. [1] https://www.consumerhealthdigest.com/health-supplements/tesl...
2.
by esarbe 8d ago
Fair enough.
3.
by esarbe 9d ago
What if it gets damaged or a drunk customer vomits into it or otherwise soils it?
4.
by esarbe 11d ago
How is that better than having a dedicated headphones port?
5.
by esarbe 11d ago
I think I'd rather stick with a phone that has a separate headpones port.
6.
by esarbe 11d ago
Me.
7.
by esarbe 12d ago
How do you charge your phone while listening to music?
8.
by esarbe 21d ago
That's it for me. No more twitter. Elmo really has ruined it.
9.
by esarbe 2mo ago
I find this a very reasonable frame of mind. Systemic issues and failures cannot be fixed or addressed by individual action. They have to be addressed in a systemic way. It's good that people are catching up to this.
10.
by esarbe 3mo ago
You sound like you've swallowed pro-US-propaganda hook, line and sinker. The reason the middle-east is at constant war is because colonialist machinations. Same goes for south-Saharan Africa. And the US is a big colonialist player, jus
11.
by esarbe 3mo ago
> But we are also: an email company built around privacy; an open source AI startup focused on developers; a place for people to create and share data on their own terms; and an investor in responsible tech startups. I'd prefer it i
12.
by esarbe 3mo ago
Now you are just throwing everything at the wall and hope it sticks. You're essentially shifting to a "sure, reactors are expensive, but the whole-system price is lower" argument. Well, we'll see, I guess. Yes, Germany i
13.
by esarbe 3mo ago
No, my concern is that France will have to spend around €150-200 billion in the next ten years just to keep their current capacity. I guess that's the reason that they went for renewables for capacity expansion - it's much cheaper
14.
by esarbe 3mo ago
These €50 billion is just what EDF is in debt, not what building and operating these reactors actually cost. Just in the next 10 years EDF will have in invest about €150-200 billion to replace and refurbish their reactors. That's just
15.
by esarbe 3mo ago
The same way that France did it; by building quite safe nuclear in series with massive government subsidies. A bit like China today. After the accidents showed that these designs where just not quite safe enough, redundancy in the safety sy
16.
by esarbe 3mo ago
I'm not actually that concerned about excessive government spending. I just don't like wasteful spending, and that's what nuclear is. Wind and PV build up much faster, are orders of magnitudes less complex and provide cheaper
17.
by esarbe 3mo ago
No reactor has yet even reached the operating age of 60 years. That 80 years number is wholly speculative. We stopped building nuclear reactors in the 1970ies[0] because with the additional complexity to make them safe, the systems were jus
18.
by esarbe 3mo ago
Ah, yes - "the evil environmentalists." Congratulations, you really torched that straw man. We stopped building nuclear reactors in the early 1970ies[0], long before there was any large organized civil movement organizing against
19.
by esarbe 3mo ago
There's no false information there. Nuclear is complex and so expensive that despite 70 years of tinkering and trying it hasn't managed to make a noticeable dent in fossil fuel. It's also slow, with building times up to more
20.
by esarbe 3mo ago
There's no measure by which nuclear energy is the "energy of the future". It's too complex, too expensive and it doesn't scale. SMRs are proving to be a fever dream with ever rising costs and the number of nuclear r
21.
by esarbe 3mo ago
It's also incredibly expensive and brittle and cannot be moderated without additional costs[1]. At this point nuclear is just a dead horse. It hasn't managed to displace fossil fuels in over 70 years - a feat that renewables have
22.
by esarbe 3mo ago
No it's not. If scientific investigation shows that there are many causes that have a relevant impact on "A", then saying that "A has multiple relevant and possible causes" is not hand-waving. It's stating the
23.
by esarbe 3mo ago
Watson's comments are not based in scientific fact. First of - there is no such thing as a "race". Putting people in classes based on the colour of their skin is ludicrously simplistic, ignoring the incredible genetic diversi
24.
by esarbe 3mo ago
That human industrial activities are the primary direct causation of the currently observed climate change is a scientific fact, proven beyond any reasonable doubt. What you show is that there are not many conservatives in academia. The rea
25.
by esarbe 3mo ago
It's more than just "that one president". It's the whole system that brought him to power, where a large part of the population has been trained to hate and fear for almost half a decade now. That the US military is run
26.
by esarbe 3mo ago
There have been many systemic changes since we started to understand the physical mechanism behind climate change and the dire consequences of unmitigated climate change. Within 20 years Europe has shifted to almost 50% renewables in their
27.
by esarbe 3mo ago
The link is in the title.
28.
by esarbe 3mo ago
That's a straw man argument. Voluntarily opting out of a high-CO2 lifestyle will do exactly nothing. Demanding that anyone recognizing the threat of climate change and demanding a different approach "first change their lifestyles&
29.
by esarbe 3mo ago
That's a ludicrous proposal. A whole planets' society's structural problems cannot be solved by an individuals action. Your own attitude explains the 'why'. This is a systemic issue that needs systemic fixing.
30.
by esarbe 3mo ago
Very well put, thank you.

More ›