jboog

7 ms·

1.
by jboog 6y ago
Please feel free to point me to any developed country that has successfully replaced fossil fuel and nuclear baseload generation with renewables and energy storage. I'll save you the time. No one has done it. And no, not because evil m
2.
by jboog 6y ago
I'm glad you can google "energy storage" and click on one of the first links but literally none of these are currently capable of replacing baseload nuclear and fossil fuel energy generation. You can listen to the people who
3.
by jboog 6y ago
Absolutely none of this changes the undeniable fact that "storage" is incapable of meeting the demands of baseload power generation currently provided by Nuclear and fossil fuels. We aren't anywhere close and won't be fo
4.
by jboog 6y ago
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology. All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.
5.
by jboog 6y ago
When precisely did "the nuclear lied"?
6.
by jboog 6y ago
Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology. We are being told on the one hand that climate change is an existential threat to tens (hundreds?) of millions o
7.
by jboog 6y ago
it is literally impossible for renewables to replace fossil fuels given current technology and anything on the horizon for at least the next decade, probably much longer. So that leaves...Nuclear. So again, why are you fear-mongering about
8.
by jboog 6y ago
If "activists" stopped spending all their time fear-mongering about how expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming nuclear is we could have had massive government subsidies to almost entirely end fossil fuel production for energy!
9.
by jboog 6y ago
So little nuclear has come online since 2010 partly because of fear-mongering from activists and people for the last 20 years complaining that Nuclear takes too long to build. If only 20 years ago people realized all our climate and energy
10.
by jboog 6y ago
Why leave out the cost of fossil fuel power sources throughout history? And deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions which is in the tens of thousands per year. Fukushima and Chernobyl combined are a tiny fraction of FF emissions/deaths&
11.
by jboog 6y ago
Buzzfeed has some legit straight-news reporting though that have had some good scoops the past few years. But yes most of it is clickbait
12.
by jboog 6y ago
That someone can get rich gambling is not some new insight! Most of the WSB equity analyst is the equivalent of the blackjack player sure he's going to win it big because Mercury is in retrograde!
13.
by jboog 6y ago
Yeah, I agree it's totally gambling. There's also the thing where buying equity in a company can seem very simple because you see something like Apple where they made a cool thing and obviously their stock went up. People just hav
14.
by jboog 6y ago
It's always interesting how the great investments are always so obvious looking in the rear view mirror.
15.
by jboog 6y ago
>"They're "fundamentals". Did I look at their balance sheet, no." Please for the love of god tell me you are trolling right now.
16.
by jboog 6y ago
No what you don't understand is that no one else in the market had caught on to the fact that AMD was the main competitor to Intel! If only we had known way back when!
17.
by jboog 6y ago
Because a company is going to exist doesn't mean it's going to jump 10x+ in value in a few years. I remember following the WSB AMD memery several years ago and no one really predicted what would actually happen over the ensuing ye
18.
by jboog 6y ago
Ben Graham said many decades ago that over the short term the market is like a voting machine but over the long term it's a weighing machine. There have always been periods of irrationality in the markets but there's no reason to
19.
by jboog 6y ago
If you read some of the posts on WSB a huge number of people just really have no clue about capital markets, investing, or basic business sense. I don't know how many times I saw people claiming GME would go to $1000 because the new C
20.
by jboog 6y ago
Yeah reviews are a shitshow almost no matter what. It's human nature to be predisposed to leave reviews when you have a bad experience. Then you have those f'ing weirdos who leave reviews like "Burger was really good and all
21.
by jboog 6y ago
Yeah reviews are a shitshow almost no matter what. It's human nature to be predisposed to leave reviews when you have a bad experience. Then you have those f'ing weirdos who leave reviews like "Burger was really good and all
22.
by jboog 6y ago
Yeah, well stated. The incentives are definitely misaligned. Viewers want and expect accuracy, but most of all what they want is to be entertained and most aren't going to look to hard to see how accurate a really entertaining doc is.
23.
by jboog 6y ago
I'd go even further and say that the way most people treat "documentary" to be equivalent to "unbiased recitation of factual events" is problematic itself. I love docs but often research the subject after watching a
24.
by jboog 6y ago
Counterpoint: Most people get WAY more value out of their Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max subs than they ever did paying Comcast $200 a month. And at a fraction of the cost!
25.
by jboog 6y ago
People on these forums just can't fathom the idea that they aren't the "average" consumer. They think because game passes don't make sense for THEM, that it's a bad idea. Therefore any decision made by game dev
26.
by jboog 6y ago
1. You don't need a $300 GPU to play modern games on a gaming PC. 2. Sony and Microsoft subsidize the cost of the hardware. They lose money on every console that goes out the door and make their cash on online passes, accessories and
27.
by jboog 6y ago
No my rebuttal is that if your solution is laughably extreme and unserious. You can advocate for Soviet style collectivization and liquidating all businesses in the US if you want but no one outside of SF is ever getting elected on it in ou
28.
by jboog 6y ago
You're Right! The sentence devoid of context is misleading!! But the thing is cherry-picking a single sentence without its proper context is misleading if not downright dishonest itself. I was clearly talking about COAL/FF DEATHS
29.
by jboog 6y ago
" If this kills a business then so be it. Businesses are not entitled to" or "Yeah my policy is toxic political poison that will ensure the defeat of any politician who runs on it outside SF and Manhattan but SO WHAT?"
30.
by jboog 6y ago
Why would I start talking about coal deaths in the US, then immediately broaden it to worldwide nuclear deaths. Lie about Nuclear deaths by only counting US, then immediately after lying bring up Chernobyl and Fukushima to prove I lied or s

More ›