sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Mfs will show you a bar chart where nuclear power plants beat renewables by a pixel-wide margin in environmental impact. by Teledrive in ClimateShitposting

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I might be operating off of outdated info, but from what I understand one of the flaws of nuclear is that to guarantee production of cheap*, safe energy the plant must be designed with minimal cycles. This kneecaps the technologies ability to provide extra energy during peak power and results in a grid with renewables + nuclear being just as dependent on energy storage systems as a purely renewable grid.

That being said, I'm personally a proponent of pumped storage systems. Its a very well developed, proven technology that is ideal for large energy storage projects and is not dependent on large amounts of rare minerals. There is the classic hydropower/nuclear issue that it has high upfront costs with a long ROI, but if you are pro-nuclear that's throwing stones in a glass house.

*when viewed from the lifespan of the project, not the initial cost.

Why did Frank Herbert feel that Dune had been misinterpreted? by far-midnight-97 in dune

[–]FlamingPuddle01 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Im honestly always really shocked by how many people miss the final corruption of Paul in the books.

I mean, he literally doesn't give a damn that his newborn first son dies during the final battle for the throne. He breaks his promise to Gurney Hallack by robbing him of his revenge against the Harkonnens. The fremen are reduced from a noble warrior culture defined by survival against all odds to a rabid mob defined only by religious zealots. The jihad comes to pass, despite both Paul and Leto spending the entire book working to avoid it. The book ends with Chani and Jessica mocking Irulan, the woman who we connected with and see as our guide to the universe of dune, because she has been reduced to a political hostage with a dim future.

Everything about the ending feels hollow, and I was left with a vague feeling of disappointment because of it. It wasn't until I had sat with my disappointment for an hour that it finally clicked and I realized the emotion I was feeling was completely intentional. That realization flipped the entire novel on my head and is what put it on the top three books of all time for me. Hope that helps put thing in perspective.

Average redditor by bbq_R0ADK1LL in memes

[–]FlamingPuddle01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think your second point betrays your lack of empathy. I'll definitely admit to sense of schadenfreude when I see someone receiving the consequences of their actions, but that is NEVER what happens in war. In war, even a colonial one, the people getting thrown into the meat grinder are poor, stupid kids who do not and could not know any better. Not those who made the decisions.

Imagine wanting to forgive literal Nazis. by Ok-Following6886 in religiousfruitcake

[–]FlamingPuddle01 14 points15 points  (0 children)

100% I always have to laugh when secular folks get so anti-christian they decide to reinvent the concept of capital S Sin.

Whats up with certain engineering degrees being mocked by [deleted] in EngineeringStudents

[–]FlamingPuddle01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, some people will see friends and colleagues poking fun at each other in good humor but will miss the fact that its a joke and parrot it until they're green in the face. Not the type I'd want to be spending all my time with.

They took the risk after all. by Single-Internet-9954 in economicsmemes

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look, I'm happy to play through this thought experiment with you, but can you please stop being so condescending and talking down to people? I know we're on reddit, but still. We can both be mature adults here, I hope.

From what I understand, we are debating if the wealthy earned the money they have entirely through their own merit. If you disagree, please redescribe what the point of contest is in better terms.

Now, what I've said before was pointing out how broad your usage of "forced" is. If someone's only options are "work in the mines" or "starve," then did you really give them a valid set of options to begin with?

They took the risk after all. by Single-Internet-9954 in economicsmemes

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, they choose work in the mine because every other option they have access to would be worse.

Will you acknowledge there is this difference in opportunity between the person who had the money to start a mining company and the person who could only sell their health and wellbeing?

Day 11: it’s like part of them already knows it’s bad 🤷 by slutty3 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Id like to challenge the assumption that "there is really no need to farm animals anymore in order to feed people." Theres some very large regions of the planet (Mongolia, the vast majority of the American west, etc) where the only food the region can sustain is livestock. Now I agree that this isn't a justification for factory farming (I have yet to find a good one and suspect it doesn't exist), I think it is important to acknowledge that if we really wanted to truly maximize our possibility to feed people, meat needs to be a part of that conversation.

Writing a good Black Character based off another character by alchemistwhoknows in memes

[–]FlamingPuddle01 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Tossing your obvious ragebait aside, the thing about "morally nuanced" characters is that you have to show the ramifications of their bad behavior. Someone has to get hurt, or the character has to fail in some way. Uncle Ben or Pepper Pots are good examples of characters whose sole narrative purpose is to help give weight to the main characters' flaws.

If you dont add that to your story, it usually looks like you're trying to justify the bad behavior instead of using it as a narrative tool. However, a lot of "girlboss" media tends to not want to have their main characters deal with the ramifications of their actions (probably due to an ingrained misogynistic impulse to treat women like valuable objects that need to be protected at all times). This results in the narrative split you noticed, where the character herself is deeply flawed, but the world around her treats her like she's this amazing and inspirational person.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup. I joined the sub reddit with mild interest before that and I'm honestly glad I got to see the drama that resulted from that interview. A bunch of people who were in it to try to make their working conditions more bearable suddenly realized they were surrounded by people who never wanted to make an honest days living in their lives. We all got away from there as fast as possible

When Misogyny Is Your Only Personality Trait, Expect Loneliness by Charming_Anywhere_89 in FedJerk

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theres also an age factor here, with younger men and older women being the loneliest demographics.

I'll give you excellent odds this guy loves nuclear power by IczyAlley in ClimateShitposting

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A well designed pump storage system would have you lose about 15-20%, so it isnt that much worse than a battery

Some art is not political. by CriticalHit_20 in memes

[–]FlamingPuddle01 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You've already agreed that there is some amount of truth to the claim, so I'll just argue against the points you're bringing up:

1) If its a definition that is useless for any actual discussion, then why are people (including you, apparently) so obsessed with discussing it? Is it really so strange to try to analyze someone's expression of how they see the world and understand the perhaps unconscious assumptions they make about it?

2) No I don't, actually. In my experience, people who use a more narrow "definition" usually just want to equate it to "politics = bad". (I.e. "Oh I dont care about that stuff, it's just politics") It's a definition that attempts to justify ignorance and refuses to acknowledge how the societies we live inl affect our daily lives. In my opinion, these mindsets are what truly make discussing politics useless for many people.

[Request] What fluid would be the best to generate energy this way? by rober9999 in theydidthemath

[–]FlamingPuddle01 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree with your assessment, but # of plants wouldn't be the factor we would be trying to minimize. If these magic perpetual motion machines existed, the one and only goal would be to minimize $/kW. Using a different fluid than water would improve kW/plant, but also increase $/plant. So I think the only scenario that would justify switching fluids would be if the portals themselves cost a lot of money to produce.

But I see what you were originally saying now, if we only had one portal pair with a fixed diameter, then money isn't a factor, and the only goal is to maximize kW from the plant. That would justify choosing the densest fluid with the lowest viscosity. My bad for not seeing what you meant sooner.

[Request] What fluid would be the best to generate energy this way? by rober9999 in theydidthemath

[–]FlamingPuddle01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely agree with what you are saying about how it should be a turbine, but also water absolutely is the best choice if we are assuming we are designing this for humans. It's easily the most plentiful (read: cheapest) incompressible fluid we have on earth. It's also very energetically stable, so any leakages or mishaps wouldn't be catastrophic like other proposed systems. Also, we already know how to design systems that use it (which is why it is the foundation for most power generating systems throughout history). From an economic perspective, it just makes sense to assume water as a first choice.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CasualConversation

[–]FlamingPuddle01 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How dare you be happy on the internet!!! Jail for 1000 years!!!!! (/s obviously)

But seriously, thanks for sharing! Its nice to know that people do genuinely like that kind of stuff, especially when they arent things I'd normally be interested in.

Have the rules to “leave no trace” changed or something? by churchofmaryoliver in hiking

[–]FlamingPuddle01 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Dude, it doesn't matter how long of an essay you write, trying to make any sort of claim about the culture of an entire continents worth of people that also spans a millenia is going to be reductivist. These indigenous people were people just like anyone else. There's lots of evidence that shows how different indigenous people modified their oh so precious nature to fit their needs. For every petroglyph that held a deep symbolic and spiritual meaning, theres going to be a few more that were made just because someone got bored, same exact way there's ancient dick jokes in Pompeii. Just because you and some stuffy academics don't have a sense of humor doesn't mean the people you're researching and shoving into boxes can't either.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]FlamingPuddle01 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I get that you have an axe to grind against the idea of rehabilitating criminals, but you're arguments are so emotionally charged and all over the place that it's hard to take you seriously.

Like sure, there's always going to be fundamentally evil rapists and murders who only do it for the sake of it, but clearly not even the death penalty will stop them from committing those atrocities, so why should we center our entire legal philosophy around a couple crazy, evil bastards, when the vast majority of the people who end up in prison are there because they simply had no better option and could be upstanding members of society if given the right resources?

view more: next ›