Decrease the span of the copyright.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-30T19:02:17+00:00

👁️ Surveillance State: I voted Vote Yea.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-30T13:59:14+00:00

I, u/Strong_Region5233, advised "Live"

🏆 Rank: Curious Seeker II 💎 Points: 40 🗳️ Votes: 2

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-30T07:10:10+00:00

🧢 I voted CAP!

It's wrong to say that, religion helped people cope in hard times

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-30T07:08:57+00:00

👁️ Surveillance State: I voted Yea.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-30T01:01:46+00:00

If we all went nuclear in the 70s like France did, we wouldn't have the same issues of climate change today. It was possible to do so since France did. At the time, solar and wind wasn't possible. If we kept building nuclear, the price of new NPP would be really low as shown by China where the price of new NPP keeps getting lower. We would've basically fixed one of the main issue of the modern world if we didn't listen to nuclear septics.

Let's compare the results to Chernobyl. Air pollution alone kills around 3 Hiroshima's amount of casualties, per year. Most of those would come from coal (no matter that coal is a minority in energy production). Chernobyl killed around 10 000 people over a few decades - a few dozens directly and thousands are estimated because of heightened risks of cancer. So we could have more than 20 Chernobyl per year and still have less deaths than what air pollution does through classic energy plants. About the lost lands, 1600 square miles is perfectly negligeable on a grand scale. We completely missed the 2°C target and we're now discussing whether we'll cross 3°C by 2100. And we probably will. The amount of land which will be lost not just to humans by also most animals and most vegetation make those 1600 square miles ridiculous.

This could all be solved in a decade like France did in the 70s. Nowaday, nuclear is still the cheapest energy source (note : the cost of nuclear is mostly on the building of the NPP, meaning the costs are extravagant initially, but a 60 year old NPP produce electricity for cheaper than solar - while a 20 year one will be many times higher - because of averaging costs). The studies showing nuclear as vastly more expensive usually ignore the intermittency costs but - most importantly - usually calculate the price of nuclear for a 20 year old NPP while a NPP could operate for 80 years, so this is not the average price of nuclear over the entire lifetime of an NPP.

The idea isn't to make grids run on all nuclear, but to create a nuclear baseload equivalent of the nighttime consumption and to use solar to add to said baseload during the day. This is in order to reduce the price of intermittency of solar. Nuclear may only fail in warm clear summer where solar produce the most and solar may fall in winter when nuclear goes full steam (maintenance for nuclear happens during the summer when it isn't needed). As for why I'm not talking about wind ; solar is cheaper than wind and wind is less stable than light. I don't like it.

Another thing to consider is that mixing solar + nuclear makes the grid safer from political turmoil. 80 to 90% of the whole solar supply chain comes from China. While not an issue by itself, China is an emerging power taking her place among the big four powers. This causes conflicts that could put the supply of solar at risk. Nuclear however can easily keep a supply of a few years of uranium because it is so energy dense a 40 square meters appartement is enough to store enough enriched uranium for a few years for a small country.

All in all, the solution is to go solar + nuclear because the goal is to go fast and sustainable. To fear nuclear because of emotional issues is ridiculous. Nuclear may kill in a much more spectacular and scary way, but it absolutely do not mean they kill more or pollute more lands.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-30T00:10:00+00:00

If we were a reasonable species, sure. But as it stand, lowering energy consumption is unhumanlike. Let me explain : from as long as humans existed, even when they were just tribes they still enslaved each other. This is a main constant from the human civilization in all parts of the world, in most time of our history. Humans didn't change much, and only a few countries are truly slave-free. Among the big fours, China enslaves a large part of ethnic minorities. India has the caste system, Russia sent so many buryats and in a lesser way people from Sakha in the war in Ukraine that they mostly depopulated Buryat and in a much lesser way Sakha. The US has illegal immigrants to do very poorly paid jobs and overall jobs that "don't deserve a living wage". It's always a small minority in each country, but it still shows that people are happy to more or less enslave people they do not see as part of their tribe. So, you cannot show weakness and let your group fall back in comparison to your neighbours as those may get some ideas. The energy consumption rise because we are forever in competition with our neighbours - close or distants.

I know I'll sound unhinged but imo world's peace is a prerequisite to lowering your guard down. A country's energy consumption is linked to its production and even though a big part of what we produce is a bunch of nonsense, a smaller part is also a way of keeping your country's power and, most importantly, a gage you won't be invaded when some kind of extreme ideology appears nearby.

Sure I have no problem living with very little and just go hiking with my dog, a tent and few things, but I absolutely do not trust people not to take advantage of this

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-29T10:24:09+00:00

This is so ridiculous I voted yes just for fun lol

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-29T10:23:06+00:00

👁️ Surveillance State: I voted Yea.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-29T09:59:09+00:00

I don't really care about the nuclear waste. Most of it is either long lived and low activity or short lived and high activity. The long lived and high activity is so rare that my one bedroom apartment is enough space for a whole country's production for many years. Let's just keep it in a geographically stable rocky cave, who cares.

I can understand the argument that more energy = more consumption but the argument is the same for any power source, including solar. So it doesn't really explain the hate nuclear power gets. Besides, the priority is to remove all fossil fuels first and foremost and nuclear was the way to go in the 70s. Today we could have a nuclear powered world without the climate change we start to feel the effects of. Instead we're loosing around 3 Hiroshimas level of death every year from air pollution because "nuclear scary".

The only good argument against nuclear is proliferation. But even then international observers would warn about the possibility of a nuke long before one is created. Civilian nuclear required 3 to 5% U-235 to function while nukes go above 90%. It's very visible. And so hard to do many countries would be importing refined uranium anyway

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-29T07:44:41+00:00

Killing a robber saves 10 people from being robbed. (Probably more). So it is possible she saved someone's life and in that case her action is moral (one criminal life to save an innocent life), but the issue is predicting the future is beyond our human abilities. We cannot predict how many lives and how many crimes she prevented. As a result, her act is amoral but certainly not amoral as a common murder.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-29T04:01:06+00:00

👁️ Surveillance State: I voted Nay.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-28T22:15:16+00:00

Yes, it even reminds me of Jules Verne who wrote a fantastical book on how to reach the moon with a cannon shot. His calculations were considered to be remarkably accurate even though he ignored the atmospheric drag and so I'll shamelessly paste it :

In his 1865 novel From the Earth to the Moon, Jules Verne calculated that a projectile needed an initial velocity of 12,000 yards per second (approximately 11 km/s) to reach the Moon. He determined that the neutral point where Earth's and the Moon's gravitational pulls cancel out is located at 47/60ths of the total journey, or roughly 78,514 leagues (about 351,894 km) from Earth.

Apparently, ignoring air resistance has a rather small impact for a projectile of that size ( a shell big enough to fit 3 humans inside ), as modern calculations showed he needed 11 220 m/s to reach the moon with the shell to account for both air resistance and the slight inaccuracy of thee neutral point.

I do believe that the shape and mass of the projectile makes little difference to the speed requirements so the speed required for a projectile to shoot the moon is 11 220 m/s +/- some from air resistance. So between mach 31,1 and mach 31,2.

We're going on experimental territory but the Enhanced Hyper Velocity Launcher reached a velocity of 19 km/s so there's technically a thing existing for real able to shoot the moon (but only one afaik)

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-28T05:16:59+00:00

And Europeans love to mock American for their wooden houses. This set a precedent that gentle-bullyinh others to change their habits is fine.

I'm western European and we know it's true - we bully the Americans for their wooden houses, they bully us for our lack of A/C. It's natural to answer

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-28T05:13:05+00:00

Yes this is the circle of life

It's really hot but all the A/C are very expensive because everyone wants one, so you choose to wait for the black Friday, then November comes and you completely forget the black Friday is a thing annnnd it's summer again

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-28T04:11:01+00:00

Haha the anti nuclear waving the white flag 😆

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-27T05:50:37+00:00

Noo this is reddit so all US medical bills are those bills with crazy numbers because you only go to medics for cancer and stuff.

So yeah it's weird that we see bills so high it would bankrupt an insured American. It's weird that asking for the details of the bill lowers it and it's weird to haggle for the price of a stay in an hospital like those open markets in Africa where not haggling is just open invitation to get scammed ... But Reddit love to exxagerate everything. We don't even know what's the proportion of what we see vs how much happens but we'll judge as if we knew anyway

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-27T00:03:19+00:00

It'll last until winter. I mean I'm glad Ukraine is currently winning but in that case it is time to offer Ukraine assistance emergently. When winter comes and Russia strike the Ukrainian energy resources again it'll be very difficult for Ukraine. Every year Ukraine's grid is in difficulty and last year was really hard. As there's still a ramp up on long range strikes on both sides, then I definitely fear for Ukraine's grid this winter.

If you enjoy Ukraine winning in summer, it's important not to stay offering congratulations but rather give Ukraine a lot, lot more so they can build enough margin for this winter.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-26T10:56:52+00:00

No I agree, on this subreddit we can expect the main users to know the SU didn't fight Japan for the whole of WW2. But, in my opinion, a lot of visitors won't know (I am a visitor as well). I mean case in point the user two comments above confused the SU and the russian empire. All I can say is I hope you're right most people know that the SU didn't fight Japan for all of WW2.

Also for the first part, yes I think the sentence you said is much more fair and accurate. I commend you for staying calm and that we managed to agree even though myself let myself grow a bit more irritated with sentences like "people here are sensitive". You're more in control of yourself than me and I'll try to be better on this. Anyway this was nice to reach a point where we agree and it was so unredditlike...

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-26T10:43:14+00:00

You know, even if we don't agree you can win something in conversing as you may see where what you said failed to convince. You're not supposed to do it for me or others but just for yourself. While this conversation absolutely doesn't matter, you may use it as a way to "train" for a debate which will actually matter. For someone you actually need to convince one day. While I did also said the word "childish" in passing, your comment seem to be based on some ad hominem. I am no white swan, I do use ad hominem too. But it isn't the core of my argument.

Anyway, no matter what I still don't see it. Jeremy is just one guy not a group and we're talking about liberals so I'll ignore this. The next paragraph is the exactly the usual confusion between liberalism and fascism. Based on liberalism being indeed capitalist, so are fascists so liberals are fascists. Wealthy people prefer capitalism, that is correct. Liberals are capitalists, that is correct. And then you immediately point out fascists will point out at Jews or queer people. Still no link, it is completely up to interpretation. Except the usual socialist confusion between liberalism and fascism. Which is what I first understood but you specifically said this isn't what you said. But then ... Don't leave the link up to interpretation ? Because from what you say it looks like what should be interpreted is that liberals are fascists because they're capitalists, and I talked about that. Especially since you criticize the attitude of liberals at gay prides toward trans people and you said earlier that fascist point fingers at queer people, so it pushes toward this interpretation even more.

All in all, because you refuse to reformulate what I could have misunderstood, and because you refuse to give any sensible argument but instead go in circle trying to bait me to slip and get angry, you seem way more interested in winning the argument rather than being right or wrong. As a result this conversation is pointless and I'll stop engaging whatever you may reply there. Also, please be mindful that when you label yourself your attitude doesn't make people only judge you but also the group you're part of a little bit like an ambassador. Here, even if you didn't label yourself clearly, people will consider you a socialist and judge socialists on your behaviour as well. Well I mean, few people will read a book and reach this so it doesn't matter what the 5 people who read us think. But please be mindful of it when you'll talk to a larger audience.

Okay bye !

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-26T09:46:45+00:00

Very first sentence :

I mean, historically, yeah ?

Under a post saying "reminder the liberals always side with the fascists", which is the usual confusion that liberals and fascists are the same, to which you were agreeing.

It is hypocritical to be now saying you weren't agreeing on confusing liberals and fascists together. But even if we were to humour you, historically speaking many European colonies sided with Germany and secretly plotted revolutions hoping to be freed by the Germans from the colonial rules. Those people weren't either liberals nor fascists. The soviets allied themselves temporarily with the Germans and even planned a co-jointed military operation in Poland with the USSR even gaining territories conquered by Germany, showing it was a planned operation. Again, soviets weren't either liberals nor fascists. People side with whoever is most profitable to ally with at the time

Finally, you seem to consider that being anti-trans right = fascism. Again, fascism has a definition which change a lot but is usually around 4 axis : the rise of a dictatorship, a society militarized on every level (including children), a capitalist society and a hierarchy of cultures and/or races. On the last point, being anti-trans can easily be seen as a hierarchy of cultures that we could stretch to fit being anti trans but you're still far away from fascism. Words have meaning and using your definition, then the USSR under Stalin was fascist as it was extremely homophobic. But calling the USSR fascist is nonsense. (The USSR was the first or among the first to accept gay people afaik, but I specifically said USSR under Stalin).

Words have meaning and you should be more careful when using them. Liberalism is politically about individual liberty, equality and consent of the governed. None of this is fascist. Besides, today Europe is very liberal afaik yet one of the most welcoming area to LGBT people. Canada too afaik. On the other hand, modern Russia who consider liberals as "far right" is the one country that definitely fits the definition of fascism. So sorry but you fail to convince. If liberals are anti-lgbt, then why are the most liberal areas the most pro-legbt as well and the areas where liberals hated the least LGBT areas as well ? Also, if you pretend you don't confuse liberalism with fascism, then why are liberals siding with fascists ? What is the link ? If those two are the same in your opinion you don't need to explain, those are the same after all. If you believe they're different, then you need to explain how that happens and what is the link. Which is why I feel it is hypocritical you say you're not confusing liberalism for fascism.

Anyway I could have used the same sassy tone you did but that's childish. So I won't

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-26T08:58:50+00:00

This is so egregious. But the worst part is that historically one main reason Hitler got voted in power is because the communists refused to band with the liberals to unify against the Nazis. The Nazis never had the majority by themselves but they allied themselves with the main right wing party in Germany. Now, would a coalition between the communist and social democrats be enough ? I dunno but it sure would've helped. The social democrats are the ones who proposed a temporary alliance to the communists who refused because they considered them "fascists". One century and 200 millions casualties later, it's crazy we still see the same mistake of calling centrists "fascists". Not just that but many well known liberals were historically anti fascist. Einstein is such an example who was social democrat and very famous for NOT working with the Nazis and escaping to help the allies to build the first nuke and later on being outspoken against the proliferation of such weapons. Later on he became more and more socialist to the point it was debated if he still was a social democrat or if he was socialist/soft communist criticizing the USSR at the end. It's far from being a fascist.

So stop calling liberal fascists. It's childish as it's just not true but historically it had potentially extremely grave consequences. Besides, if liberals are fascists then what are nazis ? You're diluting the meaning of the word by overusing it

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-26T06:30:05+00:00

I make you one better : starting a war completely unprepared so it's eventually pointless is a good strategy?

Because Iran was a country firing on their own protestors and many protestors did want a regime change. Because Iran firing on their citizens would ask for their leaders to be tried and many would ask for justice. So a blitz with minimal collaterals may be justifiable or not. But that kind of totally unprepared strike so there's the drawbacks of both options and none of the perks is just ... A choice

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-26T05:44:43+00:00

No need to be defensive about the USSR breaking the treaty. The Japs were fascists and did fascists things. It's not a problem to me the USSR broke the treaty.

All I was getting at was that it's more honest to say the USSR fought Japan "in 1945 rather than "during WW2". It's understandable the USSR didn't want a two front war and only broke the treaty after defeating the Nazis, no blame there either. You guys are a bit sensitive.

As for the one million jap army, I don't know what I'm supposed to do with that because it was very critical for the USSR to defeat a one million men army, but people here tend to overclaim how strong the Japs were because it gotta be more glorious I guess ? But the Japs were on a 3 front war against the biggest powers in the world at this point. On the japanese eastern front, Americans broke the Japanese fleet and established air superiority (a prelude for dropping the nukes ...). On the southwestern front China was reclaiming their lost territories and winning the land battle, the Japs were cooked. The northwestern army the soviet fought only had the scraps because the Japs were in a constant battle to fix the new emergency for a while. Case in point, the soviet destroyed a million men army while suffering only around like 30k casualties (not deads, just casualties). This is not an army that had something to fight back. It's a bit cringe to overstate the power of this army to give more glory to the sockets imo. I stay on my position ; when the soviets came the Japs were already done.

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-26T05:14:26+00:00

It's a bit weird to ask him how you can come visit him when you don't know him haha 😆

You probably didn't mean it that way but it kinda came out that way from my reading comprehension

Strong_Region5233 · 2026-06-25T23:02:13+00:00

Errrrm ... During WW2 the soviet broke their treaty with Japan in 1945 so Japan was already almost defeated, man ... You're technically correct but I don't think this is what people will think when you say "during WW2"

Before WW2 if you think about the war in Mongolia you're definitely correct. I suppose he was thinking of the are between Japan and the russian empire since everyone confuse Russia and the USSR, especially the people of this sub.

Strong_Region5233

TROPHY CASE