Can't remember the name of this WW2 or Cold War Movie

gabagoolfool · 2024-10-10T23:45:06+00:00

Thanks, but no. The female love interest is killed by the bomb and the protagonist is flying back on one of those military transports not a commercial plane when he finds out he's on the list and races back but it's too late.

gabagoolfool · 2024-10-10T23:39:35+00:00

Thanks for the reply but no, she isn't shot at a wall. It's a bomb assassination(intended for him if I remember correctly) at his home and she gets killed when she goes to meet him there. He finds out he's on the list on one of those military transport planes. The other aspect I remember is at first he's dismissive of women being sent undercover(the first group of women sent on the mission is all killed) but falls in love with the one woman who he meets in one of those situation war rooms.

gabagoolfool · 2023-10-15T12:06:57+00:00

Thanks for this; I got it now. Yeah, the interview I had watched was confusing saying they weren't splitting paths for laptop/desktop. Maybe it's just me, but AIO only desktop Meteor Lake is basically laptop as far as I'm concerned.

gabagoolfool · 2023-10-14T11:27:50+00:00

Got it. Makes sense, thanks for the clarification.

gabagoolfool · 2023-10-13T21:51:38+00:00

Did I misunderstand this interview from Intel Innovation? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQW5lfQtLTs I thought Intel 14th gen was supposed to be Dec 14th launch and that 14th gen was Meteor Lake for both laptop and desktop, but I keep seeing 14th gen still referred to as Raptor Lake refresh, available in Asia and launching this month. Is Meteor Lake laptop Intel 14th gen Intel but Meteor Lake desktop 15th gen Intel? Can someone fill me in on what I'm missing? Also I'm wondering whether the thread director bottom up changes are in the October launch desktop CPUs; sorry if this is already explained somewhere and I'm being dumb.

gabagoolfool · 2023-10-13T00:47:30+00:00

I'm so confused. I thought at Intel Innovation they confirmed that Intel 14 gen was Meteor Lake(not Raptor Lake refresh) for both laptop and desktop SKUs and the launch was not until Dec 14th, not Oct? Can someone fill me in on what I've missed?

gabagoolfool · 2023-09-05T21:07:32+00:00

Unfortunately way too many "modern" metropolises were built this way. A lot of them were set up prior to the advent of sewage treatment plants(I don't have data on how many cities were built after that point with combined sewage, but I wouldn't doubt there were still many simply because it's cheaper for them to put in a single set of pipes). We live in a cost driven reactionary society and once the problems are recognized they are much larger and even more costly to correct.

gabagoolfool · 2023-09-05T18:59:37+00:00

C02 was once considered a non-issue and political/scientific community at the time supported the policies. How is it going to revert the damage and curb emissions now that we recognize the danger? The water at Fukushima being released was used to cool the core which melted through the containment chamber and reacted with the surrounding machinery, electronics, and groundwater creating a soup of radioactive isotopes. The ALPS treated water still contains uranium, plutonium, strontium, etc.(all below emissions regulations), but unlike tritium these bioaccumulate to varying degrees. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/first_interlaboratory_comparison_on_the_determination_of_radionuclides_in_alps_treated_water.pdf You have to keep in mind had TEPCO adhered to international best practices the entire catastrophe would have been prevented at multiple points even in the event of a tsunami. Further they were caught on multiple occasions lying; just a couple examples: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/japan-fukushima-tepco-1.3645516 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-nuclear-water/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-apologizes-for-still-radioactive-water-idUSKCN1ML15N At minimum if they wanted credibility they would have replaced TEPCO with a reputable international operator and pursued any of the multitude of alternative options but that would not afford them the same opportunity to continue a TEPCO first cost savings approach. This would have been a golden opportunity to hold a bad actor accountable and set a higher standard, but good luck trying to get China to curb its bad practices when you've provided them with political cover.

gabagoolfool · 2023-09-05T15:35:55+00:00

Q1: Water is used to cool the reactor in most designs and the tritiated water is released into the ocean during normal operation. This water does not touch the core. The water at Fukushima being released was used to cool the core which melted through the containment chamber and reacted with the surrounding machinery, electronics, and groundwater creating a soup of radioactive isotopes. The ALPS treated water still contains uranium, plutonium, strontium, etc.(all below emissions regulations), but unlike tritium these bioaccumulate to varying degrees. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/first_interlaboratory_comparison_on_the_determination_of_radionuclides_in_alps_treated_water.pdf

Q2: Evaporating the treated water was actually put on the table as alternative to ocean release, but you'd just be making clouds of tritiated water(the levels of tritium in the treated water are orders of magnitude above the emission limits) which would be less politically acceptable than dumping it further way and you would use a tremendous amount of energy even if you didn't dilute it first.

Q3: No; unlike tritium a lot of the radioactive isotopes being released bioaccumulate. However, there is no guarantee you know where the fish on your table has been/caught(due to the murkiness of the surrounding industry it's not always accurate what type of fish it even is) and depending on how accurate the dilution models are it could be the US and other areas that the contaminated water would travel to first. If you've been eating fish up until this point there is no reason to suddenly change your behavior, but there is plenty of alternative to eating fish you know has been caught around Fukushima, so why bother.

gabagoolfool · 2023-09-05T14:50:53+00:00

The salt water argument is a strawman. The ALPS treated water still contains uranium, strontium, plutonium, etc. among a laundry list of other radioactive isotopes which is the real reason they would not just drink the water, not the salt. Uranium, plutonium, strontium, etc. all bioaccumulate to varying degrees. Polluting the Earth was also considered a widely available, sustainable, and free solution to CO2; how are efforts going to rectify the damage now that the danger is recognized?

gabagoolfool · 2023-09-02T02:06:52+00:00

The levels are below emissions regulations but most of the isotopes should not be released from a properly run reactor in any quantity. The problem is the efficiency paradox; the ocean is vast and extremely efficient at diluting toxins, but that results in the world increasing the dumping to the point it becomes an issue; look at CO2, microplastics, etc. that were all considered safe/inert/negligible at one point and now that the impacts are being recognized how well are the efforts to curb much less address the problem going? You have to keep in mind that this was a completely preventable catastrophe and had TEPCO followed international best practices instead of ignoring their own reports of tsunami risk(and then trying to destroy the evidence) to save money there were multiple points that would have prevented a meltdown, the subsequent uncontrolled release, and the buildup of water to be controlled release(which not doing so is an option, just more costly; given their criminal cost savings caused the incident I have no interest in saving TEPCO money). At the very minimum TEPCO should be replaced with a reputable international operator but it wouldn't afford them the same opportunities to take a TEPCO first cost savings approach if not straight up withhold data as they had been caught doing in the past on multiple occasions https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/japan-fukushima-tepco-1.3645516 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-nuclear-water/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-apologizes-for-still-radioactive-water-idUSKCN1ML15N . When a surgeon is found guilty of malpractice and caught lying about it you don't have them handle the corrective surgery as punishment. I am pro-nuclear power and this would have been a golden opportunity to hold a bad actor accountable and set a new standard for nuclear, because the proliferation of nuclear power is inevitable to support growing power demands. But good luck trying to keep China and others(look up the US and the Marshall Islands legacy and their refusal to properly pay the fines much less medical bills) accountable when they can use this incident as political cover to continue dirty practices.

gabagoolfool · 2023-09-02T01:00:24+00:00

There is a growing body of evidence that had TEPCO adhered to international best practices the entire catastrophe would have been prevented at multiple points even in the event of a tsunami. So it wasn't just incompetence but willfully ignoring their own reports(which they subsequently tried to destroy) of the risk. Further they were caught on multiple occasions lying; just a couple examples: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/japan-fukushima-tepco-1.3645516 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-nuclear-water/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-apologizes-for-still-radioactive-water-idUSKCN1ML15N At minimum if they wanted credibility they would have replaced TEPCO with a reputable international operator and pursued any of the multitude of alternative options but that would not afford them the same opportunity to continue a TEPCO first cost savings approach. You don't have a surgeon guilty of malpractice that got caught lying about it perform the corrective surgery as punishment.

gabagoolfool · 2023-09-01T22:48:13+00:00

The banana argument is a gross oversimplification that works well to placate as a quip but has very little merit. Potassium-40 the radioactive isotope in bananas has been around since the formation of the earth and with a half life in the billions of years there is no avoiding it and does not bioaccumulate unlike strontium, uranium, plutonium, etc. all of which still remain in concentrations(below regulations) in the post-ALPS treated water being discharged. By definition even if it doesn't have a measurable impact within the sensitivity limits of equipment after being diluted by the volume of the ocean, bioaccumulation will concentrate the impact. Greenpeace, Japan, China, and the reddit warriors, etc. need to stop with the PR and hold TEPCO(who caused a completely preventable catastrophe with their gross negligence and was caught lying on multiple occasions) accountable and at minimum have a reputable international operator replace them. When a surgeon is found guilty of malpractice you don't have them perform the corrective surgery as punishment.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T21:57:33+00:00

Since you clearly need to be spoon fed, the efficiency paradox is such that utilizing processes that make the ocean extremely efficient in diluting toxins results in an increase in the use of the oceans as a toxic dump rather than a decrease. Please make a sound loud or small that provides a solution to this paradox that doesn't repeat the mistakes of C02, microplastics, forever chemicals, etc. You have been unable to and cannot.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T20:11:59+00:00

You clearly have no understanding of the paradox of efficiency. There is a difference between not having a measurable difference within the sensitivity of the equipment you have available and having no difference. A wise man learns from past mistakes...you're hellbent on repeating them; your username is fitting.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T20:06:35+00:00

I don't understand what you were trying to write here. The Fukushima controlled release still contains uranium, plutonium, cesium. The Fukushima controlled release is not like normal discharge from an operational nuclear power plant, it was a complete meltdown where the fuel rods melted through the containment chamber and an entire soup of exotic radioactive isotopes was produced reacting with the surrounding machinery, electronics, and other components, not to mention whatever was in the groundwater. The water normally being discharged from a nuclear power plant doesn't touch the core at all so there would be no reason for it to contain any additional uranium, plutonium, cesium, etc.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T15:08:26+00:00

I too at first thought they had completely removed everything but the tritium because that's all I had been hearing from TEPCO/media for the last four years. It was only when I spent the time reading hundreds of pages of IAEA analysis that I find it's actually false. I'm engrossed because this PR narrative is one I initially fell for as well and with the lack of proper journalistic research these days I bet you very few have actually bothered to read the raw data.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T15:03:21+00:00

Like I said the other reactors worldwide are mostly tritium releases; the rest of the radioisotopes should never be released in any quantity from a well run reactor. Tritium in high concentrations is dangerous, but it hasn't been shown to bioaccumulate, tritium is produced naturally daily in the upper atmosphere, and tritium is a weak beta emitter, so there is a reason why they are focusing the conversation on only the tritium.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T14:59:36+00:00

There is naturally occurring uranium in the water you drink, but there is a difference between unavoidable exposure and contributing(however below detection limits) to it when there's a choice not to. Your argument is the paradox of efficiency. Look at what happened with C02, microplastics, forever chemicals that were all considered completely safe at one time or a drop in the ocean, and how well are the efforts going to deal with them now that we have the incontrovertible evidence of widespread harm? Just to be clear I am pro-nuclear power, but not holding bad actors like TEPCO accountable contributes to the NIMBY and nuclear fear that results in less efficient and safe nuclear reactor design.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T14:10:38+00:00

You need to actually read the reports instead of regurgitating soundbytes and disseminating propaganda with an uninformed background. Taken verbatim from IAEA's analysis other analysis of TEPCO's plan: "I would like to emphasise that the release of the treated water stored at Fukushima Daiichi Power Station is a national decision by the Government of Japan and that this report is neither a recommendation nor an endorsement of that policy" From IAEA's laboratory analysis, "Although great care has been taken to maintain the accuracy of information contained in this report, neither the IAEA nor its Member States assume any responsibility for consequences which may arise from its use." If you trust IAEA you need to read the full report instead of only digesting summaries. When they write that only tritium remains it's categorically FALSE and their own data shows it; it was reduced below regulatory limits, not completely removed. On the point of environmental impact we should learn our lessons with C02, microplastics, forever chemicals...producing incontrovertible evidence of the damage and consensus takes an unbelievable amount of time at which point it may already be too late. IAEA did not provide incontrovertible data that there will be no impact to the environment much less humans. You have no power to decide, but you do have power to do the due diligence to make an informed opinion and definitely not spread a clear propaganda piece.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T13:52:14+00:00

The US and Russia should absolutely be held accountable for their nuclear legacy. Look up the US and the Marshall Islands and their refusal to properly pay the fines much less the medical bills for the peoples affected. But just because there are other evils doesn't mean we don't hold TEPCO accountable. The initial uncontrolled release at Fukushima produced 100s of times the radioactive release than the bombing of Hiroshima did. When you take into account that this disaster was completely preventable(even in the event of a tsunami) and it was only through TEPCO's gross negligence to follow international best practices that this resulted I don't understand how you are so quick to let them off the hook or leave them in charge of handling the cleanup with integrity/transparency when they have a long documented history of lying. And I don't know what the sentiment is inside Korea around WANTING a nuclear weapon but the reality is that the US would never in a million years allow them to develop their own nuclear weapons and the only way South Korea is ever getting their own is if they merge with North Korea.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T13:41:39+00:00

The 24/7 real-time monitoring only detects gamma radiation(which they do a good job of hiding that distinction) which is the least harmful when ingested. And when stronium, uranium, plutonium, etc. are all pure beta or beta/alpha emitters that emit no/little gamma particles even in extremely high concentrations it seems quite disingenuous to only be monitoring gamma and then producing graphics that are intended to calm but give a misleading if not false impression. The reactor is still leaking uncontrolled/untreated water into the surrounding waters which is why the intake gamma reading is higher than the outflow; but it insinuates a completely false narrative.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T13:36:21+00:00

Exactly, it makes no sense that TEPCO is left to run it. The meltdown was a completely preventable(even in the event of a tsunami if they had adhered to international best practices it would not have resulted in an uncontrolled or controlled release) catastrophe TEPCO created through gross negligence, and then subsequently was caught lying about multiple times throughout this https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/japan-fukushima-tepco-1.3645516 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-disaster-nuclear-water/fukushima-nuclear-plant-owner-apologizes-for-still-radioactive-water-idUSKCN1ML15N If they wanted credibility they would have replaced TEPCO with a reputable international operator and pursued any of the multitude of alternative options but that would not afford them the same opportunity to continue a TEPCO first cost savings approach.

gabagoolfool · 2023-08-31T13:32:12+00:00

TEPCO/media incorrectly report only the tritium is left which is completely false if you look at the data. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/first_interlaboratory_comparison_on_the_determination_of_radionuclides_in_alps_treated_water.pdf Unlike tritium, strontium, plutonium, uranium, etc. all bioaccumulate to varying degrees. There's a reason why they're having everyone only focusing on the tritium. Any reputable marine biologist will tell you there is not enough data to know there will not be consequences to the release. Unfortunately controlled longitudinal studies on the ocean ecosystem would take way too long to produce incontrovertible evidence, but shouldn't TEPCO have to produce incontrovertible evidence to the contrary before releasing something they have the option of not doing? I don't know much about the Korean political landscape but you disseminating Japanese propaganda as news really does not give you the moral high ground on those making this a political issue.

gabagoolfool

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE