text
stringlengths 0
23.7k
| label
stringclasses 4
values | dataType
stringclasses 2
values | communityName
stringclasses 4
values | datetime
stringclasses 95
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
If only we could have planned for something besides quarterly profit with monumentally stupid projects like Starlink perhaps humanity wouldn’t be doomed | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Starlink doesn’t give a shit about the health of the planet and neither do you. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
It’s important to anyone with a 401k so yeah a lot of people. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Ah yes, I forgot that money is the most important thing in the world | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
There is a constant stream more and more kids reaching the age of getting a phone. And Apple has been working *hard* to make sure those kids get iPhones. The green bubble effect is strong. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Why are tech companies always at the top? Is it just tech hype or something? It always seemed like Chase or Walmart would make more sense to be the world's most valuable companies. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
I work in the company and I don't give a shit. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
r/technology is anything but a technology sub - look at the idiots who "moderate" it | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
nVidia hasn't be on top yet. Could be soon though. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Paid subscriptions for Plus upgrades. Almost all the Ai models have a premium subscription these days.
And I’d imagine the training data and also market share is valuable as well. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
I guess a premium subscription would have to offer something above and beyond whatever the normal iOS integration gets you.
>training data
I don't think they get to use your data for training, that would kind of violate Apple's privacy stance I think. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
microsoft got recalled. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
It’s moreso technical analysis that’s likened to astrology. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Tim Apple Intelligence | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
It’s kind of crazy that marketing isn’t a bigger deal for this reason. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
More like 40%. [a majority 6 in 10 Americans are invested in the stock market](https://news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspx), of which the vast majority have some level of holdings in an index fund, with almost all of the major ones holding some Microsoft and Apple. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
I would put this more so on the government than on MS. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
bro saw the word 'capitalism' and immediately goes into a deranged rant about "socialism bad" lmao. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
They're basically reaping what the sowed.
If they have any fucks to give about the privacy and security of the people they govern this might not have happened. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Furthermore the US government has an agreement with microsoft where they get source access to windows and so can audit the windows source.
but /u/No_Share6895 wanted to get their anti-CCOS pro-FOSS talking point in, doesn't matter what reality is.
any software - closed or open - is only good as the people writing it and auditing it are. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Some of the security issues have been caused by industry wide bad practices and are agnostic to open or closed source. Biden's Executive Order on software security literally sent shock waves through the industry that haven't been recovered from yet. Especially when it comes to dependency management as companies are still figuring out how to attest where their dependencies came from and how their software was built.
Hell, determinism of build tools only became a widely accepted practice about five to seven years ago and many tools are still not deterministic. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Yet Azure alone holds 24% of the cloud computing space. Intune holds 20%. Office 365 47.9%. No one is leaving behind Microsoft. It’s all talk. They can do whatever they want. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Sounds like every company that lets number people decide cyber security | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Exactly. this isn't a open source vs closed source fight, and not everything needs to be turned into one. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
What a horrible CEO. What idiots hired this guy? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Microboeing. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Yep, this exactly.
IT security is often only as good as it has to be to not get fined.
Protecting user data is often much less important then protecting project data. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
corporate upgrade, 2022/2023 throughout...hundreds of millions were to be spent...
.......is security getting a bump in cash tho ?...
well, i would not say a bump, in as much that a bump, is,..... well, a cut,... its getting cut.
yerp, makes sense, threats and alike are down afterall, ...right ? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
People need to understand that Windows is just a small portion and gateway into the rest of the Microsoft ecosystem.
Getting an Unix OS doesn’t replace Kerberos. Nor anything in Azure. It’s just UI for the MS ecosystem. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Windows has never been secure. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Fines do not work.
Look at the Trump Gag orders.
Jail time for all executives by extending RICO. That's different. That's how you change thing. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
The article said that MS refused to allow their employees to be interviewed, that Harris went out of the chain of command to try to tell the application managers (who did nothing). Note that he was not allowed to contact the press or tell others outside the company about this issue, legally; MS would have sued him for disclosing trade secrets. There is collaborating views from 3 colleagues who needed to remain anonymous.
Your experience with a particular application team is one sample. Harris has *many* other samples. Each team operates rather independently at MS.
There is no real inspector-general. All parties continually referred Harris back to the security team, who even made tee-shirts mocking Harris. An inspector-general would be an independent reviewer who could talk to everyone from the injured to the CEO about the matter, not a silly self-referral to the folks who are violating the security stance. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Just wondering - is it my incompetence because I hire the contractor who does poor work, barely makes the minimum requirements, and often has to have at least one govt employee help him on a weekly basis to get the work assigned done on time to avoid a critical failure? Is it the contractor employee to blame? Is it the contractor that's the problem because they refuse to augment their workforce since the minimum requirement for success is being met and they were the lowest price technically acceptable in a competitive solicitation? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Don't stop at the c suite. We should prosecute investors putting profit ahead of security as well. Any one who buys stock of more profitable company and sell stock is less profitable company should get jail time. Any investment bankers make money should go to jail. Any funds manager make money for investors should go to jail. Any law makers who receive campaign funds from company who make money should go to jail. Wait a minute, private prison would make lots of money. They should build jails and lock themselves up. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-15-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
Don't tell trump, he may never go there again! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
But he talked to MIT, very smart. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
I remember when Google didn't pay to be the default search engine of Safari | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
AFAIK, they only started getting flagship models towards the tail end of Windows Phone too. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
The camera was amazing. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
> I still think there could be a market if they returned with an option.
They could make a god damned mint if they came out in this market with a "Full privacy featured phone" that provably blocks all app tracking and anything from running on your phone that you don't want. They've got the ability to start that kind of an ecosystem. They just need the motivation. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Hello! **Please read this message very carefully.**
Unfortunately, since [your account has less than 10 combined karma](/u/me) and spam from new accounts makes up a significant portion of all spam, your post was automatically, temporarily removed. **Have a tech support question?** Please head over to /r/techsupport, /r/asktechnology, or other tech-centric subreddits listed on the sidebar.
You may still contribute and earn some karma by *commenting* on other existing posts in /r/technology instead. Additionally, you may make meaningful contributions to [other subreddits](/subreddits) to increase your karma count. Tech support questions/opinions/suggestion requests, surveys, blogs, and videos will **NOT** be approved. If this is a legitimate submission that is not covered in the previously listed criteria, please message the moderators to have them manually review your post, or wait a few days and try again.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technology) if you have any questions or concerns.* | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
Propaganda article.
They've been pouring money into the community restoring buildings and the like. Now, when the regulators are confronted with the question of whether or not building a new nuclear reactor is a good idea, these assholes can say "What a nice community we've built together. Would be a shame if something happened to it."
This isn't an article about how they're building a nuclear reactor, it's a propaganda piece and future ammunition in the regulatory war to get permission to actually build.
Which they shouldn't get, because repeating old mistakes is stupid. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Exactly! I always wanted eyes in the back of my head. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
They will build it and then ask for forgiveness (or a small slap on the wrist). | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Bill Gates' alternate account probably. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Sure, "eventually." But "eventually" the seas are going to boil. We need to be pursuing as many avenues as possible. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
When Chinese solar panels are so cheap that they’re being used for fencing, and energy storage and transfer tech is progressing very rapidly, there is simply no way this reactor can match the cost per kWh of green energy. This venture is doomed to failure.
The most common delusion in nuclear power discussions is that environmentalists killed the industry. But they are far less powerful than investors and lobbyists (especially banks and billionaires) who understand the energy market, financial risk, and what makes money. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
It probably produces less waste long-term. Wind and wave have moving parts that fatigue and need replacement. Nuclear doesn't make a lot of waste and storage is figured out and safe. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Nuclear energy is exceedingly clean. The waste it produces can be recycled back into fuel however congress passed a law decades ago requiring the waste be disposed of because at the time, the recycling process hadn’t been discovered yet.
We can reuse the waste, congress just needs to repeal the law preventing it. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
I don't think that's how nuclear plant construction works, this isn't some tech thing that you can pivot on a dime. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
That's honestly the first time I've encountered baseload being a myth. Why is it so? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
80% of all stats are made up 64% of the time. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
We'll see. To be competitive with renewables + storage they need to cut the full lifecycle costs of the plants (construction, maintenance, operations, fueling, retirement) by at least 50% and that's based on current prices. [June 2024 Lazards LCOE](https://www.nuveen.com/global/insights/alternatives/levelized-cost-of-electricity-from-renewables?type=us)
Solar PV prices might fall by another 50% themselves by 2030 ([see this](https://documents.nuveen.com/Documents/Nuveen/Default.aspx?uniqueid=663cb76f-7679-4443-80e8-a12c6dde3a65)), wind energy is expected to continue falling too. Offshore wind down to 50-70/MWh by 2030 and onshore wind will continue to get cheaper but not as dramatically.
Nuclear is cool, but it's expensive and slow to build - especially compared to renewables and storage. Renewables and storage are also facilities that can be build incrementally whereas nuclear is largely all or nothing.
if they could get nuclear down to say, a third of its current LCOE and remain safe they have a chance to be competitive I think. I just don't believe it's likely they'll be able to do that. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
lol not reading all this | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
translation: you know your argument got shredded and you have nothing.
Nuclear is cool, but too expensive to be competitive. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Credit to u/ssylvan on this response. They said it better than I can:
Nuclear is only more expensive if you don't compare the full modeled system costs.
LCOE isn't the right metric. It doesn't account for things like more costly transmission, or needing to make up for intermittency with costly storage or buying energy from some other source at a premium, or over production to cover low productivity days. If you account for the full costs, solar is typically much more expensive than nuclear (2-15x, depending on the geographical location). For example: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035)
Note: I think we should build lots of solar and wind too. It's fast to build, which is nice, but we're going to need lots of clean energy in 10-20 years too, and nuclear is a great option because it can serve as the backbone of the grid, providing stability and reducing the need for storage. So we should start building those now. Solar and wind simply don't provide dispatchable energy. That's where the hidden costs come in once you try to model a whole energy grid using it.
Note that the IPCC says we need to double our nuclear fleet by 2050. I think it's worth listening to the scientific consensus on this. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
“Your knowledge is out of date”
Proceeds to post articles from 6-10 years ago completely ignoring things that have shown there are issues
Takes about 5 minutes to actually search and find more recent articles that details storage concerns that directly impact the ability for renewables to completely cover all needs.
Can they eventually yes, are we there yet, no. That’s why building out nuclear as the bridge energy source instead go sticking with fossil fuels like gas is important.
But I know I’m not going to change your mind so I’m not going to get drawn into a back and forth. If you care enough to learn you can, if you don’t I’m not changing that. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Who the fuck would fund an unlicensed nuclear power plant?!! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Danth's law it is then. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
those charts show what was retired, and what was built.
the charts in what i linked you show the full life cycle costs.
why the fuck would ANYONE build a fossil fuel plant when wind, solar and storage are massively more profitable? fossil fuel investment is falling off a cliff as we speak.
your uncited bare assertion that "turning off nuclear plants is always replaced with fossil fuels" is based on a narrow time period in germany after fukushima. it's not based on data before or after that.
Existing nuclear plants are still economical to keep in repair and keep running as long as they don't have serious deficiencies.
I recommend you read what i linked - but there is a reason that when the US approved 18 Westinghouse AP1000 reactors only 4 were strated, and only 2 were finished. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
I brought you an actual pile of data and citations, you brought one published article that has serious methological flaws that I shredded in my response.
So nice attempt to deflect.
See you in 2035 | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Angry mindless nuclear fanboy noises. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
...so your data works best if we're just discounting the data you don't like..? aight man. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
That’s cute. But at the end of the day solar and wind alone don’t cut it. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
I mean. It’s not a “low tolerance for bullshit”. It’s just an insane level of censorship in response to expressing an extremely popular opinion. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
> How long before the solar needs replaced compared to the fuel (delivery, storage, and spent fuel) and maintenance of each system?
solar panel warranties are 25 years.
the cost of building, tearing down, operating, maintaining and how long they last is all factored into the LCOE numbers when groups like Lazards calculate LCOE
Nuclear is just costly https://i.imgur.com/5jEKLNE.png (this is unsubsidized costs) | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
I never claimed the two were linked. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
no other reason to bring up "extremely popular opinion" | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
The other apparent issue with this project in particular is that they seem to be trying to push to be allowed to use a highly enriched fuel that around be usable for weapons production, and no one seems to be talking about it. Non-proliferation experts already examined this and stated that their target goal of using 20% enriched HALEU fuel would undermine all of our existing practices and investments into keeping them under strict control — and keeping nuclear programs everywhere largely focused on peaceful pursuits.
So, since regulators will never let that happen (hopefully), there is no way this reactor is ever going to be as cost effective as they are making it out to be. I don’t know what they said the projected LCOE was going to be, but it probably isn’t beating solar anyways. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Yes. There is a reason if you’re not deliberately being obtuse. The reason is that it’s overbearing censorship for a moderator to censor something that is
1) not a settled fact and his hotly debated
2) an opinion in that debated topic represented by a very large fraction of people
You can just say that your opinion is correct and ban everyone who disagrees with you. That doesn’t make you right. Even if you do happen to be right. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
lol America could invent portable cold fusion and r/technology would still say it was bad | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
> You’re a deeply unpleasant person.
"Person who is wrong lashes out at person who pointed out their wrongness, more at 11"
> It doesn’t do any modeling of full systems cost
I linked you something that models full system cost, and not in the *intentionally incorrect* way of the nonsense LFSCOE numbers cited in the link you and El_Caganer love so much.
I discussed aspects of full system cost, they're just devastating to your disinformation and so you're ignoring them. Just like you're ignoring the explanation of why the numbers you cited are wrong.
> It doesn’t claim or even imply that 4h of storage is enough for PV to decarbonize the grid.
You're responding to something I didn't say.
> Never mind the sun sometimes doesn’t produce signifier energy for weeks on end depending on weather, wildfires etc.
Oh look, this talking point again. This "demonstrably nonsense talking point that has been debunked thousands of times", this "is literally repeating the same INTENTIONALLY dishonest modeling of renewable grids as your dishonest LFSCOE analysis"
How many times does it have to be explained to you that "Solar isn't the only thing on a renewable grid", and that "Solar and wind have a negative correlation coefficient"?
https://i.imgur.com/C07TURz.png
that doesn't even include geothermal, wave, tidal, hydroelectric
it doesn't include storage technologies that you keep pretending don't exist (Thermal energy storage, green hydrogen storage, pumped hydro [or other fluid], gravity storage, etc)
> You just don’t understand what it measures.
You're projecting
> You are a bad person, stupid and/or dishonest.
You're projecting again
> Thankfully most people in actual authority listen to the scientific consensus on this rather than the rampling conspiracy theory loons like you.
You're EXTRA projecting.
in 10 years i hope you remember you spewed bullshit like this, and have the decency to feel embarrassed... though I doubt you have that much intellectual honesty, considering how abusive you're being over being blatantly intentionally and flagrantly wrong. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-15-06 |
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6zR6Lv9KuC4GAuo3T4GZHS?si=F4qsxa_CQwKOpvourhB12w | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-15-06 |
A podcast is not a citation.
you've had nothing this entire time by one embarrassingly bad excuse for a "study". I've presented you with a mountain of data. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-15-06 |
LFSCOE includes Solar+Wind in combination, and while it's cheaper than solar alone it's still more than four times as expensive as nuclear alone (for historical weather in Germany - for Texas it's merely 1.8x as expensive). So it seems like you haven't actually read the paper then? Just spewing bullshit? Why am I not surprised that the person who cropped out all the caveats and misrepresents what LCOE measures hasn't actually done his homework?
Geothermal, wave and hydro are all great when you can get them, but they are geographically dependent. In many place they're just not an option, or where they are the suitable sites have already been mostly used up (e.g. the US could maybe double hydro at most).
There are *plenty* of people who claim that you could do solar and wind alone (in this sub, even) to decarbonize the grid. The intermittency thing hasn't been "debunked a thousand times" at all.
Wind sometimes stops blowing for weeks in large areas, and the sun goes away every night (and *also* goes away for weeks depending on weather. You can't just say "we're aware of intermittency" and handwave it away if you don't actually have a solution to it. Storage would need to be at least 10x cheaper to be plausible.
And as it turns out, the scientific consensus (in the IPCC report) doesn't think this is a solved problem (and they recommend 2x nuclear by 2050 as a result), and renewables-only remains a fringe position among scientists. So forgive me if I trust the scientific consensus rather than some asshole on the internet who apparently can't read or think.
Re: your link. You can of course find outlier papers in any direct, but do note that this report does not model full decarbonization - they still assume that you'll be burning gas (with and without carbon capture) when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. E.g. on page 95 of the report they show a particularly bad day in Germany where the best case scenario is that you burn fossil fuels (without CCS) for about 1/3 of your power needs, and import another 1/3 (which may be nuclear from France, or fossil fuels from elsewhere). So yeah, it's "decarbonizing" in the sense that it's reducing CO2 emissions, but not in the sense that they go all the way to zero (which is exactly where renewables-only costs start to explode). It's also only looking at 2035. It's not surprising that long term technologies like nuclear will not play a massive role by 2035, especially not in countries that need to ramp up their nuclear industry because they shut it down or never had one. By 2050 is a very different story. Am I shocked that you appear to not have read this report either? Not really.
This is why we have things like the IPCC report that summarizes all the research in the area and provides a consensus view. You may want to see this as a different perspective on Germany: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14786451.2024.2355642)
The renewables-only strategy in Germany has been a disaster. If they had invested in nuclear instead, they would have reduced their CO2 emissions by 70% today, compared to where they are.
Oh and here's the UN nuclear head saying we need more nuclear as well [https://news.un.org/en/interview/2024/06/1151006](https://news.un.org/en/interview/2024/06/1151006) (mainly referencing the IPCC report which says the same thing).
Anyway, I'm really going to mute this thread now. You have shown that you are no only extremely angry and unpleasant for some reason, but also dishonest. I don't really get why. You seem to take this very personally. It's just science, it's not something you have to get offended by, and there's certainly no reason to try to mislead people into agreeing with you. We need to solve climate change, and to do so we have to honestly look at the data, not try to push an agenda. It's clear that you don't have the ability to do so. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-15-06 |
> it's still more than four times as expensive as nuclear alon
ok, i stopped reading there. Because it's thoroughly been proven with data that you're just flat out completely utterly and totally wrong here.
I'm done listening to your bullshit disinformation screed, whatever fossil fuel company is paying you to spread FUD is getting it's money's worth. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-15-06 |
Yes! We need all of that, but it's not a zero sum game, and any good investor knows you must diversify or risk setting yourself up for failure. By your own admission, there are niches that cannot be served by renewables.
Solar and wind are not fuels. They are only collectors that hope energy shows up to be harvested. That's a weak position considering energy is the basis of ALL value, it's too important to risk putting all eggs in a single basket. Global governments recognize this.
Renewables plus storage plus fission/fusion FTW! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-16-06 |
A good investor also knows not to invest in a loser, and that's what nuclear power is at this point. Investing it is does have an opportunity cost, as funds are not infinite
> Solar and wind are not fuels. They are only collectors that hope energy shows up to be harvested. That's a weak position considering energy is the basis of ALL value, it's too important to risk putting all eggs in a single basket. Global governments recognize this.
that's a silly argument. It's essentially "well the wind might not exist and the sun might not exsit"
You do know that when wind is weak, solar tends to be strong, and vice versa?
northern european (aka the favorite choice of "but but sun doesn't shine!" arguers) grid operators found that because of that tendency of wind and solar they only need 2 weeks worth of storage ever to successfully balance out any meteorological events year round.
Fission is just not cost effective, and i'm suspecting fusion will actually end up the same. By all means do research, but that's research for research's sake (not a bad thing). Nuclear just is not going to be a significant contributor to the energy mix of the future: it's too expensive, too slow to build, too inflexible to operate. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-16-06 |
> You have clearly heavily invested your ego into your position.
You're projecting again, and since you cannot manage to go a single post without being intellectually dishonest and abusive we're done here.
As for the Ukraine and Poland reactor: 2 out of the 18 approved AP1000s were started and not finished after their operators decided to not fall for the sunk cost fallacy. We'll see *if they even get completed*
> And I'll be kind enough to give you the last word. As banal as it may be. Your move sport.
Oh look, and attempt to be manipulative.
You're right, this will be my last word: because you're a dishonest, manipulative fool. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
|
It’s not unreasonable for people to be annoyed when a perfectly functional thing they paid for is made to function poorly by the manufacturer. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Still haven't plugged my tv back in to the internet after the TOS shitshow. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Stop eating play-doh bruv, it's causing damage. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
After the update you literally couldn’t use your TH without agreeing to the new terms.
Remember when Roku was the best little streaming box? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Can we clarify :
Is this :
* Only on Roku TVs?
* Only on Roku streaming sticks?
* Both? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
So you’re talking about a Roku “smart” TV? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
That’s to keep morale up and try to avoid the rest of the people quitting. Not necessarily a bad thing to do.. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-13-06 |
Could you just cover it with, like, a sticky note or blue tack? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Yep. It causes some pretty glaring artifacts too, like red text will just *bleed* badly into adjacent black pixels.
Oh, and the whole screen goes super blurry if you display a checkerboard pattern over more then half the screen (Like selecting 'new image, transparent background in photoshop for example)
I assume its to automatically 'soften' any of the 320p content that people so often watch in 202x? *shakes head* | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Yeah. My TV is permanently grounded. No internet password for you. You get power to function and that’s it. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-14-06 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.