text
stringlengths 0
23.7k
| label
stringclasses 4
values | dataType
stringclasses 2
values | communityName
stringclasses 4
values | datetime
stringclasses 95
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
I don't use YouTube except for blocking ads... I dunno, it just what people do | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
I actually got rid of my grammarly subscription because the ads were pissing me off. It was a fine product but fuck you for making me watch ad after ad. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
It seems many seed companies are following OYO'd business strategy especially back in years 2016 - 2020, however many failed such as my friend's in the PH. Definitely depends on location on co-partners in leasing and supplying products. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
LOL @ "YouTube investigators". | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
[Sounds funny, but is legit.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pMrssIrKcY) | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
…it is illegal to intentionally damage someone’s property | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Same with Skullcandy, they replaced my earphones thrice lol | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I think you misspelled somethingawful | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Same. Skipped Digg entirely.
My proudest Slashdot moment was a +1(Troll) post. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
lol someone almost immediately downvoted you for saying that.
That 64GB kit I put in my laptop cost $115 today, and I bought my laptop without ram included so there wasn't any waste either. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
GamersNexus was the site that did the investigation. They should at least get credit in the headline. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Fair enough, then. You have a very specific need, and Apple does better, I guess, in that one niche area. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
Trains which are much easier to make electrically powered, too! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
That’s just a train with extra steps! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
Isn’t “energy injection” the same thing as heat anyway? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I think a main part of the reason that it's surprising is that water is transparent. The band gap for liquid water is about 6.9 eV, which is over 5x the band gap in silicon. That's well into the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. From the article:
> The effect is strongest when light hits the water surface at an angle of 45 degrees. It is also strongest with a certain type of polarization, called transverse magnetic polarization. And it peaks in green light — which, oddly, is the color for which water is most transparent and thus interacts the least.
This is an oddly specific set of conditions for this phenomenon suggests that this is probably a surface phenomenon. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
That’s definitely interesting and thanks for calling out the band gap delta didn’t know it was so much higher | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
I doubt it. Chlorophyll appears green because it uses red and blue light in its chemical processes to break down carbon dioxide and water. Plants have a separate mechanism to manage evaporation - pores called stomata open and close to manage gas exchange with the air (gas including water vapor). | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
> Fucking US is so behind when it comes to this stuff.
That’s how the system works. We’re in the lead on the technology, so the largest independent power that can restrain that technology is advancing faster on the opposing front than we are. It’s not different than any other Cold War based on a race to control specific resources that shape the future of society (and it’s winners).
Capitalism tells ourselves we need to compete to innovate resources instead of work together to maximize their potential. This is because the people doing that competing don’t do the work themselves, and need team sports and poor social safety nets to motivate their masses to do their biddings.
“Patriotism” and “my State is bigger than your State” is a distraction colored by flags and mental jewelry. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I mean this with all my European heart, Fuck off Mark. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
'wu-Wow! wE made an Wo-woopsie and *used your data all along anyways!'*
-Meta, in a few years | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Facebook the platform isn't, but Meta the company has done a lot for technology. They've given us a ton of open source technology. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
I've got an old celeron they can borrow if they need something to copy | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
Vietnam did the same as Brazil by creating a national payments system NAPAS. Banks can opt in, and they do, because QR codes have made mobile payments easier and immediate. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
So why do we need bitcoin? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Decentralized finance
At least that was the original goal of bitcoin before hijacked by line goes up crypto bro | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I prefer using contactless payment services because all you need to do is to tap your payment card, credit card, phone or smartwatch once on the machine, done. Less hassle.
That's why I rarely use QR code unless I go to places like China where you cannot live normally without QR codes. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
I agree. Contactless tap payment is faster. However, it requires specialised hardware and 2-4% card processing fee, which makes it inaccessible for street vendors and small mom and pop shops. QR payments allow sending and receiving payments for everyone. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
Contactless payment is just another way to swipe your card, it physically requires you to be at the point of sale. QR/ mobile payment allows for things at a distance. For example: you paying for a handbag your girlfriend wants to buy at a store, while you sit comfortably at home catching the game and knocking back cold ones without any of the risks involved in handing your credit card over to her and finding out she bought more then just the handbag she wanted. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-18-06 |
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
r/technology | post | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
|
US pretty much halted all new nuclear projects after Three Mile Island. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Yet redditors will still say all of China’s innovations are stolen from the West lol | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
lol, not all, but most. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Tell that to the US Navy. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I am pro nuclear but wasn't china in the news for powerplants that would get shut down france for safety. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
My boats run on spicy rocks! | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> Hell, I think we’re behind France at this point.
France has been the world leader for percentage of it's electricity produced from nuclear power for decades now.
France is at #1 generating in the range of 60-70% of it's power from nuclear, the US is at about 18%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Don’t worry we’re way ahead of China on producing batteries to store energy from solar and wind. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
lol wtf do you mean. We didn’t build new civilian power generation reactors for 34 years after three mile island. You think we’re just operating a host of secret domestic power generating reactors in secret for some reason? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Besides, that reactor is a South Korean design, built by a South Korean consortium with parts from South Korea. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
So what? Is there a reason to beat China on this? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> If wind does not blow in one place its blows in another place.
This is not really true, wind trends are roughly similar in big geographic regions. [In all of northern Europe for example (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) we see almost weekly dips below 20% generation from wind.](https://www.svk.se/om-kraftsystemet/kontrollrummet/)
> Load balancing is a issue in every grid and hydro power is much better at it, because it can store power in water reservoirs when there is no need... you can not switch of nuclear power plant just because at this hour electricity on market costs 0 as it is too much coming in from solar and wind. Nuclear requires decades of commitment of buying electricity and huge expensive loans and consumers need to pay also for all the wasted electricity.
[Modern nuclear reactors can do +/-80% load in 30 minutes twice per day](https://czech-republic.edf.com/en/our-activities/nuclear/edf-a-unique-nuclear-player/our-reactor-portfolio). A few small batteries for per-second load balancing and you should be good. But yes, economically the idea of load-balancing with nuclear doesn't make sense, having a bit of hydro to do that instead makes the financial aspect much better.
> Nuclear can be good, but its and addition to wind, solar, hidro and not replacement.
I agree, for now. But once we solve the scaling economics of nuclear like we have with wind and solar I predict we will build pretty much only nuclear.
> Imagine how expensive nuclear power would be if people bought it only when solar and wind is not accessible... So having nuclear means baning all the other energy to make it financially feasible.
Not necessarily, if we commit to a 0 fossil fuel grid, and we don't have the ability to build a lot of hydro, then a wind+solar grid leads to incredibly high spikes in electricity costs at times, high enough that nuclear can make its living off just selling during those spikes. Of course that's not really a desirable grid for consumers, so mixing in a bit more nuclear and less wind/solar will lessen those spikes, but you don't have to ban solar/wind to get there, since nobody will want to build wind/solar when the price is basically 0 while they generate and super high while they don't.
But in a grid with plenty of hydro or where we continue to use natural gas for backup nuclear is indeed not really financially feasible. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
As a former US Nuclear Mechanic, I lol’d
Spot on.
Btw, we constantly send our US nuclear trained personnel to fix and operate foreign reactors. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
How many decades will they need to build one this time lol | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Not when you include proper storage (as in multi-day storage) to reach the same level of grid stability that we're used to (and that nuclear provides). The cheapest solution is to use natural gas, but if we commit to 0 fossil fuel then a mixed grid with some nuclear is cheaper than a grid with just wind+solar+storage. This might change soon as storage, wind and solar continue to drop in price, but last I checked what I was saying was still true.
If you have a country with plenty of natural hydro solar+wind looks a lot better though. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I don’t think you understand how any of this works.
Utilities, not extracting companies are the ones that make the decisions about what generation source they want. The industry suppliers—big firms like GE, Westinghouse, Combustion Engineering, B&W—sell all of the equipment for fossil, nuclear, and often hydro and wind. They aren’t concerned with what fuel source you use, they get paid regardless. The utilities only care about liabilities and ROI windows.
The reason that utilities haven’t flocked to nuclear is because the initial capital costs are significantly higher than other than other sources. There aren’t any oil lobbyists that caused cost overruns in the AP-1000 builds. That was solely upon SCANA, Southern Company, and Westinghouse-Toshiba. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Yea and these fuckers build it all to the German border haha. I don't wanna get contaminated bitchasses | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> Scaling does bring costs down, but you can't scale nuclear because it isn't mass producable
Nothing prevents us from building an automated fabrication factory that pumps out standardized reactors and all the parts necessary to run them straight onto a boat to then be shipped and deployed anywhere in the world along the coast which would slash costs of nuclear probably 100-fold. It's just a huge investment, both economically and politically, to get this up and running. We will inevitably get there eventually though, it's just too efficient to be neglected forever. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Delicious as ever. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
We don’t want all of our eggs in one basket though. Even the folks at Lazard say this. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
So people are only allowed to build things if they are still alive when it's finished? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
There isnt any newer clean technology that could logistically replace nuclear techology. In order for renewables to be adopted widespread infrastructure has to be updated in ways we havent yet, the costs would make nuclear spending insignificant.
People refuse to listen to bullshit. Thats your primary problem, you are locked into pushing nonsense. So much of social media is just people speaking at each other pushing an ideology or an agenda...That no one is actually thinking critically.
The reality is people promote nuclear technology because it is a viable solution. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> There is a reason Germany has the third highest bills in all Europez, and there is a reason France has become more attractive to industries in the last few years.
You clearly have not read the market data, France and Germany energy without taxes are about the same. In particular even with the higher tax, German and French companies pay the same.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/a/a0/Electricity_prices_for_non-household_consumers%2C_second_half_2023_V2.png
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I am too lazy to look this up, but I feel like the only way a Naval facility got built in Idaho was some kind of a backroom congressional deal. For the record, I would say the same thing if we had a Naval facility here in AZ. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
In truth a nuclear plant is not a very complicated machine. It's almost laughable how simple their basic operation is. A nuclear plant has a fraction as many motors/valves/cables/sensors etc as what an oil refinery or LNG plant has. If we were just boiling water without the scary word "nuclear' being involved there wouldn't be an issue building nuclear plants. They're actually operating at much lower temperatures and pressures than modern coal plants and require far less advanced materials and technologies. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> Meanwhile, if you add the cost of batteries to wind and solar to get the same consistent delivery of carbon neutral energy, it’s the cheapest alternative. By far.
This is no longer true. Wind, PV and batteries have become incredibly cheap. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
US was always far ahead of China in AI. Most of what makes up the headlines nowadays was based on research in North America, Google in particular has invented basically everything openAI does. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Renewables have become way cheaper. You are spreading misinformation. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> US pretty much halted all new nuclear projects after Three Mile Island.
I mean France almost halted their Nuclear Power production because of Fukushima.
People are dumb when it comes to processing information. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> The US has protests and marches for the tiniest things which eventually stalls most of the things.
Or Chinese people understand that to evolve their society things need to be built.
See how easy it is to flip the coin on a blank statement? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Have you actually seen a Chinese city? Shit is futuristic as fuck. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> There isnt any newer clean technology that could logistically replace nuclear techology.
This is just flat out completely and totally wrong and i've been explaining this for weeks in this subreddit. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Unless we’re somehow pushing to…export nuclear power, does the competition really matter? It’s not an arms race. China has been proactive in the journey to go green, that’s great for them. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
>As far as I am aware, I could be wrong, all current breeder reactors are experimental and heavily and closely monitored.
Closely monitored: yes. Experimental: not sure how that supports your previous point, and I'm not sure that something listed as an ["experiment" that's been running for 40 years and performing the role of breeding new nuclear material](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Breeder_Test_Reactor) *really* counts for your narrative. And the list of "notable reactors" isn't the list of "all reactors".
>Also your link literally mentions my exact point.
I don't deny that people *could* protest breeder reactors as "proliferation risks". I do say that the "risk" can only be called an imaginary boogeyman with regards to the US in particular. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
My narrative is quoting other people smarter than me, up to and including quoting your link.
I have no dog in this fight! What do you mean, my narrative.
If breeder reactors do not have a nuclear proliferation risk then fucking prove me wrong, and then I will learn something new.
I don't have a fucking "narrative" for breeder reactors. I am just stating what I have read from smarter people than I. Jesus Christ. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Advocating against nuclear is always advocating for more gas. There is litterally no other large scale way to make power when the suns not shining and the wind isint blowing. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
That's flat out a false statement and literally some fossil-fuel-shill-FUD
**AND ALSO SHOWS YOU DIDN'T READ THE POST I LINKED WHERE I LITERALLY ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT BULLSHIT TALKING POINT**
fuck off, anti-renewable shill
don't fucking pretend you give a single shit about the environment when you're going around spreading oil industry disinformation against renewables. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
The US navy is stuck down a side track of building incredibly expensive small reactors that can go 30 years without refueling. It's genuinely impressive engineering... it's also idiocy that's only necessary because congress wont authorize enough nuclear rated drydocks for the navy the US wants.
This requirement doesn't even make for a good *military* reactor. The French nuclear sub fleet spends more time at sea over the life of any given hull than US subs do, despite needing refueling every decade.. because France doesn't mind building drydocks, so their subs don't end up waiting a year and a half for maintenance. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
The US Navy uses nuclear reactors on its larger ships. It does not take decades to build one aircraft carrier or submarine. The physical construction time of the ship is usually 6-8 years, which includes the nuclear reactor plus the entire rest of the warship.
The difference is that the US Navy doesn't have to put up with bad faith lawsuits designed to delay the project and bankrupt the developer. And if we're just talking about power generation we don't need the rest of the aircraft carrier, just its reactors will do. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Well, that's one way to look at it. A wrong way, but one way sure.
Two stations were affected by the tsunami, Fukushima-Daichi and Fukushima-Daini. Both suffered "beyond design basis accidents" and had no viable, procedural method to maintain the fission product barriers. Only one of which ended up with a substantial release to the environment.
The question is, why did one not suffer the same level of failure as the other? The answer is, the operations staff at Daini took charge of the station, and basically improvised a damage control plan which limited the extent of the emergency. The other waited for instructions from TEPCO brass in Tokyo prior to action. This created a cooling issue, leading to a zircaloy-water reaction which created hydrogen gas, and the subsequent gas accumulation exploded, creating a pathway for radioisotopes to escape the plant boundary and contaminated the surrounding area.
Further, neither station would have been so far outside of procedural space had the Japanese regulatory bodies agreed to develop a set of guidelines similar to what ultimately became the "B.5.b" Incident Stabilization Guidelines to address station blackout conditions and other beyond design basis scenarios which occurred in the US post-9/11. The Japanese regulatory bodies felt that the Japanese fleet didn't have the same risks to what they assumed were deliberate acts (i.e. *terrorism*) that the US did and chose not to develop any strategies beyond the design basis mitigation plans.
Again, that sound much more like bureaucratic inertia and a lack of imagination than whatever you're saying the reason was.
I'm not exactly sure what "good regulation" or "corporate greed" did to result in Fukushima. I sort of can see that designing the plant with a design basis tsunami that was smaller than what it actually encountered could be a "lack of good regulation" however, that doesn't really seem to be the case. It also doesn't really take into account how the regulator typically regulates safety systems inside plants. They pretty much just police compliance. The assumptions for the design bases are kind of inside the General Design Criteria, however, these are usually developed with a formulaic methodology. I've not seen any indication that the design tsunami height was lowered from what the applicable GDC required or that relief from this standard was requested by TEPCO.
If you have some evidence along those lines, I'd be interested to read it. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Can’t wait for you to edit this comment after being fact checked. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Look, I respect that you put a lot of time into this post and provided citations for all your arguments. Indeed, you correctly called out a lot of pro-nuclear arguments on Reddit about things like the need for base load, issues with transmission, the intermittent nature if renewable etc. You're right that there are a lot of very misinformed pro-nuclear people on Reddit.
BUT, the main thrust of your argument here is just misleading and incorrect. It's not entirely your fault because there's literally TRILLIONS of dollars at stake and energy has become a massive political issue both of which mean the internet is completely flooded with disinformation. However you're still intentionally misleading by finding the most expensive nuclear project possible and comparing it to the most favorable renewable assumptions possible. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
I already proved I was correct. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
The problem is that the sun isn't always shining. Its not always windy.
Nuclear can run 24/7 regardless of weather or time of day.
Batteries would resolve the problem where renewables are intermittent, but we don't have the technology to build grid scale batteries of that size and quantity. Its asking for a solution that does not currently exist.
Meanwhile nuclear can be built today. It could have been built 50 years ago too, preventing global warming to begin with. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
The US Navy uses reactors built in 3 years or less. Every submarine and fleet aircraft carrier in the navy uses those. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
> If breeder reactors do not have a nuclear proliferation risk then fucking prove me wrong, and then I will learn something new.
Proliferation risk.... in the US...? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Its fair that nuclear power plants have to contain their waste products.
Why do fossil fuel power plants get a free pass to spew their waste products out into the environment? If fossil fuel power plants had to capture 100% of the carbon and radiation they emit (yes, they emit more radiation than nuclear power plants), all of a sudden they wouldn't look so cheap to build and operate. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Public infrastructure and transportation is a big one | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Regulations are like water. Some amount is good. Too little and its a terrible situation and everyone dies. Too much and its also a terrible situation and everyone dies. Being in a parched desert, or drowning in a flood are both negative outcomes. There's a happy medium somewhere in the middle.
We want safety regulations, but we don't want regulations designed solely to strangle projects, delaying them indefinitely and driving up costs so that the project goes bankrupt. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
The economic factors are *Entirely* a product of the fear mongering. India can build reactors at 2 euros / watt name plate. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
No it doesnt, you leave out infrastructure thats a required component. You are saying a half truth, which is in essence a lie. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Yeah, I think the biggest issue is that an entire generation of westerners have been scared away from Nuclear by incidents like 3 mile Island or Chernobyl.
Especially now, when the US' political future is uncertain. Do you really feel comfortable with the post-democracy Trump government building nuclear reactors willy nilly? | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
EVs and battery tech | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
C&C generals is looking more and more prescient | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
>in terms of pure economics of cost to build and operate
Which is purely political problem | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
GE is all split up now but I think the big generators went in with the green power part of the company which is like the red headed step child of the split/ sold GE branches. OG GE is technically the aviation branch now which is the big money maker. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Well, if you’re wanting to talk shop, use the right terms. Otherwise, don’t make up shit. Terminology is extremely important in this field.
Also, if that is what you’re basing your argument on, then I hate to break it to you but you’re going to find ten or twenty equally good reports about pretty much every nuclear station in the world. Hindsight is 20/20.
The FLEX program in the US has attempted to address these “BDB” issues. It’s never going to 100%. The truth is, there will always be the unknown-unknown and even design basis accidents that will challenge plant safety. TVA suffered a station LOOP (loss of off-site power) in 2011 at Brown’s Ferry from a tornado that challenged the mission time of the station EDGs; you don’t hear about it, because TVA was able to restore the grid just before they suffered a blackout. Lessons are learned and the industry adapts. That said, there are *always* risks involved in operating nuclear plants. That’s why we have the “nuclear power is special” mentality within the industry. You cannot turn off the decay heat. It has to be actively removed.
Again, TEPCO was incompetent, the Japanese regulators were overly bureaucratic, and they set the industry back at least a decade. However, the new industry is better than it was prior to March 2011 because of what was learned. Just as it was improved by the events in 1986 and 1979. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Doesn't surprise me at all. And honestly we can thank the environmentalists of the '90s for shooting nuclear in the head. | r/technology | comment | r/technology | 2024-17-06 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.