Tall driver in a SUV looking down on an open topped convertible isn’t a false positive. But sure, cops occasionally pull people over in HOV lanes for false positives and then let them go.
However, when you’re looking at 100’s of cars doing the same thing false positives only account for a small percentage of that.
Does that setting actually matter? When I lived in the area that had these, I always forgot to set it when the number of passengers in my car changed. I never saw any difference. The charge is the same.
Gold is used by industry at current prices due to its physical properties, so its current price and value are fairly close.
This still allows for significant price swings because there vast quantities of gold sitting around in vaults, but unlike say bitcoin it does have high intrinsic value. IE: If gold sustained a 90% drop in price across decades at lot more would be used by industry creating a price floor.
How can you conclude that the current price and value is fairly close? Seems to me that all you are showing (rightly so) is that there are some use of gold which has higher value than today's price.
I agree that industry use creates a price floor, but that might be much lower than what the price is today. I.e if suddenly everyone lost faith in gold as a carrier of value, so everyone who keeps gold just as a passive keeper of value started selling it off, then we would get a new market clearing price which represents golds 'real value'. I have no clue what this would be, but it is certainly not obvious to me that it's close to today's price.
I’m talking orders of magnitude here. Supply and demand curves generally have a slope. As in the demand for goods by industry increases as the price decreases. A significantly larger portion of minded gold is used for jewelry than industry or investment, but a price drop would also reduce the amount mined.
Combine those and yes gold could get significantly cheaper especially with the vast quantities on hand, but it would still be a very expensive metal vs steel, aluminum, etc.
Gold's resistance to oxidation is pretty unique and valuable. Every metal with similar properties is also expensive — palladium is the most common and its price hovers around several hundred dollars per ounce despite being much less popular for jewelry or currency.
You see far more horrific cases in the current US system where minors are cared for by members of the general public at their homes. This self selects for both ends of the spectrum people who want to do good and very bad actors.
That’s the core issue so often ignored, we need systems to deal with people at their best and their worst.
Not all gameplay mechanics need to last for an entire game. Stamina as an obstacle that you overcome plays into the power fantasy aspect of the game very well. Arguably it goes a long way to offset the feeling you’re slowly falling behind the power curve which is how they get people to grind without complaining about poor balance.
It never posed a meaningful challenge in gameplay, though - just an annoyance. If you run too much, you have to stand still for a bit for your stamina to build back up, or chug a stamina potion if you have one. There's a reason it didn't make a return appearance in subsequent games.
Arguably the true successor of Diablo 2 is Path of Exile 2, but PoE 2 doesn't have a stamina mechanic for running as well. It's just an anti-fun mechanic nobody asked for
Greek philosophers came up with vastly more wildly incorrect theories than correct ones.
When you only celebrate success simply coming up with more ideas makes things look better, but when you look at the full body of work you find logic based on incorrect assumptions results in nonsense.
Assuming you can render natively at high FPS, 4k makes a bigger difference on rendered images than live action because it essentially brute forces antialiasing.
Nuclear is inherently expensive even with zero regulations you have the full costs of a coal power plant + more expensive lifetime costs for fuel + extra costs associated with nuclear such as more and more highly educated workers.
Meanwhile coal is dead because it’s already more expensive than the market is willing to accept.
The only hope for nuclear is massive subsidies, deregulation on its own isn’t going to work.
How come Sweden as cheap nuclear power? The main reason electricity is kinda expensive in Sweden is because the EU forces is to export our cheap nuclear energy to Denmark and Germany.
Paid off nuclear plants produce quite cheap electricity. The problem is that it takes 10-15 years of building and then 40 years of paying $180-220/MWh to get a paid off nuclear plant as per modern western construction costs.
In terms of pure operating costs ignoring everything else it can look good vs other sources that include all costs.
However, ‘Paid off nuclear’ in terms of construction costs still needs to worry about decommissioning, and their maintenance costs keep increasing every year.
Several power plants have looked at going offline for potentially years and spending billions at around year 40 to get to year ~60 as not being worth the investment. That’s the issue with projecting those long lifespans, the buildings/containment structure/cooling tower may be fine but that doesn’t mean the pipes, pumps, turbines, and control systems etc are still fine.
Somebody must be able to point to the nuclear waste by now. There it is, waving frantically in panic, the nuclear waste! It’s coming right for us!
Something is either highly radioactive for a short amount of time, or not very radioactive for a long amount of time.
But never both highly radioactive and for a long time.
In reality, there is so little nuclear waste that most of it has mostly been stored on site where it was generated, taking up less space than any grid scale solar or wind.
I don’t think nuclear waste is a huge deal, but it does increase fuel costs in a very meaningful way. The classic uranium is cheap therefore nuclear’s fuel is cheap is a tiny fraction of the story. Refueling generally means weeks of downtime, you can’t safely operate at extreme temperatures for maximum efficiency, you need enrichment, and fuel rods, and even with multiple trips through the reactor core a significant amount of fuel isn’t burned or economically useful, and when your done you also need processes do deal with highly radioactive material + the costs of dry casks, and then transport them offsite and then down into some tunnels.
Add all that stuff up and fuel is a major expense. Granted that downtime depends on the design, and is also used to do other maintenance tasks but without refueling you’d end up with different tradeoffs.
Good question! Since you asked: it is largely in cooling pools and piling up in empty lots around nuclear power plants, waiting for safe, secure storage to appear.
> Something is either highly radioactive for a short amount of time, or not very radioactive for a long amount of time.
This is not true at all, unless you consider "short amount of time" to include decades to centuries to millenia.
> I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence
Pure Americium-241 is extremely radioactive 0.0000045 grams of the stuff puts off useful amounts of radiation for smoke detectors, it’s half life is also 432 years.
As an alpha emitter it’s not that bad to stand next to but internally it doesn’t take much to be lethal.
This is a manufactured product not waste from a nuclear reactor. We use it because it’s an alpha emitter, there’s harder to shield material with similar half lives they are just less useful. I bring this up because longer half lives don’t mean safety. If you’re looking for a weapon, salted nukes are the stuff of nightmares if they use something with a month long half life or several hundred years.
> I don’t know how to gauge
And that’s the issue here, you need to do some more research before making such statements.
Actually, it's exactly what I said. Here's the quote:
>It is largely in cooling pools and piling up in empty lots around nuclear power plants, waiting for safe, secure storage to appear.
See? Exactly.
> Yes it is.
No it isn't.
> I mean, if you’re going to dispute my point without providing any evidence
lol, you never provided us with any in the first place! Why would I waste more time and effort disproving some claim of yours, than you spent trying to prove the original claim in the first place? That'd be falling for gish gallop.
Until you produce sufficient evidence to convincingly prove that your original claim is true, we can safely assume it is not. So, onus is on you: It's up to you to prove your own point, nobody else. If you’ve got data, let’s see the data.
I know where the nuclear waste is stored here. Its storage is funded by the government for now (not included in electricity prices) and nobody can actually prove it will be safe for the centuries it will be dangerous.
There’s little reason to avoid prescribing medication alongside other approaches. It’s not that meds are the only option or they should be reserved for the most severe cases, it’s people’s reactions are different and there’s no way to tell without trying them. For some people they really do work wonders and you simply don’t know ahead of time.
Not everyone has a support structure they can count on as they fall apart. So some people just need help to get through a rough period even if a solution isn’t long term viable. When a spouse dies being able to function for the next few months can mean keeping the roof over someone’s head.
> There’s little reason to avoid prescribing medication alongside other approaches.
There absolutely are downsides and risks. There is a reason the
SSRIs carry a "blackbox" warning for youths due to increased suicide risks. There's a reason they should only be used under supervision of a doctor and need to be tapered off of.
That is not to say they aren't useful and necessary for some/many people but they aren't and shouldn't be a catch-all treatment.
A very specific edge case: If you ever think you might want to become a pilot, even just to fly small airplanes, the FAA still considers ADHD, depression, social anxiety, and other conditions where you are prescribed medication, to be disqualifying. And this is a "have you ever in your life" question on the medical form. So if you're prescribed ADHD medicine, even as a child, I understand that while it's not impossible, you are going to have a major uphill battle if you ever want to fly airplanes.
reply