For tech, check out Hard Fork.

Fwiw, I’m pretty convinced that the anti-seed oil crowd is approximately as grounded in science as the anti-vaccine crowd - that is to say, not at all.

Kanske bara går att se på SVT inom Sverige?

Vibes-based QA only

To draw a parallel to the problem of health care - in systems of socialized medicine, a health insurer does de-facto exist, so health insurance does not get entirely abolished when switching to socialized medicine. It’s just that the health insurer is now the government, and the system is no longer ran to optimize for extracting money out of the system, but instead to optimize for population-level health.

Similarly, when trying to reform the housing market, landlords don’t fully go away - you can for example imagine a system where the government becomes a very large landlord and optimizes the system for maximum level of ‘people housed’ (or whatever you want to optimize this system for).

There are also various forms of housing cooperatives, where the landlord is a body consisting of all the tenants collectively.

The landlord most people want to be rid of is the rent-seeking kind, which optimizes the system for extracting money.

I’m so embarrassed. I wish everybody else was dead.

That’s a lie.

Not really, no.

Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.

From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.

They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.

You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.

Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.

As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.

And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.

Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.

It was a bad call to stop, but now it’s an equally or worse call to start again.

Renewables win on essentially every measure and get better every day while nuclear gets worse every day.

Drive-by e-scooter shootings have been a thing here in Sweden, which I firmly place in the same cyberpunk bucket.