Message from @Ethaneth
Discord ID: 635186513814093845
Standing up to Clinton, we need to get her out before she commits suicide by hanging and 2 bullets to back of head
<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>
Thing about those "cities" and their existence is due to construction companies taking advantage of shady government loans. the materials used only see them stand for 5 years before the shit quality starts to seem them falling apart
The tragic irony is that much of what China is doing is no different than the methods Donald Trump employed to make millions
Invest every penny in assets that retain value but keep very little liquitdity so you look just as poor as everyone else.
10/10 would not want to be in a Chinese earthquake
well, most cities won't survive very long if just left vacant; shit needs maintence
@ManAnimal answer my inquiry plz
inquiry? i must have missed it, sorry; let me look for it
90,000 deaths, 380,000 injured, 19,000 missing.
check ur @ s
May as well have been a thermal nuclear warhead.
High quality paper living in crammed spaces and not a god damn contractor following regulations.
You talkin about PACER, coolithic?
@Coolitic, PACER is like so many other technically feasible projects that we all thought would happen by the 21st century. Maglevs spanning the country, Hyperloop, flying cars, hydrogen infrastructure, space colonies, Thorium, self-driving cars etc. All of these are technically feasible. However, futurists are too often poor engineers and they forget that economics, not technical details make a program feasible. A company must be able to make a profit in order to pursue such projects and the largest portion of that profit equation has to do with the costs of liability and managing risk. Unless a company can find a way to externalize that risk, the program usually is never fielded.
but a big-ass cave serves as a good means of confinement
MA is doing some big brain shrooms again.
true, but anything nuclear has been given a stigma which makes the risk for developing and fielding the 'first' of anything too much of a risk
it's why most nuclear reactor designs in service today are literally 'boomer tech'
no one wants to be the one to stick their neck out and go through the NRC circus
I have no idea the context and I hate entering the middle of a conversation that seemed to have started half a day ago.
Climate evangelists should be the biggest advocates of nuclear power technology, but of course they're silent about actual solutions to the problem
that is true. they have actually done more to HURT nuclear by instead channeling that money into dozens of other less promising alternatives
We need our bald eagle culling machines though
Academics in my experience love nuclear energy, I'm a huge advocate for it. The UK is actively making it harder for it from what I seen.
generally, there are two reasons you do testing; 1) to determine if feasible; 2) to seek how much of a beating your product can empiracally take
academics focus too much on No. 1
Big oil companies fund misinformation and fearmongering campaigns about nuclear energy to preserve their chokehold on the energy industry, and retarded boomers lap it up
No. 2 is what proves you can reasonably meet a requirement and how much liability
nah, they don't actively fund misinformation campaigns. hell, BP is one of the major players that developed LNG tech
that's a function of marketing retards that don't know their ass from their elbow
not white enough
I've always beleived that it is far more feasible to build a container for nuclear waste that can survive catostrophic failure of a launch into space rather than bury the shit and hope to hell a container lasts for 10k years without problems.
One you can test the HELL out of until you are satisfied with the risk
the other cannot be tested
unless you have 10k years to stand around and wait
https://youtu.be/Ll82POMkb8g
I am selling CRAM for 20 gold coins a bucket