I haven’t had any opportunity to try a barleywine that wasn’t my wash going into a still, so you’re right on that one. That said, there’s fairly limited profiles to a lot of those types of beers.
IPAs do have a lot of variety, and all you have to do to change it up is use different hops. I don’t love IPAs, and I hate that they’re all I see in beer aisles, but I also don’t shop beer very much so whatever :)
I heard a real-world explanation about why IPAs are the most common and commonly-sought craft beer. Half the reasons are unflattering, but a few are valid.
So I’m “basic” nowadays re: beer, and I despise IPAs because I literally cannot stand the bitter&pithy ones (esp Grapefruit Pith), and there’s no easy way to know what an IPA will taste like till you’ve paid for it and cracked it open. I also get reflux and nothing blows that shit out of the water like an IPA. There’s a hops shop down the street from me, but if I’m going to brew a beer (super rare, I usually make whiskey or mead) it’s gonna be something will a chill flavor profile.
Check out the instances that have defederated with the radicalized ones? I hang out in 2 Lemmy instances, still working to finish migrating from here to the other.
How many leftists do you have to execute to earn your colors?
How many leftists do you have to execute to earn your colors?
And I bet you’re fun at parties. Please oh great psychic, tell me more about myself?
And actually, I do know the difference between demsoc and socdem. The formal definition for Social Democrat is “a supporter or advocate of a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.” That we are constantly painted as “filthy liberal” for wanting to respect the will of the majority is a disappointing and disgusting lie. And the ONLY people who accuse socdems of being fake leftists? TANKIES. Who are not, by any meaningful definition, more left than those of us with a soul.
The only way I’m not a leftist is if your version of leftism says “fuck people, freedom, or democracy”. In **your ** version of leftism, are you ok with being the 1% ruling by force against 99% who hate you? Think very carefully before replying to that.
Full disclosure, as a leftist I avoid those far-right areas like the plague. I’m quite certain I would receive more far-right death threats if I did not.
I’m a demsoc. I want to respect Communism more, but I never get death threats from liberals and do occasionally get death threats from Tankies.
It sucks because I feel they’d make a good ally to compromise with if they weren’t hoping to have me executed for not supporting an authoritarian seizure of power.
What word would you prefer to someone who tells you to your face that they intend to “put you up against the wall” and then asks if you “know what that means, you fucking lib”?
I mean, I’m a demsoc, and of the last 20 death threats I have received in my life, 15 came from people who identify as Communist-Leninist. PLEASE give me a better word for them.
Well, by their teenage years, why not all the reasons adults need smartphones fully accessible? Looking up information from authoritative sources? Emergency contact? Coordinating schedules for office hours?
Schools often simultaneously demand more from children than workplaces do adults, and give them less opportunity to excel.
I’m not saying work-inappropriate phone use should be accepted, but taking them away entirely is downright irresponsible. Just like schools who still demand students write on a notebook instead of using a laptop. Raise your hand if you had RSI-related issues for a decade or more after high school? We old people tend to forget how bad school used to be (and can be) for physical and mental health AND for learning.
I’m not sure I agree with how you’d be able to execute on that level or organized construction safely, but I think we’re also reaching the “impossible-to-be-sure hypothetical” territory, so I’ll concede the point for now.
I think my problems of cost and time still stand. It looks like adding rooftop solar with batteries to every building is still cheaper (on startup, and likely per MW) than nuclear plants. Regions that cannot support solar, onland wind, geo, or hydro can justify nuclear (at least unless shipping batteries or hydrogen conversion becomes cheap enough to compete), but I don’t think they amount to nearly 15% of the power needs in the world since they represent fairly distinctive regions with low energy demand.
Just did a bunch of my own math before realizing those numbers were already out there. We would need to add 3960 nuclear plants to match current energy demand for the world (440 power 10% of the world).
That would require at least 5 years of construction per plant. It takes about 7000 workers to produce a nuclear plant. To produce them concurrently would require about 27.7 million construction workers dedicated to this project for at least 5 years. So on one hand, perhaps you’re right, since there are 100M construction workers in the world. I can’t, however, find numbers about how much heavy equipment exists to facilitate a product requiring 1/4 the world’s construction workers concurrently. You might be right that if all other construction were ground to a halt, we might be able to manage a 5-year plan of nuclear at the cost of about $20T (I had done the math before realizing this reply were about workers, not cost stupidity). I concede it seems “10x increase world construction capacity” was wrong, and the real number is somewhere around 1.5-2x, so long as we stay conservative with nuclear figures and ignore extra costs of building or transporting nuclear energy to countries incapable of building their own plants.
Interestingly, at those construction numbers, you could provide small-project rooftop solar to the world. I can’t find construction numbers for power farm solar, except that it’s dramatically more efficient than rooftop solar. Unlike nuclear, it appears we could easily squeeze full-world solar with our current world construction capacity.
I won’t bore you with the cost math, but since I calculated them I’m still going to summarize them. Going full nuclear would cost us about a $20T down payment. Going full solar (with storage) down payment is about $4T (only about $1T without storage costs factored). And while nuclear would be cheaper than solar per year after that $20T down, solar power and storage would STILL be cheaper in a 100 year outlook, but would also benefit from rolling efficiency increases as we add new solar plants/capacitors and tear down older ones…
As others pointed out, to build that many nuclear power plants that quickly would require 10x-ing the world’s construction capacity.
My counterpoint is that if we had “just got on with it” for solar, wind, and battery, we would have the capacity by now and the cost per kwh of that capacity would be approximately half as much as the same in nuclear. And we would have amortized the costs.
Except that nuclear isn’t the only, or even the cheapest, alternative to fossil fuels.
That’s why there are lots of regulations for things impacting life safety
Regulations that a lot of pro-nuclear people try to get relaxed because they “artificially inflate the price to more than solar so that we’ll use solar”. I’m not saying all pro-nuclear folks are tin-foilers, but the only argument that puts nuclear cheaper than solar+battery anymore is an argument that uses deregulated facilities.
If solar+wind+battery is cheaper per MWH, faster to build, with less front-loaded costs, then it’s a no-brainer. It only stops being a no-brainer when you stop regulating the nuclear plant. Therein lies the paradox of the argument.
With all due respect, I was replying to someone who made perfectly clear that the will of the majority (vote) was meaningless to them. How exactly do you intend to seize control from 90% of a country who wants something different if not at gunpoint?
Don’t worry about responding. I blocked you too. I’m mid-migration towards servers that defederated the /c/thedonaldmarx communities, so blocking individual people is all I have right now.
Oh awesome me too! How long have you been vegan? :)
Never. I eat the deer that has to die due to overpopulation. Flip-side, I’d say anyone who lets that meat rot is the one that isn’t an animal lover (and that includes vegans).
This whole “you can’t be an animal lover if you’re not a vegan” tripe is bullshit. But worse than being bullshit, you automatically lose whoever you were talking to from ever taking your side seriously even if you actually have good points.
Yeah I’ll be honest, i thought exactly the same as you about PETA before going vegan. But if you’re vegan, you’re intent on reducing the suffering of animals right?
I am not an anti-natalist. I am not willing to euthanize animals for some great aggregate goal. As an animal lover, both of those end goals of PETA disgust me. And I’m far from alone. The **only ** way to reduce animal suffering is to wipe them all out and re-engineer their natural habitats. I oppose that. I’m ok with a world where animals (including humans) suffer, but that we work to better things. We had a decent balance once, then it went to shit. I’m not about making it go MORE to shit.
So it’s not too much of a leap to imagine a world where the people with the most money and the most to lose have orchestrated an incredibly effective smear campaign.
You seem to be ignoring, or forgetting, my points. Every complaint I have presented is a first-party complaint against PETA by people who are not part of a smear campaign. So if you’re asking if I’m willing to believe the small animal shelter run by a good friend of mine is part of an “incredibly effective smear campaign”, I’m going to laugh you out the door.
That kind of nonsense reminds me of the people who used to cry about “the gay agenda”. I’m sorry.
I’m giving you the benefit of doubt and assuming you’re here in good faith
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt of the same, but your last post has made it difficult. Requiring me to be a vegan to be an animal lover (when I mentioned being around nature-worshippers, it should have been obvious). Implying, perhaps unintentionally, that people I know are part of some giant smear campaign. No.
you must understand the commodification of sentient beings is absolutely unnecessary in 2023
What does anything have to do with mass-euthanasia? Are you actually “merciful depopulation”? That is very different from hunters culling overpopulated areas.
That’s funny. I hear people lying and want to avoid turning this into reddit 2.0, and you think this is about people calling out my bullshit.
You know what happens if you call out a lie and 100 zealots claim it’s “bullshit”? You still have a fucking lie. Apparently, if I don’t think every single American is literally as bad as Trump, I’m a fucking moron.
Well, working on “having nothing left” by blocking you.
Annnnnd you just went full PETA on me.
I’m a huge animal lover, and have spent most of my life around literal nature worshippers. And I can’t think of one who could pull that “Dogs are objects in our society” PETA rhetoric with a straight face.
Flavor nuance. I don’t like hopsy beer myself, but there’s a LOT of different profiles out there. I’ve even found a few IPAs I liked.
That I’ll agree with. Not a lot of drinkers respect the mashbill anymore.