Resonosity

I mean couple this with quiet quitting and how people are coming around to working according to the wage they get, as opposed to striving to work towards a wage they want which comes after bonuses, pay raises, etc. Wonder if this trend in gaming reflects a larger issue of how developers are realizing that capitalism doesn't compute with art-making

It's this comment here that makes me think of how naive some people are when they say that solutions to problems mostly described by "tHe ToP 100 cOrPorAtiOnS PolLuTe thE mOst" talking point have to be addressed by government action and government action alone. Republicans at the top are so deadset on anything anti-change to where national politics are super volatile and hardly something to bet the direction of the country on.

Local level politics allow for more stable growth in change, such as how we've seen with marijuana laws.

I mean, as a progressive I still want to vote for the most progressive candidates that can represent me, which often leads to blue over red, but that doesn't mean we the citizens can't contribute local government as much as more regional or national governments.

Top-down & bottom-up ftw

The killing will continue until morale improves

Great point. You need concrete for wind, solar, and li-ion battery storage too (including pumped hydro), but out of those I'd say pumped hydro is the only one that remotely compares in the amount of concrete needed for construction.

So purely looking at the emissions from materials needed to build these power sources, renewables have the edge due to less concrete. These emissions might show up elsewhere in raw material extraction like with silicon for solar, and then the rare earth metals needed for generators in wind, all the lithium/nickel/cobalt needed for batteries, etc., but I want to say that the Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) from places like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the US or the International Energy Agency (IEA) worldwide have taken that into account and still show that renewables + storage are cheaper on a carbon basis compared to fossil fuels and nuclear.

Did you read the quote? 15-20 years, as in decades before 1 nuke plant is built. I agree in that politicians of the past should have led us to a more sustainable and resilient energy future, but we're here now.

Advanced nuclear should still be 100% pursued to try to get those lead times down and to incorporate things like waste recycling, modularity, etc., but the lead time in decades absolutely means nuclear power might not be something worth doing.

The IPCC puts the next 10-20 years as the most important and perilous for getting a hold on climate change. If we wait for that long by not rolling out emission-free power sources, transit modes, or even carbon-free concrete, etc., then we might cross planetary boundaries that we can't come back from.

Nuclear is a safe bet and bet worth pursuing. I would argue that, along with that source from the IAEA, old nuclear is note worth it.

Nuclear power is the ONLY form of clean energy that can be scaled up in time to save us from the worst of climate change.

Mmmm I agreed with you until reading this. The 6th IPCC Assessment Report showed us that Wind + Solar + Battery Storage are still a safer bet for rolling out non-fossil fuel energy sources at the fastest rate we can launch them. Nuclear sadly still takes too long to build.

I think there is a space for advanced nuclear, though. Small Modular Reactors, Fast Breeders, and such should be encouraged going forward. The US (and I think UK) each have funds specifically designated to the development of advanced nuclear too.

But old nuclear will take too long to get a hold on emissions. I still think nuclear fits in a well-balanced energy portfolio, but not of the specific technology of the 1950s-1990s.

We've had the cure for climate change all along, but fear that we'd do another Chernobyl has scared us away from it.

I mean, Chernobyl is kind of an outdated example. Fukushima would be the more recent one to point at, or even Three Mile Island. Not particularly useful for your argument. Still, I think if people got educated about all 3 of those examples from history, they'll come out convinced that nuclear is still a safe bet.

Problem is, like I said above, that conventional nuclear takes too damn long to build.

Yeah there was even that case where a citizen and resident of Mexico was arrested and detained in the US for breaking US law, even tho it technically didn't apply to them since they were under Mexican sovereignty... Borders mean little to the US

Just because something is non-renewable does not mean it is non-sustainable, just like how something being renewable does not mean it is sustainable.

Hydro (or tidal barrage) power is an example of a renewable energy source, but it restricts river flow such that life can't exist as it naturally has for eons, like fish swimming up/down river, etc., or restricts the flow of minerals and nutrients that feed various niches of river or inlet biodiversity. Those effects on a local ecosystem can lead to other species collapsing elsewhere, which can impact other species, including humans.

Coal power is an example of a non-renewable resource as it depends on minerals that form at much slower rates than on the sorts of time scales humans use those minerals. Coal also leads to deaths of many humans and other species not only in the mining of resources (mine collapses, tailing pond ruptures, lung diseases, etc.), but also in the burning of the minerals via the release of radiation and other particulates that can impact local communities.

Nuclear is, imo, the best non-renewable source we can exercise for human purposes, so we should still pursue it.

Corporations make things either for consumers, governments (for consumers), or other corporations (for consumers). There is a lot to be said about what changes in consumption can change

Huh, weird. The Twitch chats I hang out with and I tend to use "parasocial" as a term in which people develop a relationship with others that people haven't really seen or spoken to. I've seen them and myself use the term to talk about how chats have relationships with streamers themselves, which aligns with your definition, but I've also seen it used between Internet users that have minimal interaction with others aside from texting.

I've made friends online via Xbox that I have on other social media and that know my face/voice/background, but I try to secure more of my anonymity these days. I wouldn't consider those relationships as parasocial, but in some ways, depending on how the relationship evolves and grows or decays over time, I'd say they dip in and out of being parasocial and tangible.

Perhaps parasocial might be better thought of as a class of relationships people share that are digital and that don't manifest IRL in any meaningful ways (excluding face/voice/identity).

Maybe the idea I'm getting at here has a term coined for it already. I'd be willing to change my vocabulary if you suggest something!

Wake up Samurai...