chaosmarine92

joined 1 year ago
[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago

I second your feelings on bazzite. Last year when I switched to Linux I spent a while researching the best distro for gaming and what I could find pointed to PopOS or Mint. Never even heard of bazzite.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I can only speak to PopOS as that's what I chose when I switched last year. It's been mostly fine but there have definitely been pain points. If you use a hard drive other than your os install drive then you need to go to the steam website to get the installer and not use the one in the built in app store. Getting mods working for games has been incredibly annoying anytime I have to use protontricks.

Non gaming related I've had numerous issues trying to manage permissions for my hard drives. Not sure if this is a Pop issue or general Linux issue.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 15 points 3 months ago

It depends how they are designed. Same as regular uranium reactors. Thorium isn't a reactor fuel after all, it's what you use to breed more fuel. The actual fuel is still uranium. Thorium turns into uranium-233 then that is the fuel. Normal reactors use uranium-235. Both isotopes can be made to be passively safe.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 48 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Literally nothing you just said is correct.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 18 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Nonsensical or thoroughly debunked technobabble. The most annoying for me is faster than light communication via quantum entangled particles. Yes entangled particles will change each other's state faster than light but this effect CANNOT be used to send information of any kind. At all. Ever. This has been known since engagement was first discovered but Hollywood is always like "I'm just going to ignore that second part." I don't even have anything against ftl comms or any other physics breaking things, just use an explanation that isn't literally impossible and well known why it's impossible for God's sake.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 97 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Shooting two guns at the same time does in fact look cool. That's not a myth. Hitting two targets with two guns at the same time is really hard though.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

Nowhere did I say or imply that capturing CO2 is a net positive of energy. It is in fact a huge energy sink. If you aren't using renewables to power CO2 capture then you're just making the problem worse.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We have to do both. If today our emissions went to zero we would still see more warming because of all that CO2 we've already released. First priority is to get to net zero so we can stop making the problem worse, then we have to remove all the CO2 we released. We have the technology now to do step one it's just a matter of scaling it up. While we work on step one we need to do the research on the best way to do step two so when we get to that point we have something ready to go. Pulling CO2 out of the air is going to be inefficient no matter what just from the physics of the problem but it still needs to be done and the energy to do so has to come from renewables.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

Doing some back of the envelope calculations we have put about 1.6 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Latest estimates put the number of trees on earth at around 3 trillion. Looking at how much CO2 a tree takes up puts the average around 600lbs over the first twenty years. So combing all this if we want to plant enough trees to take up all the excess CO2 we would need about 5.3 trillion more trees, or almost double the total number of trees on the planet.

This is simply not achievable in a fast enough time span to make a difference. Nevermind that I was being super optimistic with all my calculations and the real number needed is likely much higher still.

It is simply a necessity to develop better methods to pull CO2 directly from the air and to do it on the same scale that we have been releasing CO2.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

In addition to what has been said already, in many places the cost to upgrade the electrical service to the building to handle the amount of power that could be generated can be as much or more than all the other costs combined. So now the building operators are looking at millions in cost with a potentially 30 year payback period. It just doesn't make sense at that point.

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Are the predicted prices ever crazy far off from what they actually end up being like what happened in Texas last winter? Where am outage causes price to go from like 20c/khw to 2000c/khw over a one hour period?

[–] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How do you keep up with the current price? Does your thermostat have a setting where if the price is above X then turn off? Do you just come home to a freezing house and say "oh the electric is too expensive, guess I'll grab some wood"?

view more: next ›