Olgratin_Magmatoe @ Olgratin_Magmatoe @startrek.website

Posts

1

Comments

295

Joined

2 yr. ago

Agreed. It's just a disaster all around honestly. It can change, but it's not easy.

That's how it used to work, not anymore:

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1072714887/filibuster-explained

A filibuster raises the vote threshold, so it's not something you can just wait out. And thank to how the filibusterer works nowadays, congressmen don't actually need to get up there and talk, they can merely threaten to filibuster to raise the vote threshold.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1072714887/filibuster-explained

Congress can't do anything because of the filibuster, two party system, and republicans though. The whole thing honestly needs an overhaul.

While the technology of star trek definitely plays a role in terms of it being anti capitalist, it's not just the tech. If today somebody invented a replicator, it wouldn't be a full decade before its use would be locked behind a dozen different tiered paywalls on top of the instalation cost, and then eventually it going through enshitification.

The societal values and culture in star trek values life, far, far above weath and profit to the point that such concepts are basically alien. And that has to be the first step for post scarcity tech to actually be used for the purpose of post scarcity.

I suppose it then comes down to whether or not the electricity is free. On a federeration base, I would assume it would be free given that the federation isn't too big on money.

Though the for the duration of the dominion war I would think there would have been limits.

Given that replicator themselves are resource efficient enough for everyday use, I would think the resource requirements for that would be low enough.

Given that transporters exist, and can be used to target specific materials, I would think that it would indeed be an automated process.

Once again corporations prove they will always put profits over the habitability of our planet.

As to why a Scientology-owned group would care about such a matter, 404 Media suggested that it could have to do with Scientology E-meters, or electropsychometers. The Church of Scientology describes the machines as an "electronic instrument that measures mental state and change of state in individuals and assists the precision and speed of auditing" and that only a Scientology minister or training minister should use. 404 Media noted that some people collect the devices and, oddly enough, you can find E-Meters sold on eBay.

"My hunch is that the Scientologists think granting the hacking community permission to dig into their E-Meter software will expose the whole operation as snake oil. The request is like so many other anti-Right to Repair arguments: Manufacturers are afraid that access to repair materials will expose some of their other dirty secrets," Chamberlain said.

This is what humans have been saying about auto exhaust, factory emissions, agricultural emissions etc for a hundred years. It’s turned out wrong in every way.

There is a key difference, fossil fuel use inherently ends up leaving pollution in the atmosphere, nuclear power does not do anything of the same.

it, isn’t your position basically the same as the right wing position on climate change?

Nope. It's not even close

That even if it exists humans are too small to actually effect the huge atmosphere so it’s not human caused.

That's not even close to what I am saying.

All sea water is radioactive already, and has been since before humans got nukes. And thats because all sea water has tritium at low levels. When we release water that is at the same level as sea water, nothing changes.

It's like adding a red ball or playdoh to a red ball of playdoh. There's not going to be a difference. Fossil fuels on the other hand would be like adding a black ball of playdoh to a red one.

that would just be high up in that water cycle. In places where private companies would be out of the eyes of watchdog groups

That is not what I am suggesting.

There is no guarantee of anything.

But if you're storing it hundreds of miles from the ocean, the risk is minimal.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/deep-isolation-aims-to-bury-nuclear-waste-using-boreholes.html

In the case of radioactive water, yes. Our oceans are huge, and there is no real impact.

We should worldwide be putting trillions into both. Renewables should be first priority, but not all locations have good solar, wind, and battery options.

Launching radioactive waste into space is a terrible idea, because rockets on occasion crash. Once that happens it becomes a nuclear disaster.

Instead we can safely store it in depleted mines.

We are on a time limit thanks to climate change. We can't afford to complain about picking the lessor of two evils.

Just look at China being pissed at Japan right now for releasing water back into the ocean.

China can be pissed all they like, the water Japan is releasing is heavily diluted, and effectively no more radioactive than normal sea water.

practical, long-term, solution to nuclear waste

This depends on the type of waste, and how radioactive it is. The overwhelming majority of nuclear waste is low level, and capable of being safely stored in steel/concrete casks. The higher level stuff can be safely stored in exhausted mines.

demonstrate that a nuclear bomb is not a military target, sure

All power sources are inherently military targets, so you've defined an impossible task.

Additionally, you can design a plant to be a lower risk target in the case of an attack. We've had decades of research put into how to make these plants safe.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf

https://theconversation.com/how-to-protect-nuclear-plants-from-terrorists-57094

We just saw Japan release nuclear waste into the ocean for lack of a solution

I'm not thrilled with it either, but the waste they are releasing is diluted.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-66610977

The water they are releasing is basically no different than the radioactivity of normal sea water.