Personally, I’m not offended when referred to as ‘-sexual’. In general, I don’t see my gender as an important part of my identity. I guess I’m ‘just’ cis male but I don’t see that as restrictive in any way.
But thanks for your explanation! Good to know that there’s a negative connotation tied to that term and other people might be offended. I’ll try to keep it in in mind for future discussions. :)
Thank you for the explanation!
Edit: If you don’t mind a follow-on question: Is my former binary definition applicable when we’re talking about ‘transsexual’ rather then ‘transgender’? And when someone says just ‘trans’ in the queer community without any suffix, does that typically refer to -gender or -sexual?
So if I’m born male and identify non-binary, that would be considered trans as well? If I got that right my definition of trans was apparantly too binary. :D
Is ‘non binary trans’ a thing? I hope I don’t offense anyone but so far I though…
If you’re non-binary what do you transition from/to?
Thanks for the explanation. Maybe my example was too extreme but unless they remove everything that’s even slightly controversial, that can give a pretty wrong impression IMO. Wouldn’t be for me at least.
If you consider upvotes but ignore downvotes wouldn’t that give you quite a weird picture in case of controversial posts? Assuming there’s a racist or transphobic post with 100 downvotes and 5 upvotes, would that be displayed as +5? Or does it not show any votes at all?
I use Lemmy a lot to debate or read other people’s perspectives. While content is more important than the vote count, I’m still interested to see what are (un)popular opinions here (knowing that it definitely doesn’t represent the general public!).
Unfortunately, seeing the votes immediately also increases your bias towards posts or comments, so it may have a negative impact on on your individual free thinking.
An ideal compromise for me would be to see how other people voted, but only after I voted myself.
If it triggers you, than why you don’t stop reading such stuff rather then complaining all day?
edit: This was meant to be a joke, not insulting. Apparantly, it wasn’t the best one, so I apologize. ;)
If you use 70% the remaining 30% are typically water. And water and electronics aren’t necessarily best friends.
After all they did in just the first weeks, I highly doubt that there’ll be just another fair following the regular rules. I really hope I’m wrong though.
Indeed my previous statement seems to be a bit outdated. Modern nuclear plants seem to be more flexible than those in the past.
Historically, nuclear power plants were built as baseload plants, without load following capability to keep the design simple. Their startup or shutdown took many hours as they were designed to operate at maximum power, and heating up steam generators to the desired temperature took time.[2] Nuclear power generation has been also portrayed as inflexible by anti-nuclear activists and the German Federal Environment Ministry, while others claimed “that the plants might clog the power grid”.[7] Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope, up to 140 MW/minute.[7] Nuclear power plants in France operate in load-following mode and so participate in the primary and secondary frequency control. Some units follow a variable load program with one or two large power changes per day. Some designs allow for rapid changes of power level around rated power, a capability that is usable for frequency regulation.[8] A more efficient solution is to maintain the primary circuit at full power and to use the excess power for cogeneration.[9]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant
Nevertheless, I am very sceptical regarding the technology. I think our primary target should be to lower the overall energy consumption. And then we should try to reverse the logic and instead of production following consumption, to have consumption follow production. With smart grids, heat pumps, electric cars, thermal storage systems etc. we have many instruments to flatten out peaks in demand.
As far as I know nuclear is not scalable at all. Once you start the reaction, you have a more or less constant output. No chance to dynamically increase or decrease according to the highly volatile demand.
Gas, hydropower etc. can be controlled to the second. Even wind and solar allow you at least in one direction to lower the output if there is an oversupply in the grid.
Nuclear is the worst type of energy to be combined with renewables.
I agree. An open discussion should be as complete as possible and ideally consider all relevant aspects.
From my perspective, the time perspective in context of nuclear waste is really significant. Until we find a clean solution to fully recycle or dispose nuclear waste, there are almost infinite maintenance efforts even ignoring the danger of the waste itself.
If we want to monitor the potential radioactive pollution around where the waste is stored, it means roads, elevators, protective doors, sensors, measuring systems, protective gear etc. have to be constantly maintained and renewed. We must upkeep the monitoring for 1 million years until the waste is no longer dangerous.
How long is the lifetime of this equipment? Even if we assume an unrealistic lifetime of 100 years, it means we have to renovate all storage facilities 10000 times. 10000 new elevators, 10000 new roads etc.
1 million years is just a completely insane period of time and we have no clue if we really ever find a safe way to deal with this stuff. So people in the future will have to do all this maintenance even if hunanity stopped using nuclear power tens of thousands of years ago.
And that’s just the pollution directly caused by maintenance. If there’s an accident while installing a new elevator and radioactive material is released, we have way bigger issues.
Why does safety only consider air pollution and deaths? The most concerning aspect of nuclear power IMO is the nuclear waste. There is still no safe way to permanently dispose or store it. In Germany we store nuclear waste in salt caves that were meant to be a very stable system. But already after a few decades we find leaking barrels and contamination of groundwater reservoirs.
This contamination will keep getting worse for hundreds of thousands of years and may have negative health impact on humans and animals.
Just because it doesn’t pollute the air right now, it doesn’t mean it’s safe.
So they don’t accept bills that are larger than the head of a cow. The heads themselves are a perfectly acceptable payment method.