GissaMittJobb
@GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Stop Killing Games Petition to UK Relaunched 6 days ago:
What a joke. Who would ever choose having their shit taken away after a year?
- Comment on Trømp 1 week ago:
This post brought to you by the government of Sweden
(agreed though)
- Comment on How do prisons handle people with peanut allergies? 1 week ago:
There’s no evidence to support severe allergic reactions from airborne nut particles, fwiw. Reactions occur from ingestion or skin contact, not air.
- Comment on Checking in 1 week ago:
- Comment on U.S. drivers lost 42 hours—a full work week—to traffic in 2023: Congestion 'hinders economic growth,' expert says 1 week ago:
WFH in the current U.S suburban development pattern leads to traffic as well, as people in that context make on average more trips outside of the peak commuter times which would not have otherwise been made. CityNerd covered it in his last video, which has not been released on his YouTube channel yet (Nebula link here.
This is not a comment on the value of WFH being good or bad, but it’s decidedly not a solution to any questions of transportation, and I would like for it to be kept out of those conversations so that the question does not steal oxygen from actual solutions like transit expansions, zoning reform, improved bicycle infrastructure and so on.
- Comment on Allianz boss calls on Germany to withdraw sick pay on first day off 2 weeks ago:
It used to not be a thing, but a right-wing government back in the 90s (or 80s?) pushed to have 2 days without pay, and they landed on 1 day as a compromise.
Right-wing governments ruin everything for everyone, bunch of ghouls all of them
- Comment on Allianz boss calls on Germany to withdraw sick pay on first day off 2 weeks ago:
Fwiw, we do this in Sweden and it sucks ass, because of how it incentivizes going to work when not-that-sick and when you’re uncertain if you are sick, leading to more unnecessary contagion, suffering, lost productivity etc. No one wins from this ghoulish policy - don’t copy it
- Comment on Elon Musk says X’s algorithm pushes “too much negativity" while reports suggest the platform will suppress "criticism of the government" and "attacks against powerful people and institutions" 2 weeks ago:
Not as far as I know, and I’m not even sure the person who posted that was even serious about that being the response Grok provided.
Elon is deranged enough as it is without us having to make stuff up, let’s stay on track.
- Comment on Anon's loving mom 2 weeks ago:
It might be that this was before YouTube started recommending random low-view count videos to people. Lots of graveyard videos from that time
- Comment on If we eat three meals a day, why do we poop only once? 3 weeks ago:
Society must have taught me poorly because I poop at work as frequently as my body tells me to
- Comment on Anon's in trouble 3 weeks ago:
Ahhh yeah that’s where I’ve heard it before, WTYP had an episode on that!
- Comment on Anon's in trouble 3 weeks ago:
Am I assuming correctly that we’re looking at a big succ-situation, where the diver will big forced through the tube no matter what?
- Comment on Not enough people buying Premium, eh? 3 weeks ago:
So the reason no one posts the bitrates is because it’s not exactly interesting information for the the general population.
I’m highly skeptical of the claim that streaming services would have intentionally dropped their bitrates at the expense of perceived quality. There’s definitely research going on to deliver the same amount of perceived quality at lower average bitrates through variable bitrate encodings and so on, but this is sophisticated research where perceived quality is carefully controlled for.
It probably saves them a ton of money, and 90% of their customers won’t notice because they’re on their phone while watching in the background.
So this is fundamentally not how video streaming works, and I think this is important for the average person to learn - if you stream a video in the background or with your screen turned off, video data will stop loading. There’s literally no point in continuing to fetch the video track if it’s not being rendered. It would be like downloading the audio track for French when the user is watching with the English track turned on, i.e. nonsensical.
This subsequently removes this as a possible reason for any video streamer intentionally reducing their bitrate, as the savings would not be materialized for background playback.
To make it weirder, I’m confident they boost the bitrates on their new releases to get the approval of the enthusiastic viewers, then drop it after the reviews are in.
Depending on the usage patterns for the platform in question, this probably doesn’t make sense either.
- Comment on Not enough people buying Premium, eh? 3 weeks ago:
Is this a vibes-based position, or did you actually check the bitrate of the segments?
- Comment on AT&T's CTO tells his US team there won't be 'one-for-one seating' upon the return to 5 days in office — read the memo 4 weeks ago:
The quiet part out loud is that this is nothing but a severance-free layoff.
- Comment on If landlords didn’t exist anymore, how would shared flats work? 1 month ago:
To draw a parallel to the problem of health care - in systems of socialized medicine, a health insurer does de-facto exist, so health insurance does not get entirely abolished when switching to socialized medicine. It’s just that the health insurer is now the government, and the system is no longer ran to optimize for extracting money out of the system, but instead to optimize for population-level health.
Similarly, when trying to reform the housing market, landlords don’t fully go away - you can for example imagine a system where the government becomes a very large landlord and optimizes the system for maximum level of ‘people housed’ (or whatever you want to optimize this system for).
There are also various forms of housing cooperatives, where the landlord is a body consisting of all the tenants collectively.
The landlord most people want to be rid of is the rent-seeking kind, which optimizes the system for extracting money.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 1 month ago:
Feel free to put money into it if you believe in it. Given nuclear’s track record with regards to actually making money is not particularly strong though, so I wouldn’t advise doing this if you actually want to make a return on your investment.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 1 month ago:
It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.
Solar + storage is currently at less than half the cost of nuclear, while wind + storage is at a third of the cost: statista.com/…/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-co…
I’m going to work on the assumption that you’re working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we’re actually at.
What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.
In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That’s why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.
Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it’s just going to get worse from here on out.
I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:
- Have the public guarantee loans for nuclear construction
- Have the public guarantee a minimum kWh-price for these facilities
Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it’s being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 1 month ago:
That’s a lie.
Not really, no.
Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.
From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.
They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.
You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.
Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.
As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.
And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.
Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 1 month ago:
It’s getting more expensive year over year, while renewables are plummeting in price.
- Comment on Reactor goes brrr 1 month ago:
It was a bad call to stop, but now it’s an equally or worse call to start again.
Renewables win on essentially every measure and get better every day while nuclear gets worse every day.
- Comment on what a moment to live 1 month ago:
Damn, you beat me to it.
- Comment on what a moment to live 1 month ago:
In Sweden, it’s forbidden by law to be a criminal. Image
- Comment on what a moment to live 1 month ago:
Nah, they happen. Just at way, way lower rates than in the U.S.
- Comment on what a moment to live 1 month ago:
Drive-by e-scooter shootings have been a thing here in Sweden, which I firmly place in the same cyberpunk bucket.
- Comment on Anon is unimpressed 1 month ago:
(This comment brought to you by Gustav Vasa
- Comment on Anon is unimpressed 1 month ago:
Hide Danish threads, ignore Danish posts, do not reply to Danish posters
- Comment on Am I a bad person if (as left as they come) I invest in American Private Prison contractors on the assumption that Trump will go through with his deportation scheme at least to some extent? 1 month ago:
Don’t do it, friend.
The better investment generally is to invest in index funds anyways, which makes your hands at least a little bit cleaner.
- Comment on Muscle Chart 1 month ago:
Muscles hurt when they don’t get used. Strength exercise fixes this, although you will replace it with some level of soreness instead.
Still, it’s worth it
- Comment on It has nothing to do with your right to work 1 month ago:
That’s “at-will” though, isn’t it?
