I love when an API takes a json payload, and one of the json fields is a string that contains json, so I have to serialize/deserialze in stages 😭

Who do you want running the country? The litch or the revenant?

Sideshow Bob is way too smart to be compared to trump

I agree it’s not the ideal solution, but it’s better than most solutions we have, depending on location.

Rooftop solar doesn’t only need to be on residential buildings, it can also be on industrial and commercial buildings, which take a significant land area.

One last benefit of most renewable energy that is related to its distributed nature: it’s easy to slowly roll out update and replacements. If a new tech emerges you can quickly change your rollout plan to use the new tech, and replace the old tech a little bit at a time, without any energy disruption.
With mega-projects like nuclear reactors, you can’t really change direction mid-construction, and you can’t just replace the reactors as new tech comes online, because each reactor is a huge part of the energy supply and each one costs a fortune.

Also, according to the doc you shared of land-use, in-store wind power is nearly the same as nuclear, since the ecology between the windmills isn’t destroyed.

So while I agree that nuclear absolutely has a place, and that renewables have some undesirable ecological repercussions, they’re still generally an excellent solution.

The elephant in the room, though, is that all the renewable solutions I mentioned will require energy storage, to handle demand variation and production variation. The most reliable and economically feasible energy storage is pumped hydro, which will have a similar land usage to hydro power. On the upside, although it has a significant impact, it does not make the land ecological unviable, it just changes what ecosystem will thrive there - so sites must be chosen with care.

Right, like I’ve said it’s not the best solution everywhere. But where it’s an option (which is many places) it’s a better one. Not solar in the case of grasslands, probably wind. But you get the idea.

Are you displacing whole ecosystems, though?
How much do wind farms affect grasslands and prairies, etc? They’ll have an impact for sure, but it’s not like the whole place gets paved over.
And solar can get placed on roofs of existing structures. Or distributed so it doesn’t affect any one area too much.

I have to admit idk much about sourcing the materials involved in building solar panels and windmills. Idk if they require destructive mining operations.
I imagine that a nuclear reactor would require more concrete, metal, and rate earth magnets that a solar/wind farm, but idk. I likewise don’t know the details about mining and refining the various fissile material and nuclear poisons.

The other advantage of renewables is that it’s distributed so it’s naturally redundant. If it needs to get shut down (repairs, or a problem with the grid) it wont have a big impact.

I like nuclear, and it’s certainly the better choice for some locations, but many locations seems better suited for renewable

I agree it absolutely has problems and I hope we come up with a better solution in the near future.

But it’s currently the lesser evil. Even though nuclear plants don’t need a lot of fuel, getting that fuel is still typically more damaging than creating a water reservoir, or using an existing natural reservoir.

That’s fair. But lesser of evils, yanno.

You haven’t heard of any advancements in energy storage at all?

Not that we need them, the best energy storage is old AF and excellent

That’s why they mentioned “pumped hydro”

The USA specifically has so much useless land with minimal ecological value, that if an energy project could actually be done at a federal level we could probably not have to worry about it.

There is a whole bunch of land in central USA that is not especially unique or teaming with life, slap down a big renewable energy farm.

I agree it’s safe but idk it’s the best we currently have, I think that probably depends on locale.

Solar and wind (and maybe tidal?), with pumped hydro energy storage is probably cheaper, safer, and cleaner… But it requires access to a fair bit more water than a nuclear plant requires, at least initially.

But nuclear is still far better than using fossil fuels for baseline demand.

That’s not agile.

It’s not bad, it’s just not agile. Agile exists for projects where that simply isn’t possible. Its sacrificing a bit of potential best-case productivity to ensure you don’t get worst-case productivity.

The problem is that people realized that they could sell agile training to middle management if they changed it to be about making middle managers feel empowered and giving progress visibility to upper management.

The only reason to lie is external to the case, but that’s a bold move assuming reason was involved.

I bet he lied for no good reason, making it harder for them to do their job.

I’m coming for that boatussy, fr.

No, again.

I didn’t make a stance, I didn’t say they’re not that bad. I asked why everyone immediately shit on them, and then I asked for more information when your examination seemed contradictory in one area.

You keep putting words in my mouth and getting angry at me for them.

You gave me a reasonable explanation at first, and then when I asked for clarification about a part that seemed contradictory to me, I was immediately met with anger, accusations, and a repeated claim that all my questions had been answered.

Someone else actually gave me a pretty decent answer, but then they deleted their reply before I could follow up with them 😢. It was more about posturing than about economics (although when governments posture, economics are always impacted)

Ok, I see the problem; you’re not reading my replies.

I have been bending over backwards to make it clear I’m not advocating anything in general, and that I don’t support trump or his suggestion in specific.

You keep saying that you’ve explained tariffs in general, but most of what you’ve done is just assert they’re bad and then claim that you’ve explained it, but if you haven’t been reading my replies then of course you wouldn’t have read the questions I’ve asked about the explanations you did provided

You didn’t provide facts, you provided arguments and assertions.
Then I refuted one of your arguments showing how it is seemingly contradicted one of your assertions and asked for elaboration.

I don’t understand where your hostility is coming from. I’m not even saying you’re wrong, I’m pointing out arguments that don’t appear (to me) to lead to your conclusion.

I absolutely don’t refute that Trump’s idea is a bad one. My question is more general than that.

What?

Why am I getting down votes?
How am I shitting on anything? What am I even shitting on? \

All I’m doing is asking “why do we shit on teriffs and treat them as inherently bad?”
Im trying to have a discussion in good faith, and rather than having any of my questions explained or answered I’m just down voted and vaguely demeaned.

I’m being very clear I do not support whatever shit trump is doing, I’m trying to understand why people just hate tariffs.
I don’t understand how, if the importer bares all tariff costs, what would disincentivize a foreign nation from exporting to us since they bear no increased costs. Why would this not just appear as a decrease in demand, from their perspective?