surpluscornbread

[surpluscornbread]

[surpluscornbread]

I could do this easily. Just built different.

[surpluscornbread]

finally

[surpluscornbread]

Zoomers you sick fucks. YKINMKATOK but you’ve gotta draw the line somewhere.

[surpluscornbread]

You should do that planning IF AND ONLY IF the costs it adds are not so great that it will prevent us from actually using nuclear. Because let’s be clear, too much greenhouse emissions can cause civilizational collapse. A few potential sentient beings who are especially adventurous getting radiation poisoning (which will quite quickly have whatever society exists then form their own containment of the site that will make sense to them) will not.

“But what if they build a whole city on top of the site???”

Then it’ll probably be a situation like Ramsar, Iran that has what are supposed to be dangerous levels of radiation and...it’s fine. There’s been no detected ill effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Iran

I don’t think it’s a good idea to spend a ton of money that could be used to scale up clean power even faster and that contributes to the exaggerated sense of risk people have about nuclear power. We’re spending so much time thinking about an extremely low probability events that in the worst case scenario will only impact a small number of future sentient people before they figure out the issue themselves. That’s not a rational cost-benefit calculation!

What do you mean exactly when you say that we can deal with nuclear “waste” by putting it in a fast reactor or something like that.

yeah sure burn it in fast reactors, but the main thing is there is just not that much of and it's actually easy to handle and dispose of. the entire lifetime energy usage of a person in a rich country corresponds to about one beer can of spent nuclear fuel. this is an incredibly tiny amount of waste.

and its in ceramic form, not green goo like the Simpsons and idiots who get their information from the Simpsons, like Greenpeace, would have you believe. it's not volatile or particularly hard to contain. it's spicy rock.

just putting it below several hundred metres of geologically stable rock is enough to keep it out of the biosphere for the time it's dangerous. scientifically illiterate greens will be all, oooh but no one can predict what will happen over ThOusAnDs oF yEaRs. this is, of course, like, young earth creationism levels of "geology doesn't real". we know from the oklo natural reactor that radionucleides don't even move more than a few centimetres.

this was figured out in the 70s and early 80s, by the way

tl;dr nuclear waste was a solved problem 40 years ago and enemies of humanity like greenpeace have been lying and spreading FUD about it ever since. "no one knows what to do with nuclear waste" is as false as "no one knows what to do about measles"

[surpluscornbread]

Correction: Every male astronaut wants to fuck the moon!

radfems are consistently so fucking funny but completely unintentionally just accidental clowns

[surpluscornbread]

The only reason Binance isn’t in the exact same boat as FTX is because they likely have a somewhat more competent trading arm (not a hard hurdle to jump over given the reporting on Alameda).

(this is the same place that published “Is Alameda Research Insolvent?”, which is what kicked off that whole thing)

[surpluscornbread]

Imagine talking to a hot girl on tinder who's kinda odd and quirky but also way too pretty to be talking to you in the first place. And then she wants to meet up at an odd place to hook up and you figure alright I'm either getting laid or having my organs sold in the black market, win-win in my books, so you go meet up.

But once you get there, there's no girl or anyone throwing a bag over your head to take you to a secondary location. Just an alien who goes "oh shit, that's a rare one", and snaps a few photos of you for their personal collections.

You fucking hate it when they do that. Spotting humans in the wild is all fine for a boring-ass hobby, but using fake mating calls to lure you in is just fucking cheating.

[surpluscornbread]

Also wait a minute...who the fuck talks about Naglfari?! Doesn’t he get like 1 line from Snorri Sturluson?

the thing about AI art is there's a whole- wait. did you guys hear that

oh shit heimdall just sounded the gjallarhorn to signal the arrival of naglfari

[surpluscornbread]

While I think the analysis of why younger priests are so conservative is right, I don’t really think there’s good reason to believe that at this point going more liberal will do much more than slow down the bleeding in the US. Why? Because liberal people are increasingly irreligious in general in a trend that’s been accelerating for 30 years. I’d like to cite a couple of surveys that help illustrate what’s happening.

First, an earlier one from Pew Research 2011 here: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux3/

This discusses the reasons people leave and the ones we’re likely categorize as “the church is not liberal enough” (which I’m marking in red on the below screenshot) lean heavily towards non-affiliation with any faith, which is the single largest group of leavers (numbers don’t add to 100% because this is the percent of respondents citing the following as a reason and people were allowed to choose as many as they wanted to):

What then is likely happening? Well people who leave the church when citing these reasons aren’t finding that they need any religion to satisfy their needs in life. Note that people leaving for Evangelical churches (which tend towards conservativism) substantially outnumber those leaving for Mainline churches (which tend towards liberalism) and non-affiliation outnumbers the mainlines by over 3-to-1. This also explains why groups like Unitarian-Universalists or Quakers who lean hard into liberal/leftist values aren’t seeing explosions of converts from more conservative or even centrist denominations. When liberals decide to leave, they just don’t see the value of religious membership. This is reinforced by a 2021 Gallup survey here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/393737/belief-god-dips-new-low.aspx

The single trait that correlates stronger than any other on belief in god this survey recorded was not age, education, urban vs suburban vs rural, which part of the country a person lives in, or race: it was self-identification as a liberal/leftist. As of 2021, nearly 40% of self-identified liberals do not believe in God whatsoever. That’s a fairly astounding figure given that the figure for the population as a whole is 19% (do note they’re grouping “unsure” and “do not believe” together but for the purposes of this point that’s not important). So what’s happening?

My reading of this is that further left political positions generally don’t find the “god-shaped hole” that many religious people think of when they think of non-belief. The rituals, the community, the support services just aren’t appealing to those with liberal/leftist people sufficiently to make them want to find a religion that aligns with their values. So even if the church does go left, they will at most prevent this group from straying. Since most liberals are still believers in god that is reason to think they’ll stay if the church is better aligned with them. But it won’t win back those who have left for those reasons because they’re not even looking for anything like what a religion has to offer.

There would, however, likely be an exodus of conservatives mostly to protestant right-leaning denominations. That’s already happened some but is limited compared to the likely impact of fully embracing liberalism. And that would include some of the richest and more politically influential members of the American Catholic church. As seen by the string of highly right-wing Catholic supreme court judges, many right wing Catholics are in fact quite well off and influential. Furthermore the problem of not getting liberal/left priests will likely continue. That implies a real commitment to the faith that on average these trends in leaving don’t indicate is there. Which likely means plenty of paper members like in Western Europe, but not many committed ones.

Now, full disclosure, I’ve been an atheist since high school and left vague protestantism behind, but the trend exists there too. Religion is just not that high a priority for most liberal/leftist people and those few for whom it is haven’t really found a way to reverse that in the developed world at least. I don’t even know if reversing that trend is possible at this point. I imagine that Catholic leadership is looking at this too and coming to similar conclusions. If they turn hard right they will lose most followers but keep their hard core base. If they turn further left they’ll likely at least slow the total follower loss but lose the hard core base. Both of those likely seem like losing propositions so the answer becomes much more limited rear-guard actions while hoping something external changes the trend lines.

Research on Catholic clergy by the Austin Institute has found that younger Catholic priests and priests ordained in more recent years tend to be noticeably more conservative than older priests on a host of issues, including politics, theology and moral teaching. The Survey of American Catholic Priests has found that since the 1980s, successive cohorts of priests have grown more conservative, according to a 2021 summary report.

Regarding the church’s prohibitions of contraception, masturbation, homosexual behavior and suicide, the impossibility of women’s ordination to the priesthood, and the necessity for salvation of faith in Jesus, each successive 10-year cohort of priests supports church teaching more strongly than the one before it. Those ordained in 2010 or later are the most conservative of all—and the least happy with Pope Francis, with roughly half disapproving of him, according to the Austin Institute survey. The Vatican didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

...

Almost 80% of priests ordained before 1980 “approve strongly” of the current pontiff, compared with 20% of those ordained in 2010 or later, according to the 2021 survey. Nearly half of the younger priests disapprove of the pope, either “strongly” or “somewhat.” 

I'm half surprised they could even find a statistically significant number of priests who were ordained after 2010

[surpluscornbread]

what the libcucks fail to understand is that this is a small price to pay for the end goal: an embedded HUD with unskippable advertisements in the margins of your eyesight

[surpluscornbread]

No it’s fine! Look we put a metro station on top of an urban freeway with a bunch of parking lots/parking garages nearby. See? America can do urbanism!!!

[surpluscornbread]

Oh this is easy mode! All I’ve gotta do is have a heavy coat and gloves to survive the sub-freezing temperatures and walk for about 2 hours to the nearest buildings I could find on Google while not experiencing hypoxia from being nearly 3 miles above sea level. Easy mode!

go to this random coordinates generator and say in the tags how you would fare if you were dropped where it generates without warning. i’ll go first i’d be dropped in the middle of the fucking south atlantic ocean and perish

[surpluscornbread]

North Korea shooting missiles in the air to keep the rent in the sea of Japan low

[surpluscornbread]

No they scrambled to find sketchy auditing firms doing instantaneous shots of accounts to convince people they’re better than a firm that everyone in crypto was previously convinced offered a gold standard for transparency and upright behavior in the space. This is just another excuse to fall for crypto’s basic lack of appealing products besides the claim that later on someone else will buy it for more than the current investors did.

It’s on crypto to not offer what they’re comfortable with but offer the level of transparency normal securities do. But if they did that then the one unique appeal they have, not currently being regulated like normal securities, would be undermined.

I think the most interesting and far-reaching effect of the collapse of FTX is how all the other cryptocurrency exchanges have immediately pivoted to demonstrating how trustworthy they are by commissioning independent audits and outside oversight and other verifiable safeguards of their depositors' money ha ha no they're all scams.

[surpluscornbread]

That’s not really true. It tells you where the next area of primary focus should be. Child deaths are bad and society should be constantly trying to find ways to lower them. A vital, though incomplete, part of knowing which to lower is knowing which are doing the most killing. Once you’ve got that list you can then work out more details like “what actions are needed to lower this type of death?” and then “how much cost comes with those actions and what are the side effects of them”.

If you take a graph like this as a starting point for further discussion and research, it’s quite useful.

For the first time in US history, guns are now the #1 cause of death for children