- 18 Posts
- 20 Comments
0·6 days agoMost people in the meat industry agree it’s a good move.
It’s only the unscrupulous and greedy ones that are kicking up a fuss.
Just because we raise animals for slaughter doesn’t mean we can’t minimise the discomfort the animals experience.
Whilst I didn’t always agree with their pronouncements, having a fact checker at this time seems to me a very important thing.
They include reference to “a new in-house verification reporting team, ABC News Verify”, but that sounds like they’ll only be verifying their own news, which is nice, but not the point.
You could read David Leigh’s book, in which he published the full decryption key: https://www.amazon.com/WikiLeaks-Inside-Julian-Assanges-Secrecy/dp/161039061X
That’s literally how he leaked it.
The wikipedia article on it has the whole “he said - she said”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:_Inside_Julian_Assange’s_War_on_SecrecyIncluding the lie that is frequently parroted about Assange not caring about people dying.
That was an editor at The Guardian, David Leigh.
This didn’t happen, Wikileaks vetted information before releasing it for exactly this reason.
Name one person.
Its technically US soil, so he could enter his plea there in a US court, but its the closest place to Australia, because he obviously refused to step foot on the American continent.
Yes, the threats worked and the corrupt won.
Now he gets to see his kids.
I’d choose that too.
You can call it cowardice, I’d call it pragmatism.
The US get to show just how tough they are on whistleblowers and their associates.
Assange gets to go home.If I was him, I’d keep my head down and try to get to know my kids.
the cheapest and most widespread nuclear reactor design
Can you share this knowledge, please?
So 450 x 1.8 = $810B
(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).
You have, that $1.8B would get 14GWh, not 1.
So 450 / 14 = 32.2
32.2 * 1.8 = $57.96BThese are all back of the envelope numbers of course, but 58 is ~ 14 times less than 810.
Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-22/nuclear-power-double-the-cost-of-renewables/103868728
CSIRO has cranked these numbers out in a whole bunch of configurations.
In short: Australia’s leading scientific organisation found it would cost at least $8.5 billion to build a large-scale nuclear power plant in the country.
8.5 * 7 = $59.5B
So it’s within the ballpark to build 7 nuclear powerplants, compared to 33 (more likely less but bigger) off river pumped hydro locations.
Which don’t cost as much to run, have no “scary” nuclear and can be operable much sooner, integrating with the existing infrastructure (instead of replacing it, as Nuclear effectively would have to).
If we build even one Nuclear power plant, we’re going to see continuing solar and wind curtailment, exactly like they do with coal right now - which will effectively set an expensive floor on power prices.
Nuclear isn’t happening if we follow the science, the money and the NIMBY sentiment.
Edit to add:
The BIGGEST difference in my mind is where the money will come from.
No financial institution will touch Nuclear, it would have to be tax dollars.
Whilst private companies are always angling for government subsidy, they are also clamouring to invest in this themselves.A quick google search gives me a private example that is projected to come online this year: https://genexpower.com.au/250mw-kidston-pumped-storage-hydro-project/
It’s only 2GWh, but it’s going to start contributing to the end of coal by the end of this year, which ignoring the environmental benefit, is going to reduce wholesale power prices.
Waiting for Nuclear will make power prices worse, as the interim calls for continuing to run the coal and gas, which isn’t going to make it 15 years, so new coal (or more likely a buttload more gas) will have to be built.
Which is going to RAISE prices, as it’s no longer just running costs on paid off installations, it’s repaying loans on new constructions.
That source doesn’t have a link to their paper that works.
Yeah, link rot.
I did some googling for you: https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/Low Emission Fossil Scenarios.pdf
But as far as I know we can’t build anywhere near enough hydro in Australia.
A study at the Australian National University (ANU) identified about 3,000 low-cost potential sites around Australia with head typically better than 300 metres and storage larger than one gigalitre (see Figure 3). The sites identified have a combined energy storage potential of around 163,000 GWh. To put this into perspective, a transition to a 100% renewable electricity system would need 450 GWh of PHES storage. The potential pumped hydro energy storage resource is almost 300 times more than required. Developers can afford to be very selective since only about 20 sites (the best 0.1% of sites) would be required to support 100% renewable electricity generation.
Emphasis mine.
Let me paraphrase the LNP here:
“Private companies have researched Nuclear and decided it’s not cost effective.”
“Financial institutions have investigated Nuclear and decided they WILL NOT INVEST.”
“But our financial backers at the Mineral Council and the private companies dragging the last of the profit out of their end of life coal power stations are insisting that we continue with our current market AS LONG AS POSSIBLE, so we’ve decided to announce an extremely long term plan, to scare private investment out of renewables short term.”
“Don’t worry, between NIMBYs in the target areas, laws surrounding nuclear energy, lack of local expertise and the general unsuitability of Nuclear for our widely dispersed yet small population, we won’t actually build more than one of these things.”
“Jokes on them, we were only pretending to be retarded.”
0·21 days agoA parody mimics an original work directly.
This is One Nation abusing the copyright exception of “Parody or Satire” to deliberately to stir up controversy for their own gain.
He might not have a legal case, but using a famous persons likeness without their permission is dirty.
Just to resurrect this thread from a week ago, posts I just made in /c/Adelaide are not showing thumbnails.
0·23 days agoStep one of five, but fingers crossed.
And thank you for modding.
I didn’t want to call you out by name.
You’ve already noticed that I’ve transferred here as my official instance.
“Be the change you want to see in the world”.
Then a moderator was unhappy with my posts, so I stopped.
My gut suggests it’s a font issue, like librewolf is using a system font and firefox is using embedded or downloaded fonts.
backing that up with a search, I see there’s lots of people complaining of font rendering issues of various types in the librewolf subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/LibreWolf/search/?q=font
I don’t know what your fix is, but I hope this helps guide you.
As /u/[email protected] said, you can try to force a scan of the library. Log into the admin and hit the big “Scan All Libraries” button, then give it some time.
A refresh of that page should show a progress meter.
In order to encourage more accurate detection (assuming it can find/access the new file at all), there are advised naming schemes for your files. See here for a basic overview: https://jellyfin.org/docs/general/server/media/movies
I prefer to include the full name, year and imdb info of a movie, ie Citizen Kane isn’t just “Citizen.Kane.mp4”, it’s:
“Citizen Kane (1941) [imdbid-tt0033467].mp4”
based on the information that’s publically available here https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/
Even if you don’t enable imdb itself for the metadata lookup, that will give you an almost guaranteed detection during a library scan.
If this sounds like too much work, there’s several automated tools for naming your personal dvd rips, such as Radarr.
If it’s still not being detected, it’s time to dig into the logs and find out WHY it’s erroring.
Is it permissions?
Is it naming?
Is it the phase of the moon?