237
Plans for Saudi Arabia’s linear city cut from 170km to 2.4km
(www.newcivilengineer.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2024
237 points (98.8% liked)
News
23296 readers
1123 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You do know the difference between a peer-reviewed journal article and a regurgitated press release on a site called 'Nuclear Newsire,' right?
Corrected. Here’s another.
Both of your links are just reviews of nuclear fusion progress. The first one, China specifically, the second one, multiple projects. Neither of them make any sort of claim that I can see about practical nuclear fusion being 20 years away.
You seem to have a major honesty problem.
There’s no need for personal attacks. If you read them, both articles have updated sustained fusion reaction times based on China’s successful experiment. The only nation currently investing heavily into further research is China, but they have released all research for the scientific community. If I were to speculate, it would be because this technology would save a communist nation billions, while costing a capitalist nation just the same.
It is not a personal attack. Virtually everything you have said has been dishonest.
You said it was recent. It was 2 years ago.
You said it was a success. It was 17 minutes.
You said scientists claim that practical fusion is 20 years away. Your evidence did not make that claim.
You can speculate all you like, but your actual claims have been false. Repeatedly.
The Chinese government announced the fusion consortium on Jan. 9, 2024 according to the first article I posted.
17 minutes of 158M°F heat is a success. The previous record was 17s, and required maintenance and repair after fusion. With improved capture and storage, this version can work in modulation.
From the article:
So yeah, it’s an exciting prospect in the development of stable nuclear fusion.
Cool. I set goals all the time too. That doesn't make them achievable.
Sure, not with that attitude. You seem pretty determined to discredit the success here. How heavily are you invested in fossil fuels?
I didn't realize the only two options available were fusion power, which is not yet practical, or fossil fuels.
I was sure there were lots of other ways to generate electricity.
I guess not.
I thought you wanted clarity, but clearly you want a debate. Find someone else to argue with.
I thought you wanted to clarify, but instead you accused me of being invested in fossil fuels.
And to clarify that, I'm not invested in anything. Unlike you, apparently, I can't afford to invest in things.
Man, I don't think fusion is coming any time soon either but I just read this entire exchange and you have been undeniably insufferable the whole time. There are a thousand ways to discuss this disagreement and you chose the combative one.
I've argued with people like you before. You accuse and accuse and accuse them when the other person realizes it's not worth their time and throws a parting jab, you play victim. It's embarrassing and everyone sees right through it.
Well I'm sorry you feel that you see through my pointing out that they kept saying things that weren't true in response to me, but I'm going to point it out and not just accept it as if it actually is true.
I also don't see why I should accept the accusation that I invest in fossil fuels. Would you accept that if it was leveled at you as if it were the truth (and I hope it isn't)?