Ask why? don’t just stay with oil companies PR talk points.

I do. I'm not using anyone's talking points. I couldn't even tell you what they would be. I have 2 smaller nuclear power plants in my state. I liked the idea of nuclear power, but looked into it myself. It seems like it should be great. Reality shows it isn't great. I does one thing well (24/7 carbon free electricity), but thats it. Everything else is negatives I found.

Nuclear is expensive because innovation has been artificially stifled.

I read your article. It doesn't say what you're saying it does. That article says "nuclear is expensive" because projects are building old designs retrofitting existing plants.

A huge part of this, is the insistence to forbid newer designs and more modern improvements,

See you say that, but facts don't align with that: "NRC Certifies First U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design" Jan 2023 source

Do ALL new reactor designs get approved? No. Do no new reactor designs get approved? Also no.

Nuclear power is expensive (in the US), because it was made expensive by refusing it all the factors that typically reduce costs of technologies.

I read your article there. Its argument is that the theoretical arguments for pricing nuclear power are faulty. We don't have to work with theoreticals. The customers of the most recently brought online reactors at Vogle nuclear power plant in Georgia are paying significantly more for their electricity as the result of their new nuclear reactors, and will, for decades to come. I pointed this out and cited sources in my OP on this.

It doesn’t matter though. Nuclear power could’ve help us survive climate change…40 years ago. It’s too late now anyways. Even if we covered the whole planet with solar power and stopped every single combustion engine in existence, we are already on the way to living in a hellscape. We must focus on survival of the species now.

Agreed, so its irrelevant to bring up what could have been done in the past. We have what we have today.

The argument I’m replying to is a classic “not perfect, thus not worth it”. Its disingenuous and it calls for disingenuous reply.

I wrote nearly a page of text all of factual and relevant points. If your threshold for bad faith replies is that every facet of every argument must be explored before you'll allow a genuine reply, you're in the wrong place.

We are also pursuing renewables in despite of their political and technical flaws.

Agreed! We are seeing their benefits over their shortcomings. Additionally, its not an all-or-nothing decision. A blend of solutions is the best likely path forward. Some nuclear (currently built) should be part of that. However, putting all the efforts into scaling nuclear would be extremely expensive. If we do that, we should understand that cost will be much larger than most people understand.

The point is that all the flaws that OP exposes about nuclear power also applied to renewables (at one point in history solar power was 10x more expensive than nuclear) and also to oil.

Thats a bad argument to support your pro-nuclear position. Other renewables are expensive when they are first developed and get cheaper over time. Nuclear has gone the other direction. Nuclear power is more expensive now than it was when it began, and is only getting more expensive.

They are status quo defending arguments designed to halt thought, paralyze action and scoff change. Just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t better.

My dollar cost argument against nuclear is not that.

The exceptionally high dollar cost of nuclear was not part of the conversation before I introduced it. It is an important consideration if we're talking about scaling out any particular solution. If one solution is more expensive than others that produces the same result that is important to consider.

This is tragic and sadly entirely predictable given the Texas laws.

A dramatic rise in pregnant women dying in Texas after abortion ban

"From 2019 to 2022, the rate of maternal mortality cases in Texas rose by 56%, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period"

If you have a pregnant loved one, get them the hell out of Texas.

"It is unambiguous clear that our message is toxic and the majority of people reject our ideology and us with it. Therefore, the most logical solution is to create an artificial narrative via manipulation and vote-buying that makes it appear that people like us." -these people probably

I like the end result that ISPs are pushing back on this, but don't mistake this for altruism on their part.

Their businesses make money selling internet service. Were they to support cutting off those accused of piracy, they would be losing paying customers. Further, the business processes and support needed for this to function would be massively expensive and complicated. They'd have to hired teams of people and write whole new software applications for maintaining databases of banned users, customer service staff to address and resolve disputes, and so much more.

Lastly, as soon as all of that process would be in place to ban users for piracy accusations, then the next requests would come in for ban criteria in a classic slippery slope:

• pornography
• discussions of drugs
• discussions of politics the party in power doesn't like
• speaking out against the state
• communication about assembling
• discussion on how to emigrate

All the machinery would be in place once the very first ban is approved.

I remember when I was growing up, tech industry has so many people that were admirable

Perhaps you were too young to understand who these people were:

• Bill Gates dominated the PC world with aggressive business tactics and vendor lock in.
• Larry Ellison bought up his competitors and jack up prices on databsae products owning the industry for more than a decade.
• Steve Jobs lied and cheated his investors, his family, and his closest friends to benefit himself.

Tom was a good guy, but possibly because he took his fortune and left tech. There were very few admirable leaders.

Are conservatives activists so concerned with information related to living under Nazism because they don't want young people to be able to recognize the steps if those steps occur to young people today?

Imagine you are disabled and only have the use of one finger.

How do you press "Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V"?

Stickykeys allows you to use your one functioning finger to press Ctrl then release it, then press C and release it, and you'll have done the equivalent of pressing both at the same time.

• Your body is now "out of warranty". When it breaks in a significant way, it may never get fully better. Don't do stupid stuff that will break it in those ways.
• If you haven't figured out yet that you can't drink, party, or skip sleep like you did earlier in life, learn it quick. Each of these will have a much larger impact on you.
• If you don't have your retirement savings on track now, you have a VERY VERY short window to correct that. Its going to be much harder now to put the money aside than it would have earlier in life, but you're in the prime earning years of your life. I would think you will earn more now in the next 10-12 years or so than you will/would have in any 10-12 years of your life.
• Hopefully you've learned by now to be comfortable with yourself in your own skin. This means not doing things/buying things to impress other people. You are who you are. This doesn't mean stop learning or improving yourself, but nobody is going to be impressed with a 40+ year old driving an amazing car. It doesn't matter how amazing the car is.
• Support younger people. You didn't get where you are on your own. You had help, advice, and your mistakes were forgiven by those older than you because of your youth. Now its your turn to do that for the younger people. You grew up seeing heroes around you. You are now the hero in a younger person's eyes. Hold that duty sacred. Be their hero in how you act.
• Embrace change! No, things aren't like they used to be. No, they shouldn't necessarily go back to those things just to make you comfortable. Its not our world anymore, it belongs to the younger generations. Understand your ways could be out-of-date or backwards. Your old ways worked for you in that old world. That old world is gone. Be part of the new. You'll have to do this two or three more times before you die if you live into your 80s or 90s.
• Stay fit. That doesn't mean body builder or supermodel. It means be moderately active so that picking something up doesn't cause a strain injury that will take you 6 months to a year to recover from. You shouldn't be out of breath walking up stairs. If you are, make changes. You're likely already seeing the difference in your peers with those that stayed fit vs those that didn't. Be part of the first group, not the second. If you are in the second group, you can change to the first by taking care of your body and eating properly.
• Make a will. You will die and there is nothing you can do to stop it. Dying without having a will makes some of your assets evaporate in probate and may mean your money/assets go to people you may not want.
• Go to the goddamn doctor for wellness checkups! You're entering the time of life where conditions found early are treatable. Don't dying/become disabled because you were too lazy or afraid to go. Yes, some of the things are going to be uncomfortable, but I can tell you its much more comfortable than debilitating pain or death.

You might look at the list above and think it negative for you now. Its not at all. This is the prize for living to this age. You likely have some friend or family that died before 40. You are here to see this part of your life. Make sure you're still here to see 50, 60, 70, with as much of your body and mind as you can.

Good luck!

The real dystopian horror is when these genetics companies start selling to insurance companies. Think about it:

"I'm sorry we aren't covering this cancer claim with our health insurance product because you are genetically predisposed to it"

We need legislation now to prevent genetic discrimination.

From the article:

As a dad, that’s very concerned about my children ....

I may disagree with it, but his kids aren't mine, so he, as the parent, he can prevent his daughters from owning that offending clothing.

...as well as everyone else’s kids in the district,

And here's where it goes off the rails. Why don't you keep your own parenting in your house instead of your neighbor's house, eh? Are you also going to decide what books other parent's kids read? How about what religious beliefs (if any) other parent's kids follow? None of that is your business. If other parents are okay with their kids dressing that way you shouldn't get a say on that.

If doctors (or pharmacists) want the choice to impose their own religion on their patients, then at minimum need need to disclose that before ever meeting a patient. Additionally it would disqualify them from accepting any patients that are subsidized with taxpayer money.

This could act like the Surgeon General's warning on a pack of cigarettes:

WARNING: this physician acts with their own religion in mind before your well being. This could be a danger to your health.