Thanks for the clarification! In my mind, I sort of just think "metric first" so the topology induced by that metric is always just assumed, but that's because I don't ever work with non-metrizable spaces.

I just graduated and most of the people I was going to school with agreed that, regardless of if we pay these loans or not, the crisis is so bad that they'll have to forgive us all eventually anyway. So the only people even entertaining the idea of paying these things off are people with internships to ghoulish corporations or non-profits. Otherwise, we are all just acting like they simply ✨ do not exist ✨

How could we prove the Riemann Hypothesis?

I reject that framing.

I mean you can reject it all you want, it doesn't change anything about what you actually said. I believe you when you say that you are "legitimately concerned about nuclear contamination..." in waterways and that you believe they are making a wrong risk assessment. But what you have done is lumped all nuclear fission energy sources into one category and then went "well all those scientists and engineers think this thing is safe, but I'm built different and I know they're wrong." You should seriously investigate why you think this is a rational method of analysis, or from what place this superior understanding you have comes from.

... these **roulette ** machines....

Things don't just randomly happen and it is simply not materialist, in the mechanical materialist sense, to discuss these events in this way, moreover it is just not productive. You have a N = 0 sample size for this reactor, which makes this statement even more absurd. Furthermore, I shouldn't have to tell you how unrigorous or unscientific lumping in things in some general and vague way to attack them is. This is a specific reactor with a specific design, iterating on other designs. You don't need to be on the R&D team for this reactor to be able to say "well from what we have today, these reactors would need to be improved in such and such way if we want to deem them safe...". I'm not even an expert in my academic field and even I do this sort of thing when reading papers in my field.

Another absurd statement is this next one:

No nation, engineering firm, or corporation is going to book smart out Murphy's Law.

Murphy's Law states that if anything can happen it will happen. It doesn't work in the converse direction. So if it is simply not possible for this reactor to melt down then Murphy's Law doesn't magically make this happen. You don't weigh up ways in which any of the modern reactors can fail and this is the crux of why I'm frustrated about reading your post.

Essentially I want you to justify these things your saying both because I don't know how nuclear reactors work, and you seemingly want us to believe that you do, since you start off the original post trying to build your credibility. So use that to talk about this reactor from the perspective of how it is engineered or the theory surrounding this reactor and/or other designs similar to it or in the modern era. Otherwise you are using this simply as a cudgel to attack the work these people have done, and I cannot understand why you'd do this unless you think think that you simply just know better than these people, which I'm sorry to have to explain, is the criterion for what defines chauvinist thinking.

There is no need to get into a personal accusatory slander or sea lioning troll fest over this.

I have nothing against you personally. Calling out liberalism and reactionary thought is important to me, so I spend the time doing it when [I think] I see it and have the time to talk. I don't really appreciate the attempt to belittle my concern over the reactionary content of your post as "accusatory slander" or a "sea lioning troll fest" and I think that speaks more to your sense of self-importance to think that you cannot be prone to reactionary thinking. For what it's worth, I hope you'd call me out if I was being chauvinist or reactionary and I'd hope I have the perspective needed to learn from it.

So are you saying that in your opinion, all nuclear reactors, which includes this one developed by this team of researchers and engineers, are unsafe because you've seen the careless disposition of other people in the workplace(s) that you worked in? What exactly about this qualifies you to make all the other claims you're making?

But, why has no one pointed out the obvious chauvinism or overt racism in your comment? You are saying that no nuclear reactor designed thus far has been safe, and therefore this one made in China must also be unsafe, or that these scientists and engineers in China must be lying or over hyping the claims they are making. Concerning the technical limitations you are trying to gesture at, you can only come to the conclusion you are coming to if you think that there is something about China, or Chinese people, that forbids it from doing science and engineering better than wherever you come from. Concerning the only thing of substance you make a claim of knowledge for, you are saying that there is something about China or Chinese workers that forbids them from actually giving a fuck about their jobs as nuclear reactor technicians, scientists, and engineers, such that they strictly could not design safer processes or conduct themselves in an appropriately professional way better than wherever you come from.

Moreover, I don't really understand why you think other people should listen to your perspective on the matter when you have put basically 0 effort within your comment to give any real justification. Essentially you are saying "I worked with these things, so just simply trust me."

The part I've just never understood is why that is a necessary position to hold for a 'leftist' political project to be not derided as incoherent/inconsistent, given by the fact that many/a majority of leftist political projects both contain non-vegan comrades that contribute/have contributed greatly to building left politics and of which those projects have not/ are not making veganism a large priority in their political project.

Do vegans here and in other leftist places claim that the lack of their sufficient account for these two components is a factor contributing to why they have failed? Furthermore, do they believe that if current AES projects were to make veganism a priority, that this would weaken the influence of bourgeois thought and strengthen the revolutions occurring there? If so, that's fine by me for vegans to hold that position, I just don't really see then what distinguishes that from the same kinds of arguments that Ultra's and Maoist's make about past/current socialist projects and why it's just veganism that can't be derided for doing it.

The lower strata of the middle class — the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants — all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

It comes from the Manifesto, where Marx talks about how this represents the beginning of the movement towards class struggle. Still, it seems very prescient to what is happening in the west.

rest in piss bozo

CVN 71 is going to Bremerton for regularly scheduled maintenance: https://www.airpac.navy.mil/News/Article/2676116/uss-theodore-roosevelt-to-change-homeport-for-planned-maintenance-upgrades/

Not sure what CVN 72 is doing but they are in the US 3rd Fleet but their facebook page makes it seem like they're just doing a training exercise probably to prepare for certification to deploy to the 3rd Fleet (the Pacific Fleet)

Summer "this year" started for the southern Hemisphere last December 21st. So minus those 9 days from the previous year, it doesn't seem odd to say "Earth's summer", no?

Maybe a problematic take, but how could Europeans have colonized the land in Western Russia, when that land mass sits atop the European continent? Wouldn't any people and their civilizations originating from Europe also be European? I'm only asking because I've been confused by this in the past with discussions surrounding colonialism, and maybe it's just because the term has a different meaning than the webster dictionary version + some extra understanding developed from some socialist theory I've read... but I've never read anything that stated that Europeans colonized Europe, except for here usually pertaining to like the Sami people residing in the modern day states of Sweden & Finland, and now this as well, and all of it has equally has me confused.