The fear seems to be that access to guns quickly leads to normalisation of guns, especially if the criminals try to keep up.

But I can imagine a middle ground where guns and training are available, but you have to get permission from a specialist who’s on the hook if it turns out the guns weren’t justified (or some such idea to stop them ending up in every action) to unlock the gun safe. Then the “domestic with a shotgun” scenario might be resolved a little more efficiently without everyone having to accept guns everywhere.

In everyday context yes, but it’s pretty common to use “colour” to refer to frequency outside the visible range, and it’s interesting to consider what interesting “colours” we are missing out on because they’re outside our visible range.

Silver/grey implies even response across the spectrum, and is the normal expectation.

If we couldn’t see yellow (red/green) then gold would presumably look silver to us, so are there silver/grey metals that would have an interesting colour if only we could see it?

You’ve just made an enemy for life!

Technically it’s nothing to do with Palestine itself, you can protest that fine.

The issue is the group Palestine action, which the gov declared a terror group because they wrecked some military planes, and we have a law forbidding the support for declared terror groups.

An overreaching dumb law applied badly as a way to overreach even further. I admit this is not much better than arresting Palestine protestors directly, it’s a pretty thin cover…

I really think we need to distinguish between terrorism in the sense of “are they going to keep blowing people up?” and “terrorism” in the sense of “are my taxes going to go up because of this?” I feel like the word is being stretched for the second example…

It’s not, the lack of wolves caused the elk to become a problem. Returning the wolves is (according to the infographic) fixing the elk problems.

So it’s more like the wolves are policing the elk, it’s the wolves “fault” that the elk are not a problem.

Our society runs on our stomachs

Tbf the kind of person who might make this mistake is exactly the kind of person who would be embarrassed discovering the true meaning. The kind who doesn’t swear but is exposed to people who do and pick up the vernacular without the origins.

I disagree, they are not talking about the online low trust sources that will indeed undergo massive changes, they’re talking about organisations with chains of trust, and they make a compelling case that they won’t be affected as much.

Not that you’re wrong either, but your points don’t really apply to their scenario. People who built their career in photography will have t more to lose, and more opportunity to be discovered, so they really don’t want to play silly games when a single proven fake would end their career for good. It’ll happen no doubt, but it’ll be rare and big news, a great embarrassment for everyone involved.

Online discourse, random photos from events, anything without that chain of trust (or where the “chain of trust” is built by people who don’t actually care), that’s where this is a game changer.

I heard that woke figures in key positions meet at their secret woke clubhouse where they discuss their woke evil plans on controlling the world and making everyone woke.

Honestly I want to start the secret society of woke, not because I expect it to get a single influential member, but because just existing will make every right wing nutter blame every single thing on the secret woke society 😄

I’m certainly not arguing nuclear is a panacea that everyone in all the governments have somehow missed (even ignoring the risks mentioned its only a potential fit for a small subset of the grid these days, there’s no way building a 100% nuclear grid would make sense today).

The point I’m making is that currently there are energy production needs we effectively can’t fulfil with renewables because the costs would be impractical (eg the last 10% of usage on dark windless nights at the wrong time of year). Some cases do fit nuclear better currently (not all, nuclear usually wants constant usage, can’t help with surges).

Nobody really cares about that though for 2 reasons: 1. There’s plenty of opportunities that renewables still can fill and 2. The cost of storage is projected to drop a lot over time, which should fill in the gaps and squeeze out many of the last opportunities for nuclear.

Quite possibly by the end the remaining slice where nuclear could fit will be so thin it can’t actually sustain an industry (and given the industry has been half dead for decades, it’d take a big win to justify reviving it), so yeah, at the moment it looks like lots of risks and questionable rewards. Nonetheless the current prices aren’t really the problem, it’s just that things are risky, and projected to get worse over time, so why invest?

Ironically it’s not that different to the fossil fuel industry, just with a lot less existing infrastructure.

If they can predict earthquakes and eruptions more accurately, as suggested in the article, then yes for all the people who don’t die.