What I don’t get is HOW people shops on Amazon, their search engine is the shittiest I’ve seen in a long time: “you searched for AMD RX1234 video card; here is a RX1235, a RX1024, and another one from a completely different brand! People also searched for other that is maybe related to that”
I’ve got a $25 Amazon gift card sitting around that I don’t know what to do with. My mother-in-law gave it to me for Xmas, and I don’t shop on Amazon.
This situation is the only time I use Amazon. May as well burn it on something cause they already have the money
I might try to sell it to a coworker for cash.
I do not need reasons, I need ways.
Well, 8 reasons anyway. Only one I needed is Amazon is a shit company that will try to squeeze money out of you anyway they can.
I agree with the message, but these two points following each other feels a little hypocritical:
“Amazon is supporting new nuclear plants” and “Amazon has a poor climate record”
Nuclear power is the most effective way to get out of climate change. Caring about climate change and being against nuclear power at the same time is a contradictory position to take, and needlessly puritanical.
If we could only rely on renewables, that would be very nice. That is not currently the case. We should strive to have more renewable energy, while keeping in mind nuclear power is here to stay and even be expanded as we eliminate carbon emitting sources of energy.
Imagine a capital juggernaut like Amazon invested in truly renewable energy instead of just trying to be power hungry assholes trying to race Google to the AI market.
The amount of technology that they could create simply from these investments could change the course of our planet. But, no. Line must go up next quarter. Not 2 years from now.
i disagree. nuclear power is expensive to build (usually exceeding the planned costs), is not resistant to high heat in summer (as shown by french summers), and a proper way of getting rid of nuclear waste is still not developed.
One Big Chart: how does the cost of nuclear power compare to renewables?
CSIRO confirms nuclear fantasy would cost twice as much as renewables https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/
Nuclear reactor in France shut down over drought Chooz Nuclear Plant on Belgian border turned off after dry summer evaporates water needed to cool reactors
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/nuclear-reactor-in-france-shut-down-over-drought/1952943
Nobody has ever died from nuclear waste.
Nuclear waste itself is a misnomer, there is no waste it’s just uneconomical to use at a certain point, it still has a ton of energy potential.
https://newrepublic.com/article/48426/sadly-there-such-thing-nuclear-waste
If people stopped being hysterical about a technology they don’t understand we could probably develop it.
nuclear power is expensive to build
So? It pays for itself.
Horrible take.
The good thing about science is that it doesn’t care if you disagree, it just works the way it does
Building nuclear power plants is not a science problem, though, it’s an engineering problem. Just because we can harness energy by breaking up nuclear bonds does not mean that we can do so economically, given the constraints under which we have to operate power plants.
And OP never disputed the science anyways?
Also like solar wind and water power also involve science? As do coal plants? So like, really WTF are we even talking about with science functioning?
