I also found it refreshing - particularly given the semi lobotomised LLM slop we're seeing most articles written in nowadays. It's nice to see someone's actual tone coming through even if it is peppered with profanity!
Yep, and renewables + batteries are only getting cheaper. Nuclear takes a long time to build. A new plant planned today will be obsolete before construction ends.
Nuclear fans on HN don’t get that nuclear was the answer in the 90s, but is not today.
The problems in the U.K. specifically are more about grid capacity (both long distance and local substation level) and nonsense regulations (why can’t I have pluggable battery to go with my pluggable solar) than in generation.
Yes, I saw one. You said "you're basically just regurgitating Russian propaganda verbatim". This- the idea that arguments that point out US and NATO responsibility in starting and fuelling this war are "Russian propaganda"- is itself US/ NATO propaganda.
Think about it for a second- we keep hearing that Russia is meddling with our public opinion through our social media while the fact is that our social media are owned by US companies that are deeply involved with the US government, military and intelligence; despite the fact that our countries and governments are almost entirely dependent from the US; that many of our media just copy and paste whatever the NyT or the WP write the day before. We are members of a military alliance headed by the US, ffs.
It's like the joke of the two fish asking each other "what is water?" You're swimming in it.
It's always 'Russian propaganda' and never 'US propaganda', isn't that interesting? The idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO was first formally formulated as an objective within the U.S. government in October 1994.
Already in 1993 did Russian President Boris Yeltsin argue that any expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact territory breached the "spirit" of oral assurances given during the 1990 German reunification talks.
In February 2008, during a joint press conference in Moscow, Vladimir Putin issued a direct military threat. He warned that if Ukraine joined NATO and hosted foreign military infrastructure, Russia could be forced to target its missile systems at Ukrainian territory.
And of course, your first reflex is deflecting to the US. If you check my account, I am quite critical of the US as well.
What I see in yours is basically you trying to justify that Putin just had no other option than to commit all these war crimes, kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians on both sides, and in general cause immeasurable unnecessary suffering.
There was simply no other way, these civilians had to be bombed.
You can' really blame Putin for not trying to prevent an armed conflict (Minsk 1, Minsk 2, Instanbul talks) for many, many years. Internally, he is often heavily criticized for being 'too soft' when dealing with the Collective West. In fact, it was the US, EU and NATO that finally pushed the Zelensky regime into open warfare.
Let's be honest, there are war crimes committed on both sides on a daily bases (killing of ethnic Russians by Ukrainian troops in eastern Ukraine that are waiting for the Russian army, killing of POWs), I regularly watch them on Ukrainian and Russian Telegram channels. But your claim that Russia 'commit all these war crimes' is just not a serious argument. If you think it is, please provide a list of 'all these war crimes'.
The leader of the US threatened invasion of Danish territory, as well as trade wars, and some of his allies openly support movements and parties deemed extremist in Europe. That's certainly how you would treat allies.
reply