“Samuel Loomis … is based on deceased actor Donald Pleasence’s likeness”

Can we just not?

Yeah, the slop filter.

There are some areas in Cyberpunk with the neon and the puddles that look amazing with RT.

There are times when ray tracing has blown me away, it can makes games look fantastic. DLSS can look OK in some cases but more often it’s just uncanny valley nightmare fuel.

10/10.

Would bang.

“The keycap is also “the next step towards the ultimate expression of keyboard customisation,” and “a statement of identity,””

I read this in Jonny Ive’s voice.

I’m sorry, but once you devolved to name calling, I really stopped caring about what you said.

No, I cited sources, you did not because you can’t and now you’re taking your ball home. Pretty much every interaction with a pro-nuclear fanboy ends this way because you have no argument, just feels.

I didn’t downvote any of your posts, but I’m happy to return the favor.

We don’t have the resource extraction or manufacturing capacity for a full renewable transition yet, we are still building it. We can, and should, continue to use our current factories, but they are incapable of meeting the scope we will need as we transition.

If you’re going to make claims like this, at least back them up with some kind of trustworthy source. Globally we already have massive supply chains for storage, panels and turbines and have had for some time.

Since you have decided to debate in bad faith, It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that renewables = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.

I’m basing my opinions on data. Studies such as this one:

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus-lcoeplus/

You are not.

I’m not sure why you’re bringing up hydro so much. Yes, it’s a component in storage but so are batteries and many other forms of storage.

Furthermore, switching completely to renewables and utility-scale batteries shifts the bottleneck from building reactors to digging mines & building factories.

They already exist. A new nuclear plant, by definition, does not.

To overbuild that much infrastructure requires an astronomical amount of copper, lithium, and rare earth metals. Spinning up a single new large-scale mine from exploration to production takes 10 to 15 years due to regulatory and engineering hurdles.

Sodium ion batteries are perfect for grid storage applications with no rare earth components. Panels and wind turbines are being recycled.

It’s obvious you’ve made an emotional decision that nuclear = fucking awesome, and now you’re trying and failing to justify your stance.

How is it quicker when your solution involves a power source that takes 10-15 years to build and will likely go over budget and schedule?

That’s not how it works. Read up on storage vs base load, I just found this article but there are plenty more.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374

Even with storage, renewables are cheaper than new nuclear. The economics haven’t made any sense for years now yet these clowns persist with their proposals to make everyone pay more.

Traditionally, reactors were built as big as possible to generate as much power as possible. That’s the only way they ever made (some) economic sense. Now we’re getting smaller reactors pushed as a solution that will generate less power, and that power will be even more expensive than from a bigger nuclear plant.

This just reeks of grift.

““If our goal is to double our grid and build a low-carbon economy in less than 25 years, there is no credible plan to do that without nuclear energy and the clean, reliable baseload power it provides,” Hodgson told a news conference in Newmarket, Ont.”

This clown is either completely misinformed or on the take.

It has CEC too which you can’t get from a standard PC build.

No thanks, I’m not a creep. I can’t see how glasses equipped with cameras will ever not be skeezy.