Yes, absolutely. If it takes me a year to make a high-quality table, then I shouldn't keep getting paid for the table for the rest of my life + 70 years + whatever new extension Disney comes up with.
escapesamsara
joined 1 year ago
"If you protest us stealing your home, we're going to steal your home!" said the democratic republic that officially has not recognized that it is steal homes.
When a company actually exists that utilizes your view of DLC, then it might be a valid criticism of the phrasing; but zero day one DLC released for any game has been anything but carving up a complete product into an incomplete main product and several DLCs to increase the price without increasing the price. Oblivion was the first example of this. Horse Armor was already developed.
Yes, given there is no 'empty land,' you are always destroying something if you create a windfarm on land. On the other end of this, offshore windfarms unironically create local ecosystems. If your goal is not just decarbonization, but decarbonization in order to better the health of the planet, which it should be, then offshore would be the best option.
See: Germany tearing down land wind farms in order to mine more coal. Those turbines aren't going to be repurposed, they're going to scrap yards.
Except can you really say “genociding native americans”
As a country, the US has spent more of its existence genociding native Americans than allowing women to vote, or having a standing army.
and “slavery” are a part of American culture?
The US currently has fully legalized privatized slavery. You, specifically you, can own a slave in the US right now. You can even treat them as if the constitution does not apply to them in any way. Simply buy a prisoner and get a judge to commit that prisoner to you for the length of their sentence. It's so ingrained in our culture, we've never stopped the practice.
The total cost per kWh of nuclear electricity is more expensive than common renewable sources of electricity.
Subsidize nuclear as much as renewables and the price equalizes.
The total amount of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions for nuclear is greater than the carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of common renewable sources of electricity.
This is incorrect, objectively.
which is hugely worse for nuclear? What is your point?
Objectively not. Precious metal mining is more than a thousand times worse for the environment than Uranium or Thorium mining.
Nuclear power plants require eye watering amounts of concrete.
Sure, in the 1950s. Modern nuclear reactors can be built in existing Coal plants. Most reactor types don't require any additional shielding besides what is already present.
They require continuous (and ever-increasing) extraction of fissile matter such as uranium ore (a limited resource, by the way - if we used nuclear power instead of fossil fuels we would run out pretty quickly, too, all things considered).
We have mined enough Uranium to power the entire world for the next 10,000 years; there is currently enough Uranium in just known mines for the next 1,000,000 years of current global power usage. And that's just Uranium. Thorium is a viable technology with the first reactors already online for commercial use.
Nuclear power also consumes (and irradiates) vast quantities of water.
No, it doesn't. This is just outright a lie, one I have no idea where you got. The internal loop never leaves the building, the external loop is never irradiated.
They are huge nightmares for biodiversity as they are massive projects usually flattening large swathes of land.
They have a smaller impact than solar or wind farms, by a factor of 100.
They produce waste which is not only irradiated and hazardous but also a major security risk, so it has to be safeguarded… and/or sealed into a hole in the ground where it will remain a risk for years to come.
They produce less toxic waste than Coal power plants, and all of the world's projected nuclear waste for the next 100,000 years fits into existing facilities.
The building projects themselves are astronomical in scale and require huge quantities of materials to be shipped by fleets and fleets of trucks followed by a lot of industrial work. Then in a couple of decades the site has to be decommissioned which is even more work.
This is the exact same for renewables, worse, arguably, since wind farms have to be off shore to be efficient and cargo ships are more than a thousand times worse for the environment than any form of overland transport.
We also determined in the 1960s that solar power was a pipe dream and it would never be efficient enough on a large scale to be worth investing in.
Maybe don't use an Appeal to Antiquity.
Can you define theft in any way that includes digital copying?
Close, it's really because you need to flip all those bits upside down so they can be read properly by the computers down there.
Sure, if the DLC isn't cut content from the game. That's the problem. If they have already developed the content, then it should be released with the rest of the game, for the price of the game. DLC, should it be developed at all, should be an expansion beyond the original scope of development funded by the excess profit from the game.
view more: next ›
Just a reminder; the solution to traffic is almost never more roads.