UraniumBlazer

joined 1 year ago
[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago

Those forms of energy storage r very location dependent and also quite cost inefficient. Chemical batteries make sense almost everywhere. The only problem is shitty Lithium. Replacing it with sodium ion kinda solves all problems.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Less people die on airplanes than other modes of transport. So yeah, that's the level of safety despite Boeing's bullshit.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Woah, that sounds depressing. How did this happen though? Weren't the members not active enough throughout the years to prevent this state of affairs?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I would disagree. Take a look at airplanes for instance. Good safety policy measures and enforcement can make seemingly high risk operations incredibly safe. Take a look at French nuclear reactors for example. Good nuclear safety policies, hence no accidents.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 119 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Some poor people really really love being cucked by rich people. Uggh

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Exactly. Sure, shutting down existing plants is dumb af (looking at you, Germany). But building new plants now with the aim of having an impact on climate change just isn't the most effective decision.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 22 points 5 months ago (11 children)

Exactly. Building nuclear power plants in the 80s should've been the way humanity went. Now, advancements in batteries (Sodium ion for example) and established supply chains means that solar/wind + batteries is the way to go.

I don't agree with ur safety take on nuclear energy though. All nuclear energy accidents were the result of shitty operational management who were warned waaaay before. It's like airlines in the 60s, where safety standards were hilariously bad. Now, with extremely stringent regulations, we can solve the safety issues.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago

It's a joke my guy...

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

I see. Are there any clothing coops? I'm not really seeing even a single one of those online among the coop federation.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I don't understand. You can still vote for Calgary Coop's Board of Directors, get rebates and stuff like that, no? Same with the credit unions you mentioned, right? I don't mean to challenge your position of course- I just want to understand the problem better.

I also see that you dislike the merger between the two credit unions. Why's that bad? Won't it be better to have a larger democratic bank?

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

Awww thank u so much!!! Really excited to get there!

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Libertarian socialism (and its subsets) is the most logical political position. Capitalists are tyrants. However, a large state is definitely not the answer. A large state is slow, inefficient and almost always tyrannical.

We can achieve a classless post-scarcity society while still having a small state, with the help of worker-consumer hybrid co-operatives and free federations of these. Free association should always be important for any political system.

view more: ‹ prev next ›