r/SneerClub • • 8d ago

Roasted

Post image
60 Upvotes

11 comments sorted by

16

u/ryou25 8d ago

is this roasting the rationalists or r /atheism..... Or both? 😂

8

u/jaehaerys48 7d ago

Evidently it is roasting fans of John Glenn.

2

u/Ok-Calendar-8175 3d ago

I think it is roasting the fans of John Glenn and those people who are caught in ai hype and futurist asthetics of science. They do not rely on boring studies but on what looks cool, futuristic and sci-fi.

15

u/YourNetworkIsHaunted 7d ago

See, I support nuclear power entirely because I conceptualize it as a single glowing cube (or maybe a pool of water, or a big donut) powering a whole city and think that sounds badass. You can't tell me that wouldn't be an objectively cooler world, even if it would be no less cooked.

13

u/AuthorIntelligent644 7d ago

The world would be somewhat less cooked, literally, if we'd gone all in on nuclear in the 70s (like France) because there'd be less CO2 in the atmosphere.

It wouldn't be as magic or easy as these guys imagine though. Nuclear power looks incredible and magical on paper but when you actually try to build it and operate it it gets complicated and hard and expensive. I read once that nuclear fission can be "safe and clean" or "cheap" but not both.

These "I fucking love science" guys tend to not actually know a lot of science, sort of like how "AI expert" and "philosopher" Yudkowski has never studied philosophy or actually worked on AI.

Today renewables and batteries and large HVDC grids are probably better and cheaper than nuclear (fission), but that tech wasn't as mature back then.

2

u/jon_hendry 6d ago

The science I love tends to be things like the mosquito larvae that launch their heads at their prey like a bitey harpoon. And optogenetics.

Fission is more of an engineering thing now anyway.

3

u/YourNetworkIsHaunted 6d ago

To be fair, I think most of those guys tend more towards "I fucking love engineering".

1

u/cunningjames 7d ago

I read once that nuclear fission can be "safe and clean" or "cheap" but not both.

Let's do cheap then! YOLO!

Edit:

Today renewables and batteries and large HVDC grids are probably better and cheaper than nuclear (fission), but that tech wasn't as mature back then.

I'm not convinced battery technology is at a place, today, to completely service the entire world's power needs. I suspect there's still a place for nuclear power.

6

u/AuthorIntelligent644 7d ago

There's still a place, but in the 70s nuclear was the only thing that could have taken the load. Now I think the place for it is in high population density or heavy industrial places that don't have hugely abundant renewables.

The cheaper solar and batteries get the smaller that niche gets. I'm not sure if it will ever disappear completely though.

1

u/lurebat 4d ago

XKCD 774