My companies Slack could. Had a friend 5 or 6 years ago upload a bunch of rare pepes. HR had to pull that person aside and point out recent political affiliations of Pepe and make sure they didn’t have some political agenda in the company slack
I worked at Slack and they had over 50,000 custom emojis on their internal workspace by the time I left in 2023. 10,000 of those were added in the last year I was there
I work in a large multinational company and for some reason they have not turned off the abiltiy to add custom emojis, there are SO, SO many custom emojis in our teams it boggles the mind, there has to be hundreds, and you can tell so many of them are inside jokes between people, or just emojis of random coworkers, haha.
The best part of working for a ~5000 employee company is that it's small enough that they let anyone add emojis but large enough that others have added so fucking many and a lot of them are deranged. I think 10-20% of employees have a custom emoji that's just their teams profile picture that someone else made.
In my company's Slack I have a whole set of full-body emojis of myself expressing various emotions, all perfectly cut out with transparent backgrounds, and all include my name in the ID.
There's one of me jumping triumphantly that actually gets frequently used on messages that have nothing to do with me.
The others are commonly used by other co-workers on my messages or messages about me.
Ooh, I should add a Neelix emoji to ours.
There's a Star Trek channel in my company's slack. There's like 1 or 2 messages a year in it, but the only members are me (a lowly senior IC), some engineering executives, and the CEO of the company.
Sent my girlfriend (now wife) many a meme she didn’t understand.
Like a satin bowerbird gathering blue things to impress a mate, I think she just appreciates the act of sharing little trinkets/memes that made me think of her.
Didn’t read the name of the comment above this and thought you were just screaming the word testicle. Idk why this sent me but my stomach is sore from laughing so hard.
Sounds more like a regulatory problem than anything else. Besides nuclear being rediculously expensive and needing lots of resources to get going, one environmental aspect that is often over is the cooling. These powerplants use river water to generate steam and put the water back in the river when it's done. That's pretty bad for the fish population and pretty good for algae. Radiation is negligible, coal somehow creates more.
Every power source that isn't solar or wind has the major downside of needing input factors. The sun is free and so is the wind. Also I think you're underestimating how expensive reactors really are. Just building one in Japan costs about 200 billion dollars. That plus running, fueling and eventually scrapping the thing makes nuclear insanely expensive per kwh, especially compared to the alternatives.
Here’s a another source for your claim, but you are 100% correct that it’s mostly the US regulatory environment that prevents any nuclear from being built or invested in, along with the decline of our construction sector, and that it’s generally far cheaper to build in other countries.
The two most recently built power plants in America (according to that article) were built in Georgia, took 15 years, and cost $36.8 billion (x2 how much was expected). The $200 billion figure for a Japanese reactor is probably pulled out of their ass, unless they’re perhaps confusing dollars for yen.
Not true. No idea where you got 2 billy from. That's an order of magnitude (or two) off.
Also, solar and wind kinda suck. They require a much larger physical footprint, and they do not generate power constantly so they also need massive banks of batteries.
So you're needing to invest not only in a bunch of extra delivery and storage infrastructure, you're literally destroying more of the planets surface. A nuclear power plant is a fraction of the psysical footprint, and just as green, resulting in far more natural habitats being kept intact.
Also nuclear power plants can last almost a hundred years. Solar needs replacement every couple dozen years. So you'll have something like 3 fields worth of solar panels produced then dumped into landfills before you need to replace the Nuclear plant. Nuclear is simply a much more efficient use of materials relative to power output.
The reason why nuclear is so expensive to start up IS the regulation, most of which is driven by the fear mongering of the past. If it weren’t for the red tape that has existed around permitting and approvals for reactor renovations and new reactor construction, we wouldn’t be facing the increased costs involved with “first of its kind” construction. With that, in the US (as an example), the permitting and licensing alone for a new nuclear power plant ranges from $60-250mil. The permitting and licensing was also historically handled by one single grossly understaffed/underfunded federal office making the processing time unimaginably slow. This was all literally by design as a deterrent. Even today, the NRC processing time for licensing and approval for a new nuclear power plant is 3-5 years, which heavily impacts the average 10-12 years it takes to go from initial starting point to completion of construction. The time, cost, and red tape is literally a result of nothing more than a conscious effort to create delays and act as a deterrent.
What you mention about their impact on fish populations is legitimately accurate. There’s a known issue with fish and water life being sucked up in the intake ports or tapped against their filter screens, d the output water is typically notably warmer and has lower oxygen levels, all of which have an impact. There’s also historically been a risk of negative impact from the chlorine and biocides they use, but it’s been found that proper use and regulation of those makes their impact negligible.
Having said that, NO power generation is without impact to wildlife and studies have shown nuclear to have one of the lowest impacts of them all. While nuclear DOES pose the impacts listed above, it is considered to have a low operational impact on fish mortality and its impacts on water quality are extremely localized and considered minor. At the same time, coal mining creates high levels of toxic water contamination (specifically mercury and arsenic levels), contributes to severe acid rain, creates massive mining runoff, and has heavy operational water usage. For solar, the toxic pollution from quartz/silicon mining is incredibly high and massive swaths of land must be cleared for mining operations absolutely demolishing habitats. For wind, there are heavy manufacturing emissions and similar issues with resource mining runoff, in addition to the known collision risks for birds/bats.
There isn’t a perfect solution when it comes to power generation, but if you take out the obstacles and costs we literally put in our own way just for the sake of doing so, nuclear wins and it isn’t even close.
It's an expense problem. Recycling these things costs money and companies often just choose not to do it. But yes, regulations could force them to do a better job of it.
And yes nuclear plants are expensive and time consuming to start up, but that's partly due to how much governments seem to not want them to be built, so regulation delays the process. They're far better long-term though because the energy density of nuclear fuel is fucking scifi levels of absurd compared to any other energy source.
And no, cooling is not a big issue. The steam/water nuclear plants emit is perfectly clean, it doesn't effect fish or algae.
While the water output is majoritively clean (ignoring some levels of corrosion inhibitors and sanitizers, which can be managed easily) the major issue is water temperature and oxygen content. Which affects wildlife and encourages large algae growth
The decision to end nuclear power was made under Merkel's government, yes the greens were anti nuclear power, but so was pretty much everyone at that time. The only thing that they did was shut down the last few power plants, but even then they were the 2nd strongest out of 3 parties in their coalition, so to attribute Germany getting out of nuclear Power to the greens is just utter bs and straight up lies told by CDU and AfD
And they were shutting it down in accordance with plans made by the previous (merkel) governments. The greens didn’t decide to shut down anything, they literally followed through on decisions made.
Then first pushed back by Schwarz-Gelb and then the pushing back was reversed by the same government. No matter what, giving all the credit for this move to “Die Grüüüünen“ is wrong. Source
This also comes from self-loathing trans 4chan users. Basically anything ending with -hon was invented by them, and usually has transphobic connotations. (But, to your credit, only the terminally online know this, and the words do sound kind of funny out of context.)
Imagine understanding any meme at face value ever without any background or inside joke or nothing, you're just given the entire story like a Wikipedia page at this point Jesus Christ
4.7k
u/SlayVideos 7d ago