I won't aim to change your mind but I'll add that one of the reasons they're so expensive is, at least in the US, there is simply a struggle to build mega engineering projects. From project management to the blue collar skills required (nuclear isn't the only large scale engineering project with cost overruns). Things were more favorable in the 80s when plants were built somewhat regularly and the country had collective experience completing these projects.

Renewables are similar too on both the installation and design side. More experience in manufacturing, developing, and installing helps to lower costs.

Just sent my logs, thanks

Doesn't work for me at all on Ubuntu, but nice to see they're finally getting a Linux client out.

This is a pretty bad take and I feel like you must have not really played tribes very much. Comparing tribes to CS? Really? You think the popularity is because of the team sizes?

The fact that they are only implementing 16v16 seems like a warning flag to me. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up as a mediocre experience with a few tribes mechanics just largely trying to cash in on name recognition.

If you're not paying for a service, then you're the product. I never understood the expectation that people should just provide you email and storage for free, because?

Yeah I'm sure shell and co really forced the sale of 750k F-series trucks last year, right?

I would agree with this, I use Nvidia cards for professional work on Linux and I've never had a problem. Yeah there's some upfront work configuring the drivers, but I've never had it take more than an hour to setup.

YouTube already does that, though? In fact your premium sub helps creators much more than a non-premium viewer does. Of course the multiplier proposition would be new/different.

Not trying to shill for YouTube but that's one of the main reasons I have a subscription is to support creators I like.

I wouldn't say they're great; they're adequate. There's a lot of issues with the bulb firmware that still needs ironing out both with stability and feature set.

Factor 1: Not quite accurate. Yes there are categories of waste; the names change depending on the regulator. The lower level wastes are already disposed of in the US (there are already four such facilities). The politically charged problem is always the spent nuclear fuel itself.

Factor 2: Senator Reed (D-NV) was a former Senate majority leader. He extracted the defending of Yucca Mountain from the Obama administration as a concession to pass Obamacare. It's still technically viable and not disposing of waste costs enormous amounts of money. The federal government is legally obligated to take spent fuel off the hands of operators. Obviously they have not, so the government is sued (and loses). This has cost the government roughly $20b for their inaction see here..

Factor 3: You can recycle spent fuel but there's no concept as spent fuel with zero radioactivity.

Two largest problems in the US: Inability to manage waste and inability to execute on large scale construction required for nuclear.

Reprocessing already exists and it's been done for decades. I can't imagine reprocessing fuel for recycling the usable components is that compelling in the US and it would be more geared to waste reduction. 99% of spent fuel by mass could be reused or otherwise treated differently for disposal as it's radioactivity is much much smaller than the portion that has been transmuted during power production.

That's a limitation of the secondary power conversion side and is true for any power generation methodology that relies on steam generation. That said, there's alternatives to the traditional Rankine cycle that could be deployed without modifying the nuclear side of the plant.