this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
296 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

65463 readers
4015 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s
enu
technopagan
L4s
296
Ten reasons to avoid Amazon | Ethical Consumer (www.ethicalconsumer.org)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/technology
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Building nuclear power plants is not a science problem, though, it’s an engineering problem. Just because we can harness energy by breaking up nuclear bonds does not mean that we can do so economically, given the constraints under which we have to operate power plants.

And OP never disputed the science anyways?

[–] aesthelete 6 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Also like solar wind and water power also involve science? As do coal plants? So like, really WTF are we even talking about with science "functioning"?

Edit: Seems like this is just the potato version of the "science is what's true whether or not you believe it" quote applied to policy...which actually doesn't work.

It doesn't matter whether or not nuclear plants are possible if humans don't build them. The science backing them existing is meaningless.