skibidi

It's a rather complex topic, but the short answer isn't barbarian invasion.

The simplest correct answer is the Roman elite became less interest in preserving the Roman state and more interested in increasing their own personal wealth and influence.

Nvidia has 90% of the discrete GPU market.

Kind of important that things work there.

Linux isn't ready.

While many things will work 'out of the box', many won't. Hell, for like 3 months HDR was causing system-wide crashes on Plasma for Nvidia cards, so the devs just disabled the HDR options until there was an upstream fix.

There are still a host of resume-from-sleep issues, Wayland support is still spotty, and most importantly - not every piece of software will run.

Linux is my daily driver, I have learned to live and love the jank. My wife uses windows and does not want to be confronted with a debugging challenge 5% of the time when she turns on her computer, and I think that is fair.

These kinds of posts paper over lots of real issues and can be counterproductive. If someone jumps into the ecosystem without understanding, these kinds of posts only set them up for frustration and disappointment.

Have never listened to Rogan.

What were his claims about the vaccines, mask efficacy, and ivermectin?

You're right, it's all lies. The Dems had the best platform ever and that's why they won.

Y'all are really just allergic to actual discourse.

I get it, you don't like Trump being president. Neither do I. Personally blaming me for the party gaslighting about Biden's fitness, then running Kamala on trans erasure, 'most lethal' military, a militarized border, tax cuts, etc. etc. Is counterproductive. Large parts of her platform, and this is not an exaggeration, were literally what Trump ran on in 2016.

Did you vote for Trump's policies in 2016? Why are you insisting everyone do just that in 2024?

How has voting against worked for you? Given that you fled the country, it doesn't sound like it got the outcome you wanted.

With the data point, I'll keep voting for things I want - will let you know if that strategy works better.

It is impossible to argue against conspiratorial thinking.

Let's say Kamala had narrowly won the election, would 2028 be the right time to hold the Democrats accountable for real, useful, policy changes? Or would there be another Republican Boogeyman (maybe Ted Cruz again? Or Desantis?) that would absolutely need to be defeated before it would be proper - in your opinion - to ask these public servants to actually serve me?

According to many commenters here, and I assume many of the downvoters whenever a comment questions the utility of unconditional loyalty to the blue party, the US has been hovering just above an irreversible descent into a fascist dictatorship.

So let me ask you, which of the leaders you voted for reversed that decline? Because the 'vote blue no matter who' dogma has given over a decade of historically unpopular candidates who consistently lose to - again according to you - naked fascists.

Yes, of course, there is financing and everything else. I was getting a bit deeper:

If you have to spend 100 joules building a power plant, it better give back more than 100 joules during its lifetime - otherwise it was never worth it to build. That isn't strictly true, there are special purposes, but certainly as a grid-scale energy deployment you would need - at a bare minimum - for each plant to pay for itself in terms of energy investment.

The dollars follow from that physical reality.

The first hurdle for fusion to clear is that the reaction outputs more energy than it needs to sustained. This would be a great academic success, and not much more.

The second hurdle is that it outputs enough energy such that it exceeds the sustainment energy even after accounting for capture losses (e.g. from neutrons, turbine efficiency, etc.) and production efficiencies (lasers need more energy input than they impart to the reaction chamber, magnets need cooling, etc.).

The third hurdle is that over the lifetime of a plant, it produces enough excess energy to build itself and pay the embodied costs of all maintenance and operations work. If the reaction is technically energy positive, but you need to replace the containment vessel every 48 hours due to neutron embrittlement, then the plant better be productive enough to pay for refining all that extra steel.

The fourth hurdle is then that it produces more excess energy per unit of invested energy than any other form of power generation - at which point we'd never build solar panels again.

These final hurdles are in no way guaranteed to be cleared. Artificial fusion needs to be orders of magnitude denser than natural fusion (Stars) to make any sense.. a fusion power plant the size of Earth's moon, with the same power density as the Sun, could only power around 1 million US homes.

I encourage you to seriously engage with the topic and not just read and regurgitate platitudes from popsci articles.

Solar and wind are nothing like fusion.

Educate yourself, but first maybe pause and spend a second to think that perhaps you aren't the smartest person in the room and you shouldn't begin a discussion by speaking down to someone.

When everything hard looks easy, it is a sign you don't understand it as well as you think you do.

Just some advice for you as you grow up.