The same shit happens in systems with more than two parties. You also have the problem to think about rallying behind the main party on the left or right side vs. one that is closer to your ideals but probably wont become part of the government coalition. In Germany, where i am from, we had 12 out of 16 years under Merkel with a “big coalition” of the conservative CDU and the social democrat SPD. All that happened was the SPD moving more and more to the right. Now we had a coalition that was supposedly progressive but collapsed hard as well as the Green party and liberal party FDP also moving strongly to the right. We now in 2024 have policies among the supposed center/center-left that used to be fringe far right by German standards. This is why voting “tactically” or for “the lesser evil” fails. It gives a false sense of what is demanded by the people.

Also for the narrative control just take the win of Biden in 2020 as a counter example. Despite Trump holding office the Dems managed to win.

Well, they would get my vote if they changed their policies and behaviour. If you vote them no matter what they dont have to fight for it. (Note i am not a US citizen but the same principles apply. I have similar dissapointment with the formerly progressive parties in my country moving to the right)

And we can also observe this empirically with the current election. The Dems were so tone deaf that they thought to compete over Reps not too happy with Trump, fielding people like Dick fucking Cheney as their advocates. Meanwhile they lost a lot of votes they expected to just have secure because they expected the voters to be blindly loyal hence irrelevant to their strategy.

I like to think of it in a “market” way. By voting there is a signal into the market, that their is a demand for a certain political direction. So “stocks” with that profile increase in value. This might be individual politicians, specific laws, parties, or general ideology/values.

Politicians want their portfolio to be attractive, so they get more votes. As a result they will adjust their portfolio of political positions accordingly.

If you vote “tactically” you send a false signal into the market. So instead of getting more politicians to represent the ideas you like, you reinforce them in the ideas you don’t like, as that had more buy signals. On the flip side if you send your sell signal, by removing a formally loyal vote from them, you can show them that their portfolio has gotten lopsided.

The difficulty is to think these things longer term. It is not just this election cycle, but 8 years, 12 years maybe even 20 years ahead. The way media and politicians like to represent elections got more and more pointed towards just this single one being the one and only. This is not just a problem in the US, but also countries without FPTP. Also the reporting got less about the specific policies and more about the how and who, turning it into a show of game of thrones, rather than a fight for the best ideas.

All you do by consistently voting the “lesser of two evils” is kicking the hangover down the road by keeping to drink more alcohol. You know every time that it will get worse and the sooner you get through the hangover, the sooner you could actually move on, but in fear of the hangover you grab the bottler another time.

With the measures you mentioned the problem is in particular that the current Democrats are not caring about them. They assume they will get the votes nonetheless and if they don’t it is fine because the Republicans will cover most of the donors interests anyways. Making noise only works, if it is followed by consequences. Leaving political violence aside, the only consequence a normal person can realize is not giving the vote if they aren’t heard.

This is a lie spread by corporate elites that want to make sure both parties align with their interests instead of having Democrats create a popular platform and win on that basis.

Did you learn nothing from hanging on to Biden until even the billionaire donors got scared by his dementia?

Voting for non evil is the way to go. By keeping to vote for the lesser evil, you get it to become more evil while keeping non evil out of power. This is how the system games you.

So if you don’t vote for the lesser evil it gets salty and joins the evil? Yeah i am not voting for that psycho manipulating abusive shit.

Or you punish the party by removing its political support, until it properly represents your interests and if it is reluctant to do so, you keep organizing for a third party until it takes over.

The claim that the people not voting Dems helped Trump has to be put equally towards everyone that kept voting them no matter what, until they alienated so many people that a candidate like Trump could win. And Trump didnt win once. Hew won twice. The Dems chose to give Trump the victory over reforming themselves to address working class issues. And with all the talk about he would be the end to Democracy they made a point of showing that donors get their way, not normal voters. So their priorities have been made clear.

You can only keep drinking so much, until the hangover comes. But the longer you delay it, the harder it will hit

I am still pissed at Trevor Noah that he paraded the corrupt criminal reactionary ex-cop Eric Adams around as some sort of great achievement for black people, after Adams won the mayor election in NYC.

Passports weren’t a general concept until the end of the 19th century. Before they were mostly to allow passage to certain areas inside one country, rather than for movement between countries. There have been Identifications for Nobels and Diplomats though.

Anyways the whole concept is mostly a concept of modern nation states not of ancient tribalism.

Did people during the concept and design phase of these anticipate them causing disasters?

Did the people who operate them adhere to best safety practices, maintenance and regulations?

Did the regulatory authorities ensure that there would be no disaster possible through enforcing said regulations, in particular regarding location specific concerns such as Tsunamis in Fukushima?

As long as you have the same human characters in the same economic structures in the same administrative structures, there is no reason to be confident, that these disasters will not happen again.

There are plenty of projects with similar risks in other fields all the time.

Then name three examples please, that have a Chernobyl level of risk.

Which is why both technologies need to be abolished asap and replaced with cheaper and sustainable renewable energies.

A reactivity accident is a situation in which such a control device that absorbs neutrons malfunctions or is accidentally removed for some reason, causing a sharp increase in the nuclear reaction, leading to an output surge and sometimes a runaway reaction. Some SMRs, however, are not confined to the existing light water reactor (LWR) concept of ‘no fuel supply during operation’, but have the concept that fuel supply during operation is possible. Since such reactors are not overloaded with fuel, there is no possibility of a reactivity accident even if there is a failure in the control devices.

Page 4. Describing exactly what i said.

n Japan, where even at 30% power with zero coolant flow, the reactor shuts DON automatically without the insertion of control rods, and heat can be removed without mechanical means by radiation and natural convection to the water-cooled cooling panels outside the reactor. Figure 2.2 shows the results of the zero-coolant test.

The US metal-fuelled fast reactor, the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II, 19 megawatts electrical (MWe)), shows similar results to the above when the coolant flow is set to zero […] Aurora (4 MWth) by Oklo, which applied for a Combined Construction and Operating License (COL) in 2020, has the same characteristics as the EBR-II.

Page 6, which refers to the graphic on page 7. So this only applies if the reactor was at around 30% or less of the design power output.

Meanwhile, the largest equipment in an NPP is the containment vessel. Containment vessels are generally much larger than reactor vessels. With a diameter of more than 10 m and a height of more than 30 m, they cannot be transported by ordinary means, such as by trucks on public roads. Although a containment vessel is important equipment for preventing the release of radioactive materials in the event of an accident, it is possible to have a design concept without a containment vessel if the NPP has other equipment that has equivalent functions or safety characteristics. The presence or absence of a containment vessel is another guideline for determining whether modularisation can be achieved.

Page 10.

Yeah great idea. This is Titanic all over again. We don’t need a last resort because we have been so smart, that all preliminary features are deemed infaillable. A story as old as humans building complex technology.

If you want a reaction that you can take energy away from the reaction, the reaction needs to create more energy than it needs to maintain itself. If you fail to take that energy away, the reaction will accelerate and your output will grow even further.

It is basic physics.

The only alternative would be to have an open system that runs on so little fuel that you need to feed it continuously. This has an entirely different level of problems, as now it will be impossible to contain the radiation to the reaction chamber and the containers of the spent fuel. Also with that you would need an entirely different design of how the radioactive material is held in place and how the reactions are controlled. The current way of adjusting how much you block with control rods probably won’t work.

It is just impossible to have an exponential system like the nuclear reactions used in a reactor without active control measures. And active measures can fail.

For starters we are talking about concepts, not actually built and tested Reactors. If you have any connection to scientific research, technology development or engineering, you should know that between hypothesis, laboratory testing, prototype development, technology upscaling, establishment of production lines and finally long term operation routines there is a lot that will not be like expected, has to be revised, adjusted, scrapped, redesigned…

The history of nuclear energy is riddled with cases of hubris leading to disasters. It is evident that so far humans were unable and unwilling to give safety the proper considerations.

But from a practical point of view anyone with some industry experience would find the idea insane, that Small and Modular systems, so high throughput of small batches would increase safety. It is much more complicated to provide Quality and Safety checks in such an environment. Especially as these would be done by multiple for profit companies, the necessary oversight would be more difficult to provide for the regulation authorities, so in the medium run we will get Boeing like situations. Just that cost cutting and mingling will lead to reactors contaminating large swaths of areas on top of potentially killing hundreds of people.

So now you explain, why we should totally listen to the claims made by for profit cost cutting companies, that are solely based on concepts, without any actual field testing.

Because that was exactly the Titanic situation. People believed it to be unsinkable and decided to cut on costs for emergency measures. Reality proved them wrong on the first and last voyage.

Can’t have a runaways reaction like the Titanic was unsinkable.

Station safety is so overboard, that we only had like three meltdowns or so, and only some hundreds of thousands of people killed by premature cancer deaths as a result of them and some million or so permanently displaced.

But surely after the next event we will have learned and then it will be totally safe. Like they said after Three Miles Island. And like they said after Chernobyl. And like they said after Fukushima.

Ah sorry, my bad. I misunderstood it as “it is not possible” rather than “you must not do so”. You are right, it is what you already said.

Accept that good actions will not give an immediate or always measurable result for you to observe.

You are a social being. What matters most is often not what increases you in status, but what increases others in wellbeing or allows you to appreciate the beauty in lifem

On your death bed you will not wish to have worked more, but probably to have spent more time with people dear to you or that you had spent more time for actions that nudge society a tiny bit more towards your values.

Capitalism especially todays consumerism is built around manipulating you to identify yourself with superficial status. Breaking free of that will open yourself to value your time and actions as meaningful as they become meaningful, even if there is no number or title attachable to it.