The point wasn’t to denigrate solar, but to demonstrate the fallacious beliefs you’re operating under.

Yes, the plant owner will want to maximize the profit of their investments and get as quick a return as possible.

If gas/coal was held to the same exact safety, environmental and waste disposal standards as nuclear, and they should, then those would also need to be run at max throttle to justify the initial expense and have significantly shorter lifespans. It’s a “plant trees under whose shade you do not expect to sit” type issue.

Nothing you have said is an argument against a solar in the day + nuclear at night type of setup. It would certainly be a huge improvement over building out more CO2 based generators.

In the power grid of today (and even more so in the future), that’s fairly slow.

Not really. Reciprocating gas engines are specifically designed for balancing loads with renewables and have maneuvering capabilities in the 25-100% range with the state of the art at ~25%/minute slope.

Startup time is 15min-1hr for gas, 30min-2hr for nuclear.

You’re correct that gas is better on all these metrics, but it’s far more comparable than you’re making it out to be.

Also needs to be mentioned that these are very oversimplified metrics and things look better for nuclear the deeper in the weeds you go imo.

it needs to be able to drop to 0%.

That’s not how any kind of turbine works.

shutting it down means it’s just a hunk of a building costing money.

The same could be said of solar. ‘It’s a very expensive capitol investment and as soon as the sun goes down it’s just a stupidly expensive roof costing money’.

Nuclear can’t quickly scale up and down

It can though. Modern nuclear plants with light water reactors are designed to have maneuvering capabilities in the 30-100% range with 5%/minute slope.

Historically, they were built as baseload plants without load following capability in order to keep the design simple which led to many anti-nuclear activists claiming this. It’s just not true though.

even if it could it’d make nuclear even less economically viable

Why?

It’s why currently gas plants are used as backup: they’re cheap

No. They’re not. The costs are just externalized and safety is, comparitively, neglected.

ICE NOW HAS A BUDGET LARGER THAN THE MARINES, IS COMPLETELY EXEMPT FROM ANY LEGAL ACTION BECAUSE TRUMP HAS THROWN OUT THE CONSTITUTION, RAMPIDLY BUILT CONCENTRATION CAMPS AT A RECORD PASTETHAT ARE MORE RESTRICTED TO THE PUBLIC THAN EVER, AND NOW ARE MASS ARRESTING LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND CITIZENS ALIKE.

The same can be said between Trump’s first term and Biden’ presidency. The level of funding and militancy isn’t a function of R vs D, but a function of time as they because increasingly less cost effective and require increasing force to attempt to maintain/increase the level of eliminations.

All while the rule of law has been entirely abandoned.

You’re delusional if you believe in the “rule of law”, that’s never been how the justice system has worked in the US.

It was bad for immigrants before, it’s actual Hell for everyone now.

Sorry you can no longer sleep through brunch and now have to face the realities that immigrants and others have been facing for decades.

Not to mention it’s gotten so much worse that you can actually observe it on national economic data.

… What? Can you clarify what you mean by this and what data? This feels like Facebook level finger pointing and not based on any actual data or proper analysis, but I’m happy to be proven wrong there.

I think any marginalized community would prefer having the wiggle room of being able to exist and organize under hollow virtue signals than ACTIVE AND RAPIDLY EXPANDING GENOCIDE.

Your “group” being spared genocide as a tool to influct genocide on others is not the “easy moral dilemma” you make it out to be.

REPUBLICANS BANNED ABORTION

The bipartisan nominated supreme court banned abortion during a democratic party trifecta.

Blaming the Republicans primarily for that is as asinine as blaming the Democrats primarily for the current government shutdown.

Dems, believe it or not, fucking didn’t.

No? So they’re just completely powerless and their votes were forced even though they really, really didn’t want to?

The only people you are helping by spreading this “both sides” BULLSHIT is the fascists.

The difference is who we say are fascists. Yes, the Republicans are fascist, but so are the Democrats.

Take Trump’s tiny cock out of your mouth and smell the shit around you.

If there’s one thing we can agree on it’s that the elephant in the room is absolutely covered in shit. However, I’m busy trying to take the fucking animals outside and am currently begging for you to please, please stop sucking donkey cock, realize the problems, and help.

The difference is method, not end result.

The main purposes of DACA was to get immigrants to “come out of the shadows” and have individuals self-report and turn themselves in, in exchange for temporary benifits to, primarily, their children. As stated at the time:

“Deferred action is not a pathway to citizenship. It is not legal status. It simply says that for three years, you are not a law enforcement priority and are not going to go after you, It is temporary and it is revocable.”

It was part of a series of incredibly smart, effective and efficient moves which resulted in record high deportations without needing a bunch of jackbooted thugs cracking skulls in the street.

For a while. Now we’re in the “jackbooted thugs” phase which is less efficient, but plays better with the base it’s trying to appease. It’s less efficient and less people are getting deported overall, which is good. But the majority of those are switching from self-deportations to direct expulsions which are getting increasingly violent, a process that started back in 2021.

I submit that the Democrats are at least 1% better than the Republicans, and that this proves the meme is fake news.

You can’t just state something as fact and not show your work. You are making a claim it’s up to you to support it. You can’t just go around saying “I’m right unless you prove the negative”.

You have not placed any goalposts to begin with, what is your definition of “better”? By what metric are you using? What do you mean by “under the Democrats”?

How about we define “better” as “death rate per capita within immigration detention centers”? And “under the Democrats/Republicans” as “who holds the executive branch”? We should see an increase during the Bush years, when ICE was first created, a decrease during the Obama years, followed by an increase during Trump’s first term, decrease during Biden, and increase under Trump’s second term right?

Is that what happened?

If you don’t like my attempt at making your claim falsifiable, which I suspect you won’t; especially when you see the results, feel free to redefine your lose language into something else rigid and falsifiable. Set those goalposts.

wanna go ahead and go to any neighborhood that’s been raided by ICE and tell them how the Dems are exactly just as bad as the GOP?

Those neighborhoors will tell you that ICE had been around since 2002 and while happy you’re finally getting with the program, despite the current administration’s best attempts, 2012 was the worst year so far right after the democrats had their governmental trifecta and with the dreamers bait and switch.

So yes, while different flavors, they have been equally bad.

go tell a bunch of drag queens and trans people.

Republicans despise them, Democrats love to use them. That isn’t necessarily better.

go find some under aged girls who’ve been impregnated by adult men and tell them the Dems are just as bad as the GOP.

Fucking yes, the big Epstein reveal is that it’s all of them. The Trumps and the Clinton’s.

it’s all frantic backpedaling.

Kettle

I think the study you’re citing makes a methodological mistake by applying an issues based measurement framework in a representative democracy

I don’t necessarily disagree. It’s definitely not a holistic view, but I haven’t found much else that even asks that question much less has any real methodology behind it. Have you?

What would be the correct methodology in your opinion?

I have no intention of elaborating

You’re not communicating anything other than the vaguest of concern trolling. You clearly have thoughts and opinions, this is a place to share those.

You can’t both be upset when you are misunderstand and refuse to communicate.

Quit backpedaling and say it with your chest.

Anyway next time post the version of the study that actually passed peer review and got published, not a draft.

You do know how to use sci-hub right? You have the title, or if you’re morally opposed to that option a quick Google and you can pay $30 here for it.

However, before you gish-gallop into concern trolling the source I linked why don’t you provide one, or multiple, of your own that supports the concerns you have surrounding “nuance”.

The correct approach is to ask “how much can voting accomplish”, and with that question we can actually arrive at an answer with some nuance

I’m with you here, you’re “just asking questions” and I provided context on my understanding of the answers to those questions.

But the binary question Dessalines asks can afford no nuance, and is obviously not supported by theory or anything else.

A “theory” is a reductionist model that is falsifiable, by claiming that the level of nuance you suggest proves Dessalines understanding is “not supported by theory” you explicitly state that nuance as an empirical contradiction of the theory.

Either: A. You have some measure or metric which wasn’t clearly communicated showing how that nuance falsifies the theory. ^Which was my initial understanding and was hoping to clear up the miscommunication there.^

B. You’re doing a tiresome argument from ignorance thing and simply muddying the waters because the “theory” conflicts with your pre-formulated understanding of reality and you haven’t put in any effort to actually validate your own understandings.

You claim, rather rudely I might add, that “Even if Dessalines read theory, he didn’t understand much of it.” Don’t do the glib, spineless, two-faced “I didn’t make any claims yet”.

Prove it pot, say it with your chest.

I think the fundamental issue is that “works” doesn’t have a good measurable metric and so when discussing it tends to fall into that false binary that you correctly identified.

The best I’ve seen that attempts to work around this problem was this paper from back in 2014¹. Unfortunately their results showed that while you’re correct that causitive impact is not zero that <5% correlation, especially for a field with as high a signal/noise ratio as political science, is an incredibly disheartening answer for “how much can voting accomplish?”

So while you are likely correct that it’s not nothing, it does suggest reality is much closer to the meme than your attempt at “nuance”.

If you have any sources that cite measurable and non-anecdotal impact that tell a different story I’d love to read them.

^1 linking the preprint because it’s not paywalled^

Yes. However the frequency it blocks is ~2.45GHz which is the same frequency as WiFi, Bluetooth, etc. and used to be the only other antenna other than the cellular antenna, where the frequency ranges from 600MHz-2.5GHz.

This used to be good practice because you would first remove the sim card disabling the LTE communication, unless the hardware was compromised, and then place it in the microwave to disable all other signals.

With the introduction and proliferation of eSIM on both devices and carrier sides, removing the SIM card no longer provides much protection and the additional of many other communication methods, most notably 5GHz 802.11x, the microwave trick doesn’t really do anything either.

But it used to work.