Yup, just like that

Apologies. I’m from a country where the meaning of the period and comma is reversed compared to the US, so I did it this way out of habit.

Honestly, I think it may be possible to build entire roads with enough crushed metal elements in the asphalt/concrete and a slight low power charge throughout the entire surface would be able to keep any vehicle battery at a steady charge.

You might be underestimating how much power a car consumes while driving. For example, a Tesla model 3 has an efficiency of about 130 Wh/km in mild weather at highway speeds. Assuming that on the highway you’ll travel 100 km/h, that means you’ll use 130*100 = 13.000 Wh/h, a constant power draw of 13kW. That’s enough to power perhaps 8-12 houses on average.

A km of road could have, let’s say, 200 cars on it (4 lanes, 20m per car). That means you’d need to pump about 2.6 megawatts of power into every kilometer of road to keep them all topped up.

EDIT: fucked up math

I agree almost 100% with you on this. I did play Oblivion, but Skyrim has the more interesting world IMO which makes it a slightly better game. The strength of Bethesda games that makes them good, in my opinion, is the same every time: explore a large interesting world with your own created character. This explains (in part) why people like Morrowind so much: the world is just so weird and interesting.

The problem is they don’t know how to improve on that concept. Instead they are mostly adding features that either don’t add anything to it or actively detract from it. For example, Fallout 4 received settlement building and weapon crafting. But, the time I’m spending on my town, I’m not actually out exploring. If I can craft weapons, I care less about the cool weapons I find in dungeons. Now, Starfield got rid of most of the crafted world altogether in exchange for procedural planets that aren’t interesting to explore at all.

Aan an aside, I don’t think it even makes sense to compare the first two fallout games with the Bethesda ones. Fallout 3 and beyond are not really sequels, they’re a completely different series set in the same universe.

Ironically though, I could see how a misogynist might conflate the two.

She did in fact say that and your link doesn’t refute that.

Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:

Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever.

If you want to claim she’s lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.

Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She’s also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:

Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven’t found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?

Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn’t saying that and I didn’t say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture’s penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the “all sex is rape” slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don’t think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It’s important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the “all sex is rape” slander repeatedly over the years, and it’s been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

First, Dworkin has never said that and did not think that.

Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we’re going to be talking about feminist views of the 80’s, you’re conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.

Do you guys get DAB+ in the US?

“Theoretically” is worth very little. It is pretty much the same for every concept NPP, that once construction starts on an actual practical plant, ugly problems start coming up all over the place that were not considered or thought of in the concept stage. Corrosion is one of the biggest ones.

See also the Rickover memo.

When your audience is five years old you don’t really need to go anywhere with it.

Is it safer to stay inside without AC or go outside in shade? Isn’t the ambient air temperature still too dangerous in the shade?

Humidity is a big factor, if humidity is low then evaporative cooling (e.g. sweating) is quite effective. Even more so in a breeze.

xAI just finished up a funding round worth $6bn, he doesn’t need to use his own money. It’s the usual bunch of VC funds: Fidelity Sequoia, Kingdom Holdings (that’s a Saudi fund).

True but disingenuous. This statement is often used to mock blue origin for just going 100km straight up into space and then back down, which is very far from reaching orbit. But the flight profile of IFT-3 was so close to orbital velocity, it’s not a significant difference.

Pharmaceutical companies just aren’t interested in it.

It’s not so much about where it goes, more so the fact that it doesn’t stay in America. This is about saving the American auto industry. Whether it’s for the jobs that would be lost or the profits of the shareholders.

What if I leave the bowl of cereal for a while, extracting the flavours of the cereal into the milk? Boom, it’s broth now.

But you’re just here arguing about semantics anyway.

Well duh, this is a post about the meaning of soup. We’re all here arguing semantics. Anyway, if you can justify the meaning of “vegetable” by its culinary use in the kitchen, then we might as well shortcut this chain of thinking and use that argument directly for soup.

Clearly cereal is not a soup, going by its culinary use in the kitchen.

Same as any other social media. Reddit has a lot of twitter, Tumblr and 4chan screenshots, TikTok videos, etc. Lemmy is not much different.

It would be pretty funny if GPT starts putting licence notices under its answers because that’s what people do in its training data.