> "Nuclear waste in canisters has never hurt anyone"
This is an interesting statement, and though true I think it's a bit disingenuous.
I'm no expert on nuclear or nuclear power, but I recently listened to a Canadaland podcast about nuclear waste [0] and did a little extra reading [1][2] on deep geological nuclear disposal. If what I heard/read is to believed, it sounds like although the international science community has agreed on the best and safest way to bury nuclear waste, this hasn't _actually_ ever been done.
It's one thing to say to a community "in theory, we all agree that if everything is done correctly this is the best solution" and another COMPLETELY to trust that 1) The task will be done right, 2) The governing body (NGO, government, etc) will be around for the full lifetime of the nuclear waste being a threat (~150+ years), and 3) Said governing body will be well-funded enough the entire time to do the job right.
I believe that the engineering solutions are sound, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the concern "often good science isn't executed very well". Until this is addressed, I'm not sure "but the science says!" is going to be a very effective response. For something as high-stakes as this, we need a more comforting guarantee.
We might compare to what happened next to the Farallon islands, off California. At least 47,500 barrels of nuclear waste, weighted with concrete, just dropped in the water. (Those that floated anyway were shot.)
The fate of the barrels was an example in my differential equations course. (tl;dr: They burst when they hit the sea floor.) Wikipedia suggests that "by 1980, most of the radiation had decayed". Excepting what hadn't, of course.
All that observed, the problem with nuke plants is absolutely not the waste. The overwhelming problem is the outrageous cost, and that they don't start displacing fossil fuels for years, if ever. A dollar sunk into a nuke plant instead of renewables is simply sunk, as far as the climate is concerned.
Oddly, my solar projects have not had 5x, 3x, or even 1.5x cost overruns, never mind multi-year unplanned delays. And, they started producing immediately.
There are some examples I can think of where nuclear waste is being stored underground:
By people: underground nuclear bomb tests
Naturally: there are some spots where nuclear fission reactions have happened on their own, leaving the waste where the fissile uranium used to be
These aren't going to be the same contents as what power plant waste looks like, of course, but they certainly provide some evidence on how safe/not safe it is
There's some real vitriol here and comments bordering on being open discriminatory attacks ("Russia is a wasteland of civilization and we should just nuke them", "stop drinking Vodka, Sergei"). I hope that folks remember that the state isn't the Russian citizenry, and even if there is a minority support for this in the country it doesn't represent the people... _especially_ when the leader is a murderous autocrat.
This is a disaster and heartbreaking for everybody on the ground, Ukrainian and otherwise. We shouldn't forget that when the USSR fell, folks had moved all over the place. Friends and families are very blended in the former Soviet Union, and there are many, many Ukranian-Russians as well. My wife was born Russian-Estonian, with a lot of Russian-Ukranian family, and it's unhelpful to have one half of your heritage bombed and the other half being called the wasteland of civilization.
Don't make the situation for everyone even worse, no one needs that.
Putin's approval rating is at 70% [0]. From [1] (referring to the invasion of Crimea):
> President Putin's approval rating among the Russian public increased by nearly 10% since the crisis began, up to 71.6%, the highest in three years, according to a poll conducted by the All-Russian Center for Public Opinion Research, released on 19 March.[346] Additionally, the same poll showed that more than 90% of Russians supported unification with the Crimean Republic
So it looks to me that most Russians supported the Crimea invasion. Why would it be different now? Why do you think a minority supports this?
I quite enjoyed the beginnings of this essay & the parts of assessing risk and mapping out problem spaces. But the essay seems to take a weird turn about halfway through ("3: The Prepared Lifesylte") where the author begins to give their opinion on how folks should best live their lives _in general_, under the guise of suggesting that it's a "Prepared Lifestyle".
For example:
- 3.3. Learn new skills --> supposedly this is to counteract the risk of your job market shifting ("develop useful and marketable secondary skills"), but the example list is pretty random and not necessarily all that economically pragmatic. So it just seems more like the author believes people should have hobbies...
- 3.4.5. Don't Hurt Yourself: Just in Case, Keep your Senses Razor Sharp --> Which basically says, don't drink or do drugs because that raises the possibility that you'll get hurt? I mean, absolutely it'll be crappy if an earthquake happens while you're high & sure if you're piss drunk you might do something dumb to harm yourself but if you really wanna talk about avoiding injuries... taking recreational drugs is probably like on the bottom of the list of things to worry about for anyone who doesn't have substance abuse problems. Feels a lot more like the author just being prescriptive about lifestyle choices.
- 3.6. Get in Shape ---> The author proceeds to dedicate 4/5 of this section to how (in their opinion) someone should change their diet to lose weight. There is then 2 sentences on how "being able to walk or bike for several hours is likely good enough to deal with all practical scenarios we talked about thus far". If that was really what mattered, one could recommend an actual exercise routine and probably spend less time lecturing folks on their theoretical obesity. Physical fitness is correlated with weight, but they're often unrelated. After all, plenty of regular (non-obese) people can't bike for hours at a time (myself included! I have terrible hip problems from a desk job, even though I can do plenty of pullups & work out regularly). If you want to be able to run long distances, you have to run. Same for biking. To focus on weight seems disingenuous.
...and so on and so forth.
I do wish that the author wouldn't couch their personal opinions on how others should live under the guise of disaster planning. But the rest of the article is fantastic & very well thought out.
To say the Nazis simply "used violence to seize power" is extremely reductive.
It's also well known that the Nazis were (at least monetarily) backed by Big Business & the wealthy capitalists at the time who were afraid of the rising popularity of Communism, as well as the threat of Soviet Russia. This included but was not limited to even American companies that happened to have offices in Germany (e.g. IBM). You can bet that money was used for anti-Semitic propaganda (which could deflect unhappiness towards the corporations to be aimed with the Jewish), and bringing this back to Free Speech, you can bet that this was allowed because of unmitigated free speech at the time.
While I understand this sentiment - especially since as you say, most (if not all) of today's accepted states and borders are the result of bloody, unfair conquest - I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset. Interestingly, I've also found that many people (I'm being a bit hand-wavy here, I know) who are completely fine with dismissing indigenous land acknowledgements have plenty to say about Tibet re: China, or Crimea re: Russia, etc. Perhaps it's all realpolitik posturing, but if it has been I certainly haven't been able to tell.
Seems to me that so long as the peoples who "lost" in history are still around and able to generate sympathy, empathy, and understanding, it lands upon us to seriously think about whether or not we should continue the status quo and carry history into the present.
> I do personally struggle with a system of objection/dismissal based on the "well, it's a dog-eats-world" mindset.
I used to be perplexed by these responses on HN as well but they make a certain kind of sense. If you have really doubled down on science and evolution and take them to their logical extreme, Darwinism really does just reduce to "if I can eat you, I win."
It occurs to me that many posters on HN are very okay with this mindset because they are chasing big dreams in life. And if a few people get hurt while they're on their way to riches, so be it.
You see this sentiment all the time in various comment threads.
Not necessarily. I've visited many different parts of the world and met many immigrants to this country. Race and affluence can compound these beliefs, but the drive to get ahead no matter the cost is very human and very universal. Being born in poverty is also not a guarantee that you will grow up to become an empathetic person either.
It's not a dismissal to give agency to the opposite side by highlighting their own inter-tribal conflicts and warrior culture.
As for the bizarre strawman tangent, I have nothing to say about Tibet or Crimea, so ... ?
Let's be more empathetic, sure, but let's remain truthful. Seemingly innocuous, feel-good statements like some of these land statements are not leading down any kind of path of reconciliation but rather stoking further resentment and conflict as you've opened the floodgates to unlimited re-litigation of all past grievances.
I'm not entirely sure why you're being downvoted because I wouldn't consider your comment here that objectionable. And in fact you're right -- you did not say anything about Crimea/Tibet; that wasn't so much directed towards you in particular but an observation I was making about a lot of others I know who have said the same thing. It was a bit hand-wavy, and perhaps I should have left it out.
Thank being said, your original comment -- which is what I replied to -- was not so much about highlighting inter-tribal conflicts as it is now that you've edited it. I just want to point out that I really do not appreciate you editing your original comment then replying to me without acknowledging that you've done so, effectively trying to re-write history. It's extremely disingenuous and not at all in the spirit of HN.
My own personal experience as a female software developer is that there is pressure from all sides to go into management, and this pressure can come from both ill and good intent.
Others have mentioned that it might be because of perceived superior communication skills (good?), or perceived lack of "good-enough" technical skills (bad?)... both of these add to the problem, but I've also experienced that diversity-aware companies tend to explicitly want females in management/leadership positions because it sends a stronger message re: caring about diversity than e.g. having a female senior software engineer (As unfortunate as it is, I think most perceive "manager/team lead" as higher up the ladder than "senior software engineer").
A specific example: I worked at a startup where D/I was a huge topic and where we spoke about it during Town Hall all the time. Complaints (mostly from females from within the company, not necessarily from the Engineering department) were always about not having females as team leads, as managers, as directors, on out executive board, etc. So every quarter, each and every competent female engineer would be encouraged to try taking a team lead or management role if there was one open. Of course, a bunch of us (myself included) had 0 interest but the prodding was there.
EDIT: Also, just in case someone is going to take this as proof that "women have it easy" at "woke" companies because the bar is lowered for going into management or something... I feel the need to explicitly state that the bar wasn't lowered. When I say "competent" I actually mean the dictionary definition of "having requisite or adequate ability or qualities". I worked with some badass female engineers, who were certainly skilled enough technically and socially to lead a team.
> there is pressure from all sides to go into management, and this pressure can come from both ill and good intent
As a guy, I keep fighting this pressure a lot too. I think it comes from organizations who don’t have enough technical challenges and they’re afraid top talent will leave out of boredom.
Said managerial challenges are often self-imposed though; I think a lot of people will know of companies with too many managers, who don't do a lot of work (that we're aware of) and spend a lot of effort looking important and busy (and rich).
Mind you, for my previous employer (consultancy) I felt like there was too little management and hierarchy; every department had a management team consisting of one or two managers and one or two sales, with other non-core-business tasks (admin) handled by the parent company. But said managers had to do everything; sales, account management, hiring, personnel management & reviews, conflict resolution, and oftentimes they came "from the trenches" so there was often an attempt to help out directly in projects as well. I think they should've spread out the roles a bit more.
Mind you, by default both sales + management there would ALWAYS earn more than the developers; what they could have done is hire junior managers that took some of the work without the exorbitant pay check.
For someone who cares about their work and cares about the impact their work and exercise-of-power has on others... How do you even possibly "lower the bar" of difficulty for being in tech management?
Sure, you can throw someone into it unprepared... but that sounds about as bewildering and miserable as when I was hired as a Senior Engineer a year after graduating from uni.
> Diversity hiring is done by filling the front of the pipeline with a diverse set of candidates (i.e. getting the interview) but hiring decisions are made independently.
I don't think people realize how important this is. I certainly didn't until I had a random meeting with the recruiting team at $OLDJOB.
It's basic statistics, when you think about it. By the definition of "under-represented group", you know that there is a much higher likelihood that the over-represented group will make up the majority of the first X resumes you receive. This means that even if you're completely unbiased and will hire based on merit (whatever that means), simply choosing the best of the first X applications will lead you to fail at diversity hiring anyway.
Companies say they want to hire the best person but this is subject to reality and part of reality is wanting to hire this person as quick as possible. So it really is paramount that the pipeline is front-loaded, or you'll be thwarted by the reality of statistical majority.
Hey, I agree with everything that is being said here but I think it might be unnecessary here to be making personal attacks such as calling somebody racist or implying white resentment because somebody is mis-informed. Especially because -- growing up in a racist society -- we all have internalized racism in some way, which we're just slowly trying to unlearn.
Just based on current events, even many dense non-Whites (myself included) have just started to realize how deep the problem goes when it goes to both conscious and unconscious bias.
We can definitely do better, and I hope the trends do indeed show that we're heading that way.
In my view a huge part of the problem is that we keep giving bad people a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve, and keep treating bad faith nonsense as arguments worthy of consideration. In my view I am not making a "personal attack" so much as calling a spade a spade.
To be clear: I believe OP is not just ignorant, but is being a bad person. OP's point was not simply that anti-black discrimination is no big deal - which would be reprehensible enough - but that the opposite is happening, to the detriment of whites. It doesn't matter if OP is parroting racist propaganda or creating it themselves: it is highly potent racist propaganda, designed to convert whites into overt racists by playing on their resentment.
OP isn't "less racist" if they sincerely believe the propaganda due to misinformation: racism is racism and OP is perpetuating it. "Just because he's repeating a racist lie does NOT mean he is a racist" is unfortunately a common line of thought in the US. But this only assuages the feelings of whites, and does not accurately describe racism in America.
Ah, I see what you mean. You're saying that intent does not excuse action, and if somebody is repeating things that are racist then they are engaging in racism, and a racist is someone who carries out the act of racism. Therefore they are a racist.
I can't disagree with that. Thanks for making the effort to explain.
----
EDIT (5 minutes later): Man, now that you put it that way I can't stop thinking about how obvious that is.
"Just because they're repeating racist things doesn't mean they're a racist" Is a pretty weak line of thought, since that's quite literally the definition of racist. It's alarming what you internalize living somewhere for long enough. Sorry ojnabieoot, I've got it now.
> Any company that has diversity hiring numbers that they are supposed to hit is discriminating based on factors outside of performance if it influences their hiring process at all.
> OP's point was not simply that anti-black discrimination is no big deal - which would be reprehensible enough - but that the opposite is happening, to the detriment of whites.
One way to do better is to recognize that the onus is by default put on minorities to explain discrimination. For example, black people in the US spend extraordinary amounts of time explaining racism to white people, an exhausting and neverending effort. It's like a DDOS.
But humans are social creatures, beholden to social norms. Doing something just because other people do it is literally how society works. There are very, very few (if any) "well-adjusted" members of society who don't do many things just because that's how other people do it (a.k.a. it's "trendy"). If you behave otherwise, you're likely be socially outcasted.
Of course, if you're saying society at large is irrational I pretty much agree... but within the context of social expectation, I'd say it's pretty rational to compute that your contribution is more likely to land once a movement has already started. If anything, those who first begin the movement are the most irrational (since the likelihood of success is much lower compared to the personal cost to the individual).
In other words: if you live in an irrational system, the only way to be rational is to behave irrationally.
Just want to say that I really appreciated this thoughtful response about tradeoffs. I had a common knee-jerk reaction to your initial post: "Well how convenient, someone who's not in an oppressed group is advising keeping out of politics, which is essentially encouraging the status quo".
It is indeed true, that when you choose to fight the status quo (which there are many valid reasons to do), it makes it much more difficult to keep constant mental peace.
This is an interesting statement, and though true I think it's a bit disingenuous.
I'm no expert on nuclear or nuclear power, but I recently listened to a Canadaland podcast about nuclear waste [0] and did a little extra reading [1][2] on deep geological nuclear disposal. If what I heard/read is to believed, it sounds like although the international science community has agreed on the best and safest way to bury nuclear waste, this hasn't _actually_ ever been done.
It's one thing to say to a community "in theory, we all agree that if everything is done correctly this is the best solution" and another COMPLETELY to trust that 1) The task will be done right, 2) The governing body (NGO, government, etc) will be around for the full lifetime of the nuclear waste being a threat (~150+ years), and 3) Said governing body will be well-funded enough the entire time to do the job right.
I believe that the engineering solutions are sound, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss the concern "often good science isn't executed very well". Until this is addressed, I'm not sure "but the science says!" is going to be a very effective response. For something as high-stakes as this, we need a more comforting guarantee.
[0] https://www.canadaland.com/nuclear-waste-ignace-ontario/ [1] https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/nuclear-waste-pile... [2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
EDIT: typo