Saw a clip from a thread recently. Some guy said "If men didn't exist, who would protect you?"

A woman replied "Protect me from who?"

Almost certainly.

This is far less likely, and in fact whoever they interconnect with probably ends up paying higher rates than they do today.

They won't hold or harass you. They'll simply say "Entry denied. Your flight home is at 2:00. Have a nice day." and your expensive vacation or business trip is now ended. Congratulations on the self-own.

They don't care. It's that simple; their strategy is all about maximizing short term profits and there is no interest in "next generations" or any other kind of market growth.

This is... utterly untrue.

Reperforming the song is not going to change the end date of the copyright of the work by a single day. The copyright term was fixed when it was created (if a corporate work) or when the author dies (typically 70 years from that date) for anything for the last half century or so.

As an example: Bohemian Rhapsody was written by Freddie Mercury who died in 1991. The copyright is going to expire in 2061 and no amount of re-recording will change that.

From Pittsburg to the Lake!

Remember when the internet was the best communications tool ever devised by man instead of just another way to funnel advertising to you and a mechanism to control what you are allowed to speak about? I do, too. :(

If O'Reilly ever publishes a book on e.g. ChatGPT, this needs to be the cover.

So no citation then?

[citation needed]

The idea that new build anything is cheaper than nuclear that has been operating for three decades or more is ridiculous on its face. If I'm wrong, please, by all means, direct me to the evidence thereof.

Sorry, you were talking about prices today and "still using" nuclear. Your comment re: subsidies suggests you are talking about Hinkley Point, which is not yet generating power and no subsidies for said power generation are being paid.

Existing nuclear is probably the cheapest energy in your grid. The "good news" at least for you is that almost all of it is scheduled for decommissioning by the end of the decade, so you will be able to see just how "expensive" it was when your rates go up as a result.

You should have been replying to the other guy. Something screwed up with my quote block so it looks like the ignorant statement was written by me, but I was trying to quote him. Agreed it's a pretty dumb take, which was my point.

Darth Cheeto is not going to permit any coal plants--not because of anything related to him, but because no one has any plants to permit. Anything currently being discussed is a pencil exercise at best (and will almost certainly never come to fruition).

I work for a company that provides equipment for fossil power plants. There is a shit ton of gas coming in the next five years but no coal at all. New coal power is dead in the US.

Energy prices in the UK are high because we are still using too much gas and nuclear

You realize the vast majority of cost in nuclear is in the construction, yes? The idea that "energy costs are high because we are still using nuclear" is absurd. Decommissioning nuclear plants will increase your costs.

I wonder if there is anything that has been going on for the last half century or so that could explain why employees could be more efficient and you might have less of them for the same task, even in the face of having more customers. Some sort of revolution, maybe of the computer sort?

On second thought, nah, that wouldn't make any sense.