With initial cost of deployment being the biggest obstacle to nuclear, I’m not sure it will ever be the best green option for developing countries.
This is doubly true since it’s lifetime cost-per-kwh is much higher than that of solar.
One thing of note with the Steam Deck is that it CAN stream games from your PC, allowing you access to your whole library. You get access to fewer games in SteamOS (there’s still a ton). You can always look up what games are natively compatible with Steam Deck before you buy. The big ticket games are usually compatible nowadays (Starfield was markedly absent, but BG3 is there all-the-way).
Are you referring to Presh Talwalkar or someone else? How about his reference for historical use, Elizabeth Brown Davis? He also references a Slate article by Tara Haelle. I’ve heard Presh respond to people in the past over questions like this, and I’d love to hear his take on such a debunking. I have a lot of respect for him.
Your “debunk” link seems to debunk a clear rule-change in 1917. I wouldn’t disagree with that. I’ve never heard the variant where there was a clear change in 1917. Instead, it seems there was historical vagueness until the rules we now accept were slowly consolidated. Which actually makes sense.
The Distributive Law obviously applies, but I’m seeing references that would still assert that (6÷2) could at one time have been the portion multiplied with the (3).
And again, from logic I come from a place of avoiding ambiguity. When there is a controversiallly ambiguous form and an undeniablely unambiguous form, the undeniably unambiguous form is preferable.
What I don’t get is how most places, people get mad at us for not being able to read an article due to the paywall. I mean, I’m not going to subscribe to 50 shitty news sites just so I can read someone’s damn random shit.
There has apparently been historical disagreement over whether 6÷2(3) is equivalent to 6÷2x3
As a logician instead of a mathemetician, the answer is “they’re both wrong because they have proven themselves ambiguous”. Of course, my answer would be RPN to be a jerk or just have more parens to be a programmer
While retaining socialism as a long-term goal, social democracy is distinguished from some modern forms of democratic socialism for seeking to humanize capitalism and create the conditions for it to lead to greater democratic, egalitarian, and solidaristic outcomes… It has been described as the most common form of Western or modern socialism,[6] as well as the reformist wing of democratic socialism. ( ref )
Social democracy is, by definition, geared towards socialism while still acting within capitalism to better society by pushing for direct action against inequality. The way a lot of socdems see it, the difference between them and demsocs is that demsocs tend to be neutral (or even negative) on steps that better overall quality-of-life that involve working within the capital system. For example, a socdem would embrace public option, or growing medicare as a good thing in the US because it’s better than what we have. A demsoc **might ** not because it is not actually taking a concrete step towards nationalizing healthcare.
Categorizing is hard because different people think different things of different terms, but it is unfair to categorically call socdems “liberal” in the “free enterprise” sense.
The political definition of liberal generally involves free enterprise. Social Democrats are generally trying to phase out free enterprise towards higher regulation and public good. Social Democrats seek to move society towards socialism nonviolently. That is not really a “liberal” thing by the version of that term generally used by Marxists.
Most of the time, tankies tell me that I’m automatically a Liberal (the bad version of the word) if I’m a Social Democrat.
Solar is so much cheaper than Nuclear and the efficiency sway is so reasonable, it’s still the better option in non-ideal circumstances.