Making a console exclusive on their worst selling console ever was probably not helping.

Double live is very bad and the cord becomes a literal short. If you're lucky a breaker will flip or fuse burn out. If you're not so lucky you have a cable thats either going to start a fire burning its insulation off and melting itself, or potentially exploding depending on quality and type of cable.

On the one hand, there are legitimate uses for double ended male cords. On the other, absolutely none of those legit uses invovle christmas lights

Minnesota here, our kids go back next week.

Back in mar-may it was. Then it was getting 300k users daily with 450k peak players. Now it gets under 30k daily users and ranked 45 on daily players according to steamdb

Sony did a good job of killing PC players tolerance of their bullshit with the helldiver controversy.

Sounds like by his own grading scale he is a dismal failure not worth what his title gets paid.

A minority would assure you that is not weird.

If the Russian bear thought the pig was hard to push around, hes really not gonna like it when the weasel bares it's fangs.

https://lemmy.world/comment/11278397 you can't even keep your story straight in the same comment chain.

IEA refutes the LCOE figures and gives significantly lower values. And many other experts in the field criticize LCOE as being overly simplistic in ignoring several factors, such as disregarding inflation entirely (over 80% of a NPP's LCOE), giving hilariously optimistic lifespans for renewables (30+ year turbines and solar, most are lucky to still produce power after 20 without serious upkeep) and assuming 100% load conditions throughout the year, something only Nuclear and potentially hydro can hope to achieve, every other form of energy generation having significantly less and more variable output. When you actually account for these factors, lifetime nuclear cost is not 3-4 times greater, especially when you factor in construction and decomission and disposal pricing that always gets packed in with nuclear but somehow never even considered for other types.

As for 30 year construction time? Cite your source, because the global median is 7.5 years. 5.5 years if you remove outliers such Watts Bar which was literally halted for almost a decade due to other difficulties. Most reactors are finished quicker than this. Japan meanwhile is going from breaking ground to connecting to the grid in just about 4 years. It takes a couples months to put up a turbine, but how long do you think it takes to put up 300 turbines? I live in area surrounded by wind turbines, and I'll tell you they aren't putting up 300 in under a year. The park I leave near has slightly over 200 and that took over 10 years to complete despite constant construction crews working to erect them.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/

https://radiyozh.substack.com/p/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-reactor-c2a0c6b29116

https://i.imgur.com/KvnkXe6.jpeg

The propaganda of the nuclear industry is truly incredible.

It's the anti nuclear thats astounding, the figures you're presenting are a best misleading when sourced to outright fabrications and lies.

If Nuclear was 50%-100% more expensive you might have a point.

But it's not. It's barely more than 10-20% on the most pessimistic charts over lifetime. Civilization can afford nuclear and can't afford to ignore it. And Nuclear price tag only goes down as it benefits from economy of scale, the only thing really hindering it. It doesn't take 30 years to build a reactor, it takes 5-10 depending on bureaucracy people using protest or legal measure to delay it. The time it takes to build a 1,000mW reactor is roughly the same amount of time it's going to build 1,000mW of Wind or Solar production anyways. So to get back to the point: What exactly is yours?