Yep, my comment was written pre-coffee. Why dyou ask?

Also I saw a post recently which said that French was the most efficient language in terms of information exchange, so I shouldn’t really be making jokes about its efficiency.

It would be more like <<image pris par appareil-photo qui possède de la fonque>>

All songs should be taken literally, which is why I eat love and prayers, and have a restraining order against me for trying to drag Hozier into a church at knifepoint.

Repetition.

You’re absolutely right there. We’re hard wired to think this way and it’s a constant battle.

Knowing these helps with self-talk. You trip over a curb and start scolding yourself. Then you can say to yourself “this is just spotlight bias”, and move on with your day, avoiding the impact of negative emotions. Or, you might be more open to a change in restaurant plans because you know of the false consensus effect. There’s subtle but real power in just naming things!

Who knows if this is an improvement.

The Max Planck Institute for Physics knows and spoiler, yes. Yes it is.

Your comment doesn’t stand up. It seems you’ve got something against fusion energy for some reason.
On cost: it’s a best guess, since we don’t yet have a working fusion reactor. The error bars on the cost estimates are huge, so while it is possible fusion will be more expensive, with current data you absolutely cannot guarantee it. Add to that the decreasing costs as the technology matures, like we’ve seen in wind and especially solar over recent decades.
On nuclear physics PhDs: that’s no different to any energy generation, you need dozens of experts to build and run any installation.
On waste: where are you getting this info on the blanket? The old beryllium blanket design has been replaced with tungsten and no longer needs to be replaced. The next step is to test a lithium blanket which will actually generate nuclear fuel as the reaction processes.
This is the important fact that you have omitted, for some reason.

Nuclear fusion reactors produce no high activity, long-lived nuclear waste. The activation of components in a fusion reactor is low enough for the materials to be recycled or reused within 100 years

And that is why it’s so important this technology is developed. It’s incredibly clean and, yes, limitless.

As for your advice, there was a time not long ago when we didn’t understand how to build fission plants either, and it cost a lot of time and money to learn how. I wonder if people back then were saying we should just stick to burning coal because we know how that works.

You’re the problem. You get that, right?

Bro definitely really wants to kiss himself on the cheek

This reads like a LinkedIn comment honestly

It absolutely does, my friend. It’s called the analemma.

Caribbean? I 'ardly know Ian!

More than that, people need to learn to read men. “Yeah I’m fine, don’t worry” is often a very quiet cry for help from a gender which is traditionally taught to show only strength and permanence and to never show outward signs of “weakness”.
It’s nothing short of traumatic, the upbringing where you don’t get to cry.
TL:DR Fuck the patriarchy

I have to draw this line because it’s actually really important.
Smoking is when someone inhales smoke.
Vaping is when someone inhales vapour.
These are different in more ways than they are similar, but perhaps the most important is the difference in negative health outcomes. Smoking is about twenty times more harmful than vaping.
Vaping is a very effective path away from smoking for those with a nicotine dependency, and it’s counterproductive to attach the same stigma to both, let alone to consider them equivalent.