baraqa
baraqa.bsky.social
baraqa
@baraqa.bsky.social
19 followers 120 following 140 posts
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Wonder how the Hobbit movies would have turned out, if they were more faithful to the book as a story for children and less a "lets do Lotr 2.0.." Like having Elves dancing in the trees and celebrating in the woods, a Beorn that's actually funny, and so on.
But the books! What about the books? Honestly, so looking forward to learn more about the history of this incredible world.
I would say deportation is never good. Erasing the causes for people to flee – hunger, poverty, war, persecution, torture – would be. Deportations solve no problems, – even in case of really problematic/dangerous people, rare as they are, it just puts the same burden on people in other countries.
Not really, rather of a bigger - shared outlet, like a cooperatively owned daily paper (the example in my mind for that is the german "taz"), demand for counter-media seems to be there, if clients flee post/nyt in droves, maybe it would be good to band together & give them a point where to flee to.
Das ist (mittlerweile?) so ziemlich das Grundrezept der "Welt".

Aber all dieses "Wir brauchen unbedingt Atomkraft" kommt mir eh vor wie zwanghafte Nostalgie & Trauer um ne alternative "Vergangenheit" –bzw Zukunftsvision (evtl was Gibson "Gernsback Continuum" taufte)? Zombie-Technokratenträume.
I'd strongly prefer not to... so i suspect they work as intended.
If you want the dramatic take I didnt bring until now: just take Chernobyl, Fukushima, Saporischschja. Take the possibilities of nuclear arms proliferation (Iran, North Korea). Ignoring obvious dangers out of nostalgic techno-romanticism is neither very smart nor constructive. But enough of that.
Well, i gave a truckload of arguments why it will not be the solution or even a part of it. Its an error future generations pay for, as is climate change. Modular means you need more reactors/even spread out the risk. Renewable is also not just wind & sun, but already a mix of diff. solutions.
Except if your time is running out to stop damage that will last thousands of years.
Same thing with fusion, even if there would be breakthroughs to make it viable, you need around a decade to build the plants (nucelar is similarly slow). Mass producing solar panels/wind turbines = faster.
Despite the obvious (existential) risks, nuclear is not cost effective, its too expensive, too slowly built. It needs lots of water for cooling and is vulnerable to drought. For the residual net load in an renewable grid you can use pump storage, batteries etc. hydro, geothermal if conditions apply.
No you're right, it's "again" here too, just in a more proverbial sense. Like "When things need to go quick..." or "If you're in a hurry...".
Wenn der das am Ende nicht bewusst einkalkuliert...
Reposted by baraqa
#Sudan

Bitte teilen und, wenn möglich, spenden.
(2) But the problem here is not the numbers, that make quite clear we need to mainstream public transport, make that more flexible – but nostalgy, romanticism, a century of cars-advertising making owning them the epitome of "individual freedom". Rising of SUVs now the same, most ppl dont need that.
(1) Yeah, well, im not arguing against the existance of cars in every case, what i say is their use must be massively reduced – and where it cannot be, electric, lightweight etc. makes sense sure. But EV is no answer & think you can find a lot of solutions, if you begin to search for alternatives.
Yeah, now we're entering the technocratic nonsense-zone ‐ soecies and civilization, nothing hort of that? Cant argue with nonexistant tech, sry, time frame for climate change is too short anyway. But i think we both made clear where we stand on that issue.
A single great energy source sounds nice, sure, but also a lesson from Ukraine war... why have that? Decentrally is safer + autonomous. If you can get the same amount of energy cheaper and without the risk, why then take the risk at all? See no logical reasons, just a lof of efficient lobbying.
Ok, rephrasing "fossil": Uranium is a finite ressource, extracted at great cost and partly in dependency of dictatorial regimes (Russia), leaves high-toxic waste that cannot be stored safely (also poisons extraction areas, yellow cake doc), due to long timeframe. Nuke cannot compete with renewables.
Yes well, but im not talking about private Taxi-service, but public transport relying on smaller vehicles (possibly vans) and flexible times... which can replace individual cars/increase mobility for some rural areas, while you have no bus that goes two-thirds empty, because there not enough demand.
I disagree on several levels. Cars need an awful lot of resources, large international supply chains etc. Give every person a car and the planet is fucked. Nuclear is a fossil fuel, which is proven quite dangerous, centralized and obsolete (renewables = cheaper).
Last but not least: rebound effect.
Sure, nothing csn be generalized. Also there you could share cars with your neighbourd, do call-in taxis instead of buses if there is too little need for a regular line (which also csn be bettered) etc.
And also unfortunately, continuing western style car culture is not sustainable at all, even if electric. Examples for alternatives: Better public transport, night trains, car free inner cities, bike infrastructure, if cars are necessary - car sharing, too have more people using a single car.
Wonder if all the fired and disgruntled journalists wouldn't be better off to make their own, new thing and appeal to all those who still want to read their stories under other circumstances (that resemble those before the takeover).