Notices by Daniel Taylor (randomdamage@mastodon.technology), page 4

@hushroom @strypey @Wolf480pl it costs a lot to work around thousands of devoted enemies, especially when they are well funded.

Perfect safety isn't cheap, either.

If we accepted a fatality rate equal to wind power it *would* be nearly free, but we don't and that's not a bad thing.

What's bad is misrepresenting that stellar record because you have feelings.

@hushroom @strypey @Wolf480pl it has been found, and they operate every day without killing anyone.

Maybe 5k deaths from Chernobyl, a few hundred from mining without adequate precautions, and a handful from other causes.

That's a record *no* other power source can touch.

Because of power density that can't be beat.

@hushroom @strypey @Wolf480pl note: it's not perfectly safe, but nothing is.
https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/

@hushroom @strypey @Wolf480pl you need 500 3 MW wind generators to match a 1.5 GW nuclear plant, and the nuclear plant isn't 10 times as dangerous as a single wind generator.

Power density overwhelms the differences, and allows us to be extra careful on top of that.

@strypey @Wolf480pl the extraordinary claim is that nuclear power is dangerous.

Totally unsupported claim.

@strypey @Wolf480pl you are ignoring the data. Nuclear waste is not more dangerous than chemical waste, and it has an expiration date.

Nuclear isn't hazard free, but it is way safer than chemical alternatives, and even somewhat safer than wind and solar.

You're arguments depend on context-free concerns about the hazard.

@gudenau I've always been a big fan of the classic "top", but you might find what you are looking for in the various graphical system monitors.

Gkrellm is my favorite, but you might find something you prefer.

@fitheach I still say pants are overrated, but this is fairly convincing evidence to the contrary.

@Wolf480pl @pox | separated "csv"? (SQL style, yeah!)

@pox @Wolf480pl have you ever worked with well designed XML?

I've written interface code for damn near every structured date format out there, and I like XML because the working form is easy to deal with (for me).

Now, mind you, I've seen some truly awful XML, but I've also seen awful structured data in every other format.

If you can adequately describe what you want to communicate, the format doesn't really matter that much.

This also applies if you don't know what you want to communicate.

@Wolf480pl author's choice.

@Wolf480pl I consider that a reasonable alternative, neither better nor worse.

@Wolf480pl the only schema you need is the schema for the protocol itself, and the advantage there is that you can make it publicly accessible, so you don't need to share code for cross communication (see all the independent codebases for HTML5, which is XML).

Nested schema is an indicator of sloppy design.

@Wolf480pl Why no XML? It's not any better or worse than any other structured data format.

Is it just that the libraries suck?

@trawzified Using Xubuntu with mine for exactly that reason, with the proprietary drivers.

It ain't pretty, but it works.

@bbense @fool Heinlein, IIRC

@jim_easterbrook @fool The Roads Must Roll