AwesomeLowlander

You’re missing the point, which is that we don’t normally measure reserves in centuries. We prospect as needed, and there is no reason to think that we would be unable to locate new deposits as necessary. All this and more is covered in the source you linked.

Will get back to you once I’ve had a chance to read through them, but I have no reason to think you’re mistaken.

I did not make any claim. As I said in my first comment, I have no idea what the environmental impact of uranium mining is. My point in the previous comment is merely that using an example from the 1950s is useless as we can find similar environmental disasters for any mineral we were mining in that era.

You did not show any such thing in your other link, rather the exact opposite.

By your logic about environmental impact, we should then stop ALL mining and processing activities because they caused pollution a century ago. That’s obviously not realistic, practical, nor even helpful. It should be based on the technology and environmental impact of today.

You appear to be severely misunderstanding the source. You may want to take the time to read through it again.

Also, did you think we checked each and every resource we industrialised to make sure we had a few millenia worth before we started using them? Last I heard, our known lithium resources are only sufficient for a decade or two at current rates, never mind the increasing usage.

The early and mid 20th century was the era of thousands of Superfund sites. This particular incident doesn’t seem any worse than average. We’re still dealing with the toxic aftermath of mining and processing all sorts of minerals with no regard for the environment during that time. Is uranium actually any worse than any other mineral in that sense?

Dude. Read the rest of your source.

Thus, any predictions of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost and price data, as well as current geological knowledge, are likely to prove extremely conservative

In recent years there has been persistent misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the abundance of mineral resources, with the assertion that the world is in danger of actually running out of many mineral resources. While congenial to common sense if the scale of the Earth’s crust is ignored, it lacks empirical support in the trend of practically all mineral commodity prices and published resource figures over the long term. In recent years some have promoted the view that limited supplies of natural uranium are the Achilles heel of nuclear power as the sector contemplates a larger contribution to future clean energy, notwithstanding the small amount of it required to provide very large amounts of energy.

Of course the resources of the earth are indeed finite, but three observations need to be made: first, the limits of the supply of resources are so far away that the truism has no practical meaning. Second, many of the resources concerned are either renewable or recyclable (energy minerals and zinc are the main exceptions, though the recycling potential of many materials is limited in practice by the energy and other costs involved). Third, available reserves of ‘non-renewable’ resources are constantly being renewed, mostly faster than they are used.

Literally half the page you linked discusses how we’re not going to run out of resources anytime soon.

Known reserves are sufficient for 90 years because nobody wants to bother with further prospecting when supply hugely exceeds demand.

fissile material is still a finite resource

We have reserves that will last centuries, and it can literally be extracted from seawater just like lithium if the economics allow for it. Can’t comment on the mining impact, though. Is it any worse than rare earth metals?

Why would this require a blockchain, as opposed to standard public servers run by the same parties mentioned?

Sadly, no. About 0.5% of our brain mass is microplastics.

https://pirg.org/articles/new-research-finds-plastic-in-human-brains/

Unless they’re maintaining the software themselves, there’s no such thing as perfectly loyal. In the past the revolutionaries needed to capture the armory, now they need to capture / subvert the servers / programmers.

Give it some time, it’ll get bigger I promise.

It’s not ‘now’, it’s at the time that he was first elected.

Wait, they let him live a year? Damn

Edit: No, he was alive for 3 weeks.

In the scenario you suggested, a user who has blocked a harasser should no longer be aware of continued harassment by the harasser. Thus while the mods may have to step in, there is no particular urgency required. Also, a determined harasser will just alt-account no matter what the admins do, regardless of the blocking model used.

BlueSky just passed 21 millions users.

BlueSky isn’t really comparable, since they have a user-user interaction model as compared to Reddit / Lemmy which have a community-based interaction model. In a sense every BS user is an admin for their own community.

there would be more than 4 or 5 people who would call out about misinformation.

Agreed. However, good faith users by nature tend to stick to their accounts instead of moving around (excepting the current churn b/c lemmy is new). Regardless of how many people would call out disinformation, it’s ultimately not too difficult to block them all. It can even be easily automated since downvotes are public, meaning you could do this not just to vocal users fighting disinformation but anybody who even disagrees with you in the first place. An echo chamber could literally be created that’s invisible to everyone but server admins.

Can’t we use here the same argument other people use about Lemmy being a public forum, and thus the posts being public for everyone except the blocked accounts?

We could, but again, good faith users tend not to be browsing while logged out. They have little reason to do so, while bad faith users have every reason to.

Here’s the thing. This technology is unequivocally one of the things AI would be very useful for. It can potentially do a lot of good. Yes, MBAs could screw it up like they screw anything else up in society. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be happy that we’ve created this new tech.

Don’t remember that char, can you refresh my memory (I am fully aware of the irony given the topic under discussion)

From wikipedia:

In principle there is very little difference between a low-performance ICBM and a high-performance IRBM, because decreasing payload mass can increase the range over the ICBM threshold.

Sounds like different militaries just classifying things differently

You’re conflating pedophilia with MAP, which is the very thing they’re trying to combat.

The difference between MAD and MAP would be if you’re referring to the person or the condition, obviously. And I’m sure you can see why nobody wants to be referred to as a MAD person.

I disagree with you to some extent.

1. Moderation does not matter if the post is made on a comm or instance which favors it cough .ml cough
2. Bots and brigading are not the issue here. Neither of them were a factor in the post I linked, and they are not a necessary part of the abuse process under discussion.
3. Yepowertrippinbastards works on a small scale, but it is not inherently scalable. As the fediverse grows, it will become less practical to name and shame bad actors on an individual basis. It also does not matter when the abuse system (preliminary blocklist) can be implemented by any new account.
4. The very nature of the abuse system being described means that anybody who would report it on YPTB or similar comms can only do so once before themselves being blocked and unable to view future posts of that sort.

We should try to keep in mind that the fediverse and lemmy will likely grow to larger scales. Any systems and safety measures we implement should take that into account. The block mechanism as you suggest is extremely ripe for abuse at large scale, and relying on mods / admins to combat it will place an unnecessary extra load upon them, if it is even possible.