Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[delphonso]

itisnotlogical also disappeared after being active a lot - not like naturegirl, but still I noticed their absence - probably becauss of profile pictures. I hope they're alright

How's everyone in the thread? Feeling good?

I actually have a random question - how long until you can rewatch a movie? My wife's brain apparently purges movie memories the instant she finishes - allowing her to rewatch mysteries within a few months. I, on the other hand, only rewatch something to show it to someone else - or if I really love it, maybe once a year.

[WealthyRadish]

For me, it's more about the number of times something is reread or rewatched than how soon afterward or often it can be done. After two reads or viewings of something really excellent, any subsequent revisiting usually results in me only growing increasingly critical of the work (which isn't a bad thing, but it isn't good entertainment).

[hector13]

I went through a multi-week period of having the Star Wars movies, 1-6, on the tv while I was doing something else on my computer.

I’m sure I did something similar with the Black Books sitcom, all three series.

[scriver]

I grew up slavishly rewatching movies I liked -- Highlander, Star Wars, I can't really remember any more but still.

[TD1]

Hatry Potter? For me, anyway.

[delphonso]

I went through a multi-week period of having the Star Wars movies, 1-6, on the tv while I was doing something else on my computer.

I’m sure I did something similar with the Black Books sitcom, all three series.

I remember doing this as a kid/early teen - only when I was doing something else. Quite specifically Star Wars, too. But I have only rewatched Star Wars - and actually watched it - maybe 3 times since then.

[scriver]

Hatry Potter? For me, anyway.

Oh no, not those. I never particularly liked the movies, actually.

[MaxTheFox]

Lots of people oppose nuclear power. Why? While it's not renewable, at least it doesn't fuck the environment nearly as much as fossil fuels if you don't horribly mismanage the power plants themselves.

[Maximum Spin]

Lots of people oppose nuclear power. Why? While it's not renewable, at least it doesn't fuck the environment nearly as much as fossil fuels if you don't horribly mismanage the power plants themselves.

Because they have been misinformed about the risks and believe it's scary and dangerous because of that one time the Russians fucked it up by not even trying to be safe.

The incident in Japan then compounded matters even more even though... nobody died from it. There were all these absurd claims going around like nuclear fish and a supposed cloud of SCARY RADIATION drifting over the Pacific, which were completely false. At least nobody complains about Three Mile Island even more, which was even LESS of a big deal.

(Incidentally, even if you do horribly mismanage the power plants it still fucks the environment less: with humans now excluded, Chernobyl is a thriving wildlife preserve.)

[delphonso]

I recommend the book The Power to Save The World by Gwyneth Cravens.

In my personal experience - most people recognize fossil fuels as worse than nuclear but believe we should go all wind/water/solar instead of going with nuclear in the mean time. I get it, but like...fossil fuels are really fucking bad.

Japan is also like the worst place in the world to have nuclear reactors in case things go wrong - earthquakes, permiable stone, typhoons and waterways everywhere. Not great.

[wierd]

My issue with fission reactors is not the usual tropes.

Mines is with the HUMAN factor involved.

HUMANS do not want to give nuclear the due diligence it requires to be properly safe. (which is why Fukushima Daiichi happened, and why Chernobyl happened, and partially why 3-mile island happened.)  Humans want to give the absolute minimum amount of effort for the maximal amount of return, and do not want to allocate even one iota more for safety net margin.

That is why I do not like fission.

Assuming you do it properly, it very much is the best energy generation tech we have.  The problem, is that any time you get lazy humans involved, "Doing it properly" is never how things get done.

[Maximum Spin]

HUMANS do not want to give nuclear the due diligence it requires to be properly safe. (which is why Fukushima Daiichi happened, and why Chernobyl happened, and partially why 3-mile island happened.)  Humans want to give the absolute minimum amount of effort for the maximal amount of return, and do not want to allocate even one iota more for safety net margin.

I just don't buy this argument at all. Fukushima Daiichi happened because Japan is, like delphonso just said, a horrible place where Gaia and Oceanus are both trying to kill you and nobody should live there. And yet: nobody died from the nuclear incident (while plenty of people died during the ultimately unnecessary evacuation). It was, ultimately, a giant nothingburger because humans put in the effort to be safe about it.

[wierd]

ON TOP of the "horrible location", there was documented malfeasance by the japanese nuclear regulatory commission, where they KNEW about fractures in the reactor vessel, and chose not to down the reactor for maintenance.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/meltdown-what-really-happened-fukushima/352434/

Problems with the fractured, deteriorating, poorly repaired pipes and the cooling system had been pointed out for years. In 2002, whistle-blower allegations that TEPCO had deliberately falsified safety records came to light and the company was forced to shut down all of its reactors and inspect them, including the Fukushima Daiichi Power Plant. Kei Sugaoka, a GE on-site inspector first notified Japan’s nuclear watch dog, Nuclear Industrial Safey Agency (NISA) in June of 2000. Not only did the government of Japan take more than two years to address the problem and collude on covering it up, they gave the name of the whistleblower to TEPCO.

Again, Fukushima Daiichi is a consequence of humans not doing the necessary diligence to run a reactor properly.

[MaxTheFox]

Are non-ASCII characters (like Cyrillic, Chinese, advanced math symbols, maybe even emojis) in passwords a good idea, so they're harder to crack? You'll only need to remember the alt-codes which might be easier than a "normal" strong password or even a strong "correct horse battery staple"-type password (one with numbers and stuff to thwart dictionary attacks).

[wierd]

Assuming dictionary attack-- yes.

Assuming rainbow table, or other "hash mechanism collision exploit", no. not really.  (total entropy of the password is the key factor. Using a 2-byte character instead of a single byte character at most just doubles the bit depth for the same character length string, but in practice, only certain segments of the 2-byte space is commonly used, so it does not actually double bit depth of the password, mathematically, in terms of entropy.)


To wit--  If you have 16 bytes as a 16 byte long ascii password, or as an 8 character unicode password, the exact same 16 bytes could be the password, and thus have the same hash.  The computer is unconcerned about how a human interprets that digital number it is presented. It just does a mathematical function against that number, and uses it to generate a hash.  If you can exclude some of the number space (because the top bytes of every byte pair are always within a certain restricted range), you can greatly reduce the mathematical complexity of your collision attack program, and thus the extra bits of the unicode characters do not give a full doubling of the entropy.