Only if it wasn’t on target and was then deflected into the net.

I’d vote for you.

Sadly there’s no guarantee that whoever would replace him would be better.

Kinda funny that you label the comment you replied to as opinion and then proceeded to dress your own (shitty) opinion up as fact.

I wonder if this has any impact on another piece of the puzzle, high voltage direct current (HVDC) which we need to transport electricity over large distances with minimal loss.

Nuclear is a terrible fit for peaker plants, that’s not how it works. If it isn’t selling energy at as close to 100% of the time as is feasible it’s losing money.

baseline

Base load. Here’s an argument that we don’t need it: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-power/

“Are you gonna bark all day, little doggy, or are you gonna bite?” - Mr. Blonde.

I’m not sure how much is a psyop and how much is people who thought (with some merit) that nuclear was a good idea 30 years ago and haven’t updated their thinking now renewables and storage have nuclear beat on price and speed of construction.

Thank you. The pro-nuclear bullshit from Reddit seems to be spilling over.

If everybody who is critical of the Israeli government is called an anti-semite the term loses its meaning and gets diluted. It’s such a dumb tactic.

You’re not thinking clearly. Intent is irrelevant, it can’t be known in this example. Got it?

Just in case, here it is again. Intent is irrelevant.

The best you could come up with was one perpetrated at one of the most lawless and violent prisons in the country, one that is not fit for purpose but hey, you think you won an argument so you enjoy that.

Oh boy. No, I don’t think they are the “same thing” I’m saying you can’t infer motivation just by observing therefore the motivation isn’t relevant. Try and keep up, or don’t.

I missed the first one, that’s problematic as an example, did you read what you linked to? The Guardian one is false.

The Riker’s one does seem to support your assertion but it’s mixed in with a whole bunch of other assaults because it’s Riker’s.

Your second example is false. Your first points to a systemic problem with Riker’s as evidenced here: https://www.bronxda.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/pr/2021/39-2021 rikers-island-violence-indictments.pdf

“Since Grand Juries re-convened in late February/March of 2021, the Rikers Island Prosecution Bureau has indicted 37 cases involving assaults on staff as well as assaults by detainees on detainees. The majority of the cases were brought to the bureau by Department of Correction’s Correction Intelligence Bureau as investigations. There are currently approximately 268 open investigations.”

Looks like you found one example in amongst a whole bunch of other assaults which were not committed by trans people.

Can you cite an example of this ever happening?

It may benefit you to pay attention to what I’m saying. Could you tell the difference?

OK. So my point stands, you’re being a little pedantic here.

While we are just observers, we do not know actually has been said at that right moment

Empiricism: the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience.

The argument seems to be that we cannot make any determination on this unless we have first hand knowledge and have experienced the event directly ourselves.