glukoza

i'd argue its better for software to max foss license like AGPL, not bsd that can be taken out by companies

Yeah I'm not for UBI that much, and don't see anyone working towards global VAT. I was comparing that worry about AI that is gonna destroy humanity is not possible, it's just scifi.

It replaced content writers, replacing digital artists, replacing programmers. In a sense they fire unexeprieced ones because ai speeds up those with more experience.

Fair point, but AI is part of it, I mean it exists in capitalist system. This AI Singularity apocalypse is like not gonna happen in 99%, AI within capitalism will affect us badly.

Ah, AI doesn't pose as danger in that way. It's danger is in replacing jobs, people getting fired bc of ai, etc.

I don't think companies care, I said > I don’t think companies can do that actually. It is very regulated area.

What I'm arguing for in favor of nuclear power sources is that is cleanest source of energy we have from all and least deadly from all. But the reasons we can't have it on the entire world scale are in short, capitalism. Politics + oil/coal lobby.

What ? One poster in comments said they are getting power from reactor that is same model as Chernobyl one with added improvments and nothing bad happened, I don't get what you mean by "when they're in production" ?

Are you arguing that coal is safer than nuclear ?

As far as the smog goes that was before catalytic converters and improved laws to reduce smog

Then take into account modern nuclear reactors, as other commenters said. Nuclear is the way to go for safest and cleanest energy of all energy sources we have. Things that are stopping it are coal/oil lobby, nuclear scare and capitalists and politicians scared other countries might make nuclear bomb out of it.

I'd love to have a nuclear powerplant in my country, we are choking here because of coal and coal lobby just makes things worse by supporting energy sources sold as "renewable clean sources" that need batteries to work on and as a fallback, when there is less sun or wind always go back to coal.

The other ones don’t fail catastrophically like nuclear does.

take a look some excerpts:

December 1952: The Great Smog of London caused by the burning of coal, and to a lesser extent wood, killed 12,000 people within days to months due to inhalation of the smog.[18]

The Vajont Dam in Italy overflew. Filling the reservoir caused geological failure in valley wall, leading to 110 km/h landslide into the lake; water escaped in a wave over the top of dam. Valley had been incorrectly assessed as stable. Several villages were completely wiped out, with an estimated between 1,900 and 2,500 deaths.

as /u/afraid_of_zombies said:

All other energy techs are allowed to have problems and produce waste except for one.

I don't think companies can do that actually. It is very regulated area. Also I think there is a lot of nuclear scare going on. Nuclear is not at all dangerous as it most people think, it just sounds scary.

At present we have oil and coal companies that are responsible for a lot of deaths and burning the planet. Nuclear is in no way near ammount of damage coal and oil are making right now. So even with nuclear accidents(sounds scary yea) it's better than coal and oil.

here you go - you can archive.is to bypass paywalls

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

Don't know who is ignorant here. Open source is bad term to be used, coopted by big tech, end of story.