Woof, I think the better way to paraphrase what the article said is that nobody trusts private industry to properly manage and take care of nuclear equipment. I think most nuclear advocates can wrap their head around that.

Over 60% short interest last I checked and some news (It isn’t actually that good of news, but more positive than before). Add to that panic covering and you have upward movement. Their EBITDA number is complete crap and they are still losing a ton of money. They are really only staying afloat at this point by selling…

You really don’t think that there are valid concerns with outfitting freighters with nuclear reactors? This isn’t like placing a reactor on land, in a highly predictable, easily controlled and well regulated environment.

Don’t forget rust and see continual, tough to mitigate reductions in overall structural integrity.

Let’s put a nuclear reactor on a floating platform that is likely to leak, take on water, sink, catch on fire, or be hijacked. Really? Ignorance? These are valid concerns that land-based reactors don’t have to contend with.

I think you mis-spelled “valid concerns over safety, pollution, and the fact there is still nowhere to safely store nuclear waste”

To be fair, it’s a lot more complicated than that. If you wanted to sum it up into one short sentence, a more accurate one would likely be “Upfront costs and long-term operational security form large hurdles to nuclear powered ships.”

I feel that this article can be turned into an excellent slide show of at least 5-6 slides. 

I mean, given that the Iranian navy likes to hijack the occasional tanker or cargo ship, I’d say that the security issue is still a valid concern

Our Capital One travel card covered Turo with points. I guess it considers it a rental company. 

So they couldn’t put a speed limiter on tank mode to a crawl?

I’m a broken record on this, but Musk’s far right rantings will eventually crash his business model. The far right is not the target demographic for EV buyers. Especially now that the floodgates of newer, more exciting, and better choices have opened.

Some things only exist to keep the super wealthy from running out of things to buy.

It’s accurate enough for the question at hand. I’m looking at the property right now, and the historical imagery shows no vehicles outside in 2010, maybe a dozen in 2012, and a steady increase to what looks like at least forty today. If he agreed to not acquire more vehicles, there’s more than enough publicly…

Not a lawyer or anything, but I’d say that ‘upskirt’ photographs involve the placement of a camera in a position that the human eye would not naturally be in order to view something that is purposely hidden. An equivalent with property would be something like looking into windows.

Last year, I reached out to a local company who was advertising solar panel and EV charger hook-ups. My garage is the ideal location for solar panels because it receives sunlight 90% of the day and there are no large trees on my property.

I think there is an expected but not quite documented level of privacy above your property of like 500 feet, but that isn’t really that high for the resolution and zoom a lot of cameras have now.

Seriously.  Would be nice if people would stop being oblivious to the world around them and maybe notice that several cars are stopped, a man is out walking around and think “Huh.  That’s strange.  Perhaps I should SLOW DOWN and see what’s going on!”  But nope.

As someone who has spent a lot of workdays walking various roads, that was one of my first thoughts. It’s one of those very tragic deaths that was easily preventable on many levels. Roads are very dangerous on foot, always assume that drivers don’t see you. I saw plenty who would have hit me if I wasn’t paying…