Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Probably. I haven’t tried that, but I should.

The learning curve there might be too challenging if not familiar with certain concepts beforehand…

It’s not that hard to achieve a working system with Arch, so not bad as a Linux 101.

That’s right. It’s a great recommendation for learning about Linux.

For anyone who needs something that just works, there’s a lot better options.

I like this list a lot. I’m actually going to bookmark it.

From that article:

Eco reduces the qualities of what he calls “Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism” down to 14 “typical” features.

Which of those 14 typical features you see in Milei’s movement to call it fascism? Because I see none, honestly.

Edit: Grammar errors.

wasting argentinas money on himself

you mean like Cristina Fernández de Kirchner?

In case you need context (because most people commenting doesn’t seem to know anything about Argentina): Cristina Fernández de Kirchner served as Argentina’s president between 2007 and 2015. Then, she was vice president in 2019 with Alberto Fernández as president.

The other candidate Sergio Massa has been Minister of Economy since 3 August 2022.

What’s your definitiom of fascisim?

Do you think complete Dolarization of the economy and closing the central bank is not a policy? (Just to name the more relevant)

Do you think the other candidate, Sergio Massa (current minister of economy) had a real economic policy?

I’m asking for real here.

Amen.

For people who are not from Argentina, you should at least make the effort to understand the current problems argentinian society is facing.

If you don’t care to do that, why even share any opinion at all and just hate Milei.

There’s a lot of good reasons to hate the other candidates too. Even more than Milei if you ask me. The thing is, this guy does not come from the elite ruling class.

Disclaimer: I am not Argentinian, but I have family and friends over there.

Fuentes: Miami me lo confirmó.

Why the downvotes?

Saying “Nazism and Comunism are the same because National-Socialism” has the same academic rigor as saying “Liberalism, the convert name of Fascisim”.

Nothing alike.

Hold whatever opinion you want regarding any of those ideologies, but at least make the effort to base your opinion on something.

Stop being so based.

1st-world leftists are going to downvote you.

All technologies you’ve mentioned are in R&D, not ready to use as you seem to imply. Great investment is still required to implement them at-scale. What I’d agree on is that It’s in our best interest to invest heavily in them, and they are probably underfunded given their importance in the survival of humanity.

The idea that we can transition from fossil fuels to traditional renewables (solar, wind, etc) while refusing to rely on nuclear power seems wishful thinking to me. In the short and mid-term (10-20 years) we only have nuclear as a realistic alternative for clean energy. In this transition, we can develop those promising methods of energy storage and also build the necessary infrastructure they require.

Just to provide a real case scenario: Germany vs. France.

Both Germany and France want to reach zero emissions by 2050.

We know how Germany opted to phase out nuclear power already in the year 2000 and completed its ‘nuclear exit’ in April 2023. Compare that to France that since 1974 has been heavily investing in nuclear power with the goal of producing most of its energy from it (Messmer Plan (Wikipedia)).

The results for me are apparent:

Greenhouse gas emissions 2021 in Germany: 665.88 megatonnes (8.0 tonnes/capita)

Greenhouse gas emissions 2021 in France: 302.33 megatonnes (4.5 tonnes/capita)

Source: How energy systems and policies of Germany and France compare .

I’d take a real reduction in green house emissions any day before the “wish” of reducing them while refusing to make any compromise.

Without being disrespectful, I think it is a big mistake to refuse prioritize nuclear power to replace fossil fuels in the near future if the goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions.

That’s true about fossil fuels. But it seems you’re interpreting my comment as if I was defending the use of fossil fuels.

What I’m pointing out here is that the fact that hydroelectric energy production (although very clean) is not really an alternative for many countries as a substitute for fossil fuels. It is not a matter or decision lack of attention or investment. Many developed countries actually have most of their potential capacity installed, yet that accounts for very little of their electric demand. Take Germany as an example:

Germany had a hydropower installed capacity in 2016 of 11,258 MW (…). In the same year, the country generated 21.5 TWh from hydroelectric plants, representing about 3% of the country’s total electricity generation.

The hydropower capacity in Germany is considered mature and the potential already almost completely exploited, with limited room for growth. In recent years, growth in capacity has mainly come from repowering of existing plants.

Source: Hydroelectricity in Germany

Of course, there’s exceptions (% of total domestic electricity generation): Canada (59.0%), Norway (96%), Paraguay (100%) or Brazil (64.7%).

Actually, from what I can tell, hydro seem to be so convenient (it can be ramped up/down on-demand, used for storage, cheap) that most countries that can afford it tend to maximize their installed capacity to the extend their hydrography allows them to.

I don’t know about initial costs, but the main problem with wind/solar is they cannot be scaled up/down on-demand. The depend on the weather and that does not align with energy demands throught the day.

As long as we cannot store energy at-scale, we will have to rely in another source of energy we can ramp up/down depending of the energy demands (being fossil fuels or, preferibly, nuclear)

The thing with hydro is that it is limited by the hydrography of the country.

Once you’ve built all damns it was possible, that’s it. And that usually only covers a just small portion of a country’s energy needs.