How many cultures on the planet would not find "a photorealistic depiction of a specific teenager getting gangbanged" to be embarassing to said teenager?
YouTube is very frustrating because it might be the greatest store of human information but has no decent search function. I would pay $20 a month for the best search functionality Google could create, with the transcript of every video fully indexed in BM25 and vector indexes and the videos in a vector index. So you could search for "All videos of pewdiepie wearing a blue shirt talking about bitcoin"
I subscribe to YouTube Premium Family (and yes, they raised my monthly rate too.)
YT's search functions are nerfed very deliberately. YouTube's main purpose is to shove content at the user that we don't want. Ads or no ads, we're supposed to consume unwanted content at a far higher volume than the stuff we actually sought out.
This is the same no matter what the platform or the medium. It's long been a paradigm for scheduling television shows, that the viewers are too lazy to switch channels away from that great show they loved, and so they can "tailgate" a really awful show after a highly-rated one. Radio stations aren't playing what the listeners want to hear, they're shoving sounds into our ears as dictated by the labels and the media companies, and so forth.
YouTube (and YouTube Music, especially with its extremely sticky "AutoPlay" switch) are shoveling suggestions at us, and counting on our laziness, to just mindlessly click the first thing that comes under our mouse.
I'm obviously all-in on YT and Music as media players, and I use their Playlist features extensively, but it is completely impossible to organize Playlists in a way that will help me find content again! It is completely impossible for me to create a nice, uniform set of Playlists across the months and years. I often create time-and-date sensitive playlists, i.e. I want to find it again in mid-April next year, but that all basically falls by the wayside. I often impulsively create a Playlist based on some theme I envision in the moment, abandon it, and I never find it again. YouTube and Music count on that behavior and they will never show us our own Playlists in suggested stuff, or in searches unless we deliberately hammer on it. YouTube wants us to find "Community Playlists" and stuff that you don't want, but is otherwise hyped or algorithm'd to appear in front of our eyeballs.
The solution mix needs to be tailored the location.
Non-tropical equatorial countries don't have meaningful seasonality, so they don't need seasonal storage.
For countries far north of the equator, it's more challenging, but there are multiple tools to address this, including: over-building so you have enough in winter, using wind which is seasonally negatively correlated with solar, importing power over HVDC, and diversifying wind spatially to reduce correlations which drop more than linearly in distance.
For small countries very far away from the equator that have highly variable insolation and limited geography to decorrelate, nuclear may be better. But it cannot be asserted a priori without a simulation study tailored to the specifics of that location. When I said that nuclear is bad, I am talking in generalities about the common case (United States) at current market prices.
The paper that you linked is old, we are dealing with exponential change in the price of storage and solar.
> "over-building so you have enough in winter" This makes wind and solar much more expensive to the point where nuclear is cheaper.
No it doesn't. Why do you just say that? There are simulation studies like CSIRO's work which show that it's still cheaper than nuclear after you account for everything.
Batteries utterly dominate the cost of grid storage... everything else is a rounding error.
You're welcome to go find your own data of course, you'll struggle to find more direct numbers because significant grid storage has only become affordable in the last few years.
Saying that grid storage "only has a few hours of capacity" is like saying that a nuclear power reactor "only has 1GW of power." You solve both issues by deploying more. And if you want a longer lithium ion battery installation without the additional power capacity, you can save a bit on inverters.
Grid storage is cheap enough that Texas, a purely profit-driven grid is now overtaking California in the amount of battery storage deployed. 58GWh of new grid storage was added in 2025 alone, and the growth is still exponentialhttps://seia.org/news/united-states-installs-58-gwh-of-new-e...
All current grid storage will fully discharge in less than 4 hours at max watts. It is designed to level daily demand variability. To make a 4 hour battery last for a week at the same wattage would make it cost 42 times as much.
Yes, this is how the basic arithmetic works. What's your point?
I see now that your original post had a fantastical claim that we need weeks of battery storage, which is a fantastical claim. In reality we will need variable amounts of battery but a "week long" battery is not supported by a single detailed grid study I have ever seen.
When I have asked Pell to justify claims of "weeks long battery" the only justifications have been "I heard it from someone else", or napkin math that contains many errors, and in places where there are not errors choices are made to estimate an upper bound rather than a lower bound, indicating that the calculator doesn't understand how napkins math can be useful.
And for super cheap infrequently used storage, here's a recent purchase at $33/kWh of a 30GWh battery by Google:
I don't expect such batteries to be used much, despite being a fraction of the cost of current LFP batteries, because we really won't need much storage with such a low power:energy ratio.
Incredibly disingenuous for nuclear power proponents to state that grid storage is expensive. Your entire argument centers around the most expensive power generation available and one of the slowest to build.
Stored electricity is much more expensive than nuclear electricity. To replace 1 GW of nuclear running at 92% CF with solar+storage, you need 3-4 GW of solar nameplate plus enough storage to cover nighttime AND multi-day cloudy periods AND seasonal winter deficit. The seasonal piece is what blows up the cost, you'd need weeks of storage, which at current Li-ion prices is economically absurd ($1000s/MWh delivered).
For the few days without wind, natural gas is cheaper than nuclear. There is also biogas and hydro. Nuclear is not cheap to turn on off. Also, the insurance cost of nuclear power is not accounted for: basically, there is no insurance, and the state (the population) just have to live with the risk.
Natural gas emits CO2. The risks of climate change caused by CO2 utterly dwarf those of any nuclear reactor. Nuclear power in the US has the lowest deaths per joule of all of them.
Saying humanity should never use nuclear energy just because someone might shoot a missile at it is incredibly stupid when CO2 emissions are causing climate change.
If climate change prevention is the target, then its also an no for nuclear.
Nuclear reactors need tons of cement, the fuel needs an complicated and energy intensive process with a lot of waste.
That link is also using an average including older reactors that require more highly enriched uranium (enrichment is energy-intensive), newer designs that can run on natural or low enrichment uranium can do 1.31g/kWh:
By that logic solar power should also be banned, due to the amount of coal required per panel (0) both for reduction and Czochralski process. And remember, solar panel factories don't run on solar power.
How does that change the fact that solar panels cannot be manufactured without high quality coal? (0) And doesn't that undermine the "cement for nuclear power" argument?
AWS has said that formal verification enables their engineers to implement aggressive performance optimizations on complex algorithms without the fear of introducing subtle bugs or breaking system correctness. It helped double the performance of the IAM ACL evaluation code
reply