If it is only imaginary then it should be no problem for you to write them a contract to take on all legal and panelty costs linked with it for.. lets say 50$?
There is just no good reason to build nuclear in a world with renewables.
Especially if you consider that most nations cannot produce fuel rods by themselves.
And if you calculate in the risk like “get me a insurance that covers leaks and melt downs” and finance somehow the disassembly of a nuclear plant, nuclear is one of the most costly ways you can get energy.
Plus it is a huge nice target in war times.
There are so so many benefits to decentralized renewables that you intuition is absolutely correct.
This statement is very uninformed.
Other sources are intermittent, nuclear energy is not.
The problem about many countries not being able to produce fuel rods themselves is true, but the exact same applies to other energy sources.
Most nations depend on very few other nations for imports of oil gas etc.
Nuclear power plants only have a high upfront cost, which is compensated by their long lifetime of 60-100 years.
Other energy sources also have high upfront production costs + you need to spend additional money on infrastructure for batteries/storage.
I also don't understand your argument on military targets.
A NPP is a target the sane way a solar park, wind-park, geothermal facility or whatever would be a target. And to add to that, wile they are of course not indestrctible they are extremely robustly built. You can literally fly an airplane into them and it wouldnt result in a meltdown..
I do agree on your point on decentralization, yes.
Showing tracking-banners ("cookie banner") that hide their "reject all" somewhere in sub-menus of custom settings is also illegal in Germany (and the EU). Yet you see them everywhere.
context: 3D-print material like PLA is food safe, but due to the many edges and lines between the print layers it is basically impossible to clean to a food safe degree.
While theoretically you can get certified food-safe blend of PLA, the rest of the extrusion path must also be food-safe... I personally am not fond of eating hot degraded PTFE... Or the trace remains of charred ASA/ABS I printed last week through the same nozzle... Or in fact any of the various coatings of the heated bed or leftover trace amounts of previous prints...
It's just a black hole that I choose not to get into by not printing stuff that's expected to be in contact with food.
> I personally am not fond of eating hot degraded PTFE
If this is a problem, you should buy a new printer that actually keeps the filament conduits away from the hotend. This is a health hazard regardless of food safety - decomposed PTFE is nasty stuff to breathe in.
> Or the trace remains of charred ASA/ABS I printed last week through the same nozzle...
Fair enough, but I would also say that you should be purging old filament anyways before starting a new one. My slicer does this by default.
> Or in fact any of the various coatings of the heated bed or leftover trace amounts of previous prints...
These days, heated beds are covered in PEI. That's food-safe too.
I think your take is a little panicky and not supported by the evidence. It is perfectly fine to print single-use food stuff out of PLA, especially if you just have a roll or two of the pure (undyed) stuff around. You're much more likely to get sick from the food itself than the plastic it touched for a little while, and PLA is relatively biodegradable compared to most other plastic foodware.
> If this is a problem, you should buy a new printer that actually keeps the filament conduits away from the hotend
The filament is still in contact with the PTFE tube, the PTFE tube is also hand-cut by me and in motion with the head so it undergoes wear. Even when you get an all-metal hotend there are ways of contamination by PTFE passing through the hot-end and degrading into harmful chemicals.
> purging old filament anyways before starting a new one. My slicer does this by default.
I do purge and cold-pull. While this removes the bulk of the old filament it does not remove all trace amounts of it.
> These days, heated beds are covered in PEI. That's food-safe too.
It is food-safe only if it was produced in a food-safe manner and was kept food safe afterwards, including no contact with pollutants.
Since you mention evidence, I have no way of proving that anything I produce is food-safe. Literally not anything in my extrusion path is certified food-safe, let alone I have equipment to test.
The fact of the matter is that glass, ceramic, and stainless steel has replaced any vessels that are in contact with food at home, and I don't intend to look back on that, and I am in fact looking to replace anything in regular contact with human skin with non-synthetic/non-plastic alternatives -- this includes clothes, bed sheets and others.
While there is the hacking mindset, people also need to be responsible, and my red lines on that is making stuff with a safety aspect to it. Food safety is safety as much as fire and electrical safety in my book.
Also lead from brass nozzles. I think the risks are overblown, but recommending anything that is not recognized as food-safe for use with food is a liability, better safe than sorry, as they say.
There are food safe coatings though, these deal with the problem by making your 3D print not in contact with food.
The main solution I've heard is to just encapsulate the whole thing in foodsafe epoxy. Then it doesn't matter as much what the inner material in so long as you monitor for damage.
Yeah there are a couple that claim to be like this [0] one, and there are FDA standards to follow for that claim. I wouldn't use one on a cutting board or anything that gets scraped or cut on and you need to let it cure waaaay longer than normal but yeah there are options out there.
I don't know the finer details of this project that's being launched, but if I'm setting up a global DNS server, I want to make sure it stays up all the time, it's kind of the point.
It's not a project that "We will scale when we reach out limit". So I imagine there's a significant initial payment.
I never said that 1M EUR is too much.
And yeh you are right, you want a global DNS server to be global.
Nonetheless Cloudflare has more POPs of their DNS server as this project and a lot lot more traffic as this project just starts.
So i think that the comparison is not useful at all.
An better question is why they did not take more money and build an alternative to the root servers on top of it, or a super low cost registrar (for self cost like CF).
I would absolutely love too see more from this project and less of bad comparisons that are knee jerk comparisons.
> Does it really take you a million Euros to set up a DNS server?
The subtext of the above being
that it "obviously" shouldn't cost 1M to slap BIND on a spare beige box in a closet.
The subtext in mine was to put the scale context back in, not really comparing this project to Cloudflare who has more POP but also does a lot of other things (and so providing the DNS part for free is really a rounding error in their biz bottom line and they probably couldn't really tell how much it would actually cost).
But then again the QA invites the comparison, they clearly position as challengers to 1.1.1.1/8.8.8.8/9.9.9.9
I didn't mean it to be knee jerk at all, sorry of it came across so.
reply