Still better to have 15 standards to 15 usecases than no standards. When there is legit usecases which make it useful. In my opinion too many “standards” come from gatekeeping companies not even trying to find a standard together with others or big established production which makes change expensive so they all make their own. In the best case (and many cases) a few years after a new technology establishes but not too late that the expenses are reduced, a public institution sets the standard(s) (or enforces it) and everyone is fine with that limitation to defined usecaes. And for the minority of very rare usecases you can still do exceptions but once a standard is established, its hard and expensive in man ways for a not monopolist company to go their own way against a standard (if they are allowed to).

Joking aside whats that “tree” for?

Idk if maybe my or your english is bad but i dont get it. Or maybe im just stupid or you are trolling who knows

Do you mean pee by yourself?

Hm i think when you have a for whatever reason much discussed topic you will always meet people with opinions that have not much research backgorund or on the other hand people with very strong opinions on both sides who are not open to the other sides arguments. For example: I talked about a few “accidents” and you wouldnt try to understand, why someone like me would think there were some accidents and talk about that there was just one major implying that Fukushima was peanuts and not an issue at all. Of course the truth is (regardless the risk of what maybe could have happened, i think many people who think about Fukushima are more afraid of what could have happend than what happened), that the impact of Fukushima lies somewere between “nothing” and “Tschernobyl”. I didnt even try to discuss pro or con nuclear, i just tried to explain why i think what happened or changed in the last years could easily change someones opinion on that topic. Most people i know that changed their opinion on nuclear say things like “given that climate change is now a bigger issue than i thought 20 years ago, we maybe should have used more nuclear instead of burning coal despite the nuclear waste, 20 years ago i thought different. Also given, that new nuclear plants are very expensive and existing plants are old and risky, i think we should focus on renewables and batteries, because they are clean, decentral, and very cheap now.” something like that, just as an illustration.

That aside, honest question without ruse: who do you think the profiting propandagist is, which you refer to? Oil industry? Wouldnt renewables then be part of the same story?

Why do you think the people who said that “we cant do it” are the same people who now say “now its too late”? The pro and contra points to nuclear energy are pretty obvious. Also obvoius is, that these pros and cons are predestinated for disagreement. Also its obvious that opinions can change, on the one hand people maybe start priorize low carbon enegry production, on the other hand rivers for cooling are drying, a few accidents happened, and the price for nuclear energy is now pretty high while the price for renewables and batteries is dropping. We had a lot of change in circumstances in the last years and decades to discuss so saying “fuck off” is pretty pathetic in this case if you ask me

Still looks pretty van Gogh to me tbh, had worse disappointments in space “photography”

You fucker