Almost no one in your bubble/perception unfortunately. There are still lots of people that are only aware of him being a POS but still think he’s a genius.
Sorry, you’re completely utterly wrong here. First, the Reichs:
Reich: Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation).
Reich: (Unified) German Empire (1871-1918). → that’s the one they were referring to by wording, but not by implication.
Reich: Nazi Germany (1933-1945). → context and implication should make it clear they mean this one.
The Weimar Republic took place between the second and the third Reich. It would’ve been a golden age of great prosperity if it weren’t for the Versailles contract and the Great Depression. It’s still had great economic achievements, which often get falsely attributed to Nazi Germany. You can be 100% sure that the Trump campaign doesn’t refer to this one. And please don’t conflate it with the 2nd Reich.
Even though the wording seems to indicate the 1871 German Reich the wording unified Reich and the use of the term Reich in English make this a Nazi Bullhorn.
Edit to add: In their ignorance the Trump campaign delivered a nice own goal: if they love the 2nd Reich of 1871 so much they should adopt a couple of their policies. Universal healthcare for example - introduced in 1883 by a conservative chancellor by the name of Bismarck.
In their ignorance the Trump campaign delivered a nice own goal: if they love the 2nd Reich of 1871 so much they should adopt a couple of their policies.
Universal healthcare for example - introduced in 1883 by a conservative chancellor by the name of Bismarck.
House Speaker Mike Johnson describes himself as a Christian before anything else. He has said his “faith informs everything I do.” He has told people curious about his views to “pick up a Bible.” His wife reportedly runs a counseling service whose operating agreement, which he himself notarized, states, “We believe and...
Europeans — especially Germans — are increasingly keen on curbing immigration and are less focused on climate change, according to a study by a Danish-based think tank....
I, as a German, once asked Syrian and Turkish friends on their opinion on Jews. Their answer “The only thing Hitler did wrong was not finishing the job.” sure surprised me as did other really shitty experiences with non-friends from the same Region.
Do I hate Syrians and Turks now? No, because I’m not a fucking asshole that generalizes whole groups of people.
TheControlled@lemmy.world (Nomen est omen?) removed any doubt you might have had about his character with this last comment.
He’s also the type of person who hears a radio alert about a wrong way driver on the Autobahn and thinks “One? There are thousands (and all of them are racists)!”
Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.
So If you buy a used car you only use the sales guys expertise as he knows the car best and don’t bother asking an independent mechanic? Got ya, bless your heart.
… Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.
No, it’s just a couple of statistics. It’s better than the other piece but that’s a low bar.
<span style="color:#323232;">Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.
</span>
… did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.
Natural occuring radiation exists elsewhere as well. Intensity and containment are pretty important. You didn’t bring anything to the table.
Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about. Never heard of underground aquifers for instance?
Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.
Straw man again, really?
<span style="color:#323232;">This article is by psychologists. Relevance?
</span>
This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.
I’m only interested in factual evidence. You tend to only read headlines and that only partially while again peddling the fossil straw man.
PS: Oh right, almost forgot.
No, you tried to hide the iceberg. Didn’t work. How obviously bad faith are you trying to be?
<span style="color:#323232;">At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.
</span>
I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don’t want to start another long discussion.
Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.
You were done for before you started. Your sole way of ‘winning’ for your precious, precious nuclear fission is bringing up fossil fuels to steer the discussion away from renewables.
You’ve proven again and again that you only read headlines that you understand only partially. Your impotent ranting against ‘my definition’ of toxicity was especially entertaining.
The constant bad of your person culminates in claiming that I said that fissionable material good for only a short time which is a short 230 years. I did not. You constantly misinterpret and misrepresent facts. This can’t be blamed on your reading capabilities alone.
Again. At present consumption level fissionable material lasts about 230 years. That’s a massive amount of time and would make fission an option as risks and cost involved are outweighed by the benefits.
Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:
230/10=23; 230/20=11,5
Result: fissionable material lasts 11,5 to 23 your if we followed your masters’ advice. Is very simple maths I’m sure you can follow.
I could now try to explain as to how long it takes to get a reactor on the net and how it would be active to short to make a dent. You’ll either not understand it or misquote it again.
Next you again throw another bunch of shit on the wall: technology we don’t have yet (fusion, thorium, etc). We might be able to build reactors using that hopefully within the next decade. Right know we don’t and we don’t know when we can. Shit didn’t stick, sorry.
Does the fission lobby pay you well for your service?
Believe what you see, not what you’re told (sh.itjust.works)
Oh no. (lemmy.world)
Trump's social media account shares a campaign video with a headline about a 'unified Reich' (apnews.com)
U.S. governors urge Turks and Caicos to release Americans as Florida woman becomes 5th tourist arrested for ammo in luggage (www.cbsnews.com)
OpenAI strikes Reddit deal to train its AI on your posts (www.theverge.com)
Devout Christian Mike Johnson shows up to hush money trial to defend a guy accused of cheating on his wife with a porn star (www.vanityfair.com)
House Speaker Mike Johnson describes himself as a Christian before anything else. He has said his “faith informs everything I do.” He has told people curious about his views to “pick up a Bible.” His wife reportedly runs a counseling service whose operating agreement, which he himself notarized, states, “We believe and...
Funny, those guys don't usually agree on that much (lemm.ee)
Do any of them know what the word “liberal” actually means?
Germans fear migration more than climate change, study finds (www.dw.com)
Europeans — especially Germans — are increasingly keen on curbing immigration and are less focused on climate change, according to a study by a Danish-based think tank....
Don't tell him how Swabian Ravioli are called in the local dialect (lemmy.world)
Not like that (sh.itjust.works)
Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back (arstechnica.com)