Sure you can, it’s just the median of the range rather than the median person. For what it’s worth, I did look at age distribution statistics and there is some disparity but it’s minimal, which is why I wrote 40% instead of 44%.

Anyways, this is getting much too pedantic, obviously I’m not writing a scientific analysis, it’s just an internet comment, it doesn’t need to be perfect.

Millennials: we’re all adults now, we want to be taken seriously!

Time: passes

Millennials: never mind we’ve made a mistake let’s go back

The US census used 1997 - 2013 as the range. Which gives us an age range of 10-26, making the median age 18 - and I was thinking of 21 as adult, rather than 18 - which is why I said “they’re teenagers or younger” - but yes, you’re right, “only” 40%-ish of gen Z are under 18 :p

Run the same survey again in 11 years and compare 21+ gen Z to 2023’s boomers and I bet the results aren’t even close.

Stupid article, most of Gen Z aren’t even 21 yet, of course they’re gonna fall for scams, they’re teenagers or younger lol. I got scammed loads of times on RuneScape as a kid, and that taught me better than anything else how to avoid scams.

not having a CS degree will not hinder your entry into the software industry

I disagree. I think what OP did with their degree was very foolish. A computer science degree would definitely have increased their potential income more than the mathematics degree. Sure, you can still get work as a programmer without a CS degree, but it’s harder.

It’s a shame that when you were reimplementing basic algorithms that you were doing it in JavaScript rather than another language like Java or C# - a missed opportunity to get an early understanding of stack/heap and reference/value, a very important concept.

Also, obligatory “crypto is a scam” comment.

Thank you for the kind words! Please feel free to copy and share :)

Thank you! Please feel free to copy and share. There is so much pro-nuclear rhetoric online, particularly on Reddit, I debate it every time I see it but there’s too much for me to do alone.

Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for looking into this further and being brave to admit when you’re wrong. That’s a really admirable quality which is way too uncommon these days!

For the safety aspect, I don’t think deaths is the most helpful comparison - considering for nuclear that many, many thousands of people will have to deal with health problems caused by radiation exposure over decades. Lots of people argue that the Chernobyl death toll should include people who die from the effects of that radiation, which would push the numbers from ~300 dead to tens of thousands.

Even according to your source (which is really biased, by the way), renewables are just as safe as nuclear.

Why should be waste money on expensive, dirty nuclear power when we can get double the return on investment with much cleaner renewables?

There is no sensible reason to mine limited uranium unless you want us to continue to be dependent on exploitative, extractive industries?

Do you have a source for the claim that wind and solar are more dangerous than nuclear?

I looked myself and from what I saw Solar and wind were safer than nuclear, not to mention cheaper and cleaner.

When it comes to generating electricity, nuclear is hugely more expensive than renewables. Every 1000Wh of nuclear power could be 2000-3000 Wh solar or wind.

If you’ve been told “it’s not possible to have all power from renewable sources”, you have been a victim of disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. The majority of studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and industry – is feasible and economically viable.

This is all with current, modern day technology, not with some far-off dream or potential future tech such as nuclear fusion, thorium reactors or breeder reactors.

Compared to nuclear, renewables are:

• Cheaper
• Lower emissions
• Faster to provision
• Less environmentally damaging
• Not reliant on continuous consumption of fuel
• Decentralised
• Much, much safer
• Much easier to maintain
• More reliable
• Much more capable of being scaled down on demand to meet changes in energy demands

Nuclear power has promise as a future technology. But at present, while I’m all in favour of keeping the ones we have until the end of their useful life, building new nuclear power stations is a massive waste of money, resources, effort and political capital.

Nuclear energy should be funded only to conduct new research into potential future improvements and to construct experimental power stations. Any money that would be spent on building nuclear power plants should be spent on renewables instead.

Frequently asked questions:

• But it’s not always sunny or windy, how can we deal with that?

While a given spot in your country is going to have periods where it’s not sunny or rainy, with a mixture of energy distribution (modern interconnectors can transmit 800kV or more over 800km or more with less than 3% loss) non-electrical storage such as pumped storage, and diversified renewable sources, this problem is completely mitigated - we can generate wind, solar or hydro power over 2,000km away from where it is consumed for cheaper than we could generate nuclear electricity 20km away.

• Don’t renewables take up too much space?

The United States has enough land paved over for parking spaces to have 8 spaces per car - 5% of the land. If just 10% of that space was used to generate solar electricity - a mere 0.5% - that would generate enough solar power to provide electricity to the entire country. By comparison, around 50% of the land is agricultural. The amount of land used by renewable sources is not a real problem, it’s an argument used by the very wealthy pro-nuclear lobby to justify the huge amounts of funding that they currently receive.

• Isn’t Nuclear power cleaner than renewables?

No, it’s dirtier. You can look up total lifetime emissions for nuclear vs. renewables - this is the aggregated and equalised environmental harm caused per kWh for each energy source. It takes into account the energy used to extract raw materials, build the power plant, operate the plant, maintenance, the fuels needed to sustain it, the transport needed to service it, and so on. These numbers always show nuclear as more environmentally harmful than renewables.

• We need a baseline load, though, and that can only be nuclear or fossil fuels.

Not according to industry experts - the majority of studies show that a 100% renewable source of energy across all industries for all needs - electricity, heating, transport, and industry - is completely possible with current technology and is economically viable. If you disagree, don’t argue with me, take it up with the IEC. Here’s a Wikipedia article that you can use as a baseline for more information: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

Is nuclear safer than solar and wind?

I remember having to hunt high and low for the dune 2 manual to find out how heavy an Atreides airfield is because that’s what anti-piracy measures were back then.

Also it was much more of a crapshoot whether or not a game would work at all. Some games just completely refused to be played outside of specific hardware, especially when it came to video cards. Stupid messages like “sorry, you must have a GeForce 2300 or newer to play” that literally checked if your video card name started with some specific string…

Similar kind of thing with sound cards. Most games had a couple options for sound: if you have a sound card that contains the magic words “sound blaster” you got to enjoy nice sounds! Otherwise hope you like some kinda shitty half-attempt at MIDI sound.

And every game ever came with an EULA, if it wasn’t in the game it was in the manual or in some readme. It’s just as meaningless now as it was back then.

Then when CDs came out, sometimes they’d get scuffed and become impossible to install, so you’d have to end up buying a game twice because your cousin got a hold of it.

Things haven’t changed that much. There’s still a lot of shitty games, with a few that are great. It’s more like micro transaction or “free-to-play” games instead of shovelware now for the most part it seems though.

Everyone remembers the classics and forgets the duds!

Socialism is when a corporation does stuff.

And it’s more socialism the more stuff it does.

And if it does a whole load of stuff, that’s communism.

This comment has really a really good vibe to it. Like, if comments were essential oils, and if I was a sucker, I’d bottle this comment.

Yeah, same. I actually forget the name of the button, too, so when I give someone the controller so they can play and they ask “how do I open the menu?” I’ll say “oh press start. It’s not called start actually but you know press the button that looks like it should be called start.”