And the point of this comment was what specifically?

Dammit, flew right over my head

deleted by creator

I mean, I doubt that concidering PS5 and Series X has roughly the performance of a RTX 2070, while Series S has roughly that of a GTX 1650. If that’s anywhere near the truth there’s something seriously wrong with the game design. That’s about 150% difference in performance compared to the hardware in this post.

Edit: yes I know I misread his joke, I addressed it further down.

So, this is releasing on Playstation and Xbox aswell? How the fuck will they be able to run it -at all-, 480p and 30 fps on low?

Well I’m 30 and I have 3, I’m really happy for everyone that doesn’t need and therefore just dont own cars, must be enormous savings per month on top of the lesser impact on the climate.

Edit: Aaaand there comes the car hate- ya’ll are talking about not imposing shit upon others, yet here you are judging me and my wife for not making it by without cars because of specific circumstances 🤷‍♂️ aight hypocrites.

Well I’m like 70% here, and the last 30% is through a cracked Reddit client without ads or tracking (shhh, I’ll never admit that it exists again)

Well my opinion is that there is no reason for a company to call me unless it’s actually urgent and in my own best interest, at that point it is perfectly fine to call.

Some companies call regardless of the reasons with no care at all about the customer/client/potential customer, all just to make sure to force a response. Just send the damn message instead of disturbing me at work, and If I have any sort interest, opinion, or care what so ever, then I’ll get in touch at my own discretion.

Having customers isn’t a “right” for companies, but they do seem to believe so.

deleted by creator

This resonates hard. Also incredibly fun to watch companies get to abuse loop holes and continue operations as always, then get told we need to sell our cars and turn off our heating to survive this environmental disaster.

I don’t want this, I need this.

You mentioned chernobyl in the very comment I replied to, you being the first person in this entire comment section to do so.

You’re also oversimplifying the problems and arguing in bad faith by simply ignoring the viability and reality. You can’t just throw money at a problem and it’ll magically resolve itself. Instead of arguing against one of our safest energy sources you should turn your eyes towards fossile power plants which is genuinely killing our planet as we speak. To end that madness in any sort of reasonable time frame you need a combination of all options.

I also want to add that the production costs for nuclear power I mentioned above, doesn’t count in subsidizes, it’s based on the actual average costs among these 92 reactors without withdrawing government spendings.

My source is Statista, “the production costs equal the sum of operations and capital costs and fuel costs”.

You still are just spouting fearmongering that’s going to kill our planet before any “worst case scenarios” you can dream up about nuclear power has any chance to.

Chernobyl happened because of a multitude of reasons that just aren’t capable of happening today in the western world. This is just pure fear-mongering, it’s like saying we need to ban planes because of world trade center, or ban all research on narcotic medications because the opiod epidemic.

A wind farm costs in the range of 32 - 62 dollar per megawatts (Judith Gap/Spion Kop wind farms), compared to the 29 dollars per megawatt for nuclear power (average in USA year 2021).

In USA there are 92 reactors totaling 809 terawatt hours. To compensate for that with wind turbines you would require roughly 33.000 wind turbines all running 24/7 at max capacity with no down-time assuming a rated limit of 3 megawatt. Together those wind turbines would collectively take up 260 square kilometers.

Building them would likely be close to impossible as there isnt any infrastructure to make 33.000 in a timely manner. Since 2005 about 3000 has been built per year, assuming current production that would mean 11 years without producing parts for servicing current turbines to simply just replace the nuclear energy.

Lets make it a little more interesting and compare wind turbines to Browns Ferry nuclear plant. It has 3 reactors producing in total 3600 megawatt, to compensate for just that plant alone it would require 1200 turbines. To make it even more interesting, fossile fuel plants produces in total 2554 terawatt hours, and is the worst energy source we have, and would require roughly 104.000 turbines to offset, or 34 years of wind turbine production. That means the old turbines will have to be replaced before theyre all even fully built assuming the 20-30 year life expectancy.

Are you starting to grasp the problems with wind turbines now? To stop the usage of fossile fuel for powerplants you need other complementary systems. We need to get rid of fossile plants -now- and there’s literally no way wind turbines could ever realistically fill that role alone. You’re barking up the wrong tree.