Average Rando (not) on twitter
@averagerando.bsky.social
Left/Green politics, partially recovering tech worker, feminist, father of adult 🏳️🌈, 🏳️⚧️, cis, straight children. Thinks nobody should kill anyone, actually.
Is it “led” by the Niska Nation? It’s American owned. It’s not clear the Niska will have ANY ownership. So what does “led” mean. It’s Ksi Lisims, by the way.
November 14, 2025 at 9:20 PM
Is it “led” by the Niska Nation? It’s American owned. It’s not clear the Niska will have ANY ownership. So what does “led” mean. It’s Ksi Lisims, by the way.
No, no, no! THIS time is different!
November 13, 2025 at 4:39 PM
No, no, no! THIS time is different!
When were they provided? Seems like it started in August and they’ve had the complete set for weeks.
November 13, 2025 at 2:58 PM
When were they provided? Seems like it started in August and they’ve had the complete set for weeks.
I was wondering how long they’ve been holding these emails waiting for “the right time” to release them.
November 13, 2025 at 2:56 PM
I was wondering how long they’ve been holding these emails waiting for “the right time” to release them.
Yeah but how many times in the past did he seem to be “starting to get it” only to go back to conspiracy and stupidity?
November 13, 2025 at 1:41 PM
Yeah but how many times in the past did he seem to be “starting to get it” only to go back to conspiracy and stupidity?
But you asked for reasoning when reasoning was given. Now you’re arguing against it, which is better. But you need to consider inflation and demographic shift as well.
November 13, 2025 at 1:30 AM
But you asked for reasoning when reasoning was given. Now you’re arguing against it, which is better. But you need to consider inflation and demographic shift as well.
But the facts they quote are real. Seriously, disregarding everything just because it is labelled opinion is weird. Read it. If they’re wrong, say why.
November 13, 2025 at 1:27 AM
But the facts they quote are real. Seriously, disregarding everything just because it is labelled opinion is weird. Read it. If they’re wrong, say why.
Yeah, that’s the money Trudeau announced in Feb. nice of him to keep it in I guess, but not new.
November 12, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Yeah, that’s the money Trudeau announced in Feb. nice of him to keep it in I guess, but not new.
Finally found something and it is as I said: no new money.
November 12, 2025 at 9:40 PM
Finally found something and it is as I said: no new money.
I certainly can’t find anything about it that claims anything more than “streamlined” legislation and buy Canada.
November 12, 2025 at 9:34 PM
I certainly can’t find anything about it that claims anything more than “streamlined” legislation and buy Canada.
It’s mentioned, but no new money is allocated except as a small part of the “buy Canada” initiative.
November 12, 2025 at 9:30 PM
It’s mentioned, but no new money is allocated except as a small part of the “buy Canada” initiative.
You are replying this to an article posted that explains it. So read the article.
November 12, 2025 at 9:24 PM
You are replying this to an article posted that explains it. So read the article.
But a disrupted polar vortex leads to unseasonably warm weather as well. So you might get really cold one week but extremely warm the next, melting all accumulated snow. And it’s also a sign of climate change disrupting weather patterns with all that means. TLDR: disrupted polar vortex is bad.
November 11, 2025 at 10:11 PM
But a disrupted polar vortex leads to unseasonably warm weather as well. So you might get really cold one week but extremely warm the next, melting all accumulated snow. And it’s also a sign of climate change disrupting weather patterns with all that means. TLDR: disrupted polar vortex is bad.
Ok, so what you said isn’t really true.
November 11, 2025 at 8:50 PM
Ok, so what you said isn’t really true.
Is she? I’ve seen no evidence of this. A quick search finds nothing unless you consider distancing herself from the debate on transgender athletes transphobic.
November 11, 2025 at 8:46 PM
Is she? I’ve seen no evidence of this. A quick search finds nothing unless you consider distancing herself from the debate on transgender athletes transphobic.
Even a lot of the hate filled weirdos know it. But they want everyone concentrating on that versus their failures and corruption elsewhere.
November 11, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Even a lot of the hate filled weirdos know it. But they want everyone concentrating on that versus their failures and corruption elsewhere.
Why? 20% is more typical. I answered your little puzzle. Even though it was silly. The numbers aren’t as bad as you claim, which I showed. It’s almost like you weren’t asking in good faith. It’s almost like I was right and you don’t want facts.
November 11, 2025 at 2:39 PM
Why? 20% is more typical. I answered your little puzzle. Even though it was silly. The numbers aren’t as bad as you claim, which I showed. It’s almost like you weren’t asking in good faith. It’s almost like I was right and you don’t want facts.
And yes there is more complexity than this. But you asked.
November 11, 2025 at 4:14 AM
And yes there is more complexity than this. But you asked.
I used a more realistic 20% CF for the solar and 92% for the Nuke.
November 11, 2025 at 4:13 AM
I used a more realistic 20% CF for the solar and 92% for the Nuke.
As far as land use, the nuke would be about 640 acres for the plant and 9300 for mining and refining. So yes, a bit less than the 15,000 acres needed for solar if we assume solar goes on virgin land. But the solar land can be used for livestock and certain crops and the nuke land cannot.
November 11, 2025 at 4:12 AM
As far as land use, the nuke would be about 640 acres for the plant and 9300 for mining and refining. So yes, a bit less than the 15,000 acres needed for solar if we assume solar goes on virgin land. But the solar land can be used for livestock and certain crops and the nuke land cannot.
But the answer is (roughly) 4.6GW worth so around 7700. Cost would be about 2.3 billion. The Nuke would be 10-28B and take MUCH longer to build. More than a decade versus maybe a couple of years.
November 11, 2025 at 4:07 AM
But the answer is (roughly) 4.6GW worth so around 7700. Cost would be about 2.3 billion. The Nuke would be 10-28B and take MUCH longer to build. More than a decade versus maybe a couple of years.
But we’d also need to include the land used for mining the uranium. But I didn’t say anything against Nuclear. The only things wrong with nuclear is cost and long term waste storage (which also amounts to cost).
November 11, 2025 at 3:58 AM
But we’d also need to include the land used for mining the uranium. But I didn’t say anything against Nuclear. The only things wrong with nuclear is cost and long term waste storage (which also amounts to cost).
But the people seem quite united. It’s the 8 “democrats” who are out of touch. Let’s fight united, yes, but let’s toss aside those that refuse to unite.
November 11, 2025 at 3:11 AM
But the people seem quite united. It’s the 8 “democrats” who are out of touch. Let’s fight united, yes, but let’s toss aside those that refuse to unite.