I do agree that nuclear is better than coal, and if it came down to shutting down one or the other I would choose coal every time. But I don't know if the increased cost and time of building a new one is really worth it if it is ultimately a stop gap.(assuming base load from renewables 'eventually')

What I disagree with is that spending money on nuclear can directly impact the funding of renewables. It is rarely the case you can directly substitute coal for nuclear with no additional investment. The total cost benefit needs to be accounted for, and it might be worth skipping the intermediate.

I am not. I guess I just do see the relevance of this theory to online politics. Can you explain to me how you think this does relate to online politics?

I am a big fan of this theory, but I believe the OP was talking about internet-centric phrases. How does this relate to the internet more than outside of it?

It is true that there is a bit of a learning curve. Linux uses less resources than windows in most circumstances. The .exe thing is a common pitfall that can be pretty confusing so I understand the frustration. I hope that you give it another shot one day and get past the initial hump, it's worth it

Can I ask why? What is it you hate about it?

I think this is a case of the developers getting bought out and Gearbox taking over development for the latest DLC. The original game and the first DLC are some of my favourite experiences in gaming.