Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll give it a try!

Sadly not, I’d also be interested in one!

I very much dislike Mozilla’s direction over the last decade. They’re introducing user-hostile features that subtly break normal browsing experience, even when disabled[0]. Not like Google is better, but I’m also trying to get away from Mozilla.

[0] On Firefox Mobile, there’s a “feature” which makes the address bar auto-complete domains of companies paying Mozilla. I noticed this with Netflix - I never visit, but when I start writing a URL with n, roughly every 10th time Netflix was suggested. You can disable this feature, but this doesn’t actually disable it. The address bar no longer auto-completes with Netflix, instead it just doesn’t autocomplete! So 9/10 times I can write n and press Enter, but 1/10 times I press n and search for the letter n.

Mozilla doesn’t care whether they break features, as long as they can make more money. I strongly dislike this approach by the supposedly “good” browser manufacturer.

Why is Donna Shellstrop sitting next to him?

Depends. In this scenario, how Welsh am I?

Life finds a way

And that’s why scoped styles are a godsend!

Global styles were simply always a terrible idea.

Then you’re still entirely misunderstanding the point.

Though still far easier than a calzone

Them’s the real connoisseurs

I say we still do it, for good luck

Dude, the places that measured 50x the normal amount of radiation aren’t measuring 50x the amount right now. I’m aware that coal adds radioactive material to the air, but that’s just not relevant to the topic. But I’m tired of explaining that, have a good one.

Yes, lots. After the accident a bunch of places in Germany measured far higher-than-normal radiation levels. There were lots of unclear signals going through the government and media - the different states had different recommendations and there were lots of confusing/opposing signals going through the government and media. Some examples:

• the government recommended taking iodine tablet, which promptly sold out
• people were scared of the rain being sour, so they really tried not going out during/after
• people sprayed down their children after playing outside for fear of residue
• confusing/cautionary signals around fresh dairy and produce meant that many only consumed canned goods for a while

All of this happened during the formative years of a large part of our population. Can you understand how this does give a foundation to the fear?

Nuclear disasters are not happening despite there being hundreds of plants in operation. It’s all just FUD spread by the fossil lobby.

One happened a couple of years ago, and I guarantee you more will happen - as long as humans are involved in the cycle, things can and will go wrong. Modern designs make this far less likely and hopefully reduce the worst outcomes by a lot, but how sure are you that all our reactors are secured against e.g. sabotage? What if an enemy nation invades and gains control of the reactor? What if individual systems get attacked by drones? We’re entering a new age - don’t underestimate what terrible things can happen this time around.

Also, Fukushima happened due to natural disasters. Climate change is changing what magnitude of disaster happens where, so they might hit reactors that aren’t prepared for these disasters. Is every nuclear reactor worldwide safe from a Fukushima-type accident under all possible conditions?

I don’t know if you’re trolling. Of course people aren’t afraid of exactly these reactors blowing up again. They are afraid of nuclear accidents in general. There’s always a chance for things to go wrong, otherwise we wouldn’t have had Fukushima a couple of years ago. Some link in the chain can always fuck up.

“Coal puts out more radioactivity into air” is an incredibly stupid point. “More radioactivity” than what? People aren’t going through the same precautions they had to when they lived through the last fallout. That’s not real in this context.

No, fear doesn’t work like that. Just because something is unlikely doesn’t mean it can’t happen, and fear tends to be about just those things.

Again, you can call it irrational, but it is objectively not unfounded. There is a foundation, even if it’s unlikely. You don’t get to change the meaning of the word “unfounded” just because you think something isn’t likely to happen.

Why? I’m happy to support the developer of an application I use (as long as he actually uses the funds to fund further development).

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and explain it, if you’re actually not understanding it.

Sync is a freemium app. You can use it for free, but you will have ads and tracking. Or you can pay a one-time fee to upgrade to premium, which removes ads and trackers. This upgrade costs 20€.

Me too, very excited for the relaunch!

No, it’s objectively not unfounded. Again, you might call it irrational, but that’s not the same thing.