Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
My eyes glaze over anytime someone mentions fusion as a legitimate power source
another option is nuclear fission, using small modular reactors. That can be an expensive option, however, and Granholm said that the DOE is "trying to crack the code" to lower costs and make it so companies are more willing to consider the reactors.
So in other words the state wants to publicly fund private capital's Manhattan Project 2: Gone Wild? What is the DOE's angle here? Are they trying to meekly lure these companies under their compartmental special access umbrella?
What they should be eyeing is a progressive tax on them