Who knows if this is an improvement.

The Max Planck Institute for Physics knows and spoiler, yes. Yes it is.

Your comment doesn’t stand up. It seems you’ve got something against fusion energy for some reason.
On cost: it’s a best guess, since we don’t yet have a working fusion reactor. The error bars on the cost estimates are huge, so while it is possible fusion will be more expensive, with current data you absolutely cannot guarantee it. Add to that the decreasing costs as the technology matures, like we’ve seen in wind and especially solar over recent decades.
On nuclear physics PhDs: that’s no different to any energy generation, you need dozens of experts to build and run any installation.
On waste: where are you getting this info on the blanket? The old beryllium blanket design has been replaced with tungsten and no longer needs to be replaced. The next step is to test a lithium blanket which will actually generate nuclear fuel as the reaction processes.
This is the important fact that you have omitted, for some reason.

Nuclear fusion reactors produce no high activity, long-lived nuclear waste. The activation of components in a fusion reactor is low enough for the materials to be recycled or reused within 100 years

And that is why it’s so important this technology is developed. It’s incredibly clean and, yes, limitless.

As for your advice, there was a time not long ago when we didn’t understand how to build fission plants either, and it cost a lot of time and money to learn how. I wonder if people back then were saying we should just stick to burning coal because we know how that works.

You’re the problem. You get that, right?

This reads like a LinkedIn comment honestly

You’ve found the source. This is outright plagiarism.

How is Boost still working for you? I just get a failed to refresh message

It’s CAROL!

What if being hammered silly by a pneumatic fist is my plan?

🫦

It’s not extremely pro aeroplane, because if a plane crashes there are 100x more fatalities than in a car crash. Even so, there are more than 100x more fatalities in cars.
It makes sense that flying is safer because it’s so strictly regulated. People are able to drive tired/sick/hungover but pilots aren’t. Your car can have a fault that you haven’t noticed where planes can’t.* There’s a crew operating the plane as opposed to a single driver.

*The exception proves the rule on this one

Mate, you forgot to downvote the above comment. Might want to get on that.

Commercial flying remains the safest way to travel, and it continues to get safer. That’s not to minimise your reluctance to fly. I get it: if something goes wrong it’s 99.9% sure you’re going to die, and know about it long enough for your last moments to be horrifying. But the facts is the facts and the facts is that you’re way more likely to die on a bicycle journey.

I obviously don’t understand what that means, what with being illiterate, sorry. Could you explain it more unwordishly or something idk

Yeah it was appalling, totally.
Do you see the irony in your calling out other people’s command of language using that chaotic turd of a sentence?

Illiterate

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

During a lightning storm, ozone can be found in large quantities. There is a fairly vast amount of it in the atmosphere. It is naturally occurring and fulfills your arbitrary criteria for what should be (but, in fact, isn’t) a perfectly safe substance to breathe.
Methane occurs naturally in huge concentrations. Look it up, a little reading might be good for you!

So your amended assertion is:

“All forms of inhalation of [particulate] substances which aren’t [naturally expected to be found in] air causes (sic) damage to the lungs and throat.”

I’m sorry mate, but it’s still not true . Again, coffee vapour, water vapour, tea vapour, cooked rice vapour, long-chain hydrocarbons. None of these are naturally (i.e. without human activity) expected to be found in air, and none of them are at all harmful. Coffee and tea vapour even contain caffeine, a drug quite similar to nicotine, which is the active ingredient in vapes…

Alright, Mr Black-and-white. Ozone is naturally found in air, and is toxic, as is methane and any other number of organic particles that are released by natural processes.

Apart from your inaccurate use of language, you also made an unsupported assertion. I don’t believe you’re correct.

This is the issue. Vaping is great for ex smokers, but it should absolutely not be taken up for its own sake. Twenty years or so ago, we made a lot of progress, smoking looked like it was going to be phased out in mist countries. Now vaping itself is becoming an issue, hooking kids for life on nicotine.
Along with disposable vapes, marketing and selling to kids should be banned and strictly enforced.
But removing the lifeline from ex smokers will just push them back towards tobacco, because nicotine dependency is real.

I applaud your research efforts. I learned some interesting stuff!

The steam from coffee damages your lungs and throat, I never knew that. Are you sure about that?
What about aroma molecules, like sniffing a flower or perfume?

I have to draw this line because it’s actually really important.
Smoking is when someone inhales smoke.
Vaping is when someone inhales vapour.
These are different in more ways than they are similar, but perhaps the most important is the difference in negative health outcomes. Smoking is about twenty times more harmful than vaping.
Vaping is a very effective path away from smoking for those with a nicotine dependency, and it’s counterproductive to attach the same stigma to both, let alone to consider them equivalent.