In both your examples (cf. Campania, vitrina), the pattern is that French makes an -a suffix in Latin into a silent -e. I believe there were earlier parts of the history of french phonetics where it was pronounced as a schwa, so you can kind of imagine it as "softening" over time, starting out as a proper A sound and eventually disappearing over the centuries.
It's not even their worst attempt. In France, those fringe "woke" people are advocating a forked version of French which is written with a lot of dots everywhere to display genders simultaneously. For example: "Bonjour à tou.s.tes les étudiant.e.s." which is very hard to read even for non-dyslexic people. The normal people are fighting it but they succeeded to promote that crap via a ministry and lot of universities are writing their emails like that.
They can't sleep, can't focus.
Like they are rolling on their bed all the time but no real sleep.
Then on the next day when they have the interview their cognition is exhausted and tired.
Solution: CBD helped them sleep better like in 40 min.
Situation 2. Meeting or having a situation that they will be anxious. (meeting, new job,etc).
CBD before makes the "negative voices" stop.
I talking CBD only.
You will not feel high or anything.
Indeed you will forgot that you use it but then you will not be anxious.
Meaning -> it does not give a "kick" that you feel. suddenly you are relaxed and "forgot" about being anxious.
I was a person that thought the medicinal effects were "exagerated" so the ""hipppies"" could use it. But then once I saw it working I changed my prejudice.
My experience with CBD is that it will knock you out and give you a deep sleep on day 1, but the more you use it the harder it is to sleep without it. Almost like the payday loans of falling asleep.
I am from a generation that when SSRI became available, it was a marvelous drug.
Prescribed to teenagers freely and plentiful.
Now on my peers of friends, we have many people who don't have any libido.
The hardest-hit group was Women as they go to therapy more[1].
It is so huge we have Forums like "dead bedroom."
Once a friend that took SSRI told me how she felt about sex:
"I am looking forward to when my husband reaches his 40s, so he does not bother me about sex anymore."
"Brushing my teeth is more useful and fun than sex."
I am not talking about sex partners that are not "competent" or good.
It is like you never felt hungry or willing to eat. But then you *have* to eat, and when you are tasting the food, it is like cardboard * every time*
The concerning part is that our PharmaCo does this every ten years. (Thalidomide, SSRIs, etc.)
So can we believe the mRNA vacuum is really safe?
Imagine that you are creating a new patented drug that you could charge a lot and the whole govts in the world needed.
Then have this other drug without patent that could do the same? or 80%?
People got enraged about the Epi-Pen patent price gouging years back imagine what would happen if some rigorous study confirm that ivermectin is as good as or better?
This is a sample on how media distorts the narrative.
Having been working as contractor for remote US company it means basically two things:
1. Lack of understanding: They don't need to setup a foreign presence in your country, they don't need to do special tax efforts. The only thing they need from you is a contract and W8BEN or the right IRS tax form.
2. Fear: We gonna hire this guy from <stereotype country>.. What are reactions:
"Nice beaches on that place.."
"Do they have reliable internet?"
"what if he rans away with our money?"
This is a normal and humane reaction.
When people complaint about this stereotypical thinking I like to ask them:
"When I say Italy what you think first?"
And same answers usually appear.
My suggestion is to focus on companies that accept as the ones that not accept now will do as labor shortage increases.
Nuclear is (more or less) clean, and would have been great to focus more on 20 years ago (instead of slowing it down, that was a mistake), and can still be part of the solution, but it's no longer the best or only solution.
“Stabilising the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow. It meets no technical or operational need that these low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper, and faster."
"The report estimates that the average construction time for reactors worldwide was ten years, significantly longer than the World Nuclear Association’s estimated construction time of between five and eight years. Nuclear reactors are also slow to start and a number have closed, with nine units closing over 2018 and a further five units expected to close over 2019."
"The report also states that nuclear power is more expensive than renewables. Nuclear energy costs around $112-189 per megawatt hour (MWh) compared to $26-56MWh for onshore wind and $36-44MWh for solar power. Levelised cost estimates for solar and wind also dropped by 88% and 69% respectively, while they increased by 23% for nuclear power."
I don't agree with existing ones being shut down, no, unless they're at the end of their natural life (or there's a real and imminent health threat, which might be why some are being shut down).
"All power plants, coal, gas and nuclear, have a finite life beyond which it is not economically feasible to operate them. Generally speaking, early nuclear plants were designed for a life of about 30 years, though with refurbishment, some have proved capable of continuing well beyond this. Newer plants are designed for a 40 to 60 year operating life. At the end of the life of any power plant, it needs to be decommissioned, cleaned up and demolished so that the site is made available for other uses."[1]
I was actually really pro nuclear power until I started reading about how they're starting to be outclassed by wind and solar and are just too slow to build to meet fossil fuel reduction targets in time, especially those set for 2030 considering their ~10 year build times. I still think it's fine if anyone wants to pursue building new plants, it just seems like less people are willing to fund new ones because of these issues.
But I agree there have been some that have been shut down purely for political reasons or due to pressure from certain green activists (I don't think there's a green hivemind and I've seen many people concerned about climate change support nuclear power and think it's quite safe, especially considering the alternative of climate disaster), and those should not have been shut down.
I am not opposed to nuclear on principle, but I am pragmatically opposed to building new nuclear for three reasons: 1) the amount of nuclear that we get per dollar 2) the long delay between funding/approval/design and the first power delivers to the grid, and 3) the chance that when we do spend money, that we will actually get something out at the end.
Throughout the US and Europe, all recent attempts at building new nuclear have suffered from massive construction failure. Not from regulatory burdens, but from just building what was designed by engineers. Vogtle, Summer, Flamanville, Hinkley, and Olkiluoto have been huge disappointments.
France's only hope for new nuclear to replace their aging fleet is now small modular reactors, a technology that in the past has been rejected foe being too costly since the costs are supposed to go down with larger reactors, not smaller.
If we get new nuclear, it will either be because Russia builds it (and there's no evidence that Russia could take a US construction crew and get a completed project), or because we try a new form of nuclear.
I think it's time to realize that nuclear technology does not fit our current skill set. And that wind, solar, and storage have leapfrogged nuclear in terms of advanced technology.
> 2) the long delay between funding/approval/design and the first power delivers to the grid, and 3) the chance that when we do spend money, that we will actually get something out at the end.
So lobby your senator and congressperson to create and pass legislation enabling nuclear (changing radiation limits to be scientifically based, and banning NIMBY lawsuits, for example), and to fast-track the whole approvals process. (Type-approval of factory-made designs, for example. And automatic approval of coal furnace replacement with type-approved reactors.)
We probably should have built more nuclear plants, but it's too late now. Any plants we started planning today would not come on line for 10-20 years. In the meantime, renewable energy is cheaper, simpler, and quicker; any money we might be able to spend developing additional nuclear plants would be put to better use developing more wind, solar, and long-distance transmission infrastructure.
For all practical purposes, we need to pretend like fusion doesn't exist. Sure, we should still invest in it and do research, but we're setting ourselves up for disaster if we peg our hopes on viable fusion.
Plus, fusion likely has the same kind of practical, economic limitations (huge upfront capital cost and long build time) that make fission hard to justify in an environment of small, cheap fossil fuel burners and wind/solar units.
It does feel exciting that fusion has apparently moved from being "just 5 years away" for something like three decades to this past decade they've revised down to now perpetually "just 2 years away", at that burndown rate we can expect it in maybe three decades.
That said the cheapest fusion power we'll ever have access to will always be solar power because the capital costs of building our solar system's sun are already well and easily sunk/amortized.
I'll add that as well as reaching Qtotal > 500, we need continuous operating life to be of the order of 10 million seconds, "only" 13 orders of magnitude away. Not going to happen in 2 years, or 5 years, or 40 years.
---
The mininum viable Qplasma would be in the neighborhood of 100.[1] Fusion may get competitive for electricity generation with a Qtotal > 500.[2]
It's clean in the sense that it isn't generating CO2. But it is a finite resource. Also, the environmental impact of a nuclear power plant is non-negligible.
Everything is finite. Solar and other "renewables" aren't clean or renewable because the components don't live forever and their manufacturing requires rare earths which are a finite and very unclean to mine. AFAIK rare earths are not being recycled so we are just sweeping the dirty under the carpet and not really greenifying the energy. But for countries that currently burn coal anything would be an improvement.
Nuclear is finite but so is coal and oil and we are nowhere close of running out of it. New reserves will be discovered once there's demand. And used fuel can be recycled in breeder reactors.
I'll take your word for it as there's dozens of ways to build a panel and some do contain rare earth elements but I don't know how widespread they are because they are probably expensive. But the point still apply because even if they don't contain REE they contain other elements that are also finite. Also consider batteries which will be required for load balancing, lithium is very far from abundant and it's extraction is very far from green.
Whenever I have regrets, I remind myself that I can't know what would have happened if I had went down that other road, maybe a poor decision saved me from a worse fate.
If we had scaled up on nuclear, there's no way every reactor would have had the best engineers, best contractors, best governance -- there would certainly be some that cut corners or got built on a fault line or vulnerable to some other unpredictable disaster or terrorist attack.
that would still be better than what we ended up with. i'll take a dozen fukushima type events over the span of 20-30yrs over slowly but steadily ruining the planet every day.
I'll take a dozen Fukushimas every year (deaths from radiation: 1; deaths from evacuation stress: 273) over the hundreds of thousands killed every year by air pollution from coal burning.
It's wild how a couple of nuclear incidents so horrified the public imagination, when in reality the death toll and pollution from more conventional energy sources is magnitudes worse than nuclear.
Looks to be about 1,000 new coal plants being built or at least planned. Most of which are in China. Which will no doubt operate for decades.
Obviously North America is more interested in Solar, Wind, and Natural Gas. Eventually we will get to gridscale power storage. Suddenly it'll be problem solved.
Nuclear isn't difficult to build because of environmentalists, it's difficult to build because we don't know how to build big things anymore.
Check out the autopsy of VC Summer's failure, or the delays at Vogtle, and you won't find any environmentalists to blame. At least I haven't been able to find any hint of that, and if it were possible to blame environmentalists, I would think that the contractor and utility would be screaming it.
We have already kickstarted positive feedback loops like thawing of the tundra, reduced albedo due to smaller ice sheets, ... . We actually need to go carbon negative for a while to offset those. The technology you mention surely will help greatly in avoiding speeding things up, but they won't take us back to preindustrial levels alone.
Just saying.