@Fast-Nop Getting cold water for your reactor is far easier than making the sun shine on your solar panels and the wind blow on your wind turbine. And the half-life of Uranium-235 never falters—that's why radioactivity is used to power the world's most accurate clocks.

@Fast-Nop Once it's under Yucca Mountain our grandkids can forget about it. Even that is likely overkill. There really isn't that much highly radioactive waste produced, and even then "highly" is relative—the whole reason it's waste is that it's no longer radioactive enough to use for fuel. It's on the "you'll get sick if you keep a chunk of it unshielded in your living room" level, not the "one pinch of dust will wipe out a city" level. In fact the vast majority of "waste" actually does get recycled to make new fuel, and that proportion rises every year as reactor designs improve.

@Fast-Nop One plant technician died from radiation at Fukushima. That was the only radiation death. One person, no more, despite the massive tsunami that completely flooded the reactors. Meanwhile smog and ash from fossil fuels kill many thousands of people every year even when there are no accidents. Even if you include Chernobyl, in terms of deaths per kilowatt hour nuclear power is many times safer than the alternatives.

As for cost, nuclear does require a large upfront investment to build the plant. But once it is in operation of is extremely reliable, and that reliability means the actual cost per kWh of nuclear energy ends up being about half that of coal and wind power, and a quarter that of solar.

As for the environmental effects:
- Wind power is an unmitigated disaster for birds and bats. Worldwide, maybe hundreds of millions of birds and bats die from wind turbine blades every year. And it isn't the songbirds that are dying, but birds like seabirds and birds of prey that are already seriously endangered. And because bats play a critical role in pollination and eating insects, when they die it can have knock-on effects that hurt agriculture.

- Solar panels require large amounts of land area if you want to get significant power. Even following a highly conservative estimate from a group that supports solar, to power the whole US with just solar you would need a land area the size of South Carolina. That is a lot of habitat you need to destroy. Solar panels are also full of toxic heavy metals, and while they could in theory be safely recycled, it would be expensive, so most just end up in landfills where the toxic metals can leach into the soil and water.

@Fast-Nop @asgs The only major emission of nuclear power plants is water vapor. The amount of radiation emitted by a nuclear power plant into the environment while in normal operation is insignificant—ash from coal plants is more radioactive. Even the technicians working inside the plant are less exposed to radiation than airline pilots. Nuclear waste is far less dangerous than commonly claimed—it has never hurt anyone, and if buried underground it never will.
Excluding Chernobyl, less than 10 people have ever died because of a civilian nuclear accident, and all of them were plant technicians. Assuming the people in charge are more competent and concerned with human life than the USSR, the likelihood of an accident that kills people outside the plant is approximately nil. And, in terms of number of deadly accidents on average to generate the same amount of electricity, uranium mining is far safer than coal mining or mining for heavy metals to make solar panels.

@electrineer It does though. Wind turbines only work when the wind is blowing, which is something you cannot control. Your power grid needs to be able to consistently deliver enough power to meet the entire demand, all the time, including during demand spikes. If demand spikes are correlated with an event that reduces the energy production of wind power to near zero, as is the case with winter weather in Texas, then you need other power sources to meet that demand.
So any reliable grid will need to have enough non-wind capacity to meet all the demand even at peak demand times. And that extra capacity will have to be maintained and cared for year-round, even when it's not in use. So if you are going to need enough non-wind power sources to meet all the demand anyway, why not just dump wind completely and build nuclear plants instead? Far cheaper in the long run, more reliable, and arguably better for the environment. The same logic also applies to solar power.

@homo-lorens You are correct, nothing is free. So if you need something you have to to pay for it. What the Texas grid needed was reserve capacity and cold-proof infrastructure to handle extreme events like this. But Texas, in the name of the "free market,'' chose not to do so, and reaped the consequences.

@Fast-Nop While they have been greatly exaggerated, there actually is some truth to the wind-turbine claims. The reason the electricity they produced didn't drop by much is because the turbines were already producing very little power due to lack of wind, as is normal in the area at this time of year. The fact that the drop in production was expected does not negate the fact that it occurred.
But wind was only a contributing factor, not the main culprit. It was the combination of non-cold-proof infrastructure, along with a "free market" energy pricing system that does not pay energy producers for extra reserve capacity (only for actual production) that did the Texas grid in.

@netikras in this situation, the "correct" dash is the em dash ("—"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash

'Happiness consists in getting enough sleep. Just that, nothing more.'

Find a way to sleep well at night. No matter what it takes. Otherwise nothing else will get any better.

As for whether the coronavirus is more dangerous than the flu, the answer will still be "yes" even if the mortality rate turns out to not be significantly higher.

The flu is an old disease, and humanity is used to dealing with it. We have an effective vaccine, and people tend to have some degree of natural immunity to it as well (from prior exposure, and I think genetic as well). And people who are immune to the flu also generally won't infect other people. Result: relatively small percentage of people get the flu every year, healthcare system can deal with it.

Coronavirus is a new disease. No vaccine, no immunity. Everyone can catch it, everyone can spread it around. Unrestricted exponential growth means that even a small percentage of cases requiring hospitalisation will overwhelm the healthcare system, and without proper equipment (like respirators, for example) fatality rates skyrocket. So we have to slow down the spread to keep the hospitals from overflowing.

We don't know exactly how lethal the coronavirus is because people who are infected but show no symptoms may never get tested. The "case fatality rate", which is a lot easier to measure, and is also much higher, is the percentage of people who are tested that die. Both rates will vary significantly between places and times, depending on how widely people are tested, the general health of the population, whether the healthcare system can handle the load, and so on.

TL;DR There is no one ''fatality rate".

They finally released the V8 runtime for Apps Script yesterday:
https://developers.google.com/apps-...

I haven't tested it yet, though.

The bug applies specifically to cases where the user is allowed to use sudo to run commands as other users that are not root.

Some people recommend ergonomic keyboards:
https://reviewgeek.com/4007/...

(I have never tried one, so I can't attest to their effectiveness.)