As I said, some is necessary. However, a lot is just to make it not viable to protect dirty energy. Nuclear fission is one of the safest sources of energy, including the disasters and clean energy. It’s incredibly safe, and has only gotten safer. The chance of a meltdown are damn near zero now, and even if one happens there’s little chance for significant issues.
Meanwhile coal is spewing out radioactive waste constantly and has very little restrictions.
It’s not expensive because they are actually particularly hard to make though. They’re expensive because we made them expensive. There’s so many requirements and restrictions on them that aren’t on other power sources. Some of that’s good, but a lot is designed by dirty energy to keep them in business. They drive up the cost of nuclear and then get to say they’re cheaper.
Sadly for you the statistic show increasing punishment does not actually work to prevent them from committing these crimes. It can work for some crimes, but not this kind, and also only up to a certain point.
Sadly this needs to be spelt out to you, but if we’re spending resources on something we should make an attempt to use it as efficiently as possible. We have studies that show the efficacy of different types and degrees of punishment, as well as rehabilitation methods. Rehabilitation can get some people (not all) to become contributing members of society, where they’ll actually be a benefit instead of a cost.
Their point was money is being spent. Is it not best spent on actually stopping this from happening?
We know that this isn’t actually about that and prison is not either. That’s not the point. The point is people are fighting for the wrong things if they actually want to help.
Only after they do it. It doesn’t prevent anything.
For now, they’re better than Google. I have some bad opinions about them, but anything better than Google competing with Google is an improvement.
Well, it does have to do with privacy and security, it just doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not for them. These people (in the US) always make a point that criminals will buy guns whether it’s legal or not, but then they’ll argue they need to destroy privacy because criminals are using it. It doesn’t make sense, but it doesn’t need to because honesty or consistency aren’t important.
Ironically (though it’s hard to tell) I think their profile picture may be Hypocrites.