They could be, and probably should be repurposed
But also, brand new chrome books are ~$80
By the time you collect, clean, repair, and reimage the older computers, it may well be cheaper to just buy Chromebooks.
I hate seeing anything useful going to the trash but the economics aren’t great in this case
You know that’s not actually going to happen though. Maybe one in a hundred will get intercepted and saved at best.
Indeed. It would be interesting to run the same analysis for censorship of pro Israel content and compare the differences between the two, though the data would likely still be noisy and inconclusive.
The only thing I miss it for is plugging into the car. I’ve got Bluetooth adapters now though that work pretty well. In theory I might run into a situation where it would be nice to be able to plug into a speaker or someone else’s car or something, but BT is so common it doesn’t really come up.
I like this. Like a digital equivalent to how a car’s VIN is stamped on a bunch of different parts all over the car so a different buyer can tell if it’s been wrecked and repaired.
TBF that’s how many master artists worked in the past. The big art producers had one master painter guiding a bunch of apprentices who did the actual legwork.
There are a lot of good arguments for wind, and I’m not arguing against it, but density and consistency are well known issues. You absolutely cannot replace a nuclear plant with a wind farm of the same size and get the same output. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, wind farms can often coexist with other land uses, but that’s still a disruptive environment.
It’s good to put pressure on nuclear, the reason it’s so incredibly safe is because it’s highly regulated, but to completely ignore it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
The question isn’t “are nuclear plants perfectly safe”, the question is “will adding nuclear plants to our energy portfolio reduce the risks from climate change enough to offset the risks they introduce.”
I think, in that framework, replacing existing coal power plants with modern nuclear reactors is a huge overall benefit.
Wind and solar are great but there’s still a lot of work needed on storage and transmission before they can be viable grid scale. Realistically, saying no to nuclear doesn’t mean more wind, it means more natural gas. And those LNG tankers really are floating bombs.
Almost anything has the potential to negatively affect tens of thousands of people when it’s managed as recklessly and negligently as Chernobyl.
Chernobyl was less a reactor and more a bomb with a very long fuse. Saying we shouldn’t build nuclear reactors today is like saying you shouldn’t take a modern cruise because 14th century sailing ships sank all the time.
Obviously building one wind turbine is less disruptive, but you need hundreds to get the same output, and they only work when it’s windy.
Those wind turbines and solar panels also get constructed, and affect a much larger area. It’s not an obvious comparison
And a dam failure isn’t that much better than a nuclear accident, and far more common and less regulated
That list records 8 fatalities related to nuclear power in the US. All time.
Coal is responsible for more than 40. Per year. Just in my city.
I just got a 2018 Honda Odyssey and it’s great. It has the touch screen, but also has physical buttons for almost all of the climate and radio stuff. That’s how it should be IMO. Just give us both!