Radiant Energy Group recently published a massive international survey of opinions on nuclear energy.
It's full of some things you might already know, but it also contains some surprisesđź§µ
For example, did you know French and German nuclear support isn't that different?
Nuclear does have less support than other green technologies, but in most places, it still receives net support.
This apparently low level of support looks higher when survey participants are asked about their ranked supported for different energy sources.
This support increases further if you subset to people who are techno-optimists or tech-neutral when it comes to fighting against climate change.
Unfortunately, most people aren't aware about nuclear is exceptionally clean. Even larger numbers think nuclear waste is a major point of worry.
The Simpsons has done incredible damage to the reputation of our best energy source.
Onto the demographics!
In some countries, the old are the most supportive of nuclear. In others, it's the young.
If you've seen other surveys on the demographics of nuclear support this one won't surprise you: men are universally more supportive of nuclear.
If you've seen other surveys on the relationship between science knowledge and nuclear support, this won't surprise you either: the most knowledgeable are (almost) universally the most supportive of nuclear.
Despite being the current best option for providing reliable, low-cost, and clean energy, being concerned about the climate generally predicts less support for nuclear.
When climate concern is represented by nonprofit membership, there's a similar result.
Despite the nuclear industry being aligned with numerous (typically) left-wing goals from protecting the environment to supporting labor unionization and high employee safety standards, it's the economically right wing that's more supportive of nuclear.
There's more in the report, but I'll end this thread on a happy note: globally, there's more support for additional nuclear builds than for additional nuclear shutdowns.
As a recap on my appearance, Eli Lilly is pursuing:
- A one-dose drug for preventing most heart disease
- A vaccine for chlamydia
- A vaccine for gonorrhea
- A vaccine for Epstein-Barr
- A drug that lets you stay awake longer and feel more rested
And remember, Eli Lilly's big break historically was the University of Toronto licensing them to produce insulin.
They started off by giving it out for free, saving the world's diabetics at a time when there was no treatment available.
They've always been a force for good.
I think
- The heart disease drug will succeed
-- Will it commercialize? It can, easily. But I'm 50/50 due to the competition
- Chlamydia and gonorrhea vax will succeed, but I don't see much commercial potential with Lilly
- EBV vaccine will fail with Lilly, succeed eventually
They've gone and made what seems to be a powerful, permanent gene therapy for LDL cholesterol.
That means they'll be able to effectively prevent most heart disease with a single infusion!
Almost all of the side effects were just things you see with any infusion. Some people react poorly to needles and having to sit for a while🤷‍♀️
And that's what we expect, because the people with good PCSK9 genes naturally are totally fine. This therapy catches the rest of us up!
This is amazing stuff, beating drug administration because it's permanent, and it only gets better from here.
We are going to get so healthy, so fast. Our grandkids are going to hear about heart attacks and have never actually seen one.
Are White women the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action?
That's a real claim that's commonly advanced by journalists, and the claim has gone so far that it's even made its way into academic publications and policy.
But the claim is completely falseđź§µ
This claim doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, shouldn't the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action be the people who the policies primarily target?
In America, that's African Americans and, among them, women get an added benefit. How could it be Whites?
To figure out where the claim comes from, I started reading supposed sources.
Often enough, journalists will just take the claim for granted without providing *any* source.
It's just tacit knowledge now, and that's not good!
World War I devastated Britain and likely slowed down its technological progressđź§µ
The reason being, the youth are the engine of innovation.
Areas that saw more deaths saw larger declines in patenting in the years following the war.
To figure out the innovation effects of losing a large portion of a generation's young men who were just coming into the primes of their lives, the authors needed four pieces of data.
The first were the numbers and pre-war locations of soldiers who died.
The next components were the numbers and locations of patent filings.
If you look at both graphs, you see obvious total population effects. So, areas must be normalized.
You know how most books on Amazon are AI slop now? If you didn't, look at the publication numbers.
Compare those to the proportion Pangram flags as AI-generated. It's fully aligned with the implied numbers based on the rise over 2022 publication levels!
Similarly, the rise of pro se litigants has come with a rise in case filings detected as being AI-generated, and with virtually zero false-positives before AI was around.
For reference, the French Revolution ushered in a number of egalitarian laws.
A major example of these had to do with inheritance, and in particular with partibility.
In some areas of France, there was partible inheritance, and in others, it was impartible.
Partible inheritance refers to inheritance spread among all of a person's heirs, sometimes including girls, sometimes not.
Impartible inheritance on the other hands refers to the situation where the head of an estate can nominate a particular heir to get all or a select portion.