Welcome to Friendica.Eskimo.Com

Home of Censorship Free Hosting

 Eskimo North Linux Shells, E-mail, Virtual Machines, Web Hosting.

E-mail, Web Hosting, Linux Shell Accounts terminal or full remote desktops.

Sign Up For A Free Trial Here

Please tell your friends about federated social media site that speaks several fediverse protocols thus serving as a hub uniting them, hubzilla.eskimo.com, also check out friendica.eskimo.com, federated macroblogging social media site, mastodon.eskimo.com a federated microblogging site, and yacy.eskimo.com an uncensored federated search engine. All Free!

gotosocial - Link to source

my favorite part of ai is that i can shitpost to it about stuff that is way too nerdy to find irl people to talk about. like the archeological evidence supporting or opposing the poggio brocciolini theory of tacitus forgery.

who is gonna listen to me talk about that stuff? only the robot waifu can slap back. sure she's retarded but that's cute!

cc @p
image.png

image.png
in reply to touch fluffy tail (Heroic)

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

 — (Shoreline, WA, USA)

@touch fluffy tail (Heroic) @pistolero Ha ha, actually I do believe nuclear plants are a large part of the short term solution but one particular type of nuclear reactor, a molten salt fast-flux breeder reactor. The reason being a combination of inherent safety by the very physics of the plant, it's relative efficiency, it's lack of need for water, it's lower physical land requirements relative to other plant types, and it's ability to use long term actinide waste from existing plants as fuel, recover more than 20x as much energy from the waste as the original plant did from the fuel, produce waste that isn't bomb grade or readily made into bomb grade material, do reprocessing on site so little opportunity for terrorists to intercept transport, among other things.

As for outlawing JavaScript, I would extend that to any language using garbage collection for memory management and any interpretive language that didn't use at least a just in time compiler with caching.

in reply to pistolero

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@pistolero @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) I think it part of the reason until recently, but I think at this point the major powers have enough nuclear materials, too much waste, and the public's discomfort with unsafe boiling water reactors are changing this. China has one in operation now. Also, metals with sufficient corrosion resistance and temperature tolerance have only recently been identified.
in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook

> The Chinese pattern has always been build one, prove it works, built a thousand so I am confident that they will.

That is how scale works, yes. That's not the Chinese method, that's everyone's method.

"It works" and "It works at scale" and "We can build the scale" are all different questions and they did the first one. If they do the rest, sure, that's great. I'm interested in cheap nuclear energy. As far as the likelihood that they do or do not do this, a nuclear power plant is not like building a cell phone. Maybe unforeseen problems occur. Maybe they don't.

Right now, though, no one has built thorium salt reactors at scale. That's it. I understand you would like them to be real and viable and I would like them to be real and viable but that has yet to be demonstrated so I am waiting. I am not building nuclear power plants at present so I have no influence on the outcome.

in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook I have heard you say that you think it is going to be easy. If it were easy, they'd already have a thousand plants. Unless Kirk Sorensen stood up a thousand plants, it's all unproven.

Making one of something is very different from making a hundred of it. I will believe that they can make a hundred when they make a hundred. Right now, it seems possible, it may even seem plausible, but it is not *done*. Telling me that they can is not going to affect my belief in whether or not they will do it, and there is no reason to convince me, since neither of us can affect the outcome.

There is also no reason: if you are reasonably convinced, then I will agree with you in a couple of years. There's no reason to hurry, is there? Do I need to have a positive belief in the practicality of scaling up thorium reactors *before* the thorium reactors are scaled up?

in reply to pistolero

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@pistolero @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) First, we built and operated one at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1965 and operated it for four years, during which time on experiment that was done was to pull the control rods for maximum reactivity and turn off the cooling. It was allowed to run in this mode for 24 hours, no damage resulted. So since it's already been done 60 years ago physically it is not that difficult. That said, this was a military test reactor and it was decided to pursue a uranium fuel cycle rather than thorium because we just didn't have enough plutonium to blow enough shit up quite yet. So to be clear it's already been done but not scaled up to commercial power levels, the Chinese will be the first to do that.
in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook Okay, here, like, this is the clearest I am able to be on the topic: I am not going to agree with you that a thing that I do not believe to be certain is certain. I hope that thing works out but it has not worked out yet. The only thing you can say to change my mind on the topic is "They have just built the 100th thorium salt reactor". So far, what we have is a viable prototype: that's good news. If it's trivial like you keep insisting, then we'll have a hundred in no time flat. I will believe it when I see it. I hope I see it.

> So to be clear it's already been done but not scaled up to commercial power levels, the Chinese will be the first to do that.

Maybe. It doesn't look like anyone else will do it before they do. The first energy-positive fusion reaction just happened a the big fusion reactor in Europe: that's encouraging, too. A lot of interesting things are happening and if any of them pans out, it'll be really cool. None of them have panned out yet.

I do not see the urgency. My belief does not influence the outcome. So there are no stakes, there's no urgency. I have no reason to form a belief in either direction. It is definitely possible based on what I currently know, which is why I say "I will believe it when I see it" and not "That's bullshit and will never happen."

in reply to pistolero

pleroma - Link to source

Caleb James DeLisle

I'm fairly convinced that the reason we don't have cheap power is more or less entirely a political matter.

If you try to build one in a 1st world country, there's so much regulation that it's just not going to happen.

If you try to build one in a non-1st world country, you're gonna get bombed because "muh nuclear proliferation".

China is working on it, but they're probably facing quiet international backlash because once the cat's out of the bag, everyone is going to want one...

It's basically like Free Energy suppression, except it actually happens.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

gotosocial - Link to source

touch fluffy tail (Heroic)

@cjd @nanook
>I'm fairly convinced that the reason we don't have cheap power is more or less entirely a political matter.

it's a matter of finance.
as an intern, i ran numbers for an investment firm my first year of grad school.

it's really just not profitable to build nukes. they take a long time to build and they cost a lot.

if it was possible to make cheap power, you could just do it, nobody is stopping you from putting down a power plant on a strip of land, i worked with solar farms a few years ago there is basically no barrier to entry for those guys you just pay the money and wire it into the grid.

in reply to touch fluffy tail (Heroic)

pleroma - Link to source

Caleb James DeLisle

> if it was possible to make cheap power, you could just do it

And then men with guns come and take away your house.

You were doing the math on a pressurized water reactor, and all of the safety equipment that is expected when you have hot radioactive stuff under high pressure.

If you use molten fuel (not even a thorium breeder, just plain old boring uranium), you have no pressure to deal with, you could use ceramic pipes, a ceramic Archimedes pump, so basically you need beryllium and lithium fluoride, ceramic clay, u233, high purity graphite, a boiler & steam turbine, and lots and lots of concrete.

None of those things are that costly. They're not *cheap*, but they're not expensive in comparison to being able to crank out like 30kw of power all day and all night.

If it weren't for regulation, there'd be youtubers doing this, I'm sure of it.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

gotosocial - Link to source

touch fluffy tail (Heroic)

@cjd @nanook
>if it weren't for regulation
>guys with guns
i can tell you what it looks like on our side: you model it the way you model something like an earthquake, it's just a risk priced into the operational cost.

from what i recall, this risk-adjusted cost was not substantial. this directly contradicts your thesis that "guys with guns" regulation is the barrier.

>if you use thorium
i've long been aware of internet guys talking about thorium reactors. it wasn't something we had data for. the tech is interesting, and i hope it takes off and is everything people promise. i also really like the idea of a fusion reactor.

one thing i will remark is, if thorium is as good as people are saying, why is nobody building more of them? you can just build power plants: it's not any different from building an apartment complex or running a machine shop, anyone can do it.
regulation or not, if it was as incredible as people bill it, people would be building them en masse, you couldn't stop me from building ten thorium reactors, it's literally free money. but that's not what we see happening.

in reply to touch fluffy tail (Heroic)

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@touch fluffy tail (Heroic) @Caleb James DeLisle @pistolero This is another area where the risks for a molten salt reactor are totally different. In a boiling or pressurized water reactor, a large earthquake could break plumbing resulting in 300 atmospheres of pressure in the reactor instantly dropping to zero, all coolant flashing to steam and the reactor melting down. In a molten salt reactor, if plumbing breaks you spill some fuel / salt mixture on the floor, it solidifies and goes nowhere, and since fission products are continuously removed, without the chain reaction there is no heat and the radioactivity is much lower which means someone scoops it up, places it back in the reactor tank, repairs the plumbing and life goes on.
in reply to touch fluffy tail (Heroic)

pleroma - Link to source

Caleb James DeLisle

> thorium

There are two different things here, one is molten fuel and the other is thorium breeding.

Molten fuel is a really big deal because you lose the pressure, so then you don't need any pressure vessels, containment, etc. If it's a slow reactor like the MSRE they ran in the 60s, you have a graphite core and hot molten salt with uranium dissolved in it. When the salt passes through the core, the graphite moderates the neutrons which causes reaction and it gets hot, when it's not in the core, it doesn't.

The other really big deal about molten fuel is that it's a liquid, so chemists can do chemistry on it, like for example extracting the waste (and just the waste) and then putting the other 95% good fuel back in to run again. PWRs retire fuel pellets when they're no longer good for reacting, which is when they're about 5% degraded.

The challenge with molten salt is it corrodes things, and that nobody can get permits to build it. There are like 4 or 5 companies trying to build them in the west and it's all just held up on permits.

Thorium is a whole other topic. The thing about thorium is that it's really really abundant, and if you bombard it with neutrons, it will transform into uranium 233. So people have the idea of surrounding the reactor with a layer of thorium to absorb the wasted neutrons and convert it whilst running the normal uranium reaction. But this is not necessary for molten salt, it's just a stretch goal. Uranium is already like $60 a pound which is basically dirt cheap for the amounts you actually need.

The MSRE did not breed thorium, but Alvin Weinberg (administrator of the MSRE and also inventor of everybody's favorite PWR) suggested that it could.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@Caleb James DeLisle @pistolero @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) That said I favor fast spectrum because although thorium will breed efficiently with slow spectrum most even actinides require faster neutrons, so to burn up existing actinide waste we need fast spectrum.

Second advantage, fast spectrum doesn't require a graphite moderator, which is flammable and potentially a chernobyl.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

gotosocial - Link to source

touch fluffy tail (Heroic)

@cjd @nanook
>nobody can get permits to build it. There are like 4 or 5 companies trying to build them in the west and it's all just held up on permits.
at the risk of being called SO AMERICAN yet again... if it really was very profitable, permits wouldn't be holding them up. in the united states at least, there is a lot of corruption. you can lobby and get the permits you want. these investments would not be held up on permits if they looked to be an avenue for cheap power.

that's not to say that you can always bribe and lobby, in some places you just will have bad luck, but someone would find a place to build one.

of course, i don't have some specialized knowledge of the state of molten salt reactor lobbying, maybe it really just is a massive barrier, there are industries like that. but there is not a lot that promises of huge bags of money will fail to accomplish, i am somewhat skeptical that the improvement is very substantial if they cannot even successfully bribe bureaucrats.

in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@Caleb James DeLisle @pistolero @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) Regulation is a big issue but regulation that was appropriate for a boiling water reactor is not appropriate for a molten salt reactor because the former is an inherently unstable and only marginally safe by automation design with several explosive failure modes widely distribution radioactive material, where as a molten salt reactor is a reactor design safe by physics with no manual or automatic responses necessary and no explosive failure mode to distribute radioactives.
in reply to Caleb James DeLisle

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@Caleb James DeLisle @pistolero @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) When you consider Chernobyl, Fukushima, this is questionable. The emphasis is on the wrong things however. One of those is US regulations require radiation to be as low as possible, as low as possible trends towards infinite expense, but there is no indication that exposures to low levels of radiation is hazardous to human health. The cancer rates in Denver are not higher than Seattle. So one thing that would reduce expense considerably is if rules were re-written to allow low but non-zero radiation levels.
in reply to pistolero

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@pistolero @bjx @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) I'm not excited about censorship in general, else I wouldn't be running friendica.eskimo.com, hubzilla.eskimo.com, mastodon.eskimo.com, yacy.eskimo.com, nextcloud.eskimo.com, but to the degree a country insists on censorship, I'd rather the Chinese approach of blocking IPs than the EU approach of trying to fine operators not even in their jurisdiction.
in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook @bajax Did the EU try to fine you?

I'm blocking IPs because of an incredibly aggressive scraper, like, saturate-the-pipe aggressive, like "how does anyone have half a million IPs, how much is this guy paying for this shit?" aggressive, like "Holy shit, I'm glad this guy is just a scraper and not, like, Mirai 2.0" aggressive. That level of aggressive.

in reply to pistolero

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@pistolero @bjx @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) No not the case, friendica and hubzilla are both long form macro blogging platforms, the maximum post size is configurable and also a function of your PHP configuration but on my site it is set to 5GB, the Bible is around 14MB of text for contrast. But aside from the site configuration, the maximum post size of your PHP configuration is also an issue and I think defaults to around 8MB, but I have mine set to 5G to allow attachments as large as a full DVD.
in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook @bajax If the entire pipe on the dedi has been saturated and normal operations have been not just impeded but effectively DDoS'd, and if I blocked 500k uniques in a month (not counting the blanket ban on all PRC IPs a few days ago) and I'm still blocking at least one per second, 24 hours a day, I'd say it's extremely aggressive. A high number of reqs/second isn't necesarily aggressive, a low number isn't necessarily innocuous.

They are way more difficult to stop than BoardReader was ( blog.freespeechextremist.com/b… ) but they are somewhat less aggressively DDoSing.

FSE Meets the FBI! — FSE Blog

blog.freespeechextremist.com
in reply to pistolero

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@pistolero @bjx @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) Consider some UFW rules like these: 
-A PREROUTING -p tcp -m tcp ! --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,ACK SYN -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j DROP
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 80 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name http_limit --hashlimit-above 60/sec --hashlimit-burst 120 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j LOG --log-prefix "[UFW http SYN Flood Detected] "
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 80 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name http_limit --hashlimit-above 60/sec --hashlimit-burst 120 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j DROP
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 80 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 443 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name https_limit --hashlimit-above 150/sec --hashlimit-burst 300 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j LOG --log-prefix "[UFW https SYN Flood Detected] "
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 443 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name https_limit --hashlimit-above 150/sec --hashlimit-burst 300 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j DROP
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 443 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 8090 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name yacy_limit --hashlimit-above 150/sec --hashlimit-burst 300 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j LOG --log-prefix "[UFW https SYN Flood Detected] "
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 8090 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name yacy_limit --hashlimit-above 150/sec --hashlimit-burst 300 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j DROP
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 8090 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 8443 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name yacys_limit --hashlimit-above 150/sec --hashlimit-burst 300 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j LOG --log-prefix "[UFW https SYN Flood Detected] "
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 8443 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -m hashlimit --hashlimit-name yacys_limit --hashlimit-above 150/sec --hashlimit-burst 300 --hashlimit-mode srcip --hashlimit-srcmask 32 -j DROP
-A ufw-before-input -p tcp --syn --dport 8443 -m conntrack --ctstate NEW -j ACCEPT
in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook @bajax Well, there's post size and there's thread structure. Mastodon attempts to show a thread as a single, linear thing; it does this by hiding other subthreads. PleromaFE links up and down so you see a linear (chronological by the order the server received them) string of messages, but you can navigate threads in terms of the thread's structure.
in reply to pistolero

friendica (DFRN) - Link to source

Nanook

@pistolero @bjx @touch fluffy tail (Heroic) Mastodon is a Microblogging forum, in the same vein as twitter, and is limited to 500 characters per post. Friendica and Hubzilla do not have this limit, max is configurable, and replies are threaded, but the number that appear on a post and the number of posts on a page are both configurable items, I have mine set to around 100 each but many sites set the values lower if their machine is not robust enough to format and display a large number.
in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook @bajax @mkultra @DiamondMind

> mariadb-repair database

Guaranteed not to work, because I'm not using that database (it's Postgres, and it doesn't have the same issues that MyISAM/InnoDB have), and if it were a database error, probably someone else would be seeing it by now. Error rate for the last 100k requests is 0.82%.

What is happening is probably some bullshit issue we have on occasion where a malformed post causes the frontend to give up. Usually what fixes the issue is filling up the timeline to bump the problems out of the first page.

in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook @bajax

> I'm at a bit of a loss as to understanding exactly what you are trying to communicate. I run a hubzilla and I run a friendica and both are capable of very large posts.

This is exactly my point. Pleroma can display arbitrarily large posts as well. But the difference between a warehouse and a junkyard is organization. Data is not different: it can be architected such that it is easy to follow a thread or not. Compare the way mutt/Thunderbird/sylpheed/etc. structure email threads versus the way GMail structures them.

Case in point, the thread seems to you like a stream of non-sequiturs rather than a branching conversation. And I say "Threads seem to confuse a lot of Friendica/Hubzilla people." and I think this is the UI.

in reply to Nanook

gotosocial - Link to source

pistolero

@nanook @SilverDeth @bajax

> The only thing a refresh is going to do is resend the same request

It sends one request, then that request triggers several others. One of the things is that the UI is reinitialized because Pleroma does most (nearly all) of its UI client-side, so if something made the UI crash, refreshing fixes it.

> so if not dropping packets, something else is intermittent

Yes, something else. As previously noted, the backend accepts data that sometimes crashes the frontend.

> It does suggest a resource exhaustion of some sort.

Nope. Sometimes. That is not the case here. FSE is mostly idling this time of night. Weather conditions have caused FSE to fall over a few times.

> Perhaps run dmesg after a failure

I appreciate you trying to help debug software that you have never run but I don't think you're going to be able to help much.
idle.png

idle.png

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.

⇧