this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
113 points (98.3% liked)

technology

23313 readers
63 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I get the sentiment but you definitely don't want nuclear powered vacuum cleaners.

[–] Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I get the sentiment but I definitely want a nuclear vacuum cleaner

As long as it's a Miele and not a fucking Dyson

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't know, my Dyson works great.

[–] Spongebobsquarejuche@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The cordless changed my life.

[–] anarchoilluminati@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

That one is nice. My friend has it.

I have the corded, pet hair one. Damn, that shit is powerful.

[–] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Honestly it's kind of a ridiculous concept. It's way more efficient to have one big plant generating power and then send that power to all the location it's needed then have a million tiny engines everywhere. That's why cars are so damn inefficient.

Early train engineers figured this out, before widespread use of electricity they were trying to make trains that were driven by long vacuum tubes powered by one big pump station cuz that was more efficient (on paper at least) than having a big fuck off steam engine dragging around all it's own water and coal.

So have one big nuke power plant and then just have all the cars run off pantographs.

[–] theturtlemoves@hexbear.net 4 points 3 months ago

One big power plant is more efficient, but also a single point of failure. Having multiple medium-sized power plants is more reliable.

Anyone who gets most of their electricity from nukes already has a nuke powered vacuum.