Still better to have 15 standards to 15 usecases than no standards. When there is legit usecases which make it useful. In my opinion too many “standards” come from gatekeeping companies not even trying to find a standard together with others or big established production which makes change expensive so they all make their own. In the best case (and many cases) a few years after a new technology establishes but not too late that the expenses are reduced, a public institution sets the standard(s) (or enforces it) and everyone is fine with that limitation to defined usecaes. And for the minority of very rare usecases you can still do exceptions but once a standard is established, its hard and expensive in man ways for a not monopolist company to go their own way against a standard (if they are allowed to).

Joking aside whats that “tree” for?

Idk if maybe my or your english is bad but i dont get it. Or maybe im just stupid or you are trolling who knows

Do you mean pee by yourself?

Why do you think the people who said that “we cant do it” are the same people who now say “now its too late”? The pro and contra points to nuclear energy are pretty obvious. Also obvoius is, that these pros and cons are predestinated for disagreement. Also its obvious that opinions can change, on the one hand people maybe start priorize low carbon enegry production, on the other hand rivers for cooling are drying, a few accidents happened, and the price for nuclear energy is now pretty high while the price for renewables and batteries is dropping. We had a lot of change in circumstances in the last years and decades to discuss so saying “fuck off” is pretty pathetic in this case if you ask me

You fucker