Here’s the generation statistics of the BN-800 reactor I mentioned before: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=451 It’s been operating at about 70% of it’s rated capacity basically since it was first turned on, that’s large scale power generation. Breeder reactors have been in commercial use for decades (see also: Phenix and Superphenix).

The simple reason why breeder reactors aren’t the default is because most reactors don’t need to be breeders. The two main upsides of a breeder reactor is a) breeding of nuclear material, which as I said before was only ever a concern in the very early days of nuclear power. We have thousands of years’ worth of fuel available now. b) The reuse of nuclear waste for additional power generation. Of course you have to have nuclear waste to reuse first, which necessitates many other, non-breeder reactors already being in use, so breeder reactors are usually restricted to countries that already have significant investment into nuclear power, like France, Russia, China, etc… If you don’t need to breed more nuclear fuel, and you don’t have waste to reprocess you might as well keep it simple and build a regular LWR reactor.

The Wikipedia page for breeder reactors has a whole list you can even sort by output capacity. For example, the BN-800.

There have been plenty. For example, the CANDU series of reactors developed in the 1950s and 60s. Breeder reactors were quite popular during the early days of nuclear power, as it was initially thought that there was maybe only 100 years’ worth of (easily accessible) nuclear material on earth, rather than the thousands (or tens of thousands) of years’ worth we know of now, due to both more reserves being discovered and also easier methods of fuel enrichment being developed. The fact that breeder reactors have fallen out of favour due to abundant fuel reserves certainly says something.

Breeder reactors produce more fissile material than they consume.

Not many people know the history of the treaty. It basically was signed under duress. Prior to the meeting where it was signed all but one of the Maori tribal leaders were against signing the treaty, even the Maori version. What was said at the signing was purposely never recorded, but considering the existential threat of the New Zealand Company (NZC) on the horizon (the primary reason a treaty was even being discussed), it is believed that the Maori leaders were basically given the choice of ‘sign this treaty and be a part of the British empire, or don’t and have no legal rights against the whims of the New Zealand Company’.

The New Zealand Company was a private British company with the goal of obtaining as much land as possible at any cost, and the Maori would have had zero legal protections unless they were part of the British empire. Without a treaty the NZC would have been able to push out the Maori entirely with no repercussions. The British people who brought the treaty to the Maori leaders knew this was coming, and wanted to avoid it.

Signing the treaty was a quick and dirty solution to the quickly approaching NZC and was responsible for preventing the worst of the damage, but it is a very flawed document. The translations were rushed, and vague. Basically everyone was against signing it, but they knew it was the least worst option available. It was never designed to be the core document underpinning a nation, merely a speed bump to stall the private annexation of New Zealand.

This is basically rule number one in the autocrat’s handbook: Rule something as illegal but make it necessary (e.g. give your public servants a near-zero salary, making them dependent on taking bribes to live). Then at any point the leaders have the legal grounds to arrest whoever they want for ‘corruption’. It’s a very common tactic.

As people have said already this is a somewhat common failure mode, especially when swapping nozzles. This happened to me twice between three nozzle swaps. The first time was a major leak like yours, the other time it was only slight (which I then made worse in my attempt to fix…). I was obviously doing something wrong, but I came fully prepared the second time with video guides for my specific machine and everything but still couldn’t get it perfect.

If you never want to think about this failure mode again (like me) then consider swapping your hotend for a Revo. A Revo nozzle is also the heatbreak, so there’s no possibility of a bad connection between them. The ‘nozzles’ are more expensive but they can be hotswapped (coldswapped, even) by hand with no special tools. Before I did everything in my power to avoid nozzle swaps, so I ended up settling for a jack-of-all-trades (but master of none) nozzle that I would never have to swap. Since moving to Revo however I find myself swapping nozzles way more now that it’s easy and with no chance of destroying my hotend. For instance I have a high-flow 1mm nozzle for quickly doing big structural prints, they print in like one third of the time and are way stronger than equivalent prints on a smaller nozzle. I also have a 0.25mm nozzle for miniature model prints with a better resolution than I could ever get before. I’m still waiting for a high-flow abrasion-resistant Revo nozzle, though.

Selective enforcement is one of those concepts that isn’t talked about much outside of legal ethics circles unfortunately, but I think it’s an important concept to be aware of and the potential issues with it. I first heard about it from The Dictators Handbook, which explores many behaviours of politicians and those in power, including how and why corrupt nations often employ selective enforcement. It’s an interesting read, would recommend. It definitely changed how I looked at the world.

I have no strong feelings on which particular weapons should be legal to carry, even if it’s just pepper spray or brass knuckles or something. The main thing is that it should be legal to carry something.

Also, selectively enforced laws are a terrible, HORRIBLE concept and should be avoided at all costs. It gives police and those in power the ability to selectively punish (or pardon) whomever they choose, often at the whims of their personal biases. Passing and exploiting selectively enforced laws is a common tactic used by corrupt nations and can be used to silence political opponents, target selected groups, promote agendas and so forth. The law should not rely on cops ‘being nice’ and choosing not to arrest you.

For a start it shouldn’t be a crime to merely carry something for self-defense. The current laws say that carrying anything for the express purpose of self-defense is illegal. There’s a bizarre cat and mouse game where the law says ‘its fine to defend yourself’ while simultaneously expressly forbidding you from carrying anything that you might be able to use for self-defense. It puts anyone actually in a life threatening situation at a supreme disadvantage: An attacker is already breaking the law so they’ll be armed to some extent, but under the law the victim is designed to be defenseless. If they do decide to arm themselves against the law and use it to defend themselves they can be prosecuted for carrying a weapon after the fact.

I never said anything about changing gun laws.

New Zealand. Gun laws are pretty strict, though we have lots of farmers who have guns for defending livestock. You can own guns with a valid reason (e.g. recreational shooting, not self defense) but essentially the only two places they can be is in a locked safe or (being transported to) a gun range.

In addition any and all tools and weapons are illegal to carry for the purpose of self defense (knives, pepper spray, tazers, clubs, screwdrivers, etc.). There’s a crime epidemic here at the moment, corner stores being robbed by people with machetes, jewelry stores ram raided with trucks, but if you dare even carry pepper spray to defend yourself you can be jailed. Don’t bother calling the cops either, they won’t be there until at least half an hour later. Cops don’t care about robberies. We literally once had the dispatcher tell us that no police would be coming. It’s ridiculous.

I wish self defense laws were less crazy here, if someone enters your home or property armed with a weapon you should be able to respond appropriately without fear of going to jail yourself.