I honestly wouldn't be surprised if AI played a part in constructing this post. For example, what's up with the last paragraph about Nicholas Carr? It says "Dr Nicholas Carr", but he's a journalist who doesn't seem to have a doctorate degree and I cannot find any indication he refers himself as "Dr Nicholas Carr", did an AI hallucinate this? Also Carr has a bone to pick with the Internet, not AI, his book was written back in 2011.

I am not entirely sure what your point is about reactor design. Did you mean we shouldn't build more BWRs? Agreed. If you mean we should focus on HWR like CANDU or experimental molten salt reactors, those have their downside. Deuterium is expensive & molten salt is corrosive & not commercially proven. If you really want nuclear you go with off the shelf proven designs like AP1000, but even then there are hurdles to build these as these boondoggle projects have shown. Yes every sector has scandal, but massive rate hikes & tens of billions in overruns is atypical & undermines the promise of what nuclear was sold as to those ratepayers.

Nuclear is go big or go home, and we can't socialize losses & liability while privatizing profit. Nuclear is also unattractive to the commercial market due to long-term ROI & project/liability risks. Effectively it needs to be a massive energy independence program funded by the government. I don't see that happening though.

You don't just need to keep tabs on it for 100 years. Much longer & ideally in a coordinated fashion.

If there's such demand for nuclear waste, why aren't companies making bank off of it? The demand isn't as high as you think.

We'll build magical breeder reactors that aren't actually commercially viable & use reprocessing facilities with the same process drawbacks that created some of these messes in the first place? Sounds like a bad idea.

Poo pooing the fears and dangers of nuclear is how we got into this mess where nuclear has a bad rap, deservedly so, from very poor management of very powerful substances.

The realities are that nuclear is incredibly complex & costly to implement & manage in a way where its full potential is realized. That's not a reason we shouldn't do it, but let's stop pretending commercial nuclear is viable.

That said many of these sites are so polluted due to fast & loose early nuclear weapons programs.

That said it's hard to argue that Jobs didn't have vision, or wasn't at least able to find people who had vision & talent, even if he was a polarizing figure.

Jobs takes a lot of the credit, and some of it is due, but there were many other people involved in bringing him back on board & the transition back to profitability/dominance.

I can think of counter examples to the attributes you gave earlier, but if you've read the texts and have not found them yourself, it is unlikely any logical or philosophical analysis would be persuasive.

I think the ideal of regulation is to try to remove the guesswork & expertise required for the end user to do due diligence. It's not perfect, but at least some minimum level of regulation, such as mandatory efficacy disclosures, would be needed.