For the record, the rate at which the power increases and decreased on the reactor is more or less accurate to the simulation, but the simulation has been speed up by about 100x. Mentioning this just in case the game leaves you with the impression that managing a nuclear reactor is a twitchfest.
Thank you for pointing that out. Nuclear reactors today (and many even “back then”) are very, very stable and have so many safeties in place, that it’s hard to cause a second Chernobyl meltdown, if I’m not mistaken.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
For the record, the rate at which the power increases and decreased on the reactor is more or less accurate to the simulation, but the simulation has been speed up by about 100x. Mentioning this just in case the game leaves you with the impression that managing a nuclear reactor is a twitchfest.
Thank you for pointing that out. Nuclear reactors today (and many even “back then”) are very, very stable and have so many safeties in place, that it’s hard to cause a second Chernobyl meltdown, if I’m not mistaken.
Modern designs literally can’t melt down, have failsafes built in to the design, and run using literal nuclear waste.