Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "The Uncertain Future of Jet Fuel" video.

  1.  @Yaotzin86  No, you don't get to define markets. Everything is a market even if you don't want it to be. Trying to plead for a special definition is just a fallacy. ""Real money" is defined by the government" - Not really, it's defined by the central bank. In some cases the central bank is owned by the government. There's no actual reason a private bank cannot issue currency. In fact, things like bitcoin are validated by cryptography and do not require a central bank to be validated. ""Fraud" is defined by the government" - No, it isn't. It's theft by deception. "There is no such thing as legally owned property without government" - This is Marxist BS. Everyone except the most unreasonable people recognize that property exists independently of government. Only the deranged who buy nonsensical political ideologies actually try and argue that property is something we get from the government. Even animals mark their territory. Even animals can comprehend the notion of what is theirs.
    4
  2.  @Yaotzin86  "markets can't exist without regulations" - I'll sell you my bike I don't need anymore. You give me money. Bam. No government involvement.
    2
  3.  @Yaotzin86  It's not pedantry to point out that the vast majority of human interactions are anarchist and do not involve government at all. I don't need laws against legal tender. I made a trade for real money and you resorted to fraud. Your problem isn't that you manufactured fake money. Your problem is that you stole from me. And I will be made whole one way or another.
    2
  4. That's a very dismissive way of looking at the argument. It's not about "making a bunch of money". If something is unprofitable, it's not done at a commercial scale because it requires the input of more value than it can generate. It's like trying to live off a caloric deficit forever. At one point the organism can't take it anymore, you can't tell it "problems are always solved". You need to get that man a sandwich, pronto.
    1
  5.  @gripp9k  Okay. But the problem is that they're in the business of making money not helping the environment. If they're not making money, it's preferable to go out of business. Everyone says they're cool with things costing more, but as costs increase people just do things less. That's natural. If ticket sales decline, they'll either close down or get massive bailouts from the government. The point being, if you care about the environment you should cut to the chase and say you want them out of business. At least that's a more respectable position, because I know damned well they're going to get a massive bailout. It is dismissive. You're trying to remove profit out of the equation by trying to pretend that you can run a system at a deficit. You can't. Who lied and who said what is totally irrelevant, that's a whole different discussion. We're not talking about who's bad or good here, we're talking about running a company that can't make money. That is being dismissive. If it's really killing us, nip it in the bud instead of settling for a point something percent dilution of renewable fuels. This is ridiculous. If something is killing you then you demand for it to stop. Not to take miniscule baby steps. Like I said, it would actually be more respectable if you were calling for the entire industry to be over.
    1
  6.  @gripp9k  You are dismissing the reality of running a business. You're just saying "I don't care about money, just solve it" and okay, it might not matter to you but it matters as a way of measuring how useful a human activity is. Those days have not passed. Do you run your household budget at a deficit? I hope not. Okay, you've been lied to. So what? You're still not going anywhere if you go bankrupt. Oh tech becomes cheaper? Seems like you're defeating your own argument. You seem to just be pissed off at the world. By all means be pissed off, but don't go on thinking silly catchphrases and political activism can change reality. Even now you're trying to walk back and say things will become profitable later, after trying to convince me profit doesn't matter. Okay bud.
    1
  7.  @gripp9k  Not really. I actually suggest you look into the history of taxes before going around claiming that they're meant to pay for pet projects. Because that was never the intent behind taxes and if that's what they're for now, they should be abolished for straying too far from the original goal.
    1
  8.  @gripp9k  Yeah, you do need to understand the history of taxes. The reason you don't understand history is precisely why you think taxes are for corporations to make bank off silly projects that don't work.
    1
  9.  @gripp9k  This isn't stopping climate change. Want to reduce CO2 emissions? Then use the taxes for nuclear. "Oh no nuclear is unprofitable, nuclear gets subsidies" and so do all your alternatives, except nuclear actually works and an abundance of energy means you actually make the silly projects cheaper to run. Forestry Service takes care of the land that belongs to the nation. Plenty of tax money is already used for environmental and energy research. Governments are very concerned with energy.
    1
  10.  @gripp9k  Yeah. Want the alternatives? They come with an energy cost because they're inefficient to produce. So in the end the alternatives are just energy storage for excess nuclear.
    1
  11.  @gripp9k  Everything is incredibly expensive but you want to use tax money for it. Nuclear provides plentiful energy and your complaint is... too expensive. Buddy. That's true for all your alternatives. You can't "use both" without a source of disposable energy that makes up for inefficiencies. Tidal would mean construction all over shorelines. Wind is terrible. Geothermic is nuclear... what do you think keeps the mantle hot? Nuclear decay. Solar is fine but it only works half the day and requires a lot more area than a power plant. No, they won't all become "more efficient and cheaper". Solar is starting to hit the limits of physics in lab grade PV cells. We can double the amount of wind farms we have right now, but past that number efficiency will actually start to decrease as we rob too much energy from the moving air. Geothermic and tidal are still just ways to spin turbines. Any efficiency gains you get on those, will also net efficiency gains on the turbines spun by nuclear generated steam. So most of these pie in the sky "alternatives" are just scams that will damage the environment and give us shitty energy. "But sleeping on everything else is how we're here in the first place" - But that's false. We didn't "sleep" on anything. The technology just wasn't possible. It's like the electric car and the story about how the big oil magnates bought the patents and buried it. Even today we needed massive improvements to make EVs viable, and they still kinda suck in certain aspects. So no, we couldn't have Teslas in the 1970s and we couldn't have 2021 solar PV cells in the 1990s. The only reason there's a concern with catastrophic failures on nuclear plants is how they have a fail-deadly design where leaving them alone will cause a meltdown. Modern designs are fail-safe and literally cannot melt down. The vacating the area for a thousand years is also somewhat misleading. While not all areas around Fukushima are 100% safe to return due to readings above 15 mSv (max allowable exposure for nuclear plant workers is 20 mSv), many areas are now safe 10 years later.
    1