Youtube comments of Tony Wilson (@tonywilson4713).
-
573
-
AUSTRALIAN HERE:
I wrote to Peter at the start of this series and spoke about some of this.
I hope he pins this comment sorry if its longish
- On the Chinese - Peter is 100% right. We are way too heavily invested in China buy our raw materials. I have worked in our mining industry for most of the last 20 years and when the Chinese hit the wall we will be screwed and their construction industry has been so out of control that it won't be able to do anything but collapse and with that the demand for our raw materials will vanish. We got a taste of it when the GFC hit and as Peter said we didn't learn from that lesson.
Luckily we have the rise of India that will compensate for the loss of China. The question is what happens as China falls and India rises as in how much overlap there'll be.
- On the value adding thing and manufacturing - Peter is 50% right. Before working in mining i worked in manufacturing for over a decade BEFORE OUR ECONOMISTS killed it. We used to make steel and smelt alumina and make cars. We do make flour but only for our market which isn't unusual because transporting flour is a hassle compared to grain. We do make sugar locally and export tons of it. We also export staggering amounts of dairy to Japan and Korea.
What killed our manufacturing was our version of NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS. America called it Reaganomics, the Brits called it Thatcherism and we called it Economic Rationalism. We had treasurers on both sides of politics who loved it (Paul Keating & Kevin Costello). They privatised everything they could promising "Competition would provide better services and lower prices" and it DIDN'T. They have spun everything that's gone wrong into "Its awesome because investors won." and yes its been awesome for INVESTORS but the other 90% of us have been smashed, screwed and thrown under the bus.
- On the subprime comparison Peter is again 50% right. None of our home loans are guaranteed, its the banks who are guaranteed. Its another part of the Economic Rationalism -> Protect the investors and make everyone else pay for it. The effect is that our banks have been way too open handed at supplying money for home loans. that's driven prices to idiotic levels and when that bubble bursts it will be volcanic and we might not recover.
- On the American links the main reason America will protect us before protecting a lot of other places, IS NOT just because we've been joined every fight America has invited us too. Its because of American has 2 of its most important bases in the world in Australia. There's Pine Gap and Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt (also known as Northwest Cape). Both have Wikipedia pages but neither really portrays how significant they are.
FIRST - Because of where Pine gap is, its the ground station for the main US Security/Military satellites in geostationary orbit that look down on Russia, China and the Middle East. as well as being the ground station for any other satellites as they fly over Russia, China and the Middle East. Since 2000 the number of satellite antennas has basically doubled on the site. The YT channel RealLifeLore did a great video on this.
SECOND - there's NSC Holt, which is much smaller than Pine Gap but no less significant. Its where the antennas that let the American Navy communicate with all of its submarines in the Indian Ocean are located.
There's rumours that both these bases are nuclear powered, but there's NOTHING to substantiate those claims. So please don't bother me with that crap.
The ACTUAL SIGNIFICANCE is these 2 bases in a "global exchange" is they are ZERO STRIKE targets. In other words they come BEFORE FIRST STRIKE TARGETS. Many Australians are under the delusion that if we have US bases with B52s we'll be a FIRST STRIKE target. So what - the fact is we have not 1 but 2 far higher value targets than 99.999% of Australians realise and have had them since the 1960s. If Russia, the Chinese or a few others really want to do something huge they have to take out BOTH Pine Gap and NSC Holt BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING ELSE.
That's because Pine Gap is the optic nerve for the "Eyes in the Skye" and NCS Holt is the auditory nerve for the "Ears in the Sea." Basically they are the 2 most important US bases for communications NOT IN AMERICAN territory.
Hope that explains some stuff.
Hope 2024 is better for everyone.
352
-
311
-
281
-
280
-
246
-
229
-
212
-
208
-
148
-
132
-
126
-
109
-
109
-
101
-
97
-
96
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
80
-
80
-
75
-
73
-
HEY DAVE - Control system engineer here with 30+ years of experience.
FYI - I have used several versions of Step 7 over the years as well as several other major systems like Allen Bradley Control Logix, ABB 800xA, Schneider. I'm not a great fan of Step 7 although it does several things superbly. I prefer Allen Bradley Control Logix. I have also done robotics with Fanuc, Kuka and Adept. I also have a lot of experience with motor controls.
Like everyone else in the IT industry you actually need to find one of us and have sit down and get your terminology correct and also get some of the details of this particular subject correct. When Stuxnet hit it was a big deal for the company I worked for because we had just done a major upgrade to an off shore oil & gas rig using Siemens Software.
FIRST and this is important for this story. What you have called a "frequency converter" IS NOT a frequency converter. If anything its a POWER INVERTER, because its inverts AC into DC and then back into AC.
Starting at the basics - the lump of electronics that switches and controls a motor is called a DRIVE because it drives the motor. it doesn't matter what type of control is being used that lump is called a drive. We do use some more specific terms like soft starter, but in general if it drives a motor then its a drive.
Drives that can vary the speed of a motor are called VSDs (Variable Speed Drives). In the past people did call them Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) or Variable Voltage Variable Frequency Drives (VVVFs or Triple VFs). But I have never heard either a sales rep or engineer EVER call a motor drive a frequency converter.
On the subject of Uranium Enrichment.
In 2005 (~5 years) before this happened I was working at the ERA Ranger Uranium Mine. As part of working there we had to do a full ANSTO induction. A normal mine stie induction is 1-2 hours. The ANSTO induction was 2 days and we covered the entire Uranium cycle from in the ground to back in the ground including a fairly detailed description of Uranium enrichment.
In 2005 there was a lot of friction regarding what Iran was up to so we asked what Iran was up to. The give away that they had a weapons program was the number of centrifuges.
In general:
Fuel grade for power stations needs around 5 to 8,000 centrifuges.
For military fuel grade like that used in submarines needs around 20,000 centrifuges.
For weapons grade Uranium you need 40,000 centrifuges or more and we knew Iran had 55,000.
Understanding motors and motor controls is how we knew they had 55,000 centrifuges.
In GENERAL and there's a lot of variation in motors but basically:
Normal 3phase induction motors generally operate up to 1500 rpm at 50Hz
High 3phase speed induction motors operate up to 3,000 rpm at 100Hz or higher.
The permanent magnet servo motors used in robotics and CNC machining centres operate up to 6,000 rpm and maybe more depending on the motor size.
The SPINDLE MOTORS used in CNC machining spindles (hence why they are called spindle motors) can (depending on the size of the motor) go in excess of 30,000 rpm.
Most VSDs can outputs more than the standard 50Hz and can generally go to 200Hz although I have used ones capable of 400Hz. Spindle motors go much faster and that's why they need specialised drives with much higher frequencies.
There are also some very specialised ultra high speed motors that can go in excess of 100,000rpm. But those are very small motors with rare earth permanent magnets and most often used in the computer industry in disk drives.
VERY IMPORTANT - There is nothing classified or spectacularly special about spindle motors or the VSDs they use other than they go a lot faster than normal motors. 1,000s are sold every month across the world as part of the machine tool industry. The thing is Iran DID NOT (in 2005) have a machine tool industry so when they bought enough motors and VSDs for 55,000 gas centrifuges people who understood Uranium enrichment knew EXACTLY what they were up to.
As to what Stuxnet did inside the S7 PLCs we were advised on that because of the system our company had done. Luckily there was nothing in what we did that Stuxnet targeted. Our project was a SCADA system not a PLC system. So it was in another part of the Siemens Suite of software packages.
What it did was very interesting.
The S7 like most modern PLCs is a multitasking operating system. We tend to write our systems as a main cyclic task with a number of timed tasks that operate via interrupts. We do that because things like PID close loop functions work best when the operate at a consistent time interval. So we tend to put those in separate tasks running off timed interrupts.
What Stuxnet did was not only insert an additional task that took control of the commands to the VSDs but that inserted task DID NOT appear in the task list. So the engineers could NOT FIND IT and could not understand why their code was not working.
If you want to discuss this further I'd like to do a podcast with you.
You know how this thing ran around the world and on all that stuff your 100% correct.
I know what it did inside the PLCs.
I also know how it found the specific laptop or desk top it was looking for.
The most disturbing thing about Stuxnet wasn't what it did but it laid out the basic blueprint for what can be done to everyone's basic infrastructure. Basically everyone now has a blueprint from which to develop their own cyber weapons. Its sort of like inventing the machine gun in 1750 and then leaving them all over the place for other people to copy or derive new machine guns from.
Sooner or later I expect Stuxnet clones and derived descendants to appear and do some real damage.
72
-
69
-
68
-
67
-
64
-
64
-
62
-
62
-
60
-
57
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
Yeah I hated my high school teachers who made me study Orwell. We did both Animal Farm and 1984. It was difficult and borderline a cruel thing to do to teenagers. Then Trump came along and justified it.
Here's some more quotes I have collected in recent months. Enjoy
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov, News Week, 1980.
And few more:
"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent." ― Isaac Asimov
“Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.” ― Rod Sterling in his introduction to the Twilight episode “The Obsolete Man” originally aired on June 2, 1961 on CBS.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“I think it would be very, very, I think we’d have a very, very solid, we would continue what we’re doing, we’d solidify what we’ve done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done” ― Donald Trump answering the NY Times on his 2nd term agenda. August 2020.
And a classic I recently re-discovered.
“Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don’t know what it is. I keep myself in a state of utter confusion.” ― Colonel Flagg of the CIA
From the TV Show MASH sometime in the 1970s.
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
ENGINEER HERE: There isn't one of these projects that doesn't have some merit and some real payback to us the general population of Australia. The real problem is HOW these projects are planned from the start and that includes the contracts that are rarely negotiated in good faith by either or both the government or the contractors.
So for everyone interested here's 4 basic project items and for anyone who has ever done a project and wondered what went wrong simply ask which of these wasn't done well enough. Sorry if some of this is longish but I hope it will explain a number of things and how to NOT have projects go wrong.
1) SPECIFICATION:
This is the basic what, why and how.
What are we going to build - a bridge, a road, a building, a sports stadium or even a submarine.
Why are we building this bridge, road, building, sports stadium or submarine.
The what and why don't need much detail. Its can be as simple as, We need this bridge to go over that river because the old bridge needs replacing.
BUT the HOW must be detailed and most importantly it must explain what STANDARDS must be met. Most people and especially lawyers don't realise that most engineering standards are NOT required by law or regulation. There's actually very few standards that are required to be met by law and yes this stuns most people. So its incredibly important that every standard that a project needs is absolutely listed and described for its applicable use IN THE CONTRACT(s).
The single biggest issue with lawyers and engineering projects is NOT what they put in the contracts but what they leave out. See the comment at the bottom.
2) RESOUCES:
In all engineering projects there are 3 main resources - labour, machinery and money.
Labour from top to bottom needs to not only be available but also the required skills needed need to be available. This is an area where non-engineering human resource people are utterly hopeless. For all their claims (and I have experience with this issue) they CANNOT tell the difference between an mechanic and mechanical engineer, electrician and an electrical engineer or any other engineering skill set.
Machinery is another monster bug for engineers. Its no use planning to rent a 50ton crane when you need to lift a 100ton object AND YES THAT HAPPENS. You have to have people who know their subject plan what they need and when they need it. If you suddenly have to rent things like cranes, digging machines, scaffold,... etc. the people supplying those services can charge whatever they like because they know that holding up a billion dollar project is worse than paying ridiculous money to rent something.
Money is the worst thing engineers have to deal with because there's always some clown waving an economics degree like a caveman swinging a club screaming "What's the business case for that?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" In 99.9% of cases the reason why its costing more than planned is because the economics clown interfered back at the planning stage.
3) TECHNICAL VIABLITY: This is something that most engineers hate because it involves Donald Rumsfeld's 3 knowns. There's known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns. Planning is about having as many known knowns as practical and the best way to have that is CLEAR SPECIFICATIONS. Think about the Apollo program. It had the very simple 2 PART specification. 1 - get a man to the moon and 2 - get him back SAFELY. That was why they could go there 9 times and land 6 times and not lose anyone in the process. The times they lost people were in training accidents where they were less clear about what they were doing and people were rushed and NOT checking properly.
4) COMPLETION DATE which is also called CLOSE OUT: This is possibly the worst thing done in all projects and again goes back to the specifications. If a job is NOT clearly specified then its gets very murky to what it means to be finished. Despite what people might think an unclear completion is music to a contractor because its easy to make a lot of money late in a project. Most of the major items are already in place so its mostly labour or variations and both are more money on top of profit. As we can all see from some of the enquiries into the Big 4 consultancies getting repeat work is what they want more than anything. In an engineering the equivalent to that are the contract variations at the end of a project. The way to avoid that is by (right up front) detailing in the specification: "This is what we want and this is what we mean by being finished."
Go check any project you know of and you'll quickly see the problems that happen when one of these things is not done.
And a perfect example of bad planning is Snowy 2.0. Yes as an engineer I can emphatically state that it is a project with merit and eventually we the Australian people will benefit from it. HOWEVER when you plan on building a power station you also need to connect it to the power grid. That was NOT done in the initial plans and that's where the biggest cost blowouts are. Plus the contractors KNOW they have us by the short and curlies because what's the point of building Snowy 2.0 if you don't connect it to the grid. It has to be connected so they have us. Its a perfect example of the problem of what's left out of the contract.
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
I'm an Australian engineer but actually graduated from U. Illinois (late 80s - aerospace). Ironically this and many other issues is all the fault of one of Chicago person.
Sorry for the longish answer.
A couple years ago I started to take more serious look at economics. I'd done Econ 101 as an option and regarded the whole subject as a joke. But eventually I had to accept that Economists have incredible influence. As an engineer I got tired of being asked "What's the business case for that?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" and no matter the answer its never enough. I eventually realised its always from people with economics backgrounds. Even those with business degrees have a core of economics education and certain things are hardwired into that education.
So I chose to learn about them so I might have a chance of dealing with them.
The person at fault is Milton Freidman the famous University of Chicago Professor, who's theories became the foundation of Reaganomics and Thatcherism that we now call neoliberalism. Its been adopted across the entire Western World. His solution to every problem was free market capitalism combined with small government. Its been preached without challenge (or so little its irrelevant) to 4 generations of Western civilisation - boomers, gen -x, millennials and Zoomers. I say preach not teach quite deliberately because anyone who questions free market capitalism is treated like a heretic.
If you look at almost any Western Nation right now there are serious issues with basic services and infrastructure. It varies from place to place, but its the same root cause - Milton Freidman's ideology. He had some great lines like "Greed is good" but his line about "Corporations have no other obligation but to deliver profits to owners" that's at the center of these problems. Don't forget that energy, water, waste water, roads, bridges, transportation,... etc are all engineered systems. All the rest of you just assume that us engineers can just deliver this stuff. People are so accustomed to turning on a tap or flipping a light switch they never consider what it takes to make that happen. You all assume we are listened to by management, but we aren't. We constantly get pushback with those 2 questions "What's the business case for that?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" and no answer is ever good enough.
Remember Ronald Reagans famous catch cry "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem." That was pure Milton Friedman philosophy. Another of his lines is "free markets are the most efficient way to run society" has shaped many government decisions IRRESPECTIVE of the the political ideology of those in charge. Don't forget that all the basic economics classes are the same with text books out of Harvard, Yale, Princeton,... etc. So even the most lefty government is riddled with economists all trained in free market economics.
In my home state of Victoria it was a Left Wing government that sold off the train system and the power stations. They told us the same line everyone hears: "free market competition will provide better services and lower costs to consumers." * BUT how can that be true when the corporations who have just bought those public assets have "no other obligation than to deliver profits to their owners?"* We now have to subsidise those corporations who bought our rail system. Our power bills are up over 400% and we have our own version of the energy crisis.
The problem is Milton Freidman was WRONG and it should have been obvious that he was WRONG, but to question his ideology and its offspring of Reaganomics and Thatcherism is to labelled a heretic.
I hate to see this happen to Chicago but it was a Chitown native who brought this shite down upon us all.
Sorry for the long answer.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE:
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 5-10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
I'm an Australian engineer (aerospace) who got his degree in America (late 80s). I work in industrial control systems and automation. I have spent most of the last 20 years in mining and resource projects because back in the early 2000s there was a genuine interest in mining the moon for Helium-3 and I went for the experience. What I got was some great experience in multi-billion dollar projects.
So we are 100% clear I am 100% in favor of Australia having nuclear powered subs. A number of years ago I worked with an ex-USN nuclear power plant technician/operator. Is was around the time Australia was having its first discussions on what would follow on after Collins. The first thing said publicly was "No nuclear." We were on a mining project and one night at diner it came up and he told all those interested some basic FACTS on naval operations in a global context and the difference between blue water and inshore operations.
What I can tell everyone straight up is that AUKUS is the most ridiculous pile of over-hyped nonsense in the history of BOTH Australian engineering and Australian Military procurement and its got NOTHING to do with the subs themselves. You're all quite right a massive part of the expenditure is the construction of infrastructure and that's where every engineer I have discussed this with has ended up shaking their head in disbelief.
Sorry of this next part is long winded, but these things need being said.
For example we know that there has been assigned $4.3 Billion for a new Dry Dock in Perth. The last major mining project I was involved in was a $4 Billion dollar project that included:
- a airport capable of handling small commercial jets and trub-props; AND
- an accommodation village for 800 that included its own potable water treatment plant and sewerage treatment plant, mess halls, laundries, car parks, sports facilities, gymnasiums and bar; AND
- a substation and high voltage power reticulation system; AND
- a mine with a fleet of dump trucks, a new electric shovel and 2 refurbished drag lines; AND
- a processing plant with crushers and all sorts of processing equipment; AND
- a raw feed stockpile with its own stacker and reclaimer as well as a product stockpile system with 2 stackers and a reclaimer and the train load out system; AND
- a 10km rail spur and loop so the trains could just roll in, keep rolling and leave without stopping; AND
- a series of damns for handling run off water to limit discharge into nearby water ways.
BASICALLY A LOT OF STUFF.
The facility in Perth consists of (so far) a concrete lined hole with doors and some pumps.
My bet is it also includes some cranes, workshops, water treatment facility, accommodation for visiting crews, accommodation for a permanent/semipermanent maintenance crews, probably a new wharf for subs to dock at, a substation to power it all as well as multiple emergency power systems to prevent any Fukushima type event.
When I have raised this with other engineers we always end up asking "What's the other $3 Billion for?" because none of us can see how this should cost $1 Billion let alone $4.3 Billion unless everything is gold plated. When we have looked at the East Coast sub base we end up with similar questions.
Our best guess is that "Various People" have filed some extraordinary estimates. Remember every time anyone has asked how much these will cost per sub THERE IS NO ANSWER.
This isn't just a military procurement issue either as most of the people I have discussed this with have seen numerous commercial projects like the Gorgon Gas plant which blew out by over $15 Billion or the BHP Revensthorpe Nickel project that tripled in costs, the NBN which has so far blown out by over $30 Billion, Snowy 2.0 which has gone from $4 to over $12 Billion or any of the other numerous infrastructure projects that have blown out. Lets also not forget the Hunter Class Frigates have just jumped from $30 to $45 billion without explanation or how the replacements for the Armidale class patrol boats, the Arafura Class are each at $300 Million more than 10 times the cost of each Armidale ($24-28M).
Australia has a massive issue with the management of engineering projects and its doesn't matter if its government, private industry or military. Its not so much the engineers but the people managing them and a lot of us who are tired of it.
Sorry for the rant.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Because none of them want to admit that she lost, because they hold onto the fact she won the popular vote.
But they keep forgetting that's NOT what its about.
Think of it like a football game.
One team keeps marching down the field again and again. Out of 10 possessions they get 1 touchdown, 6 field goals, but throw 1 interception.
The other team truly sucks. They are a rambling mess of bad calls, penalties and fumbles.
They struggle on D giving up yards, 1st downs and points, but somehow they turn that 1 interception into a pick 6.
Their O is even worse than their D. They can't move the ball, they fumble and get called for holding again and again. Their QB is sacked 5 times and gets picked off 4 times but somehow they manage to score 3 touchdowns off some gimmick plays and Hail Mary's. They suck so bad their kicker not only missed a couple of critical field goals but also missed 2 extra points on bad snaps, bad holds and bad kicking.
WHO WON THE GAME.
Was it the team with more first downs, more yards, more interceptions, fewer mistakes, better kicking and a flashy superstar QB?
Or was it the team with 26 points instead of 25?
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I'm Australian but studied aerospace engineering in America (U. Illinois). I work in industrial control systems and am FORMALLY qualified in functional safety. A number of years ago I worked with a technician who was American and his first career was as a nuclear power plant operator on American Aircraft Carriers. I have worked in Australian nuclear industry on the mining side which included doing their formal introduction into the nuclear fuel cycle. So I am fairly well educated, qualified and I've been around people who know their stuff.
There's quite a few things you are absolutely right about and few things you have wrong and I don't mean some of the obvious typographical errors.
You are absolutely right they needed to have a legitimate engineer who actually knows their subject on this, but I can say that about so many documentaries on technology these days its impossible to count them. That's just part of the overall failure of our media to ACURATELY INFORMING people.
I'll start with Al Gore - misguided is a better term. He meant well but unfortunately missed the boat when it came to actual solutions. But that's one of the worlds biggest problems an oversupply of people who think describing a problem is also a solution to that problem. People like AL Gore need to say their thing ASK for solutions and then STFU. The horrible effect he, the fossil fuel industry, the nuclear industry, wind industry, solar industry, Greenpeace and others have had is they argued and argued and never solved anything.
You mention Diablo Canyon - right now in Australia there are over 25 million ignorant people who have no idea how much trouble we are in. We have over 20 ageing power stations and NO PLANS to replace any of them. When I first became aware of the problem a few years ago I checked and its pretty much the same everywhere across the developed world. Its not a Californian problem its an everywhere problem.
On Nuclear power.
You are absolutely right about the intention of building nuclear reactors for plutonium production but please DON'T BS - America has done exactly the same and so has Britain and France and China and others. Where do you think they all got the plutonium from? Britain's entire first gen nuclear plants were built for plutonium production the electrical power they produced was supposed to be a cheap by-product to help run industry. IT WASN'T CHEAP and those costs help ruin their industries.
You are absolutely right that water moderated reactors are safer than graphite moderated reactors, BUT you are totally wrong to claim or allude that they are totally safe. Anybody trained in FMEA (Failure Mode Effect Analysis) knows they are NOT FAIL SAFE and that was proven at Fukushima. Its the fundamental difference between water moderated and molten salt reactors which are FAIL SAFE.
You are totally wrong to claim that spent fuel from water moderated reactors cannot be used for nuclear weapons production. Any engineer who has ever looked into nuclear fuel cycles or physicist will tell you that's JUST WRONG. Please feel free to correct or clarify that statement. It might be a lot harder or more expensive but its certainly possible to make nuclear weapons from ANY spent fuel rods irrespective of the reactor type and you should know that.
You are absolutely right that spent fuel is not used up its just fuel that no longer emits enough energy to drive the power generating process. However what you failed to mention is that the reprocessing of spent fuel is where plutonium is extracted. Its not the benign process that the nuclear industry proclaims. Also no matter how many times you re-process nuclear fuel you are still left with a gigantic waste problem. You mention Diablo Canyon but failed to mention San Onofre where there is over 1,700 tons of spent fuel rods sitting in a pool beneath the old reactor. One of the biggest issue in the world is that NOBODY is dealing with the more than 120,000 tons of spent fuel rods let alone all of the other materials that have to be dealt with to clean up the first generation of nuclear facilities.
And that leads to your next problem. You are totally right about the issues with solar panels and toxic waster but you totally ignore the issues with nuclear waste and site clean up costs. Most solar panels are made with Gallium Arsenide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallium_arsenide) like so many other electronic components and any engineer who's looked knows what the toxic issues are. Solar panels is a waste issue the entire world is ignoring just like they are hiding the nuclear clean up costs. The only country that has so far released any details of nuclear clean up costs is Britain and they stopped after the costs blew out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#Recent_site_management
I will grant that at least you haven't been dishonest about the storage issue as others have. There are people in the pro-nuclear camp who are very sneaky about things. The worst I have seen is Michael Schellenberger who in one of his more famous TEDx talks used Switzerland's storage as the great example. Last I checked Switzerland's total storage was about 30 tons of spent fuel and that just doesn't compare to the 1,700 tons under San Onofre or the other 80,000+ tons the US has or the other 40,000+ tons the rest of the world has let alone the issue these Russians have with old submarines. There are too many people who use convenient facts to hide ugly truths.
The thing you are most right about is the solar will not save the planet comment. That's absolutely true. Renewables will not save the planet. There simply isn't enough energy in places where we can use it. Australia's southern shore is one of the best places on the planet for wind but most of it is so far from where we need energy its all but useless. The center of Australia (like the Sahara) is great for solar but its also so far from where energy is needed its also next to useless. BUT anyone on the pro-nuclear lobby who claims solar and wind are not going to be major components of our future energy is living in a deluded fantasy. Its the ugly twin brother of the pro-nuclear people who claim nuclear (fusion, molten salt, small modular,...) will alone save the planet.
There are 2 facts people will have to start accepting.
1) We have a far greater cost of cleaning up after previous generations than anyone realizes.
2) No one technology will save the planet.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@commonsenseskeptic I agree with the basic premise ajr993 puts forward. Angry Astronaut gives way too much credence to Elon Musk's ambitions without critical scrutiny.
But we all need to be careful on what we come back with. Your slide/powerpoint list at 10:45 has a fundamental mistake.
For a Mars colony to be self sufficient DOES NOT require terraforming, it requires the capability of engineering self sustaining biologic systems. Anybody whos considered the terraforming issue honestly gets answers ranging from its impossible to it'll take many 1000s of years. So any Mars colony in the meantime will live in domes. So putting a terraforming requirement on a Mars colony isn't valid, but the bio-engineering is a must.
As you pointed out on you vid in the Musk series (which I am binge watching) you went over the disaster that was bio-dome. I call it a disaster in that it totally failed to achieve any of its basic goals. What it did do was provide a mountain of information on how much WE DON'T KNOW and how far from being successful we actually are.
As I mentioned in another comment in that series. Dr. Jonathan Trent one of the worlds leading brains on engineering complex bio-systems pointed that out just after he left NASA. He's coined a term call upcycling. Recycling is where you just take something back to its raw material state and remake the same or similar product. Upcycling is where you use processes to take the waste from the bottom and upcycle it back tot he top. Simple example is water. The rain and other processes are the down cycle as it moves down through process. The evaporation is the upcycle. The planet we live on does this naturally for everything all powered by the sun. What JT is working on is taking waste and using natural &/or modified natural processes to up cycle waste into useful things.
There's also a 2nd 1/2 mistake in that list. If they were to terraform Mars the problem with an atmosphere starts with where is it coming from. After that that there's how are you going to hold it. For sure the lack of a magnetosphere is an issue, but the lack of gravity to hold an atmosphere down is a bigger issue. What gives the Earth a sea level pressure of 14.7lbs (101,325kpa) isn't the magnetosphere its the gravity. You do need the magnetosphere to help prevent the solar wind stripping it away but without the gravity its a lot easier to strip away.
I told you in another comment about the Alumni from NASA who did a guest lecture when I was an undergrad. These are more of the things he told us about.
He's a basic calc. Mars has a surface Area of 144,370,000 km^2. If you wanted an earth breathable layer just 1km thick on the surface you have to find 144,000,000 cubic kilometers of AIR. Fine we could crash some comets and make some water break it down and get some oxygen but air is ~80% nitrogen where's that coming from?
Terraforming is a pointless argument because its such an unrealistic topic with no valid answers to ay of the problems. The real issue of ANY off-world colony (ANY WHERE) is how do you keep the people alive and that means water, oxygen, food, waste processing and THAT MEANS and engineered bio-logical upcycling systems. When the top guy on the subject says we can't do it, then all the other arguments are pointless.
11
-
11
-
11
-
To all - here is a great quote quote for former VicePOTUS Henry Wallace. It was said 2 years before Trump was born but during the time when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were in power. I think it perfectly sums up Trump and his inner circle (the highlight is mine.)
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@jameskelly3502 Great point, YOU ARE RIGHT and I checked it out and there's an explanation.
Here's the second paragraph of that press release.
"This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446. The amount includes ground, launch, in-orbit, and return and recovery operations, cargo transportation for each mission, and a lifeboat capability while docked to the International Space Station. The period of performance runs through 2030 and brings the total CCtCap contract value with SpaceX to $4,927,306,350."
SHOR EXPLANATION
When people are talking about the US$70Million that's the LAUNCH. What you are talking about is the ENTIRE PROJECT with all the other stuff added in. As you can see there's a difference and quite often it can be a massive difference.
Those 5 Crew Dragon missions average just under US$300million which means that on top of the $70M for the launch there's almost another $230M for each flight. This is not simply a NASA problem. Its actually a major problem with projects EVERYWHERE.
For Example: Right now in Australia (as I'll explain) we have the AUKUS submarine project. The current Block 5 Virginia subs have a cost AUD$5 Billion each. The project cost for the 8 subs is AU$33-46 Billion each. From what information that's available there's AU$20-32 Billion for each sub that is currently unaccounted for.
LONGER EXPLANATION and again I am Sorry to all if this if this is long.
With almost every wonderful announcement the devil is in the details and the magic words in that announcement are indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity and related mission services.
BACKGROUND
I'm Australian but did my degree in America. It was in the late 80s during Reagan's Star Wars Program. Most of the department was on DARPA funding as were most of the postgrads. We all sort of new it was BS but we liked the funding and a lot of people got their MS & PhDs.
I came back to Australia afterwards which wasn't good timing and I ended up in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. In 2002 I met Apollo 17's Harrison Schmitt and he mentioned Helium-3, which meant we might be going back to the moon for mining. So I thought I'd go off to the Australian Mining sector and get some experience building mines so I could then do the same on the Moon.
Yeah I know that didn't work out, but what I got was an education in large multi-billion dollar contracting jobs and how contractors milk them for all they are worth. I also learned how to build complex systems in remote places and I know NASAs plans for a lunar base are crap because of these very issues of "other stuff."
Its not only in engineering and in fact the worst cases In Australia are in government department consulting. Go and check out the PwC scandal.
ISSUES WITH ENGINEERING and COST PLUSS CONTRACTS
1 mine site I worked on was the BHP Ravensthorpe Nickel project. Now you'd think BHP the largest mining company in the world would know how to get a mine built - WRONG. That job was budgeted at AU$1.5 Billion and ended up costing over AU$3.5 Billion and then they found out that someone had skimped on the drilling program and the ore body was nowhere near what they had expected in either quality or quantity. WHERE it really blew out was the cost plus contracting.
We had an electrician just not show for work one day on that project. He turned up at dinner time in the mess wearing another companies shirt and proudly announced he was getting an extra AU$10 and hour. Working 60+ hours a week, which you do on site that adds up to a lot of money. Within days other electricians were being snapped up in similar ways and the pay rate went from about AU$35/hr to AU$65/hr in about a week as people bounced from company to company.
For those who have never worked on cost plus contracting it goes like this. You have expenses (labor & stuff) and you hand them in and if the contract is cost plus 20% (which is common) then for every $1 of expense you get $1.20 in cash back. The reason why cost plus happens is that for large projects that go for several years you just cant plan everything. They can be made to work but the managers running them have to know what they are doing. This is why we see so many government and private sector projects blow out on their costs.
So when those electricians went from AU$35/hr to AU$65/hr their actual employers went from charging about $60/hr to over $100/hr. Here's where that adds up. If you have a 100 people and they suddenly cost an extra $10 that gets passed onto the company and they return (at 20%) $12 for which means your profit margin just went up $200 per hour.
So with something like SpaceX every time NASA makes an adjustment to a mission it means extra profit to SpaceX and its in their interests as a commercial company to max out those expenses.
Here in Australia we have a litany of projects both in the government and in the private sector that have blown out with some projects going billions over budget. The worst private sector project I heard of was the Gorgon Gas project which blew out by $15 Billion. You'd think Chevron would know their job and know how to manage a project BUT THEY DIDN'T. The Australian Navy is not only buying submarines but new frigates and that project recently jumped from AUD$30 Billion to AUD$45 Billion. These things happen from contract variations and that word "variation" is the sound of cash being printed to a cost+ contractor.
MORE EXAMPLES
Back in the day before the ISS came into being there was the Space Station Freedom project. Me and Classmates all believed that was what we'd be building before heading back to the Moon.
The 1st budget was USD$20 Billon and VP George Bush told them that was too expensive and to redesign it.
The 2nd budget was USD$30 Billon and VP George Bush told them stop being ridiculous.
The 3rd budget was USD$40 Billion and VP George Bush scrapped it, but not before a lot of money got spent doing those design studies.
In the end the ISS cost America $120 Billion to build and I think the current estimate puts it over $220 Billion so far when you add in the operations AND NOBODY has ever explained where its all gone.
The F35 program cost over a $Trillion in development AND NOBODY has ever explained where its all gone.
Here in Oz other than submarines and frigates we also have a patrol boat project underway. The previous class cost under AUD$30 Million each and these new ones are AUD$300 Million each - more than 10x the cost to do the same job AND NOBODY can explain the costs.
As part of Australia's AUKUS submarine project there was a AU$4.3 Billion dollar upgrade to facilities at the base near Perth. Knowing what they are basically doing I checked with a couple of people I know and that project shouldn't cost more than AU$1 Billion. Just 2 days ago they announced new plans and its now budgeted at AU$8 Billion with NO EXPLANTION what this extra AU$3.7 Billion is for let alone what most of the AU$4.3 was for.
BACK TO FALCON 9/CREW DRAGON
We know the cost of each Falcon 9 Crew Dragon launch is $70 Million but what you have shown is a fundamental problem in all these sorts of contracts. There's a lot more than just the basic costs than can be itemised and a lot of it we know nothing about.
So you are right there's a lot more, but when we are comparing apples to apples we have to compare what we can. The reason we talk about the at $70 Million is because we know its real and we can compare it to other things. We know the Shuttle flights cost US$350-450 million each, but that doesn't include the development and operational costs. We know the Soyuz seats at the end cost US$80 million each but we don't know what other costs with training (including language training) were incurred.
Hope that all explains it.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
But don't forget the base he has tapped into already existed and its NOT and American thing. Every country has a base like this and if you get a political animal like this tap into that base you get outcomes just like this. Hitler did it, Pol Pot did it, Stalin did it, Saddam Hussein did it, Xi Jinping is doing it right now over the Taiwan issue and The Kims in North Korea have done it for 3 generations.
There isn't anything new about this and it doesn't matter squat what politics the leader claims to follow. Leftism, Rightism, Centrist, Islamist, Christian, Atheism, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism,... It does not matter what "ism" you care to call it. If you let a narcissistic sociopath gain traction with a disgruntled base that prefers ignorance over rational thought it never ends well.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@mrsandmrbutterfly You might like this if you dislike Citizens United. It was first posted by someone else a while back. Its truly awesome in that it was written 2 years before Trump was even born and yet it describes this moment perfectly. It was written by someone who saw the destruction brought by people lie Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin and it also means American's like Trump have been around for some time. (edit) the highlights are mine.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@grantadamson3478 Its was actually the classmate who's at NASA you should thank. About 20 years ago I was the one being mouthy and very "Elon like," and she rammed some hard truths back down my throat.
What I am really frustrated with the se days is the very same problems THEN are still the same problems we have NOW. Half the problem is that we take so much of what nature does in terms of life support. No matter how you want to consider it - if we want manned spaceflight beyond LEO the life support is an absolute. Only 24 men have been beyond LEO and they did it in equipment that was incredibly limited. Its just kept them alive and just got there and only just got back. One reason why they stopped was they were afraid of losing a crew. By 1972 they really had pushed their luck with 1960s technology.
One analogy I like to use for the moon is a remote mine site here on Earth. I actually met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) in 2002 and he told me we were headed back tot he moon to mine it for He3. So I went off into the Australian mining industry for some hard on the ground experience with remote mining. The actual number of similarities between the Australian Outback and the Moon are more than you'd think.
For starters the first thing is a long range survey (Satellite & aerial) kind of like they did with the Ranger & Mariner probes.
Then they do an on the ground survey with a couple of geologists and an SUV. They go out with all their food, water & supplies check the place out and come home with a few samples. The only go for a few days or weeks.
Then they send out drilling crews for deeper exploration. The big difference at that point is the amount of equipment and men and supplies and for the first time accommodation, water storage, toilets, showers, communications and power generation. They don't simply go for a few days - they go for weeks. Some stay out there for months.
If they find a suitable site with suitable resources then they go with huge amounts of gear. They send in a cast of 1000s to build a mine, the processing plant, the trucks, diggers, more accommodation, more water, more sewerage, more of everything. All that infrastructure takes time effort and construction people and construction equipment.
Apollo was just like those couple of geologists doing the on the ground survey who bring back samples from site. The Apollo LM was like a space SUV, but for the next phase we need trucks not SUVs. I can build a mine site here only using SUVs but it would take 1000s of trips. What we need next is the space equivalent of a Kenworth and I don't know if Elon's new rocket is a Kenworth or just a bigger SUV. 🤷♂️🤷♀️
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Somebody needs to ask Mark Levin the following Question:
When did BLM, ANTIFA, Democrats, 1960s counter culture hippies, tree hugging Kumbaya singing environmentalists, Occupy Wall Street, Lafayette Park or any other protesters storm the capitol, kill a police officer, tear down the American flag and replace it with another flag?
For anyone interested please feel free to copy that question and post it anywhere you like.
Someone else first directed me to this quote by Vice POTUS Wallace, who was alive when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were in power to personally see what those sorts of people are like. the 2 highlights about method and patriotism are mine.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE:
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 5-10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
5
-
5
-
5
-
He's quite right about a couple of things but also a questionable on others.
I am an engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. I have worked in both manufacturing and mining and know both industries quite well.
In the short.
He's quite right we simply do not have enough supply of certain raw materials to go to a full EV system. In particular Lithium and a couple of the other ingredients just aren't there in the quantity needed even if the Ruskies were being good boys.
On manufacturing he's NOT as right. Other than the drive train (fuel system, engine, gearbox, drive shaft,... there's actually NO DIFFERENCE in making and EV or any other car. The body shell, doors, glass, seats, seat belts, sound system, steering wheel, suspension, chassis, wheels and tires are still the same stuff. Depending on the manufacturer something like 80-95% of an EV is the same as a normal car.
In the longer story.
On the mining of some of these metals like Lithium and Molybdenum those projects can take many years to go anywhere. There's a Molybdenum mine in Western Australia and a company I worked for did the electrical design for the processing plant. That was around 2007-08. The GFC smashed that project. But they did get it done and mined the site from 2010 to 2014. Its now in care and maintenance. So there's at least 1 Molybdenum mine that can be brought back into production fairly quickly. The company that owns it has a good coper & molybdenum ore body nearby but they have not yet developed it.
At that's one thing about mining, they wont spend money digging stuff up unless there's a market to sell it to. So they don't look at what the markets are today they are looking 3-5-10 years into the future.
Plus to actually mine some of these minerals can be damn hard. Sometimes the percentage of what you want is tiny. They measure gold in grams per ton of ore. Copper isn't much better. And getting it out can be seriously hard. They dissolve gold with cyanide and copper with sulphuric acid. So a lot fo the processing gear is fairly serious stuff.
Right now there are people scrambling for finance for projects but these thing take time to plan, procure build and get operating. Typically from the first time an ore body is found its at least 5 years until first dirt. Some projects go for about decades until first dirt because the markets aren't right or there's other mines producing what's needed.
Even when everything looks good there's still that fact you are hoping to dig dirt and turn it into money. Its quite a difficult thing to get a full appraisal on an ore body and it can be horribly expensive if you get it wrong. I watched BHP, 1 of the biggest mining companies on the planet blow over $3 Billion on a Nickel project because the geologists did not check properly and guessed wrong.
So I'd say Peters quite right on the supply of raw materials, but depending on what the Chinese and Russians do next that can change rapidly.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
AUSTRALIAN here, with an outsiders perspective/observation on American Libertarians and why it matters.*
They are always howling about Freedom, Liberty and the Slippery Slope to Authoritarianism when in fact they are only ever talking about THEIR Freedoms, THEIR Liberties and THEIR RIGHT to throw everyone else over the cliff of Authoritarianism.
My way of describing them is a simple way is: "Libertarians demand the Liberty to strip other's of their Liberties"
And so you all know - I went to college in America (late 80s) and even back then you could see that the American population (in general) was unaware of the threat the Libertarians were. One of the Koch brothers ran on the Libertarian ticket (as a potential VP) AGAINST Reagan claiming Reagan wasn't going far enough. I did engineering NOT poly-sci with no real interest in American politics BUT EVEN BACK THEN it was obvious how much of a future threat these people were. FURTHER, there are several Australian Libertarian Think Tanks (e.g. The Institute of Public Affairs) whose power and influence is growing through the support of American Libertarian Think Tanks.
As to why American politics matters now (in 2024).
1) I care about America and have a lot of good friends there.
2) American is still Australia's most important trading and security partner. Simply put Australia cannot afford to America fail and in that Canada, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Britain and a few other can't either.
3) America is still about 25% of the worlds economy and if it gets messed up by these clowns then the whole world suffers the consequences BECAUSE the US Dollar ($USD) is still the World's reserve currency and most of our international trade is either done in $USD or the currency conversions involve $USD or are backed by $USD. So if these clowns DESTABILIZE the $USD by being stupid (which they are), then its really bad for the other 7.6 Billion people on the planet. All international trade goes away. Its even bad for pariah countries like Iran, Russia and North Korea because even they do business in $USD.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@JULIAN11. Since you seem interested let me tell you about where NASA went wrong after Apollo.
Sorry for the horrible length of this but you do seem interested in understanding the problem, but its a complex problem.
The Space shuttle is one of the greatest TECHNICAL achievements ever. They actually made a reusable spaceplane work. It truly was extraordinary, but it was also a horrendous failure that crippled manned space flight for decades and we are still dealing with those effects.
Every time it was launched there was 75tons of mass lifted into orbit and accelerated to orbital speed (7km/s or more depending on the orbit). Its payload to vehicle mass ratio was actually very poor. That's a real problem because 75 tons at orbital peed is a lot of kinetic energy and that means a lot of fuel. if you go watch Don Pettit's "Tyranny of the Rocket Equation" you'll see where that leads. Combined with the costs to simply run and maintain the shuttle crippled other programs. Its the main reason we haven't got a moon base. There's a whole bunch of technologies required that are just not ready because the money and resources weren't available to get them ready.
I was doing me degree when Challenger happened. I was actually in Florida a few weeks earlier and saw Columbia take off. It was from a distance but still spectacular. After Challenger Kelly Johnson who was lead engineer on things like the SR71 and U2 said "Don't build a replacement." He argued that the shuttle had proven unreliable and the money would be better spent on the "next generation." Even before the accident it was failing on costs and maintenance, but NASA, the USAF and CIA were so invested they had to continue with the shuttle. That also spilled over into the ISS construction costs. The Russians flew Buran once and then looked at it and said never again.
One of the main failures was the payload to vehicle ratio. That goes back to Don Pettit's "Tyranny of the Rocket Equation." As rockets get bigger and bigger they need ever increasing structural strength to handle the loads and that adds weight. That means you need even more power and more fuel to lift that extra weight. That's what Don Pettit talks about. As rockets get bigger and bigger they generally do improve in performance and payload ratio. BUT eventually they reach a point where they start getting WORSE.
That should have been evident way earlier, because that was the argument Buzz Aldrin won with his Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) mission profile over Von Braun's Earth Orbit Rendezvous. What Buzz worked out was that with EOR you needed a much bigger vehicle with a lot more mass because it had to do a lot more. It had to fly to the moon, land on the moon and then fly back to earth. That meant more fuel, that meant a heavier rocket with more power and eventually they ended up with a version of the Saturn 5 but with 8-12 engines.
The is the mistake BOTH Musk and Bezos have made with their heavy rockets. They are so big the are less efficient NOT more as they claim. The crazy part is NASA wanted small after Apollo.
Do you know that when NASA first proposed the shuttle all they wanted was a small efficient vehicle with 2-4 people based on X-15 technology and its purpose was to just get people up and down as efficiently as possible? Most people don't realise the X-15 had at least 3 more variants planned. A 2 seater, a single seat delta wing and a single seat delta powered by a scramjet. This is why I support the Crew Dragon program. It actually proves that NASA was right in the late 60s early 70s. You don't need huge rockets you need rockets that get the job you NEED done.
NASA should have either done the X-15 or something like Crew Dragon. Instead the USAF and CIA got involved and they created a monster. In the end it tried to be too many things to different needs. Crew Dragon works because it does 1 thing and does it damn well. Do you know the cost of Soyuz seats ended up at about $90 million while Crew Dragon is 4 seats for $70 million? That's a cost per seat of under $20 million down from over $90M. That's what SpaceX should be shouting from the roof tops.
Starship is trying to be too many things. Get into orbit, go to the moon, go to Mars and my favourite replace jets for travelling between cities on Earth. Its similar to the criticisms of other systems like the F35. Its also trying to be too many things and as a result does none of them as well as it might. The A10 Warthog is a good example of being on task. Its good for one thing close air support. It does it so well that its still flying today despite being a 1960s design. The A380 Airbus like the shuttle is an amazing technical achievement but also a failure for all but 1 operator. The father of one of the instructors at my flying club flew them for Singapore airlines. That was circa 2008 and even then they knew it was in trouble.
Its not just Starship its the same for New Glenn and some other proposals.
Sorry for the lecture.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@commonsenseskeptic I did aeronautical & astronautical engineering at Illinois in the late 80s. So far love your channel. The fact you are using simple basic math to prove points is fantastic.
I totally empathize with your frustration with the "space cadet family" (SCF). I'll call them that instead of a cult. Irrespective of what we call them the point is there is too much of public discussion about technology (across all industries) being presented by people with no technical training or those with technical training who have just thrown away all they were taught.
A while back Dr. Jonathan Trent (who is without doubt one of the smartest people I've ever encountered) commented that NOBODY is even close to being able to deploy a fully self sustaining closed loop biological system for off world use.
So at the most fundamental basics we don't yet have the technology for long term off world self supporting habitation. That's not to say its impossible but the actual science (both R &D) hasn't been done to where we have a deployable system. Put it this way: If we only had a partial system that was deployable and could recycle SOME air, SOME water and provide SOME food, then why isn't that module already attached to the ISS. Even if it only provided a few cubic meters of Oxygen, few liters of water each week and few kilos of food each month, then that's a huge cost saving because that's supplies that DON'T need to be lifted to orbit.
Go back an look at the ORIGINAL Space Station Freedom concepts that merged into the ISS. That was all being done while I was an undergrad. Those concepts called for 6-8 people stationed in space NOT 3. The simple reason why it was quickly scaled back was food, water and oxygen COSTS.
Going back to basic math. Look at the next planned lunar mission. The Apollo LM had 75hours for 2 men that's 150 (2 x 75) man hours of life support. When Trump announced 4 people for 2 weeks that became 4men x 24hours x 14days or 1344 man hours. That means you need to land on the moon 9 times as much water, food, oxygen, CO2 filters, etc. and al the hardware to use it. Reducing that mission profile to 3 people on the moon for 10 days brings that back to 720 man hours, almost halving the life support requirement.
Basic math is a great tool. Its also something people who like spinning daft ideas hate.
In space discussions the ridiculous spin masters are the terraforming people. Way back when I was in college we had a guest lecture from an alumni who had just done a study for NASA on terraforming Mars. He basically told us to forget it. To change a planet that much was technically impossible and he gave us a list of reasons. The number one reason he gave is that planets are massive STABLE systems. For sure at the detailed level they are incredibly chaotic, but at the planetary level they are hyper stable. Otherwise they'd be falling apart.
Planetary systems are like mob psychology. Its impossible to predict details like what individual members of a mob will exactly do. Yet you can predict a mobs overall behavior with incredible accuracy. That's one of the basic tenements of Isaac Asimov's psychohistory, which is now a genuine scientific field of study and we see every day in both commercial and political advertising. Its part of why public understanding of climate change is so poor.
This entire concept of terraforming mars was DISMISSED by NASA over 30 years ago as folly.
This is just a discussion on space. If we start going into other areas of technology like energy, water, agriculture, the ocean systems and the insane public discussions on them we'll be here for weeks.
I you want to have a discussion on this stuff let me know.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
ENGINEER HERE: This is reasonably easy to understand and my apologies if this gets longish.
Its ANOTHER outcome of what we now call neoliberal economics.
The short answer is we need more supply because anyone who ever did an economics course (and I did as an elective) gets told that IF demand is greater than supply then PRICES GO UP. In Australia we have built vast arrays of solar and wind BUT we have not built any new large bulk capacity BUT we have turned of several like Hazelwood in Victoria and Liddell in NSW. The last time Australia built a power station with more than 1,000MW of base load capacity was 1993 when our population was 17.6 million and we are now just over 26 million.
For sure Callide C (810 MW) in 2001, Millmerran (852 MW) in 2002 and Kogan Creek (750MW) in 2007 helped but there's another 5.2 million people in the country since Kogan Creek was commissioned.
For sure Snowy 2.0 at 2,000MW will help but that's not a base load generator its a storage system. Something else still has to generate that 2,000MW.
Bottom line we need to build new major base load power stations in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales and plan on building future major base load power stations in Queensland and Western Australia. To give you an idea of the costs involved the Hinckley Point C nuclear power station with 2 x 1,630 MW units is now expected to cost £35 Billion (about AU$66.5 Billion). So the cost of 1 of those 1,630 MW units is about AU$33.3 Billion each.
Based on what power stations have either closed or are going to close through age we'd need 1 or 2 in South Australia, 3 or 4 in Victoria, 4 or 5 in NSW and 1 or 2 in Queensland. In total that's 9 units to produce 14,400 MW up to 13 units producing 20,800 MW. The combined total of Australia's coal fired plants is just over 24,700 MW.
That's just to replace lost capacity from power stations just getting too old to keep them running. It has nothing to do with climate change or anything else. That's between AU$300 and AU$433 Billion just to fix the stupidity of the last 25+ years it doesn't account for future population growth and we have some people wanting us to grow to as many as 55 or 65 million.
The long answer on how we got here is below.
I started informally studying economics because I got so frustrated from clowns waving economics degrees interfering in projects. What I found was that things like Reaganomics and Thatcherism didn't end they morphed in to this thing we now call neoliberalism or Chicago School economics if you're an academic. At its core is the line expressed by Ronald Reagan himself "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem."
In practice it has "the belief" (and its only a belief) "That anything a government does the private sector can do better." Part of that was Milton Freidman's "Greed is good" line because in his view greed drives efficiency because its financially rewarded. Milton also gave us that the free market can and will solve everything because it self corrects. Australians heard a version of this recently when Philip Lowe governor of the RBA said that the housing crisis was just the market correcting itself.
Philip Lowe's comment about the housing market SHOULD CONCERN US ALL about the energy market, because part of the neoliberal ideology is that regulators should do as little as possible and let the market self correct.
The 2008 GFC told us that's nonsense. It didn't self correct and there were $TRILLIONS in BAIL OUTS.
The current housing crisis tells us that's nonsense because its not self correcting.
The current inflation driven by supply chain issues and profiteering tells us that's nonsense because its not self correcting.
The current energy crisis tells us that's nonsense because its not self correcting.
This neoliberal nonsense of self correcting markets just DOES NOT WORK for certain things. Housing and energy being 2 of those things because they take time. It takes months to approve and build a house and longer if its something like a multistory apartment complex. Power stations take years to approve and if they are large scale can take years to build.
Education is similar it takes 13 years of primary and secondary education and another 4 doing a degree, cadetship or apprenticeship just to make a functioning adult. There is no business case for spending $2-300,000 dollars on a 5 year old hoping that in 17 years they'll do something.
The new nuclear plant the British are building, Hinckley Point C, took 7 years to design and approve. It will take 10 years (at least) to complete and power up with first power around 2028/29. It will take at least 15 years to break even on costs and that's only if its energy is sold at higher rates. There is no viable business case in the "Greed is good" neoliberal model that says you can spend £35 Billion and the break even point is 30+ years in the future.
During an engineering consult circa 2016 I discovered that Australia not only hadn't built any new large scale bulk delivery power stations since the late 1990s we haven't even got any proposals on the table to discuss. Snowy Hydro 2.0 might have a 2,000 MW power station but its NOT a generator its a pumped hydro energy STORAGE system. Those 2,000 MW have to be generated somewhere else.
This is the basis reality the neoliberals have wrong. There are some things that Governments have to do because they don't need a viable business case for shareholders. CEOs need profits while Governments needs a functioning economy. Governments measure themselves by GDP which is dependent on employment, wages and the effects of things like education and health care. Its complex while a CEO's task is simple we made $X and that gets $Y per share - done.
When Governments build power stations the outcome is measured in GDP growth. They don't have to care if it makes just 0.01% profit or even if it loses money. So long as the outcome is GDP growth which can happen when companies can start or expand on cheap energy then so what. More people get employed. More people can buy things that other people make - including houses.
So when we privatised our energy sector back in the 1990s we went from a system that was measured as part of GDP growth and designed to create jobs and growth to a system that had but one purpose. Milton Freidman said it in his famous 1970 New York Time essay "There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits..."
If you ask why none of the so called experts in this video have NO ANSWERS its very simple THEY DON'T HAVE ANY. They all come from think tanks (like Tony Woods), lobbyists (like Ben Barnes) OR they are economists, lawyers, business leaders, academics,.... They are all people without any motivation to solve anything. This is something British Rebel Economist Gary Stevenson (here on YT) points out that is WRONG with current economics - too many of the people speaking have no motivation in solving anything.
And why don't they dare talk about solutions whether they be hydrogen, solar, wind, nuclear and there's a whole raft of nuclear technologies to discuss.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
ENGINEER HERE: And I would love to come on your channel and discuss the issue of LESSONS LEARNED because across the entire world of engineering that is a monster issue that is NOT BEING ADDRESSED.
FYI - I started with a degree in aerospace engineering but landed in industrial control systems and automation. That's a highly transportable skill set as almost every industry has computers with sensor connected to them and they run software to read those sensors and control things - power stations, manufacturing plants, mine sites, water treatment plants, traffic lights,...... and many other things. I have mostly worked in manufacturing and mining, but also have experience in water treatment, waste processing, oil & gas and power stations.
Time and time again I have watched people make the same mistakes on projects after projects. Lessons are NOT being learned anywhere. Maybe on of the few times I saw it done well was when Colin Powell and others decided NOT to repeat Vietnam. Out of that came the Powell Doctrine, which I first heard about on a PBS Frontline documentary called "Rumsfeld's War." In it a General summarised it as having 4 key questions.
What is the task?
What are the required in manpower and machinery?
Do we have the absolute support of the American people?
When the job has to be done by?
When that was used there was Gulf War 1 it was over in a month with its main objectives achieved - get the Iraqis out of Kuwait and make sure they can't come back. They pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait and they had that famous battle where the Americans shot up all their trucks as they fled. By destroying all the trucks they removed the Iraqi capability to move anything around and armies have to move.
When I first heard the Powell Doctrine explained it struck because it applies to ALL ENGINEERING PROJECTS.
You have to start with a clear specification.
You have to resource the project properly with money, men and machinery.
You have to be in agreement that the solution is going to work.
You have to have a firm date on when it has to be done and what it means to be done.
If you look at the Apollo Program easily the most successful engineering project in history it had all those 4 things in place from the start.
Land a Man on the moon and safety return him to the Earth.
You have all the money, men and machinery needed.
The American people said they agreed.
The date was set -> end of the decade.
Note that by the end of the 1960s Americans had been to the Moon 4 times (Apollo 8, 10, 11 & 12) and landed twice (Apollo 11 & 12). Further the technologies developed and then made available to American industry had paid via taxes back to the American people around $9.50 for every dollar spent on Apollo by the late 80s. That was the conclusion of an independent report commissioned by the AIAA during the aftermath of the Challenger disaster as people tried to get NASA abolished.
This is NOT taught to engineers at all and EVERY project I have ever been on has missed at least 1 of those things. You'd all be amazed that engineers are NOT taught anything about project management in college. Yet this concept that Colin Powell came up with is so simple and it was based on LESSONS LEARNED from Powell's experience in Vietnam.
AND YES when they threw it away as Rumsfeld and others did for the Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan they both went tragically wrong and the effects of which we'll have to deal with for decades to come.
AND YES when NASA has had projects with a lack of specific goals they have had issues like the Space Shuttle, like the Space Station and like the Launch systems meant to replace the Space Shuttle.
So when you talk about LESSONS LEARNED its a much bigger issue than a broken wharf in Gaza.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Australia here: What you are describing is the HISTORICAL attitude of and excuses made by people here for most of the last 200 years (since white settlement) and I dare say for many other nations. I was in Canada a couple of years ago and the similarities with Australia were stark. New Zealand is similar to Australia as we were both settled by Europeans around the same time and have had similar issues.
Like many other societies were are trying to move on and repair the damage done, but just as other places we to have these types of conservative (or regressive) people who just won't see that the rest of us are moving on. In general these are people who of whatever reason are afraid of change and it really is fear. Some are afraid of losing power (political or otherwise) and others just change itself, while for some it is an ideological issue.
What is in Australia's, Canada's and New Zealand's favor is that we have at least started down the path to reconciling our past and not too many countries can say similar. Maybe we have a slight advantage in that our colonial history is more recent in terms of time scales as it only goes back around 200 to 300 years (a bit longer for Canada).
For many others they have a lot more history to reconcile. We sometimes forget that the Jews, Egyptians, Persians, Arabs, Turks, Greeks, Romans,.... etc have complicated histories going back at least 3,500 years (1,500 BCE) and in some cases much longer. If you don't know the references recently made regarding Amalek by certain Israelis references events in the Eleventh Century BCE (which is over 3,000 years ago).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Do you have a link to show that. I am not disagreeing and would expect something that idiotic in this chaos but if you make claims like that please show a link.
There's a lot of heat in this and there is way too much misinformation already.
Van Jones just claimed this was treason (among other things) and as a trained high profile lawyer he should know that its not treason. Its many things like SEDITION, destruction of government property, trespass, assault, theft, BUT none of it is treason and as a lawyer with a very high public profile VAN JONES - SHOULD DO BETTER.
He should be clear on what this is and what this isn't.
In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States
I recently saw Van Jones do a TED talk and it was arguably one of the best commentaries on the American situation, but that claim of treason is just plain wrong and he should know that better than I do. ->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZWRhLW7Y8w
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Yeah - there's been some times when he's made some sense. Like even in this when he made the comment that it was a crisis that big interests took advantage of. I think most sensible people would agree that at least to some extent they did. BUT THEN he goes of on the BS about natural immunity and that exposes his complete lake of understanding of what happened.
I'm Australian and we have had a people comparing us to Sweden. So you know Sweden was the Western Nation to go all in on natural immunity or herd immunity as it was sometimes called. Australia has roughly 2-1/2 times the population of Sweden but (as of today) they have 23,749 deaths compared to our 19,459. If we had done what Sweden did and Russell Brand advocates we'd have over 60,000 dead and if Sweden had done like Australia they have around 7,600 dead not almost 24,000.
I remember when that debate raged and all anyone had to do was compare Sweden to the surrounding countries, Norway, Finland and Denmark to see how badly they got it wrong.
For those interested the real metric to look for on places like Worldometers is the Deaths/1M population.
Australia's is 746
Norway's is 946
Denmarks is 1,422
Finland's is 1,614
Sweden's is 2,324
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
From AUSTRALIA - Great to see you back mate.
Been seriously wondering if something bad had happened as you just kind of disappeared.
I have started joining in with the Steve Keen and Friends podcast, which is a place you should DEFINITELY do a talk. It might be a small audience but you are exactly the sort of person they like to hear from.
I'm actually an aerospace engineer and would like to discuss what I know about the issues with infrastructure and in particular the energy transition which has some MASSIVE ISSUES. About 20 years ago when we looked like going back to the moon to mine it I went to work in our mining industry for some experience. What I got was a pile of experience in FUNDAMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE because that's the main task of building a mine in a remote location. Other than the big hole there's all the power, water, roads, accommodation, workshops, airfield, fuel systems and piles of other stuff that has to be built to SUPPORT the mine.
Then one day I got this odd little consulting job into Australia's future energy needs and got the shock of my life to find out how much trouble we are in. That was 2017 and we are even more trouble these days, because we don't have a viable plan BECAUSE the plan is being written by economists AND NOT engineers.
DO you (and also any of your listeners) realise that if we dig up all the known reserves of Lithium on the planet right now its NOT enough to replace 1/3rd of the cars?
Currently there's 1.5 Billion registered cars in the world and 500 million trucks. (source Wikipedia).
The current Tesla S requires about 63kg of Lithium for its battery.
AT that rate we'd need about 95 million tons of Lithium to replace 1.5 Billion cars and the problem is, according tot he US Geological Society, we only have 21 million tons of reserves. There's some people who now think with new discoveries that its closer to 26 million tons, but even at that figure its not enough to replace 1/3rd of all the cars.
THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE ENERGY ISSUES.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You're not alone.
I'm an Australian engineer and I had this odd little consulting project back in 2015. I was stunned to find out the ACTUAL state of Australia's power stations. I watched a video today on California's looming crisis, so I did a quick look at their power stations AND ITS THE SAME STORY.
When I look around the world its the same story again and again.
Sorry to all if this is long but I have been on this for almost 7 years. Others have been trying to warn about this for a lot longer and nobody listens - we're just engineers. This isn't a German an Australian problem its everywhere.
In simplest terms we all stopped building large baseload power stations in the early 1990s. So we are clear what I call a Gigawatt class power stations is one that can deliver in normal operation at least 1 GW (or >1,000 Megawatts) 24/7. California currently has 6 gas, 1 geothermal and 2 nuclear Gigawatt class power stations and only 1 of them was commissioned after 1990, the La Paloma Gas plant at McKittrick in 2003. In the time since they commissioned the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in 1980 California has grown from 24 to almost 40 million people.
Here in Australia as our population went from 15 to 17.5 million in the 80s & 90s, we built 7 Gigawatt class power stations to meet the expected growth. The last of those was commissioned in 1999. As we went from 17.5 to almost 26 million we built NONE. Like another places we built a few smaller power stations and installed heaps of solar and wind. That's great and i love it but it DOES NOT solve the bulk supply that modern societies need. Its help mask the problem, but like the Titanic we are going to sink.
It doesn't take any genius to understand the basic economics of supply and demand. If your population increases the demand for electricity increases. If supply doesn't grow to match population growth prices go up. When they used to build big power stations it was with growth in mind. In Australia we built those stations with 20 million in mind. So there's a delay between when we built those stations and when we hit the limits of their supply. Once that happened our prices haven't stopped climbing and have risen over 400%
But it gets worse. Now those stations are reaching the end of their useful life. Its doesn't matter what type they are they all have an expiry date. California turned off San Onofre and Australia turned off Hazelwood along with some older small stations. We have 4 of our Gigawatt class power stations scheduled for shutdown due to age in the next 3-5 years and the rest not long after that. RIGHT NOW we haven't a single proposal to consider let alone approve let alone begin constructing.
In Britain Hinkley Point C was announced in 2010, approved in 2016 began construction in 2017 and is expected to begin operating in 2027. At £26 Billion ($44B AUD) Australia would need 2 of those and 2 more 1/2 size ones to replace what we are shutting down at a cost of $132 Billion AUD. At best we might have 1 built by 2032 if we started tomorrow. CAN YOU SEE THE PROBLEM.
Does rising power prices, power shortages, power outages all sound familiar? You are not alone.
Does your government seem to have no answers on what to do? You are not alone.
HERE'S THE REAL REASON FOR THIS. The time it takes to propose, approve and built big power stations means that no existing government (state or federal) that starts the process will still be in power when its gets approved or if they approve it when its built. So there's NOTHING for any politician to gain from asking for or approving new power stations. In fact for many politicians making no decision is their re-election strategy or "We will work on it!" is the way to win an election. If Britain had fast tracked Hinkley and maybe another 1 or 2 when they knew what the situation was back in 2010 and just got going they might be turning one on right now and avoiding the crisis. The rest of us are in an even worse state.
To all, sorry for the long answer but no matter where you are its pretty much the same problem. Its not the fault of one particular politician or party. Its not the fault of the Green movement or the coal companies or the nuclear proponents. ITS THE COMBINATION OF ALL OF THEM.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@purplepill2024 And there's a reason it all sounds the same - ALL of the Economics courses around the world teach the same basic curriculum. Many use the same collection of text books written by people AT Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford,..... and PUBLISHED by Harvard Press, Yale Press, Cambridge Press, Oxford Press,..... or WRITTEN by GRADUATES of Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Oxford,.....
This is also why NO MATTER which party gets elected in any of the Western Democracies NOTHING CHANGES. All of those elected officials have economic advisors who were all trained the same way and they give the same advice.
When it comes to economics there really is only 1 VOICE in the room. That voice goes by many names and has a variety of shades but in the end its all just shades of the same some color.
FYI - I'm an engineer who did all of 1 economics class, which I know regret that I hadn't done more because then I would have been better equipped to handle the economics clowns who now plague engineering. You mention prisons. The reason I got interested in economics was power stations.
Back in 2016 I had this odd little consult job and discovered just how bad Australia's energy situation is AND STILL IS. We have NO PLANS to replace anything and no matter what anyone does you have to eventually replace power stations because they simply wear out. What's holding it all up are the economists who want the government to do nothing and "let the market correct itself" because that's neoliberal doctrine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Another Aussie here and I went college in America (late 80s). This stuff is way more serious than most people realise and its not simply important to Australia but its important to every nation that trades internationally.
I did engineering but a few of my friends were pre-Law and we'd discuss things like the US Constitution because they were interested in other viewpoints. Yeah I know that sounds weird but these were college kids doing pre-Law. There are things happening in America that they told me could never happen, like what's happening with the Supreme Court. That's causing instability and that's a problem for all of us.
Back in 1944, at Bretton Woods, 44 allied nations (including Australia) signed the Breton Woods agreement. Yes that's effectively over and replaced by other treaties but one of the things that remains from it is that the US Dollar is still the worlds reserve currency for international trade. Even when we do deals in other currencies (£, ¥, €,... etc.) the whole system relies on everyone's currencies being stable and trustworthy. Yes currencies move and change but none of us can have any one of the main currencies becoming unstable especially the big one in the middle.
Remember the Asian currency crisis and what that did? How would America, Britain Europe, China, Japan, Canada, Australia or anyone else trade their stuff (oil, food, minerals, cars, iPhones,...etc) if we suddenly can't trust each others currency?
And yeah I know how much some people hate how it all works and yeah it would be nice to change it, but letting a pack of clowns, idiots and bozos blow it up isn't a smart way to do it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
It gets way, way, way...... way worse than that.
Here's 3 points I have made several times in recent months.
POINT 1: Only 3 times in the last 4,500 years has anyone successfully invaded Persia (Iran) - Alexander the Great, Mohamed and Genghis Khan. Without doubt its one of the greatest homefield advantages on the planet.
POINT 2: Go and look at the basic geography of Modern Iran.
In the North East Mountains and borders with Iraq, Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
In the North The Caspian Sea with direct link to Russia.
In the North East Mountains and borders to Turkmenistan and Afghanistan.
SOUTH OF THAT is desert, desert and more desert and that's the only place that an invading force large enough to subdue 88 million people could land and set up a base of operations.
POINT 3: The population of Iraq was 25 million when America FAILED.
The population of Iran is 88.5 million more than 3 times the population of Iraq when America invaded.
There were experts (including Eric Shinseki) who told congress they'd need a force of 400,000 or so to SECURE (as in subdue) the Iraqi nation and its people. That was ignored and look what happened.
Based on Shinseki's estimate (who was an expert) you'd need a force of at least 1 million to land and then subdue those 88.5 million Iranians.
How many jets and ships would it take to move 1 million soldiers and support staff?
How would you feed those 1 million soldiers and support staff?
How would you provide fuel for all the Jets, Tanks, Trucks, Gensets and everything else you'd need?
Just the basic logistics makes invading Iran almost impossible and that should be obvious to anyone.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I'm Australian and it takes pages to explain just how bad Trump has made America look.
For perspective, I went to college at U. Illinois and if you add up the population of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million which is almost identical to Australia's 25.6.
Australia has 905 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana Wisconsin has just gone past 30,000. Yes Australia has the advantage of being an island and is spread out, but we don't have any magic juice as some clowns suggest. We got very lucky with the initial spread but nothing explains the disparity other than a complete failure of leadership. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
On the international stage Trump has been a catastrophe for the Western world. As an analogy think of the Western world like a car where America is the engine. To have a great car you need more than just a good engine you need a good transmission, good suspension, good body and all the rest. BUT if the engine is misfiring and running like shit it sucks to drive that car. Well guess what the Western Worlds engine is not just misfiring. The plugs are fouled, the distributor cap is cracked, the oil hasn't been changed, one of the head gaskets is blown, the radiator is rusted, the cam shaft is worn, its got lose main bearings, its using a 1950s 4 barrel Holley that needs new jets and the idiots in charge are running the engine past the redline.
It doesn't matter if the Germans did the transmission, the Brits did the suspension, the Italians did the body and the Japanese put it together the engine that drives the Western World is FARKD and if it keeps being revved way beyond the redline it will detonate.
To highlight that - as millions of Americans have lost their jobs and need financial assistance to put food on the table the Stock Markets have soared as the top 1% have made billions.
I really do hope America can find a way past Trump, because even when he is gone there still is COVID to get past and Climate Change, the Russians, the Chinese and other stuff to deal with.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MentourPilot Sorry if I am coming to this one late, but considering where we are with Max-8 issues and a host of other issues in 2021 there's a couple things to be said in addition. Also my apologies if this is a bit longer than a normal YouTube comment.
I have a degree in aerospace engineering and a private pilots license. I have worked in industrial control and automation systems for 30+ years including a fair amount of work with robotics.
Along the way I became certified in industrial safety systems, which are the systems that cut in and shut down systems when they get too far out of normal. Which is very similar to what the MCAS in the Max-8 was meant to do. Its an area we call "functional safety" and a lot of it came out of the aerospace industry, things like sensor redundancy, multi-cpu self checking systems and MooN (M out of N) methods.
I have at times written the sorts of algorithms for plant and machinery that others could classify as AI. I wouldn't call what I have done as AI because I know that NOTHING anyone has ever done in terms of algorithms come close to thinking or reasoning. When engineers talk about "learning" and "teaching" we ARE NOT talking about teaching or learning as a human does. We are generally talking about an algorithm that can re-tune the parameters for the specific task at hand. I most commonly see this for simple control loops like temperature control.
Its quite possibly a poor choice of words and there's a complete lack of understanding in the general community about what algorithms are and how they work. There's also been a horrendous over-selling of what AI is and what it can do from the computer and IT industries. For people like me we absolutely hate those people because more than anything else they are selling a lie. And those sorts of lies have consequences as we all found out with the Max-8.
The way these algorithms work is they AIM to MIMIC how a human MIGHT manually do something. Like the way a pilot adjusts the trim. You adjust it a bit and then see what happens. You then readjust and see what happens and keep doing that until the plane is trimmed. We can do that in software because its a well defined task. I know how these types of algorithms work because I have written them to do unusual things like pH control in waster water treatment.
These sorts of algorithms work in well defined tasks BUT they fall over in complex tasks like driving a car. Its not been widely advertised but they all gave up on driverless cars and trucks about 2 years ago because they eventually realised just how complex the task was and near impossible it would prove to test.
This is why an autopilot in a plane works. Its a very well defined task -> keep the plane on this heading and this altitude at this speed. Driving a car down a street sounds much simpler until you start considering ALL the possibilities of weather, parked cars, light and pedestrians. Why has there never been an autopilot that could taxi a plan from the apron to the runway? Consider how many things a computer would have to consider just taxiing out to the runway. For starters you'd have to map every bay and taxiway at every airport your aircraft could be used. You'd then also have to be able to consider every permutation of what other aircraft and vehicles could be doing at all of those airports. Its the variety of circumstances ad how abstract the task is, that brings these systems down.
The human brain is incredibly good at abstract situations and can evaluate extraordinary amounts of data per second and eliminate most of it on the fly as irrelevant or less important. Computers as we know them just can't do that. There simply isn't a camera or evaluation system as that's even the tiniest of a fraction the capability of the human visual cortex. BUT keeping a plane on heading, altitude and speed is a very well defined task with almost no other inputs than altitude, heading and speed. There is a possibility that quantum computers will be able to do these sorts of tasks, because its thought they will be able to evaluate vast amounts of data in parallel and do abstract tasks.
So bottom line is there is nothing in the current technology of AI that's even the tiniest fraction of what would be needed to replace you in the pilot seat. And with the safety requirements for redundancy your co-pilot doesn't need to worry either. 👍😀
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I did aerospace engineering and back in 1987 we had an alum from NASA who did a guest lecture on Friday. He'd just completed a preliminary study into terraforming Mars and the answer was forget it.
Here's a slightly longer explanation. Sorry for the math.
What this NASA guy introduced us to was what I now call "Planetary Mechanics" which is how much stuff do you need. The sister to that is "Planetary Dynamics" which is how do you make stuff like water cycles and gas cycles and ocean currents work.
So how much Earth normal air would you need?
Sorry for the math.
Mars has a surface area of 144,370,000 km²
If you just wanted a 1 km thick layer of Earth standard air on an object that big its easy to approximate it as enough big cubes of air to cover and that's easy because you just change area to volume and you have 144,370,000 km³ of air. Earth standard air weighs 1.2kg/m³. To work out what that 144,370,000 km³ weighs in metric tons you add 9 zeros to convert m³ to km³ and then take off 3 zeros to convert kilograms to tons.
Yes this is why engineers like metric.
Finally you multiply by 1.2 because its 1.2 kg/m³
And then you get 173,244,000,000,000 tons of Earth standard air.
Yes that's a bit over 173 TRILLION tons of air.
The simple question is where are you going to find that much air. That's before you ask anything like how are you going to get it there or keep it attached tot he planet because Mars has only 1/3rd of Earths gravity and n magnetic field to stop the solar wind stripping it away.
There was this one bright spark who recently told me we'd only need the Oxygen (as in 1/5th) 🤔🤔
So I asked him where he thought he could get 34.6 TRILLION tons of Oxygen?
Now I will grant its not technically impossible, but unless you really do have God like powers, it is like trying to build a 1 to 1 scale model of Mount Everest out of Lego.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Rosie,
Can you please have someone on who is actually qualified with respect to electrical equipment for hazardous areas (EEHA) to talk about the issues with hydrogen AND YES I am qualified.
I think hydrogen is amazing and we should be using it as much as PRACTICAL and I really do want to emphasise that word practical.
FIRST off everyone needs to realise that no one technology is going to save the planet. Its going to be combinations of things and those combinations will vary from region to region depending a lot more on things like geography and demographics than people realise. Despite all the good will some counties just don't have the right geography for certain technologies and others have some demographics issues that are about to slam the door on a few things. Go watch one of Peter Zeihan's lectures on demographics.
SECOND everyone needs to realise that all technologies have limits. Those limits include basic physics, availability of resources and most importantly demographics. On the basic physics Hydrogen is wonderful in that it makes up so many useful chemicals that the exhaust from many processes can be used as feed to other processes. BUT its so damn easy to react with almost anything. From an EEHA perspective all its wants to do is go bang and because its ignition energy is so low and its explosive range in air so wide its a real hassle for engineers to design plants that have it (even in small quantities). That leads to the next issue.
THIRD its no use having any technology if you don't have people trained to use it. It no use getting nuclear power if you have no nuclear engineers or technicians and they don't get trained in a 5 day TAFE course. I once worked with an electrician who's first career was in the US Navy as a nuclear power plant operator. He once explained his training. The problem with hydrogen is we have so few people who use it enough right now and we don't have the training programs. Its not simply a 5 day EEHA course.
I really do believe hydrogen is about to play a major role in our lives, BUT all the clowns in the room need to shut up and let people who actually know what they are talking about speak and be listened too. This is not a pilot project at a university, this is real industrial stuff we need discussed.
That whole skills pow wow we just had was a joke. It was run by economists, lawyers and special interests. Its not like the world has had energy transitions before. Ships went from sail to steam to diesel. Road transportation went from walking to horse to wheels to engines. We've been through transitions before its just this time we have TOO MANY clowns hogging the microphones. Its a tragic consequence of modern communications. Every clown gets a microphone and the more of a clown they are they louder they yell into that microphone.
Go look at the publicly available information. In the time our population went from 15 to 17.5 million (up 2.5 million) we built 7 Gigawatt class (>1,000 Megawatt) power stations. In the years since when the population went to almost 26 million an increase of 7.5 million WE BUILT ZERO large bulk power generators. Anybody who has done even a basic economics class knows how that works out. Its a small thing called supply and demand. That's been compounded by their age, which has been compounded by privatisation because in the private sector cost cutting is a religion and the easiest cost cutting is maintenance. So they are old and poorly maintained.
We have about 3 maybe 5 years at most to build at least 5 major power stations (2 NSW, 1 QLD, 1 VIC & 1 SA) or we are in monumental trouble. Plus as we are building them we need to start on replacing the rest of the 22 coal fired power stations. And before you ask, YES most other developed nations are similar or worse.
Sorry for the long reply.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@PRiMETECHAU What twigged me to it was the Perth drydock upgrade for $4.3 Billion.
I've spent time doing projects in the mining industry. Typically mining projects in the $3-4 Billion bracket have onsite workforces of 3-4,000. I have done projects in WA, NT and QLD all in that bracket.
So I am familiar with projects around that sort of money and seen how much stuff gets built and how many people that takes.
They are similar types of projects there's a big hole, cranes, workshops, electrical services, water services, etc. And that involves all the same sorts of people - welders, crane operators, electricians, plumbers, et.
The Perth Dry Dock project has a workforce of 500. For that sort of money I'd expect a workforce over 3,000 not 500.
If I compare the East coast project to similar mining projects for port facilities its even worse. I don't think its a matter of "if there were kickbacks?" its more like "how big were they?"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Here's what was said by Vice POTUS Wallace 2 years before Trump was born at the time when Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin were all in power.
Note what it says about method and patriots.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
TO ALL - Some Perspective.
I'm Australian and I went to college at U. Illinois do I know the Midwest fairly well. If you combine the populations of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana it total 25.2 million which is fairly close to Australia's 25.6 million. Yes there are significant geographical differences in size and in weather (like the difference in winter conditions). BUT none of that explains the following facts.
Australia has 908 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana have over 28,000 (and counting).
Australia has just over 1,400 active cases while Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana have over 520,000 active cases as winter sets in.
On the table at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Australia is 54th in population, 85th total fatalities, 113th in active cases and 129th in Fatality rate (Deaths per 1M pop).
If Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana were a country they would be 14th in total fatalities, 7th in active cases and 6th in Fatality rate.
Nothing actually explains or excuses that. Australia does not have any special magic juice or anything else. No doubt our geography helped but it can't explain that level of difference. We've had outbreaks in fact around 700 of our fatalities came from a single outbreak in my home state of Victoria. We have an outbreak right now of abut 20 cases in Sydney and its caused people to stay home and stay safe. America is not alone either Sweden has basically admitted they got there Herd Immunity plan horribly wrong. If Australia had done as Sweden did we would have around 20,000 fatalities instead of 908.
Sure our economy is a mess and it will take years to fix, but we have started on that already. Sure our libertarians have screamed about their rights and freedoms. Right now they get told STFU, the rest of us have work to do and want to get through this.
To all - Take Care & Stay Safe.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Extend that to never trust ANYONE who ignores common sense and rules via an ideology.
You can take any of the worlds "isms" and they all seem based on some basic sensible proposition. But if you let ideologues run rampant with it without any restraint then you get Stalinism, Reaganism, Thatcherism, Maoism, Feudalism.
As a thought go and look at the worlds major environmental catastrophes and you get things like the Aral Sea, the destruction of the lower Colorado River, the mass destruction of Chinese Water ways, the depletion of the Southern California aquifer, destroyed rivers and other waterways across former Soviet Eastern Europe. And that's just looking at water. That's not even going near forest destruction, land degradation, toxic waste dumping or climate change let alone any of the social issues.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well the Egyptians rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - in turmoil.
Well the Assyrians (as in Modern Syria) rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - destroyed by civil war
Well the Babylonians (as in Modern Iraq) rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - destroyed by war
Well the Persians (as in Modern Iran) rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - isolated
Well the Greeks rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - bankrupt
Well the Romans (as in Modern Italy) rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - also bankrupt.
Well the Mongols rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - also bankrupt and stuck between Russia and China
Well the British rose conquered the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - a bunch of money launderers who can't make anything anymore.
Well the Russians rose 1/2 conquered 1/4 of the world the known world, then slowly fell apart to where they are today - fukd with a maniac in charge of nuclear weapons.
America.
In 1969 they put men on the moon after starting from a blank sheet paper less than a decade. For most of the last decade they had to hitch a ride on Russian Rockets to get up to the space station they built only to be rescued from that by an IMMIGRANT who actually took twice as long to get 1/2 as far as NASA did 50 years earlier!
Through the 1970s, 80s and 90s America lead the world in computer manufacturing technology and now its all made in Taiwan or China.
Through the entire post world war 2 era America lead the world in aircraft with companies like Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, Martin, Gruman, Rockwell and Fairchild. Now there's just Boeing and their last plane was the Max-8.
According to a recent Rand report America's top 1% extracted $47 Trillion (with a T) in value form the lower 99% between 1975 and 2018.
Americas infrastructure is in disrepair, its political parties dysfunctional and the country has been divided by an self delusion orange clown who gave that top 1% the biggest tax break in history despite that fact they pay almost no tax anyway.
I don't know if America is fixable. I'd like to hope that it is.
I'm Australian and went to college in America.
America's a great country, with great people but its being lead by people in politics and business who just don't care how much harm they do.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Australian here and sad to say to you all but Trump DID NOT commit treason.
YES - we have asked this because if one of ours did what he did they'd be gone for life by now. In many countries Trump and his lackies would have been executed by about February 1st 2021.
The thing is when your founding fathers wrote the US Constitution, which I genuinely think is one of humanities finest achievements, they chose to NOT include a few things. One of those things were the wide ranging abilities of Kings, Queens and their agents to use treason and sedition laws to execute people without trial. Basically since the dawn of civilisation treason or sedition has been used as a very quick way to get rid of people.
Your founding fathers (and this is why I think they really did do something brilliant) basically said "NO we are putting an end to that nonsense and we will have a Government of the People, by the People, for the People."
The tragedy of what's happened is that the system has gaps that can be taken advantage of and too many people thought the system of "checks and balances" would deal with them. America has never really found a way to deal with people like Nixon, Trump,....etc who take the gaps in your system and abuse their position. That's the real challenge for America - how do you find a way to get back to a Government of the People, by the People, for the People instead of the corporatized mess you now have where money is everything.
Don't misunderstand I am not against capitalism but I am about having balance and YES we are having similar issues in Australia where corporate interests come first and "we the people" don't matter.
FYI - I went to college in America on a sports scholarship. I genuinely like America, its people and its culture, but your politics has taken a nasty toxic turn that you need to deal with. Best of luck.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Very astute.
Here's a Henry Wallace quote a few people are posting. It was written/said 2 years before Trump was even born at a time when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were in power. Note what it says about method and patriotism.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
3
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: and that's a damn good answer
Below is the same answer I gave elsewhere. The difference is your only looking at dealing with what goes into the atmosphere each year, when there's already a massive amount in the atmosphere that needs removing.
I'm Australian but did my degree in America (late 80s) and one Friday we had a NASA engineer do a special lecture on Terraforming Mars. We were kind of excited as at that time (despite the Challenger accident) we believed we'd be building the next space station in the 90s, back to the moon early on the 2000s and off to Mars in the 2010s.
We were shattered when he started with: "Sorry its impossible and here's why!"
He then went and explained how you need think when considering an entire planet. You don't need to be an engineer or geologist or atmospheric scientist just BASIC MATH WILL DO. Once you understand the actual scope of dealing with a planetary issue things like this are irrelevant.
For example there's currently around 2.5 Trillion tons of excess Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and by current estimates it will go past 3.5 Trillion tons by the mid 2030s. So to do a quick time estimate you simply divide 3.5 Trillion by 35,000 and get 100,000,000 years. So if you want to get that 3.5 Trillion tons out in something like 10 years you need about 10,000,000 of these plants built. If you want to do it 20 years then its 5,000,000 plants.
As to the costs its even easier to estimate
At $1,000 per ton 3.5 Trillion tons will cost $3.5 QUADRILLION tons to remove.
1/10th of $3.5 Quadrillion is $0.35 Quadrillion.
So at $300 per ton its (3/10ths) which is $1.05 QUADRILLION
And at $400 per ton its (4/10ths) which is $1.4 QUADRILLION
So its reasonably easy to estimate that this method will cost between $1 and $1.5 QUADRILLION and that's provided we can find 5-10,000,000 SUITABLE locations and get enough materials to build those 10,000,000 plants. Then there's the small task of how do we power it, because power might be reasonably cheap in Iceland where they have enormous natural resources but what about the other 9,999 plants where are they going, how are they being powered and who's paying?
By the way if every person on the planet planted 1,000 trees (seedlings) at a cost of $5 per tree. That would be 8 Trillion Trees and if each tree is capable on capturing 1-2tons of Carbon and sequestering it in the wood. Then we'd only need about 1 in 4 trees (~2.5 trillion) to reach maturity to capture that 3.5 Trillion of Carbon Dioxide.
Yeah that would cost about $40 Trillion on basic costs which is a staggering amount of money until you consider the alternative is $1-$1.5 QUADRILLION, which is 25 times the cost at the low end. Best of all Trees don't need electricity they just need water and sun light and maybe some fertilizer. Once established their maintenance and upkeep costs are almost zero. If you plant trees that produce food and of building materials then even better.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm an Australian engineer (educated in America) and you are 100% RIGHT.
Apologies for the rant but your point is as valid here and America as it is everywhere.
I have been forced to look into economics because of a small project I had back in 2016. During that project I found out how badly managed Australia's energy sector is. For years I had heard how ineffective Australia's energy policies were. Its a common news story, but then I found out the details of just how bad it is.
When I looked around I found the same or similar problem across most of the developed World.
Its fairly simple. Ever since the start of the industrial revolution and even more so since the end of World War 2 we have needed more and more energy to grow our economies. America did Tennessee Valley, Australia did the Snowy River Scheme and others did their equivalent. THEN starting with Reagan and Thatcher ECONOMISTS like Milton Friedman stepped in and claimed that "governments were the problem" and free market economics was the solution WITHOUT ANY REAL UNDERSTANDING of how INDUSTRIAL societies actually function and are dependent on basic infrastructure working.
Their solution was to privatise anything and everything because in their ideology the private sector does everything better. There was never any real proof to that claim it was just their opinion. What I have found is economists have NO IDEA how infrastructure needs to work so that businesses can function, make money, employ people and those people to have decent lives BUT THEY KNOW HOW TO SQUEEZE MONEY out of infrastructure.
AND it has NOT mattered if it was American neoliberal capitalist economists, Russian socialist economists, European mercantilists, Chinese neomercantilists or any other variety of economist. They have all FUBARD their infrastructure because they're economists not engineers and its all falling apart. Here's some examples:
America has over 30,000 bridges that need major repairs or outright replacing.
China has wrecked over 25,000 rivers, streams and waterways which is why their food is full of toxins.
Russia destroyed the Aral Sea.
Britain has utterly wrecked their water infrastructure after selling it to Australians while Australians sold their energy infrastructure to whoever would buy it and its now totally FUBARD.
And all economists can tell us is how great the FARKING stock market is.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm an Australian aerospace engineer who's spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, robotics and automation. In 2016 I had a small project into Australia's energy sector and was horrified to find out what our situation was. When I looked around the world I found similar cases all across the developed world.
When I look for the cause I found it was ECONOMISTS and they faulty thinking.
Unfortunately there is NO free market solution for base load energy, which is that fraction of the energy supply that has to be there 24hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks each year and do that year after year (see below).
Eventually I heard Steve Keen the contrarian economist say that "Economists don't even include energy in their models." THAT STUNNED ME.
I am now a very active participant with Steve's Weekly podcast.
I have also recommended Steve have Gary on the podcast.
Below is something I have been working on for a while.
This is an abbreviated version
Since you're an econ teacher I'd like you're feedback.
---------------------------
WHY there is no free market solution for base load energy, but an incredible one for state owned entities.
First you need to understand that energy generation is similar to comparing cars, trucks & ships. They all do the same basic task of transportation but do it differently and those differences are required. Cars are good for transporting people about. Trucks are good for transporting goods around. Ships are good for moving large amounts of raw materials and goods between countries.
Over in energy generation base load power stations are like ships they tend to be very large with massive turbines delivering massive amounts of energy day after day. Load following which is the amount we need to cover the swings we get in energy demand every day is mor like trucks Smaller than ships but also more flexible. Peaking plants are exactly like they sound they are for those short term peaks in energy demand where there's sudden changes.
There's a massive difference in the size of these 3 types of energy supply. Base Load power stations are the largest of power stations. Typically they have individual generators of 100s of megawatts and the power stations themselves are often capable of delivering gigawatts of power. Base load plants are therefore built to deliver massive amounts at almost constant levels and the favored means for that is things like coal, hydro and nuclear. These are power stations that you can't just turn off and on as needed. Some of the larger plants can take several days to come up to power from a cold start.
Load following is what it sounds like. Each day as people wake up there's a massive surge in demand that lasts several hours as people turn on factories, offices and other businesses. That settles during the day before another massive surge in the late afternoon early evening. Load following power stations follow that requirement. Because these power stations are generally needed twice each day they tend to be smaller than base load and must be capable of being turned off and on as needed and most importantly be able to respond as the power surges rise and fall.
Peaking power stations are similar to load following but are specifically made to turn on from zero quickly in response to rapid demand changes. There's many causes of rapid demand changes but one of the more famous is when the British TV show Coronation Street ends and several 100 thousand people turn on their electric kettles to make hot tea. In the space of several minutes it hits the British energy grid with a massive short surge.
There's 2 major groups of issues with all these power stations.
- planning, design and approval
- costs & construction time.
For any investor the costs and construction time are the make or break. Like any investment it all comes down to how long it takes to pay off the investment and profits to start. For peaking those time frames are short and its viable. Peaking is where some of the new mega battery systems are proving to be incredibly good investments because the construction times are short and the pay-off times are short and the profit margins are high.
Load following can also be reasonably profitable but its not as good as peaking. It costs more money takes longer to build and longer to pay off. However for base load there's no viable "free market" solution. If you look at Hinkley Point C in Britain as an example. It took 7 years to design and approve. Longer if you consider some of the preliminary work. It will take another 10-12 to build at a cost of £41-48 Billion with a pay-off period of around 10 years depending on market costs.
Considering that executives capable of approving multi-billion pound/dollar/euro investments are in their mid 50s. Asking them to bet £41-48 Billion on something that wont pay profit until they are in their 80s is laughable.
So there is fundamentally no "free market" solution for TO BUILD base load power in a modern society. HOWEVER If you privatise a state asset like a base load power station its an amazing investment because there's no approval, design or construction process. Those things are already done. You hand over money one day and start making money the next day not in 15-20years. Plus you don't need to find customers as they already exist.
So then the question is who can invest in such power stations where they do have to go through design approval and construction and what do such investors get in return?
The main investor in Hinkley Point C is the French Government via the state owned entity EDF. Hinkley Point C is expected to run for 60 years with an option to be extended to 80 years. The most well understood long term investors are banks for home loans and they basically expect to double their money on a 30 year loan. So if they loan someone £500,000 then 30 years later they expect to have back £1,000,000 of which £500,000 is the original loaned money and £500,000 is from interest on that loan.
Even though bankers do think in 30 year time periods they are not really set up to consider 60 year time periods where they could expect the money to quadruple.
So in the case of Hinkley Point C the French people via EDF can expect £4 back for every £1 invested but it will take 60 years to get that £4. That might not work for a commercial or private entity but EDF is not private its state owned and they have to consider their owners needs which is the French State. Right now the French State need to build new power stations to replace the old ones. Mr. Macron has ordered 8 reactors or the equivalent of 4 Hinkley Point C power stations. Hinkley Point C will not only eventually pay back its construction costs but the French state has a reasonable expectation that it will also pay for 6 of the French EPR 2 reactors ordered. If Hinkley gets an extension and runs for 80 years the French will have enough money to pay for all 8 reactors Mr. Macron has ordered PLUS enough money to decommission Hinkley Point C and clean up the site.
Basically it might seem like the French People are gifting the British people a free power station as their government does not have to spend any money building it. The truth is the British people will end up giving the French people all that money back and enough EXTRA money to pay for 3 and possible 4 power stations in France.
So there might not be any free market solution to BUILD, Own & Operate base load power stations but there certainly is a case for STATE OWNED entities to make long term strategic investments to BUILD, Own & Operate base load power stations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Thank you so much. Being an engineer and NOT a student of political theory, (in fact I generally hate such people, for the utter garbage they sell society) I normally run from such people and any of their advocates. Its taken only a few minutes of looking through other quotes to see mister Wolin is a great thinker who has seen through the smoke and mirrors. Most interestingly (and unlike so many others) he seems to like pointing out historical facts from Athenian and Roman societies which oddly I studied in college as humanities options.
Please don't hold it against me that I hadn't heard of him, but I come from a different path.
Here's another of his quotes from the same book that immediately struct me as the privatisation of Australia is such a hot topic for me.
“The strategy followed by privatization’s advocates is, first, to discredit welfare functions as “socialism” and then either to sell those functions to a private bidder or to privatize a particular program. A traditional governmental function, such as education, is in process of being redefined, from a promise to make education accessible to all to an investment opportunity for venture capital.”
― Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated:
And this one which when put into the context of "Citizens United" and the current makeup of the ultra pro-corporate SCOTUS is chilling.
"When power is organized in the form of an economy based upon private capital and the division of labor, then ipso facto the lives of most persons will be directed by others. Dependence is thus institutionalized as inequalities of reward and, consequently, of power.”
― Sheldon S. Wolin, Democracy Incorporated:
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2 Extraordinary quotes in this. The obvious one is his tweet and the way he describes doing it, but before that is another: Starting at 2:34:25 "That's why today, I believe that America, and for sure American democracy, is at risk, because those representatives whom the founders completely understood would tend to act in their own self-political interest rather than the interest of the country, the founders believed that the system would constrain them. Today proves that the founders, as wise as they were as to that, were mistaken."
FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America. I did engineer but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and we used to discuss these sorts of things. I'd studied Orwell (Animal Farm and 1984) and used to maintain that any country could fall into a totalitarian dictatorship if it wasn't careful. They used to say that can't happen in America because the Constitution was built to prevent that happening. Basically it had safety functions that would not allow any person or small group of persons to do take over.
One thing the founding fathers didn't consider is the influence of lobbying. UNELECTED groups and organisations who would seek to influence the operation of government for their own gain. Organisations the unelected Federalist Society, unelected Heritage Foundation and unelected CATO Institute. Then there is the extraordinary influence institutions like Harvard, Yale and U. Chicago have had spitting out and endless supply of acolytes who end up in all sorts of places of INFLUENCE.
Do you know 14 of the last 18 SCOTUS Judges including 8 of the current 9 studied at Harvard or Yale where the Federalist Society was started. The next SCOTUS Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson studied at Harvard or that 5 of the 7 named to replace Judge Breyer were either Harvard or Yale. That's an extraordinary level of power concentrated among a handful of people and totally against what the founding fathers set out to do.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov, News Week, 1980.
And few more:
"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent." ― Isaac Asimov
“Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.” ― Rod Sterling in his introduction to the Twilight episode “The Obsolete Man” originally aired on June 2, 1961 on CBS.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
“I think it would be very, very, I think we’d have a very, very solid, we would continue what we’re doing, we’d solidify what we’ve done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done” ― Donald Trump answering the NY Times on his 2nd term agenda. August 2020.
And a classic I recently re-discovered.
“Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don’t know what it is. I keep myself in a state of utter confusion.” ― Colonel Flagg of the CIA
From the TV Show MASH sometime in the 1970s.
3
-
3
-
Somebody needs to ask Mark Levin the following Question:
When did BLM, ANTIFA, Democrats, 1960s counter culture hippies, tree hugging Kumbaya singing environmentalists, Occupy Wall Street, Lafayette Park or any other protesters storm the capitol, kill a police officer, tear down the American flag and replace it with another flag?
For anyone interested please feel free to copy that question and post it anywhere you like.
Someone else first directed me to this quote by Vice POTUS Wallace, who was alive when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were in power to personally see what those sorts of people are like. the 2 highlights about method and patriotism are mine.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AEROSPACE Engineer here and I've heard some similar stories regarding many technologies like:
1950 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1960 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1970 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1980 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1990 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2000 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2010 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2020 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
By chance can you guess how far away nuclear fusion will be in 2030?
I'm Australian but did my degree in America.
I was doing my degree in the late 80s and we EXPECTED to build Space Station Freedom in the 1990s and then be back on the Moon by 2001 to start setting up a lunar base that would be the start of a permanent settlement AND YES we took that date from the film.
THEN the Challenger accident happened and as we know it was because of poor decisions being made by the wrong people. That has been followed by several 1,000 poor decisions being made by the wrong people and we are no closer to a permanent lunar base than we were January 28, 1986 when Challenger happened.
I have spent the last 30+ years working across a variety of industries doing industrial control systems and trying quietly to learn from these industries how we might do stuff on the moon.
So long as we have the combination of the wrong people making bad decisions in combination with the unrealistic promotions (and at least Cold Fusion does but "providers" into the story) of effectively vacant over rated (and often over hyped) "future technologies" that will re-shape humanity we wont (as a species) move forward because too many of the basic things like food, shelter, clean water, clean energy and a few other things are NOT DEALT WITH as a priority.
I have spent most of the last 20 years working on construction mines in remote locations because it presents the same sorts of issues building a lunar base has. Everything is at least 3 days away, the environment is hostile and you have to build all the basic infrastructure any modern society needs including housing, food storage, food prep, clean water, waste water, power (including power distribution), roads and very importantly workshops for maintenance.
While we have story after story of the latest break though technology we are also surrounded by crumbling infrastructure. Go and look at any modern society and you will find major infrastructure issues. They might differ from country to country but we all have them. Energy infrastructure is the major issue that most have and its a serious issue because everything needs energy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Thunderf00t I don't know if you saw my last comment on the other video, but I do control systems and one of my main projects between 2006 & 2011 was an industrial bio-conversion plant in Perth, Western Australia that processed Municipal Solid Waste (NSW). As a Brit I'll assume you know where Perth is.
Sorry if this is a lengthy reply but if you want any further material I'll see what I can get you.
Keep up the good work. I just hate technology scammers.
I don't know if in your work you've had to deal with a control system engineers but I have to deal with all types of engineers and technologists - mechanical, chemical and in that case microbiologists. Early on I asked what made their process special so I got an personalized education in the microbiology of composting. My job wasn't to make the bacteria do its funky stuff it was to build a control system that included the tools to let the microbiologists make the bacteria do its funky stuff.
So there are many details about the bacteria I never was privy to. It was just this stuff they called "water" except it was dark brown and smelt awful. I'd describe it as biologically active liquor.
Their process was pretty novel in how fast it worked (21 days). In the natural environment composting can take anywhere from months to years depending on all sorts of factors - the microorganism types (worms, slugs, etc.), bacteria types (single cell bugs), temperature, moisture, oxygen levels, existing soil type, light or lack of light,.... etc. The list is quite lengthy. That's not that great for industrial processes where they want consistency.
Most of the OTHER processes developed did things like heap up the compost into mounds out in paddocks and left to ferment in situ. That releases lots of stuff (CO2, CH4,.... etc.). Other places simply dumped it into an unused quarry or open cut mine and cap it with a giant rubber sheet and tap the gas as its produced. Other processes munch/mince it all up and put it into silos so they can tap off the combustibles like methane. If not watched those silos can get so hot they catch on fire.
In these processes you do get more than methane. I know I had to engineer the electrical system to handle hydrogen. There wasn't much of it but there was enough to influence the electrical design because hydrogen ignites so easily. And yes many of the clowns promoting hydrogen have no idea.
Mostly those systems that put compost into silos and leave it alone take 60-90 days (not hours) to decompose a batch into compost. The variation mainly comes from the time of year. Municipal waste has EVERYTHING we put in the wheely bins - food waste, cloth, plastics, metals, grass clippings, leaves,.... etc.
So just giving people the impression that Lomi can provide "composted" material in 4 hours is pretty much garbage.
The company I was working with had come up with a way to handle the seasonal changes and make the process extremely rapid by tailoring the bacterial decomp. They could do a batch of the organic fraction of municipal waste in 21 days complete cycle. Raw waste came in and was smashed in a giant tumbling garbage smasher. Almost a Lomi on Superman level steroids. After that the metals, sand, glass and plastics were removed and finally it was loaded into a vessel (about 4-5 stories high) where it was introduced to the bacteria. At that stage there was oxygen and the process was aerobic and produced CO2. After the vessel was full it was sealed and once the bacteria had finished consuming all the oxygen was when the real magic started.
Certain bacteria are not like mammals, birds, etc. When the oxygen runs out they don't die they switch their metabolism. In a sealed container that process is gradual and we could watch it happen on the gas analyzer data. The bacteria would start consuming organics and oxygen producing C02 but as the oxygen ran out it would switch and start consuming organics and CO2 producing methane and a few other hydrocarbons. Eventually the bacteria would consume all it could. We'd see that on the gas analyzer as methane had stopped being produced. After that we reintroduced air and with it oxygen. Since this step was abrupt rather than gradual the sudden introduction of oxygen would kill the bacteria. After a few days of aeration all that was left was sterile very high quality compost.
All Lomi is, is the first step in a process like that. Its just a smashing and grinding machine.
*Laughably you can do the same thing with an old blender or nutri-bullet for a lot less than $500. Just blend up your scraps with some water and put it all in a cloth bag. Squeeze out the water and/or hang it somewhere to drain like they do for cheese making. Put the drained off water on you plants because it will have all sorts of organics. Then put the mashed up stuff in a composter and let nature do its stuff.
That or spend $20-40 million and build a system like I worked on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dickpark9807 Seriously I'm not interested I any conspiracy shit. Sure the CIA do bad stuff and lots of it and having been doing bad stuff for decades. BUT they do not magically control America as part of some Deep State bullshit.
While people yell and scream conspiracy garbage all it does is create masses of confusion and the result is that NO ONE is actually dealing with the real issues. There's just super wealthy people with too much influence. There is no Deep State just loose groups of very selfish people like Charles Koch, Rupert Murdoch, Robert Herring (owner of OAN), Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Peter Theil,.....etc. They want what they want and the rest of us can go f--k ourselves.
What Americans need to realise is that you are the pawns in a war between loose groups of Oligarchs. On one side are the old money oil, gas, coal, newspapers, rail roads,...etc. People just like Charles Koch and Rupert Murdoch who will do anything and say anything to keep the world just as it is. On the other side are the new tech billionaires like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk,.....etc.
There is no Deep State just feuding selfish billionaires who don't care a flying f--k about you or me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@patriciaguerin3663 Sorry for the long answer but you might find this interesting.
About 25 years ago I met an American, Doug, over hear through work and we became good friends. He eventually went back (~2 years) but came back for a visit about a year after that. This was around late 1999 (all pre-9/11). We were at my parents and they were retired school teachers. Out of nowhere he made this extraordinary statement "We don't need our guns anymore."
We were WTF and asked what he meant. He said something like "We've lost sight of what our founding fathers wanted us to be" which only made the WTF go deeper. He was trying to point out that a major underlying concept of the US constitution was about enabling every citizen to become what they wanted by providing a FREE, SAFE and FAIR society.
I don't know what had made him reach that conclusion, but something had changed his perspective. I think someone had asked how he survived in a country without the freedom to own guns. Which is wrong as we can own almost anything if we can justify it.
It prompted him to do some research and he found out an amazing thing. ALL (as in every country) modern police forces are derived from the 2nd Amendment. Prior to that time all governments used the military to enforce security and police the population and importantly keep them under control. And it was like that for 1000s of years and through dozens of empires. Both my parents were teachers and my mother was very keen on history. She thought about it and concluded EXACTLY the same thing, which still freaks me out 20+ years later. In among everything else the Founding Fathers had said "NO the federal/central government will NOT use the military to police the civilian population. We will do that through well organized militias under local civilian control."
We all concluded that the US bill of Rights was an extraordinary framework that had allowed America to be FREE, SAFE and FAIR, so its people to could flourish. Yeah its not perfect and the journey has had its some big bumps and bangs, but very few countries have come close to America. Nobody else sent men to the moon just because it was there to be done.
What Doug was super concerned about was Americans were losing grasp of what it meant to be American - FREE, SAFE and FAIR. I think what Doug was on about was that you have to balance what's free, safe and fair. If one dominates then the others lose out.
22-23 years later and you know what scares me? Australia is going down the same path. We have people protesting and screaming about their freedoms, but none of them are protesting about SAFE & FAIR. 🤷♂️🤷♂️
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TO ALL: The combined populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin is 25.2 million, which compares to Australia's 25.6million.
Australia has 908 COVID deaths while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin has just over 28,000 --> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Right now Australia has just over 1400 active cases while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have over 520,000 active cases as Winter sets in.
In the last 2 days Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin had another 643 fatalities.
On October 14 we had 5 die and since then 4 more. --> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/
We currently have a cluster with over 20 cases reported and its major news. Yesterday Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin reported over 16,500 new cases.
Sure Australia is an Island and it was easier to isolate ourselves early on and we got very lucky regarding big crowd events when it first arrived here. We cancelled the Grand Prix and other events that could have been disastrous. We didn't have things like college and high school basketball going on which were just perfect for spreading this thing. We also didn't have any magic potion that a few conspiracy ass holes claimed at one point.
But what we do is isolate when we get clusters and stop them getting out of control. Most of our 908 dead came from one cluster breaking containment in my home state of Victoria. Just to show we have idiots as well - we have people still complaining about lockdowns and isolating clusters DESPITE the fact we know that works and we know it saves lives. We had people screaming at one point we needed to be like Sweden, but its now obvious that Sweden go it wrong. Its costs 1000s of lives and didn't save their economy.
What we can say now with a fair amount of certainty is that what we did in Australia has hurt our economy for sure and it will take years to recover but it has saved at least 20,000 lives (based on parts of Europe) and as many as 28,000 lives (based on parts of America).
Like many Australian I want to see America recover from this.
Wherever you - Take Care & Stay Safe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 - “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."
Just so you all know those words were said 2 years before Donald Trump (1946) was born. It was also said by a man who personally witnessed the chaos and insanity of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@xelakram The great eye opener on economics was an exposé by the BBC program Panorama years ago when they were investigating some of the American banks and how they influence politics. What they found was that professors at Harvard, Yale,.....etc. were on huge money to write papers that helped of promoted what those banks wanted.
If you tell a politician "A study by Harvard Business school has found....." or "A recent paper out of Yale Business school says....." that carries serious weight and people pay attention. The Banks found that if you wanted to influence monetary policy it was A LOT CHEAPER and MORE EFFECTIVE to pay-off "the prestigious" professors to write what you wanted.
In the Panorama program the confronted one professor with how much his base salary was to how much the banks paid him (it was like 4 or 5x as much) and how many pro-bank papers he was writing and how they influenced policy. Instead of defending his work the professor off with "how dare you this,... how dare you that,.... I'm the chair of blah blah blah." It was really telling that he never defended the work he'd done.
Being truthful the engineering research I encountered was just as bad. The entire process is never about results its about doing enough to get the next grant. Its a fundamental reason we haven't solved nuclear fusion or been back to the moon. We've spent billions in research but produced very little, as most of that was about getting the next research grant.
I actually did Economics 101 as a humanities option. I remember asking the professor about 2 weeks in when we would see a formula, because all he was showing us was graphs with different shaped supply & demand curves. He laughed at me and told me economics wasn't about numbers. Numbers were for accountants and actuaries.
But my real disdain for economists are the insane lies they tell, like "consumers will be better off." What it really means is that consumers will see lower prices because we just sent jobs to a place with lower wages that help with profit. For the consumers who still have a job its better but for the poor bastards who no longer have a job its BS.
In Australia we have something even worse. Basic supply-demand economics says that if demand rises prices should as well if supply cannot match the new demand. Australia's population has gone from 15million in the 1980s to 25million so the demand for dairy products, have also increased. Plus Australia now has enormous markets in Japan and China to supply dairy into. Chinese demand Australian produced baby formula is insane. Chinese students in Australia fund their education by mailing the stuff home where it can double or triple in value. Its got so bad that there are now limits on buying baby formula in our supermarkets.
In any reality dairy farming and dairy manufacturing in Australia should be profitable if not super profitable, but the number of dairy farmers has crashed from over 22,000 to under 8,000 and we are closing down manufacturing plants. I love throwing that at people with business or economics degrees the stunned looks are brilliant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AUSTRALAIN HERE: How the F⋃CK are we or Canada, Mexico, Britain, Europe, Japan, South Korea,..... OR ANYONE ELSE supposed to have faith in America as a reliable partner in trade or security when your Supreme Court is out of control?
Considering agreements like AUKUS which we are spending several hundred billion on or any of the other treaties that other nations have. How do you expect us to respond?
You just had Julian Assange held in custody for 5 years because he disclosed American troops committing war crimes.
You have had dozens of other people taken from OTHER COUNTRIES transported across international borders and held at Guantanamo Bay a location the rightful owner (The nation of Cuba) has told you to leave. Many of those people are (years later) still to be charged with any crime. MEANWHILE the commanders who oversaw torture and murder at places like Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB have never been charged with anything while the soldiers underneath them who followed their orders have served lengthy jail sentences.
The whole world watched Donald Trump tell a crowd of people (that he invited to Washington) to "Go down there and stop the steal!" We all saw him send his mob to attack the capital. In any other country he would have been arrested that day and NOT given the slightest leniency. In most countries he would have already faced trial, been convicted and sentenced. In some countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea,.... he would already have been executed.
2
-
2
-
This is NOT simply a GOP thing, this is an everywhere thing. As in it goes on EVERYWHERE.
Remember the Panama Papers that detailed how the rich and wealthy from dozens of countries used a Panamanian financial services firm to setup tax evasion schemes? Everything was detailed including documents with signatures, bank account numbers,...etc. NOBODY's been charged ANYWHERE over that.
That was followed by the Paradise Papers and it was the same outcome - NOBODY's been charged ANYWHERE.
That was followed by the Pandora Papers and it was the same outcome - NOBODY's been charged ANYWHERE.
Wake up, all this stuff by the top1% is not an American problem, its not a Swiss, Canadian, British, Australian, Dutch, Irish or even a Russian/Ukrainian problem - its an EVERYWHERE problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Teasehirt I certainly agree with those who think there is way to much LEFT ideology in education BUT do not mistake there is also a huge influence from the RIGHT in education. People forget the incredible levels of indoctrination that goes on in the private high schools and private universities around the world. Its most notable in economic policies.
All of it has tragic consequences that we are now becoming aware of.
Sorry if this takes some explaining.
I'm Australian and BOTH my parents were high school teachers and most of their social circle were also high school teachers along with one of my cousins who was a high school principal. So I'm pretty well informed on was happening through the 70s, 80s, 90s and early 2000s.
In my home state of Victoria we had 2 high school systems that ran in parallel. The standard high schools which were like everywhere else and technical schools. My father taught in the tech school system for decades. It was orientated towards giving boys the skills to work in industry. They did a lot less of history, geography, etc. and lot more of industrial trade skills like carpentry, metal work, tool making, plumbing,... etc.
One of my fathers best friends taught panel beating and car repair. He and the mechanic teacher used to buy 1 Ford and 1 GM (Holden) from the wrecking yard each year and then have the students completely rebuild/restore them. They'd sell them at the end of the year and use that money for the next 2 cars the next year.
That tech school system produced generations of people who went onto to complete apprenticeships in all sorts of trades. Then in the 1990s it was totally destroyed by a pack of Left wing clowns claiming it was too "male orientated." It was done by our Labor Party that was founded among the Trade Unions. BUT BY THE 90s the Labor party leadership went from working class trade unionists to University educated theorists driven by ideology.
Our RIGHT LOVED IT because it helped undermine our trade unions and allowed them to send our manufacturing overseas.
By the 2000s we had a problem. The Chinese demand meant building new mines and we didn't have the welders, plumbers, fitters, electricians,... to get it done and had to import massive amounts of skilled labor.
Its been insanely destructive. It was all done to support and idiotic Leftist social agenda supported by the Right and their equally idiotic economic agenda.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@abexx8485 I think you are absolutely dead right.
To her her base it will sound like the sweetest honey, but winning elections isn't about your base its about getting other people to vote for or support you.
The is the problem with a lot of people on both the Left and Right.
On the Left there are people who think if you have a few good ideas, hug some trees and sing Kumbaya in harmony then others will go "Yeah that's the answer" and join in.
On the Right there are people who think if you call out to their savior whether its Jesus, the Prophet or Money with the right amount of passion and conviction then others will go "Yeah that's the answer" and join in.
This is why Reagan won, Bush won, Clinton won, Bush 2.0 won, Obama won and I hate to say it but why Trump won. It wasn't that they appealed to their base. They were able to appeal to other people well enough to win.
This is something that Hilary Clinton FAILED TO DO. Instead of going to Michigan and meeting people and at least implying cared. She stayed in New York and did fund raisers with the executives who made the decisions to move factories out of Michigan, Ohio & Pennsylvania to China, Mexico, Texas and other places.
Anyone who was awake could see how that was going to work out. If the results of Michigan, Ohio and Penn are reversed then Hilary wins.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Do you even know what that means?
At its most basic it means that there are functions of a society where its been decided that everyone should collectively pay for it.
Like a basic public education system is actually a social function and because its paid for collectively its socialist in nature.
The same can be said for the police, army, fire brigade, sheriffs offices, garbage collectors,.... All those things can be privatized and through most of history WERE privately owned or privately controlled. Think of the Lord of the manor and his men at arms just like Game of Thrones.
Communism at its most basic is the collective ownership of assets. Not state ownership but collective ownership. Things like tractors, trucks, grain storage facilities.
Capitalism at its most basic is the right to own an enterprise for the purpose of making money and gathering wealth through trade. The blacksmiths of history were all capitalists who took raw materials added value through work and sold it at as products at prices with the intent of making money.
The real problem with the concepts of capitalism, socialism, communism,.... etc. which have been practiced in various forms for 1000s of years is when they switch from being functions of society to functions of government. Because at that point it always ends up with a tiny minority having all the power and all the wealth.
Half the problem are the experts who twist this stuff into unintelligible brain wipe.
Both my parents were high school teachers and I used to hate when they explained all this shit to me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chiefgilray Yeah I agree.
One thing we do need is to tell the Americans to back off a bit and the biggest problem I see us having with American's isn't their culture or their people its their politics and economics (as a combination).
Sorry if this is another long reply, but it will explain part of why everyone needs to tell America to back off.
I actually went to college in America and did aerospace engineering (U. of Illinois). I was there during the 85 (mid-term) & 87 election (POTUS) election seasons and it drove me so nuts I never wanted anything to do with ANY politics again. BUT these days we don't have that luxury and we need to consider how American politics and economics function. Its one reason why I think a lot of people are watching people like Peter. They want to understand this stuff.
Right now one of the biggest issues in the world is that there's a difference between How America is supposed to work and how it is working. No matter how much we might like or dislike America, its still 1/4 of the worlds economy and the US Dollar is still the worlds reserve currency and America still has so much military firepower it can smash anything it wants.
The SOURCE of that problem is most American's no longer have a good understanding of:
1) How their own country actually functions versus how they think it functions; and
2) How the rest of the world actually functions.
When I was there in the late 80s EVERYONE had studied (what they called) Civics in high school. It was where they learned how America functioned and I wished Australia had its version of that. It used to embarrass me how well informed they all were on things like the US Constitution and how their system worked. I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and were right into that stuff. They dragged me into their discussions all the time. So even though I didn't like their politics I did got informed on how America was SUPPOSED TO FUNCTION and yes I love to catch up with a few people and ask a few pertinent questions.
What none of us knew at that time was that a group of people out of the U. of Chicago (UoC), Harvard and Yale formed what we now know as the Federalist Society. People are starting to finally working out who these people are and what they have been working on for almost 40 years, which is tearing down and then re-building America into THEIR VERSION of what America should be. Its very much like what the Ayatollah's did in Iran but from an economic standpoint.
People need to realise that these 3 Universities are PRIVATELY OWNED. So they make their own rules. Plus UoC was founded (in part) by John D. Rockefeller and although I can't say with 100% certainty, my conclusion is UoC was set up to find ways to re-build the entire world into a Rockefellian system. One its most prominent professors, Milton Freidman, basically said "Government is hopeless and we (the private sector) should run everything." Out of UoC also came James McKinsey (professor of accounting) who founded McKinsey Consultants and kicked off the consulting industry after which is now a cancer on our governments. From UoC's political science department we got wonderful things like "Offensive Realism" and the Neo-conservative movement that gave us the 2 longest wars (Iraq & Afghanistan) since WW2.
But most of all out of UoC came Neoliberal Economics (Friedrich Hayek, Milton Freidman, Ronald Coase,....) that's dominated world economics since Reagan gave us Reaganomics and Thatcher gave us Thatcherism. Its resulted in the greatest wealth transfer in history and if you doubt that go and look up the report Bernie Sanders got the US Congressional Budget Office to update on "Family Wealth." Almost nothing has been said about this report in ANY media including social media.
Just look at the 1st Graph on that report and it tells you that 50% of the American population has GONE NOWHERE in the last 30 years, while the Middle 40% has had some gains the TOP 10% have gained about $60 Trillion dollars in Wealth. That thin brown line across the bottom of that graph now represents 165 million people who are not only impoverished, but to get out of that poverty need to spend staggering amounts to get educated enough to get out.
I have checked the Australian data which is presented a little differently but it tells the same basic story. Go an watch some of Gary Stevenson the young British Economist. In his 20s he became a multi-millionaire and became Citibank's top trader in the world and he did it betting AGAINST the Brits recovering from the GFC. He's now saying the same sorts of things about Britain.
Sorry for the long reply, but its stuff I think people should know about and be discussing. The American people are NOT the problem their politicians, economists and the people who back them ARE the problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Taxthechurch That's an interesting question because while the Right are quite easy to identify because they are often loud, the left are harder to point at. Also the Right tend to be narrowly focused on money, race and religion while the lefties cover wider raft of subjects - economics, social issues, environmental, health care, education etc.
Its pretty easy to point at particular Right Wing identities an describe them accurately because they only want 1 or 2 things most of the time. Its a little harder on the Left because there's more lot more variety.
Here's one of the odd things. The really radical Leftists are almost impossible to identify. Look at movements like Antifa, BLM and the Woke & MeToo groups. There's not a clear leadership let alone a specific leader to any of those groups. There's people who speak at times and that's about all. Among some groups there are some clear leaders but there not groups I'd not classify as radical.
Yanis Varoufakis has started Diem 25 which he does describe as a radical organisation BUT their focus is largely economics and I would NOT call them radical either except maybe from an economic standpoint. Greta Thunberg has been labelled a radical young Greenie, but again I don't find her particularly radical other than how young she was when she started. What's radical about a younger person saying "we want a future" and "your economics of infinite growth are ridiculous"
I'd suggest you go and look up people like Yanis Varoufakis or Richard Wolff who are are both hard left on economics, but not politics, but then they are both economists. Yanis did a really great interview with David Pakman a while back. I have referred people to it a lot because he points out some basic truths and why we need a significant change in economics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0lNnXAiL0
There's bits all through that interview that we could discuss for hours.
Richard Wolff did a really good series on who Marx actually was and what he was on about. From a basic history lesson its really good. I watched it out of curiosity and was really surprised to find out that Marx was primarily an economist and NOT a political theorist. Its 4 short episodes, its interesting and it sort of explains why Marxism failed which was because it was so easy to hijack by politically motivated bad faith actors like Stalin and Mao. Here's a link to it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rvhcQxKsa0
There's a YouTuber named Vaush who claims to be a pure socialist. He's been on both David Pakman and Kyle Kulinski. When they asked him about things like property ownership and business ownership he was pretty open but from my view also naively ignorant of how people basically operate in large modern societies. Like a few others his ideas might work in small isolated communities where group survival takes precedence over personal accumulation of assets, but in modern developed societies those ideas just don't work.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Its now almost 325,000. --> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
TO give you all some perspective on the American situation.
I'm Australian and I went to college at U. Illinois so I know the Midwest fairly well. If you combine the populations of Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana it total 25.2 million which is fairly close to Australia's 25.6 million. Yes there are significant geographical differences in size and in weather (like the difference in winter conditions). BUT none of that explains the following facts.
Australia has 908 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana have over 28,000 (and counting).
Australia has just over 1,400 active cases while Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana have over 520,000 active cases as winter sets in.
On the table at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Australia is 54th in population, 85th total fatalities, 113th in active cases and 129th in Fatality rate (Deaths per 1M pop).
*If Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana were a country they would be 14th in total fatalities, 7th in active cases and 6th in Fatality rate.
*
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@timandrew4515 Josh Frydenberg, did just as Gary is explaining - he magically pulled money out of thin air.
To my recollection the main chunk was that $38 Billion for job keeper but I expect it goes much further and nobody really wants to tell us the truth.
I'd love to see an Australian version of Gary step forward.
We need to finally get past the economic rationalism which was just our version of Reaganomics and Thatcherism that the financial wizards Keating and Costello dumped us with.
I'm actually an engineer who started looking into economics BEFORE the pandemic started out of frustration from dealing with idiots waving economics degrees as they interfered in projects. One fo the things I found was that economics is taught from a very narrow set of concepts. Most of the text books come out of places like Harvard, Yale, Oxford,.... etc. or are written by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford,.... etc. So there is almost ZERO lateral thinking in economics.
If you have ever had the feeling it doesn't matter who gets elected we (the general public) will still get screwed. Well YES and there is an explanation. Any of our politicians who studied economics at any level and all their advisors and all their consultants and all the lobbyists, bankers, journalists, business leaders, managers ALL LEARNED THE SAME STUFF. You could ask 1,000 economists on almost any subject and they all have the same answers because they were all taught the same stuff.
There are a few mavericks like Gary. One of the very few in Australia is Steve Keen. he has a channel here on YouTube but this is a recent interview he gave -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsHQ_O-op8s
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ENGINEER HERE: Sorry for the long comment.
1) There was always going to be an energy transition. Ever since the industrial revolution we have had some sort of transition (or major upgrade) around every 50 years because that's the approximate lifetime of most large scale energy systems like power stations. Nothing we built lasts. When it wears out it needs replacing. Normally transitions happen when we build the next power station or next fleet of trains or ships or planes. For example there was the transition from coal to diesel for trains and ships. After WW2 there was the transition from piston engines to jet engines in the airline industry. Bottom line is we don't build what we did 50 years earlier. So there's always the transitions going on.
2) This transition is vastly different from previous transitions because we have had a lot of INTERFERENCE. The worst have been ECONOMISTS mostly operating out of central banks and think tanks. Economists have been closely followed by Lawyers and Greenies. Lawyers because they interfere in anything and everything they can and Greenies because even though they mean well they are basically ignorant of what's PRACTICAL.
What none of the Economists, Lawyers or Greenies get is that their interference HAS DELAYED the transition and during that delay all the energy infrastructure including the power stations got older and older. Power stations are physically big complex lumps of hardware that cannot simply be replaced by dialling up Amazon. Most take close to a decade to plan, design, approve and construct. nuclear power stations are even worse. Hinkley Point C in Britain took 7 years to design and approve and will take another 10 to construct - 17 years in total.
Here in Australia we have done what other places like California, Britain and Germany to name a few places. We have been turning OFF OLD power stations (6 so far). We have not replaced 1 of them and have not a single plan to replace them up for discussion. You can't simply go putting up windmills and solar panels to replace that stuff. You can't simply say build nuclear as many have been saying. YOU HAVE TO PLAN IT or it becomes the stuff ups we've all been experiencing.
This is the real reason for the energy crisis. The interference by Economists, Lawyers and Greenies in moving forwards. And so we are clear the lawyers and economists are bought and paid for by various business interests.
3) We simply don't have enough stuff to do the energy transition. Engineers like Simon Michaux and others have tried explaining this people. We simply don't have enough of what's needed (Lithium, Cobalt, Copper,... etc) to replace the 1,500,000,000 (YES 1.5 BILLION) cars that exist in the world. PLUS making a car requires a lot of energy. You have to dig stuff out of the ground, then process it, then send it to a refinery, then send it to a factory or to a string of factories as it progresses through the supply chain. Cars are made of various metals, various plastics, different cloths and glass AND ALL THAT STUFF REQUIRES ENERGY. After the 1.5Billion cars there's the trucks, buses, ships and airplanes. After all that there's still all those consumer good you all want. Like the computer you are on RIGHT NOW.
Because of all the interference, some of it by well meaning people, we are not getting through this.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jeffbybee5207 It comes from looking into economics. I basically got tired of clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects. What I found is that Economics is dominated by a very narrow set of ideas that started as Reaganomics and Thatcherism but we now call neoliberalism.
Sorry for the longish explanation.
All the time we hear about Leftist influence in education and I will agree with the criticism there. Both my parents, their friends, a cousin and some of my friends are (or were) high school teachers. So I know about that stuff.
What we never hear about is the Right wing libertarian influence in Economics and Law. SCOTUS currently has 4 Harvard, 4 Yale and a Notre Dame. The nine before them included 6 Harvard. Out of the 18 before the current 9 ONLY 1 did not go to a private college for at least part of their education and most were Ivy League. Its an incredible concentration of ideological power.
The other place it shows up is in economics. Where Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton,.... business graduates dominate Wall St. and banking in particular. They have subsequently funded those places with "donations" to train more of what they want. It actually started with John D Rockefeller when he helped establish the University of Chicago, which is where McKinsey taught before founding McKinsey Group and where Milton Freidman taught for decades. All around the world economics students have text books out of U. Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Princeton,... or text books written by people who went to U. Chicago, Harvard, Yale, Princeton,...
So almost anyone with an economics degree is braindead, brainwashed or clueless.
And the lawyers aren't any better.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's a great quote from former VPOTUS Henry Wallace. Its significant for several reasons. It was written 2 years before Trump was born so it wasn't written about him but it perfectly describes him. Look at what he said about method and then consider what Trump has done for 4 years. Not only was it said by someone alive when Mussolini, Hitler & Stalin were alive it also means they saw Americans like Trump in their day. That means America has dealt with Trump like clowns before and found a way to get past them, fix the mess they leave and move on.
Here's the quote, someone else shared it with me, so share it around and let people know America has dealt with Trump like clowns before. Best to all.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are absolutely right, but do not for a moment think these people don't know what they are doing which is tap into the anger and frustration boiling in America's middle and working classes.
Sorry if this is a but longer.
A coupe of weeks ago Richard Wolff (David's old professor) mentioned a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on FAMILY WEALTH. Its easy to find with google with a search for "congressional budget office family wealth."
What it says is damning and If you ask why David, Jessie, Sam Seder, Kyle Kulinski and all the other Lefty commentators are NOT howling about this report, I have no idea why.
The very first graph of that report compares the wealth of the top 10%, middle 40% and bottom 50% of America from 1989 to 2019. The bottom 50% of America has effectively gone nowhere in terms of family wealth while the middle class has had reasonable growth while the top 10% have soared.
I crunched some of the basic data of that first graph and looked at the recoveries from the GFC. Comparing what they lost after 2007 and comparing it to the 2019 valuation. ON AVERAGE:
The Top 10% lost 11.1% in the GFC but have since recovered to be 21.7% ahead of where they were in 2007.
The Middle 40% lost 13.6% in the GFC but have since recovered to be 4.6% ahead of where they were in 2007.
The Bottom 50% lost 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC and have so far recovered some of that but are still 21.8% BELOW their 2007 valuation.
That means 165 million Americans are NOT even back to where they were in 2007, while another 132 million Americans have only just recovered. This data is out of the Congressional Budget Office so there is no denying the reliability of the data.
That's where a lot of the frustration that people like Kari Lake, Steve Bannon, Mike Lindell and others tap into.
This is also where AOC, Marianne Williamson, Bernie Sanders, etc get their support from.
When main stream establishment political parties FAIL to address real issues for real people those people will turn to others.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@shiftyjesusfish There's a little known subject in that some call "planetary mechanics." Its sort of the first step in any ideas about terraforming. Its about raw numbers regarding how much stuff you need. Your not worried about the dynamics of the planet as it rotates about the sun (or a star) its just about how much stuff you need.
Mars has a surface area of 144,000,000 km If you consider it like very big ball with 144,000,000 cubes stuck on the outside year sure there's gaps but then some of those cubes will have mountains inside. In quite simple terms you can approximate that to 144,000,000 cubic kilometers of AIR if you want to make the surface of Mars habitable. That's just the most basic thing getting enough air.
Atmospheric air at sea level is about 1.2kg per meter cubed at around 20C. So that 1 kilometer or air around Mars would weigh something like:
1.2 kg/m3 * 144,000,000 km3 * 1,000,000,000 m3/km3 = 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air.
Or dropping some zeros 172,800,000 Mega tons of air.
To put that in perspective the entire world production of iron ore is about 3,000 Megatons a year. So its an extraordinary amount of air and its not simply locked up in rocks or ice. Were talking about going comet hunting for suitable sources of Oxygen and Nitrogen.
If your wondering why this might seem crazy you'll now know why we don't discuss these things much. It just confuses people, but the most basic thing to realise is that planets are bloody big objects.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Great points but Americans don't like to discuss them much.
Bottom line is the country that has promoted itself as the great leader in "Freedom and Democracy" has denied all of the people of those territories there basic democratic rights. None of those people have any representatives with voting in congress or have any senators and they do not vote on the president.
Puerto Rico has a population of almost 3.3 Million and that's more than the populations of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, West Virginia, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Iowa, Utah. Each of those states gets 2 Senators and at least 1 and as many as 4 House of Representatives.
The combined population of North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska and Wyoming is less than 3 million people and yet they get 8 Senators and 1 representative each in the House. While Puerto Rico, just like DC and a few of the territories gets 1 representative in the House who can't vote.
By Population alone Puerto Rico should get 2 Senators and 4 House Reps.
USVI, Mariana, Guam and American Samoa and DC has a combined population of just over 1 million and Each of them get 1 House Rep who can't vote. Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota and Delaware each have less than 1 million people and each of them get 2 Senators and a House Rep who can vote.
And if you want the more satirical view of this look up the YouTube channel juice media for the Honest Government ad on Puerto Rico.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@smcdonald9991 As an Australian you are partly right. On point 1 the unusual thing is that for federal elections each state decides what it will do and that really comes from how America was founded. In Australia all elections are run by the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) they are independent, they control the voting rolls, they print the ballots, they count the votes, they handle any discrepancies and recounts and finally they certify the results.
We don't have a President, like Canada we have a Governor General who has very limited executive power, absolutely zero policy power, The GG's main job is ceremonial. They pin medals on people, they visit hospitals, open new schools and do a couple of functions government functions but they are procedural.
We don't have this insane lengthy lame duck period.
I actually went to college in America (U. Illinois) and I think the real problem in America is that too many people have learned how to "game" the system and cheat. I personally think the Founding Fathers constructed one of the great achievements of human history with writing the Constitution. What they never counted on were people like Mitch McConnell, and organizations like the Federalist Society and the NRA.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Its the second week of January 2021 and America is about to go past 400,000 dead just as Joe Biden takes the oath of office..
A few weeks ago Michael was warning about how bad the Christmas - New year could be.
I'm Australian but went to college at U. Illinois. I've been watching Michael since the early days, because it was clear he was one of the very few who was being honest with us. He was even interviewed a few times on Australian TV. Like many others from around the world I have followed his updates over much of the last year -> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI7n04W1HWAPMrI4_41StSg
If you actually add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million which compares to Australia's 25.6 million.
Yes I know quite well there are significant differences in geography, population density and winter conditions, but in terms of medical technology, transportation and technical capability there's zero difference. We got very lucky with the initial spread. We cancelled many events and had NO crowds at all our major sports for the year and all that resulted in us not spreading it. But none of that explains the staggering differences.
Australia has a total of 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin total over 33,812 as of 12/1/2021
In the 7 days from 4 to 10 January 2021 Illinois had 971 COVID fatalities. In one week Illinois with half as many people as Australia had more deaths from this than Australia has had in 12 months.
On the main table at -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Australia is 54th in population and 86th in COVID fatalities. If Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin were a country they would be 16th. Illinois by itself would rank 21st in the world. New York by itself would be 14th.
In terms of death-rate (deaths/1M.pop) Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin would be 4th (at 1342).
3 American states (New Jersey, New York & Massachusetts) have a higher death-rate than any nation or independent state in the world.
For whatever luck and other things that may have favored us, nothing explains that discrepancy other than a complete failure of leadership.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elizabethellis9062 Keep going and going. History tells us that political leadership has been nothing but one long progression of the worst of humanity. Occasionally someone pops up who honestly tries to make their nation/state a better place for everyone, but the sad fact is politics attracts the worst of humanity like a dog turn attracts flies.
It might be the one thing Trump said that we can all agree on. Washington is a swamp, but then so is Moscow, Beijing, Riyad, Tehran, London, Paris, Brussels, Canberra, Ottawa and every other political centre.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I thought of something to bring some perspective on the Gaza issue.
There are approximately 1,800 people working in the Whitehouse.
If each of them were to go out and shoot 8 children they would in total kill 14,400 children.
Can you imagine the reaction that if ONE person who worked in the Whitehouse suddenly killed 8 children. Maybe it wont be that much. After all the everyone seems to have forgotten events like Columbine, Georgia Tech, Sandy Hook and Uvalde.
The Israeli Defence force has killed more than 15,000 children in Gaza. Nobody will know what any of them might have become. Any that might have become doctors, teachers, engineers, fathers, mothers or any other normal occupation or endeavor will NOT. We'll never know just as we'll never know what those children from Columbine, Sandy Hook or Uvalde might have become.
Maybe we have become so accustomed to the slaughter of children that another 15,000 doesn't matter so long as the right political messages are sent and the right companies can make money from it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's some quotes to all that others have provided me in that last year. The first is by Isaac Asimov and even though its aimed at American society it can be just as easily applied to EVERY SOCIETY that has ever existed on this planet for the simple reason that every society has what we call "the village idiot." the second is by Vice POTUS Henry Wallace and is so accurate in describing the behavior (as in method) of Donald Trump it almost proves time travel was possible in 1944.
The others are ones I have picked up an seen others quoted a lot lately. Enjoy them and share them with others as they were shared with me.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov, News Week, 1980.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
“I think it would be very, very, I think we’d have a very, very solid, we would continue what we’re doing, we’d solidify what we’ve done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done” ¬― Donald Trump answering the NY Times on his 2nd term agenda. August 2020.
"He's America's colonoscopy – it’s all on camera, you don't wanna watch, it helps to be sedated for the whole thing and it’s a huge pain in the ass!" ― Stephen Colbert Sept. 2020
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Somebody needs to ask Mark Levin the following Question:
When did BLM, ANTIFA, Democrats, 1960s counter culture hippies, tree hugging Kumbaya singing environmentalists, Occupy Wall Street, Lafayette Park or any other protesters storm the capitol, kill a police officer, tear down the American flag and replace it with another flag?
For anyone interested please feel free to copy that question and post it anywhere you like.
Someone else first directed me to this quote by Vice POTUS Wallace, who was alive when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were in power to personally see what those sorts of people are like. the 2 highlights about method and patriotism are mine.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@boneseyyl1060 Your absolutely right and I have argued those very points a lot during the 18 or so months.
I studied both 1984 and Animal Farm in high school. I hated 1984, as a 16year old it was just ghastly, but thanks to Trump its useful.
I have mentioned the French, Russian, Cambodian and American revolutions often. They all have one thing in common in that they were fundamentally peasant revolutions as in the farmers, & laborers rose up and threw of regimes that operated in absolute terms.
Most Americans disagree that the American Revolution was a peasant revolution like others because America is a very right orientated nation, but if you look at what they were against and why the Bill of Rights has what it has and is what it is the American Revolution was fundamentally a revolt against right wing totalitarian rule. There's actually a good example of it in the film "last of the Mohicans" where the colonel Munro's daughter argues with about the fate of Hawkeye who's been condemned to hand for sedition. She said "you haven't given him a trail" ha basically answered. "I'm the kings representative and my word is absolute. He went against my word, that's sedition and he'll hang."
Sadly most revolutions end up replacing one bad thing with something worse. The French let Robespierre lose and he gave them the "Reign of Terror." The Russians got rid of the Czar and got Stalin. China, North Korea its the same story again and again. Human politics really is a place of "wash-rinse-repeat". America nearly broke that cycle with the Constitution and for 240 years (1776-2016) that had it.
I actually think (even as an Australian) that the US Constitution is one of the greatest achievements in human history. Every other constitution has baggage like ours is full of old British crap. The founding fathers were brilliant in all they did except for 1 thing. The y never considered that Mitch McConnell would exist. The House runs the Country, The Whitehouse is the executive and the Senate is there to CHECK that the other 2 are doing things in a proper way. Look at what's happened since McConnell got unlimited power and subverted what the Senates job is. The Supreme Court has been undermined, the rest of the judiciary has been undermined and since Trump was let off from his impeachment without even a wave of a finger he's been out of control and its cost 1000s and 1000s of lives.
I really do hope America gets past this without too much damage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@squoblat I got a blunt lesson in these practicalities circa 2002 from a classmate who at the time was in the ISS construction program. These days she's at a level where if you don't have her signature your stuff isn't going to the ISS.
At that time my idea was satellite servicing. There was $14 Billion in functioning satellites being dumped into the ocean each year for no other reason than they'd run out of fuel. At that time I was doing automation systems for manufacturing and the best and most reliable money in that game isn't installing robots and programing them its maintenance.
My proposal wasn't new. I was actually rehashing previous proposals. She quite bluntly crushed it with the reality that we didn't have the life support or propulsion to do that task. I know it was circa 2002 because around the same time I also met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) who was here in Australia for the 30th anniversary of his mission. I got to talk to him and told him what I had discussed previously with that friend at NASA. He crushed it with another reality - launch access. if you want to work in space you need launch access and servicing satellites instead of replacing them would smash the launch industry who are the very people you need launch access from.
Then he told me something else _"Go have a look at Helium-3.
Right at that time Australia was just starting a decade long boom in mining construction. So I had the brilliant (or not) idea that if I combined actual remote mine site construction experience with what I already had the consortium wanting to build a lunar Helium-3 mine they'd see that experience favorably.
What I got out of it was a brutal set of practical lessons and to this day (as far as I know) I am the only aerospace engineer to have ever worked in that environment.
Remote mines have several stages of life.
1) Remote survey by satellites and airplanes.
2) On the ground survey. Usually a couple of geologists with a 4WD, some shovels & picks.
3) Drill program where they send out a drilling rig, drill rig team, support hardware and do a drilling program.
4) Site construction
5) Operations
I can tell you that Apollo was the equivalent of stage 2. A couple of guys doing a site survey and picking up some samples to test back at the lab.
I can tell the amount of hardware needed for stage 3 is staggering. At stage 2 you only need something like a Toyota Landcruiser. At stage 3 you need Mack trucks and 3-5 of them at least, plus a few Landcruisers. You need to set up a place for the crew to live for 3-4 months, that includes toilets, showers, food storage, communications, fuel storage,.... AND A SUPPLY LINE because you keep consuming water, food & fuel.
Then if a mine is going to be built BEFORE you even start you have to build a camp for the 100s (maybe several 1000) workers to live in. At that point you are now talking things like a power station, air field, fuel dump, mess hall & kitchen, fresh water treatment plant and a sewerage treatment plant. At that point you haven't even started on the actual mine. the actual first thing that has to be built is the workshop, because the moment you start the actual site construction (the hole and the dirt processing plant) you have bulldozers, diggers, cranes and all sorts of hardware doing work that requires maintenance.
Nobody has even done a drilling program to actually ascertain what resources are available or even considered how that would be supported. Just a basic workshop to support the basic work means several tons of hardware launched off the planet flown to the moon, and landed on the moon.
Just trying to cover these basic concepts with the sci-fi fantasy league is so frustrating. I spent a chunk of my career working some real crap places so I could actually answer questions like "What are the basics of the task of setting up a moon base?"
Sorry for the long answer, but I think your one of the few people who can grasp this stuff.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@commonsenseskeptic Case 2 of Space BS: Mining Asteroids Part 2 - Maintenance
Iron Ore is about the simplest thing we mine. Dig it up crush and screen it down to size and put it on the train to send to port. If its a poor grade or you want to value add then you put a wash plant between the crushing & screening and the stockpile.
A wash plant is pretty simple. You mix the ore with water and let gravity separate the iron from the dirt because iron is heavier than clay and dirt.
So you have diggers, truck, crushers, screens, conveyors, stackers that make stockpiles, reclaimers that reclaim ore form stock piles and train load outs. No mater how well you blast it (or not) just digging up iron ore puts wear and tear on the digger. No matter how hard and tough the teeth and leading edge of diggers are they will wear and they will need replacing. If you are drilling for blast patterns then those drills will wear and need replacing. Having 100s of tons of rock and ore dumped in the back and then sliding it all out at the crusher puts wear and tear on the trucks. Plus they go through a set of tires every 3-4 months. Plus they need fuel, oil and general maintenance. Conveyor belts wear and need replacing water pumps, slurry pumps all wear.
Even if you are mining with space lasers things will still wear out, because there will always bee some sort of processing. Even if you start chasing after rare low volume high value resources you will then need even more complex processing equipment will require even more maintenance.
The moment you start dealing with rock things start wearing, because rocks have this one quality - they're hard. No matter how large or how small they are hard.
It will never matter were you go the moment you start mining for resources is the moment you start wearing out equipment that will need replacing and or maintenance and that leads to the NEXT PROBLEM.
Go an ask any mechanic if any 2 engines were identical in what they needed to repair or maintain?
Go ask any electrician if any 2 machines with wiring issues were identical in what they needed to repair or maintain?
Go ask a plumber if any 2 pipes were identical in what they needed to repair or maintain?
Go ask any carpenter if any 2 pieces of wood are identical?
Robots are exceptional if the task is REPEATABLE. Maintenance is never exactly repeatable because every maintenance task has its own unique differences. IT CAN BE similar but NEVER identical. I have worked in industrial robotics in the past and its hard trying to explain to people that robots excel at doing the same thing a million times in a row. They do not handle a million similar tasks well, because every time a variation that's outside the norm happens they crash, they stop or they crash and stop. One of my bosses used to say "automated machines are great at finding bad parts and lousy at handling them."
The origin of this issue is that NASA does not do maintenance except for stuff they have on earth or for software. Once they lite the rocket fuse there is NOTHING any NASA engineer can do to except software. So there is almost zero experience in off world maintenance except from things like the MIR Space Station, The ISS and the Hubble Space telescope AND NOEN of that involved smashing rock.
Basically if any of the space mining people don't mention maintenance then they are delusional and if the claim they will use robotic maintenance they are ignorant.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AUSTRALIAN HERE: Sorry for the length of this comment.
YES - we sadly have these types here too, but please note he is basically saying EXACTLY the same sort of nonsense that Larry Summers told Jon Stewart a few months ago and EXACTLY the same thing the new head of the Reserve Bank of Australia (our equivalent of the US Federal Treasury) Michelle Bullock also said her first day in the job, which is we need to RAISE the unemployment rate to counter to inflation.
YES - we also know that inflation is being driven by supply chain issues, but just like all over the developed world economists and business leaders like Tim Gurner, Larry Summers and others DO NOT WANT TO ADMIT that the economic policies they pushed for the last 40 years (like off shoring production) lead to this situation.
YES - Australia runs very similar economic policies to America because America got very good at exporting its ideas and this is most evident in economics. I'm actually an engineer and have been informally studying economics for a couple of years so that I can make better arguments regarding project management decisions. One of the things I have found is that Chicago School Neoliberal Economics has become the core of all economics curriculums across the developed world. Even at universities that teach some alternative ideas (like MMT). They have at the core of their curriculum Neoliberal Market Fundamentalism and its narratives that government is incompetent, that unregulated markets are the best decision making processes, outsourcing is brilliant, privatisation is best practice and consultants need to run governments rather than governments governing their nations.
In various countries these issues manifest in different ways but they all come from the same school of ideas which is America's robber baron based Libertarian movement. NOTE - Chicago School is a reference to the University of Chicago where James McKinsey, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Ronald Coase and others all taught. That university was in part founded by John D Rockefeller the biggest of America's robber barons and an ardent Libertarian.
YES - America does export things and among them some of the WORST ideas in human history. Right now in Australia our major issue is consultants who have cost us over AU$20 Billion in fees that we know of and badly messed up our government institutions as they have done it. At the core of the current scandal is PwC who while advising our tax office on closing corporate loop holes were selling that information to their corporate clients so they could avoid tax by other means.
Basically we are looking at the Australian equivalent of a RICO case against PwC. So far the enquiries into the consulting industry have heard of endemic fraud among the major players including KPMG, Deloitte and EY. McKinsey and Boston Group have so far avoided allegations.
SO YOU ALL KNOW - property developers like Tim Gurner are considered among the lowest life forms we have in Australia. When driving a car we might swerve to avoid a snake but always plant the right foot for a property developer. We've had so many scandals in this industry news reports of "another property developer goes bust" are a cultural cliché. They all operate on business models that would make America's Sackler family (Purdue Pharma) proud and just like America is yet to reign in the Sackler's, Australia is also yet to reign in the property developers despite all the things they've done.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dor Dor Great information.
All those people who claim that real estate property always goes up over the long term totally ignore historical FACTS and how it unfolds.
I'm Australian and In the aftermath of 2008 a documentary that HAD WARNED 2008 was going to happed was re-aired. In it was a German economist who had housing data for various European cities going back 400-600 years. He pointed out that every 80 (or so) years housing markets collapse almost back to zero. Irrespective of economic system people invariably put money into property it increases in value until it causes a system collapse. 2008 should have reset the Western Economic system and instead we bailed out the banks who then doubled down. Crazier the Chinese followed what the West has done with a real estate boom.
In Australia (my country) the main markets of Sydney and Melbourne are now so overpriced that they cannot do anything but collapse. Houses that only 20-30 years ago cost $300,000 are now costing $1.2 million and they are impossible to pay off. Our banks are addicted to the profits from home loans and because interest rates are so low, they have to loan out more money to make the same profits.
Its incredibly simple math.
The interest on $300,000 at 8% is the same as the interest on $1,200,000 at 2%.
This is also why 0.5% interest rate increase is so harmful.
Going from 8% to 8.5% on $300,000 is $1,500.
Going from 2% to 2.5% on $1,200,000 is $6,000.
Its staggering how much people don't understand the practical nature of this symbol -> %
Add into that increases in power & water and household spending collapses, WHICH WE ARE SEEING. Our retail market has been under stress for 20+ years. Their incomes are falling as their rents go up because of the higher energy prices. THAT'S EASY MATH.
What might save Australia is that we're a massive exporter of raw materials, energy and FOOD.
BUT that only works if other countries can pay us.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zasterheffor Great comment - you've hit one of the major problems in the world right now. We are overly dominated by economics and economic thinking AND the problem with that is how the majority of those people with economics degrees are taught.
I spent a chunk of my COVID time looking into economics because I'm tired of having idiots with economics degrees beat me down with "What's the business case for that?" or "Who's going to pay for that?" I just wanted to be able to counter their arguments and what I found was there's an entire different school of thought lead by people like Mark Blyth, Stephanie Kelton, Warren Mosler, Peter Zeihan, etc. When I first heard Stephanie Kelton I thought "this chick is bonkers mad" and then Mark Blyth interviewed her over her book "the deficit myth" which I finally got hold of recently and have just started after finishing Angrynomics.
They are right we have all been bluffed by a magical shell game where the top 1% get everything they want and the rest of us pay for it. To get that done 3 colleges dominate the Western world Harvard, yale & U. Chicago with assistance from places like Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford and here in Australia - Melbourne U., U. Sydney and ANU (in Canberra). In the 90s we started privatising our energy industry and its ends up delivering the energy crisis we now have. We outsourced our manufacturing to China and during COVID we couldn't get stuff. Our water market was converted in an auction based system that has dramatically favoured corporatized ag and smashed traditional farm owners *and that was all DESIGNED by an Australian Harvard graduate who's a professor at Adelaide U."
You are so damn right the education system is geared to indoctrinating (not simply teaching) people with neo-liberal economics. And because all those people have ended up ADVISING governments everywhere its infected the entire Western World like a virus that induces cancer. Ask yourself - How many people the US congress (both fed & state) have Harvard, Yale, U. Chicago graduates or people whose teachers were Harvard, Yale or U. Chicago on their staff?
Jamie Kirchick graduated from Yale as did both Clintons.
Ted Cruz and both Obama's are from Harvard.
14 of the last 18 SCOTUS judges are Harvard or Yale as is the next judge.
America's real problem is the ugly triumvirate of Harvard, Yale and U. Chicago.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Australian here: I went to college in America in the late 80s on a sports scholarship. I had a fabulous time with my only regrets being that I was too young to really appreciate it at the time and that I have lost contact with many of my friends there.
I studied aerospace engineering but a bunch of those friends were pre-law and often dragged me into their conversations. So I got a unusual education into the US Constitution. Prior to that my only study into political systems was Orwell (1984 & Animal Farm) so my only argument was that ANY country could fall into a totalitarian dictatorship (Right or Left) because that was Orwell's warning. It doesn't matter if you go to far Right or too far Left its the same result.
My friends used to argue (and they always won) that it was impossible for America to fall because it had a system of "Checks & Balances" built into the system that would never allow such a thing to happen to America. We never discussed the possibility that the system could fail, but then we never we never considered what the Federalist Society planned and executed. The American POLITICAL system revolves around the 3 pillars of the Executive (including the President) the house and the Senate. The American LEGAL system relies on the various layers to make sure that EVERY American is equally treated under the law.
The idea or concept that a small group created out of students at 3 universities (Harvard, Yale and U. Chicago) could (overtime) completely subvert the Supreme Court and use that along with there big money supporters to undermine the System of Checks & Balances and then re-write the Constitution wasn't simply unthinkable it wasn't even a concept under consideration.
Here's the crazy thing. The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 and it was already underway BEFORE my friends and I had any of those conversations. We didn't even know it existed let alone what its plans were, let alone that it would find billionaires willing to fund what they wanted.
Until America is willing to accept that it has been hijacked by a tiny group of people who have managed to suck tens of millions of people into their web of lies then America will remain a foundering ship in danger of sinking. The problem for the rest of the world is we, the human race, face some very big issues like climate change, wars, food shortages, water shortages,... etc. We DO NOT NEED America to solve these issues, but it becomes so much harder when America is what it is now.
Sorry for the long comment.
I do believe American Constitution is one of humanities finest achievements but right now its being undermined by some incredibly selfish people and it has global effects.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov, News Week, 1980.
“Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace.” ― Rod Sterling in his introduction to the Twilight episode “The Obsolete Man” originally aired on June 2, 1961 on CBS.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” ― Aldous Huxley
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
"When stupidity is considered patriotism, it is unsafe to be intelligent." ― Isaac Asimov
And 2 of the best:
“I think it would be very, very, I think we’d have a very, very solid, we would continue what we’re doing, we’d solidify what we’ve done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done” ― Donald Trump answering the NY Times on his 2nd term agenda. August 2020.
“Nobody can get the truth out of me because even I don’t know what it is. I keep myself in a state of utter confusion.” ― Colonel Flagg of the CIA (M.A.S.H.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
ACTUALLY - Milton Freidman broke a lot more then the American Economy.
The neoliberal economic model was exported via the text books written by professors from Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,... and published by Harvard Press, Yale Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,... and extolled by the graduates of Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,...
I'm an Australian Engineer who's been trying to the real reason behind the energy crisis.
Sorry if this explanation is longish.
I found out a few years ago that Australia had a very serious energy issue that NOBODY wanted to publicly discuss in any sensible way because it was actually caused by economists.
What I found is we have NOT built any new large scale bulk delivery power stations. These are the ones called "base load" power stations. These keep society running 24/7. They are typically big generating over 1,000 Megawatts. But being big they do not respond to the power grid's daily fluctuations and cycle. That's why there's the other type of power station called "load following" or "on demand." They're smaller and are purposefully designed to respond to the power grid's daily fluctuations and cycle. Modern societies need both types to run effectively.
There is no problem anywhere with the load following systems. Being smaller, cheaper and quicker to build they are relatively sound investments for the private sector. Base load power stations tend to be massive investments taking years to plan, approve, build and then pay off. Try telling a board they will spend over $10 Billion and not see a return on investment for over 20 years. I recently calculated that the Hinkley Point C power station in Britain will take over 30 years before being paid off an start to return on the investment and that was based on the £26 Billion it was quoted at NOT the £35 Billion its estimated at right now.
Governments can build large bulk baseload power because governments are NOT judged on profit. They are judged on GDP and employment numbers. Big power stations with regulated prices help grow an economy. New or expanding businesses can be assured they will get cheap reliable power. Its pretty good for a politician when GDP and employment grows. The only way private enterprises can build them is with massive government subsidies and tax benefits.
HOWEVER - Private enterprises love buying EXISTING large base load power stations from governments because they don't have to spend years waiting. They buy them and start making money the next day. Then they start cutting any and every cost they can to make as much profit as possible. AFTER THAT comes the market manipulation. It takes several years but by NOT building any other new base load power stations INCREASED DEMAND via POPULATION GROWTH eventually flips the market from over supply to under supply and when that happens the market surges and profits surge with it.
Private business DO NOT CARE about GDP or employment. As Milton Freidman said "There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits..."
When I looked around the world there's been almost no large base load power stations been built anywhere in the developed world since the 1990s. This is why so many developed economies are failing. One exception is Texas but then Texas has few regulations allowing companies to cut corners which is why their grid failed when it got cold.
Energy has been steadily climbing ever since the great Privatisation push in the 1990s. The War in Ukraine had nothing to do with the fundamental problem of the energy crisis, but it has made it worse. Everywhere people were promised that competition would provide better services at lower costs.
WE WERE LIED TO
Sorry for the long answer, but if you guys want I'll happily contribute to a video story.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Attaxalotl It simpler than that to throw back at them with this basic question.
When did BLM, ANTIFA, the Democrats, the 1960s counter culture hippies, the tree hugging Kumbaya singing Greenies, Occupy Wall St., Lafayette Square or ANY OTHER protesters STORM the capitol, TEAR down the flag and REPLACE it with their own?
I'm Australian but went to college in America and I can't believe that ANY AMERICAN tore down ANY American let alone the flag over the capitol.
These people scream, yell and rant about being patriots - well how is tearing down the flag being a patriot?
These people scream, yell and rant abut upholding the constitution - well how do you do that while refusing to accept the results of an election that has been certified by all 50 states, certified by the House, Senate and VPOTUS and backed up by state, federal and Supreme courts?
Here's a quote given to me a while back by Henry Wallace from 1944 (2 years before Trump was born). It was written when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were in power. Just look at what it says about "method." Best to you - Take Care & Stay Safe.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@janefreeman4121 Why Americans can't see or understand how other countries have national healthcare systems and THEY WORK, is one of the greatest con jobs in history.
Sorry if this is a little long, but its hard to discuss any of this without first discussing how certain words have been twisted into odd meanings.
Sadly or well intentioned my High School English teachers one year chose 1984 as a book and it was horribly cruel on 15/16yr olds. George Orwell famously said if you tell a lie enough times it becomes fact and sadly Americans have been told certain things so many times its actually redefined words. Most notably "socialism" which comes from the word "social" as in "to do things as a society." I'm an engineer but both my parents were high school teachers and years ago they explained what certain terms actually meant.
There's a subtle but discernable difference between the nature of government and government functions. The nature is things like how its chosen and organized - democratically elected versus hereditary, upper & lower houses, executive branches,.......etc. But also you can have descriptions of behavior like authoritarian and totalitarian or the opposite free & open. On the flip side the government functions are the organizations and departments it operates - police, army, education, parks, fire, roads and in some countries healthcare. What many people don't realise is that capitalism, communism and socialism are words that describe functions of government and not really the nature of government.
What we actually see are governments hijacking labels to mask their true nature. Look at East Germany and North Korea they both labeled themselves as "Democratic Republics" yet neither was democratic and North Korea is now a absolute hereditary monarchy in everything but name. What confuses so many is that most governments mix these things together, but use the label that their population finds acceptable.
If they privatize something and allow private citizens to make money doing that function then that something is functioning as a capitalist function and the private operators can make as much money as regulations allow. If the government allows groups of people to collectively do something in a communal way that's communism (in its rawest form). In a very basic way the share markets (emphasis on shares not stocks) are a combination of capitalism and communism. Its capitalistic in that its private ownership and communistic in that its communities of people co-owning entities.
Socialism is where a society collectively agrees to fund & operate functions - police, armed services, education,....... and in some cases health care. It actually has nothing to do with the nature of any government. Any government can call it self anything it likes but if it collects money or resources from its society to do something then that something is a socialist function.
Half the problem is that besides not teaching people about the world they live in is that we have political players both inside and outside government that literally drown us in misinformation and redefining terms. Trump famously told a journalist a few years ago he wanted the media so discredited that his people would not believe anything they were told. Stalin was great example who claimed he was a socialist when in reality he was a narcissistic sociopath who ran a totalitarian dictatorship. Any political analyst or the Russians or any one else can claim what ever they like, use any label they like and it wont change anything. The USSR was never politically communist or socialist under Stalin it was a totalitarian dictatorship. Americans can say whatever they like about socialism but it wont change that they operate many parts of their society as socialist functions - police, army & education being 3 notable examples.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheEvertw Sorry, but you clearly don't understand the FMEA processes.
I wanted to avoid any lengthy discussions but your reply needs it.
FYI - On top of the degree in aerospace qualifications I have formal qualifications in functional safety, 30+ years of experience and a pilots license with an aerobatic endorsement. So on top of my engineering I have formal training in handling and recovering aircraft from unusual attitudes. On top of that one of my frat brothers is a senior instructor on 737s with a major airline who was tasked as part of a team to go to Boeing and help get the plane recertified.
Your assumption is wrong from the start. Even before they made the system more aggressive it had issues that were found in the flight simulator in 2012. See that part of the video around 18:20.
I'll grant you have a point, EVERY form of analysis (not just FMEA, but HAZOP, CFD, FEA,....) have their limits. Even when you go into a lab with the most accurate equipment conceivable there's no such thing as perfect. Second to that is the reviews that need to be done regarding action items. HAZOPS/FMEAs always bring up action items. If they don't that's as much of a concern as if they do. What so many people misread in HAZOPS and FMEAs is that the analysis is only the first step in an iterative process. You analyze, you act, you review and if necessary go back and start again. If the action items that are identified are not handled and reviewed then things get missed.
You are almost on point regarding the software change that contributed. What you miss is that ANY CHANGE to a safety related system including software parameters requires reviewing and redoing/rechecking the specifications, FMEAs and anything else deemed relevant. This is a process required for ANY complex system. I have seen what can happen when a control room operator makes a change just to see what it does.
Here's a basic run down of part of safety engineering.
FIRST and FOREMEOST all functional safety is based around 3 fundamental concepts.
1: Any component WILL eventually fail if left in the field or in service long enough.
2: Any failure that can be reasonably assumed to potentially occur will eventually happen without maintenance and or replacement. In that definition maintenance also includes calibration (and re-calibration).
3: Fail safe which basically means that a fault of the safety function puts the system into a safe state. The absolute opposite of fail safe is fail dangerous, but you can get circumstances that are not exactly either. The problem with aircraft is they have only 1 fundamental safe state, which is secured on the ground with no fuel, no power and no people on board. Anytime an aircraft is in the sky its not in a safe state, but there are states more dangerous than others and states safer than others. Its also highly dependent on the aircraft type. I did my basics in Cessna C152s where stalls are fairly benign. I did my retracts and constant speed prop. in Mooney M20s where a stall is very serious issue. I did my basic aerobatics in R2160s and its stall is in between.
The other fundamental to understand regarding safety functions is the MooN concept which stands for "M out of N." Its a reference to how many sensors out of those available are required to trigger the safety function. The common variations we see in industry are 1oo1, 1oo2 and 2oo3. A 2 out of 3 system requires 2 out of the 3 sensors to report a value that triggers the safety function. MCAS for this part of its functionality was a 1oo1 system. It had one sensor and if that 1 sensor said the AOA was too high MCAS forced the nose down. 1oo1 systems are pretty common but not generally for CRITICAL safety functions. They are almost exclusively used in fail safe functions which makes then totally unsuited to aircraft critical safety functions.
Most engineers don't like dealing with safety engineers because we start with that first fundamental which is their design will eventually fail. Its a psychological barrier not an engineering one. Nobody likes being told that their design will fail. I've been in meetings where engineers have literally melted down at that, but if you don't go through the process you risk not uncovering flaws.
For a system like MCAS (and most safety related systems) you start with the sensors because that's where your software/computer gets its real world information. There are fundamentally 2 types of sensor the type that is either on or off (which we call digital) and the type that sends (or transmits) a signal representing a value (what we call analog). Yes there are all sorts of ways they can connect to the computers including redundant wiring and include diagnostic functions including fault detection. I build and design systems with these functions.
At the fundamental level ALL analog sensors have 4 basic failure modes that apply to any industry and any application.
1: Fail Low - when the fault sends the signal to its lowest value.
2: Fail High - when the fault sends the signal to its highest value.
3: Fail Steady - when the fault freezes the signal at a value.
4: Fail Erratic - when the fault makes the signal randomly behave.
FORGET all the arguments over which component does what. This is the basic starting point. For a system like MCAS you want to concentrate on what makes it trigger and what doesn't. So for the anti-stall ONLY I would modify the above with basic replies:
1: Fail Low to minimum AOA sensor value -> No action required MCAS anti-stall will not trigger.
2: Fail High or Fail steady above the MCAS trigger point -> MCAS will continue to push the nose down until the flight terminates.
3: Fail Steady below the trigger point -> No action required as MCAS anti-stall will not trigger.
4: Fail Erratic -> MCAS might Trigger, then de-activate then re-trigger as the signal oscillates.
That's about as basic as anyone could ever put this and it immediately provides 2 Action Items, the first of which guarantees a fatal crash because its a 1oo1 system that does not have the diagnostics to detect the fault and automatically ignore the sensor and as we now know is exactly what happened.
This is so basic to safety engineering its the sort of stuff you do on day 1.
The fact every other anti-stall system including the one Boeing uses on other aircraft uses at least 2 sensors and in some cases is linked to the rest of the aircraft sensor suite to check the validity of the information this system SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED OR ALLOWED ON ANY AIRCRAFT.
Way back in college long before I did any industrial control systems we had an alum do a guest lecture. He was one of the lead aerodynamicists for the X-29 forward swept wing demonstrator. All that plane really wanted to do was rip its wings off and to prevent that it used computers. It was one of the first planes ever to use this kind of pilot augmented software to this almost extreme level. EVERYTHING was at least triple redundant. It actually had a massive effect on industrial safety with the advent of what are called TMR (triple mode redundant) systems like the Triconex safety platform.
As someone who came from an aerospace background who does work that has its foundation in the aerospace industry I'm stunned it was an aerospace company like Boeing that did this. I expect mining companies and manufacturers to behave like this. Even the oil & gas people who have a terrible track record now generally do better than this.
Boeing lost their way and I don't know if keeping people who contributed to that will help them find their way again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alanpaulsen6174 You'll love this one then, it was said 2 years before Trump was even born and at a time when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were all in power. Look at what it says about method and patriots. Try not to fall off your chair.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@flothus What your missing is the 8+ years I have been studying economists and how they behave. I haven't gone and done ay courses. I have been listening to them and their critics and there is now a lot of criticism of economists.
I am more convinced than ever that economics is an incredibly important subject.
The problem is economists are NOT trained to understand how economies work. They are trained to understand how MARKETS work. So they frame everything in terms of markets. They have absolutely NO understanding of how things like education systems, health care systems and energy supply systems actually work in a modern economy. This is why energy is such a mess. All the decisions (or lack of) are being heavily influenced by or MADE by economists.
One of the things they really can't understand is that any society needs certain things in place NOT for the purpose of making money but so everything else can make money. Roads don't need to every make money but they need to be there so everyone else can move stuff and make money. Education doesn't need to make money it needs to supply business and industry with a workforce so they can make money.
But if you try and explain to an economists 99 out of a 100 will have a melt down.
Here's the even bigger problem. IT DOES NOT MATTER if you have Lefty clowns howling renewables or Right Wing nutters howling about fossil fuels, THEY ALL LEARNED THE SAME ECONOMICS. Every politician in the developed world is either an economist or have an economics advisor and they all studied similar text books written by professors at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge... or written by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge... AND in many cases those text books are printed by Harvard Press, Yale Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press...
Its a major problem and why no matter who gets elected these days nothing changes. This is why so many populations are getting frustrated. Economists have stuck their noses into everything in the belief that "the rest of us are problems they have to manage." (Mark Blyth)
Right now in Australia (my country) there's a massive debate raging about nuclear power. So far I have only seen 1 engineer interviewed and he was a university professor who said NOTHING because all he was asked about was the economics. We have 2 reports. One by the political Left who claim science is on their side and nuclear can't work in Australia because of the economics. The other report by the political Right claiming that science and economics says the only way to save Australia is to go nuclear.
YES both reports in Australia were written by economists for economic arguments. NO engineers were involved in either report. Both reports should have been printed on toilet paper so we'd know what to do with them.
I'm NOT arguing Hydrogen on economic grounds or Nuclear for that matter. I'm for Hydrogen right now because I can (as an engineer) make it work in the time frame we have been left with by the stupidity of economists interfering for the last 30+ years. You have no idea how close to an energy collapse Australia is or a few other countries for that matter.
Right now Hydrogen is the answer for a lot of countries IF WE CAN GET THE ECONOMISTS and ACTIVISTS and SPECIAL INTERESTS to GET OUT OF THE WAY. In the longer term a lot of countries NEED to have sensible discussions on nuclear and that can't happen while these clown fests continue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fun fact Ted Cruz, Ron De Sanctimonious, Barrack Obama, Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Josh Hawley, Vivek Ramaswamy, Ben Shapiro and a whole bunch of others are Harvard, Yale, Princeton,... LAWYERS.
Plus on SCOTUS there's 4 Harvard and 4 Yale trained lawyers who are mostly their because of the Federalists Society which was formed by Harvard, Yale and U. Chicago students.
Americans need to realise that America is run by a club of Ivy League brats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Boomslang55 I have absolutely no disagreement on Suckerbergs money in Democrat politics or the disgusting bias of the pro-Democrat media.
THEY ARE JUST AS BAD as the oligarchs supporting radical GOP maniacs.
I have very much upset a lot of lefties when I tell them they are just as partisan and just as biased as the right wing maniacs they are screaming about.
If there is a difference its the amount of money being pumped into the radical far right of American politics. If you actually watch this documentary they weren't attacking Democrats they were attacking Republicans. Starting at 25:45 the guy they are speaking to John Ward is a REPUBLICAN and look at how they attacked him.
Your are absolutely right Suckerberg's $400 million is a disgusting amount of influence peddling and CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post,... can all be AT TIMES as garbage as Fox, OAN and Newsmax. If there is a difference its the shear amount of money being pumped by some very nasty people like Charles Koch, Robert Mercer and Barre Seid and how utterly ruthless they are.
What the average American conservative in the street needs to realise these people care even less about you than the Left does. To them you are just a lump of talking meat to be pumped. The corporate backers in the Dems aren't much better but the lesser people on the Left want you to have health care and your kids to get a good enough education to get a job.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hate to bust your dreams but:
WHEN Bush & Cheney can invade a country unlawfully and end up getting a million people killed and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN people like Donald Rumsfeld and those underneath him can order the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN John Bolton can ADMIT PUBLICLY to staging coups and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Obama can use drone strikes in countries he has NO AUTHORITY in and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can wind up the drone strikes including the one in Syria where he had NO AUTHORITY and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can assassinate an Iranian General when he has NO AUTHORITY to do it and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can stage an attempted coup and OVERTHROW the US Government and is NOT arrested, NOT charged and NOT held accountable.
What makes you think any American can hold a Foreign Leader like Bibi Netanyahu accountable?
1
-
What do you expect from people who's central them is:
"We demand the Liberty to strip other people of their Liberties."
Fundamentalist ideologies NEVER WORK because they can NEVER adjust to ANYTHING they haven't considered. It doesn't matter if they are religious fundamentalists, military fundamentalists, economic fundamentalists or any other form of fundamentalist ideology. And the reason is very simple. They refuse to accept any of the things that cause them trouble even exist. Economic fundamentalists ALWAYS fail because they assume that the markets can solve any problem by SUPPLYING a solution but the concept that markets CANNOT supply a solution does NOT exist in their brains.
I'm actually an engineer who's into energy economics at the moment. It started when I discovered how precarious the Australian (my country) situation is. You see to replace all our ageing power stations is an engineering task NOT an Economic task, but Libertarian Economists can't see that.
AND SO WE ARE CLEAR - there is almost no Economists on the planet who are NOT Neoliberal Libertarians because they all do the same basic education program at university. They all study the same text books published by Harvard Press, Yale Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,...... etc or their text books are written by professors at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,...... etc or they are written by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,...... etc. That's why Javier Milei has so many fans among Western Economists. They are all taught the same stuff and believe the same stuff. Its only a matter of how far up they have the volume knob and Milei has his wound up to 11.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stephenbrickwood1602 You've summed it up quite well.
The real problem are ECONOMISTS. When I started it simply got to WHY? Why aren't nations and states building new power stations and it doesn't matter what politics are present. There's just a complete failure of maintaining the existing energy infrastructure and upgrading it as needed.
The answer came back - ECONOMISTS.
FIRST - there's a pervasive view among economists that everyone else is a problem they have to manage. That's why we see economists interfering in education, health care, infrastructure,... etc. There's a PBS Frontline documentary on the 2008 GFC and in it Lanny Breuer the Assistant Attorney General at the time charged with prosecuting the wrong doers was asked why NOT 1 CEO was charged. His answer was "We had to consider the economic effects!"
So in their minds we are all incompetent idiots who they have to manage.
SECOND - Economics education is incredibly and narrowly focused on the Milton Freidman Chicago school free market model where "Greed is good" and CEOs have no responsibility other than profit. All the text books are written by professors at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,... All the text books are printed by Harvard Press, Yale Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,... All the economic departments across the World are run by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,...
THIRD - Government decisions are dominated by economists. Every elected official either studied the same Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge economics or has an advisor who studied the same Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge economics.
Then there are the consultancies who advise governments like McKinsey, Boston Group, KPMG, EY, PwC, Deloitte,.... who are full of economists who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge.
Then there are the Think Tanks like the one support Gerrard Holland who mouth off endlessly and they studied the same Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge.... economics.
No matter what the subject is, if it involves government policy there's an army of economists telling the government WHAT TO DO or WHAT NOT TO DO.
Its the main reason why people across the world are so frustrated with governments. No matter who anyone votes for there's an army of economists making sure NOTHING CHANGES.
If your interested in finding out more about the issues with economists. There are some "Rebel Economists" who have been fighting against mainstream economists for a while and in some cases decades.
One of the best is Steve Keen who like me is Australian. There's a podcast here on YouTube.
Another is Mark Blyth who's Scottish and based at Brown U. in America. He not only predicted the 2008 GFC but also that Trump would win in 2016 and that Europe was headed for a crisis.
Another is Gary Stevenson who's young but also incredibly smart. He worked for Citibank and was their top trader by his mid 20s. He then realised that his success came from betting against the British economy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Looking forward to what you have to say on AUSTRALIA.
Since getting the gist of what you mean by demographics and how that plays out I know Australia is in serious deep crap.
But even with that there's some other mind numbing issues the top 2 of which are energy and water. We don't have enough of either because we have stupidly done some idiotic things.
The most stupid thing we did which has caused both of these issues was following what we called Economic Rationalism which was the Australia version of Reaganomics and Thatcherism. We (all of us around the world) now collectively call this NEOLIBERALISM but its also called Chicago School Economics after the University of Chicago where Milton Friedman, Ronald Corse and other plotted the "Greed is Good" Era.
ON ENERGY - we privatised everything back in the 90s under the standard claim that "competition would deliver better services at lower prices" and like everywhere else that PROVED FALSE. The real reason economists preached that nonsense wasn't because they thought that privatising everything would actually be better it was just standard neoliberal ideology.
In the time our nation went from 10 to 20 million people we built more than 10 power stations across the nation with output power greater than 1,000 Megawatts (1 Gigawatt) with the largest over 3GW. These are the large bulk delivery power stations that supply the bulk of what's called BASE LOAD POWER. In the time our population has gone from 20 to 26 million we have NOT built a single power station over 1GW. So the backbone of our energy system is not only old but also smaller than it needs to be. So not only do we need to start replacing the older power stations but we need to replace them with even larger power stations. THIS IS ACTUALLY COMMON ACROSS THE WESTERN WORLD and if you bothered to be more engaging with engineers we'd tell you about this.
The problem is we have about 22.6 Gigawatts of coal fired power stations to replace. This actually has NOTHING to do with climate change its just a fact that things get old and worn out and eventually need replacing. Right now people are sayin go nuclear, but based on the cost of Hinckley Point C in Britain (because its useable data) that would cost over AU$440 Billion. But based on population projections we'd actually need to double that and then almost triple it to supply all the electric cars, buses, trucks and airplanes that people want us to have.
By the time you add in all of the required power grid upgrades that easily jumps to more than AU$2 Trillion AND THAT'S for a country that currently has only 26 million people. What's the bill for Europe, North America, Asia, India,.......?
ON WATER - Australia is even in a worse state than most people realise. We are a dry nation and water is simply not as free to use as when we were 10 million which we only reached in 1960 and we were only 15 million in 1980. We are now 26 million and we haven't built any new major water supplies in decades.
The projection is that we'll hit 30 million in about 2030 BUT NOBODY knows where those 4 million are coming from OR HOW we'll get them enough water or how they will be able to turn on the lights.
He's what I really like about your work Peter. You've opened my eyes to demographics. If you look up the Australian Bureau of Statistics there's a page for the population clock and pyramid. Its got an interactive pyramid where you can see what's been going on since 1981 but with projections going onto 2071. When you use the interactive features of that page there's a really interesting thing that happens and I wouldn't know about it if it wasn't for YOU - so big thanks.
Here's what I found
In the data for 2022, which is based on the last census in 2021 (so its real data), there's a noticeable notch in our population pyramid for older teenagers (16-19). According to the projections (notice how the color changes) that notch magically disappears. That would mean Australia thinks it can magically pull 40,000 teenagers out of thin air. Which is odd because I thought to make a 20 year old took 20 years 9 months and 5 minutes if your quick and 30 minutes if you have some endurance.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mrgoldigger9206 What did Trump ruin - Lets start:
1: He tore up NAFTA and ruined America's relationships with Canada and Mexico, but I'll guess you don't care about that.
2: He tore up the Pacific Trade Agreement and ruined America's relationships with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Pacific, but I'll guess you don't care about that.
3: He tore up the Treaty with Iran and now the rest of the world has to deal with a nuclear armed Iran, but I'll guess you don't care about that.
4: He tore up Obama's pandemic response plans and let 320,000 Americans die while he played golf, but I'll guess you don't care about that.
5: He failed to secure the vaccines that Americans need, which will lead to more deaths and suffering, but I'll guess you don't care about that.
6: He's claimed climate change is a hoax despite the Pentagon releasing a report saying its real and they will need more money to cover the extra costs of running their bases, but I'll guess you don't care about that either.
And lets talk about the CCP payroll shall we. Who's little sister has been operating in China and making millions the last couple of years - Jared Kushner's little sister that's who. Who is that while she was on a diplomatic mission secured her Chinese Trade marks - Ivanka Trump that's who. Who is it that has bank accounts in China - Donald Trump that's who.
And lets no forget who is the one American who has sided with Vladimir Putin when it came to anything like election interference and cyber attacks on US Institutions. Well according to Bill Barr its a guy named Donald Trump. I think he's out there on the golf course while America gets attacked and its people are dying from a disease he called a hoax.
I'd keep going if you weren't so idiotically ignorant of reality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
TO ALL FROM AUSTRALIA Here are the links to the interview and the full program it was done as part of.
A bit of background for those unfamiliar with Australia's ABC and the program called "4 Corners" this interview was done for.
Australia's ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) no affiliation to America's ABC. It is our public broadcaster in a similar way to America's PBS and the British BBC. The program "4 Corners" does investigative long length stories the same way PBS's Frontline and BBC's Panorama do. This interview was done as part of a 2 Part special about how the Murdoch owned Fox News became Donald Trumps propaganda machine called "Fox and the Big Lie". The program included interviews with several ex-Fox presenters including Gretchen Carlson as well as the Sidney Powel interview.
Fox and the Big Lie Part 1-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o
Fox and the Big Lie Part 2-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWJhqOPe6rw
Gretchen Carlson Interview-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOEAsp95AE4
Sidney Powel Interview-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyWDAJzCZk
Below is more background information, some of which David P viewers probably know. And yes (like many others) I can write pages about this stuff.
Australia's ABC is often claimed to be a leftist organization by Australian Right Wing conservatives. Its also claimed to favor the right by leftists when it exposes things the left get up to. The Murdoch's and other prominent media owners like the Packers and Fairfax's have wanted the ABC dismantled for decades, particularly the independent journalism. You can easily find this by looking for "Sky News Australia" which is Rupert Murdoch's Australian outlet and has its own versions of Hannity, Carlson,.... etc.
As to why Australia is so interested in this. Its simple America is Australia's most important trading and security partner AND and Australian born business man is influencing America in a massive way. Yes, Murdoch also has huge influence here in Australia and in Britain buts its not as massive as it is in America. Here in Australia 2 ex-Prime Ministers (Rudd and Turnbull) have launched an inquiry into Murdoch influence in Australia. Rudd is a leftist and Turnbull is center right, so they represent BOTH sides of our politics. But note, Turnbull is seen as a pariah (and traitor) by the far right. Turnbull has also claimed that Murdoch was part of the "cabal" that had him dumped from the leadership. As a political position Australia's Prime Minister (like the British, Canadian,...... etc.) is more akin to the American "Speaker of the House." As such the PM can be dumped from that position at almost anytime.
As a trading and security partner Australia is similar to a few other countries like Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines,.... etc. I was actually in Canada for work when Trump tore up NAFTA and saw their reaction (not pretty). America was the driver behind NAFTA and the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) and Trump tore both apart. Australia like a few others have staked their future security on the F35 Lightning II. Before COVID and before Trump we struggled to get our jets delivered and now struggle to get spare parts.
In several ways Australia (like many other countries) just can't afford to have America be this dysfunctional. We have people who simply hate America and even they admit (when pressed) that "a healthy functioning America is in our best interests." Fox News with its influence is making America MORE dysfunctional. If you watch Part 1 (above) you'll see that Fox News was the first to call Arizona. People were then fired from Fox, for upsetting Trump and risking the business.
It's not like the Western World wasn't warned about Murdoch. Here's where you can watch the 2004 Documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"
-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its the second week of January 2021 and America is about to go past 400,000 dead just as Joe Biden takes the oath of office..
A few weeks ago Michael was warning about how bad the Christmas - New year could be.
I'm Australian but went to college at U. Illinois. I've been watching Michael since the early days, because it was clear he was one of the very few who was being honest with us. He was even interviewed a few times on Australian TV. Like many others from around the world I have followed his updates over much of the last year -> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI7n04W1HWAPMrI4_41StSg
If you actually add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million which compares to Australia's 25.6 million.
Yes I know quite well there are significant differences in geography, population density and winter conditions, but in terms of medical technology, transportation and technical capability there's zero difference. We got very lucky with the initial spread. We cancelled many events and had NO crowds at all our major sports for the year and all that resulted in us not spreading it. But none of that explains the staggering differences.
Australia has a total of 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin total over 33,812 as of 12/1/2021
In the 7 days from 4 to 10 January 2021 Illinois had 971 COVID fatalities. In one week Illinois with half as many people as Australia had more deaths from this than Australia has had in 12 months.
On the main table at -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Australia is 54th in population and 86th in COVID fatalities. If Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin were a country they would be 16th. Illinois by itself would rank 21st in the world. New York by itself would be 14th.
In terms of death-rate (deaths/1M.pop) Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin would be 4th (at 1342).
3 American states (New Jersey, New York & Massachusetts) have a higher death-rate than any nation or independent state in the world.
For whatever luck and other things that may have favored us, nothing explains that discrepancy other than a complete failure of leadership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GAZ87YORKSHIRESALT I'm not English DlCKHEAD, but I am of Anglo-Saxon heritage.
Then again Britain was invaded by so many over such a long time and had so many tribes but their stamps on Britain its hard to even classify what "being British" actually means.
Fun facts
The Angles come from Southern Denmark.
The Saxons from Saxony which is part of Germany?
All those very British towns ending with "by" like Whitby, Northby,...etc. are actually Viking towns. The "by" means village.
Then there's the places founded by the Romans like Bath.
The Normans who invaded in 1066 weren't French but were actually Vikings who'd settled in France. The word Norman comes from Northmen.
Then there's the actual Bretons, and their offshoots like Welsh, Gaels, Celts, Manx, Cornish and others.
And one of my favorites the British Royal Family's real name isn't Windsor its Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because that was Prince Alberts (q. Victoria's husband) family name, but someone didn't think that would be a good name for the British Royal family so they went with Windsor. Go look at the Wikipedia page for "House of Windsor."
Yeah sorry but we study a lot of British history in Australia or at least did when I went to High School. 200 years of our own doesn't compare to over 2,000 years. And then we've also had those BBC documentary series by people like Simon Sharma shown here. Some of those are very flattering on our cultural heritage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AmericatheBeautiful-p4z I'd try and explain the reasons why people like you are so ignorant and wrong and stupid but its not worth it. But for anyone else interested here's some basic engineering and a bit of math.
There's an oddish subject in aerospace I call planetary mechanics. I was introduced to it by a NASA engineer who visited our university one day. He'd done a project on what it would take to terraform Mars. He explained you just start with something basic like how much air do you need and what would you need to heat it up to a reasonable temperature considering Mars is cold. -60C on Mars is a warm day.
Planetary mechanics is just the basic mechanics of what's needed (nuts and bolts). Its not the complex gas & water cycles that change and shift with seasons or the effects of the planets rotation and inclination or any of the other time related things. I call that stuff planetary dynamics as it involves things that move and change and cycle with time.
To keep the math practical and get a basic estimate of what the task is, we do an approximation. I use the idea of a 1km think layer of breathable air because it makes the math understandable. I approximate the volume but just covering the planet in 1km cubes of air. Yes there's gaps between the cubes but its just an approximation and its within 1%. I also ignore things like gravity, solar wind, etc, BECAUSE I am just trying to demonstrate the size of the task.
The surface of Mars is 144,000,000 km. That equates to 144,000,000 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000 cubic meters of air and at 1.2kg for a cubic meter of air, that's 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air.
To raise that much air from -60 to +20 ℃ engineers use the basic equation: E = Cp x M x ΔT
Energy Required (kilojoules) = 1.006 kJ/kg.C x mass of air in kg x temperature difference in ℃
We then get 13,906,944,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy required.
So how much energy is that?
It's the equivalent of 220,745,143 Hiroshima bombs which had 63 Terajoules of energy.
Its also equivalent to about 64,683 Tzar Bombs the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated.
Lets not forget we still need to find or create that 172,800,000,000,000,000 kilograms of air and work out how to keep it attached to Mars because Mars only has 1/3rd of Earths gravity. Then there's the task of making the gas and water cycles work.
This is why aerospace engineers don't talk about this stuff much because once you realise the basic scope of terraforming the numbers get so massive so quickly the scope confuses people.
Half the problem is the idiocy of Hollywood. Remember the film Aliens? The one with the giant nuclear reactor that would convert the asteroid into a liveable planet in about 20 years. BULLSH1T If they had a few 1000 of those reactors running for a couple of centuries they might start to make a difference.
Simple rule if it involves Hollywood and technology its 99.9% scientifically FALSE, WRONG or plain BULLSH1T. Don't get me wrong I still love sci-fi, its just I know what's fiction and what's NOT.
If you have time and do want to learn about energy systems then I recommend the Illinois Energyprof channel here on YouTube. I can't say its exciting but it is informative.
Disclaimer: I did my degree at U. Illinois, but have never met David Ruzic. I graduated before his time there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonnyhatter35 No problems mate.
Here's a slightly longer version of the subject.
I did aerospace engineering and back in college we had an alum who worked at NASA visit and do a special lecture one Friday. He'd just done a project where they assessed the viability of terraforming Mars.
He introduced us to what I call planetary mechanics - the basics numbers of what you need to do. The making it all work as a functioning atmosphere is what I call planetary dynamics because that's about dynamic systems as things that move rather than just the basic numbers.
So in planetary mechanics you look at things like size of the planet and how much air you need if you want a breathable atmosphere. The numbers are massive because planets are massive.
If we go to an air conditioning company they'll ask how many cubic meters the house or building has and we'd be talking maybe a few hundred or a few 1000 for an office block. The quick way to estimate that is to look at the floor space of your house and multiply by 2.5 because most rooms are about 2.5 meters heigh. So if your apartment has 200m2 of floorspace you have about 500m3 of volume. For an office block with 5,000m2 its about 12,500m3.
But the Earth has 500,000 square kilometers of floor space that's 500,000,000,000 square meters. So just for the first kilometer of air around us its 500,000,000,000,000m3 (500 trillion). At about 1.2kg/m3 that's about 600 billion metric tons of air. That's just the first kilometer above sea level and there's a lot more above that.
Its one of the main reasons its so hard for engineers and scientists to communicate what we've actually done to our planet. The numbers are so large most people can't get their heads around it. How do you get average citizens to consider 600billion tons of air when for their basic daily life air weighs nothing?
I can do this because I met the right guy back when who introduced this subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its the second week of January 2021 and America is about to go past 400,000 dead just as Joe Biden takes the oath of office..
A few weeks ago Michael was warning about how bad the Christmas - New year could be.
I'm Australian but went to college at U. Illinois. I've been watching Michael since the early days, because it was clear he was one of the very few who was being honest with us. He was even interviewed a few times on Australian TV. Like many others from around the world I have followed his updates over much of the last year -> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI7n04W1HWAPMrI4_41StSg
If you actually add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million which compares to Australia's 25.6 million.
Yes I know quite well there are significant differences in geography, population density and winter conditions, but in terms of medical technology, transportation and technical capability there's zero difference. We got very lucky with the initial spread. We cancelled many events and had NO crowds at all our major sports for the year and all that resulted in us not spreading it. But none of that explains the staggering differences.
Australia has a total of 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin total over 33,812 as of 12/1/2021
In the 7 days from 4 to 10 January 2021 Illinois had 971 COVID fatalities. In one week Illinois with half as many people as Australia had more deaths from this than Australia has had in 12 months.
On the main table at -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Australia is 54th in population and 86th in COVID fatalities. If Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin were a country they would be 16th. Illinois by itself would rank 21st in the world. New York by itself would be 14th.
In terms of death-rate (deaths/1M.pop) Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin would be 4th (at 1342).
3 American states (New Jersey, New York & Massachusetts) have a higher death-rate than any nation or independent state in the world.
For whatever luck and other things that may have favored us, nothing explains that discrepancy other than a complete failure of leadership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timstewart2468 Sorry for the long replay.
The whole subject of bringing processing back and manufacturing back always comes down to one single thing - ENERGY. The single biggest difference between modern society and previous societies in ENERGY. No matter what anyone wants to claim it all comes down to energy - how much is available at what cost. Access to raw materials, education & labor all matter but nowhere near as important as energy. The claims about labor cost are pathetic as labor cost hasn't mattered in decades. All the talk of labor costs are just lies and misdirection.
I have been looking at the energy thing ever since I did this small consulting job circa 2016. I thought Australia had serious issues and then started looking around. Its serious everywhere.
The biggest problem by far are people called economists. Its a long story and it actually goes back to a very small group of radical libertarians in the Bush White House in the late 80s who stalled everything and ran interference and ran scare campaigns. Its actually had nothing to do with climate. These were (and still are) people who believed that ANY government program except the military was a bad thing and needed to be stomped on.
Bottom line is, YES we can do what's needed problem is due to the stupidity of these economists its now going to cost stunning amounts that will be measured in double digit Trillions (no joke). Australia with all of 26 million people is facing a cost of between $200 billion and over a trillion if its managed badly. Imagine the costs for bigger populations.
Then there's the Greenies, who do mean well, but are insanely ignorant of engineering reality. They're right, places like Australia have some staggeringly good geography for both wind and solar. The problem is those places are inconvenient. We have the Great Australian Bite which is exposed to the Roaring 40s where the wind varies between gale force and cyclonic. Its like the Orkney's (off the Scottish coast) have so much wind they don't know what to do with it. We need mechanisms to transport & store energy and that has been stalled for over 30 years because it wasn't convenient to a few people with influence.
Plus and the Greenies need to eat this one big time, NOT every country has great geography. In fact most countries suck for wind and solar and they are going to need to get the energy from other sources and that includes the 'N" stuff (🫢 shhhh!).
Because of their ignorance the Greenies are their own worst enemy. My favorite gag on other engineers (mech, chem, civ,...) is to ask them how electricity works. Its how I get rooms full of engineers to shut up by making them look stupid. The Greenies are levels of dumber than the lowest of engineers who are the civil engineers. I call them "shovel monkeys" because other other than digging holes to fill with concrete they don't much else. They get confused when water wont flow uphill. So consider where the Greenies are.
So imagine what its like trying to explain to politicians what needs doing when they economist screaming in one ear and greenies the other ear? Its a shitfest and when the media get involved it goes from shitfest to hyper-shitfest faster than any of Einstein's predictions.
As for a safe place to discuss any of this, I believe there's a small town way out past the town of Burke NSW called the "Back of Burke". It has a sister city named "Idontknow" in a country called Biddleonia.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On manufacturing Peter's again right about a couple of things and totally wrong on others.
Yes Tesla is making the chassis (the frame of the car) out of Aluminum, but the casting process they are using is is state of the art and very cost effective.
I watched a video where it was explained and even though I am not an Elon Musk fan in any way some of his engineers know their shite and know it very well.
The original concept for the Tesla Roadster came from a couple of very smart guys who knew what they wanted. They were not restrained by the business practices of the major manufacturers and were incredibly innovative.
Elon himself has, despite his claims, had fark all to really do with the car, which is why its pretty decent. The same can be said about SpaceX. I have had a ride in one and it was excellent. Elon himself is a shite engineer but what he is utterly brilliant at is identifying technical opportunities and exploiting them.
Where peter is misunderstanding some of the manufacturing is that thing engines and gear boxes and differentials are not cheap items in a build process. There's precision castings, precision bearings, cam shafts, valves, head assemblies, crankshafts, pumps and gears and all sorts of stuff to make a drive train.
Teslas have a battery and an electric motor. So it has more expensive materials but its also a lot simpler to make. and install the drive train.
But I also think Peter is dead right and that because of the available supplies we wont see a lot of long haul trucks or farm machinery go electric for a long time.
He is dead right that its a massive task that a lot of people have badly misread.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE:
The answer is: Nobody listens to us.
Its really that simple.
Look at this story as an example. Do they ask an engineer to come on and explain it NO.
We make the cameras, lights, microphones, transmission gear, TV sets and computers you all need to have a job.
We also provide the electricity to power all of it.
Do we get any respect from the media for making their jobs possible? NO
Do we get any respect form anyone that the lights are turned on or you can sit there and read this on a computer designed by engineers, powered by engineers with software written by engineers?
NO - like so many others you just whine that we aren't getting the job done.
I am so sick and tired of all the people who aren't engineers interfering with engineers, interfering with how we do our work, interfering with our careers, and telling us how to do our jobs when they have no idea what our jobs are.
As for education and training.
Forget it, the clowns with economic degrees and MBAs wrecked that like they wrecked everything else they have touched for the last 50 years. Did you ever bother to stop and think that when engineers were NOT interfered with that we went to the Moon. Then once the Reaganomics and Thatcherism economics revolution arrived that it started to slide and slide and slide.
I have been trying to tell people in my home country (Australia) we need to build new power stations. We all know we need them but EVERY PUBLIC DISCUSSION involves academics, economists, celebrities and all sorts of people EXCEPT ENGINEERS.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Australian here: So here's an outside observers perspective on American conservatives.
FYI - I went to college in America so I have some unclose interactions with these people.
American conservatives BELIEVE:
- In their version of a president who's NEVER a dictator or a tyrant they are just FIRM with "others" but anyone else's version of a president is a tyrant or a dictator.
- In their version of democracy where everyone votes for them and they have control, NOT yours where the majority tell vote and tell them "NO you don't have control."
- In their version of Law and Order the FBI, DEA, CIA, NSA,....etc are good guys going after bad people, while YOUR VERSION of the FBI, DEA, CIA, NSA,....etc are bad guys going after good guys.
- In their version of Liberty and Freedom where they have the right to strip others of their Liberties and Freedoms.
- In their version of Foreign Policy any and every country has the democratic right to elect a pro-American government that does as they are told to do and any country that dares to do otherwise will find out how effective the CIA is at organising military Coups and installing dictators.
Let me know if you think I have that wrong or need to add more.
And before you reply just remember America the land of hope freedom and democracy still denies the People of Puerto Rico and the other American territories their democratic right to vote on who their President is and they effectively ZERO representation in Congress despite being US Citizens. AND YES this is common knowledge around the world. If you want to see how its seen look up (here on YT) "honest government ad puerto rico"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Great Comment.
I'm an Australian engineer who went to college in America (late 80s).
A couple of years ago I started informally studying economics out of the frustration of the interference in projects by clowns waving economics degrees.
What you are describing is yet more symptoms of neoliberal economics. One of the core beliefs of neoliberals is that Government SHOULD DO as LITTLE AS POSSIBLE because the private sector does everything better. At the ideologic level its more libertarian than liberal (and yes there's a difference). Liberals believe freedom isn't absolute and security and safety comes from having limits (laws, rules, codes, regulations,...). Libertarians believe that government should do nothing but protect their property and their interests. its an incredibly narrow minded and narcissistic view of the world.
One of the main reasons I started looking into economics was because Australia like many other nations really wasn't doing anything regarding energy infrastructure. Its like they are all waiting for someone from the private sector to do it for them. This is standard neoliberal economics in reality. "The government should do nothing and let the market decide what to do." The problem is that if there isn't a business case or the private sector can get better returns elsewhere then NOTHING HAPPENS. Its not just an energy thing it happens to all forms of infrastructure just like you describe.
Another aspect of what you describe is the idea that everything has to act like a business and make money. This is another of the idiotic fallacies of neoliberal economics. Its really obvious in Universities. In the 1990s they were told they had to "be more business like." Yeah fine a way to hear that is WE (the university) need to mange our money better and where possible have some form of ownership over IP so that the money generated helps fund the University. Great but its really easy to lose sight of the fact the PRINCIPLE TASK of a university like all forms of education is to EDUCATE the next generation so that they have the skills to keep a society functioning.
By the same account government departments (no matter if they are local, sate or federal) have as their PRINCIPLE TASK the job of providing the necessary services to the community, state or nation that are required to keep it functioning. There is this idiotic concept among neoliberals that EVERYTHING HAS to be run as if its a "for profit" business. The problem is there is no business model that works long term for some of these basic services that any and every society needs. For some things there is no viable business model in neoliberal economics. Things like education, roads, communication services, health care services,....
The problem is you can't explain it to the professors in their ivory towers or to the super wealthy in their marble castles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Trying to give some perspective and context.
Note: I am highly critical of the F-35 program based on engineering knowledge not emotional claims.
FIRST I have gone and read the FT article and its VERY SHORT. Including the title and subtitle its 452 words. I cut and pasted it into word to check that. So that story has almost ZERO DETAIL on anything.
There is one very objectional aspect to how this is being presented by BOTH Krystal and Kyle and Saagar and that's the howling and screeching. Is it justified? YES, but it helps NO ONE. I'd highly recommend you all go check out Ward Carroll's take on the F35 crash and the questions he asked from the Base CO. He knows there's no point asking for conclusions when the investigation has only just started. So he asked questions that CAN BE ANSWERED and give context.
Krystal, Kyle Saagar and so many others all claim they are NOT like main stream media and then they do this crap.
SECOND this is a maintenance issue and maintenance is the one thing that TOO MANY IGNORANT CLOWNS with arts degrees, business degrees and nothing degrees stick their noses into without any understanding of the consequences.
Everything we build in engineering requires maintenance because without it everything eventually fails. Breaking down is a hassle for your car, or if you are on a boat or with many other things, BUT WHEN aircraft fail they don't simply stop, THEY FALL OUT OF THE SKY. This is why engineers and technicians get so frustrated at times. We have to deal with people who don't know which end of a screw driver to hold trying explain how our job should be done.
THIRD the F35 program was born form the outcomes of the F22 program. Originally the F22 was planned for 750 Aircraft all of those for the USAF. The Navy, Marines and Air National Guard would get something else. Once they started operating it the F22 proved to be brilliant but also incredibly expensive. According to the GAO F22s cost $85,000/hr while an F35 costs $42,000/hr, but then an A10 costs $22,531/hr and an F16 costs $26,000/hr. In comparison a B52 costs $88,000/hr, a B2 Spirit cost $150,000/hr while a B1 Lancer costs $173,000/hr. Over in Helicopter land the CH-47F Chinook costs $4,000/hr while the CH53E Super Stallion costs $45,000/hr.
So yes its costs are high but they have to be put into PERSPRECTIVE.
This was what killed the F22 program. It wasn't that it didn't do the job. By most reports it was the best fighter plane the USAF has every had, but the maintenance required in raw cost and man hours was horrendous. One of the F35s main design criteria was to get the costs back to something more reasonable, which is why it only has a single engine like the F16.
FOURTH and this is where I get start getting critical of the F35 program from its concept.
The PR for the F35 was pitched (in concept) to cost 1/2 as much money to buy and 1/2 as much to run as the F22. It certainly hasn't done that on the purchasing and it only looks good against the F22 because its operation costs have almost tripled.
BUT YOU HAVE TO SEARCH to find these things out.
FIFTH and this is where the F35 went off the rails.
One reason WHY the F22 could be cancelled was because it involved only a few factories and because of its small numbers cancelling it did not cost many jobs and only in a few states. Lockheed learnt from this and made sure the F35 had the broadest possible possible supply chain with contractors in as many US States as possible. Its much harder for a US Senator to cancel a program when it costs jobs in their state and if you have parts on a plane that come from over 40 states its NOT getting cancelled.
THE SUPPLY CHAIN IS THE PROBLEM and it makes the F35 unsuited for warfare.
LET'S BE CRYSTAL CLEAR - I am NOT saying the F35 is NOT capable. By the reports and interviews from pilots who have flown it as well as other fighter aircraft its an amazingly good aircraft. Ward Carroll's buddy Pako ahs explained this as good as anyone. There's also a great debate on the subject between F16 & A10 engineer Pierre Sprey and Lt Col David 'Chip' Berke who flew the F16, F18, F15, F22 and F35.
Aaron over on Sub Brief has explained this well. Its not just getting the parts its also getting the specialised tools needed to do the maintenance work.
This is a lesson that goes right back to the Battle of Britain. When first introduced the Spitfire was incredibly hard to maintain. The Hawker Hurricane was mostly made of wood covered in fabric. The Spitfire was full metal sheeting over a full metal frame and any repairs required specialist tools. Famously the Polish Squadrons in the Battle of Britain sent their Spitfires back and demanded the return of their Hurricanes because all they needed was the local carpenter to get back flying.
YES THE F35
- cost too much to develop but that came from bad decisions from the military trying to have a super complex do-all jet combined with bad project management of the manufacturer.
- it cost more to run than it should because that too comes from poor project management of the manufacturer that allowed them to create this ridiculous parts supply chain that can't deliver.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its the second week of January 2021 and America is about to go past 400,000 dead just as Joe Biden takes the oath of office..
A few weeks ago Michael was warning about how bad the Christmas - New year could be.
I'm Australian but went to college at U. Illinois. I've been watching Michael since the early days, because it was clear he was one of the very few who was being honest with us. He was even interviewed a few times on Australian TV. Like many others from around the world I have followed his updates over much of the last year -> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI7n04W1HWAPMrI4_41StSg
If you actually add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million which compares to Australia's 25.6 million.
Yes I know quite well there are significant differences in geography, population density and winter conditions, but in terms of medical technology, transportation and technical capability there's zero difference. We got very lucky with the initial spread. We cancelled many events and had NO crowds at all our major sports for the year and all that resulted in us not spreading it. But none of that explains the staggering differences.
Australia has a total of 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin total over 33,812 as of 12/1/2021
In the 7 days from 4 to 10 January 2021 Illinois had 971 COVID fatalities. In one week Illinois with half as many people as Australia had more deaths from this than Australia has had in 12 months.
On the main table at -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Australia is 54th in population and 86th in COVID fatalities. If Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin were a country they would be 16th. Illinois by itself would rank 21st in the world. New York by itself would be 14th.
In terms of death-rate (deaths/1M.pop) Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin would be 4th (at 1342).
3 American states (New Jersey, New York & Massachusetts) have a higher death-rate than any nation or independent state in the world.
For whatever luck and other things that may have favored us, nothing explains that discrepancy other than a complete failure of leadership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Australian here: I went to college in America in the late 80s on a sports scholarship. I had a fabulous time with my only regrets being that I was too young to really appreciate it at the time and that I have lost contact with many of my friends there.
I studied aerospace engineering but a bunch of those friends were pre-law and often dragged me into their conversations. So I got a unusual education into the US Constitution. Prior to that my only study into political systems was Orwell (1984 & Animal Farm) so my only argument was that ANY country could fall into a totalitarian dictatorship (Right or Left) because that was Orwell's warning. It doesn't matter if you go to far Right or too far Left its the same result.
My friends used to argue (and they always won) that it was impossible for America to fall because it had a system of "Checks & Balances" built into the system that would never allow such a thing to happen to America. We never discussed the possibility that the system could fail, but then we never we never considered what the Federalist Society planned and executed. The American POLITICAL system revolves around the 3 pillars of the Executive (including the President) the house and the Senate. The American LEGAL system relies on the various layers to make sure that EVERY American is equally treated under the law.
The idea or concept that a small group created out of students at 3 universities (Harvard, Yale and U. Chicago) could (overtime) completely subvert the Supreme Court and use that along with there big money supporters to undermine the System of Checks & Balances and then re-write the Constitution wasn't simply unthinkable it wasn't even a concept under consideration.
Here's the crazy thing. The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 and it was already underway BEFORE my friends and I had any of those conversations. We didn't even know it existed let alone what its plans were, let alone that it would find billionaires willing to fund what they wanted.
Until America is willing to accept that it has been hijacked by a tiny group of people who have managed to suck tens of millions of people into their web of lies then America will remain a foundering ship in danger of sinking. The problem for the rest of the world is we, the human race, face some very big issues like climate change, wars, food shortages, water shortages,... etc. We DO NOT NEED America to solve these issues, but it becomes so much harder when America is what it is now.
Sorry for the long comment.
I do believe American Constitution is one of humanities finest achievements but right now its being undermined by some incredibly selfish people and it has global effects.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Eric-kn4yn You're 1/2 right.
Getting the business relationship with China for raw materials has been awesome and 1,000s of Australians have done well out of it, BUT sending slabs of our manufacturing to China has been a farking disaster and letting the Chinese steal intellectual property and trademarks has been a disaster. However clowns like Hawke, Keating, Howard, Costello, Rudd,... etc. kowtowing to them on these issues has been even worse because now we all have to deal with the ramifications.
Its all part of the basic rules of politics.
Rule 1: If "it" works then take credit for "it" even if you don't deserve any credit at all.
Rule 2: If "it" doesn't work then IBDeW:
a) Ignore and act like "it" doesn't exist (as Keating just did on certain questions); or
b) Blame someone else for why "it" didn't work (as Keating just did on certain questions); or
c) Deflect and change the subject (as Keating just did on certain questions); or
d) When all else fails and you can't take credit, deflect or blame the go full attack mode. Call anyone who asks a fraud, fake news, a scumbag or a clown. Just as Keating did when asked about if he'd be just as critical of the Chinese Communist Party and what they have done in Hong Kong and to the Uyghurs. Most importantly NEVER answer their question.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TO ALL AMERICANS: take note of what he's saying at the start about America exporting stupidity.
I'm Australian but went to college in America. I love the place, love the people, love the sports and even love American food (which is totally underestimated). What he's talking about is that part of American society that can't shut up and just wont stop promoting itself.
What most Americans don't understand is just how pervasive that part of America has been. A few years back an American journalist was in Australia and he commented that Australian's loved American's but disliked America. What he was talking about was these incredibly loud promoters of various ideologies - free market economics, guns, American democracy, American style laws, American style religion, technologies that aren't necessary to basic life,.... AND most notably American TV, movies and music. The list is extensive and many of these things are RAMMED down peoples throats. Sort of like "If you don't have the latest x-Phone you are depriving yourself of amazing stuff. If you don't get one for each of your kids your depriving them of a future."
The true superpower of America is the "ability to promote." Products, ideologies or themselves nobody's as good at promoting as that small part of American society. And that small group are the Americans the world see's and they have very badly skewed the world's perception of the American people.
So when you hear people say negative things about America - ITS NOT ABOUT YOU SPECIFALLY its about these people who just wont stop ramming ideology down their throats.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Somebody needs to ask Mark Levin the following Question:
When did BLM, ANTIFA, Democrats, 1960s counter culture hippies, tree hugging Kumbaya singing environmentalists, Occupy Wall Street, Lafayette Park or any other protesters storm the capitol, kill a police officer, tear down the American flag and replace it with another flag?
For anyone interested please feel free to copy that question and post it anywhere you like.
Someone else first directed me to this quote by Vice POTUS Wallace, who was alive when Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin were in power to personally see what those sorts of people are like. the 2 highlights about method and patriotism are mine.
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know this will sound a bit crazy but bear with. For anyone who played Assassin's Creed much they might remember you have almost perfectly described what that creed means.
In its raw form its: Nothing is true, everything, is permitted.
And yes everyone is allowed to say that's stupid. In fact the reply to it was: “That is rather cynical.”
This is the explanation and note what is said about fragility and accepting responsibility:
"It would be if it were doctrine. But it is merely an observation of the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilisation. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences whether glorious or tragic.”
What its actually saying to anyone - you have to look after your nation/tribe or it will stagnate or fail or both AND you have to accept responsibility for what happens.
Think about how many great empires collapsed because people thought there society would just endure and how they got ripped apart because nobody would take responsibility. For everyone, FIRST have a look at your own country and its problems before you point the finger at anyone else.
For everyone who might have played the game its during the conversation between Ezio and Sophia when they get to Masyaf at the end of Revelations. The full text of that conversation is
Sophia “You mentioned a Creed before. What is it?”
Ezio “Nothing is true, everything, is permitted.”
Sophia “That is rather cynical.”
Ezio “It would be if it were doctrine. But it is merely an observation of the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilisation. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences whether glorious or tragic.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You're almost right, it is a class war, but there's actually 3 major conflicts going on in American politics. There's the one in the Dems, the one in the GOP and the one between the billionaire elites who control both parties.
The conflict between billionaires is what I call Carbon Vs. Silicon. Look at the billionaires on the Republican side and a lot of them have made their money from extracting, refining, processing, and selling carbon based products (coal, oil, plastics,....etc). On the other side supporting the Dems are a pack of technocrats Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg types who all rely on computers and technologies based around silicon. I know its not strictly true but fundamentally if you're a billionaire into Carbon your a Republican and if your billionaire who relies on Silicon your a Dem.
As for the conflict inside the Dems its progressives versus stagnators. I call them stagnators because all they want is stagnation. They want nothing to change unless it benefits them. Sure Bezos and others are disruptors but look at how they now treat anybody else and any competition. They love to disrupt but wont let anybody else disrupt. Progressives are progressive because they want society to move forwards. The most fundamental aspect of progressives is that they want change that benefits everyone not just the few.
There's even a similar conflict in the GOP where you have the Trumpists who want to break the power of the old oil & coal families like the Bush and Koch families. Trump himself might not give a crap about them, but he tapped right into a massive amount of anger and frustration from people who had been left behind. Look at how much the top 1% have made in the past 30+ years and what did the base of the GOP get. Most of them have seen no real wage growth the entire working lives and more often than not watched there jobs get moved to Texas or Mexico or China.
The second American civil war might not have been openly declared but it has been going for about 5 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
To ALL I was checking something the other day.
Just after Trump lost the 2020 election he ordered/allowed the execution of 3 Federal prisoners. It was very unusual because it was the first time in over 140 years a president had ordered or allowed anyone during the Lame Duck period. There is no law it just became tradition to leave it to the incoming President.
What I found were 2 extraordinary facts.
1) After the riots of January 6th Trump had or allowed 3 more executions on January 13, 14 and 16 of 2021. yes in the post January 6th turmoil when there was no effective government 3 people were actually executed and we KNOW trump had the 3 in November and December killed because he told everyone he did it.
2) Between July 14, 2021 and September 24, 2021 Trump had or allowed 7 executions to take place. There is no doubt that some of those crimes were horrendous and justice might well be served by executing those perpetrators.
Since the resumption of executions in 1976 the US Federal Government has only executed 16 people. Mostly its done by the states. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Obama and Biden COMBINED had NOBODY executed. Bush Junior executed 3, one of whom was Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma Bomber. Those 3 happened in June 2001, June 2001 and March 2003 so were nowhere near the election campaign for 2004.
Trump did not execute anyone until July 2020 when the campaign was underway. In fact 1 happened during the GOP convention on August 26th and another the day after the convention on August 28th.
The timing is bizarre and leads to only one conclusion - Donald Trump had 7 people executed to help win the election as his campaign faltered over his mishandling of COVID, and when that failed he lashed out and had 6 more people killed.
WHY NOBODY IN THE MEDIA IS POINTING THIS OUT IS A MYSTERY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As an engineer this system WAS NEVER GOING TO WORK!
Why?
Short answer: We don't yet have the technology to match the human visual cortex system.
Long answer (and sorry if its long).
It all has to do with how algorithms work and how visions systems what (what engineers call camera systems).
At best they can mimic what a human does with respect to a certain types of tasks. The better that task can be defined then the better an algorithm can be developed. I work in industrial control systems which are the computers and sensors systems that run things like production lines, mineral processing plants, water treatment plants,...etc. Occasionally we have to write special algorithms to make some process work because all the standard functions just won't work. I have written algorithms that if I were describe what they did you'd all think I work in AI and I don't. I HAVE NEVER written any software that thinks, but I have written code that MIMICS what a person could do to make a certain process work how we wanted.
Here's the problem with autopilots for cars.
We don't have the technology to mimic r=what a human does when they drive a car. We don't have camera systems that can operate anything like a human eye and we don't have computers that can process that sort of data in the way the human brain does at the rate that the human brain does.
The bit near the end where Kyle describes the human brain as a super computer is a gross understatement when we consider what our visual cortex does every second.
I have a pilots license and we've had autopilots for planes for decades and they work incredibly well BUT the autopilot in a plane simply has to fly along a straight line. A course is simply a set of straight lines and the AP just goes point to point. I have programmed industrial robots for a living and they are quite similar. We define a set of points and orientations and have the robot move from point to point and at some of those points "do things." Autopilots in planes and Industrial robots DO NOT THINK they just move from point to point in fairly simple ways - speed and direction.
Driving a car is in some ways a far more complex task to define than flying a plane or programming a robot. The car itself is far easier to operate BUT the interactions with the environment ARE NOT. Airplanes don't go down streets where there are parked cars, gutters, trees, kids, dogs, cats and other cars coming the other way (except in incredibly rare cases).
Irrespective of if you believe in God or Evolution the human visual cortex can take snap shots of our environment at a rate of around 50 times a second. Its broken into 2 sections - focused and peripheral. The incredible thing our visual cortex does is assess threats by clumping things together so that it has fewer things to assess. Our brain does not see several million straw colored hairs and tries to figure out what they each mean. Our brain just sees a lion and knows to avoid. When we drive a car our brain does not see 100,000 green things and tries to figure out what they mean it just sees a tree and we avoid it.
This all happens very fast in our peripheral vision system at a rate of about 50 times per second.
Plus once our peripheral system detects something we can move our eyes and focus on that threat and then re-assess that threat as to things like distance and speed while at the same time comparing that threat to previous experiences or knowledge we might have. This is why distracting a driver can increase the risk of serious accidents by orders of magnitude because you take that system off line and it then needs time to get back online.
So here's why this was never going to work. We don't have camera's as good as human eyes and we don't have computers that can process that much data fast enough. Most of all we don't yet know how the human brain actually does what it does. So its pretty hard to write an algorithm to mimic what it does.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HEY BEN: Now for some information you're NOT TELLING everyone.
YES America and the West have been bad. I'm Australian and we have been as bad per capita as anyone and worse than most, BUT there's only 25 million of us. That said we have to lift our game just as everyone else has to.
THIS IS NOT A GAME of your country, my country that country, those countries. There are 8 Billion people on this planet and we are all in this TOGETHER and Mother Nature does NOT CARE about which flag you are waving.
Yes the Chinese lifted 800 million people out of poverty and its been one of the greatest economic achievements in human history, BUT THEY WERE SLOPPY very sloppy. For well over 20 years starting in the mid 1990s they were burning as much coal in the ground as they were in power stations. We know this because the hired German specialists to help out and the Germans made a documentary about it.
It's what happens when you are sloppy at coal mining. By the early 2000s the Chinese (according to the IEA) were burning as much coal each year as the entire human race did in the early 1970s. By the 2010s the Chinese were burning over 3,000,000,000,000 tons (3 Billion tons of coal).
Remember that C + O2 -> CO2 formula from high school? When you look at the atomic weights you find oxygen is heavier than carbon so for each ton of Carbon that is burnt you get 3-2/3rds tons of CO2. So those 3 billion tons of coal produce 11 billion tons of CO2. But with what the burnt in the ground the Chinese have been emitting over 20 billion tons of CO2 a year.
The problem is the Chinese have to shut their coal fired power stations and they AREN'T.
Do the Americans, Australians, Canadians and other have to do better, OF COURSE THEY DO.
But playing your country, my country, that country, those countries HELPS NOBODY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HEY LEX
Do you rally think anyone has time to listen to a discussion between a self absorbed narcissist trying to sell his next book versus yet another self righteous journalist for 4 seconds is worth anyone's time.
LET ALONE 4 HOURS OF IT
Lex your not stupid but this was garbage before it even started. I am actually all for letting people like Bjorn Lomborg speak so that we can then address their nonsense, but 4 hours is ridiculous.
FYI - I am an engineer with a degree in aerospace and 30+ years of control systems and automation across a variety of industries including some (but not much) coal mining and oil & gas experience. Other than those paid to lie and the few so deluded they don't they are wrong, the climate debate is over. The evidence is irrefutable (see NOAA or NASA) and none of us are much interested in any more WASTEFUL & WORTHLESS DEBATES.
1) In 4 minutes, 4 hours, 4 days or 4 years NO ONE will ever get a SOLUTION to the climate issue when the debate does not include scientists or engineers, ESPECIALLY ENGINEERS. It doesn't matter what ideas, concepts, or solutions the scientists come up with it will be engineers who have to build it and then make it work and then keep it working.
2) Nobody has plans to deny the developing world of development. In just the first 20 seconds it included Bjorn's wonderful PAID FOR by fossil fuel interests, standard trope of "look at how many people have benefited from fossil fuels and now these people want to take that away from people." Nobody is planning on taking away the benefits of modern technology from anyone, we are just want to power it in ways that don't destroy the plant.
There is nothing that infuriates engineers more than non-engineers telling the world what is and isn't possible or what they have planned. For starters engineers like technology and like making things. If we stop development we stop being engineers. If we do the development using clean energy we keep being engineers. SECOND - there is not a single journalist or economist anywhere capable of building any sort of power plant or the distribution grid or factories where stuff gets made BUT THEY ARE PLENTY OF THEM TELLING THE WHOLE WORLD HOW IT WILL GET DONE.
It really is infuriating that you think you can waste 4 hours of everyone's time with 2 clowns who can't solve a damn thing or build anything.
3) These people like Bjorn, Alex Epstein and others who play this "moral argument for fossil fuels" idiocy never mention the moral or ethical downsides. However they are very quick to point out even the most minute issue with any alternatives to fossil fuel. And yes as an engineer I know the downsides to solar and wind and nuclear.
For example: They are very quick to scare people with "radiation can kill you" or that solar doesn't work at night or that the wind doesn't always blow. They never mention that very few people have ever been harmed in nuclear incidents except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They never mention the time it takes to build a coal or gas fired power station or what it costs to maintain compared to solar or wind.
For example: They never mention the 1000s and 1000s of coal miners who've died in mining accidents like cave-ins and explosions. They never mention the 1000s and 1000s of coal miners who have died slowly and painfully from black lung which is caused by coal dust building up in their lungs. There never mention the people who suffer from respiratory disease from the air pollution created from burning fossil fuels.
For example: They never mention the lead additives used in gasoline that poisoned the entire developed world. Lead poisoning leads to things like violence and none these "moral outcome" advocates ever mention that the higher crime rates in polluted cities can be (at least in part) attributed to the fossil fuels we burn in cars.
4) Then there's the almost universal shitfuckery of Journalists and the entire media landscape. Even when they are trying to do the right things they are usually so arrogant they never check their facts, even basic facts. I just watched a preview of the soccer world cup where they got Qatar and Canada mixed up when talking about Qatar's place as a gas producer.
Do you and the rest of the media have any idea how INFURIATING you all are when you can't even get the most basic scientific or engineering facts right?
Here's a great quote from almost 200 years ago, on the subject of the quality of journalism.
“… the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
― Thomas Jefferson
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dthomas9230 Yeah I have been informally studying economics for a couple of years. Mainly listening to a lot of lectures, book talks and discussions here on YT. I'm an engineer and simply wanted to learn how to speak to economists. You see - we get a lot of interference in engineering from people waving economics degrees.
Any how - one of the recurrent themes (or memes) of neoliberalism (Reaganomics, Thatcherism,...) is unfunded tax cuts. These are tax cuts that are not matched by equivalent reductions in government spending or increases in other taxes. Famously the son of Reagans VP - Dubya gave tax cuts at the same time he started a war and people told him it takes REAL MONEY to fight a war. Yeah it didn't work out well.
One of the great fallacies of neoliberalism is the concept of trickle down economics. Its basically where they give massive tax cuts to the top 10% who then invest that money into industry and thus create jobs. Those newly employed people then pay tax making up for the tax cuts given to the wealthy.
It sounds simple and even might be considered logical. EXCEPT ITS NEVER WORKED and every time its been tried it lead to unsustainable government debt THEN a depression AND THEN a war or revolution.
Its because of one very simple fact.
Wealthy people DO NOT invest in economic growth they invest in profit growth. As Milton Friedman said "There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits..." Governments are the opposite. They invest (with some exceptions) in social growth - education, infrastructure, power stations, new technologies,...
Its a distinction that to my engineering brain is obvious but I have NOT SEEN 1 economist voice that distinction. This is why there's the growing wealth gap, soaring energy prices, soaring food prices, soaring education costs,.... and on top of all that heaps of social unrest. All the neoliberal economists are trying it shut down government functionality when in fact they actually need government functionality because it feeds them resources like a trained, healthy, productive workforce who aren't wanting to hang the CEO.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS engineer here:
This is WHY I KNOW FSD (full self driving) is a false and misleading concept at least for the moment.
AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS LONGISH.
FYI - My degree was in aerospace but I have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. That has included working with many sensor systems including laser scanning systems. Although I don't work with vision systems I was introduced to the basics of vision systems in 1998 and am fully aware of many of the advancements in that area.
The actual problem with FSD is the amount of information that needs to be processed.
As human beings we just don't realise how much information our visual cortex processes every second and that's because most of it is processed by our peripheral system which is NOT part of our general conscious. Its all there in our periphery and we aren't focussing on it. Our peripheral system is extraordinary at clumping things together and dismissing irrelevant clumps while alerting our conscious system of potential threats or items of interest.
For example we don't see a 100,000 leaves attached to 1,000s branches attached to a trunk connected to a root system we see a tree. We don't see several million yellowish hairs covering 4 legs a body, a tail, a head, big teeth and an even bigger set of fangs we see a lion. Out on the African savannah people don't see millions of blades of grass, 1,000s and 1,000s of antelope, wildebeests, birds, insects and other wild life. OUR BRAIN via our peripheral system filters out the noise and will latch onto that 1 lion out of all those millions and millions of items in our visual range and SCREAM "that's a threat."
Similarly when driving a car down the average suburban street we see but don't focus on the millions of leaves - we see the trees and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see don't see all the nuts, bolts, sheets of glass, sheet metal, paint and rubber - we see parked cars and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see the bricks, boards, windows, window frames, paint - we see houses and dismiss them as NOT a threat. BUT WE DO SEE the bouncing ball coming down a driveway and our peripheral system SCREAMS that there's a dog or a child chasing after that ball OR we'll see a flash of something else and our peripheral system will alert our conscious brain to be aware of it. Like we'll suddenly notice one of the parked cars just moved.
This is what our peripheral system does with incredible speed. It processes a staggering mass of data every second and compares it to previous seconds and then filters out all the noise. This is why certain players in team sports seem so amazing in how they can suddenly pass to another player in a way that asks "How did they see them?" The answer is they are people whose peripheral system just operates better than average and in some rare cases a lot better.
NOW TRY AND CONSIDER HOW YOU MIGHT GET A COMPUTER TO DO THAT????
Remember no 2 trees are the same, and no 2 cars are ever parked the same, and no 2 houses are the same PLUS no 2 streets are the same anywhere on the planet. There's always something different. NOW CONSIDER that the perspective (as in the visual angles) on that scene is changing every second because your car is MOVING. You now have to process the next image and compare it to previous images to pick up that movement or notice that item that gets the wider scoping part of the system to flag an item of interest to the higher level decision making part of the system.
Suddenly you will realise that the scope of the technological task to get a computer to do what the human peripheral system does is monstrous.
Once you understand the scope of the task required to to do FSD you'll quickly realise that it MIGHT BE possible for some limited situations or MIGHT be possible once we get the visual scanning systems capable of sorting through all the noise to find those few items that need a higher level of evaluation we can't even begin the task BUT RIGHT NOW we don't have those systems because if they existed we hear all about it. We'd hear about the camera that's as good or better than a human eye and we'd hear about the processor that's as good as the human peripheral system AND NOBODY is even saying they have it under development or has made "the breakthrough".
Lets also NOT forget that a bunch of car manufacturers GAVE UP on FSD about 5 years ago. Uber sold off its FSD once they, (like the car manufacturers) realised just what it would take to do the job. This is also why, with the exception of a few tiny companies desperately trying for attention (and money) have stopped trying to build self FLYING air taxis.
Sorry if this was longish but I hope you get the gist of why it might be possible in future but NOT NOW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEROSPACE Engineer here and I've heard some similar stories regarding many technologies like:
1950 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1960 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1970 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1980 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1990 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2000 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2010 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2020 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
By chance can you guess how far away nuclear fusion will be in 2030?
I'm Australian but did my degree in America.
I was doing my degree in the late 80s and we EXPECTED to build Space Station Freedom in the 1990s and then be back on the Moon by 2001 to start setting up a lunar base that would be the start of a permanent settlement AND YES we took that date from the film.
THEN the Challenger accident happened and as we know it was because of poor decisions being made by the wrong people. That has been followed by several 1,000 poor decisions being made by the wrong people and we are no closer to a permanent lunar base than we were January 28, 1986 when Challenger happened.
I have spent the last 30+ years working across a variety of industries doing industrial control systems and trying quietly to learn from these industries how we might do stuff on the moon.
So long as we have the combination of the wrong people making bad decisions in combination with the unrealistic promotions (and at least Cold Fusion does but "providers" into the story) of effectively vacant over rated (and often over hyped) "future technologies" that will re-shape humanity we wont (as a species) move forward because too many of the basic things like food, shelter, clean water, clean energy and a few other things are NOT DEALT WITH as a priority.
I have spent most of the last 20 years working on construction mines in remote locations because it presents the same sorts of issues building a lunar base has. Everything is at least 3 days away, the environment is hostile and you have to build all the basic infrastructure any modern society needs including housing, food storage, food prep, clean water, waste water, power (including power distribution), roads and very importantly workshops for maintenance.
While we have story after story of the latest break though technology we are also surrounded by crumbling infrastructure. Go and look at any modern society and you will find major infrastructure issues. They might differ from country to country but we all have them. Energy infrastructure is the major issue that most have and its a serious issue because everything needs energy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The problem with these discussions is that EVERYONE involved is presenting opinion as fact, its just some are not twisting the facts. Joe Rogan , Rogan's guests, Sam Seder, Emma Vigeland and all the rest of the OPINION BASED MEDIA are all PARTS of the overall problem with emphasis on the word PARTS because there is not 1 single part to this. There are multiples of multiples of parts to this issue of opinion first facts second media.
Sorry if this looks like an essay.
I've seen that Bezmenov video numerous times and versions of it are posted on some of the most repulsive radical channels who think they are clever posting something they think is about "people people" when its actually ABOUT THEM TOO. This is Rogan's monster mistake in mentioning Yuri Bezmenov (see below). Its also Sam and Emma's problem because as another part of the opinion based media they are also part of the problem. They just aren't as much of a problem as Joe Rogan because at least they are trying to BALANCE or COUNTER BALANCE the misinformation and at least try and present facts rather than fiction. Where they are part of the problem is they cater to a specific section of society and that's one of the main issues with people like Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Fox News, etc.
All these outlets target their audience with some consistent themes and rarely ever present anything that might aggravate or turn off their audience. In the case of this channel think about how many "How dumb is Dave Rubin?" or "How narcissistic is Ben Shapiro?" or "How much of a maniac is Tim Pool or Steven Crowder?" video's do they post?
All these channels no matter how much they care about telling people TRUTH what they are actually telling people is THEIR OPINION of what is truth. Its just that some of them back up their opinions with facts that can be checked and verified as fact. Case in point the "Twitter files."
YURI BEZMONOV
For those who haven't heard who he is, go check Wikipedia for more details, but basically he claimed he was a KGB agent who defected to the west in 1970 and settled in Canada. He was later fired form his job with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by Justin Trudeau's father Pierre on a request from the Soviet Ambassador at the time. That's another interesting point on free speech.
He wrote several books and Essays using the alias Tomas David Schumann and on Wikipedia there are links to several of those works.
In 1984 he did, what is now a famous interview which (with some hunting) you can watch here on YouTube. There are also shorter excerpts posted on various channels here on YouTube several of which SOME are fairly radical Right Wing channels who think they are highlighting the problem, but failing to realise they are a major part of the problem.
The most relevant part of that Bezmenov video was where he describes the aim of what he calls "ideological subversion." In Bezmenov's own words (punctuation mine) "What do they mean by ideological subversion is. Is the slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures. Active in the language of the KGB or psychological warfare. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country."
Bezmonov was 100% RIGHT in that societies can (over time) be demoralised to the point where they cannot discern fact from fiction. Bezmenov was also 100% WRONG on the effectiveness of the Soviet efforts because as we know less than a decade later the Soviet Empire had collapsed NOT America. That's actually a great lesson for any nation. Sometimes the external enemy is less of a threat than your own political system. That should be the lesson Western Nations should have learned from but never did. We were to happy watching the Soviets collapse and declaring we'd won the Cold War. Instead we ignored the lesson and are now where we are.
FYI - I'm Australian and we haven't learned form this either. Despite our sunny outlook and beautiful beaches we have some very serious structural issues that have similarities with other issues across the rest of the Western World. Jonathan Haidt was credited with saying, "There's a cacophony where the Radical Left and Radical Right just scream at each other while the rest of us, trapped in the middle, are simply exhausted." That explains so many of our issues and why they persist. Instead of solving problems we just yell at each other about them.
Its that exhaustion that leads people to listen to people like Joe Rogan and Sam Seder without thinking or checking and just taking their words at face value. It makes manipulation of truth very easy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roberthakker5456 Yeah they have now had over 500,000 Americans, over 250,000 Brazilians, approaching 200,000 Mexicans, over 150,000 Indians, over 120,000 Brits and almost 100,000 Italians. Yeah just over 2.5 Million dead and counting is nothing we should be concerned with.
You're an idiot. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Fetidaf I all agree with that except for the general maintenance.
Outside of the engine & drivetrain there's not difference between electric, diesel, gas, hydrogen, LPG there's no difference between vehicle types.
That's one of the bullshit things regarding the push to electric vehicles. The cost of chassis, wheels, suspension, BRAKES, windscreens, door, lights,.. etc wont change. The Greenies also don't take into consideration the CO2 emissions regarding all those raw materials in a car or the production of components from those raw materials. And before you ask I used to build automated manufacturing cells for car parts in the supply chain.
If we really want to go electrical then the main push has to be in CONVERTING existing vehicles NOT replacing them.
We also need to be less concerned with trucks, power walls and mega batteries because we just don't have enough Lithium supply to do it all. We need to be looking at other batter technologies for stationary applications. Things like the Sadoway battery or the other batteries that don't use Lithium. In heavy vehicles like trucks and the giant dump trucks & diggers used in mining there's work underway in just changing the fuel over to hydrogen. Fortescue Metals in Australia is already testing that on dump trucks. Rolls Royce can supply stationary generators based based on existing diesel engines that use hydrogen as their fuel. It probably wont work for boats and ships because of the range they need. But I can see nuclear reactors taking over for the shipping industry.
1
-
@Fetidaf I don't why you think that the energy offset for a truck is a few 1000 miles.
Its little understood outside the manufacturing industries but in general your average family car consumes more energy and creates more pollution being made than it does in 20-25 years of normal driving.
I'll be honest the first time I heard that I called BS and the person telling me was actually a mechanic. He told me to FK-OFF and go look at how much goes into just making the raw steel, aluminum, plastic and glass.
Its why I say if the Greenies knew their stuff they campaign against new cars. People forget that the car industry is the biggest manufacturing industry in the world by raw materials and energy, because its doesn't just include the cars it includes all the stuff needed to make the cars. There's entire industries like industrial robots that primarily exist for car manufacturing. I know I used to program them.
Tesla's are full of metals that aren't found as much in other cars. There's a lot more copper and copper is incredibly energy intensive to refine it to where you can use it the way its used in a Tesla.
And before you ask, I have spent most of the last 20 years on mine sites. I have worked in the iron, ore, cocking coal, copper, aluminum, uranium and gold industries to name a few. One of the first mines I worked on was a copper mine that produced 99.999% pure copper. After getting it out of the ore with sulphuric acid they eventually got it into a near pure copper solution from which they electroplated it onto stainless steel sheets. That electroplating system used a lot of power.
Copper will be the next big issue in the energy transition. Like Lithium we don't produce enough. Its why people strip it out of old houses, factories and anywhere else they can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tekannon7803 I really do get where you are coming from but the reality is Australia will never have that the ability to take out retribution on anyone in Asia or the Pacific. that Asians have too much to throw at us and if we bash anyone in the Pacific we'd be a bully the world will hate.
Sorry for the long answer but I have been looking at this stuff for a while.
Ward Carroll an ex-US Navy F14-RIO (backseat Goose) has a channel here on YT. Mostly he talks about flying stuff but occasionally interviews people he knows on serious topics. One such interview recently was with a buddy about America's military budget and strategy going forward. He talks about 2 strategies - Retribution and Denial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-ArzOhSGI
Retribution is simple: If you hit us we will smash you and you wont get up. Australia just can't do that.
Denial is more complex: Its when you have enough stuff that the other guy is always DOUBTING if today is a good day to try something. Yes he knows that he can overwhelm you and take your nation, BUT AT WHAT COST. The aim is you keep them guessing and always concluding "Today's not the day."
Right now there are people in China is wondering what an invasion of Taiwan will cost. They have just spent years building their navy up, but they are also seeing what's happening in Ukraine. The Russians have all the numbers, but they have lost ships, lost 2000+ vehicles, around 1000 tanks, lots of artillery and within the first 100 days lost more men that America did in 19years of Afghanistan and Iraq combined. They were not ready for 21st century missile based warfare. The Russians have a great army for the 20th century but its not the 20th century anymore its the 21st century. The Chinese have a great navy for the 1970s maybe the 80s and possibly the 1990s, but not the 2020s.
Watch this from the BBC and check out how accurate guided artillery is. During the first Gulf war we got to see smart bombs. 30 years later we have smart shells and they are lethally accurate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTQ5ZGHV9Zs
In the first Gulf War artillery was good for about 20-25km and with accuracy measured in 10s of meters. These guided shells are good for 40km accurate to centimeters. Basically if you're in a tank and spotted by a drone and they can call in artillery its already too late to hide.
Out on the ocean, these days torpedos have ranges over 50km and can run slow and silent for most of the time before they attack. WW2 subs had maybe 10-12 torpedoes these days 20+ and some 30+ including missiles. Plus they don't need to fire 3 or 4 torpedoes at each ship just 1.
No doubt if China wants Taiwan there's almost NOTHING that can stop them except the cost. They have to be willing to lose dozens of ships and maybe an aircraft carrier as well as 100+ fighter jets. They'd have to pound Taiwan into submission, possibly flattening the microchip factories. Who's going to deal with China if they smash the worlds microchip supply for 3-5 years? We'd just build our own factories and then what's the point of taking Taiwan? What do they get for all that cost and all that pain?
So for Australia going forward its not a matter of what we can throw back - that's pointless because they can all throw more at us than we can at them. Its a matter of having people think "Today's not the day, because it will cost too much."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sunspot42 You're clearly NOT and engineer and have no idea what it actually takes to make a modern technological society FUNCTION.
You obviously have no idea how energy is produced or consumed by a modern society because you can't see beyond your own front door. Don't panic most people have NO IDEA of where their electricity or water come from or where their waste water goes. Domestic household consumption of energy and water is nothing compared to industry. Most people cannot even begin to comprehend what's needed just so you can have a bottle of milk in your fridge.
This is one of my giant bugs with economists. They know how markets work and what societies consume, but they have no idea how things are produced or delivered. This is why our energy grids are failing, fresh water systems are failing, waste water systems failing and all the rest of our infrastructure is breaking.
None of the people making decisions or those holding the microphone have a clue.
The idea that we can put solar panels on everyone's rooftops and the worlds problems will magically vanish is a fantasy. You forget we still have to dig the minerals out of the ground, process them into raw stock, process them into solar cells and then install them into solar panels. After that they can be installed on your roof. BUT THEN there's the system to get it into your home. That includes multiple supply and manufacturing systems for the wires to the inverter, the wires from the inverter and all the rest of the energy system in your house. Because people don't see the wires in their walls they don't even realise they exist most of the time.
I live in Australia. Do you know how many products I can by here that have no industrial energy or water input? ONE and that's our genuine native arts & crafts.
Everything from the food you eat, the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the bike you ride, the computer you use has to be dug from the ground, processed in to raw materials and then made into stuff you buy.
Anything in your life that has metal, glass, plastics, paper,...etc involved industrial processes that requires energy.
For an engineer its actually infuriating how ignorant the general population is of what it takes to provide all these things the rest of society takes for granted. I don't blame the Morlocks from eating the Eloi.
1
-
@maryhackney3545 Good explanations across the board.
I'm actually Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s. I was there when Walker was in his pro-career. I also played 6 seasons of American football back here in Australia so I know full well how brutal the contact can be and we were no where near what he got in the NFL. I played rugby in high school and there's no comparison.
I was also in America when another President everyone prefers to ignore these days, Ronald Reagan, was in obvious decline. The thing was NOBODY, wanted to acknowledge it and the entire planet knew it. The last 3 years of his second term they kept him wrapped in cotton wool with Bush Snr in charge and the whole world knew that too. Even when I got back to Australia, everyone knew but even our government refused to say it out loud, BECAUSE FINALLY the cold war was over.
I have very seriously angered a lot of Democrat supporters by saying Biden is NOT the President America needs right now. YES getting rid of Trump was necessary but in terms of dealing with America's problems NO. Even at his best Biden was never the answer or solution America needs. In decline there's even less chance.
Going back onto the subject of Biden's decline.
The reason I don't like people simply saying Biden has dementia is because just as we didn't know what Reagans actual issue was, we don't know what Biden's is either. BECAUSE none of us are privy to his medical records. We eventually found out what Reagan's issue was because they couldn't hide it, but by that time he was well out of office and the cold war was over so nobody cared.
We'll eventually find out the truth about Biden because it will get to a time when they can't deny it, just like it did with Reagan. In the meantime I hope it doesn't break America, because that isn't good for anyone.
What so many Americans don't get is that because of the trade and security arrangements and how it all works anything bad that happens to America is bad for the rest of us, but the inverse isn't true. For instance - if any of the worlds stock markets throws a tantrum it has effects and sometimes its bad. But nothing is like what happens when the NYSE throws a tantrum. When that happens it reverberates around the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hate to bust everyone's balls, but:
WHEN Bush & Cheney can invade a country unlawfully and end up getting a million people killed and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN people like Donald Rumsfeld and those underneath him can order the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN John Bolton can ADMIT PUBLICLY to staging coups and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Obama can use drone strikes in countries he has NO AUTHORITY in and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can wind up the drone strikes including the one in Syria where he had NO AUTHORITY and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can assassinate an Iranian General when he has NO AUTHORITY to do it and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can stage an attempted coup and OVERTHROW the US Government and is NOT arrested, NOT charged and NOT held accountable.
What makes you think any American can hold a Foreign Leader like Bibi Netanyahu accountable?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Congrats you've realised this is YET ANOTHER full of shite YouTuber with YET ANOTHER full of shite video.
I'm an aerospace engineer and what I hate (and I really do mean swing a baseball bat hate) about these people is the amount of crap REAL ENGINEERS now have to explain away afterwards. I've just spent YET MORE TIME explaining to people why Jeff Bezos claim of moving all of Earth's heavy industry to low earth orbit is IMPOSSIBLE.
Its pretty simple if you just consider the worlds iron supply which starts with over 3,000,000,000 (3 billion) tons of iron ore that produces around 2,100,000,000 tons of iron & steel. Not only do you have to lift that to orbit but then also bring it back down which requires the equivalent of 150,000,000 (150 million) space shuttle flights a year. AND THAT'S JUST the iron after that is nickel, copper, tin, aluminium, zinc and all the other stuff.
If you're and engineer or other STEM person this garbage is infuriating, but then we have billionaires fuelling a lot of it. Jeff Bezos isn't alone as Elon Musk is even worse and after him are the other tech billionaires and tech conglomerates.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NomadSoul76 Karl Polanyi who Mark Blyth quotes all the time said (in effect) you cannot allow the markets to turn humans labor into a commodity like you can with so many things because THEY ARE HUMAN. You would basically destroy society/civilisation and yet that is what we have basically done.
“...To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society. For the alleged commodity, "labor power" cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man's labor power the system would, incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity of "man" attached to the tag. Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the the effects of social exposure; they would die as the victims of acute social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime, and starvation. Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rovers polluted, military safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed...”
― Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
And anyone who reads your comment should think long and hard on what its based on and then look at the evidence of what it has delivered.
1) The claim that governments can't do anything right comes straight from the mind of Milton Freidman who for some inexplicable reason was regarded as smart. He wasn't he was an IGN0RANT CLOWN of epic proportions. There's a fantastic interview where Phil Donahue challenges Freidman on his basic claim that "greed is good." Freidman claimed that all innovation is driven by greed.
The problem with that is the greatest single project in human history for driving innovation the Apollo program had been successful. In Kennedy's famous speech announcing the plan to send a man to the Moon safely return him to the Earth the end of the decade INCLUDED remarks about developing methods and materials not even under consideration at the time.
Out of Apollo came miniaturised electronics, practical digital computers, many alloys, many other materials including Teflon... etc. By the late 80s every dollar spent during Apollo had been returned over 9 times via taxes on wages and profits from companies exploiting Apollo spin-off technologies. That came out in a report following the Challenger disaster. I know about that because I'm an aerospace engineer.
Other than that there's the incredible success of public education programs, public health care systems, road, bridges and other infrastructure all of which has enabled the private sector to grow and make money.
Simple fact governments can do great things and can run economies. Its a matter of electing people who are competent rather than the clown brigades to many nations elect.
2) The claim that modern economics has delivered tremendous growth, wealth and prosperity is also bunk (to say the least). The correct way to describe neoliberal economics is that it has delivered tremendous growth, wealth and prosperity FOR SOME while leaving large slabs of society broken.
In late 2022 Bernie Sanders had a report commissioned by the Congressional Budget Office on family wealth. It clearly showed that the Top 10% of America have done well, the Middle 40% of America have done O.k. while the bottom 50% have been utterly smashed and pulverised economically. If you extrapolate that information to the rest of the developed world where there are approximately 1.2 Billion people then what neoliberalism has done is throw around 600 million people under the economic bus like ahs happened to most of the other 6.8 Billion people on the planet while around 120 million people (~1.5% of the human race) has made enough money and gained enough wealth to afford to pay for the environmental damage they have done making that money.
Those 2 things alone should get people like yourself to SHUT UP or WAKE UP, but your so called correction of money and debt is one of the stupidest explanations I have seen yet.
Anyone who's read this far please go and watch Gary Stevenson's video on "What is Money."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I did aerospace engineering and back in 1987 we had an alum from NASA who did a guest lecture on Friday. He'd just completed a preliminary study into terraforming Mars and the answer was forget it.
Here's a slightly longer explanation. Sorry for the math.
What this NASA guy introduced us to was what I now call "Planetary Mechanics" which is how much stuff do you need. The sister to that is "Planetary Dynamics" which is how do you make stuff like water cycles and gas cycles and ocean currents work.
So how much Earth normal air would you need?
Sorry for the math.
Mars has a surface area of 144,370,000 km²
If you just wanted a 1 km thick layer of Earth standard air on an object that big its easy to approximate it as enough big cubes of air to cover and that's easy because you just change area to volume and you have 144,370,000 km³ of air. Earth standard air weighs 1.2kg/m³. To work out what that 144,370,000 km³ weighs in metric tons you add 9 zeros to convert m³ to km³ and then take off 3 zeros to convert kilograms to tons.
Yes this is why engineers like metric.
Finally you multiply by 1.2 because its 1.2 kg/m³
And then you get 173,244,000,000,000 tons of Earth standard air.
Yes that's a bit over 173 TRILLION tons of air.
The simple question is where are you going to find that much air. That's before you ask anything like how are you going to get it there or keep it attached tot he planet because Mars has only 1/3rd of Earths gravity and n magnetic field to stop the solar wind stripping it away.
There was this one bright spark who recently told me we'd only need the Oxygen (as in 1/5th) 🤔🤔
So I asked him where he thought he could get 34.6 TRILLION tons of Oxygen?
Now I will grant its not technically impossible, but unless you really do have God like powers, it is like trying to build a 1 to 1 scale model of Mount Everest out of Lego.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: And for a coincidence I grew up in Warragul down the road from Traralgon.
The simple answer is NO.
In fact most people cannot even grasp the scale of the planet we live on. A while back I heard the claim that the Earth is so smooth that if you had a scale model of the Earth the size of a Billiard Ball you would not be able to feel Mt Everest. So I did the math.
The Earth has a mean radius of 6371km (or 12742km average diameter).
So if you had a scale model of the Earth with a 1m diameter it would be a 1:12,742,000 model.
Everest is 8,848.86m high and on that 1m scale Earth it would be 0.00069m or less than 1mm high.
The standard snooker ball is 52.5 mm (2+1⁄16 in)
And on that ball Everest would be about 1/19th of that or close to 0.000036 0R 0.036 mm.
So Yeah you might have trouble feeling for Mt Everest on a scale model of the Earth that's the size of a Snooker ball.
Sorry if the rest of this is lengthy but this issue with people understanding the size of the Earth isn't new to me.
I did my degree in America (U. of Illinois) and in my final year (1987) we used to have guest lectures. One of them was an alum who'd worked at NASA and had just completed a study of what it would take to terraform Mars. Considering that at the stage (despite the Challenger accident) we all expected to build Space Station Freedom and then go to the Moon by 2001 we also expected to go onto Mars after that. We were excited to hear this.
His opening was "Sorry but its impossible and here's why!"
He then introduced us to what I know call "Planetary Mechanics" and "Planetary Dynamics."
Planetary Mechanics are the straight forward calculations of what's needed. These are things like how much Earth standard air would we need to terraform Mars (and its a lot). Then considering Mars is about -60C what it would take to heat that much air from -60C to say +20C. These are all things we can calculate. Its just they are big numbers.
Planetary Dynamics are things like water cycles, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and other gas cycles. That's the stuff that we know exists but we have NO IDEA how we could begin to make them work. Plus there's that whole issue of Mars having only 1/3rd of Earths gravity and no magnetic field to prevent the Sun from just stripping away that atmosphere. Then there's the thermodynamics of retaining enough heat from the Sun to keep mars warm enough.
Yeah BOTH Planetary Mechanics and Planetary Dynamics are subjects we aren't even beginning to discuss and its mainly because the numbers are so huge that it confuses the hell out of people.
If you just look at the first 1km of air above the worlds surface.
Going back to our 1m scale model of the Earth that's less than the thickness of a sheet of paper (0.1mm)
It represents about 500,000,000 cubic kilometers of air and its where about where about 87% of humanity lives or about 7 Billion people. The other billion people mostly live in the next 600m. Only about 6% of the worlds population lives above 1 mile (1,600m) and only about 2-3% above 2,000m
So we (the bulk of humanity) lives in a volume of about 1 Billion cubic kilometers, which sounds like a lot. But on that 1m scale model of the Earth its less thick than the thickness of 2 sheets of paper.
Going back to Mars and trying to terraform it. If you calculate how much air you'd need just to cover Mars in a layer of Earth Standard Air that's 1km thick at the same pressure you'd need 178 Trillion tons of air.
The scariest number is how much energy does it take to to raise 500,000,000 cubic kilometers of air from 20C to 21C because that gives you an idea of what we have done to the planet. Its a bad number to discuss because most people cannot grasp just how big the planet is.
Derek - If you'd like to do a video where we go over some of these things let me know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@idesofmarchUNIAEA No Russia is only number 8.
Production & Reserves (kilotonnes) as of 2018 (source Wilipedia)
1Australia 110,000 6,000,000
2 Guinea 82,000 7,400,000
3 China 60,000 1,000,000
4 Brazil 35,000 2,600,000
5 Indonesia 23,000 1,200,000
6 India 22,000 660,000
7Jamaica 7,700 2,000,000
8 Russia 6,100 500,000
9 Kazakhstan 5,800 160,000
10 Vietnam 4,000 3,700,000
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As far as these people being "Patriotic" please this quote from Vice POTUS Wallace who was alive when people like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin had power. Thake note of what it says about method and patriots (highlighted).
Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 “The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS engineer here:
This is WHY I KNOW FSD (full self driving) is a false and misleading concept at least for the moment.
AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS LONGISH.
FYI - My degree was in aerospace but I have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. That has included working with many sensor systems including laser scanning systems. Although I don't work with vision systems I was introduced to the basics of vision systems in 1998 and am fully aware of many of the advancements in that area.
The actual problem with FSD is the amount of information that needs to be processed.
As human beings we just don't realise how much information our visual cortex processes every second and that's because most of it is processed by our peripheral system which is NOT part of our general conscious. Its all there in our periphery and we aren't focussing on it. Our peripheral system is extraordinary at clumping things together and dismissing irrelevant clumps while alerting our conscious system of potential threats or items of interest.
For example we don't see a 100,000 leaves attached to 1,000s branches attached to a trunk connected to a root system we see a tree. We don't see several million yellowish hairs covering 4 legs a body, a tail, a head, big teeth and an even bigger set of fangs we see a lion. Out on the African savannah people don't see millions of blades of grass, 1,000s and 1,000s of antelope, wildebeests, birds, insects and other wild life. OUR BRAIN via our peripheral system filters out the noise and will latch onto that 1 lion out of all those millions and millions of items in our visual range and SCREAM "that's a threat."
Similarly when driving a car down the average suburban street we see but don't focus on the millions of leaves - we see the trees and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see don't see all the nuts, bolts, sheets of glass, sheet metal, paint and rubber - we see parked cars and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see the bricks, boards, windows, window frames, paint - we see houses and dismiss them as NOT a threat. BUT WE DO SEE the bouncing ball coming down a driveway and our peripheral system SCREAMS that there's a dog or a child chasing after that ball OR we'll see a flash of something else and our peripheral system will alert our conscious brain to be aware of it. Like we'll suddenly notice one of the parked cars just moved.
This is what our peripheral system does with incredible speed. It processes a staggering mass of data every second and compares it to previous seconds and then filters out all the noise. This is why certain players in team sports seem so amazing in how they can suddenly pass to another player in a way that asks "How did they see them?" The answer is they are people whose peripheral system just operates better than average and in some rare cases a lot better.
NOW TRY AND CONSIDER HOW YOU MIGHT GET A COMPUTER TO DO THAT????
Remember no 2 trees are the same, and no 2 cars are ever parked the same, and no 2 houses are the same PLUS no 2 streets are the same anywhere on the planet. There's always something different. NOW CONSIDER that the perspective (as in the visual angles) on that scene is changing every second because your car is MOVING. You now have to process the next image and compare it to previous images to pick up that movement or notice that item that gets the wider scoping part of the system to flag an item of interest to the higher level decision making part of the system.
Suddenly you will realise that the scope of the technological task to get a computer to do what the human peripheral system does is monstrous.
Once you understand the scope of the task required to to do FSD you'll quickly realise that it MIGHT BE possible for some limited situations or MIGHT be possible once we get the visual scanning systems capable of sorting through all the noise to find those few items that need a higher level of evaluation we can't even begin the task BUT RIGHT NOW we don't have those systems because if they existed we hear all about it. We'd hear about the camera that's as good or better than a human eye and we'd hear about the processor that's as good as the human peripheral system AND NOBODY is even saying they have it under development or has made "the breakthrough".
Lets also NOT forget that a bunch of car manufacturers GAVE UP on FSD about 5 years ago. Uber sold off its FSD once they, (like the car manufacturers) realised just what it would take to do the job. This is also why, with the exception of a few tiny companies desperately trying for attention (and money) have stopped trying to build self FLYING air taxis.
Sorry if this was longish but I hope you get the gist of why it might be possible in future but NOT NOW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm an engineer and my favorite subject is what do you have in your life that's not had an engineer involved?
I'm Australian and the only product I can point at and say "that has no engineering in it at all" is traditional native Aboriginal arts and crafts.
If it has metal, plastic or was in a factory of any sort then it needed engineering for you to obtain it. Even food - think about the tractors, processing machinery, refrigeration,.... etc. The thing is ALL OF THAT STUFF involves blue collar workers, building, maintaining and operating the machinery.
I'm one of those people who truly hates the rest of the White Collar classes. In particular the PMC (Professional Managerial Class) who I see as nothing more than worthless, arrogant, ignorant scum who actually think they know what makes modern developed societies FUNCTION. If we took most of the Lawyers, Accountants, PMCs (especially HR) and other similar types and loaded them onto the SS Titanic 2 and sailed it straight towards the nearest iceberg it would be a good start.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I hate to bust your dreams but:
WHEN Bush & Cheney can invade a country unlawfully and end up getting a million people killed and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN people like Donald Rumsfeld and those underneath him can order the torture and abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN John Bolton can ADMIT PUBLICLY to staging coups and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Obama can use drone strikes in countries he has NO AUTHORITY in and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can wind up the drone strikes including the one in Syria where he had NO AUTHORITY and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can assassinate an Iranian General when he has NO AUTHORITY to do it and NOT even be investigated, let alone arrested, let alone held accountable.
WHEN Trump can stage an attempted coup and OVERTHROW the US Government and is NOT arrested, NOT charged and NOT held accountable.
What makes you think any American can hold a Foreign Leader like Bibi Netanyahu accountable?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dreamersruleNOW At the start of this Trump declared there might be 15 cases and they would snuff it out. 300,000 bodies later and your bragging about going to the beach. Please get some perspective and understand some real facts.
Illinois (where I went to college), Indiana and Wisconsin combined have 25.2 million people which is very close to Australia's 25.6.
We have 908 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indian and Wisconsin have over 25,700
We currently have just over 1,400 active cases while Illinois, Indian and Wisconsin have over 550,000 active cases heading into winter.
Don't try and claim as other people have that we have some magic juice because we don't. We simply listened to our experts and took their advice and did as we were told.
America just went past the 300,000 fatalities. You have people STILL calling it a hoax. Nurses and Doctors are reporting they have patients claiming it can't be COVID because COVID's a hoax and some of them have died from it.
2,997 people died in the Twin Towers and America spent over 2 trillion dollars hunting down 1 man and destroyed 2 countries. 100 times as many die from a virus and all you want is to go to the F--KING BEACH. And its F--K OFF if you ask people to keep their distance and where a mask. With the attitude you have there will easily be over 400,000 dead before Biden gets to take the oath and probably 500,000 dead by the end of winter.
That's not just a tragedy that's a catastrophe all because of selfishness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm a Victorian living in Queensland and WA did the right thing. The rest of Australia pretty much did the right thing and it save lives and there's been a staggering number of LIES told before during and since.
In Early 2024 Gigi Foster the infamous economics professor who said (early in the pandemic) that we should do the Swedish thing because the elderly and inform would die anyway said on ABC QandA "At best Australia's lockdown saved 10,000 lives."
Now there's a few things about that.
FIRST - Gigi is NOT a never has been a health care expert and her claim to "just let them die" was met with scorn by other professors at her university the UNSW.
SECOND - Simply saying to let 10,000 people die is sociopathic and a sign of mental illness.
THIRD - AFTER Australia dropped its restrictions due (in part) to pressure from economists like Gigi Australia's death toll from COVID jumped from ~10,000 to over 20,000.
FOURTH - She LIED about the number 10,000. Because I had gone to university in America I was watching the numbers closely via a website that had the entire World's official data. I'd heard Gigi and others make multiple claims about how we should be like Sweden. I knew the Swedish data and how their numbers were double or triple the other Nordic countries (Norway, Finland, Denmark). I also knew Sweden's numbers were much worse than Australia. At the time Gigi claimed it only saved 10,000 (at best) had we taken her advice and done the Swedish thing and based on the Swedish result we would not have had 20,000 dead but over 70,000. How she got away with that lie was she used the average fatality rate for the World NOT the fatality rate for Sweden.
Neither Gigi Foster or any of the other LIARS like Russel Brand have ever been called out for their lies or held accountable for their actions in stirring up trouble that did result in lives being lost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexandervlaescu9901 CAN PEOPLE LIKE YOU JUST STOP
There is NOTHING easy about space and none of it is child's play.
Just stop claiming that science fiction is 100% based on fact. It isn't, even the very best science fiction has to ignore basic reality at some point.
Here's a simple FACT.
The human race right now digs up and processes just over 3,000,000,000 tons of iron ore EVERY YEAR. Yes 3 Billion tons incase you can't count that many zeros. The biggest capacity launcher currently is SLS at 130t to LEO. Jeff Bezos (yes the Amazon guy) wants to move all heavy industry to LEO so that we can use unlimited solar power and have no pollution here on Earth. Blue Origin's New Glenn has a capacity of 45t to LEO
Jeff Bezos is yet to explain how we'll make enough rockets to do 67 million New Glenn launches a year or where we'll get enough rocket fuel to do it. SLS would be better at 23 million launches a year. And if Elon somehow strapped a bunch of Starship boosters together and made a Mega Starship capable of 1,000t to LEO we'd still need 3 million launches a year.
AND THAT'S just the Iron, after that there's the Nickel, Copper, Zinc, Vanadium, Cobalt, Tin, Gold, Lead and all the other stuff the 7.8 Billion humans need every year just to keep society going.
This is some of the stuff I have been trying to tell people for several years now.
Sorry but reality sucks if you think science fiction is easy to convert into science fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rationaljudgment What you're considering is what happens when the population really snaps and starts tearing the place apart. About the only time I have seen it in America in my lifetime was after the Rodney King Trail and the cops were found Not Guilty. People compared it to the Watts riots of the 1960s (before my time) but basically people said FK-it the law does not work and they went nuts. The simple fact is that despite the fact the LA police had so many 1000 officers they were simply up against a million plus people who had started to tear the place apart.
During last years riots I saw a news piece from Boston. It started with white people lambasting the BLM people for simply tearing their own neighborhoods bits. Then they had a short interview with a black woman around 30 years of age who simply said bullshit to that. She said words to the effect that "we own nothing, we have nothing, we had no jobs, we have no future,........." Sometime after that Mark Blyth mentioned a statistic out of Boston that said the average white persons wealth was $240k while the average black persons was $8.00 as in single digit 8 dollars.
You cannot, and history tells this time and time and time again, pound the crap out of a society leaving it with nothing and not expect that one day that resentment, stress and frustration will come out with extreme aggression.
It simply does not matter what population you have, the languages, culture, principal religion,......... none of it matters if you beat the crap out of the general population its only a matter time before it blows up.
You claim it can be stopped at any time. You clearly have no idea about mob psychology and peer pressure. Once that takes over rational behavior goes out the door. Look at the shit that went on at some of the Trump rallies. After a certain point it simply doesn't matter what the orange clown says its pure mob psychology. And its damn dangerous when the clown driving that is a narcissistic sociopath who can't handle the word "NO".
Sorry but you need to realise that an enraged mob does not think it responds.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: There Trillion Tree Estimate is Wrong because its really needs to be around 8 Trillion Trees or about 1,000 trees for every person on the planet and HERE'S WHY.
I'm Australian but did my degree in America in the late 80s. During our final year we had guest lectures every month and one of those was an alumni who'd just finished a study for NASA on terraforming Mars. He started with "Its impossible!" and then explained why. He introduced us to 2 topics I now call Planetary Mechanics and Planetary Dynamics.
Planetary Dynamics are things like water cycles, the thermal cycles in the oceanic currents and the gas cycles. These are insanely complex concepts even though they we know what they are. Its how to make them work on a new planet that's the problem. But before you get that far there's the question of how much stuff you need. How much air.? How much water?
Planetary Mechanics is the straight forward calculations of stuff as in how much if this or that do I need. Its fundamentally about geometry and volumes of spheres and spherical shells. Things like how much air does it take to put a 1km thick layer of Earth Standard Air around an object the size of Mars. Forgetting issues like gravity and solar wind and just going on basic geometry its 178 Trillion Tons of air. That simple answer makes everything else mute because "Where do you get that much air?"
For the Earth there's a really simple geometry problem and it has a very convenient number. MOST (~98%) of humanity lives within a 2km thick layer of the atmosphere and by chance that layer is approximately 1 billion cubic kilometers. Even though its about 2% out just using that number of 1 Billion makes certain math problems very easy.
For example we know there's about 2.5 trillion tons of additional CO2 in the air and that number is rapidly heading towards 3 trillion tons. So in basic terms we need to process 1 billion cubic kilometers of air and REMOVE about 3 Trillion tons and then STORE IT.
Once you understand the size of the task EVERYTHING changes. All those carbon capture and storage solutions you see lauded about just don't add up. Each of those proposals fall flat on either the energy requirements and/or material requirements and/or time to implement requirements AND/OR MONETARY COSTS. Sabine says it will take a decade or longer for each tree to mature enough to where it has actually removed enough carbon to be worthwhile. What she doesn't mention is that it wall take years to extract the raw materials, then years to process them, then years to make the machines to do the CO2 capture then years to do the work needed. THEN all that machinery needs to be powered and maintained. How long will all that take and more to the point WHO'S going to pay for it.
However if you think of trees as cheap, low maintenance (especially once established) solar powered carbon pumps then you realise the issue isn't trees BUT HOW MANY TREES?
A simple an reasonable STARTING POINT IS:
If each MATURE tree traps 1-2 tons (1.5t on average) then you need about 2 Trillion trees to reach maturity. If you have a survival rate of 1 in 4 as in 1 out of every 4 saplings planted reaches maturity. Then you need about 8Trillion trees or about 1,000 trees per person.
It doesn't matter if each person actually plants 1,000 trees just so long as they are responsible for them being planted and maintained which is mostly just watering. YES getting enough water is a problem but for most trees that only lasts until the trees tap roots reach the water table and considering you expect to lose 3 out of every 4 that's NOT a problem.
After that becomes the issue of WHERE and WHAT TYPES of trees we plant. DON'T FORGET we are thinking in terms of a planetary system NOT Nation states. So we need access to large open areas that currently have few or no trees. YES that means we need to look at places like the edges of the Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula, China, the Russian Steppes, the Mongolian Steppes, the plains of America and Canada AND the inland sections of my country Australia.
YES this will not be an easy task, but NOBODY can dismiss it by saying it will need a lot of land or that it will take decades to accomplish because all of the engineering solutions will also take decades and require staggering amounts of resources.
BOTTOM LINE:
We either think about and talk about planting and looking after 8 Trillion trees or we need to start looking for a new planet to live on and considering that NOTHING has fundamentally changed in the 35+ years since I had a NASA engineer explain to me and my classmates how impossible Mars is there is no practical "other planet solution."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What does anyone expect from people who's central them is:
"We demand the Liberty to strip other people of their Liberties."
Fundamentalist ideologies NEVER WORK because they can NEVER adjust to ANYTHING they haven't considered. It doesn't matter if they are religious fundamentalists, military fundamentalists, economic fundamentalists or any other form of fundamentalist ideology. And the reason is very simple. They refuse to accept any of the things that cause them trouble even exist. Economic fundamentalists ALWAYS fail because they assume that the markets can solve any problem by SUPPLYING a solution but the concept that markets CANNOT supply a solution does NOT exist in their brains.
I'm actually an engineer who's into energy economics at the moment. It started when I discovered how precarious the Australian (my country) situation is. You see to replace all our ageing power stations is an engineering task NOT an Economic task, but Libertarian Economists can't see that.
AND SO WE ARE CLEAR - there is almost no Economists on the planet who are NOT Neoliberal Libertarians because they all do the same basic education program at university. They all study the same text books published by Harvard Press, Yale Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,...... etc or their text books are written by professors at Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,...... etc or they are written by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,...... etc. That's why Javier Milei has so many fans among Western Economists. They are all taught the same stuff and believe the same stuff. Its only a matter of how far up they have the volume knob and Milei has his wound up to 11.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
On the demonization of other countries for the sake of globalization, I think you have that a little flipped around. I don't think they are demonising countries FOR globalization but to deconstruct globalization.
America (again thanks to Trump 🤷♀🤷♂) is trying to de-globalize and that's the one policy of Trumps that Biden is running with. In fact it possible to claim, if you consider the computer chips, that Biden is even more hawkish than Trump on that subject.
On China there 's a couple of interesting things that are starting to come out. Peter Zeihan talks about their demographics and its a disaster that's slowly eating the Chinese economic model. The 1 child policy was way more successful than anyone realised and it was kept in place for way to long. Those factories full of cheap labor have a problem. As the older workers retire there's not enough younger people to replace them. Its created a labor shortage and that's caused wages to rise making China less competitive.
If you then add in what Biden has done on the microchip front and Chinese industry has a problem.
Its really quite simple after exporting jobs fore several decades America wants those jobs back in America. Because of Trump's hawkishness that's being pursued aggressively. AND it includes dragging jobs out of Europe. Sure the yanks will still buy 1,000s of Audis, BMers, Mercs and Porsches. They'll just be made & assembled in Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Texas,... There'll still be some bits made in Europe but most of it will be in America.
Never forget in America nothing wins elections more effectively than jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Henry Wallace Vice President in the New York Times, April 9, 1944 (highlights mine)
“The really dangerous American fascist... is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective, toward which all their deceit is directed, is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.
”
Here's a little known or not often discussed issue. As part of Reagans "small government" he appointed the mother of current SCOTUS Judge Neil Gorsuch as head of the EPA. She sacked inspectors and regulators and replaced a few with people from industry. It was the equivalent to dumping FBI agents into the gutter and replacing a few of them with mobsters to watch over the Mafia.
Also during the Reagan years the DOJ's ability to prosecute anti-trust cases was effectively castrated. That's how America produced tech monopolies like Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google, etc. as well as the "Too big to fail" Wall Street monopolies. How many of you know that between them Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street now own 20% of the S&P 500? yeah that means those 3 companies have people on EVERY board of the S&P 500. They don't just know about decisions being made before the market knows they are MAKING those decisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@commonsenseskeptic Great point.
I did aerospace engineering at U. Illinois where Eberhard went and from an engineering point Musk is a clown. BUT he's also a clown who can identify technology that he can exploit. Occasionally he picks a real genuine winner like he did it at Paypal, did it with SpaceX and did it with Tesla.
I know you don't think too highly of Gwynne Shotwell because she works for Elon and a couple of her comments have been Elon like. You pointed out that she made a comment about that rockets won't be considered truly reusable until we can use them like aeroplanes. You were quite right that's totally unrealistic for the types of rockets now in use, but did you know that XCOR built a rocket powered aircraft for the proposed rocket racing league that flew 7 times in one day. I think XCOR was a company a smarter version of Jeff Bezos should have bought for the expertise and experience.
So going back to Gwynne Shotwell's comment. Its easy to read it (as her being part of Elon enterprises) as "this is what we'll be doing next week" except she doesn't promise that she's just pointing out what it would mean to be truly reusable.
Further if I was grading SpaceX I'd give them a C or C+. They have built Falcon up to man rated and they have got Crew Dragon working. They are resupplying the ISS and swapping crews at the ISS. BUT in reality they have taken 20years to do an upgraded version of Apollo. Is it better than Apollo? ABSOLUTELY. Its reusable carries and extra body and compared to Soyuz at $90M USD per seat to $70M USD for 4 seats its a massive saving in cost.
But Falcon is still only a C+ at best. Its got some innovation but its not ground breaking.
HOWEVER compare to everyone else is magic. Sierra and others have been doing development for decades, promising the universe and going not much of anywhere. If you consider how much money Boeing has had spoon fed to them by congress they should have, built a moon base, landed on Mars and be ready for the first manned mission to Jupiter by now. On the normal A to F scale Boeing are somewhere south of G. The only reason they might get an F- is that at least the last attempt at Starliner wasn't a complete failure.
Don't get me started on SLS, that's going to go down as one of the worst conceived and managed engineering projects in history. The idea of reusing space shuttle tech was sound but NOTHING after that point was sound, sensible, rational, logical, reasonable, justifiable or much anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nzajflynn Sorry for the long answer but to answer that you need to understand where he sits in the American political spectrum. FIRST and most importantly America does not have a left and right like the rest of the world does. It has 2 very similar but opposed ideologies. They are like the sides to a coin or an imperfect mirror image.
On one side are the Liberals who believe that liberty comes from limits imposed by regulations. THese peopel are most closely associated with the Democrats.
On the other side are the Realists that we most often hear as Libertarians or Neocons and associate with Republicans. They believe liberty comes from not having a small government with almost no regulations. The character Ron Swanson (from Parks & Recreation) sums it up perfectly 20seconds into this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQwe6fV-teo
Mearsheimer isn't simply a Realist he's basically the father of "offensive realism" which is an even more narcissistic form of realism than normal that we saw from the Neocons. He's a professor at the University of Chicago which is where the Necons were created. Its also where Milton Friedman taught for decades. Its one of what I call the Ugly Triumvirate of American Education - Harvard, Yale and U. Chicago. they have an incredible amount of influence over world affairs. there people are found in politics EVERYWHERE. Both Clintons - Yale, both Obama's Harvard, Ted Cruz Harvard, 14 of the last 18 SCOTUS judges Harvard or Yale and the next SCOTUS judge is also Harvard.
Of those 3 universities U. Chicago is the least known, because that's how it operates, but its where the ideologies are formulated. Whether you want to call it Reaganomics, Thatcherism, Globalization or Neo-Liberalism it came out of U. Chicago, while its most fervent adherents and those who run Wall St and the rest of the global money supply are out of Harvard and to a lesser extent Yale. I'm Australian and they have a huge amount of influence here. The guy who built our privatised water market that's been a disaster is referred to as a "renowned Harvard graduate" Our water market is just like the Texas energy market when its working they are the first to stand up and tell everyone how clever they are. When its not working they are the first to stand up and blame others.
The politics of the Neocons also came out of U. Chicago and no matter if Mearsheimer was for or against the Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan it was the people on HIS SIDE of American politics, the ones we know as the Neocons, Libertarians and Republicans, that took the world into those conflicts.
And all they have done since is blame others for why it failed.
That's what I hold against people like Mearsheimer. They are great at pointing out the failures of others and great at praising themselves when their stuff works, but damn awful at blaming others when their stuff fails.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because he, Kari Lake, Mike Lindell and others are tapping into the FRUSTRATION people have with main stream establishment parties.
Sorry if this is a but longer.
A coupe of weeks ago Richard Wolff (David's old professor) mentioned a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on FAMILY WEALTH. Its easy to find with google with a search for "congressional budget office family wealth."
What it says is damning and if you ask why David, Jessie, Sam Seder, Kyle Kulinski and all the other Lefty commentators are NOT howling about this report, I have no idea why.
The very first graph of that report compares the wealth of the top 10%, middle 40% and bottom 50% of America from 1989 to 2019. The bottom 50% of America has effectively gone nowhere in terms of family wealth while the middle class has had reasonable growth while the top 10% have soared.
I crunched some of the basic data of that first graph and looked at the recoveries from the GFC. Comparing what they lost after 2007 and comparing it to the 2019 valuation. ON AVERAGE:
The Top 10% lost 11.1% in the GFC but have since recovered to be 21.7% ahead of where they were in 2007.
The Middle 40% lost 13.6% in the GFC but have since recovered to be 4.6% ahead of where they were in 2007.
The Bottom 50% lost 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC and have so far recovered some of that but are still 21.8% BELOW their 2007 valuation.
That means 165 million Americans are NOT even back to where they were in 2007, while another 132 million Americans have only just recovered. This data is out of the Congressional Budget Office so there is no denying the reliability of the data.
That's where a lot of the frustration that people like Kari Lake, Steve Bannon, Mike Lindell and others tap into.
This is also where AOC, Marianne Williamson, Bernie Sanders, etc get their support from.
When main stream establishment political parties FAIL to address real issues for real people those people will turn to others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree except its a little overly simplistic, but then in 3 short sentences you've summed up politics fairly well.
The problem is humanity has such variety that to try and sum it up this simply is nigh impossible.
Trying to be a bit more specific to politics and I only know about these things because a very good friend was involved in student politics for some time. What killed his political ambitions was how his mentor was felled. His mentor was a person with good intentions and even rarer for politics a person with ethics. Because of his ethics he was crushed. My friend realised that ethics in politics is not a knife you can use to cut through and make change, it is actually the knife others will snatch from your hand and stab you with.
Here's how I'd add to your statement.
The problem in politics are the differences between the 3 basic types of politicians those with good intentions, those with bad intentions and the rest with few intentions other than keeping their job. Surrounding politics is the media who have no other intention than getting attention.
People with good intentions in politics want to change the system to be more equitable or at least better for the majority of people. Because its impossible to make everyone happy either one of 2 things happens. They compromise to the extent they cannot do anything of substance. Alternatively if they do take a stand then they get labelled as dismissive of other peoples concerns destroying their claim of good intentions. Either way they're doomed because in the end their compromises eat away at their core values or they are destroyed by enemies.
People with bad intentions in politics will simply undermine or obstruct anything that does not specifically benefit them. Due to their narcissism they are willing to destroy any and every institution that society has developed even ones that in general help them. There is no such thing as a bad decision in their mind there are only decisions that don't help them as much as others.
People who have no or few intentions in politics other than to keep their job are actually the worst because nobody can rely on them. They avoid attention and accountability at all costs, voting only on subjects where they can hide in the background. These are the worst of all politicians as they rarely support those with good intentions even when what's on offer benefits people because they fear one thing above all else, and that's the wrath of those with bad intentions.
As for the media in politics they are either vile, compromised, heartless, mindless, ridiculous, hopeless, soulless, amoral, unethical or a combination of these things. They howl about the "publics right to know" as they filter out any detail that does not fit the narrative they are presenting. They will report that black is white and white is black as comfortably as they report that 1+1=3 is scientifically correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ROBERT - Sorry but I am going to give you an answer you wont like.
ITS YOU AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO ARE THE PROBLEM
I'm an Australian aerospace engineer, educated in America who works in industrial control systems which are the sensor & computer system that run things like power stations, water treatment plants and factories. I work with a lot of electricians, welders, machinists and semi-skilled laborers.
THEY UTTERLY HATE PEOPLE LIKE YOU with real emphasis on the word LIKE. Its not you specifically or personally but its people like economists, bankers, lawyers,.... which includes the people in government or who ADVISE government.
The working class hate College and University educated clowns who look down on them with a passion you can't imagine because NO MATTER WHO THEY VOTE FOR the economists, consultants and lawyers step in and make sure the STATUS QUO stays in place. When people vote in a different government they are actually voting for change. How do you think they feel when NOTHING CHANGES????
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan (which feels weird).
Economists are NOT the solution. Economists are the problem.
I discovered how much economists interfere when I looked into Australia's Energy industry after a small consulting project in 2016. The energy crisis which is only going to get much worse is 100% the fault of economists. The stupid claim that the "free market is the solution to everything" is just nonsense. Thanks to the work of people like Mark Blyth, Steve Keen, Steph Kelton, Gary Stevenson and others I can now explain what ECONOMISTS HAVE DONE.
They never understood how energy systems operate or how they need to be maintained. The same can be said for water systems, mining, manufacturing and I have worked in those industries. Trying to explain how these systems work to an economist is almost impossible because of how braindead they are. There's a pervasive and insane concept among economists that Mark Blyth has pointed out several times. "Economists see everyone else as problems they have to manage."
What do you think happens when clowns with that sort of ideology start dominating the decision processes in industries like health care, education, infrastructure and energy that they have no training in or understanding of?
If you want to talk about this let me know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stambo1983 I could not agree more.
A while back Kyle did a short video regarding a report in Politico on a Congressional Budget Office report on family Wealth. Its easy to find just google it. Its report number 57598.
I know that report maybe as much as anyone because I am one of the very few people who comments on it let alone analyses what's in it AND ITS DAMNING. I first heard about this report months before Kyles comments when Richard Wolff mentioned it. The report was commissioned by Bernie Sanders and is an update of an earlier report that only went up to 2013.
Since I first became aware of this report only 3 times (as far as I know) has anyone in the media mentioned it - Richard Wolff, Politico & Kyle. That blows my mind because of how explosive it is and its not just explosive to America the same sort of data comes out of almost any developed nation especially those that are Western Neoliberal economies. So it might be about America but it also condemns countries like Britain, Japan, Canada, Canada, Australia and it condemns BOTH sides of politics including the Democrats, Republicans, British Tories, British Labor, Australian Labor, Australian Liberals......... etc. Left or Right they stand condemned because they all run some variation of neoliberal economics. *WHY nobody in the media slams this report across the faces of politicians, bankers and economists is a puzzle to me?
HERE'S THE CRUX OF IT and I apologise for the length of this.
The very first graph looks horrendous because just on a first glance it show the wealthy getting insanely MORE wealthy while the bottom 1/2 are going nowhere and the middle struggles. NOTE that light brown band at the top (Top 10%) has 1/4 the number of people the brown band below it (Middle 40%) and 1/5th the number of people as the shite brown smudge (Bottom 50%) across the bottom.
BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN 1/2 the STORY.
If you compare 2010 to 2007 you get the effects of the GFC.
if you compare 2019 to 2007 you can see how these groups recovered after the GFC.
The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were over 21% UP compared to 2007.
The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% UP compared to 2007.
The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL DOWN over 20%.
YES by 2019 the people who caused the GFC had not only recovered which is no surprise from the money Bush and Obama gave them, but were collectively up by over $20 Trillion (with a 'T') while the people who's lives they smashed and were not bailed out had NOT YET RECOVERED.
Even just as crazy a fact is the Top 10% did better under Obama than they did under Trump.
During Obama's last 3 years (2013-2016) the Top 10% accumulated $18.3 Trillion
During Trump's first 3 years (2016-2019) the Top 10% accumulated only $3.6 Trillion
Comparing the same years for the Middle 40%
2013-2016 they accumulated $3.9T compared to 2016-2019 $1.3T
For the Bottom 50% which is where many of Trumps base is.
2013-2016 they accumulated $0.4T compared to 2016-2019 $0.4T
The amazing thing about this is that the pro-business Republicans didn't do so well for there corporate funders under Trump but those corporate funders did real well under Obama. If anything Obama was even more pro-business because he helped the Top 10% do so well. In just those 3 years they ADDED to the existing wealth almost 8x what the Bottom 50% had in total.
FYI - Obama went to Harvard the world centre of GREED EDUCATION.
He then lectured at the University of Chicago the world centre of GREED IDEOLOGY.
I call that one graph the "graph of graphs" because it tells the true story of neoliberal economics. People can BS on about GDP figures but wealth is the true indicator of how society is going.
FYI - I am actually an Australian Engineer who did aerospace engineering in America which is why I have a soft spot for America. I have taken to looking at economics because of the energy crisis which is way worse than most people know and that its caused by neoliberal economists influencing politics. Luckily there's economists like Steve Keen and Gary Stevenson who are effectively "Rebel Economists." They both have YouTube channels that I recommend to everyone.
Again sorry for the length of the comment but I think your one of those few people who will appreciate it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheeQuirkyPanda You're mostly right. Even though the type of corruption changes from country to country corruption is still corruption.
Anyway you look at it corruption is where one part of the population operates outside the rules that are enforced on the rest of the population to the detriment of the rest of the population. That simple reality doesn't change the mechanism used does.
One thing that has bothered me a lot on recent years is the corruption of the refugee system. That's come from multiple directions with people with some unusual motivations. There's a huge problem with that corruption. Its stripping many countries of the ability to develop. I'm an engineer and I argue with people all the time that we need to stop taking refugees on a permanent basis because its stripping countries of the people they need.
I know what it takes to build things. I have spent most of the last 20 years building remote mine sites. That means building the camp where people live so other than the mine it includes a lot of the same infrastructure any town needs - power, water, sewerage, food storage, transportation, fuel storage,... etc. That all takes a broad of people of many backgrounds and skills. To do it requires not just a lot of engineering but the people out in the field doing the actual work - plumbers, electricians, builders, welders, digger operators, crane operators, truck drivers,... Its a long list of trained skills.
Then we also have issues with allowing students to come to Australia often paid for by the nations they came from and then we let them stay because they fill a gap we have. That's part of the corruption in our Universities. Instead of spending our money to educate our people we make money having someone else pay to send their people here and then we keep them gaining skilled workers that others paid for and depriving those nations of skills they need.
So the corruption in parts of our nation does effect other nations. It might not be obvious but the links are there if you look.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To ALL I was checking something the other day.
Just after Trump lost the 2020 election he ordered/allowed the execution of 3 Federal prisoners. It was very unusual because it was the first time in over 140 years a president had ordered or allowed anyone during the Lame Duck period. There is no law it just became tradition to leave it to the incoming President.
What I found were 2 extraordinary facts.
1) After the riots of January 6th Trump had or allowed 3 more executions on January 13, 14 and 16 of 2021. yes in the post January 6th turmoil when there was no effective government 3 people were actually executed and we KNOW trump had the 3 in November and December killed because he told everyone he did it.
2) Between July 14, 2021 and September 24, 2021 Trump had or allowed 7 executions to take place. There is no doubt that some of those crimes were horrendous and justice might well be served by executing those perpetrators.
Since the resumption of executions in 1976 the US Federal Government has only executed 16 people. Mostly its done by the states. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Obama and Biden COMBINED had NOBODY executed. Bush Junior executed 3, one of whom was Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma Bomber. Those 3 happened in June 2001, June 2001 and March 2003 so were nowhere near the election campaign for 2004.
Trump did not execute anyone until July 2020 when the campaign was underway. In fact 1 happened during the GOP convention on August 26th and another the day after the convention on August 28th.
The timing is bizarre and leads to only one conclusion - Donald Trump had 7 people executed to help win the election as his campaign faltered over his mishandling of COVID, and when that failed he lashed out and had 6 more people killed.
WHY NOBODY IN THE MEDIA IS POINTING THIS OUT IS A MYSTERY.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@someguy2135 Well going to America as I did, which was for several years (not just a semester) opened my eyes to how Australia looked from the outside.
From my later experiences with American in Australia it seems to take about 1-1/2 years and then suddenly people start realising things. We all tend to think our country is A, B, C... as we also ignore X, Y & Z.
EVERYONE does it. Most never realise we live in these bubbles until we spend enough time outside our bubble to realise our bubble really is a bubble.
Its one of the monster problems with federal capitals like Washington, Ottawa, Canberra, London, Moscow, Beijing, Brussels,.... We all complain about the clowns who live & work in those places and think they know everything and actually know squat.
I was in Canada a few years ago and every time they spoke about Ottawa it was like an echo about how we speak about Canberra and Americans talk about Washington.
🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's the crazier aspect to this.
Even if the Ukrainians could get 10 Chally 2s and be properly trained and have their support teams properly trained, they'd be up against several 1000 Russian tanks. Yes they are mostly older lesser tank variants, BUT.
I remember a documentary comparing the Sherman and Tiger tanks. It even included interviews with WW2 vets from BOTH SIDES. Typically if they didn't send at least 7 Shermans after each Tiger it wasn't a contest. Not until the Shermans got the more powerful main gun where they capable against Tigers. BUT THEY CONCLUDED the Sherman was more effective because they could bring so many that they could OVERWHELM the Tigers.
YES there is a giant question as to how many tanks the Russians can actually deploy, BUT
According to Wikipedia 447 Chally 2s have been built and about 3,600 Leopard 2s while the Russians have:
800 T62s with 1,200 in reserve
2,030 T72s with 7,000 in reserve
480 T80s with 3,000 in reserve
417 T90s with 200 in reserve
And maybe 100 T14 Armatas
And that's before we get to the more than 10,000 BMPs the Russians have as well as over 6,000 artillery pieces and over 6,000 self propelled artillery units.
The real question is how much can the Russians actually bring to the fight and how quickly using the Western supplied hardware can the Ukrainians knock stuff out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maxpowers123 I'm SORRY I didn't realise we were including IGNORANT M0R0NS today.
So let me explain some things.
FIRST - I am an aerospace engineer and during my final semester we had a guest lecturer one Friday who worked for NASA and had just completed a study for NASA on the what it would take to terraform Mars. He told us some blunt truths that aren't in the science fiction books.
This is one of the basics - How much air would you need for a 1km thick Earth Compatible atmosphere?
The surface of Mars is 144,370,000 km² and that means the volume of a 1km thick layer of air has a volume very close to 144,370,000 km³. For a planet its within 1%.
A cubic meter of standard Earth air weighs 1.2kg. and there's 1,000,000,000m³ in each 1 km³
In metric tons that 1,200,000 tons of air per km³ and you need 144,370,000 of them.
So when you can explain where Elon is going to find 173 TRILLION TONS of air then you might be considered something other than a M0R0N.
AND THAT'S BEFORE we work out how to hold that much air to a planet with only 1/9th the mass of Earth.
AND THAT'S BEFORE Elon magically explains how they will make any of the basic cycles start working. Like a water cycle, an oxygen cycle, a nitrogen cycle and a carbon dioxide cycle.
AND THEN THERE'S that slight problem that Mars doesn't have a magnetic field strong enough to stop the sun stripping away that atmosphere. So you also need to spin up the molten core of the planet.
Now if you'd like I can also explain why Jeff Bezos is also full of SHlT for his claims about space industries.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CONTROL SYSTEMS ENGINEER HERE: This is yet ANOTHER of Sabines rants on Hydrogen which is WRONG.
FIRST: I started with a degree in aerospace but have worked for over 30 years in industrial control systems. I am formally trained in Electrical Equipment for Hazardous Areas (EEHA). In this context a hazardous area is one in which there is a potentially explosive gas, dust or gas and dust mix either on a persistent on intermittent basis. I am also formally trained and previously certified by TUV Rhineland in Functional Safety so I am well versed in preventing plants going bang.
So UNLIKE Sabine I am formally trained in the design and handling of gases like methane and hydrogen.
Sabine is RIGHT about a couple of things. Hydrogen is hard to engineer around, but so are many other things like nuclear power and natural gas plants. Among the most dangerous are Ethylene (C2H4) plants which was considered for use as rocket fuel but it was more dangerous than hydrogen. However - For most situations we have standards and practices that allow these plants to be built and operated safely. The real danger with any high risk process are people who think they don't have to follow the standards.
For reference - NASA used hydrogen in the Apollo program. That's how long we have been able to SAFELY use hydrogen.
An area where I do agree with Sabine is that hydrogen is not well suited to cars, trucks, vans, buses,...etc. In fact I am dead against those applications because I believe bad accidents are inevitable. There'll be a flash, followed by a bang and car will vanish. The cost of re-training all the mechanics and making safe fuel stations will be too much.
Another Area where Sabine and I agree is in aviation. Back in the 1990s when there was a push to get the airlines off Jet Fuel there was a lot of research into replacing it with hydrogen. WHAT Sabine conveniently ignores is that companies like GE, Pratt & Witney, Rolls Royce and others sorted out all the issues with using hydrogen in gas turbines. The reason why they never used it in jets was the fuel tank issues in the jet combined with re-fuelling on the ground. BUT LIKE APOLLO THEY WORKED OUT THE ENGINE ISSUES.
ON GRID LEVEL POWER is where I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH SABINE.
Simply put if we don't use hydrogen then what do we use?
Right now both GE and Siemens offer gas turbines that can run up to 50% Hydrogen in combination with natural gas without any modifications to the engine. These engines get almost 65% thermal efficiency when use as combined cycle generators. Combined cycle is where they use the exhaust form the turbine to boil water to feed to a steam turbine. Also the current generation of electrolyser technology is around 85% efficient and there's newer systems that are getting almost 95% efficiency.
As for the transportation and compression costs.
NEWS FLASH all gas systems have that issue.
How do you think they pump the gas from the gas well to your house?
They burn some of the gas in a turbine that drives a compressor (usually a roots type).
How about the costs of cooling natural gas down to a liquid to put it on ships and transport it across oceans?
How much does that reduce the overall system efficiency?
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE THING THAT SABINE HAS SAID THAT REALLY IS GARBAGE AND SHE KNOWS IT.
She's NOT telling you the thermal efficiency of other systems or the losses involved because if she did you'd all realise just how inefficient some of our systems are.
Go look at the French EPR Nuclear Reactors. You can see the design data on the Wikipedia page for Hinkley Point C.
See that the thermal power is 4,524 MWt and the electrical output is 1,630 MWe. The small t is for thermal and the small e is for electrical power. That's an efficiency of 1,630/4,524 x 100 = 36%. Take not that's the latest Gen IV design for nuclear power. I doubt any of the previous generations were better. And that figure of 36% does not include the energy used in mining, processing and creating the fuel rods. It also does not include the un-spent uranium in the fuel rods.
To put that into perspective the last time I heard about the efficiency for coal fired plants they were claiming just over 42%, but I have since read there's claims they can get over 45% which is about equal with a gas turbine WITHOUT a cogeneration system attached.
SORRY BUT THIS IS A BULLSHlT VIDEO by a physicist who's deliberately NOT explaining what the alternatives deliver.
Its a shame because I normally like Sabines work, but she seems to have an unusual bug regarding hydrogen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@commonsenseskeptic Case 1 of Space BS: Mining Asteroids Part 1 - Logistics.
Other than the fact nobody has ever brought back to Earth any more than a few grams of space dust there's the simple task of logistics. Most people have no idea how much stuff we actually dig up each year and turn into cars, boats, planes and all the other toys our society wants.
Just so you know current world production of iron ore is just over 3,000,000,000 or a 3,000 Mta (million tons per annum) of which China does 1,200 Mta and Australia 825 Mta which accounts for 2/3rds of world supply.
According to Forbes: "16 Psyche—a 140-mile-wide/226-kilometer-wide asteroid—could contain a core of iron, nickel and gold worth $10,000 quadrillion." Other than the logistics and for the sake of math we assume that only 50% of that value is iron. At $100 USD per ton of iron ore that's something like 100 Quadrillion tons equivalent of iron ore. When we only need 3 Trillion tons a year a 100 Quadrillion tons is 33,000 years worth. Even if someone at Forbes got there comma in the wrong place and its only $10 Quadrillion in value not 10,000 then its only 100 trillion tons or 33 YEARS of iron ore.
Australia has a single deposit called Yandi creek. Its a part of the earth that split open at some point way way back in time and a pile of magma flowed out and formed an ore body that winds it way over 150km across the Australian outback. Its 100s of meters wide and 100s of meters deep.
Yandi has more than a century's worth of iron ore and its just one of our major iron ore reserves and NOBODY needs to fly million of kilometers across space to get it. Plus we ALREADY have the train lines and ports to get it out to the rest of the world. Plus NOBODY needs a space suit costing millions for their PPE.
1
-
@commonsenseskeptic Case 3 of Space BS: Star Wars - the Ronald Regan Type.
Just a week ago an Australian journalist warned that we need these new AUKUS submarines because China was building a new high tech military including SPACE LASERS. Only a week before that at a military conference and trade show the head of Australia's military space program said "they were looking at satellite soft kill systems"
So you know I did my degree in aerospace in the late 80s when Ronnie Brainspace Reagan was spending huge on space lasers and anything else anyone could suggest that might knock an ICBM out. Other than all the ridiculously hard classes in math, aerodynamics, propulsion,... etc the hardest class I had was one of my electives. Most people did orbital mechanics but a few of us did "Space Craft Dynamics" because we thought controlling how space craft flew about would be "cool." We were so very very wrong. 3/4 of the class were post grads and they struggled. Its applied maths at a level that is staggering high.
BUT, One of those post graduates was easily the smartest engineering mathematician I have ever seen and that includes the guys who were doing the funky Computational Fluid Dynamics on the Cray Supercomputer. His specialty was being able to get a space craft turn, point and track WITHOUT wobbling. ALL spacecraft FLEX when they roll, pitch, and yaw or are under thrust and that flexing results in wobbling. Most of the time that's irrelevant, but if you are trying to hit an ICBM that's several 100km (at best) to several 1,000km away with a speed differential measured in kilometers per second its required to point very accurately. Laser, microwave of projectile is irrelevant - you have to point accurately.
This postgrad worked out how to cancel out wobbles with counter moves. Don't aske me to explain that math its on the verge of insane. Its involves simultaneous partial differential equations in 3-D polar coordinates with transformations into the cartesian Roll/Pitch/Yaw/translate of the vehicle. Then it has the anti-wobble dynamics on top of that, which is another set of 3-D simultaneous partial differential equations.
Yes I spent 4 months in a class with the one guy and his professor who could make space based weapons POINT well enough to be on the fringe of feasible, but even after that there's some very basic problems.
ISSUE 1 - Space Lasers.
Despite the fact we might be able to make a space laser point where it needs to point and we might even be able to give it enough power to do something at range, there's 2 very simple counters to a space laser.
1) be shiny because light reflects off shiny surfaces.
2) roll slowly because lasers need time to burn through which means they need to be very much on the same spot NOT just on target.
ISSUE 2 - Microwave & EM interference with onboard electronics.
Despite how snazzy this sounds people forget that space is already an environment needing lost of shielding from EM and other radiation. So trying to punch through with Microwaves or EM is like trying to punch through a tank with a bow and arrow.
ISSUE 3 - Hard Kill also known as the dumbest thing anyone can do.
Yeah not going to happen unless you want to make Space unusable for everyone for decades.
Been tried and can work but also has disastrous consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome#Anti-satellite_missile_tests
1
-
1
-
@commonsenseskeptic Case 5 of Space BS: Terraforming Mars.
Back in college we had an alum who worked at NASA one day give a guest lecture on terraforming Mars.
We were pumped and then he dumped on us some reality.
He introduced us to what I now call "planetary mechanics" which is basically calculating how much stuff is present. Making a planet actually work is what I call "planetary dynamics" and involves making things like gas cycles, water cycles and ocean currents work so that life can be supported.
Thankfully planetary mechanics is math anyone can understand. One thing that is very easy is to take the surface area of a planet in km² and then simply say the first km of atmosphere above the surface is the same number by km³. Yes you can calculate the volume of 2 spheres 1 with a radius 1km larger than the other and get an answer that's less 1% different. But the real point is to give people an idea of what is the volume of the gas that is in that 1km just above the surface.
So Mars where one of your favorite clowns Elon Musk wants to go has a surface area of 144,370,000 km²
That volume 1 km above the surface of Mars is 144,370,000 km³.
1 m³ of Earth Standard air is 1.2kg so 1km³ is just 9 zeros on that for kilos or 6 for tons.
Either way 144,370,000 km³ of Earth Standard Air is 173,244,000,000,000 tons.
So if Elon wants to terraform mars he's gonna need 173 Trillion tons of air and that's only for the first kilometer. Who knows what he will need if someone wants to climb up over the edge of Valles Marineris?
I actually had one clown claim Elon would only need the Oxygen and none of the Nitrogen so I asked where Elon was going to get 36.4 Trillion tons of oxygen?
I'm still waiting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timothyblazer1749 I'm actually Australian but went to college in America on a sports scholarship and did aerospace engineering. One of my class mates is very high up in the ISS program. About 20 years ago she told me that NOBODY was going beyond LEO until 2 problems were solved - Life Support and Propulsion. In the last 20 years neither of those problems has been solved. YES ABSOLUETLY there have been people working their asses off working on these problems but none of it is ready to be used.
One of the tragic outcomes of the shuttle and ISS programs was they starved other programs of resources of which the biggest resource was money, but it also starved those projects of people. Yes both the shuttle and ISS have been incredible technical achievements. They actually made a reusable spaceplane work. They made, launched and assembled an incredibly complex machine weighing hundreds of tons IN SPACE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME they starved other projects and that's hindered manned space flight.
FYI - I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) back in 2002 and he told me to check out Helium-3. He was trying to get a mine built on the Moon. So I went off to the Australian mining sector to learn how mines got built and how they operated. Right now I have more practical hands on experience building and operating mines in remote places than all of NASA combined.
Do you know it still comes back to the same 2 questions, but they're phrased differently? Transportation and Supplies (food, water, fuel, spare parts,....). The biggest 3 tasks are:
1) Getting people, their food, and what they need to and from the mines. People need food and water and a place to sleep. They also shit, shower and shave and all that has to be dealt with.
2) Getting the product from the mines. That might mean a few kilograms (like for gold) or millions of tons like iron ore. Either way it has to be done or what's the purpose of having the mine.
3) Maintenance as in how to you keep several billion dollars of stuff working in the middle of a hostile environment and there's not many places more hostile than the Australian desert.
A lot of people think I have wasted my time. I haven't. When I ask them how are you going to do A, B, C,... none of them have answers because they've never asked the questions. They all assume its been done.
This is the problem with people like Angry and Elon Musk and so many others. Their hearts are in the right place, but they all assume that some of the very basic things have been done and they haven't. All these clowns talking about mining asteroids have never been near a mine site. I can tell that immediately.
I have the papers from a NASA conference (~180pages) on Moon operations and it had 1 and a bit pages on maintenance because they think maintenance will be done using remote robotics. THAT'S GARBAGE. If you ever want to be called an idiot just tell anyone who's ever done maintenance on a mine site that it can be done by remote controlled robots.
1
-
@wyrmofvt You pretty much have it nutted out, because it comes down to some very basic numbers and basic reality.
I got bluntly put in my place about 20 years ago by a former classmate who was working on the ISS construction She's now a senior ISS manager and basically without her signature your stuff isn't going to the ISS.
I had put it to her, as others had that we should use Shuttle-C and just get all the stuff up there. The whole thing was just dragging out and the shuttle itself was incredibly inefficient for bulk hardware launching. Just pack all the truss modules into 1 launch. She pointed out that I had no idea of the logistics involved in each of those modules and bluntly told me to shut it until I knew what I was talking about.
I argued back that while the ISS plodded on we weren't moving forward with manned exploration. We'd been in college when Challenger happened. Up until that morning we all EXPECTED to build Space Station Freedom by the mid 90s and back on the moon circa 2001. That argument was happening circa 2002 and we weren't close to finishing the ISS and people were getting frustrated at the lack of progress.
Then she hit me with the slap of slaps. Nobody was going anywhere until we solved the propulsion and life support issues. When I asked what? She said do the basic math and then ask how you get that done.
The Apollo LM had 75 hours for 2 men of life support. That's 150 mh (man hours) of life support.
A 4 man 14 day (as was the plan at one point) is 4 x 24 x 14 = 1344 mh (basically 9x)
That can be basically halved with 3 man 10day lunar surface is 3 x 24 x 10 = 720mh.
Irrespective of crew and duration, how do you get that much stuff there just to keep them alive. All that oxygen, food, CO2 filters, waste handling,... has to be lifted off mother earth, flown across the 384,400km gap and landed there on the moon AND THAT'S before you even begin to deal with anything else. Its part of why the Russian lunar program failed. The basic numbers drove them to the N-1 which was too complicated to work.
This is what Elon Musk and his cadre of clowns don't get. Just the basics of keeping people alive is a giant task. Adding that 1 extra person and/or staying that bit longer can double that task in a blink and that compounds into a whole pile of other logistics issues which themselves keep compounding the problem.
It was a blunt lesson I got from that classmate and yeah it sucked, but I needed it then and a lot of other people need it now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its the saddest part of Western Society the loss of our public information system. Thomas Jefferson famously hated journalists and newspapers but also recognized how important they are to a fair and free society. I'm Australian and even I know about that.
Here's 3 that are incredibly relevant Jefferson quotes to todays issues. On the first one you can easily swap out the words "reads nothing but newspapers" for "watches nothing but opinion TV." That applies to ALL of them, FOX, MSNBC, CNN,....etc. As for the second note what he says about being capable of reading which implies being educated enough to have some discernment. The 3rd is important, because physically pounding FOX, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT or any of the other opinion mutts isn't a solution even though many of them deserve an ass kicking.
"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them."
"I am… for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@FilipCordas WTF are you kidding?
Sure Stock exchanges are dodgy and get manipulated all the time, but at least there are rules for stock exchanges and every so often the regulators actually punish someone who breaks those rules.
Crypto has NO standards, NO rules, NO regulations, NO governance, NO oversight, NO protections from scammers, NO enforcement agencies, AND MOST OF ALL NOTHING backing it up or anything else resembling basic common sense.
Like SBF its was a 16,000,000,000% scam from the very beginning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcwells03 So good of you to ALSO find out it wasn't Jesus who said that.
In Ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek the word slave also means EMPLOYEE. The word employee is actually very recent historically. the concept did exist through the ages but the Industrial Revolution changed everything about labor.
In the literal translation 1 Peter 2:18 reads,
“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”
In the modern context of an EMPLOYEE the context is: "Employees, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your bosses, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”
Similarly in the same context Ephesians 6:5 would read: “Employees, obey your bosses with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
And Colossians 3:22 would read, _“Employees, obey your bosses in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its the second week of January 2021 and America is about to go past 400,000 dead just as Joe Biden takes the oath of office..
A few weeks ago Michael was warning about how bad the Christmas - New year could be.
I'm Australian but went to college at U. Illinois (1988). I've been watching Michael since the early days, because it was clear he was one of the very few who was being honest with us. He was even interviewed a few times on Australian TV. Like many others from around the world I have followed his updates over much of the last year -> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI7n04W1HWAPMrI4_41StSg
If you actually add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million which compares to Australia's 25.6 million.
Yes I know quite well there are significant differences in geography, population density and winter conditions, but in terms of medical technology, transportation and technical capability there's zero difference. We got very lucky with the initial spread. We cancelled many events and had NO crowds at all our major sports for the year and all that resulted in us not spreading it. But none of that explains the staggering differences.
Australia has a total of 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin total over 33,812 as of 12/1/2021
In the 7 days from 4 to 10 January 2021 Illinois had 971 COVID fatalities. In one week Illinois with half as many people as Australia had more deaths from this than Australia has had in 12 months.
On the main table at -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Australia is 54th in population and 86th in COVID fatalities. If Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin were a country they would be 16th. Illinois by itself would rank 21st in the world. New York by itself would be 14th.
In terms of death-rate (deaths/1M.pop) Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin would be 4th (at 1342).
3 American states (New Jersey, New York & Massachusetts) have a higher death-rate than any nation or independent state in the world.
For whatever luck and other things that may have favored us, nothing explains that discrepancy other than a complete failure of leadership.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From AUSTRALIA with an outside observation:
The answer is YES but just as easily they could lose EVERYTHING just as easily.
What the American Left has forgotten is the ACTUAL RESULT of 2020. And for the record the American Left is NOT a real Left its just to the Left of the American Right which is so far Right most other Western nations can't recognise it.
Forget how many votes Hilary got lets just look at a couple of basic facts.
In 2016 Trump got 62,984,828 votes.
In 2018 the mid terms did NOT go well for the GOP. the did gain 2 seats in the Senate but LOST 41 House Seats and LOST 7 Gubernatorial seats.
In 2019 EVERY POLL said Trumps base was falling and his approval was falling. Even Fox News ran stories that were concerning.
In 2020 the Polls were even worse than 2019 and COVID was being terribly mismanaged and that included Trump pushing quack medical advice and straight out lying to the public.
YET when it cam tot he election Trump got 74,223,975 votes which more than 11 million MORE THAN 2016.
So despite all the polls and the catastrophic mismanagement of COVID and extra 11+ million turned up and voted for Trump.
WHEN HAS ANYONE on the American Left acknowledged that basic fact regarding Trumps turn-out?
Looking from the OUTSIDE the greatest concern I have is the Democrats FAILING to acknowledge 2020 wasn't that good of a result. They did NOT win outright majority in the Senate until later and then only by the narrowest of margins. They actually lost seats in the House and were slaughtered in the State elections.
YES WE GOT THOSE FACTS, but apparently the Democrats didn't.
SO YOU ALL KNOW why this is important to other nations like Australia, Canada, Japan, Great Britain, Mexico, all of Europe and many others. Its because the US Dollar (USD$) is still the World's reserve currency which was agreed on at Breton Woods in 1944. YES the Breton Woods agreement is long gone but its after effects are still with us.
Many of the international transactions the rest of the world does are either done in USD$ or currencies are exchanged and USD$ is used during the exchanges. When Australia sells iron ore to Japan, South Korea and China that's NOT done in Australian Dollars, Japanese Yen, South Korean Won or Chines Yuan - its done using USD$. Either they use USD$ directly or buy AU$ using USD$. On the reverse of that when we buy cars & stuff from those countries we don't send them AU$ we send USD$ or go a money exchange to get say Japanese Yen to buy a boat load of cars and that money exchange is underpinned by USD$.
Simply put NONE of us can afford to have an out of control rampaging clown like Donald Trump in the White House EVER AGAIN.
FYI - I was working in Canada when Trump just tore up NAFTA and slapped the Canadians with tariffs.
You guys have no idea how much that scares the rest of the world, when you have a temperamental clown surrounded by sycophants who will smack an ally in the face like that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brandonrathbone3690 Don't you mean thanks, Obama, Bush V2, Clinton, Bush V1, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon,...... and the rest of the goon brigade who have made America the mess that it is.
And lets NOT forget the GREATEST liar of them all DONALD J TRUMP,
who's also now a
CONVICTED FELON.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You don't have to worry about that anymore. Uber sold the entire division for self driving cars just as every major manufacturer sold off or cancelled their work in that area as well. It was very quietly done a couple of years ago when they realised that being able to prove the onboard computers would be safe was next to impossible. Its comes down to all of the what ifs. What if A happens, what if B happens,....... and there's more variations than there are alphabets.
What they basically concluded was that true driverless cars would need a supercomputer onboard. So until they work out how to build a supercomputer the size of a shoe box its not going to happen.
Where driverless vehicles might actually happen is in long haul trucking when the trucks are on freeways with no traffic lights, pedestrians and lots of other stuff. Which would make it a lot more like an autopilot for a passenger jet. The pilot's are onboard the whole time. They do the take off, landing and taxiing, while the autopilot does the long boring part. There will still be drivers who do all the driving around cities and towns but once they are on the freeway/expressway/interstate they'll switch to autopilot.
I'm an engineer who works in industrial control systems (including safety systems). I also have a pilots license and there's a misconception that having an autopilot for a car or truck is the same as an autopilot for a plane. The auto pilot in a plane pretty much only has to deal with speed, altitude and direction. A car or truck has to deal with the road, lanes, other vehicles, pedestrians, animals, traffic lights and millions of other things that are all changing every second. Its actually highlighted just how extraordinary the human brain is to do what it does. It also highlights how dangerous even a slightly distracted driver is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm Australian and we have similar issues with our corporations that have been privatised.
I have heard stories from other places.
I'm an engineer and started looking into economics and why they do what they do. It came from frustration of clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects.
One of the best people to explain what's wrong with economics is a Brit by the name of Gary Stevenson. He's from a working class background but rose through to become Citibank's top trader in the world. He is one of a group of maverick economists, across the world, now trying to enlighten people to how economists think and operate and why things like this are going on.
Because economics has a common curriculum across the developed world the problems are very common no matter where you look. Almost all the text books economic students have are published by Harvard, Yale, Oxford, LSE,... or they are written by people who went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford, LSE,...
Its one of the huge issues that's resulting in this stuff and why people like Gary are speaking out. He has a channel here on YT called GarysEconomics: https://www.youtube.com/@GarysEconomics
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We are at the end of the neoliberal era.
It should have ended after 2008, but found a way to hang on and we (all 7.8 billion of us) have been in a precarious position ever since. Instead of admitting that the neoliberal economic model where "privatise everything" became a religious dogma that nobody was allowed to question, we moved to an even riskier model because the risk takers that brought the 2008 GFC were simply bailed out without any consequences.
After the Stagflation of the 1970s the unions who were blamed for that were ruthlessly persecuted, but NOT ONE Wall St CEO or board members was held accountable after the 2008 GFC. In fact for many they still got their bonuses.
Mark Blyth the political Economist at Brown in November 2016 (as part of the explanation behind the protest vote that handed Donald Trump the White House) said "In 2015, Wall Street bonuses, not regular compensation, bonuses, 7 years after they were bailed out with the public purse, totalled...$28.4 billion. Total compensation paid to every single person in this country who earns a minimum wage, $14 billion."
What Britain, Australia (where I am), France, Italy, Germany America and other countries are trying to deal with RIGHT NOW is that NONE of our governments did the right thing in the aftermath of 2008. They bailed out the culprits who went straight back to work as if nothing happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm Australian, but went to college in America on a sports scholarship. I did engineering but a pack of my frat brothers were pre-law and we used to discuss stuff all the time.
I am actually very angry with Van Jones on this because he started this with something that as a well trained Lawyer he should know - this is NOT treason. Its many things like SEDITION, destruction of government property, trespass, assault, theft, BUT none of it is treason and as a lawyer with a very high public profile VAN JONES - SHOULD DO BETTER.
He should be clear on what this is and what this isn't.
In Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States
I recently saw Van Jones do a TED talk and it was arguably one of the best commentaries on the American situation, but that claim of treason is just plain wrong and he should know that better than I do. ->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZWRhLW7Y8w
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David Rosenberg Do you watch any of Mark Blyth the Political Economist at Brown U? He was one of the very few who got both Brexit & Trump right.
He just wrote a book called Angrynomics. This is his 4 minute primer on it -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJD5rE4omY
There's a for longer talks on it as well. Recently he mentioned a Rand report that said the top 1% of America have made of with over $47,000,000,000,000 since 1975. Here's the Time article on it and the link to the actual Rand report.
https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/
https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html
If you can't get your head around what 47 Trillion looks like try this. There used to be a game show called "who wants to be millionaire and on it the had a box with $1,000,000 in cash in it. That box was just over 1 cubic foot. A standard 20 ft container has just over 1,100, which means a 20ft container could be filled with a billion dollars. The 20ft container is the actual standard the measure ships with - TEU (twenty foot equivalent). The Ship that was caught in the Suez canal recently is the largest container chip ever built. The previous generation where 11,000 TEU and the current generation is 24,000 TEU.
So basically the top 1% of America have made of with 2 boatloads of cash. Its only 2 boatloads because the current generation of container ships is twice as large as the previous generation. If you try and use smaller vessels you need a fleet. 🤷♂️🤷♀️
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS engineer here:
This is WHY I KNOW FSD (full self driving) is a false and misleading concept at least for the moment.
AND APOLOGIES IF THIS IS LONGISH.
FYI - My degree was in aerospace but I have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. That has included working with many sensor systems including laser scanning systems. Although I don't work with vision systems I was introduced to the basics of vision systems in 1998 and am fully aware of many of the advancements in that area.
The actual problem with FSD is the amount of information that needs to be processed.
As human beings we just don't realise how much information our visual cortex processes every second and that's because most of it is processed by our peripheral system which is NOT part of our general conscious. Its all there in our periphery and we aren't focussing on it. Our peripheral system is extraordinary at clumping things together and dismissing irrelevant clumps while alerting our conscious system of potential threats or items of interest.
For example we don't see a 100,000 leaves attached to 1,000s branches attached to a trunk connected to a root system we see a tree. We don't see several million yellowish hairs covering 4 legs a body, a tail, a head, big teeth and an even bigger set of fangs we see a lion. Out on the African savannah people don't see millions of blades of grass, 1,000s and 1,000s of antelope, wildebeests, birds, insects and other wild life. OUR BRAIN via our peripheral system filters out the noise and will latch onto that 1 lion out of all those millions and millions of items in our visual range and SCREAM "that's a threat."
Similarly when driving a car down the average suburban street we see but don't focus on the millions of leaves - we see the trees and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see don't see all the nuts, bolts, sheets of glass, sheet metal, paint and rubber - we see parked cars and dismiss them as NOT a threat. We see the bricks, boards, windows, window frames, paint - we see houses and dismiss them as NOT a threat. BUT WE DO SEE the bouncing ball coming down a driveway and our peripheral system SCREAMS that there's a dog or a child chasing after that ball OR we'll see a flash of something else and our peripheral system will alert our conscious brain to be aware of it. Like we'll suddenly notice one of the parked cars just moved.
This is what our peripheral system does with incredible speed. It processes a staggering mass of data every second and compares it to previous seconds and then filters out all the noise. This is why certain players in team sports seem so amazing in how they can suddenly pass to another player in a way that asks "How did they see them?" The answer is they are people whose peripheral system just operates better than average and in some rare cases a lot better.
NOW TRY AND CONSIDER HOW YOU MIGHT GET A COMPUTER TO DO THAT????
Remember no 2 trees are the same, and no 2 cars are ever parked the same, and no 2 houses are the same PLUS no 2 streets are the same anywhere on the planet. There's always something different. NOW CONSIDER that the perspective (as in the visual angles) on that scene is changing every second because your car is MOVING. You now have to process the next image and compare it to previous images to pick up that movement or notice that item that gets the wider scoping part of the system to flag an item of interest to the higher level decision making part of the system.
Suddenly you will realise that the scope of the technological task to get a computer to do what the human peripheral system does is monstrous.
Once you understand the scope of the task required to to do FSD you'll quickly realise that it MIGHT BE possible for some limited situations or MIGHT be possible once we get the visual scanning systems capable of sorting through all the noise to find those few items that need a higher level of evaluation we can't even begin the task BUT RIGHT NOW we don't have those systems because if they existed we hear all about it. We'd hear about the camera that's as good or better than a human eye and we'd hear about the processor that's as good as the human peripheral system AND NOBODY is even saying they have it under development or has made "the breakthrough".
Lets also NOT forget that a bunch of car manufacturers GAVE UP on FSD about 5 years ago. Uber sold off its FSD once they, (like the car manufacturers) realised just what it would take to do the job. This is also why, with the exception of a few tiny companies desperately trying for attention (and money) have stopped trying to build self FLYING air taxis.
Sorry if this was longish but I hope you get the gist of why it might be possible in future but NOT NOW.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Australian with an outside view:
In 2020 74,223,975 people voted for Trump and in 2024 73,407,934 voted for Trump ALMOST 1 million FEWER
In 2020 81,283,501 people voted for Biden and in 2024 69,076,028 voted for Harris OVER 12 million FEWER.
This is the opposite to what's been happening in American elections over the last few cycles.
2000 105,421,423
2004 122,295,345
2008 131,313,820
2012 129,085,410
2016 136,669,276
2020 158,429,631
2024 142,380,403
Except for 2012 when there was a slight decrease American elections have been getting larger and larger turnouts which should NOT be surprising because America's population has been steadily growing from the 282 million in 2000 to the current 335 million.
The TRUE RESULT of this election is that almost 16 million Americans saying "we don't care anymore" which is part of the general feeling across the entire developed world that NOTHING CHANGES no matter who we vote for.
Go and look up a 2022 Congressional Budget Office on Family Wealth. I have checked the Australian data and British Economist Gary Stevenson describes how Britain is eerily similar. The very first graph shows how the Bottom 50% of the developed world have gone NOWHERE for around 40 years. Other Data like Branko Milanović's famous elephant graph show how wage stagnation for the bulk of the developed world has caused this. There's just no way for most of the developed world to change their lives for the better.
This is what Milton Freidman and the Chicago School Economists gave the world via Reaganomics, Thatcherism, Australia's Economic Rationalism and what we now generally call Neoliberal Economics. CENTRAL to Milton Friedman's ideology was that governments are good for nothing and expressed eloquently by Ronald Reagan's famous "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
So Governments around the World started to privatise, de-regulate and hand control of their central banks to the ECONOMISTS. These days most policies are written by Think Tanks and managed by consultants most of whom are ECONOMISTS or MBAs with economic training or Lawyers with economic training.
In the PBS Documentary "The Untouchables" about the 2008 GFC (which can be seen here on YT) Former United States Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer (around 50 minutes in) describes how ECONOMIC EFFECTS are a consideration in criminal cases. That's why none of the executives were ever charged.
SO THIS BEGS THE QUESTION: Why vote at all, when the government can't get anything done because ECONOMISTS have re-wired how government works and no matter what "We the people vote for" nothing changes?
FYI - We have our next Australian Federal Election next year and I fear that the same clown brained campaign strategists who helped fabricate this disaster in America will be here doing the same thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bryanhill1406 Sorry if this is a very long reply but you have asked a very valid point.
First off America does NOT have a Left party it has 2 Right Wing Parties its just that one is further to the right and going even further to the right. Remember when Obama said his economic policies where in line with Reagan's.
In Britain, Australia, New Zealand and other nations the Labor Parties were started inside the Union Movements. Its why they are called Labor parties. In Europe the Communist and Socialist parties were started by Commies and Socialists. The French Republicans (Girondists and Jacobins) emerged out of the Paris Commune. In the rest of the world the Left Wing parties DID NOT start among a group of self righteous slave owners that later flipped decided to court the union movement, which is exactly what the Democrats did.
So there is the first thing to understand. America does NOT have a Left.
It has a Right wing party party that is slightly to the Left of a hard core Right Wing party.
Second (and I had to think about this) the best way to describe radicals of any sort is:
Radicals are people who allow their ideology to take precedence over reality allowing them to justify anything in the defense of that ideology. Further they see anyone who does NOT comply with their narrative based on their ideology as their mortal enemy. They are notably vicious towards dissent from within their power base.
Think about the French Revolutionaries. They told France we will free you from the oppression of the aristocrats and then promptly fed anyone who even slightly questioned anything to Madame Guillotine. When the Girodin's began to question them they were purged and exterminated.
Westerners tend to think of Radical Islam in terms of Al Qaeda, but take a look at Isis. Their cruelty towards other Muslims was next level. They just simply held mass executions of people they even suspected of dissent.
Think about Communist Russia, Marx was an economist who said workers should equally share the profits of business through collective (as in community or communal) ownership. When did the Russian people share in any of the wealth for all those decades and what happened to any dissenters. When Stalin held purges they killed 1000s while 1000s more were sent to their deaths in Siberian Gulags.
For examples of the radical Left in America it takes a bit of explaining. Go look up Henry Wallace's quote on American fascists where he said American fascists wont do Fascism the same way as Europeans. They'll do it in an American way. America's radical left are similar they don't do thing's like other radical leftists do but do it in a very American way. If you know what to look for they aren't too hard to spot, but they are adept at hiding in crowds.
One of the things George Orwell wrote about was the hijacking of language for political reasons. In his book "1984" he coined the term "doublespeak." In a nutshell its where you hijack language through changing the definitions of words. The aim was very simple - confuse the language so that certain topics were impossible to discuss. There are 2 words that have been hijacked in America in recent years "woke" and "progressive."
Woke - is a word first used by African Americans as street slang for "Are you awake to the reality of our situation." It was mainly a reference to wealth, but also included justice, education, public services and health care. There's a City of Boston study that showed the average white Bostonian has a combined wealth (assets less liabilities) of over $240,000 while Black Bostonians are worth $8.00 (yes as in 10 minus 2).
Right now that term is almost exclusively associated with sexual identity. I'm not saying that the LGBT community didn't deserve fairness, justice or their turn at the public microphone, but a section of their community did hijack a word. Plus anyone who dares question their narrative is trolled to the hilt.
Progressive - was for over 100 years the label used to describe people in the center of politics and it simply meant they were people who didn't care if an idea came from the Left or Right so long as it helped MAKE PROGRESS. Up until a few years ago it had almost dropped out of the public discussion. Then it started being used by anyone wanting to see PROGRESS on things like the economy, job stability, wages, health care, education, the environment, infrastructure, government services and military spending, to name just a few subjects.
Then like "woke" the word "progressive" was hijacked by certain elements to mean very specific things like LGBT rights. One of the consequences has been the radical right media to jump on anyone they can and label them as "woke" or "progressive" as radical leftists hell bent on the destruction of society. Go watch some of David's vids on Right Wing media hawks like Tucker Carlson.
The result has been that for anyone to even start talking publicly about things like wealth inequality, education costs, health care services the discussion immediately goes into a Right versus Left culture war screamfest AND anyone who tries to keep the discussion sensible is dealt with ruthlessly. Sam Harris is a person who has copped some of that nonsense. He's been labelled a radical right winger by some on the left and a radical leftist by some on the right.
If you go and listen to Mark Blyth the political economist from Brown U. He wrote a book with Eric Lonergan who's a hedge fund manager called "Angrynomics" and part of that book is about the subject of anger and how its expressed both privately and publicly. Go listen to what they say about "tribal anger" and once you understand what tribal anger is and how it gets manipulated you'll understand a lot.
Again sorry for the length of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Have you heard of or read the book "Angrynomics" by Mark Blyth & Eric Lonergan?
Mark's a political economist who studies how studies how politics and economics interact rather than treat them as separate subjects. Eric's a fund manger with a soul as well as a brain.
The books basically 2 guys discussing the anger that's prevalent across most of the world right now and the economics causing it
They discuss 2 kinds of anger that we see in public with large groups of people. Moral outrage and tribal anger. Moral outrage are things like BLM and union strikes where people are protesting at something they see as morally wrong - cops killing people, companies where wage inequality and conditions are ridiculous, etc.
Tribal anger is what you're talking about where politically motivated opportunists are weaponizing anger into tribalism. Things like Qanon, anti-vaxxers, anti-5G,... etc where people angry at government policies that hurt them are having that anger REDIRECTED into mindless rage. Its where we see bad faith actors like Bannon, Hannity, Rachael Maddow, etc. and organisations like Fox, OAN, CNN, MSNBC driving people bonkers.
Just look at what Louis CK does here in just a few seconds. "Look at what progressives ALWAYS do..." which plays straight into the "their side does.... but our side is innocent even when it does the same thing" schtick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm Australian but went to college in America. So I am not an outside observer who has no idea what the American people are like. Months before the election I told people here that Trump was going to win. Nobody believed me.
In the simplest answer: Trump didn't win, but he took advantage of the system and won where it mattered. Hilary was stupid and upset enough people in the wrong places. Those people either voted Trump or not at all and it happened in a few key states like Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Here's the long explanation and I'm sorry if its long and sucks to hear.
One of the great things about Democracy is that on a regular basis we get 2 options. We can re-elect people because we think they are doing a reasonable job or we can dump their butt in the gutter. When Australians are angry with the government and dump people we call it a "protest vote." To some extent protest voting is present in every election everywhere, but it manifests differently because of the different systems.
In Australia we have compulsory voting so we either get a big swing to the other party OR more common these days we elect independents like we did this year. In America you have voluntary voting so you tend to see people NOT VOTE at all.
The moment I believed Hilary Clinton lost was when she announced that she WASN'T going to campaign in places like Michigan because she was doing fundraisers with Wall Street bankers. I went to college in Illinois and I knew that would upset people in Michigan. I also knew it would upset people across the Mid-west and Rust Belt.
Do I have intimate knowledge of people in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa,... ?
NO, but I knew they'd react badly to Hilary's arrogance. Who wouldn't.
Another person who predicted the same result but for a slightly different reason was economic journalist Rana Foroohar. She recently said Hilary's losing moment was the 1st debate with Trump. Everyone else claimed Hilary won easily. Rana said No she lost and lost badly because of one simple topic - NAFTA. Rana's reason was Trump raised NAFTA which Bill Clinton had brought in and NAFTA is hated across the Rust Belt, because they saw NAFTA as costing them their jobs. Go listen to Rana's recent interview on the Realignment podcast here on YT.
Others like Mark Blyth and Richard Wolff have also said that the Democrats have repeatedly done had also angered working class people across the Rust Belt. Look at how Biden just crushed the railway workers. The Democrats have been doing that for 40+ years. They suck up to working class people before an election and then dump them afterwards.
Here's Richard and Mark talking about this during one of the Michael Brooks tribute podcasts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1aMsDYJCc&t=3171s
Hilary lost because her arrogance upset people in some key states.
Similarly Trump also lost because he also upset people in some key states.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: And if you'd like I'd like to talk to you about these issues.
APOLOGIES NOW for what will feel like a lecture.
You are quite right about the volume of the CO2 we have emitted. I just downloaded the data for 1940-2022 and that makes for some serious discussion.
It took 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to pump 500 Billion tons into the atmosphere.
It took only 21 years 2005 for the next 500 Billion tons
It took only 15 years 2020 for the next 500 Billion tons making it 1.5 Trillion tons
And we'll go past 2 Trillion tons at the current rate around 2033.
That of course doesn't include the billions of tons from badly managed coal mines in places like China or what happened pre-1940 or lots of human activities that aren't counted.
So the real problem going forward isn't Net-Zero. Its how we get to Net-Subzero and NOT bankrupt the World's economy or destroy modern civilisation getting there. Because if we do either of those things we really will have an apocalypse.
FYI - I did my degree in America and we once had a NASA engineer do a special guest lecture on terraforming Mars. He very simply said "It's Impossible" and then explained WHY. He introduced us to 2 subjects I know call planetary mechanics and planetary dynamics. Planetary mechanics are just the raw amounts like we have 2.5 Trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere and it takes X Joules to raise Y cubic kilometers so many degrees. Planetary dynamics are things like gas cycles, water cycles, thermal cycles (like the AMOC). On simple planetary mechanics Mars is impossible to terraform. It ends the discussion when you realise that it takes 178 Trillion tons of air just to make a 1km thick layer of Earth normal air around a body that large. You don't even get to the subject of how to keep it attached to the planet. Its just where do we get that much air in the first place.
Here's the problem we have with CO2. I have seen plenty promotion, neutral and debunk videos on both carbon capture & storage (CCS) and direct air capture (DAC). Even if we could use one of the technical solutions the problem is ENERGY. Where do we simply get enough energy to run those systems?
If we did try one of those DAC systems you then have to ask how we process that many cubic kilometers to get at those 400 parts per million of CO2 to extract 2.5 Trillion tons.
This is the problem the guy from NASA when trying to explain what he found to other people. The numbers are so large that people can't conceive of what those numbers mean. If the Earths surface is 510,072,000km² then that basically equates to 1/2 Billion cubic kilometers of air just in the first kilometer of 100 above the Earths surface. How does anyone actually think they are going to feed volume that through a bunch of factory built units?
How much energy and materials will it take and how much CO2 will be produced building all those units?
Sorry the only way it can actually be done is with TREES?
The question is how do we convince every person on the planet they have to plant (on average) about 1,000 trees. That's about 8 Trillion trees and we need 1 in 10 to grow to maturity and suck in and CAPTURE about 1.5 tons of CO2 each. Sorry but we are going to have to do things like plant tree lines along very fence line on every farm on the planet.
AND YES you make an incredibly important point we just can't go throwing trees in the ground we have to actually do some PLANNING. You can't just throw pine trees into the Sahara, but with the right plan we can plant staggering numbers of date palms, olive trees, cedars and other suitable varieties across all that open space of North Africa.
YES we'd have to supply staggering amounts of water until they generate their own weather, but there are low energy options there. I worked on the Ravensthorpe Nickel Project back in the mid 2000s and that has an interesting desal plant. Its NOT reverse osmosis which long term has too high maintenance costs. Because I'd worked on another Wier project they gave me the FAT for the desal plant. Weir called it vapour compression but from memory it was built more like a Multi-stage flash distillation system and may well have combined those 2 technologies. Either way it used only a fraction of the power an RO plant of the same size. The reason such plants aren't used a lot is they can be tricky to start-up and they only have 1 speed (flow rate). You can't just turn them on and off at will like you can RO AND YES I have done RO systems one of which was quite complex.
So yes it sound crazy to tell everyone we need to plant 8 Trillion trees. But I am sorry but there is no other feasible way to do it. Everything else either relies on a technology we can't build enough of or a technology we can't power or some ridiculous seeding fantasy of the sky or the oceans.
If you look at some of the ideas being proposed for seeding the sky to let in less light or seeding the ocean to have more oceanic algae plankton to consume the C02 are so absurd they are only worth considering to see how absurd they are. Nobody knows if they would work, or how much we'd need let alone what happens if it gets out of control and needs shutting down. We can shut down even the most complex plants we build but how would you shut down the SO2 seeding in the upper atmosphere I have seen proposed? Likewise if the iron seeding of the ocean to promote algae growth goes haywire. What's the contingency for that?
As an aerospace engineer placing a giant sun shield out at the L1 Lagrange Point makes better sense. We could build it with louvres and control what heat comes in. You just need to get me something like US$50 Trillion and hand me control of the entire engineering infrastructure of the planet. before you ask if it cost US$200 Billion to build the ISS with a weight of 450t in LEO. What do you think it would cost to build something at L1 that weighs on the order of a million tons and needs constant onsite maintenance to keep it orientated and in position.
Plus we'd need a fleet of satellites monitoring the entire Earth's surface at 10m resolution or better to watch the effects. Actually we'll need those whatever we do. That's one of the few things we can do. the question is will we do it to save the planet or watch it die.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidcarey9135 Sorry this reply is long but I’d like to know what you think.
I had a stunning bit of enlightenment recently. I was watching Steve Keen explain his modelling work to a couple of British students. At one point Steve jumped on his favourite topic of slamming classical & neo-classical economists like William Nordhaus and their inability to properly model things. In the middle of this rant, he suddenly said "They don't even have energy in their models."
As an engineer that stuns me because EVERYTHING in human society needs energy and the means to produce & use it. This is why economists have nothing but vacuum on the energy crisis. They don't have any suggestions let alone solutions. They don't even have hot air because hot air requires energy. Its like they just did what some others I have encountered. They drew a line in the dirt and said everything on that side of the line is an engineering problem and has nothing to do with us.
I have this idea I call "Engine Theory." I like to explain it in terms of ancient Egypt because that was the world’s first economy. Prof. Mark Blyth (Brown U.) has repeatedly pointed out a Bank of England report (Q1 2014) that has 2 papers that explain what money is and how it’s created BY WORK. The problem is as any engineer will tell you all work is a function of using energy. As in work is produced by converting energy via an "engine" hence the name Engine Theory. Simply put, anything that converts energy into work is an engine (mechanical, biological... whatever). Smith & Marx both termed everything in terms of labour. I think they got it wrong because there’s other ways to do work than just through labour. My idea is that all work stems from the conversion of energy into work no matter if it’s done by a person, animal or machine. Therefore, all economic value comes from energy being consumed or tapped by these “engines.” The fundamental rate of return is actually a function of energy efficiency. The better you consume and use energy the better the rate of return and more wealth is generated.
Going back in ancient Egypt they had slaves that sowed & reaped food, built houses, roads and monuments and they were fuelled by food. They had ox that pulled ploughs & heavy wagons and horses that pulled light wagons & chariots and they were fuelled by fodder. The ox & horses aren’t too dissimilar than the comparison of diesel to petrol vehicles. The Egyptians also had sail boats powered by the wind to go up & down the Nile. The difference was that the sails tapped a natural energy source (the wind) rather than consumed fuel like the slaves, ox & horses. Irrespective they had a variety of engines because different engines do certain types of work better and more efficiently and that’s a major part of Engine Theory.
In Engine Theory you have different engines for different tasks, and you evaluate them on their efficiency to do that task. In Egypt they could have pulled ploughs with slaves but that’s not as good as an ox. They could have pulled chariots with ox, but that’s not as good as ahorse because chariots need speed. This is why today all the wind, solar, nuclear and other people proclaiming “we have the solution that will save humanity” are all wrong. They have to start seeing themselves as PART of an overall combined solution instead of the single magical “does it all” solution.
Then there was the industrial revolution when we started making better engines that could convert fuel (quite literally) by the mountain and with it do mountains of work making mountains of wealth. Plus, some of these news engines didn’t do work and instead they produced energy that other engines could tap instead of converting fuel. We call these things power stations, and they could not only make more energy but do it better allowing energy to be more readily usable across a broader economic landscape. This is why I think economists have it so wrong. Karl Polanyi said you can’t commodify people because they are people. I think energy is the similar. You can’t commodify it because it works at such a fundamental economic level. Neoliberals are trapped in their own ideology and just see it as another thing they MUST marketize because marketization is the best way to distribute anything and everything. Its an ideology not backed up by real world experience.
I think a lot of people realise the neoliberals are wrong they just don’t know how to argue it and that’s what I am trying to do. I started informally studying economics out of the frustration of clowns waving economics degrees interfering in projects.
Part of the argument is: If work creates value (as economists say), then if they don't include the energy to do that work then they have been WRONG since the dawn of civilisation because the work that has been done has always required energy. It didn’t matter if the fuel was food, fodder or the energy was the wind. They had to convert fuel & energy into work. The massive change was the industrial revolution when we started producing BULK CHEAP energy. The bug in the neoliberal computer (as Mark Blyth puts it) is that they thought they could commodify it like they think they can do with everything and that’s just NOT TRUE as Polanyi pointed out.
And this is where the neoliberals have utterly stuffed up. They switched the BULK CHEAP energy systems from economic drivers into profit machines making energy more expensive and with it everything else. That's made everything else less economically efficient because all of the work became more expensive. Unless we can flip that back we’re stuffed. The energy transition won’t make any difference so long as it remains a for profit system because the economics won’t change. We not only have to change to cleaner energy to save the planet but (economically speaking) more efficient to save all our economies which are already on the precipice of a major catastrophe.
We dodged a big event in 2008 but the bail outs only made the clowns at the top think they can keep gambling with our future even more. I don’t know if you’re aware but the global FX-Swap market which is a glorified casino now has a betting pool of US$100 Trillion, which is around 5 times the size it was in 2008. Bizarrely NONE of it’s on any balance sheet because of the nature of FX-Swaps and how accountants account for them. Most of it isn’t even held by banks. It’s held by non-banking entities gambling on currency shifts. All it will take is the wrong clown to make the wrong mistake and 2008 will seem like a bad fart in an elevator because there won’t be a way off of this elevator as it plumets down the shaft.
Sorry, this was so long but I'd like to know what you think.
1
-
@davidcarey9135 No, No you misunderstand.
The fuel type is irrelevant THE COST of the energy to BOTH society and industry is the important thing.
You are totally right about Britain being the first to use coal at scale gave them a growth spurt. The most important thing there is they changed to a better "engine." Remember the rail industry changed from coal to diesel and electricity after WW2 and there was NOTHING forcing it except they were better engines economically. This is something I am trying to get all the players to understand. They various technologies will be the main player wherever they are the better engine. I really do hate when the wind, solar, nuclear (all types), wave and FOSSIL FUEL people all claim that they are the ONLY WAY. That's just garbage.
That's the lesson of history, starting with the Egyptians and every economy since. EVERY type of fuel/engine system has its place and its not because people want this or that its because they are the better engine. I seriously can't see fossil fuels being 100% abolished because there will simply be places where its better than everything else, but you can't tell that to a lot of people. Likewise for the fossil fuel people to think that wind & solar aren't going to be major players in certain markets is equally delusional. In some places they will need nuclear because its the best engine in that place. Hydrogen will be a major player, but because of its basic nature its not going to be the savior that many claim and that's being said by someone who's a huge believer in hydrogen. But then I also know the limits of hydrogen.
And here's the grating thing - they all lie and all misdirect and it takes hours for engineers to explain it. When I mean they all lie. I mean ALL OF THEM. Wind, solar, nuclear, fossil fuel,..... ALL OF THEM. Even the hydrogen people lie and that's my thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ChillAssTurtle Sorry, you misunderstood but the biblical word for slavery meant BOTH and other things.
Yeah it meant literal ownership of a human BUT it also meant employee, indentured servant, serf as well as what we might now call a contractor.
People don't realise that older languages didn't have the variety of words we now have and the older the language the fewer words they had. its what makes interpreting older languages difficult.
I'm not an ancient Hebrew scholar but I know a couple of things. Its a language that's built around descriptive words not specific labels.
The best example I know of is the word used for round objects. Ancient Hebrew didn't have specific words for circle, band, sphere, globe, disk, ellipse, oval, ovoid, cylinder,... It just had a word for labelling or describing round things. Its why the religious element of the flat earthers claim the bible calls the Earth, Sun and Moon flat disks because it uses the word to describe disks. It doesn't say they are disks it just says the Earth Sun and Moon are round.
That comes up in flat earth discussions from time to time. The slavery thing comes up occasionally in discussions about what the bible did or didn't say about slavery and employment. Prior to the concept of modern economics and contract law the idea of an employee was almost non existent.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrRaulstrnad What was your first thought?
For most people it's about 5 (usually 3-8) because they don't go beyond the switch or socket - they think of a desk lamp or a room light.
A few engineers (mostly with an electrical background) go onto the power station, but even fewer (without prompting go back to the basic metals needed.
Since I have worked in manufacturing and more recently mining I just go with the metals and my basic list is.
Tungsten (filament)
Tin (bulb cap)
Copper (low voltage wiring)
Aluminum (for the cores of the HV transmission lines)
Iron (transformers, transmission towers & lines)
Zinc (for galvanizing exposed iron components)
Nickel, Manganese & Chromium (for the stainless that wraps around HV transmission lines)
Coal (to process the iron ore)
Sulphur (to make sulphuric acid to process the other ores except aluminum)
Soda Ash (to make caustic soda to process the aluminum)
So that's at least 10 (or more) mines with all the factories that make mining equipment - diggers, trucks, crushers, conveyors, screens, tanks, pipes,..............etc
Then there's the trains, trucks, & ships that take the raw mining materials of to the processing plants.
Then there's the processing plants for taking the raw mining materials and producing raw stock - iron, nickel, aluminum smelters.....,etc.
Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a power station.
Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a power grid
Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a house with wiring.
Then there's the factories that make all the things that go into building a light.
And does not include any of the other infrastructure or many other raw materials required so that 1 person can have a home and turn on that light.
It's at least 20,000 and may be well over 50,000.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'll give you the short story.
The world is a mess and we are struggling to find any solutions because brainless attention seekers LIKE YOU and your gal pal Cleo Abrams wont shut up and keep pumping out nonsense on social media. You act like you care and yet spin these great tales of "look see, we are telling you stuff" and all you do is confuse people with highly selective data.
I'm an engineer. I started with a degree in aerospace but have spent most of the last 35 years in industrial control systems which are the sensors and computers that run things. My goal in life was to build a moon base. That requires a working knowledge of mining, mineral processing, manufacturing, water treatment, waste treatment and many other things including farming because humans need food. By chance, working as a control systems engineer I have worked in all of those industries, except I got the farming from my grandparents.
I can tell you straight up the problem is NOT Liberal or Libertarian or Socialist or Theocratic ideology or any other political ideology its ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY. No matter what the political system you society has these days, every politician is either an economist or has an economic adviser and they have all been taught the same economics from the same text books. Across every industry I have worked I found a common issue - economics. All of the people in management have the same economics training
Go ask any engineer, school teacher, doctor, nurse and many others who know their industry. They will tell you that at every attempt to make anything better they get intercepted by, interfered with and block by someone asking "What's the business case for that?" and/or "Who's going to pay for that?"
Added to that are people LIKE YOU who just create more and more confusion because there is a business case that says "more clicks equals more money".
Johnny YOU ARE the PROBLEM
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ColaSpandex No one should expect a conviction of any of the top 1%. Right now in the world its an absurd concept to think any of them will even be charged let alone convicted of anything.
I've heard clowns howling about Vladimir Putin's crimes and how he has to be held accountable. Yeah which laws? Would those be the same laws that America and its allies broke when they invaded Iraq? Who was held accountable over that.
That invasion was followed the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB. Yeah a few low level soldiers were charged but none of the officers and non of the politicians who pushed it. Do you know the Lawyer John Yoo who wrote the infamous torture memo that kicked it all off is now a tenured Law Professor.
After the 2008 GFC the American DOJ prosecuted over 3,000 cases BUT NOT one of them was a CEO or Senior Manager. Since then the world has had the Panama Papers, Paradise Papers and Pandora Papers released detailing the industrialized tax evasion of the worlds elite. So far (as far as I know) not a single person anywhere in the world has been charged of anything.
We now know the Sackler family made billions as they doped up millions and got 1,000s and 1,000s dead and NONE of them have been charged with squat.
Since the Reagan years (when he started suppressing it) the American DOJ has not prosecuted a single major anti-trust case. That's allowed the tech monopolies of Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. Its also allowed the commercial monopolies like Walmart and others. Anti-trust was meant to protect society from (among other things) the existence of "too big to fail. I just saw a talk by Mark Blyth about Asset manager Capitalism. Between them Vanguard, Blackrock and State Street now own over 20% of the entire S&P 500. That means they have people on every board in the S&P 500.
What makes anyone think that anyone in the top 1% gets served justice for what they do?
We are headed into some extraordinary times right now. There are so many pressures on the entire human race - economics, war, food and the one the top 1% hate climate. What's going to happen when something finally snaps and the obvious things become unignorable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Its the second week of January 2021 and America is about to go past 400,000 dead just as Joe Biden takes the oath of office..
A few weeks ago Michael was warning about how bad the Christmas - New year could be.
I'm Australian but went to college at U. Illinois. I've been watching Michael since the early days, because it was clear he was one of the very few who was being honest with us. He was even interviewed a few times on Australian TV. Like many others from around the world I have followed his updates over much of the last year -> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI7n04W1HWAPMrI4_41StSg
If you actually add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million which compares to Australia's 25.6 million.
Yes I know quite well there are significant differences in geography, population density and winter conditions, but in terms of medical technology, transportation and technical capability there's zero difference. We got very lucky with the initial spread. We cancelled many events and had NO crowds at all our major sports for the year and all that resulted in us not spreading it. But none of that explains the staggering differences.
Australia has a total of 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin total over 33,812 as of 12/1/2021
In the 7 days from 4 to 10 January 2021 Illinois had 971 COVID fatalities. In one week Illinois with half as many people as Australia had more deaths from this than Australia has had in 12 months.
On the main table at -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ Australia is 54th in population and 86th in COVID fatalities. If Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin were a country they would be 16th. Illinois by itself would rank 21st in the world. New York by itself would be 14th.
In terms of death-rate (deaths/1M.pop) Illinois, Indiana & Wisconsin would be 4th (at 1342).
3 American states (New Jersey, New York & Massachusetts) have a higher death-rate than any nation or independent state in the world.
For whatever luck and other things that may have favored us, nothing explains that discrepancy other than a complete failure of leadership.
1
-
TO ALL FROM AUSTRALIA Here are the links to the interview and the full program it was done as part of.
A bit of background for those unfamiliar with Australia's ABC and the program called "4 Corners" this interview was done for.
Australia's ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) no affiliation to America's ABC. It is our public broadcaster in a similar way to America's PBS and the British BBC. The program "4 Corners" does investigative long length stories the same way PBS's Frontline and BBC's Panorama do. This interview was done as part of a 2 Part special about how the Murdoch owned Fox News became Donald Trumps propaganda machine called "Fox and the Big Lie". The program included interviews with several ex-Fox presenters including Gretchen Carlson as well as the Sidney Powell interview.
Fox and the Big Lie Part 1-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o
Fox and the Big Lie Part 2-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWJhqOPe6rw
Gretchen Carlson Interview-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOEAsp95AE4
Sidney Powell Interview-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyWDAJzCZk
Below is more background information, some of which David P viewers probably know. And yes (like many others) I can write pages about this stuff.
Australia's ABC is often claimed to be a leftist organization by Australian Right Wing conservatives. Its also claimed to favor the right by leftists when it exposes things the left get up to. The Murdoch's and other prominent media owners like the Packers and Fairfax's have wanted the ABC dismantled for decades, particularly the independent journalism. You can easily find this by looking for "Sky News Australia" which is Rupert Murdoch's Australian outlet and has its own versions of Hannity, Carlson,.... etc.
As to why Australia is so interested in this. Its simple America is Australia's most important trading and security partner AND and Australian born business man is influencing America in a massive way. Yes, Murdoch also has huge influence here in Australia and in Britain buts its not as massive as it is in America. Here in Australia 2 ex-Prime Ministers (Rudd and Turnbull) have launched an inquiry into Murdoch influence in Australia. Rudd is a leftist and Turnbull is center right, so they represent BOTH sides of our politics. But note, Turnbull is seen as a pariah (and traitor) by the far right. Turnbull has also claimed that Murdoch was part of the "cabal" that had him dumped from the leadership. As a political position Australia's Prime Minister (like the British, Canadian,...... etc.) is more akin to the American "Speaker of the House." As such the PM can be dumped from that position at almost anytime.
As a trading and security partner Australia is similar to a few other countries like Canada, Mexico, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines,.... etc. I was actually in Canada for work when Trump tore up NAFTA and saw their reaction (not pretty). America was the driver behind NAFTA and the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) and Trump tore both apart. Australia like a few others have staked their future security on the F35 Lightning II. Before COVID and before Trump we struggled to get our jets delivered and now struggle to get spare parts.
In several ways Australia (like many other countries) just can't afford to have America be this dysfunctional. We have people who simply hate America and even they admit (when pressed) that "a healthy functioning America is in our best interests." Fox News with its influence is making America MORE dysfunctional. If you watch Part 1 (above) you'll see that Fox News was the first to call Arizona. People were then fired from Fox, for upsetting Trump and risking the business.
It's not like the Western World wasn't warned about Murdoch. Here's where you can watch the 2004 Documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"
-> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P74oHhU5MDk
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
HEY DEMOCRACY NOW - Can you please STOP putting microphones in front of people who just repeat the same things again and again. IT DOES NOTHING TO FURTHER THE CONVERSATION.
I am an engineer and I have worked in the mining part of Australia's nuclear industry.
Vladimir Slivyak says the are 3 things to consider.
1) We need action on climate now. Yes this is correct but it has nothing to do with the viability of nuclear power its just a statement of fact. He also says at this point nuclear is slow to construct. This is also true for the traditional types of reactors like pressure water reactors. But this is misleading because there are more than one type of nuclear reactor and some take considerably longer to build that others. The EPR (European power Reactor) that was recently commissioned in Finland took 18 years to build but the 2 new EPRs at Hinkley Point in Britain will take 10 and the most recent CANDU (Canadian) style reactor built in China took 4 years.
2) Its risky technology that produces nuclear waste. First despite the spectacular accidents at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear energy is responsible for far fewer deaths than coal. Yes nuclear power has risks but so does everything. If we can't use nuclear power because of the risks then we also have to ban all cars, truck, airplanes, plastics and pretty much everything else that makes the modern world the modern world because they all have risks and they all create pollution.
Yes spent nuclear fuel is dangerous to handle especially when it first comes out of the reactor because its still fairly active.
On the current generation of reactors. They are safer than they have ever been. There have been some harsh lessons from both Chernobyl and Fukushima that nobody wants repeated. As an engineer with formal safety system qualifications I can state that if the engineers are allowed to do their jobs properly then nuclear is safe. YES there is a BIG IF to that claim and has been show repeatedly in many industries if people are allowed to cut corners they will. Disasters like the Bhopal accident cannot be allowed to happen again and that is simply a matter of ENFORCING regulations and HOLDING MANAGERS ACCOUNTABLE.
3) He claims nuclear power is the most expensive of all energy sources and this is true BUT LIKE SO MANY he doesn't say by how much. He doesn't talk about the costs over time. For sure Nuclear is more expensive than wind and solar especially the initial construction costs. But if we replace coal fired plants with equivalent sized nuclear plants then the costs of upgrading the grid either does not exist or is much less. One genuine criticism of the wind/solar proponents is where are we going to get all the copper, aluminium, steel, zinc, and other materials needed to expand the energy grids out to where the wind turbines and solar panels are.
PLUS AND I NEVER HEAR pro-solar people discuss it, how do we dispose of or recycle the solar cells when they have reached the end of their useful life which is around 25 years.
PLUS AND I NEVER HEAR pro-wind power people discuss what we do with all of the worn out parts to the wind turbines because they DO NOT LAST FOREVER and they can be a major disposal issue.
WHAT PEOPEL LIKE Vladimir ARE NOT SAYING INCLUDE:
FIRST - We don't have enough of certain resources to even try and do the energy transition as its currently being done. Its not that the transition is impossible but WE NEED A BETTER PLAN and people like Vladimir keep repeating the same things because its all they have. They know they can't answer certain questions.
There are 1.5 Billion cars on the planet and 500 million trucks. The Tesla Model S uses 63kg of Lithium. If we try and replace all the cars with electric cars with the same methods we currently use we need around 94 million tons of Lithium. According to the US Geological Survey there's about 21 million tons in current reserves and by other estimates maybe 26 million tons.
That's before we try and answer we we'll get all the cobalt, nickel, copper and other metals needed to do the transition.
The simple fact is we need new energy storage technologies.
SECOND - there is a significant difference between the types of power that Wind/Solar and Nuclear deliver into a power grid. There's what engineers call BASE LOAD. This the power we need 24 hours a day 7 days a week just to keep society running. Nuclear is great for this because it can just run irrespective of what the weather is doing. Wind/Solar are not good for base load as they require storage systems.
Then there's what engineers call LOAD FOLLOWING, which is also called ON DEMAND and PEAKING. These are the energy demand swings that happen every day in the modern world. As people wake up in the morning they turn lots of things on. That settles down during the day before there's another surge as people go home and turn on lots more stuff.
In the traditional energy sector they have tended to build smaller power stations right next to much larger power stations. For an example look at the Loy Yang power station in my home stats of Victoria. Literally across the street is the Valley Power station which has a capacity of 300MW, which is less than 1/10th the capacity of Loy Yang. Loy yang is a large BASE LOAD power station which can be adjusted but its big and adjusts slowly. The Valley Power station has gas turbines which are the same basic technology as jet engines. They can be started and stopped reasonably quickly and can adjust to power needs quickly.
Nuclear is great for BASE LOAD because it can be there 24/7.
Wind/Solar is great for LOAD FOLLOWING because it can be started & stopped and adjusted quickly to handle the daily swings especially when combined with some storage.
THIRD and this really irks me because its the sort of thing people like Vladimir should be howling about. WHERE does anyone think they are getting the fuel for all these new reactors they talk about?
This subject in particular shows how IGN0RANT people like Vladimir really are. There's not as much Uranium as most people think. YES - there's a lot but it still has to be dug out of the ground and then processed into fuel. Canada is historically the largest producer of Uranium ore, but Australia has the largest reserves BUT THAT'S NOT THE REAL PROBLEM. Because of events like Chernobyl and Fukushima there's a WORLD WIDE SHORTAGE of processing facilities to turn the raw Uranium into fuel grade Uranium. America in particular has a shortage of processing capacity. At the moment 1 in 20 American homes is powered by Uranium that was enriched in RUSSIA because Russia still has spare capacity.
Despite all the publicity about sanctions the one thing America has NOT sanctioned is Russian fuel grade Uranium exports because without that supply America would be in trouble. So the anti-nuclear people SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTING THIS and they aren't because they are IGNORANT.
And as long as the media keep handing the microphone over to IGN0RANT people we are screwed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roseromans8497 Don't get self righteous, THAT WAS HILARY'S MISTAKE.
If you can't understand why people are angry at how she has behaved these last 6 years since, then you are as blind to reality as the Trump supporters. That sort of pig headed tribalism is the biggest hinderance to solving any problem we face.
It doesn't matter if you're a Clinton, Obama, Bush, Reagan, Trump, Putin, Kim, Xi devotee. That blind faith to messianic political figures is mindlessness at its worst. None of them give a damn about our future. Its ridiculous how selfish they all are. Have you seen the Intro Hilary does for he "master class" where she reads what was going to be her 2016 acceptance speech. ITS PATHETIC.
Look at what the Clintons and Obamas did during the primaries. Did they let people vote or did they do back room deals to get what they wanted? The DNC might not be as as bad as the GOP, but that's like asking a condemned prisoner if he wants to be shot or hanged.
We are at a turning point in history and if you hide in some delusional past whether its the Clinton years or Reagan years it does not matter - you are going to be caught on the wrong side of history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
AEROSPACE Engineer here and I've heard some similar stories regarding many technologies like:
1950 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1960 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1970 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1980 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
1990 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2000 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2010 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
2020 We'll have Nuclear Fusion in 30 years because somebody made a breakthrough.
By chance can you guess how far away nuclear fusion will be in 2030?
I'm Australian but did my degree in America.
I was doing my degree in the late 80s and we EXPECTED to build Space Station Freedom in the 1990s and then be back on the Moon by 2001 to start setting up a lunar base that would be the start of a permanent settlement AND YES we took that date from the film.
THEN the Challenger accident happened and as we know it was because of poor decisions being made by the wrong people. That has been followed by several 1,000 poor decisions being made by the wrong people and we are no closer to a permanent lunar base than we were January 28, 1986 when Challenger happened.
I have spent the last 30+ years working across a variety of industries doing industrial control systems and trying quietly to learn from these industries how we might do stuff on the moon.
So long as we have the combination of the wrong people making bad decisions in combination with the unrealistic promotions (and at least Cold Fusion does but "providers" into the story) of effectively vacant over rated (and often over hyped) "future technologies" that will re-shape humanity we wont (as a species) move forward because too many of the basic things like food, shelter, clean water, clean energy and a few other things are NOT DEALT WITH as a priority.
I have spent most of the last 20 years working on construction mines in remote locations because it presents the same sorts of issues building a lunar base has. Everything is at least 3 days away, the environment is hostile and you have to build all the basic infrastructure any modern society needs including housing, food storage, food prep, clean water, waste water, power (including power distribution), roads and very importantly workshops for maintenance.
While we have story after story of the latest break though technology we are also surrounded by crumbling infrastructure. Go and look at any modern society and you will find major infrastructure issues. They might differ from country to country but we all have them. Energy infrastructure is the major issue that most have and its a serious issue because everything needs energy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1