Youtube comments of Tony Wilson (@tonywilson4713).

  1. 573
  2. 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
  3. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Simple answer - NO, Peter's quite right that hypersonics are NOT replacing anything. They'll just be another weapon in the inventory. Longer answers below based on Peter's 3 main points. 1) Hypersonics are expensive: The Americans have flown a number of hypersonic vehicles deployed from jets at altitude. The X-43 flew twice at a cost of $230,000,000 or $115 million each. The X-51 flew 4 times for around $85 million each. When you look at what it took to get the SR-71 to fly at Mach 3.3 people think going over Mach 5 is just a matter of more bang. The reason the F-22 was so expensive to operate was because whenever it went fast it would burn the radar absorbent paint off. Going that fast is hard and its expensive. If it was easy and cheap we'd all be flying around in 2nd or 3rd generation Concordes. 2) Speed, fuel, payload: First to go twice as fast you need 4 times the energy before you even consider drag. Its called kinetic energy. So just going from Mach 1 to Mach 5 requires 25 times the energy. Go and look at the X-43 and look at how big the booster was just to get the X-43 model up to a speed where its SCRAM jet could start working. So yes Peter is very very right when he say s they need a lot of fuel and therefore have very small warheads. But they do arrive with a lot of kinetic energy and that does enhance the effectiveness especially when it had to penetrate things like several meters of reinforced concrete. 3) Air defense: One of the great myths about hypersonic missiles being promoted by idiots in the media and snakes in the military industrial complex who want nice juicy contracts is that hypersonic missiles are manoeuvrable. They are NOT that manoeuvrable as the pretty graphics like to show. At those speeds things go very straight and at best make some adjustments. A such they were always going to be vulnerable to systems that could detect them early enough. Back in WW2 flak shells weren't so much meant to hit planes they were meant to blast in front of the planes and then let the planes fly into the wall of shrapnel. If you look up the modern CIWS (see-wiz) systems they create a wall of metal for the missile to fly through. Go and look up how the Rheinmetall GDM-008 Millennium Gun and the Advanced Hit Efficiency And Destruction (AHEAD) ammunition air burst ammunition it fires works. There's videos here on YT showing it. Kh-47M2 Kinzhal was always going to be vulnerable to that method of defense if it could detect the Kinzhal early enough, which clearly the patriot can. ON AI selecting targets. This entire narrative of AI being actually think and reason is utter nonsense. AIs are just complex software algorithms that can mimic what a person can do but very fast especially when the task is data analysis or the task can be done as a data analysis task. If they can't get a car to drive down a street and NOT kill people crossing the street then they are nowhere near as the hype suggests. Go and see the reports on how many people the AI in Teslas have killed. PUT IT THIS WAY does anyone want weapons with software written by overrated clowns like the ones who did the software in the Boeing Max-8 that just decided to fly the planes into the ground. These are things are actually designed to strike and kill targets. I write real time software for industrial systems as a control system and automation engineer. I write software that reads information in real time from sensors and makes decisions based on that information. Sensors aren't perfect and they can give spurious data. that's what happened with the Max-8 and look what happened when their software didn't detect the anomaly. Most software people from outside my corner of the software world have NEVER DONE that type of software AND ITS DAMN HARD at times. Most who try to do it either take the easier jobs or they do something else. if the Tesla deaths, Boeing Max-8 and other accidents aren't enough to convince people that this stuff is very hard to do and very easy to get wrong then nothing ever will.
    311
  4. 281
  5. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Just some perspective on Crew Dragon and SORRY that this is long. First I absolutely agree that there's massive issues with Elon Musk and how he does business that's perfectly obvious. There's also no doubt the Gwynne Shotwell has said some dumb things which Thunderf00t and others have pointed out. I am also of the same opinion that both Starlink and Starship are doomed to fail (see below). If we are going to fairly judge Falcon9/Crew Dragon then it needs to be compared against its actual competition. You pointed out that a Falcon9 launch costs $67 Million. I have seen Crew Dragon costed at $70 Million. Crew Dragon delivers 4 people to the ISS on each flight making it a cost of $17.5 million per astronaut to the ISS. The last seat an American had on Soyuz has been reported at $80 Million for 1 person. The Space Shuttle cost $350-450 Million per launch and despite its ability to carry up to 8 people it only ever delivered 3 to the ISS for a crew rotation but the others on a flight did stuff while there so its harder to cost but its safe to say it cost over $80 Million for each astronaut who stayed and did a stint on the ISS. However the Space shuttle could also deliver at the same time 16 tons of cargo to the ISS and that's basically 4-5 times Cargo Dragon. So when you consider the Space shuttle on each flight did the equivalent of 5-6 Falcon 9s its in the same ball park as Falcon 9. Here's the ugly comparison - Boeing Starliner the Boeing Max-8 of space flight. The Boeing Starliner which has had more than $550 Million in US Government money ($92M in 2011 and another $460M in 2012) for development is yet to fly successfully. According to Wikipedia Boeing has incurred costs between 2020 and 2022 of $883M and considering its cost plus contracting the US tax payer will eventually cop those costs. So for more than $1.3 Trillion (with a 't') the Boeing Starliner has flown twice for 1 failed mission and 1 partly failed mission. Basically Crew Dragon is NOT a major step forward or a revolutionary rocket. It is however an improvement on what NASA had especially following the demise of the Space Shuttle. Importantly compared to its main opposition (Starliner) it "looks" pretty magical but that's because Starliner really sucks. Crew Dragon is a step backwards so that NASA can go forwards. Thunderf00t has been around enough engineering project and research work to know that at times you simply have to step backwards because you've run into a wall. Going back to the SPACE SHUTTLE and heads up I did a comprehensive review of its history several years ago as part of the lessons learned section of a proposal. Its basic dry weight is 75 tons. So before you even give it people and cargo you have to lift 75t around 200km and then accelerate it to around 25,000 kmh. Those numbers get bigger going to the Space Station which is why its LEO payload is listed as 30t and its payload to the ISS is listed at 16t. So that 75t is a massive cost but it was sort of offset by reusability, but even that had issues. On top of those fuel costs the Space Shuttle required a lot more manpower to service it than first planned. Its one of the main reasons manned space flight stalled. All the things needed to go further and do things like build a lunar base needed people working on the technologies needed. Not only did the Space Shuttle consume money it also consumed the time people needed to do other things. THAT'S what made the Space Shuttle a failure. Technically it was an amazing achievement but for manned space flight it cost us 30-40 years. STARLINK It will fail just like the Iridium satellite phone system failed. Its a solution to a problem that does not exist. This is what kills many (what people think are) great ideas. If you are in a remote location it might provide a service but for anyone with an easy link to broad band then what does it offer? Plus the optic fibres that broad band is based on don't need to be replaced every few years in the same way the Starlink satellites drop out of orbit. Plus if you want to upgrade your broad band system Bob the Builder's mate Eric the Electro-tech can drive to the network hub and swap out the nodes. 🤷‍♂🤷‍♂ STARSHIP Not long after the Soviet Union collapsed the Russians released a trove of information on their lunar program based around the N-1 rocket. Go have a look at the arrangement of the motors in the N-1's first stage. YES Starship has a similar arrangement and when you know what the issues with the N-1 were, which I have known for over 20 years having read reviews on the N-1 back in the 1990s. The big problem the N-1 had was if they had a motor failure in the outer ring they needed to shut down the motor directly opposite or the off centre load would make the rocket uncontrollable. The Soviets had a system to do that automatically but it failed to work properly and the N-1 did a very similar thing to what we saw with Starship. Starship not only has the same inherent issue of the N-1 their control system for handling engine failures has the same issues the Russians had in the 1970s. Clearly that first flight showed it does NOT have the control range to handle the sorts of failures it had. But that's nothing. STARSHIP LAUNCH SITE. I have spent most of my engineering career in industrial control systems which has included safety systems. I had the second highest qualification available in that area at one stage. SO I AM FORMALLY TRAINED in assessing sites and systems for hazard identification, risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies. That launch site should never have been approved. for use. 1) The launch pad had no thrust diverter and when you consider the mass flow out of those engines (~26 tons per second at over 3.2km/s) and its just slamming into a flat surface. Look up the Wikipedia page for the N-1 and look at the size of the 3 exhaust tunnels. No one should have been surprised that the launch platform failed and chunks of concrete were ripped up and tossed 100s of meters. 2) Right beside the launch pad are the rocket fuel and oxygen storage tanks. If you look at the photos it had a small deflection barrier less than 1/2 the height of those tanks. That barrier means they expected rocket exhaust gases to head towards those tanks and they were left seriously exposed. On basic safety grounds that site should never have been allowed to be used for such a launch and quite possibly ANY LAUNCH. For anyone who wants to hold Gwynne Shotwell to account this is your opportunity. As the Chief Operating Officer and a highly qualified engineer she should KNOW BETTER should be held personally accountable. I have a pilots license and that's the sort of thing that gets airlines grounded and in some cases LOSE THEIR OPERATING LICENSE. SORRY to all this is as long as it is. I mostly agree with Thunerf00t and others like Common Sense Skeptic but I also think that a few things need better context. Especially that applies to comparing Crew Dragon to its competition which in the case of Boeing Starliner its a lot better than some people think, but I'd agree with anyone who says its neither revolutionary nor an ideal solution BUT IT DOES WORK.
    280
  6. 246
  7. 229
  8. 212
  9. 208
  10. 148
  11. 132
  12. AUSTALIAN ENGINEER HERE: This is NOT an American problem but it is caused by the adoption of American economics in the 80s and 90s. I first became aware of Australia's issues from a small consulting job in 2016. I found we had a fleet of ageing power stations and NO PLANS on the table. There wasn't even a single proposal being spoken about and there still isn't to this day. Our ID0TIC media will put a microphone in front of anyone EXCEPT an engineer leading to the general public being badly informed. When I started to dig further I found that the same or similar situation existed across the developed world. Ageing fleets of power stations and no plans to replace them. Because of population growth the moment you finish 1 power station you should at least start planning the next ones AND THAT PROCESS STOPPED in the 1990s. MYTH #1: The energy transition is being driven by a move to green energy . WRONG - it was always going to happen because power stations wear out and need to be replace. On top of that populations grow and they need new power stations to keep businesses operating and the lights to work. The only question is "What do we build next?" In this case there are competing technologies who hate each other along ideological NOT technical lines. Its also a 4-way battle not a 2-way battle and inside those 4 groups are factions who don't always get along. There's fossil fuel made up of the oil & gas factions. There's renewables made up of wind & solar factions. There's nuclear which has a bunch of factions with different technologies all fighting each other for venture capital. Then there's the natural resource people which is 99% hydro but also geothermal, tidal, wave., ... etc. The biggest issue right now is the fighting going on between the Renewables and Nuclear promoters. They both know coal is dead and are fighting each other which is stupid because there's so much to do they'll both be fine. I actually suspect the fossil fuel people have infiltrated some of those groups to stir the argument into the morass it now is. MYTH #2: This mess was caused by the Greenies. WRONG - It was caused by the economists restructuring the energy markets in the 80s & 90s. It just took a couple of decades for what they did to finally come to where we are. BEFORE Reaganomics, Thatcherism and the neoliberal way, Governments built large power stations and kept the energy markets in OVER SUPPLY. That guaranteed new businesses access to CHEAP power. Its was great for employment and GDP growth but as Milton Friedman said businesses don't exist to create jobs or drive GDP. Private companies exits to make PROFIT and as much as they can. So when the bought up the energy sectors they DID NOTHING in the way of new power stations and simply let population growth catch up and flip the system into UNDER SUPPLY. They did this to make profit and they made boat loads, but now we are all left with ageing fleets of power stations that need replacing and NOBODY has that much money.
    126
  13. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I did my degree in American in the late 80s when Reagan was spending tons of money. Our department was flush with DARPA funding for Reagan's Star Wars. In my final year we had to do 2 or more advanced option classes which we shared with the post graduate students who also had to present conference level papers. One of my classes was in Spacecraft Dynamics which is the single hardest class I ever had. Its all about how you make spacecraft point in space. It sounded real cool when we signed up and then the math started. In that class was the single most mathematically gifted engineer I've ever met. We were all pretty smart but he made us all feel dumb. He was actually able to simulate a solution to making a laser cannon point accurately in space. The problem is that its not like a satellite or the Hubble space telescope which rotate and point very slowly. Shooting down missiles is more like skeet shooting in that its all very rapid recognition, movement and shooting. What really killed off Star Wars 1.0 and this will still hold true today are 2 basic facts. 1) Lasers reflect off shiny surfaces. So all you need to do is make the surface of your missile a mirror finish and lasers become fairly useless. 2) The basic mechanics of shooting at something that accurately at an object that might be 1,000km away or more moving at hypersonic speeds is absurd. People just don't get how big space actually is. Even the space close to the Earth that we call Low Earth Orbit is a massive amount of territory.
    109
  14. You are 100% right but it goes a lot further than Boeing. I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. I've worked across a number of industries and what you have described with the problem of financiers is RAMPANT across most industries especially all of the technical and engineering industries. I became so frustrated I started informally studying economics so that I can talk their language and be able to push back. The thing that really motivated me was finding out how bad of a state Australia's (my country) energy sector was from doing a small consulting job. I can 100% guarantee you that the current energy crisis has NOTHING to do with Ukraine other than Ukraine made the situation worse. The problem is that its NOT just 1 thing. Its collectively called neoliberalism which is more than simply economics as its got political aspects as well. The main problem with energy is that economists have NO IDEA how energy actually produced generated. In fact they have no idea how anything is produced. They see all forms of production as a collection of magic black boxes that "stuff" comes out of. They walk into places of production (food, minerals, products, whatever) arriving with some form of market analysis that declares this "stuff" has a market price of $X. From that $X market price and their declared profit margin they calculate what the cost of production is and then start telling everyone how they have to cut costs to match what they have calculated. Go and look at the Max-8 Story and that's basically what happened. They decided what the market cost was to compete with Airbus and used that to make decisions, which included NOT having the additional costs of a suitable anti-stall system.
    109
  15. 101
  16. 97
  17. AS AN ENGINEER: My red flags for technology scams are: 1: Any person who dropped out of their university or college like Elizabeth Holmes. 2: People claiming: "This is a game changing technology." 3: People claiming: "This is a disruptive technology." 4: People claiming: "This technology will change (or is changing) the world." Note: This is incredibly prevalent among IT people who struggle to separate the realms of the internet for reality. This is most notable among the Crypto people who have confused the technology of blockchain for the security of real state backed money. 5: People claiming: "This technology is so simple a child can understand it." or any other claim along the line of "I swear its not that hard!" which is one of Elon Musk's favorite lines. 6: People claiming: "Our technology uses the latest in AI." Note: AI itself is a terribly misused term. Nobody has yet developed anything like software that can think. What there is are software packages that can mimic well defined tasks like comparing images/pictures. 7: Any technology you once saw in sci-fi being promoted as an original idea. Elizabeth Holmes Theranos "one drop of blood" came from the film "Gattaca." Elon Musk's Hyperloop was originally described by Robert Goddard in 1904. Pods in tubes was in many sci-fi films and TV shows notably Logan's Run (1976) and Space 1999 (1975-77). These I would call Yellow or Orange flags. Its not that they are run from its they are be careful. 8: People claiming: "This technology is not like that technology its an improvement that works." Sometimes people do take a failed technology and work out why it failed and fix the problem. 9: Any technology that defies the basic laws of physics. Sorry by the Universe doesn't believe in magic. Occasionally somebody finds a way to make use of the basic laws of physics in a way nobody thought of before, but that's rare. 10: Anybody spruiking a technology and you hear the phrase "self trained." If they say in addition things like: "My Father/Uncle/Boss was a qualified X/Y/Z and I learned from them," then they did have informal training and are probably practical and many great inventions have come from informal practical education. Its still something to be wary of, BUT if they are that mindset "I didn't need to go to college because I was too smart for the teachers (similar to Elizabeth Holmes)" then run and run fast.
    96
  18. 93
  19. 93
  20. 92
  21. 80
  22. 80
  23. 75
  24. 73
  25. 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
  26. 69
  27. 68
  28. 67
  29. 64
  30. AUSTRALIAN HERE - We've had the same sorts of discussions here for over 30 years as we shut down industry after industry. At the beginning of this the reporters asks - "Who's to blame? Is it climate hysteria is it Brexit or is it the current conservative Administration?" The answer to that is the same as the answer we have in Australia - NONE OF THEM. How could these problems in Wales be linked to the same problems in Australia? Simple - This is the result of decisions made well over 30 years ago in the 1980s when the Western World flipped its economics from Keynesian economics over to free market Neoliberalism. In Britain you called it Thatcherism. In Australia we called it Economic Rationalism and the Americans called it Reaganomics. Today its call called Neoliberalism. I'm actually an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems, robotics and automation. Back in 2016 I had a small consulting job that highlighted an incredibly serious issue with Australia's energy sector AND NOBODY was doing anything about it. Worse we still aren't. So I started looking into WHY? Other than "Greed is Good"_ a Key part of Milton Friedmans free market doctrine is that the government shall do as little as possible and let the markets react and respond to changes in demand. The stupidity of this is that people like Milton Freidman had no understanding of industrial sectors or logistics. To this day economists still have NO UNDERSATNDING of industry or logistics. I recently found out that they don't even include energy in their economic models. That's absurd because it means they have no idea of the stuff that we use to convert raw materials into finished products or what it takes to move those raw materials and products around so they are where people can buy them. Australian economist Steve Keen has been pointing this out for years only to be dismissed by the Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale types. Gary Stevenson the young British economist that all you Brits should be listening too, did a great video on _"Why economists are always wrong." What he explains are some inherent failures in both the education of economists, how they formulate economic policies, act on those polices and HOW THEY FAIL. I know Gary is always talking about issues in Britain but there are times when it feels like he's talking about Australia and that's because we are all running on similar economic ideology.
    64
  31. 62
  32. 62
  33. 60
  34. 57
  35. 54
  36. 53
  37. 53
  38. 52
  39. 51
  40. I will grant Sam any day of the week that MOST of his argument is valid, but the small part where he is TOTALLY 100% WRONG needs saying. Claiming cultural superiority is the most dangerous of all human traits because at its most basic it decides the fate of people by their birth. Its the very basis for for so many of histories ugliest moments. Every cultural and tribal and nation group has its fanatics and every so often that group takes control. That usually happens when a society is under stress. We are seeing that in America right now, where there is staggering economic stress over a massive section of the population. Its what's allowed Trump to grasp the power base that he has. The stress that Israel has applied to the Palestinian people for such a long time now has lead many young Palestinians right into the arms of Hamas. Just like the stress on many young Germans in the 1930s lead them into the arms of the Nazis. The other thing is that such fanatics will mistreat their own people with MORE violence and cruelty than they treat others. In Germany people who they felt were unworthy of being shot were guillotined like Sophie Scholl whose crime was distributing anti-Nazi Pamphlets at the University of Munich. A few weeks back Vice News did a story titled "Israel’s Far Right Government is a Gift to Settlers" in that story a young settler who has been REMOVED from land he has claimed on multiple occasions by ISRAELI authorities. They have told him repeatedly that this patch of land is NOT HIS to take. In the interview in one breath he's claiming that he's peaceful and he says "I'm a Jew talking to a non-Jew peacefully" In the next breath he basically says that anyone who doesn't agree with what he wants should have their heads cut off. Whenever you ignore the fanatics among any group they will fester and wait for an opportunity to grasp power. Right now Sam should have a look over his shoulder at the Libertarians in America. They've been waiting decades to grasp power and Trump opened the door for them BECAUSE the lazy establishments of both the DNC and RNC left a massive slab of the American population vulnerable to a morally bankrupt person like Trump. The lesson is: NEVER ignore the fanatic in your own culture or one day they will rip your people apart when you least expect it.
    49
  41. 49
  42. 48
  43. 47
  44. 47
  45. Australian here: A number of years ago I was in a taxi in Sydney. Australian taxi drivers come form all over the world and they are a great source of basic information on places the media never report on. This particular taxi driver was from Liberia and I asked him "Liberia's a country we don't hear much about and what we do hear is mostly bad. So what happened?" He basically said when the French were in control it was basically developing and reasonably civil because they kept the various tribal issues in check. Then one day they just got up and left but handed all the weapons over to 1 tribe who then went on a rampage." The biggest problem with Africa is Europeans split the continent up according to what they wanted and that often upset the balances between the existing tribes and their boundaries. The most notable instance of this is in Namibia where there is the Caprivi Strip (in the North East). This strip exists because of a deal the Germans made with the British so that Germany could have access to the Zambezi River and a route to Africa's east coast, where the colony of German East Africa (now part of Tanzania). Its all detailed on Wikipedia. That strip runs right through the middle of several traditional homelands of different tribes. Those tribes now have parts of their homelands in Angola, Namibia, Zambia, Botswana and Zimbabwe. The European colonial era made a mess of Africa from which Africa has NEVER RECOVERED. Americans should be the last to talk about this stuff considering they ignored the advice some of their own people gave before they invaded Iraq in 2003. Eric Shinseki to congress in a public hearing that not only was Iraq a significant amount of geography to cover but there were ethnic/tribal conflicts with centuries of feuding and violent history.
    46
  46. Do you think he's alone?? I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. A lot of that includes safety control functions like Emergency Stops and Safety interlocks. You know that stuff that keeps hands attached and prevents stuff blowing up. I eventually got the second highest qualification any engineer can get in that field. Getting that qualification has kept me OUT OF WORK. The last time I saw a job specifically asking for that qualification I called up the recruiter to enquire. By that time my qualification needed to be renewed, but that was just a fee. I asked that if I was offered the job I'd pay the fee before starting. The reply was "Your the 4th or 5th person to put that too me today" and then they hanged up. That meant that other engineers had been experiencing EXACTLY the same situations I had. That's what being qualified means to engineers these days. You work you ass off to get your degree which with all the math and applied math classes is damn lot harder than any arts degree. If you then take the effort to get further qualified your job prospects can GO DOWN not up. People like Managers and their Human Resource minions don't like people who speak out and people with qualifications are often caught out. Their employment contacts often include clauses where "if you know something you must speak out" which clashes with the reality that if you speak out you get your contract cut WHICH HAS HAPPENED TO ME just like it happed to the submariner/engineer David Lochridge who's suing Oceangate. If you think engineers are angry over this sort of crap YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT and its about time there were some actual laws that protected us. Because when we're allowed to do our jobs YOUR LIVES are safer. - When your driving a car its mechanical engineers who designed the brakes to help you stop before the tree; - When you plug something in its electrical engineers who make it so you don't get shocked; - When you drink a glass of water its chemical engineers who make it so you don't get poisoned; - When you get in a jet to fly off on your holiday its aerospace engineers who keep the wings attached. We keep you clowns alive in 100s of ways every day. And before any of you complain just note you wouldn't even be able to read this with out engineers.
    43
  47. 42
  48. 42
  49. 42
  50. 42
  51. 41
  52. 41
  53.  @ProjectFarm  I just made a similar comment in another thread and this is a great thing you do in your tests. You consider durability. I'm an engineer in the process of getting my own shop set up. And value for money is VERY HIGH on my priority list. I haven't yet decided on a power saw for cutting down stock bars. I'm even considering making one, like a power hacksaw because it can be made from a windscreen wiper mechanism. But no matter what I do I'd need blades and blades cost money. So for someone like me, who doesn't need speed but needs DURABILITY these tests are quite valuable. For me the Diablo wins just slightly ahead of the Irwin, not because its speed (which is in the middle) but because it (like the Irwin) handled "abuse" better than the others. My bet is some of the other blades would be fantastic in both speed and durability if they were kept to the EXACT metal types they are designed for. Great test. If you are looking for suggestions. 1) Portable power BAND saws like the Milwaukee M18FBS, Makita DBP and Dewalt DCS. Yeah I know they are pricey but maybe a couple of the suppliers might want to see a head to head. And yeah making a test rig might be a bit of a hassle but I can help with concepts. 2) Sabre (reciprocating) saw blades. Yeah I know you could do a dozen videos on the different blades available. 3) Small diameter circular saws (blades <= 6" or 6.5") like the Milwaukee M12CCS and Dewalt DCS373 There's some really good reviews on those saws. I saw one with the Milwaukee and the reviewer was chopping up pallets and he commented that for cutting up pallets with the bigger battery it was better than a larger saw because it was lighter and easier to handle yet still had the grunt to do the job.
    40
  54. 39
  55. 38
  56. In its simplest terms yes but it gets more complicated. This is one of the very few reviews I have ever seen that even attempts to cover both sides. On one hand it was an extraordinary technical success in that they got the thing to simply fly into space and get back. As he rightly point out without it way fewer people would have flown in space. On the other hand its completely wrecked manned exploration of space. At the end of the Apollo program they worked out that it was completely unfeasible to keep building giant single use rockets. At that time the initial suggestion was to extend the X-15 program into its later proposals. Its not widely known but there were proposals for D, E & F variants which included 2 seat, delta wing and scramjet variations. One of the initial proposals was for a 4 seat + cargo or 2 seat + extra cargo variant of X-15 Technology. BUT NASA were told they needed the Air Force to partner. That also lead to the CIA sticking their nose in as well. The Air Force wanted bombing capability and the CIA wanted 30tons of payload. Those are the 2 requirements that flipped X-15 technology THAT WORKED into the giant financially expensive hyper-complex difficult to maintain space shuttle. Where the Space shuttle screwed a generation out of any chance of space exploration was THAT IT COST SO MUCH TO OPERATE. That starved all the other programs out of money. Then that was compounded by all of the ISS components that HAD to be launched on the space shuttle which added extraordinary costs to the ISS which further starved other programs of money and resources. I know it sounds cold but the real failure of the shuttle wasn't the 2 crashes it was starving all the other programs of money and resources.
    38
  57. 38
  58. 38
  59. 38
  60. 36
  61. 36
  62. 36
  63. 36
  64. 35
  65. 35
  66. 35
  67. 34
  68. As an Australian I love how you put as "America's Deputy" we prefer to call ourselves the "51st State" although we might have to change that if DC or Puerto Rico gets statehood. There is one major difference we have in the South China Sea. China has become our top trading nation mainly because we export a staggering amount of iron ore to China. In the year 2000 we were the #3 producer with 169 Million tons that year. By 2010 we had jumped over Brazil to 416 million tons. In 2017 it was 870 million tons. Almost all of that growth is to China. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emm5aHAifMg On the other hand South Korea and Japan are our #2 and #3 trading partners. So that Sea Lane up the middle of the South China Sea is pretty damn important to us. And for reference India is #4 and America is #5 on our trading partners list. So if anyone tries to start some sort of SHlTFEST in the South China Sea its at the top of our agenda. In a twist to that. America's foreign policy (as Peter has pointed out numerous times) was ridiculous under Bush, almost non-existent under Obama and completely off the rails with Trump. Mid-2017, around 18 months after trump took office it was reported here in Australia that we had a major problem. Since the end of WW2 our #1 foreign policy was basically "What does America want now?" With Trump even that didn't exist, so DFAT (pronounced dee-fat, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) which is basically our equivalent (in some ways) to the US State Department, had to start thinking for itself. That was a serious problem because DFAT hadn't had to think for itself in decades. The report at the time (mid-2017) was that DFAT had made it past the worst of that as was starting to actually do its job. So yes Australia is still America's deputy in SE Asia, BUT America better not be of the mindset that we will just do what America wants. As for those subs wait for the shitfight that is about to start. Despite the current government we have in power having partisan support the cost of that program is so idiotically ridiculous that IT WILL BE MODIFIED or CANCELLED. Once the Australian population realises that the American Military Industrial Complex is trying to take us to the cleaners EXPECT a backlash.
    34
  69. 34
  70. 33
  71. 33
  72. 33
  73. 33
  74. 33
  75. 33
  76. 32
  77. 32
  78. 32
  79. 32
  80. 31
  81. 31
  82. 31
  83. 31
  84. As an aerospace engineer with 30+ years in automation, robotics and control systems across multiple industries I am sick and tired of trying to explain Elon's PR & BS campaign. The worst part of it is a couple of his companies have had extraordinary success. We can have all sorts of arguments over details but he's managed to get an electric vehicle into mass production. I've worked in the automotive sector and that's an Olympic Gold medal like achievement. We can have all sorts of arguments about SpaceX but that too has managed to develop to the point where they send real astronauts into space to do real astronaut work. Considering their launch costs are significantly lower than Boeing (with all their history) is another Olympic Gold medal like achievement. BUT THEN the list of stupidity is tragically long (if not longer). - Driverless cars, taxis and trucks which was never realistic (for all sorts of reasons) that's now directly contributing to the supply issue. There's a shortage of delivery drives for both small and large vehicles driven by the fact over the last decade people either left that industry or didn't train as truck drivers because they were told there was no future for people in those industries. - Starlink. Go look up Iridium the first space based communications system that was going to change the world. Yeah its still around but its 2019 income was NEGATIVE $162 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Communications - Starship. Where do we start. Basically Elon says it will take 100 people to mars each trip. According to NASA it does NOT have enough space for 20. - Mars colony. Other than the facts that nobody has even flown there and back yet and Other than the fact Starship can't get the people he claims it can get there, then there is the not very small issue of HOW they stay alive when they get there considering NONE of the technology required has yet been proven to work. - Hyperloop. Other than its an idea that's over 100 years old and been dismissed many times there is only a single thing Elon got right about it and that's the first 4 letters of the name "HYPE". It will end up being studied along with things like Theranos as ANOTHER example of Techno Hype. *AND those are just for starters.
    31
  85. 31
  86. 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
  87. ENGINEER HERE You and the rest of the Heat pump brigade NEED to STOP saying things like 300% EFFICIENCY. Every engineer learns that you cannot get above 100% efficiency for any thermodynamic process and it's called the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is why Heat Pumps use COEFFICIANT of PERFORMANCE (CoP) which is NOT the same thing as efficiency its a measure of performance. AND THERE IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE HERE with people misusing the word efficiency and confusing the general public. Right now there are all sorts of claims being made by various people over the efficiency of various power generation systems and how we use electricity. How do you think we can explain to the general public the efficiency of a nuclear power station is 36% and that's good or that gas turbines are about 46% and that's good or that combined cycle gas turbines are around 64% and that's good when you are claiming heat pumps are 300% *WHICH IS ADVERTISING JARGON?*. As an engineer I recently WASTED several days recently explaining to a client that ChatGPT was WRONG about an energy issue because ChatGPT can't tell the difference between FACTS and ADVERTISING JARGON. FYI - the issue was over grid stability and that certain dc-ac inverters are labelled as "pure sine wave inverters" and the fact is that NO inverter produces a technically pure clean sine wave output. (Go look at the Wikipedia page for power inverters). Its just ADVERISING JARGON. This particular piece of advertising jargon is about to come slamming into every society that has substantial amounts of renewables feeding into their grids via dc-ac inverters. Its a major issue in Ireland which now has a lot of wind power. The channel Real Engineering did a fantastic video on the subject. I doubt the flywheel solution will work because that fly wheel will still need a power input that wasn't explained. What the Real Engineering video highlights is the substantial difference between energy sources and how they pump energy into the grid. All through the fossil fuel era this was never a problem because all those massive steam turbines with their inertia did the job. Its actually the one thing projects like Hinkley Point C have going for it, but the pro-nuclear lobby are so stupid they don't understand or realise this.
    30
  88. 30
  89. 30
  90. 30
  91. 30
  92. 30
  93. 30
  94. 30
  95. 30
  96. 30
  97. 30
  98. 29
  99. 29
  100. 29
  101. 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
  102. 28
  103. 28
  104. 27
  105. Ryan I like your channel. You are usually very informative and even in this case you've been informative, but as you can see from my other comments in this thread and many other comments on the page the opinion is you got this wrong. Your mistake (as I see it) was not being clear that you are ONLY CRITIQUING & COMPARING the info graphic to a single Project 2025 document. As many others are saying you are ignoring what the authors of Project 2025 have said in interviews and said at the conferences. You were very critical recently of Sagaar Enjeti, and rightly so. Sagaar made some ridiculous statements regarding Ukraine and America's involvement, BUT YOU have made a similar mistake here. You have taken the infographic out of the context that it not only aims at the single document but also at the overall aims of project 2025. I suggest you look at the analysis of Project 2025 done by Legal Eagle as well as go watch the interview Commander Bryan McGrath, USN (Ret.) gave on Ward Carroll's channel regarding Project 2025 and the US Military. Also on a point of math. Your Graphic at 22:28 claims that the "Truth score" is 17% (5 out of 29) but you also show that there were 15 items you claim are partially true which means the actual "Truth score" lies between 17% and 51.7% (15 out of 29). So just putting up that 17% is misleading by you own standard. HOWEVER if you take the other 14 items and put them against the other comments and publications made by the various organisations that make up the Project 2025 conglomerate WHICH IS WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE then the "Truth score" might be as high as 100%. Note: I deliberately use the word conglomerate and NOT a word like coalition or group, because the Think Tanks behind Project 2025 are first and foremost the Public Relations and Propaganda arms for various CORPORATE interests. Most notably the Heritage Foundation for decades was the principle PR&P for Phillip Morris to prevent government regulation of tobacco, while the CATO Institute has been the principle PR&P for the Koch family. SO PLEASE Don't go and wreck the good work you have been doing by doing the very thing you recently called someone else out for AND YES I do genuinely mean you do good work, just not this time.
    27
  106. 27
  107. YOU'RE RIGHT in these cases we should always look at what the crime to at least check what happened. There's a Wikipedia page on this and it includes details of the crime. SORRY for the length of the reply. The Reverend Charles Sennett Sr. hired Billy Gray Williams who then hired Kenneth Smith and John Forrest Parker to help him kill Elizabeth Sennett the reverend's wife. Williams paid Smith and Parker $1,000 each plus extra money to buy a gun. They opted to NOT buy a gun and spent the money on drugs. On Wikipedia it states "Smith crept up on Elizabeth and decided to beat her. As Elizabeth struggled for her life; a "fireplace set, a walking cane, and a piece of galvanized pipe" were used to beat her. Parker also later joined Smith in beating her. After Elizabeth was beaten, she was then stabbed eight times with the survival knife, which caused her death." If that doesn't meet the details for depraved indifference I don't know what does. THAT SAID HOWEVER I also agree that this method is clearly meets the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment AND YES there's a simple alternative. A number of years ago when the execution debate was being raised in Britain an English documentary maker looked at the methods. I saw this documentary on Fairfax Media's "Melbourne Age" website before they made it a pay for view. The film maker found that Carbon Dioxide is used to stun and kill animals. Its very quick and clean because it can cause unconsciousness in seconds. Most of the time animals are then blead to death without trauma. I remember the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster in northwestern Cameroon when a cloud of CO2 gas killed 1,746. It was so quick that most of the victims just stopped where they were with only a few of them taking anything more than a few steps. The reason why I remember this was because in the documentary the film maker approached the chief medical officer in America (I forget if he was federal or state) and said there's an alternative that's very quick and painless in fact a person might experience a moment of euphoria just before passing out. The response of the medical office still chills me to this day. I can't remember his exact response other than the last words. His reply to the film maker started with (I think) "I'm not interested." but definitely finished with "Its a punishment. Its not meant to be nice." Kenneth Smith is certainly guilty of depraved indifference but I would also contend the people responsible for how he was put to death are also guilty of depraved indifference especially when there is a painless alternative to putting people to sleep painlessly.
    27
  108. 27
  109. 27
  110. 27
  111. 27
  112. 27
  113. 27
  114. 26
  115. 26
  116. 26
  117. 26
  118. HEY KYLE - Can you please get it right. NOBODY is sending money to Ukraine they are sending equipment, most of which has been excess stock pile or older stockpile that was dues for disposal anyway. The actual money is being spent in the countries aiding Ukraine. I'm Australian and all of our assistance ahs been in equipment (mostly vehicles and cannons). All of the vehicles we sent have had to be replaced which has meant jobs. Its very much like exporting product except the country to where you are exporting is NOT PAYING because you're gifting the hardware. SECONDLY: As to the GOP. They are quickly becoming a very serious issue to EVERY NATION that does business with America. Here's a couple of serious questions we are now starting to ask. How do we do business with America when none of us can be certain of the deal being honored? How does international trade continue reliably when most of it is based on the US Dollar? Do any of you Americans realise what the Breton Woods agreement actually did to world trade when the allies all agreed to use the US Dollar as the World's reserve currency? Even though Breton Woods is no longer the effects are still there. Almost all international oil is traded in USD with the exception of Russian oil. Most of the cars and many other products traded across international borders is all done in USD. Even when a dela does NOT involve America at all the deal often involves USD. Either the deal is directly done in USD or the currency exchanges involve backing from the USD. That's what being the Worlds Reserve Currency means. Simply put NOBODY on the planet can afford to have the US Dollar destabilize with maybe the exceptions of Russia, North Korea and Iran AND even they can't really let it happen because they have billions tied up in American assets or hidden away in American banks in places like Idaho. YES Idaho, which has become one the best places on the planet to hide money along with Delaware and Texas.
    26
  119. AUSTRALIAN HERE with an outside observation. FIRST - I think your sentiments like others (and I can repeat this to those others) is spot on. I actually went to college in America and I can barely believe what this court has done. I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and on many occasions they explained to me how the America system is supposed to work. This decision is nothing like anything they ever explained to me. SECOND - this is obviously a massive deal to the American people, but its also a massive deal to Australia as well as every other country America deals with including places like Russia, Iran, North Korea,.... etc. For countries like Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea,.... America is our most important trading partner and our most important security partner. So its DOUBLY important that the person we have to deal with YOUR PRESIDENT is a reliable person. For everyone else there's the simple facts that America has nuclear weapons, is 1/4 of the worlds economy and the US Dollar (US$) is the worlds reserve currency. Do any of you realise that almost all international trade is either done directly in US$ or the currency exchanges are backed by US$? That's the real power America has in the world and for most of the last 75 years it has worked brilliantly and we have all benefitted except for those few times when America did something stupid like you did with the 2007-08 GFC and we all suffered. So its incredibly important to the rest of the world that POTUS is a RELIABLE and RESPONSIBLE person who is CONSTRAINED by LAW. P.S. I really do care about America. I had a great time there at college and want to see you back at your best.
    26
  120. The amazing thing about this entire discussion is they are NOT even getting into the real issue which is the staggering power of Harvard and Yale which was where the Federalist Society started along with the University of Chicago. RIGHT NOW there are 4 Harvard and 4 Yale graduates on SCOTUS and the other one (Barrett) is a known FS member. When the last judge was selected the short list of 7 had 5 who were Harvard or Yale educated. Going back to the previous generation there were fewer Yale but more Harvard. You have to go back tot he 60s to start seeing more judges from a broader educational background. *Its as if America's other Law Schools simply don't matter. * FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America. Other than my personnel relationship with America, Australia is about to start spending several hundred billion on American submarines. JUST LIKE many other nations WE CANNOT AFFORD America to be unreliable and right now 4 out 4 sections of your governmental system are malfunctioning. A simple summary goes like this: SCOTUS is out of control and is handing out POLITICAL direction rather than legal decisions. The House is riddled with maniacs from BOTH parties who are more interested in which stock to buy or sell. The Senate is full of selfish geriatrics from BOTH parties who simply wont retire. The White house is being fought over by a pair of Geriatrics both of who are unfit for an office of that can decide the use of nuclear weapons. In ANY OTHER country Trump be in prison for January 6th and in many countries he would have already been executed. Notably Saudi Arabia and YES we know about the $2 Billion Jared has. Before anyone tells an Australian or anyone else NOT interfere let me inform you about AMERICAN interference in Australia. 4 AMERICAN companies (consultancies) basically run our government. One or more of Deloitte Australia, Ernst & Young (EY), PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and KPMG are involved in almost every government decision at both the Federal and State level. Even when we get a change in Government either Left to Right or Right to Left all that happens is that certain government officials swap places with their counterparts in the consultancies. We ACTUALLY CAUGHT PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) committing industrialised tax evasion and fraud. Despite the public outcry nobody has been charged and PwC has recently received NEW government contracts. These consultancies and our government bureaucracy include many graduates of Harvard and Yale.
    25
  121. I'm Australian but went to college in the late 80s. I did engineering but a pack of my frat brothers were pre-law so I ended up in many discussion about the US Constitution. I am staggered at what's happened. FIRST - that civics is no longer taught because Americans WERE once proud that they knew and understood their country and how it functioned better than other people from other nations understood their constitutions. They were stunned how little I knew of the Australian Constitution. SECOND - I am amazed that things like the Patriot Act exist, as it stomps on the 4th Amendment. Of all the Amendments we ever discussed the 4th was the most discussed. They all looked at Soviet Russia and the Eastern Block and said "NO - we will not have that stuff." THIRD - (And I used to raise this) What would happen when America was faced with an angry frustrated mob that didn't care. My way of putting it back then was "What do you think a starving person would do - accept the money in your right hand or kill you for the hamburger in your left hand." In those days there was the famine in Ethiopia and Iran-Contra and my point was: "Selling guns and bombs to maniacs wasn't sound foreign policy." And that was over a decade before 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Benghazi and lots of other stuff. What I was totally wrong about was that I never guessed the real threat to America was coming from its far right. In those days there was a series of sex scandals and fraud scandals with the fundamentalist preachers. So we all thought the far radical right were done. From everything my frat brothers and others told me this is NOT the America the founding fathers envisioned or wanted. I truly do hope America finds a way back from this madness.
    25
  122. 25
  123. 25
  124. 25
  125. 25
  126. 25
  127. 25
  128. 25
  129. 25
  130. 24
  131. 24
  132. 24
  133. 24
  134. 24
  135. 24
  136. 24
  137. 24
  138. 24
  139. 24
  140. 24
  141. 23
  142. @Alvin Walker Sorry mate but like many other people in the world you are under the false apprehension that anything can just be reverse engineered and that's just NOT TRUE. Sorry for the long answer, but its not just for you it for anyone else wondering. I have degree in aerospace and 30+ years work in automation, control systems and robotics. Some stuff just can't be reverse engineered even when you know that task. It could be a lack of skills, knowledge or resources. Some things are just hard to do. I see it in robotics and CNC all the time. Yes there's been some extraordinary advances that make stuff easy for people to do. But once you start chasing precision its just keeps getting harder. A good example is respirators. Early in the COVID pandemic there was a world wide shortage of respirators and there were many announcements from a variety of amateurs and professionals. There's a YT channel called Real Engineering that's hosted y an engineer who once worked at one of the worlds largest manufacturers of respirators. He did a video on how respirators HAVE to work. It wasn't just what they do but HOW and WHY they do what they have to do. All the amateurs and professionals missed the fact that respirators aren't just an air pump they are hyper-precision air pump. They have to be because they are helping an already gravely ill person possibly with lung damage stay alive. That requires extremely accurate pressure and flow sensors that require very specialised electronics to read them. That alone makes them hard but then you also need software that's super reliable and a pump that can be precisely controlled. Its not impossible its just damn hard and can't be done with normal industrial parts which was what so many people proposed. If you aske the simple question - can it be reversed engineered? The answer is always yes, but that doesn't answer the question of how hard it is to do. That respirator company the guy from Real Engineering worked for released free to the world an older already certified respirator design. All anyone had to do was sign an agreement on the intellectual property and they could just start manufacturing respirators. The problem was many countries just didn't have the skills to make respirators or they couldn't get some of the parts. PLUS in many cases countries didn't have enough nurses trained to the level needed to operate & monitor respirators. This Dutch chip machinery isn't one technology its a collection of hyper-precision technologies anyone of which would be incredibly difficult to reverse engineer even if they handed over all the details and design documentation.
    23
  143. 23
  144. 23
  145. 23
  146. 23
  147. 23
  148. 23
  149. 23
  150. 22
  151. 22
  152. 22
  153. WHICH CHANNEL are you talking about, he's actually pointing out at least 4 that I recognize. 3 of them Matt Ferrell, Alex Guberman (E for Electric) and Ricky (Two Bit da Vinci) are this new classification of social media type called "science communicators." In the past most science communicators where science people - physicists, chemists engineers, etc. These days a lot of them have NO SCIETIFIC qualifications or training. Its basically a fancy way of saying journalist who reports on technology. It does NOT mean they have ANY science background and for some it shows. Occasionally you'll see a person with genuine tech credentials stuffing up. The 4th guy shown here is Sandy Munro (the old guy just before 2 minutes) who actually is a real car guy and does know his stuff regarding cars and manufacturing them. I'd expect he's going to be making a retraction on this once he finds out its a dodgy technology. This vid actually highlights how bad most of the Science Communicators are. Even thunderf00t made a couple of mistakes here. 1: Early on he talks about there is no hydrogen in the atmosphere THAT'S NOT TRUE. There is free hydrogen in the atmosphere there's just not much of it. 2: Where thuderf00t talks about greenhouse gases at the end he's talking as if CO2 is the only green house gas which ITS NOT. Methane which is the main component of biogas like that found in sewers and waste treatment plants is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. In fact gram for gram its far more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Thunderf00t should know that. 3: On the positively charged subject. Yes Hydrogen gas (H2) is not positively charged. Yes free Hydrogen atoms (H2) are not positively charged. BUT hydrogen ATOMS stripped of their electron ARE positively charged. Thunderf00t should have also jumped on that because to create ionized hydrogen plasma takes energy and these guys are claiming there is no energy required. Where thunderf00t has this totally correct is the energy density, but even on that there is a point he missed. The only way these guys could claim they are getting the energy density is if they were capturing and storing the hydrogen as Metallic Hydrogen. If these people are claiming or even suggesting they are creating metallic hydrogen then that's even crazier than all the other claims put together.
    22
  154. 22
  155. 22
  156. 22
  157. 22
  158. 22
  159. 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
  160. 22
  161. 22
  162. 22
  163. 22
  164. 22
  165. 22
  166. AUSTRALIAN HERE: For an outside perspective on this. I see the Federalist Society as a MAJOR THREAT to Western Society. FYI - I went to college in America (late 80s). I did engineering BUT a bunch of my friends were pre-law and they all loved explaining and arguing ideas on the US Constitution with me. So I got an unusual introduction to the US Constitution. I'd argue that any country could become a totalitarian dictatorship because that was the warning all Australians got from studying Orwell in High School. For generations everyone in Australia read Animal Farm or 1984 or BOTH in high school. So I was well versed in "If you're not careful this can happen!" My college friends, several who went onto become lawyers, would always answer that it was impossible for America to fall into a dictatorship (of any kind) because THE SYSTEM WOULD NOT ALLOW IT. The American system of CHECKS and BALANCES would prevent any group or any one person taking complete control. What we NEVER discussed was what a organisation like the Federalist Society could do given enough money. It just never came up. HERE'S the problem for the the rest of the world. We all do business with major American corporations. As was shown with the Steven Donziger case involving Chevron, IF an American company gets into trouble over sees they will drag the case BACK INTO the American Courts where the these corrupt judges owned by the Corporations RUN EVERYTHING and there is no contest. Right now in Australia we have a major scandal involving PwC (an American company) and their consulting to the Australian Government. That inquiry is turning up other issues with companies including KPMG, EY and Deloitte who are all American companies. We haven't yet heard about McKinsey or Boston Group but there are rumors out of Britain and Europe. Just the PwC scandal could end up in a litigation for well over $10 Billion. They actually tried to swindle (with their corporate clients who include other American companies) Australia out of $$$ Billions in tax revenue. What happens if they drag that back to an American court? The complete corruption of SCOTUS is a wider problem than just simply what it does to America. YES I will grant any American its more of a direct problem for you, but don't think its not a problem for us also.
    21
  167. 21
  168. 21
  169. 21
  170. 21
  171. 21
  172. 21
  173. 21
  174. 21
  175. 21
  176. 21
  177. 21
  178. 20
  179. 20
  180. 20
  181. 20
  182. 20
  183. I'm Australian and been to Texas a few times and it was always great. So it saddens me to see Greg Abbott NOT get tossed out on his ass. BUT what it highlights is this bizarre thing that EVERY society in history does. People actually chose to ignore the FACTS regarding political leaders no matter what we know they do and will do again. I hate to admit it but we not only have Greg Abbott types in Oz but we keep re-electing them. We have our crass billionaire Trumpist in Clive Palmer who even ran the same election strategy as Trump. We have a clown named Pauline Hanson who you'd swear is Marjorie Greene's long lost crazy Australian aunt. We have a guy named Craig Kelly who walks, talks, and acts like a hybrid between Ron Johnson & Joe Manchin with an Australian voice track. We have our version of Andrew Cuomo a guy named John Barilaro. Look at the similarities. He's from our biggest East coast city - Sydney. He's corrupt and had to be removed from office. He even tried to move to New York and have the government pay for it. Although it's not a reflection of Italian people, like Cuomo he's of Italian descent. Whatever you have in America, everyone else has them too. The only difference is how much noise they make. If you look at Britain they have a guy named Nigel Farage who led the Brexit campaign. There's famous footage of him (with supporters) proclaiming how the British "got the country back!" Almost immediately after the Brexit vote he resigned his official posts and refused calls to help negotiate the exit. Forget whether Brexit is good or bad, he created the greatest mess in recent British history and then dumped it onto others to clean up the mess. So you might ask how would anyone give a clown like Nigel Farage any time other than to tell him to FK-OFF? Farage just did a tour of Australia and people actually PAID MONEY to listen to him talk. Steve Bannon does talks all over the world and people PAY MONEY to hear him talk. Never underestimate human stupidity or ignorance.
    20
  184. 20
  185. 20
  186. 20
  187. 20
  188. 20
  189. 20
  190. 20
  191. 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
  192. 20
  193. 20
  194. 20
  195. 20
  196. 20
  197. 20
  198. ENGINEER HERE and you are 100% RIGHT I have recently defended Sabine in respect of criticisms she got to her criticisms of academia. Having spent time in academia she's right to criticise them. HOWEVER when it comes to engineering she, like many others needs to SHUT UP. We need hydrogen as an energy buffer NOT because its hyper efficient or economic factors but BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE IT WORK and over the next 20-30 years WE NEED THINGS THAT WORK THAT DON'T SCREW THE PLANET UP FURTHER. And I really am trying to scream that at everyone. If you want the engineers to keep the lights on and modern society as you know it to keep functioning then all the people in the road need to SHUT UP. Unlike Sabine and many others I am qualified to design electrical systems around explosive gases like hydrogen as well as explosive dusts like wheat & sugar dust (and yes dusts can explode). Hydrogen is one of the hardest gases to work with, design around AND THEN MAINTAIN. Sabine is right in that Hydrogen for practical purposes leaks from everything, explodes easily and makes many substances brittle. What she DOES NOT KNOW is we know how to engineer around those issues. The single biggest problem with hydrogen is having enough qualified maintenance personnel. That's WHY I never thought it would be practical for things like cars, buses, jets, heating & cooking in homes. Any poor maintenance in those areas could be catastrophic. HOWEVER for those few areas like energy, hydrogen is a good option because all the technical issues have been solved and being kept in a controlled environment like a power station makes the maintenance possible. As for the ongoing claim you can't get better than 40% turnaround that's pure nonsense. The latest PEM electrolyser technologies get over 90% efficiency NOT the 80% (and lower) people like Sabine keep quoting. The current generations of gas turbines form companies like GE and Siemens with cogeneration units get over 64%. That's over 57% on the main components which are available off the shelf AND THEY WORK. As for the problems with storage and compressors those problems exist for every gas. How do you think the gas actually gets piped around the world? How do you think they liquify natural gas for exports around the world? I have worked in gas plants and they use lots of energy. If the world is going to have a lot more renewable energy then that industry needs to be able to buffer that system so if can deliver as needed. Efficiency is far less important than simply having something that WORKS.
    20
  199. 19
  200. Its not due to blatant corruption its blatant mismanagement that stems from idiotic economics policies. I'm an engineer and this is the shite we are trapped in. Across every industry and area that we operate in there a clowns with business, accounting and economics degrees who interfere in everything. It stems from a couple of things. First is there own self importance. They think that titles like manager mean they have to micromanage everyone and everything. Second They are trained to avoid spending and costs and it unbelievably pervasive. Have you ever heard how the Left have infiltrated universities and education??? Well its true, stone cold motherless true and most noticeable in humanities. Its also just as stone motherless true that the Right have infiltrated business and law schools. Its a system where they certain sacrosanct principles are to be leant NOT questioned. One of those is the principle of lowering costs. That gets practised as "spend as little as possible and delay everything possible to future dates when they are someone else's problem." This is also known as "kicking the can down the road" and it is practiced EVERYWHERE. No joke, they go to college and for 4 years they are told - lower costs & cut spending, lower costs & cut spending, lower costs & cut spending,..... as if it is some form of mystic mantra that will fix the world. And the easiest way to do that is DELAY & DELAY until its someone else's problem. I'm Australian but did my degree in America, I live in Oz but have worked in Canada and I can watch the news from anywhere these days. ITS THE SAME STORY EVERYWHERE and in EVERY INDUSTRY. Failures through spending cuts to maintenance.
    19
  201. 19
  202. 19
  203. 19
  204. 19
  205. 19
  206. 19
  207. 19
  208. 19
  209. 19
  210. 19
  211. Same reply I just gave to another comment. I'm an engineer and have pointed out on a few occasions that PZ doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to engineering subjects. I have repeatedly advised him and others to stop pumping out garbage, STFU and let the engineers explain what is and isn't engineering fact. My degree is in aerospace but I work in industrial control systems, robotics and automation. In 2005-06 I did a water treatment plant on a Uranium mine and as part of that we did an extensive nuclear induction. A normal mine site induction is 1-2 hours (max) this induction went for 2-1/2 days. the first 1/2 day was normal mine stuff and the other 2 days we covered uranium from when its in the ground to when its back in the ground. When it got to the subject of enrichment someone asked WTF the Iranians were up to. It was around that time that everyone was getting very anxious about what the Iranians were up to. The trainer doing the induction laid it all out and explained how EVERYONE across the World's nuclear industries KNEW 100% that the Iranians had a weapons program. It was the number of centrifuges that gave it away and we knew how many centrifuges they had because of how many high speed electric motors to spin them that they had bought along with the electronics to control those motors. The actual motors and electronics are NOT restricted tech because its stuff used in many other industries. Certain materials are restricted because they allow making the centrifuges much easier. I have explained that so many times.
    19
  212. Lets be crystal clear about this. It involves CERTAIN people who are neither representative of bulk of Israeli people or the bulk of Jewish society world wide and that's evident by the number of Jewish people speaking out AGAINST what the Netanyahu government is doing. I'm NOT Jewish, I'm Australian, but went to college in America in the LATE 80s and had several Jewish friends. After an incident at a party where I was accosted and threatened by a couple of Jewish students one of my Jewish friends explained it to me. Note - This was ~35 years ago and he referred to them as Ultra-Zionists. He did NOT call them Zionists but was very specific about the term Ultra, which these days we generally use with the term *Ultra-nationalist. Like we have with certain people in Russia and Ukraine. Back in the 90s we used similar terminology with certain elements within the Serb and Croat communities as well as in Rwanda. 35 Years ago that friend told me something very important. EVERY tribe, cultural group and nation has these people. We just don't like admitting it. They are most easily identified by their claims to be "protecting their culture" or "protecting their cultural heritage." We saw that with the Nazis and their claims of protecting Aryan culture. We see it with Putin and his claims of protecting Russian culture. We saw it during the late 90s with the Serbs, Croats and Albanians in the former Yugoslavia. We saw it with the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. We have people here in Australia who claim time and time again they want to protect Australian Culture from immigration. Occasionally we even elect them to Parliament. What we are seeing right no in Gaza is what happens when Ultra-Nationalists get enough political power to unleash on who they blame or identify as the threat to their culture.
    19
  213. I'm Australian and therefore fairly neutral on the whole mess. The person who I have found to make the most sense is Mark Blyth the Scottish political-economist who works at Brown U. in America. He was intialy against Brexit but did predict that the Leave vote would win. On one hand it was stupid because you literally threw away all the benefits on a set of false pretenses and got NOTHING back. Mark Blyth points out that London's banking sector was the clearing house for all Euro transactions with non-EU nations and now that income to the nation is gone and will NEVER come back. On the other hand the EU has a lot of economic issues because the French and Germans can't handle the concept that the rest of Europe doesn't necessarily work how they think it should work. Mark Blyth also points out that many of the smaller states are in serious economic trouble because without independent currencies that can't adjust their economies very easily. They are all kind of trapped by the European Central bank. Mark Blyth is now suggesting that its a POTENTIALLY a very good thing for Britain to get some distance from the issues that Europe faces and those things were coming irrespective of Ukraine erupting. Of all the things and players in this mess there is one person who I think needs a good old fashions hung, draw & quartering and that's Nigel Farage. As soon as Brexit went how he wanted he just simply resigned and dumped the whole thing on others. Irrespective of how anyone voted that's a 10,000% shite thing to do and it represents everything wrong with populists. One final point on setting up NEW trade agreements. Britain is not in a strong negotiating position with anyone. No matter who is in #10 they need to make deals and that means every negotiation starts with Britain as the beggar not the prince that it thinks it is. If Britain thinks Australia, New Zealand South Africa, India, Canada are all going to play the meek and humble colonials you better Wake TFU because we all remember how you dumped us in the 1970s when you joined the EU. That nearly bankrupted our entire Ag sector and it took over 20 years to recover. AND NONE OF US have simply forgotten any of the other things Britain did over the last 100+ years.
    19
  214. 19
  215. 18
  216. I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s. I can barely believe where America politically is these days. Sure America was always a bit of a basket case. I was there during Regan's second term and watched the 87 campaign season. It was bonkers by my standards. But this stuff is something else. Its like America has completely forgotten what made America such a fantastic nation. I studied engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and they dragged me into many of their discussions. So I got an odd education in the US Constitution. These days (and I have said this a lot in recent years) I believe the US Constitution is one of humanities finest achievements. Unlike Australia who inherited most of their constitution from the British, America started with a clean sheet and threw of a lot of stuff. Tt was fresh daring and brilliant. SADLY, it has been inherited by a pack of clowns with almost NO RESPECT for what it has. I used to be stunned and at times embarrassed by how well every American understood their nation because they'd all done CIVICS in high school. I was stunned to find George Buch de-funded it, because these days I want to see Australia have a similar class (but an Australian version) taught to every high school. I've seen the value it delivered and can now see the damage NOT having such a program has done. I really do want to see America back at its best because with the shear size of the US Economy the rest of the world will struggle to deal with issues like climate change and that's just one issue we have to deal with. There's also 3rd world poverty which is the source of the immigration problem the Right complain about. If we all stopped supporting dictators and helped those countries develop then there wouldn't be a refugee crisis.
    18
  217. 18
  218. 18
  219. 18
  220. 18
  221. 18
  222. I did aerospace engineering and I love your sentiments but unfortunately Thunderfoot is pretty much on with the costs. I love Elon's enthusiasm but what I hate are his ridiculous estimates and I am sorry to say they are ridiculous. On the super plus side of Elon is that he's broken Boeings strangle hold on NASA funding. One thing that's rarely discussed is the change in business model that happened AFTER Apollo. Prior to that pretty much all of the development programs delivered. The X-Plane programs delivered plane after plane. But during the 70s they just stopped ever delivering. Go check how many x-planes never flew in the 70s compared to the earlier programs. A rare exception was the X-29 forward sweep. What Boeing and others had worked out was that NOT completing NASA funded programs was more profitable than completing them. All they needed was to do enough to get the funding for next development project. One of my class mates ended up at NASA and is still there and years ago she told me about how the funding is decided. She also told me the 2 biggest problems they had with manned flight beyond LEO were life support and propulsion. Nearly 20 years later that hasn't changed. One of the great problems with a moon base or a Mars base is that we have dozens of technologies only part developed. Yes there's been lots of research and development but none of its actually ready. And some of those issues are huge. To keep humans alive they need water, food and breathable air. When Trump called for 4 men on the moon for 2 weeks what very few pointed out the enormous difference that was. The Apollo LM was capable of 75 hours life support for 2 guys - that's 150 man hours. 4 men for 2 weeks -> 4 x 24 x 14 = 1344 so its basically 9 or 10x the previous mission. And they have to fly all those materials to the moon and land them. Last I heard they skimmed it back to 3 guys on the moon for 10 days which means the lander only needs life support for 720 hours (3 x 24 x 10). That's way more practical as its basically half as much everything - oxygen, food & water. Just imagine Elon's 1000 people to Mars. That's 1000 people and all their food, water & oxygen for 6 months of flight and several more after they land while they get the systems on Mars up and running. If you can shorten the flight time by any amount its a big deal in terms of how much you have to launch. Yeah its all possible but we need billions and billions spent on the life support & propulsion. Maybe Elon or Jeff really has solved one of these problems if they have they aren't telling anyone.🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    18
  223. 18
  224. 18
  225. 18
  226. I'm Australian and I've left a comment about the issue Peter is NOT discussing regarding American politics its copied below. As an engineer I have worked with many Germans over the years. I work in control systems and automation and have used a lot of German products and had to deal with German engineers. I think Peter has missed that the German people are NOT what they used to be and see their place in the world quite differently. Or at least most of the Germans I have met think and behave that way. I think in a way there are Germans who realise that they are lucky that after what happened in WW2 that they weren't completely wiped off the map. If there's a fear its that current generations forget the past of get a skewed version of it. We aren't immune to that in Australia. In WW1 there was the dreadful Dardanelles Campaign where the British simply sacrificed a generation of Australians and New Zealanders that made up the ANZAC contingent. They also sacrificed 1,000s of Scots and Irish. We now celebrate ANZAC day in Australia as if it was a triumph. Most younger Australians actually think we won that campaign instead of it being a tragic failure. So if there's a danger its in NOT learning from past mistakes AND I HOPE that in these discussions the Peter also has an HONEST look at American politics because right now its a SHlTSHOW and way too many Americans are living in a weird form of mass delusion AND THAT forces the rest of us to act. Below is the other comment which is about the issues in Washington that so far Peter has either ignored or just not done a video on yet. ----- THERE IS ONE THING that Peter is completely leaving out of this discussion is the dysfunction in Washington. I'm Australian abut went to college in America (late 80s) and I have had a lot of contact with American's over several decades. I have NEVER SEEN them divided politically like they are now. Sure the Dems and GOP disagreed on any number of issues, but when it came to FOREIGN AFFAIRS Washington was PREDICTABLE. Yes many people may not have liked what America did and how it behaved especially the CIA and coups across the world, BUT AT LEAST THEY WERE PREDICTABL and the Dems and GOP never saw each other as their mortal enemy and that they had to save the country from the other side. This is a major problem for all of America's allies including Australia. We have just made this massive commitment to nuclear submarines called the AUKUS agreement. Although I agree in principle Australia should go nuclear I think the Virginia-class is a massive mistake. The bigger issue however is: How can we be certain of stable politics in America when the place is now infested with reality denying clowns dominated by geriatrics who wont let go and retire?
    18
  227. 18
  228. Lets be crystal clear about this. It involves CERTAIN people who are neither representative of bulk of Israeli people or the bulk of Jewish society world wide and that's evident by the number of Jewish people speaking out AGAINST what the Netanyahu government is doing. I'm NOT Jewish, I'm Australian, but went to college in America in the LATE 80s and had several Jewish friends. After an incident at a party where I was accosted and threatened by a couple of Jewish students one of my Jewish friends explained it to me. Note - This was ~35 years ago and he referred to them as Ultra-Zionists. He did NOT call them Zionists but was very specific about the term Ultra, which these days we generally use with the term *Ultra-nationalist. Like we have with certain people in Russia and Ukraine. Back in the 90s we used similar terminology with certain elements within the Serb and Croat communities as well as in Rwanda. 35 Years ago that friend told me something very important. EVERY tribe, cultural group and nation has these people. We just don't like admitting it. They are most easily identified by their claims to be "protecting their culture" or "protecting their cultural heritage." We saw that with the Nazis and their claims of protecting Aryan culture. We see it with Putin and his claims of protecting Russian culture. We saw it during the late 90s with the Serbs, Croats and Albanians in the former Yugoslavia. We saw it with the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. We have people here in Australia who claim time and time again they want to protect Australian Culture from immigration. Occasionally we even elect them to Parliament. What we are seeing right no in Gaza is what happens when Ultra-Nationalists get enough political power to unleash on who they blame or identify as the threat to their culture.
    18
  229. 18
  230. 18
  231.  @JordanHarbingerShow  I hope you can get him back on. I'm an engineer and I'd like to see him challenged on a couple of points that I keep hearing him repeat. Sorry this is long, but your interview with Peter was one of the better ones - you asked better questions. 1) He keep saying that once the American service companies leave Siberia those well stop flowing the water in them will freeze and crack all the pipe work. I work in control systems (the computers that run everything) and have some (but not much) work in the oil & gas industry. Yes there's water, but not in massive amounts, so its questionable on that. But more importantly those companies have been there for 20+ years now. To think that the Russians haven't been gaining the experience themselves in techniques and technology for those environments is a VERY BAD ASSUMPTION. Yes their experience will be less and they might miss some experience at the top level of the expertise tree but to claim they are incapable is just foolish. 2) He keeps making claims that Europe is stuffed on renewable energy because of bad locations and to a lesser extent the grid needs upgrading. He's part right on both points. Its great that he is one of the few pointing out that geography is a major part of the energy transition. I have argued with people on the geography subject and its amazing how ignorant BOTH the pro and con-renewable people are on the subject. Peter's right Northern Europe is hopeless for solar for 2/3rds of the year while southern Europe is better but Spain which has the room for extensive solar is also disconnected from the main European grid. Peter doesn't emphasise the grid issue as much as it needs to be. Its arguably one of the biggest issues. We are moving from an energy system with a few major generators that fed energy out through main arteries into a tree like system where all the leaves on the tree CONSUMED energy and ONLY consumed energy. Now we have an energy system where the main generators are scattered and on top of that many of the leaves want to generate energy and inject it into the system. NOBODY anywhere has an energy grid built for that. Its not an undoable task it just has to be thought through which people are NOT DOING. There's some really major level ignorance from people. Here's a story out of my country Australia. I knew about the grid issues a while back but I can barely believe the stupidity of the clown from Windlab (around 1:30) who claims he's a smart investor who's built successful windfarm projects. My question is - If he's so smart then why did he build a wind farm where the grid can't handle what he's generating? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwfsk446iR0 3) This harks back to a much broader topic of basic infrastructure, which Peter does NOT talk about as much as he should. This is arguably the biggest issue the Western Hemisphere has by far. One of the catastrophic mistakes of neo-liberalism has been the "privatise everything" doctrine that's resulted in governments NOT keeping up with infrastructure. Go anywhere right now in the developed world and there's issues with energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, water infrastructure, public education (schools, universities & vocational colleges) and public hospitals just to name a few things. Every country has these in different combinations but they all have similar issues. I'd like to hear peter talk more about infrastructure.
    18
  232. 18
  233. 18
  234. 18
  235. That's PART of why I gave up watching him. The other part was his hypocrisy over Netanyahu's prosecution of Gaza. Sam came out and made this very sound point that there was "no moral ambiguity" that Hamas were simply criminals who dealt in terror AND I AGREED WITH THAT. But he's NEVER put Netanyahu or the State of Israel to the same scrutiny. You can't claim a high moral position and then subscribe to the mass murder of children and there are now over 16,000 dead children in Gaza and 1,000s more who have lost arms, legs and been maimed for life. Here he is asking is History repeating itself. Well look at Gaza. How many times does the world have to watch the wholesale slaughter of children and then 10 years later some of the survivors turn up wearing Hamas headbands and doing horrible things? Its has not been widely discussed but support for Hamas was collapsing PRIOR to the October 7th attacks. Most of the Gaza population saw Hamas as nothing but a gang of criminals. Since the onslaught by the IDF support for Hamas has grown. Just like it did after the last Intifada and the Intifada before that and the Intifada before that. Sam as usual mentions anti-Semitism. The problem is ANYTHING ANYONE says against the State of Israel is labelled an anti-Semite. I am all for the State of Israel existing and being allowed to live in peace with its neighbors, but they have to accept that the Palestinians ALSO EXIST and have the same basic rights. The Palestinians also have to accept the reality that groups like Hamas have no place in their future.
    18
  236. 18
  237. 18
  238. 18
  239. 18
  240. 18
  241. 18
  242. 18
  243. 18
  244. 18
  245. 18
  246. 17
  247. 17
  248. 17
  249. 17
  250. 17
  251. 17
  252. 17
  253. 17
  254. 17
  255. 17
  256. 17
  257. 17
  258. 17
  259. 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
  260. 17
  261. 17
  262. 17
  263. 17
  264. 17
  265. 17
  266. 17
  267. 17
  268. 17
  269. Also on air launching (and yes I have a degree in aerospace) its NOT just the saving on delta-v. They are only launching from around 10km at less at about 0.25km/s, while orbit is over 200km and over 7km/s. So the actual height and speed gains have little to do with anything. The actual advantages of air launching and they are incremental buy do add up. 1) You don't need to build a dedicated launch facility. All that is needed is a hanger and a convenient airfield. That's a cost saving. 2) Air launching includes a fully reusable first stage. That's a cost saving. 3) It can launch "on orbit" or closer to orbit. All normal launches require fuel in the upper stage to get from the launch sites global position over onto the global orbital position. Reducing the amount of fuel needed either lowers costs or allows for larger payloads. Where I think they didn't learn from previous systems. 1) Launcher 1 is significantly heavier 30t than Pegasus XL 23t which was a fair step of from Pegasus 18.5t. When you are staring with a vehicle around 50% bigger than your competitor and you have all the development hassle a smaller system would have been a lot smarter to start with and then build up from there. Starting out with something much smaller would have meant debugging all their systems both in the vehicle and in the manufacturing and launch processes with a cheaper vehicle and fewer people. They forgot that whole learning to walk before learning to run thing. 2) That extra weight meant a bigger more costly aircraft. Maybe the surplus 747s were cheaper to buy but a smaller 767 can lift those sorts of loads and with only 2 engines to service is a huge operational cost saving. Remember Pegasus used a modified L-1011 Tristar for most of its life. Every time a 747 flies compared to something like a 737 or 767 that's a lot of fuel burn and a lot of maintenance. This is a lesson everyone should have got from the Space Shuttle. Every launch of the Space shuttle meant putting 75tons into orbit before you did anything else. That's a lot of unnecessary cost and also why the ISS cost so much and why Crew Dragon is a massive step in the right direction. AND NO I am not an Elon Musk fanbot but I do cut him some slack on Space-X. 3) Their flight profile negated a very important aspect of what they learned with Pegasus. The wing on Pegasus allowed the vehicle to gain a lot of speed in horizontal flight at a point which is significantly more fuel efficient than trying to accelerate in vertical flight because there is still air drag at that point. That might not be a lot of difference but Pegasus works and Launcher One doesn't. 4) The most important thing they forgot is that space flight is hard and no matter how much money you have their will be failures. Go and look at the Pegasus launch list. They had 4 failures (or partial failures) in the first 10 launches, another at 14 and then 31 successful launches in a row. This stuff is hard and all the vehicles are built right on the razor's edge of failure.
    17
  270. 17
  271. 16
  272. 16
  273. 16
  274. 16
  275. 16
  276. 16
  277. 16
  278. 16
  279. 16
  280. 16
  281. You are in part right. The biggest problem with everything in space is logistics. How do you get stuff from point A to point B. And its not that different to what we do here on Earth now. Its just that most people have no idea of how much stuff we move. I am an aerospace engineer who moved into the Australian mining industry after meeting Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) in 2002. At that time he was talking up the possibility of mining the moon for Helium-3. I went looking for real practical experience and was lucky because at the time Australia went on a mining construction boom to feed China raw materials. What I got was an education in practical mining, site construction, maintenance, mineral processing, logistics and importantly INFRASTRUCTURE. Before you even start digging mine sites need a staggering array of infrastructure for power and water. I can tell within seconds that most of these people have never even visited a working mine. I have actually built them and worked on them. When real mining people see this stuff they can't stop laughing. Irrespective if you are Jeff Bezos who wants to shift all iron processing into Low Earth Orbit (LEO) or mine an asteroid you need to get the iron to where you want it. That means bringing it down to the earths surface. The biggest payload carrying vehicle so far that could bring stuff back down was the Space Shuttle and it could bring 14tons down from LEO. I once worked on a min that did just over 20,000,000 tons a year of iron ore at an average of about 70% iron content by weight. So those 20 million tons of ore coverts to about 14 million tons of iron and if that 14 million tons was in orbit it would take 1 million Space Shuttle Flights to bring it down. Australia's annual production of iron ore is about 815,000,000 tons of iron ore. If you do the math to ship Australia's iron ore production up to LEO and then bring the iron back down its around 40million space shuttle flights a year. Even if we magically built a new super rocket 100times better that's still 400,000 flights a year. I will be honest until I was involved in mining I had no idea how much material we actually move these days. The logistics of world trade is simply staggering.
    16
  282. 16
  283. 16
  284. 16
  285. 16
  286. 16
  287. 16
  288. AUSTRALIAN HERE: I have been trying to ell Americans for over 35 years they they DO NOT have an actual Left like the rest of the Western World does. What you actually have are 2 right wing parties with one of them being MORE to the right than the other. You DO NOT have a party like Britain's Labor Party or the similarly named parties in Australia, New Zealand and a few other places that STARTED out of their Labor Union movements. Here in Australia the Labor Party was the political wing of the ACTU (Australian Council of Trade Unions). You do NOT have anything like the Socialist parties in mainland Europe. The American Democrats started in the American South and were the party of the Confederacy and the Klux Klux Klan were a militant offshoot of the Southern Democrats. It was the Republicans under Lincoln who were the progressive party and freed the slaves. How do I know this never having taken a single class in political science or American History? I went to college in America in the late 80s in a time when they still taught CIVICS and I was surrounded by 100s of other WELL EDUCATED intelligent students who KNEW American History and HOW the American Governmental system worked and they explained it to me time at great length. What staggers me more than anything these days is how little American's seem to know or understand of their own history and how their government actually works. THAT USED to be one of America's GREAT STRENGTHS. It blew my mind a couple of years ago when I asked someone what changed and found out Bush had defunded Civics in American High Schools. Years later having seen the pro's of teaching Civics and the cons of NOT teaching civics I am absolutely convinced that ANY Democratic society, INCLUDING Australia, that wants long term stability should tech their version of it and that it should made available to EVERY citizen so that they can go back and check or review things. I remember moments of feeling embarrassed that I didn't know as much about HOW Australia functions as my American classmates did about America. I think American's should now feel embarrassed for what they have thrown away.
    16
  289. 16
  290. 16
  291. 16
  292. 16
  293. 16
  294. 16
  295. 15
  296. 15
  297. I can 1/2 agree with that but Mearsheimer has also been typical of his Libertarian roots in the entire Ukraine discussion in that he blames American Liberal hegemony. He gave a great lecture at Yale a few years ago explaining that issue. I highly recommend it. He's been right (as many others have pointed out) about America & NATO going too far and putting pressure on Russia in a way that was always going to blow back. Mearsheimer's also been totally bat crap bonkers off the wall crazy about letting Putin have what he wants. Peter Zeihan (during an interview with Jordan Harbinger) ripped Mearsheimer to shreds on this issue. Mearsheimer ignores the point that Putin has said he wants to write the security policy for 18 countries on the border of Russia or close to. Those countries have almost 280 million people and Mearsheimer says "Let Putin have them" and they get no say in the matter. Just as Mearsheimer says the fault of American Liberals is that they can't help themselves when the interfere in countries and try to remake them as Liberal Democracies because its hardwired into them. Mearsheimer also betrays the great weakness of American Libertarianism which is they are opportunistic narcissists. If they want something they take it and don't care what happens or what the consequences are. If they don't want something they wont care about what happens or what the consequences are. In simplest terms American libertarians are about what they want and f*ck everyone else. And Mearsheimer gives that away - let Putin have what he wants because I don't care what happens.
    15
  298. 15
  299. 15
  300. I'm an aerospace engineer (by degree) who read all of Asimov's works on Foundation way back when I was an undergraduate. The story I remember from (i think) Second Foundation was when a person form the Foundation ventured back into the Empire and found planet after planet had fallen into pre-industrial chaos. When they finally found a planet that still retained technology they found a snag. As the empire had fallen so had education. The traveller found that the chief engineer of the power plant had no idea how it worked. Their title "Chief Engineer" had become hereditary as had many other positions. What maintenance that was being done was being done as a ritual rather than a required engineering exercise. During the 1990s when my parents (both high school teachers) retired they were often lamenting how the education system was slowly being converted from a education system into a factory system and that one day we would pay dearly for it. In the 35 years I have worked in industrial control systems over a number of industries, no matter I have worked there has been a steady decline in the standard of both graduate engineers and skilled tradesmen (electricians, welders, machinists). The problem is NOT a lack of intelligence on the part of the students but the education system has become more concerned with pumping out graduates with certificates than producing graduates with skills who can do a job. Time and time again I am reminded that Isaac Asimov was one of the great visionaries of the 20th Century and sadly underestimated by mainstream thinkers. He understood the world so much better than many of the people we consider visionaries. I cannot say for certain but I think he would be very disappointed with where humanity is right now.
    15
  301. 15
  302. 15
  303. 15
  304. 15
  305. 15
  306. 15
  307. 15
  308. 15
  309. 15
  310. 15
  311. 15
  312. Another Australian here: I went to college in America in the late 80s. I was there all through the 87 election season and there were aspects to the whole circus that baffled me. It actually took a great deal of time to even start to understand it. On hand I am not surprised at where America is and on the other incredibly disappointed to see where it is AND incredibly scared Australia could just as easily go the same way. The main difference between places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand is that we didn't have to fight a damn nasty war to get our independence. That war of independence has left America with a sort of cultural scar. We have ours too but nothing like America's. America was also granted (what in my opinion) was one of the greatest achievements in human history - The US Constitution with the Bill of Rights embedded in it. You wont here many non-Americans say that. I studied aerospace engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law. They used to drive me crazy with their damn hypothetical questions and discussions. It also left me with a sense I didn't know my own country that well and they understood their country and HOW IT WAS MEANT TO WORK, but then they were also part of a generation that still studied civics, which for the uninitiated is a high school class where they get taught this is how the Constitution came to be and how the whole system is meant to work. If there was only one thing (and there are several) that I would bring into our high schools now it would be an Australian version of that civics curriculum. Because then every person in Australia would have an understanding of how the country (its governments, courts and services work). And this is where America has gone off the rails. America let Bush and Cheney cut the funding for civics. In the past NOBODY would have been able to get away with what Trump and his Trumpistani hoards have done, BECAUSE too many people would have called BULLSHlT to his LIES because they would have been educated to spot it. Here's why I think Civics is so important. The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are brilliant BUT NOT PERFECT. Nobody's is - Australia inherited much of ours from the British with a 1,000 years of British fluff. As an engineer I explain it this way. Consider the best machines we have made (of any type) they all NEED MAINTENANCE. Formula 1 cars and Fighter jets are among the most advanced machines we've ever made and they all need dedicated highly trained crews to maintain them. Our nations are no different and they are more complex than any machine, which is why we have governments to maintain them. The brilliance of modern social democracy is "we the people" can get rid of a government that fails to do that job. BUT it breaks down when the population isn't educated about how the nation is supposed to work. That's why civics is so important. Without it its easy for populist bad faith actors to come in and convince people of things that are NOT true.
    15
  313. 15
  314. 15
  315. 15
  316. Australian engineer here: I'm formally trained and certified in both functional safety (TUV) and EEHA. Rupturing an LNG tank does NOT create a BLEVE, but it certainly makes one possible and that's because the LNG will quickly boil without any fire, ignition or explosion. I got into some ugly discussions over the BLEVE in Beiruit a couple of years ago and it certainly was a BLEVE. If you get into the details BLEVE is not that well defined but basically its when you have an initial fire or explosion that creates the boiling liquid and vapor cloud which then mixes with the surrounding air. That's the boiling liquid and expanding vapor cloud part of BLEVE. If you think about what a thermobaric bomb does which is to disperse the fuel, let it mix with the air and then detonate it that basically a BLEVE. There's was at one point a few really good examples on YouTube but they have been drowned out but the scumbags wanting attention and clicks. Of the few decent vids on thermobaric devices Ryan McBeth who's ex-US Military and is actually informative does a good one. If you search BLEVE on YouTube you get a bunch of older vids, but some are very good but also kind of scary. The best I know of is the BLEVE training video that's on the channel VideoSpikes as it explains what is going on. There's one from Mexico City and its a good example of the 2 stage nature of a BLEVE. At 0:58 there's the initial explosion and creation of the vapor cloud and then about 2 seconds later there's the fireball. Maybe the most frightening one is the "Atmospheric Storage Tank Explosion" posted by Mohamad Mahdi Amiri of what happened in Tehran in 2021.
    15
  317. 15
  318. 15
  319. 15
  320. 15
  321. 15
  322. 15
  323. I'm an aerospace engineer who's worked in automation for 30+ years and it F*CKING AGGRAVATES me that people are still misrepresenting robots and what they actually do. Anyone can just go and look up Fanuc, Kuka, Motoman, ABB, Staubli and other robotic companies and see what robots actually look like and what they actually do. First off robots (real industrial robots) are nothing like the BS crap that Hollywood makes out. One of the very things Hollywood got close was the original Terminator when it was described as having no feelings, no morals just a program. Second robots are damn heavy seriously heavy. They need mass or they're unstable and shake too much which can make them hard to do accurate work. The more spindly robots you see doing 3d printing get rigidity by the types of mechanisms they use. Third go watch the Canadarm its moves slowly so they can avoid inertia and accuracy issues. Those are less problematic in a factory on earth because we can bolt robots down to solid slabs of concrete. In space inertia and momentum are issues not so easily solved. Like many engineers I am truly over these snake oil salesmen. There are some really serious tasks right here on Earth that if we don't deal with SOON we are in deep shite. Forget climate for a moment almost every Western Developed Nation has serious infrastructure issues that if they aren't dealt with we risk major economic collapses. We don't need clowns wasting money and time on fantasy flights. I'd love it if we started a new major space station YESTERDAY, but I also realise that we have more important priorities.
    15
  324. 15
  325. HEY GARY: I'm an Australian engineer who started informally studying economics a few years ago because I got so frustrated with the interference I got on projects from people with MBAs and economics degrees. They always pushed back with 1 or both of 2 basic questions: "What's the business case for that?" and "Who's going to pay for it?" Even when we could answer what they ask they'd push back or worse send HR after us. So from an engineering perspective its great to see people like you also pushing back at these people because they have left a legacy in the energy and water sectors that will take decades to fix. I know you know about the neoliberal economics of people like Margret Thatcher and how its caused massive inequality, but I'd like to talk to you about what else it caused. Trying to keep it simple I'll only talk about the electricity part of the energy sector because its the easiest to understand. energy and my most sincere apologies for the length of this: FIRST AND IMPORTANTLY - When governments built and managed the energy sector as a public enterprise its KPI was NOT profit. People in every country including Australia used to whine and complain about what it cost to run power stations. What we never heard about was what we got in return -> Very cheap energy that allowed out economies to grow and create massive amounts of productive value adding employment. But that didn't suit the free market libertarians of Chicago School economics. I'm Australian but did my degree in America and there's a giant mistake the rest of us make in that we think America has a Left & Right politics. Its has liberal and libertarian 2 forms of Right sided ideology. American Liberals believe in a strong government frame work to protect and provide freedom and economic growth. American Libertarians believe in minimalist government, minimalist oversight and ZERO corporate regulations so they can do whatever they like. One thing not often noted is that the Chicago School is a reference to the University of Chicago which is a private university in part founded by John D Rockefeller who hated government because they put limits on what he could do. Out of UC came people like James McKinsey who founded the consulting industry. Go listen to Mariana Mazzucato on that. Also out of UC came neo-conservative politics that produced things like the invasion of Iraq. Most importantly out of UC came neoliberal economics from people like Hayek and Freidman who can be summed up on 2 words "deregulate" & "privatise." This is what we more commonly know as Reaganomics and Thatcherism. The problem with neoliberal economics in energy is that it flips the energy sector from a driver of economic & employment growth into a profit making enterprise. There's actually no KPIs in neoliberal economics, because that implies there's more than one indicator and in neoliberal economics there is only the one indicator - profit. Direct cut and past from the McKinsey website _"t has now been 50 years since economist Milton Friedman asked and answered a fundamental question: What is the role of business in society? Friedman’s stance was plain: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” That view has long influenced management thinking, corporate governance, and strategic moves. "_ You should understand that better than I do. What the effect is that when you privatise the energy sector you don't bring in investment to the energy sector you actually kill it and its killed in a very specific way. You need to understand there are 2 main parts to the energy sector - base load and load following. In case you don't know base load is the minimum amount your society needs every hour of everyday just to keep things going. Load following is what's needed when people start turning things on or switching them off and it has to respond. Base load only varies with economic growth (or decline) while load following changes every minute of every day. Power stations are similar to goods transportation. When you want to deliver lots of small packages like Amazon does where there's variety you use delivery vans. When you want to move tons of product in bulk you use a semi-trailer. Just like a semi costs a lot more than a van so do the large bulk delivery power stations. Example 1) Hinkley Point C (currently under construction at £26 Billon and rumored to now cost £35 Billion took 7 years to design, approve and get started. It will take 10 years to build and is planned to provide power in starting in 2028 for 60 years. I have done the math and it will take around 15 years to pay of at 80% operation. So what's the business case for spending that much money and the CEO wont see a return for over 30 years? That's over 120 quarterly statements that say "we spent and are still paying off the investment." Example 2) Any wind farm, lets just say it has 100 turbines. When the first turbine is built (1% completion) you have income and as you build more turbines and connect them you have more income. Income for the existing turbines to pay for the rest of the turbines. What do you think investors will invest in the £26-35 Billion dollar lump they wont see a return from for 30+ years or the wind farm they wont even have to raise all the funds needed to build it. So fundamentally governments have a completely different agenda tot the private sector when it comes to electricity investment. When governments do energy they are always building ahead of demand so the system has MORE CAPACITY than is needed. That keeps market prices low because of over supply and YES I did a class in economics. That allows new businesses to start and existing businesses to develop, grow and employ people. When the private sector does energy they DON'T BUILD bulk delivery power stations they BUY EXISTING bulk delivery power stations OR they build smaller load following stations where they can get return on investment. There is a monster "herd of elephants in the room" issue and nobody talks about it. FIRST - understand the demand curve for energy is a direct proportional function of population. If the population grows so does the energy demand curve. When the private sector BUYS an existing power station it is generally in a market with OVER SUPPLY. If anyone build more large bulk supply so that energy supply stays ahead of demand then prices stay low and profits stay low. IF THEY DO NOTHING and JUST WAIT then eventually (because of population growth) energy demand will flip the market from over supply to under supply and the market price will GO UP. Best of all the actual costs of generation will not change. So when the power in the UK goes from 20p to 54p (as it did) that additional 34p is 100% PROFIT. All these private companies ever had to do was WAIT until population outgrew supply. The problem is that those costs are paid by every household and business, So not only does everyone have less money to spend which affects consumption but businesses are less profitable because their electricity costs are higher. So nobody can go to their boss and ask for a raise to help pay their electricity bill because their boss ALSO HAS AN ELECTRICITY BILL. Higher electricity costs NEGATIVELY affect the economy at every level and yet where are the economists saying we need to fix this? Yeah they are silent because they are the people who told everyone that privatising the energy sector was the right thing to do because (and they said this everywhere) "Competition would produce better services at lower costs!" If you want to talk about this great. If you want to do a video about this even better.
    15
  326. 15
  327. 14
  328. 14
  329. 14
  330. 14
  331. I'm Australian but went to college in America. So I have a fairly reasonable understanding of both American politics and its effects on the rest of the world AND YOU HAVE SUMMED IT UP PERFECTLY. Hilary lost because of her own stupid arrogance. Maybe I could see it because I was on the outside looking in, but to me it was so damn obvious. And the fact she is still around being idiotically arrogant is a blight on the human race not just American politics. For those interested here's an explanation of what I saw from the outside looking in. America is unusual in that it has voluntary voting, in that you can chose NOT to vote at all. In Australia we have compulsory voting. You have to be on the electoral role and you have to show up, but because we also have preferential voting rather than first past the post we tend to get fairly decent results (but not always). America's problem is that you can basically vote DNC, RNC or NOT at all and if you chose to NOT vote then the selection is left to those who are politically motivated to either the DNC or RNC. So its incredibly important that candidates motivate people TO TURN UP AND VOTE. I told people here in Australia months out from the 2016 election Hilary was going to lose because I knew she'd lost the rust belt. There was that moment when she said she didn't need to campaign in Michigan because they'd vote Blue anyway and instead she stayed in New York doing campaign dinners to raise money. She completely forgot that it was those same New York elites at those dinners who'd made the decisions to shut down the rust belt and send their jobs to China, Mexico, Texas,.....etc. So rather than motivating people Hilary discouraged people across the rust belt. Go and look at the results and Hilary became the first Democrat to lose all 3 of Michigan, Ohio and Penn since Dukakis lost all 3 to Bush Snr. Even Gore and Kerry each won 2 of those states. She lost all 3 and it was all because of her arrogant dismissal of people. If she'd won those 3 states she'd have won. It might have been easier to see form the outside looking in but from my perspective it was obvious that Hilary waving the middle finger to Michigan was idiotic.
    14
  332. 14
  333. 14
  334. 14
  335. 14
  336. 14
  337. 14
  338. 14
  339. 14
  340. 14
  341. 14
  342. 14
  343. 14
  344. 14
  345.  @EngineeringwithRosie  I did aerospace but have spent the last 30+ years in control systems. I am qualified in what gets call EEHA - Electrical Equipment for Hazardous Areas. In the context of engineering a Hazardous Area is an area that has all the time or part of the time an EXPLOSIVE GAS or EXPLOSIVE DUST mix. It has nothing to do with toxicity, physical hazards, lack of oxygen or anything else. Its the areas of control systems where we keep gas plants, chemical plants, wheat silos, sugar processing plants,.....etc. from exploding. Of all the things that engineers in my field take most seriously its Hydrogen. Not only does it leak very easily but it ignites very easily. With gas mixes there is a range of mixing where the mixes is explosive. If there is not enough ignitable gas its wont explode and if there is too much it wont explode as there isn't enough oxygen. We call these points the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) and Upper Explosive Limit (UEL). When gas first leaks from a pipe or cylinder its 100% and then starts mixing with the air. Once it reaches the UEL it becomes explosive and stays that way until it dissipates enough to be below the LEL. Methane has an UEL of 16.4% and LEL of 4.4% while Hydrogen has a UEL of 75% and LEL of 4%. That means when Hydrogen leaks and start mixing with air it becomes explosive quite quickly and a lot quicker than methane. It also stays explosive slightly longer as it dissipates. Then there is the serious issue of hydrogen with ignition energy. Ignition energy is the minimum amount of energy that is required to get something to ignite. The minimum ignition energy for hydrogen is 0.019 mJ while for most hydrocarbons it is around 0.1mJ (approximately 5 times higher). So not only does a Hydrogen leak become explosive far quicker and stay explosive longer it takes about 1/5th the energy to go bang. That means everything we do electrically around hydrogen has to be specifically designed for hydrogen and there are some big traps in those areas. If you want to discuss further let me know.
    14
  346. 14
  347. 14
  348. 14
  349. 14
  350. 14
  351. 14
  352. 14
  353. 14
  354. 14
  355. 14
  356. 14
  357. HEY PETER - CAN YOU PLEASE HIRE AN ENGINEER: You cannot just stop the methane release from a coal mine but just stopping the digging. Once you have exposed a coal seam to the air the carbon in the coal seam will begin to react. Carbon wants to naturally react with oxygen in the air. In fact if you are not careful coal stockpiles can simply ignite. Its why they have to be doused in water almost constantly. Coal itself is porous and if the coal seam is also laden with methane like we have here in parts of Australia (my country) then once you give that gas a way out it will leave the coal seam and go into the atmosphere. This is just one of the issues with fracking and it can also make underground coal mining extremely dangerous. Methane in the right amount in air is highly explosive as happened at the Pike River mine in New Zealand in 2010. What keeps the gas in the coal seam is the layers of clay and dirt above the seam similar to oil & gas fields. When you dig the coal mine you go through that layer to get to the coal and in doing so give the methane a way to escape into the atmosphere. So its not simply a matter of shutting down the coal mines you also have to seal the whole thing. That can be quite difficult if the mine is an open pit which many of the mines in China are. There's a German documentary (which I saw 12+ years ago) on the poor practices the Chinese employed in their coal mining industry and they had many in seam fires which was what they brought the Germans in to help with. For almost 20 years (all through China's growth spurt) the Chinese burned as much coal in the ground as they did in their power stations. That's part of why they had those smog problems and also why there's now even more CO2 in the atmosphere than expected. Those fires are now mostly put out or under control. The last report I saw said they had contained or put out around 80% of those fires.
    14
  358. 14
  359. 14
  360. 14
  361. 14
  362. 13
  363. 13
  364. 13
  365. As Australians we all studied Orwell in English class at some point because it was considered "a must" if we were to UNDERSTAND what our ideological opponents were. I did Animal Farm during the American equivalent of Freshman/Sophomore and 1984 during the American equivalent of Junior/Senior High School. I went to college in America (late 80s) and could barely believe that almost NONE of my classmates understood anything about these books. When I studied Animal Farm that included a basic history of the Russian Revolution and how certain characters in the book related to real historical figures and what they did. When I studied 1984 we looked at how authoritarian states OPERATED. We had doublespeak explained to us. Its the political concept of making a statement that has 2 equal and opposite meanings. It was how Big Brother was 100% right about everything. Because even when he said something utterly wrong the opposite meaning was still correct. The classic I remember from the book was all the government ministries were abbreviated from "Ministry of Something" to "mini something." Orwell's implication was that these governments were the opposite of what the label claimed. So the Ministry of Peace was called Mini-peace and it was where wars were fought from. The "Ministry of Love" was called Mini-love and it was where they tortured Winston (and others). The other thing I remember (and my English teacher at the time hammered this home to all of us) is the actual purpose of doublespeak was to utterly confuse the population to the point where they could not form coherent thoughts in opposition to the regime. Its actually described at one point in the book.
    13
  366. 13
  367. 13
  368. 13
  369. 13
  370. 13
  371. Yes I am. Here's a link to the article Sagaar was talking about he other day that was done by Nicholas Wade. I would not call it the exact opposite of what David is saying, but its clearly not pro-Fauci as David is. The article by Nicholas Wade is very well done, but its a longer article than most people will read. -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ In a nutshell: - There was "gain of function" research going on in Wuhan. - There was research there being funded by other nations including America. - One of the main people investigating Wuhan with the W.H.O. Peter Daszak has an obvious conflict of interest. As a result we DO NOT have a fully detailed account of what was going on in Wuhan. From that article and other professionals I have heard, I do NOT think it was a genetically engineered weapon. Most likely it was something that became modified or enhanced in the lab that got out into the general population. How it became modified or enhanced is something NO ONE has answered. Its possible it was from deliberate "gain of function" research. Its also possible it just came from an accidental mutation in a petri dish. We just don't know and one of the principal investigators has a serious conflict of interest. BUT Rand Paul is the worst kind of opportunistic maggot politician to be asking anything of such a serious subject and we wont get the answers we need with a clown like him running the show. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    13
  372. 13
  373. 13
  374. HEY STEVE There's also another factor in WHY Australia didn't have as bad of a recession during the 2008 GFC. We were still building new mines to feed the Chinese beast (as I call it). REMENBER I WAS WORKIGN int that sector at that time. Yes many things slowed down. What affected me personally was the part of the sector I was in. I worked for a small company doing peripheral work. All mines are continuously doing projects to either fix things or improve things or BOTH. That's part of the very nature of mining and mineral processing. The GFC slammed into the peripheral work so we got hammered because what they did was put anything unnecessary on hold. Now that did include some major projects because they hadn't started BUT of the major projects that were already underway KEPT GOING. So there were still billions being spent and even though there was a downturn in the amount of things like iron ore exports IT DID NOT STOP. Also when you process iron ore you need to use coking coal and YES I know that's a touchy subject, but its necessary if you want to produce pig iron and steel. Its not understood well that Australia has 2 very different parts to its coal exports. There's the THERMAL COAL which gets burnt for thermal energy in places like power stations and then there's "METALLURGICAL COAL" which gets used in mineral processing. Both cost about the same to dig up, crush, screen, clean and put on a boat. The difference is that metallurgical coal typically sells for between 2 & 3 times as much and can even be higher. Around 1/2 of Australia's coal exports are metallurgical coal and that industry didn't blink much when 2008 hit because the Chinese, South Koreans and Japanese were still making steel. So by fortune Australia was very lucky in that there was still enough demand out of China, South Korea and Japan for our iron ore and metallurgical coal. Projects were put on hold and that sucked but they also got going again not much later. Now with the demands on things like Nickel & Lithium for the energy transition we are poised yet again to get another free ride out of potential crisis. My real concern is what happens if we mismanage any of it, because lets face it Australia is fantastic at mismanaging great opportunities. The problem is as I said on the podcast the systems we have are fragile. Only yesterday I was speaking to my old boss from back in the 90s. We hadn't caught up in many years, but we have both arrived at the same conclusion our energy sector is being horribly mismanaged. He knew stuff that i didn't know and I had stuff he didn't know. Because I what I have been doing my contribution to the discussion was the interference by economists and that's only gotten a whole lot worse in recent months because of the re-ignition of the nuclear debate which is 99% 2 groups of selfish idiots screaming at each other and maybe 1% of someone sensible talking before the other 2 groups collectively scream at them. I mentioned on the podcast the CSIRO report on nuclear. Its even worse than I first thought. The clowns who did that report need to be fired for LYING and I really do mean they lied. Hidden away in the modelling are some really bizarre numbers. If you get a chance go watch the video here on YT titled "Are politicians listening to the science in the energy debate? | Insiders: On Background | ABC News" The person being interviewed is CSIRO CEO Dr Doug Hilton and he's urging politicians not to undermine scientists in the energy debate. BULLSHlT - he's part of the problem. Not only was the team who di the work made up of ECONOMISTS (no engineers involved) but they LIED. they based their modelling on nuclear power stations having a life of 30 years but also they said (and its there in the interview) that these plants would have a utilisation of 53%. Calder Hall the worlds FIRST commercial nuclear power plant and therefore a prototype ran for 47 years at a capacity factor (utilisation) of 79% (see Wikipedia). So the CSIRO report done by ECONOMISTS has claimed that the next generation of reactors (Gen III+ and Gen IV) will not only run 1/3rd less time than the very first reactors but also run 1/3rd less efficiently in the markets. And for the record the current Gen III+ reactors like the European EPR 2 have a design life of 60 years and a capacity factor over 90%. YES STEVE - CSIRO hired a pack of economists who did a model that's a LIE and giant LIE. What is it that you have kept telling everyone about economists and models and especially ENERGY?????????????????????
    13
  375. 13
  376. 13
  377. 13
  378. 13
  379. 13
  380. 13
  381. 13
  382. 13
  383. 13
  384. 13
  385. 13
  386. 13
  387. 13
  388. 13
  389. 13
  390. 13
  391. 13
  392. AUSTRALIAN HERE with an outside observation. FIRST - I think your sentiments like others (and I can repeat this to those others) is spot on. I actually went to college in America and I can barely believe what this court has done. I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and on many occasions they explained to me how the America system is supposed to work. This decision is nothing like anything they ever explained to me. SECOND - this is obviously a massive deal to the American people, but its also a massive deal to Australia as well as every other country America deals with including places like Russia, Iran, North Korea,.... etc. For countries like Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea,.... America is our most important trading partner and our most important security partner. So its DOUBLY important that the person we have to deal with YOUR PRESIDENT is a reliable person. For everyone else there's the simple facts that America has nuclear weapons, is 1/4 of the worlds economy and the US Dollar (US$) is the worlds reserve currency. Do any of you realise that almost all international trade is either done directly in US$ or the currency exchanges are backed by US$? That's the real power America has in the world and for most of the last 75 years it has worked brilliantly and we have all benefitted except for those few times when America did something stupid like you did with the 2007-08 GFC and we all suffered. So its incredibly important to the rest of the world that POTUS is a RELIABLE and RESPONSIBLE person who is CONSTRAINED by LAW. P.S. I really do care about America. I had a great time there at college and want to see you back at your best.
    13
  393. 13
  394. 13
  395. 13
  396. 12
  397. 12
  398. 12
  399. 12
  400. 12
  401. 12
  402. 12
  403. 12
  404. 12
  405. 12
  406. 12
  407. 12
  408. 12
  409. 12
  410. 12
  411. 12
  412. 12
  413. 12
  414. 12
  415. 12
  416. 12
  417. 12
  418. 12
  419. 12
  420. 12
  421. 12
  422. 12
  423. 12
  424. 12
  425. 12
  426. 12
  427. 12
  428. 12
  429. 12
  430. 12
  431. 12
  432. 12
  433. AUSTRALIAN HERE - ITS NOT JUST WALES. We've had the same sorts of discussions here for over 30 years as we shut down industry after industry. At the beginning of this the reporters asks - "Who's to blame? Is it climate hysteria is it Brexit or is it the current conservative Administration?" The answer to that is the same as the answer we have in Australia - NONE OF THEM. How could these problems in Wales be linked to the same problems in Australia? Simple - This is the result of decisions made well over 30 years ago in the 1980s when the Western World flipped its economics from Keynesian economics over to free market Neoliberalism. In Britain you called it Thatcherism. In Australia we called it Economic Rationalism and the Americans called it Reaganomics. Today its call called Neoliberalism. I'm actually an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems, robotics and automation. Back in 2016 I had a small consulting job that highlighted an incredibly serious issue with Australia's energy sector AND NOBODY was doing anything about it. Worse we still aren't. So I started looking into WHY? Other than "Greed is Good"_ a Key part of Milton Friedmans free market doctrine is that the government shall do as little as possible and let the markets react and respond to changes in demand. The stupidity of this is that people like Milton Freidman had no understanding of industrial sectors or logistics. To this day economists still have NO UNDERSATNDING of industry or logistics. I recently found out that they don't even include energy in their economic models. That's absurd because it means they have no idea of the stuff that we use to convert raw materials into finished products or what it takes to move those raw materials and products around so they are where people can buy them. Australian economist Steve Keen has been pointing this out for years only to be dismissed by the Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale types. Gary Stevenson the young British economist that all you Brits should be listening too, did a great video on _"Why economists are always wrong." What he explains are some inherent failures in both the education of economists, how they formulate economic policies, act on those polices and HOW THEY FAIL. I know Gary is always talking about issues in Britain but there are times when it feels like he's talking about Australia and that's because we are all running on similar economic ideology.
    12
  434. 12
  435. 12
  436. 12
  437. 12
  438. 12
  439. 12
  440. 12
  441. 12
  442. 12
  443. 12
  444. 11
  445. Absolutely true. Masha was interviewed on the Australian program Planet America and gave the best explanation on the entire Trump-Russian collusion fiasco. Masha's explanation was that: 1: Putin is not a master strategist and believes that all elections are a rubber stamp for what has already been decided because that's his Russia. Its all decided before hand. So he expected Clinton would win. 2: Putin like Russians before him have played the game with America from the unpredictable possibly madman perspective to America's straight man. Having Trump in the White House would ruin that vibe. 3: Putin was the master of East Germany before the collapse and destined to rule SOVIET Russia one day, but the Russia he returned to was wrecked. He wants his Soviet Empire back and just as importantly he wants to hurt the West for what happened and that included Hilary Clinton. Masha never explicitly said it but the inference was that Putin was in fact expecting to do great harm to the Clinton Presidency by releasing damaging facts after the win with a rampant Trump going nuts. We now know that assessment was right. The big was the Jim Comey didn't do as Putin expected. In Putin's world subordinates like Comey do as they are told. They don't announce to the world they found stuff and are reopening an investigation. Just imagine if Comey had kept quiet and then after the election knowledge of the additional emails were released. Just imagine how the Republicans and Trump would have reacted. Putin would have been able to sit back laughing as America tor itself to pieces. Instead he got Trump and had to wait 6 more years to start pulling the former Soviet Republics back into order.
    11
  446. 11
  447. Australian here and I went to college in America - sadly you are wrong. Bernie would have been slaughtered in a US Presidential Election for the simple reason that the US Presidential election does not follow common sense. The very system itself has now morphed into an unusual form of popularity contest where logic, reason and sensibility are meaningless. Its not that other elections in other countries have similar aspects to them. Its just that the US Presidential election does it at another level. I'm old enough to remember the Carter-Reagan elections and nobody in the world could believe someone as stupid as Reagan clearly was, got elected. The exception were the business leaders because they knew it was the start of a new economic model that greatly favored them. I was actually in America (1987) at college when the 1988 election season was starting. The Dem front-runner was Gary Hart. He was charismatic like Reagan but far more intelligent. Then he was accused of extra-marital affairs and his campaign was done. His wife came out and publicly declared that although their marriage had struggled it was now doing well and she believed her husband was still the best man for the job. THAT DID NOT MATTER and his policies did not matter, because there were Americans who's great fear was the Russians sending girls over to "suck the secrets out of American leaders" AND YES THEY SAID IT LIKE THAT. And this is the point of me telling you why Bernie would never have won a US Presidential election. The Republicans have operated on FEAR for decades. Its their only policy at times. They find something for people to be scared of and wind the volume up to 11. In Bernie's case that fear is socialism. Forget that Bernie's brand of socialism would get every American health care and an education. The fear to America is that he'd tax the rich to pay for it and if you tax the rich they'd stop investing in jobs for average Americans. The GOP sell that as "Forget what you'd get and embrace the fear of what you'd lose." Sorry, but its an incredibly easy tactic and the Republicans have decades of experience using it. They either scare people into NOT voting for a person who wants to make their life better or they scare people into the arms of the guy who says he will protect American values.
    11
  448. 11
  449. 11
  450. 11
  451. 11
  452. 11
  453. 11
  454. 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
  455. 11
  456. 11
  457. 11
  458. 11
  459. 11
  460. 11
  461. 11
  462. 11
  463. 11
  464. 11
  465. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s) on a sports scholarship and I can barely believe what's happened. I love America and the people and especially college sport, but your politics has been out of control for decades. I was even able to see it back in the 80s. I was there during the 87 primary season and remember the Gary Hart scandal which was a so what because everyone knew what Washington was like and that was years before Clinton got blown. Even during the Clinton blow job scandal Newt Gingrich was banging his secretary. I did aerospace engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and they'd drag me into their conversations which gave me an interesting education on the US Constitution. My only real political or legal education was studying Orwell (1984 & Animal Farm) in High School so I'd argue that any nation can fall into a totalitarian dictatorship if it wasn't careful. My friends always argued back that was impossible because of the "System of Checks & Balances." These days I consider the US Constitution one of humanities finest achievements but its NOT perfect and it has one major flaw none of my college friends ever considered. That flaw is in granting so many freedoms allows people with nefarious motives to exploit it. That's where the Heritage Foundation goon plays his part. Heritage like CATO and other Washington Think Tanks isn't just some place where people think its where they plan to get things they want without any consideration of the consequences to others. That's what scares me about American Libertarians. Its not that defending liberty is bad in fact defending liberty is one of the noblest ideas. But American Libertarians demand the liberty to strip other people of their liberties. They are at their core authoritarians who believe there's 2 types of laws. The laws they don't believe apply to them and the laws they believe apply to everyone else.
    11
  466. 11
  467. 11
  468. 11
  469. 11
  470. 11
  471. 11
  472. 11
  473. 11
  474. I'm an Aussie but one on my best mates is a Scot and my advice to him on this would be Look at how the Europeans negotiated with Britain after the Brexit vote then imagine how the English would treat the Scots??????????? For reference go and look what they REALLY DID to William Wallace not the family friendly Mel Gibson version and then put that into a financial frame of reference. One thing Peter does not count in here is that Scotland does have a fantastic energy resource if its smart enough to LISTEN. The North of Scotland and its islands are WINDY, very very WINDY. The wind in the north of Scotland doesn't blow it howls like a banshee in heat and it rarely rarely stops. Use the wind to create hydrogen and build a bloody pipe down to England and keep that going all the way to France. I did my degree in aerospace engineering. Back in the 1990s when we all thought we'd have to swap from Jet A-1 to hydrogen companies like Rolls Royce, Siemens and GE did all the work for making gas turbines run on hydrogen. All the technical issues were solved 20+ years ago. As soon as someone connects a wind turbine to an electrolyser that's connected to a pipe then the person who owns that wind turbine and electrolyser wont need to work again - EV_ARGH. Think of it like an oil well that doesn't run dry. Once its built its low maintenance and the cost of producing hydrogen becomes bugger all. All you have to do is check the gearbox for lube, the turbine blades for wear and replace the electrodes in the electrolyser when they wear down. The only reason it hasn't been done is there hasn't been a substantial hydrogen market. the reason why nobody has been buying hydrogen turbines is there hasn't been a requirement or a fuel source. THAT"S ALL CHANGING. You Scotts have an energy gold mine on your North Coast. All you need to be is smart about it.
    11
  475. 11
  476. 11
  477. 11
  478. 11
  479. 11
  480. 11
  481. 11
  482. 11
  483. 11
  484. 11
  485. 11
  486. 11
  487. 11
  488. 11
  489. 11
  490. 11
  491. 11
  492. 11
  493. 11
  494. 11
  495. 11
  496. 11
  497. 11
  498. 11
  499. 11
  500. 11
  501.  @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
  502. 11
  503. 11
  504. 11
  505. 11
  506. 11
  507. 11
  508. 11
  509. 11
  510. 11
  511. 11
  512. 11
  513. 11
  514. 11
  515. 11
  516. 11
  517. 11
  518. 11
  519. 11
  520. 11
  521. 10
  522. 10
  523. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I was well prepared to dismiss vid this straight out of hand as yet another crap explanation of engineering, but I am quite happy to say he's hit the spot. What so many people miss is that engineering is fundamentally the art of APPLIED MATH as opposed to pure math or theoretical math. Fundamentally engineers take math and APPLY it to real world problems, but to get to that point we have to learn a staggering amount of math to have the skills needed. Aerospace is particularly brutal in this respect. I had to do 2 extra pure math classes than other engineers. One was in vectors & matrices which was fairly straight forward and I'd expect most engineers to pass it. The other was in advanced calculus which we needed for things like aerodynamics. It was brutally hard and we had a professor who was a real life Sheldon Cooper except he was even more arrogant. By far the single hardest class I took was Spacecraft Dynamics. We had to do 2 high level aerospace classes to graduate. All of us took Finite Element Methods because that's reasonably straight forward applied matrix methods. After FEM most people took orbital mechanics because that was a favorite of the satellite industry. OM isn't easy and involves a lot of differential calculus in 3-d and in spherical coordinate systems. 4 or 5 of us (wanting to be different) took Spacecraft Dynamics and regretted it about 5 minutes into the first lecture. There were about 8 or 9 post grads doing the higher level variant of the class which meant they had to do a term paper and by term paper I mean a journal type technical paper. The difference between orbital mechanics and space craft dynamics is that OM is about calculating orbits, transfers and trajectories while spacecraft dynamics is how you get a spacecraft to point where you want as is flies along its orbit/trajectory. The problem with spacecraft dynamics is that it involves free body mechanics where every action has its opposite response. Satellites are NOT attached to something large and solid like a planet. So if you do something like turn the antenna on a satellite then the rest of the satellite wants to go the in the opposite direction. Since a lot of satellite stability involves gyroscopes or reaction wheels then that math gets convoluted very quickly because of precession. What makes it truly ugly is that a satellite typically has 6 degrees of freedom - X, Y, Z and roll, pitch and yaw, which as the X, Y, X suggests is done in cartesian coordinates.*BUT* if the roll pitch and yaw is done with gyroscopes or reaction wheels then that part of the system is in cylindrical coordinates and need translating into cartesian. The problem is that satellites move in spherical coordinate systems. So you have a convoluted set of differential equations 1/2 in cartesian and 1/2 in cylindrical that need translating into a spherical coordinate system AND THEN you have to solve that system for what you actually want to do. And for those who are wondering this is what makes keeping the ISS in the right orientation so damn hard and what made the US Star Wars program so close to impossible they gave up. And so you all know I did that class in1987 and ALL of the postgrads were on DARPA funded scholarships doing Star Wars stuff.
    10
  524. 10
  525. Well if that's the case. If you even have the slightest fantasy of sending this stuff to Canada you are going to need to talks to someone like me. I have 30+ years in control systems and automation. Back in late 2017 through early 2018 I went to Canada to finish a project for an Australia Company. I ended up having to completely redesign the entire electrical and control system for Canadian standards. I was there through one of their winters and NOTHING you hear prepares you for it. I still remember the days just after Christmas 2017 when the entire middle region of Canada around Saskatchewan (where I was) was effectively in a lock down because of the weather. I woke up one day to every TV channel flashing alarms for the cold. I was in a small town in central Sask with the rest of the team back in Regina for Christmas. The message they gave me was simple - stay indoors and touch nothing made of metal that is connected to the outside like door knobs and window frames unless wearing gloves. Going outside for someone unprepared was lethal. The time to frostbite for exposed skin was something like 3-5 minutes. Unless you have experienced a Canadian Winter NOBODY can properly explain it to you and I never went to the far North were its even worse. EVERYTHING IN THAT VEHICLE WOULD NEED TO BE RECONSIDERED for CANADIAN conditions. When I mean everything I mean anything made of plastic, rubber and the cloth, oil, grease and even the bearings. The engine would need a complete overhaul including the cold weather hardware. You need to go right down to the paint and the welding. You need to think of it in terms of taking the worst of Australia's desert and then put minus signs in front of every number. FYI - I have worked in the Australian mining industry so I have seen how brutal that is first hand.
    10
  526. 10
  527. 10
  528. 10
  529. 10
  530. 10
  531. 10
  532. 10
  533. 10
  534. 10
  535. 10
  536. 10
  537. 10
  538. About the same for me. A while back I watched a couple of his lectures that were from a few years back (from before his got into the political stuff) and he was a pretty good college professor who knew his subject and handled questions from students really well. I just watched one of his podcasts on climate change with Dr. Richard Lindzen. Its not a podcast I'd recommend to anyone unless they understand various topics especially complex system modelling. because its not so much what they say BUT WHAT THEY LEAVE OUT. I studied aerospace engineering and got trained in complex modelling and complex systems analysis. Stuff like aerodynamics, complex structures and spacecraft dynamics. They were both very right about the issues with research funding at universities. But then Lindzen is also incredibly dishonest in a few times. He does NOT lie about anything but he LEAVES OUT information on complex system modelling. Unless you have a background in that stuff you'd never spot it. Where Peterson really shows his colors is in his repeated references to people like Alex Epstein and Bjorn Lomberg who are 2 of the most dishonest people on the planet. They're first class gold medal cherry pickers with data & information and both are very sneaky how they present it. They aren't alone but the same sorts of discredited people keep turning up on podcasts (like the one Peterson hosts) where they know they WONT be challenged. I noted Peterson also had on Dr. Jay Bhattacharya who's been totally discredited and yet keeps turning up on these sorts of podcasts which profess to be honest public discussions but just aren't. I watched Bhattacharya and Economist Gigi Foster on Jon Anderson's (Former Australian Deputy Prime Minister) podcast and they STRAIGHT OUT LIED about Australia's COVID response. And I don't mean they made a mistake they outright lied. Especially Foster who's just a disgusting liar. It was some of her information that Saagar Enjeti made an clown out of himself last week.
    10
  539. 10
  540.  @EhThisIsAGoodName  Good points but as to nations considering America as a threat to peace, that's not so clear. I'm Australian and certainly there would be Australians who consider that right, but as a nation that's not strictly true. The one thing that has dramatically changed is America's reputation. Prior to 9/11 POTUS was often introduced as "The leader of the Free World." Most Westerners took that with a grain of salt considering it more hubris that fact. But these days if anyone tried to introduce POTUS with that expression they would be laughed from the room. I actually went to college in America (late 80s) and was there during the time of Iran-Contra. My girlfriend at the time lamented one day about the "damage being done to the office of the President." It was an odd expression that took years for me to grasp. There was a time in America when the OFFICE not the person occupying it was a semi-sacred place that deserved RESPECT. My girlfriend was lamenting the damage being done to the office and not Reagan. I'd now contend that every President since has continued to erode that respect. Bush 1 with "read my lips no new taxes" and then came new taxes. Clinton - blowjob (say no more). Bush 2 started a war based on a lie, opened a gulag in Cuba and then signed off on torture as he threw out the Geneva Convention. Obama promised "hope & change" and was hopeless at bringing any change. What ever was left after Obama Trump simply obliterated. If there is any perception of threat its more in the "what if a worse version of Trump gets elected in future?" Almost a bigger question is - what does that even mean? Australia (like a few others) has backed the F35 as a key part of its future security. What might another Trumpist who sucks up to dictators mean for that or any other long standing cooperation or treaty. I was in Canada when Trump tore up NAFTA. I was there among Canadians as Trump literally told them to F--K OFF. Its hard to describe what that moment was like. For an Australian it was like - what's he going to do to us. We found out when China retaliated against Australian exports. So I wouldn't yet describe America as a threat to world peace, BUT I would have no hesitation in calling America an UNRELIABLE PARTNER. And that's a scary thought considering the Chinese plans for domination.
    10
  541. Aerospace engineer here - this is one of the most annoying subjects wasting out time these days. There's no real need to go into the technologies. You can kill this entire argument just by asking how they'll process 1 Billion cubic kilometers of air to remove 2.5 Trillion tons of CO2? Here's the explanation. FIRST - the basic task comes from the fact we have (since the start of the Industrial Revolution) put an extra 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere with 1.5 Trillion Tons of that being just in the last 80 years and at current rates we'll add another 1/2 a Trillion tons by the early 2030s. Way back in 1987 as an undergraduate (in America) we had a NASA Engineer (as a guest lecturer) explain to us why terraforming Mars was utterly impractical. He'd just completed a project for NASA on what it would take. It was simply the amount of stuff needed to do the job. Before you even get to the subject of making things like water, oxygen and carbon dioxide cycles work you need to just get enough air and water. Its a subject I now call Planetary Mechanics which is doing basic calculations on volumes, mass and energy. He showed us just the basics. From that its relatively easy to calculate that to give Mars a layer 1km thick of Earth standard air requires 178 Trillion (with a 'T') tons of air. Plus you need to raise its temperature from -60C to +20C and that's a lot of energy for that much air. And you'd need a lot more than just 1km to make a planet viable. The related subject is Planetary Dynamics which is how you make things like the water and gas and thermodynamic cycles work which is incredibly complex. Planetary Mechanics is reasonably easy for anyone to grasp except for how big the numbers are, because its mostly just being able to calculate volumes and what mass it takes to fill that volume. That's how you get 178 Trillion tons of air. So coming back to Earth. Earths surface is just over 500,000,000 km² so in the first 1km above the Earths surface you have about 1/2 a Billion cubic kilometers of air. Its actually about 2% more than that. But its just easier to use 1/2 a Billion. Because if you want to consider the first 2km above the Earths surface its about 1 Billion cubic KILOMETERS of air and that's where most of the excess CO2 is and there's 2.5 Trillion tons of it we need to remove. So how do any of these clowns with plants that can do 1,000 tons per year plan to remove 2.5 Trillion tons? How much will it COST in BOTH money and materials to build all these plants? How much CO2 will be produced getting all those materials and building all those plants? How much energy with it take to just build those plants and then operate those plants? You don't need to explain the technology, because just the scope of the task rules it out as impractical.
    10
  542. 10
  543. 10
  544. 10
  545. 10
  546. 10
  547. 10
  548. 10
  549.  @jaarneal  He is claiming another culture is inferior AT THE CULTURAL LEVEL and its NOT the first time. AND he is doing that for 2 Billion People across a staggering number of countries. I AGREE 100% that Hamas have done an insanely terrible and stupid and inexcusable thing, but to hold them 100% accountable for the shitfest of Gaza is equally stupid. If Sam was making this ANOTHER example of a religion in trouble with a section of its people out of control then I'm 100% on his side but he doesn't do that. He's painted this as Islam is 100% wrong to its core and that condemns 2 Billion people most of who have not a damn thing to do with this mess. Maybe he can explain why his peaceful Buddhist Regime in Burma can justify their treatment of the Rohingya people, because Sam has a history with Buddhists, go check his Wikipedia. Its his complete dismissal of accountability of the Israeli government that I take offense at. Sorry but that is simply BULLSHlT and he should know better. For example on his claim of holding people accountable. How about the MURDER last year of Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh who was covering the IDF incursion into the Jenin refugee camp on 11 May 2022. She was clearly identified as PRESS by the Blue Body Vest with PRESS written on it and was shot in the head. Are you seriously going to tell people that a trained military sniper couldn't see who she was in his scope? How about the spotter? You do know snipers act in a team with one of them as the spotter who has a wider field of view and does the range finding and wind. The spotter job is to decide what targets are and aren't valid. Sniper shots are NOT accidentally taken. They are planned and taken quite deliberately. So for the IDF to claim there was no fault in that is complete BULLSHlT. There have been so many case over the years where Israeli soldiers DELIBERATELY targeted Palestinian children. At one point in the Intifada there'd been about 30 children shot dead by the IDF and the IDF were claiming again and again that they were not targeting children. Then one day a journalist asked if they weren't targeting children then how come (I think it was) 26 out of 27 deaths were by single shots to the head. It was between 25 and 30 and only 1 wasn't a head shot. It was by trained military personnel and they claimed there was no targeting. And finally if you really want to discuss who are and who aren't fanatics in the Palestinian-Israel shit show then explain who shot Yitzhak Rabin? By the way did you know Sam's mother is Jewish although the claim is she's non-religious???
    10
  550. 10
  551.  @juliewake4585  Nickie Aiken is the clown on the left hand side of the panel. Its easy to miss her name during the intro but they flash her name on screen a couple of times like at 8:18. I went looking for her name because it was a bit of "who the heck is this bimbo saying this crap?" On the Britain malfunctioning I have no idea of what the figures are for Britain but I'd expect Gary would. What I do have figures for are America and Australia. A couple of weeks ago Richard Wolff who does the channel Democracy at Work here on YT referred to a report from the US Congressional Budget Office on Family Wealth from 1989 to 2019. It was easy to find and has some amazing data that directly relates to what Gary has said about Western Economies NOT recovering. The very first graph of that report shows what's happened to the Bottom 50%, Middle 40% and Top 10% of America through that time period. On the webpage for that report you can also download an Excel file with all the data. I'm an engineer so crunching data into information is part of what I do. There's a super interesting (also tragic) story out of that data. Between 2007 and 2010 The Top 10% lost 11.1% of their net wealth but by 2019 were 21.7% MORE than they were in 2007. The Middle 40% lost 13.3% of their net wealth but by 2019 were 4.6% MORE than they were in 2007. The Bottom 50% lost 49.5% of their net wealth but by 2019 were still 21.8% LESS than they were in 2007. So all through the Obama years and first part of the Trump years the US economy recovered quite well for the Top 10%, a bit for the Middle 40% BUT NOT DIDLEY for the Bottom 50% of the population. They did recover some, but only a bit more more than 1/2 of what they lost from what the Top 10% did. This is the sort of data Gary had access to and speaks about.
    10
  552. 10
  553. We often forget that we are in fact the result of dozens of generations and selective breeding by violence. Its one reason why we should be careful condemning people and cultures of our times. Further we don't have to go back very far in our cultures to find ugliness. I'm Australian and a few years ago the Indonesians executed 2 Australians for organizing a drug shipment. The main reason for their execution was internal Indonesian politics. In Australia we had a huge campaign condemning the death penalty. The Indonesians ignored us simply citing that a few years earlier we had remained silent when they executed the 3 ringleaders of the Bali Bombing. We also forgot our own history. The last man hanged in Australia was not only innocent of the crime he was hanged for but the authorities knew it and the Premier of Victoria (the state where he was hanged) acknowledged in cabinet papers (recently released) that it was done so he would look tough on crime for the next election which was only months away. Sir Henry Bolte ended up winning the election in a landslide, was knighted and had one of Melbourne's major bridges named after him. If you are of Anglo-Saxon descent (and I am) you don't have to go back many generations to find ancestors who worked a 6 day week. On Sundays they went to church in the morning to learn about forgiveness and then went to the afternoon executions to learn about justice. These days in the middle east its generally Friday lunchtime for the same stuff. We forget the last time the French Guillotined anyone was in the 1970s. We forget that the drug cocktail the Americans use was actually developed by a pair of Nazi doctors who experimented on orphaned boys. Donald Trump just ignored 200+ years of American Presidential tradition by allowing an execution to happen during his lame duck stage. Up until now they have either pardoned or commuted or left it to the incoming President. Donald Trump is the first President ever to allow an execution to proceed during his lame duck time.
    10
  554. 10
  555. 10
  556. 10
  557. 10
  558. 10
  559. 10
  560. 10
  561. Australian here - I went to college in America (late 80s). I did aerospace engineering but one of my humanities sequences was Classical Civilisation. In high School I studied (as many Australians did) Orwell (both 1984 and Animal Farm). My mother was a high school teacher who loved history and taught it when she could, but she loved explaining things from history to me. All those classes and lessons seemed like a waste of time to an engineer AND THEN Donald Trump arrived and then JD Vance and his Opus Dei goon squad added to that. YES in Australia we know who that lot are because there have been several scandals at high schools run by them. So yeah I am 100% in agreement with your comment. And for anyone else in the thread here's one of the greatest comments by any American ever. This is Henry Wallace former VPOTUS 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."
    10
  562. 10
  563. 10
  564. 10
  565. 10
  566. 10
  567. 10
  568. 10
  569. 10
  570. 10
  571. 10
  572. 10
  573. 10
  574. 10
  575. 10
  576. 10
  577. 10
  578. 10
  579. 10
  580. 10
  581. 10
  582. 10
  583. 10
  584. 10
  585. 10
  586. 10
  587. 10
  588. 10
  589. 10
  590. 10
  591. 10
  592. 10
  593. 10
  594. 10
  595. 10
  596. 9
  597. 9
  598. 9
  599. 9
  600. 9
  601. 9
  602. I'm an Australian engineer (EI&C) and most of our Alumina is exported to Iceland, where they have incredible amounts of hydropower. I have actually worked on a project at was then (Rio Tino owned) Alcan Gove. Its currently shut down but that was over energy supply. The existing power station was heavy fuel oil and the wanted to swap to natural gas, which Darwin has lots of. Rio Tinto wanted the State Government to build a gas pipeline from Darwin to Gove and they got told "Do it yourselves." Rio had a dummy spit and closed it, but I can see it starting back when the prices are right. Where countries like South Africa and Australia are about to enter a golden age is the massive task of new power infrastructure around the world. FORGET the energy transition for a moment. The bigger problem is that because of the squabbling between the Greenies and Fossil Fuel clowns everybody stopped building big base load power stations in the 1990s. Every one is littered with rapidly ageing power stations. The Fossil fuel clowns thought they could play a delay game until people go so desperate that they'd have to build new coal fired power stations. The problem is there are countries who no longer have the time. Countries like Australia can't wait 7-10 years to build a coal fired power station and we need 5 power stations replaced in the next 3-5 years. YES - we have a bunch of power stations so old they are almost falling apart. When I checked around other countries its a similar story. This is what's actually causing the energy crisis. Its all these old power stations that can't keep up. So there is about to be a mad spree of power station projects across the world. To supply the raw materials needed is gonna keep several nations in business for the next 2 decades.
    9
  603. 9
  604. 9
  605. 9
  606. 9
  607. 9
  608.  @ticarot  Here's what I already knew about Australia and Canada BEFORE I knew Peter even existed. Sorry if this is longish. Here in Australia we have had people warning us for years about our birth rate was falling. Its been hidden by a huge immigration program, which actually causes a lot of friction. Some people, like the bankers, are all for it because it provides a lot of business for them. The 450,000 immigrants each year need houses and that means home loans and home loans mean profit. They don't care if those loans are for investors or owner occupiers. More people to a banker means more profit. What the bankers don't care squat about is where the electricity, gas or water comes from. And they care even less about the waste water systems needed. All those things are somebody else's problem. In the last 20years Australia has gone from 20 to 26 million that's more than a 25% increase and yet we haven't built any new BIG bulk delivery power stations or major dams or major waste water treatment plants. We have a elephant sized infrastructure issue that nobody wants to discuss. I was in Canada 2017-18 on a waste water treatment plant project. At the same time Australia went from 20 to 25 million Canada went from 25 to 35 million. Canada is fine on energy but they have a major issue on waste water. Those extra 10 million flush toilets. That's exacerbated by their snow melt each year. It tends to overflow their waste water pond systems into the rivers. . Its the opposite to Australia. We don't have enough water (normally) and and when all the snow melts every year Canada has too much. So I am coming at these issues from an engineering perspective because its going to be engineers who have to design and build all this stuff. peter is coming at this from a demographic perspective. Yes, Peter has shortcomings on engineering, BUT IF I DON'T LISTEN to people like him I will miss parts of the conversation that are important. This is where so many engineers have failed to get the message across. They try and put everything in an engineering context and that's pretty boring to a lot of people. I ended up spending a lot of my COVID downtime listening to people like Peter and Mark Blyth who talks to a lot people about there area's of study. The world is a very complex place and if we are to solve these issues we have to be willing to listen to stuff from outside our area of expertise.
    9
  609. 9
  610. 9
  611. 9
  612. 9
  613. 9
  614. 9
  615. 9
  616. 9
  617. 9
  618. 9
  619. 9
  620. 9
  621. 9
  622. 9
  623. 9
  624. 9
  625. 9
  626. 9
  627. 9
  628. 9
  629. 9
  630. 9
  631. 9
  632. 9
  633. 9
  634. 9
  635. 9
  636. 9
  637. 9
  638. 9
  639. 9
  640. 9
  641. 9
  642. 9
  643. 9
  644. 9
  645. 9
  646. E-X-A-C-T-L-Y And its the one British thing us Australians wished we had NOT followed and done just as stupidly. You'll love this. I'm an engineer whose looking into to economics so I can explain what we have done to our manufacturing, mining, energy, water and agricultural sectors. It started after O got a weird little consulting job into our energy sector. I got the shock of my life from it and when I looked around EVERYONE ELSE was also doing stupid things in their energy sectors. Like you we are currently harping on about nuclear power, which I think we do need but nowhere near as much as you guys because we have the land. Our problem is the distances between where we live an where its sunny and windy. BUT HERE'S the foreign investment scam. Like all investments foreign investment operates on a 1 in 2 out concept. You see when you invest $1 and then get $1 back all you have done is break even. You need to get another $1 to make profit and investment is about profit. In fact many long term investments are more like 1 in 3 out or 1 in 4 out and if they are really good that number is even bigger. Now the French like everyone else needs to build new power stations because their old ones ARE OLD and need replacing. What's a good way to pay for Mr. Macrons 6 new reactors? Get you Brits to pay for them. That's how. When EDF the French Government owned mega corp invests in Hinkley Point C because you genius economists (other than people like Gary) said YES let the French pay for it. BUT ITS AN INVESTMENT and those frogs will take back more money than they spent and USE THAT to build the NEW French Reactors. Why are they (your elites) doing it? 1) Because its what they have been doing for 40+ years without anyone challenging it, and 2) Because they will make a SHlT TON of money. As every dollar comes into Britain Gary's old banking mates will charge transfer fees and as every dollar leaves they will again charge transfer fees. So YES they will make a SHlT TON of money. Sorry to use dollars - its habit. And analysis like that is what I get from listening to people like Gary. Sorry to bust your nuts, but we are also wanting trying real hard to be just as stupid down here.
    9
  647. 9
  648. 9
  649. 9
  650. 9
  651. 9
  652. 9
  653. 9
  654. 9
  655. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE - AND YET AGAIN Peter has shown his ignorance in engineering topics. I work in industrial control systems and in 2005-06 I did a water treatment plant at the ERA Ranger Uranium Mine in Australia. As part of that we did an induction course in the nuclear fuel cycle and it covered everything from in the ground to back in the ground. This was at a time when the Americans were kicking up a storm over Iran's nuclear program which they claimed was for domestic power production. When we asked the instructor what was going on he simply asked us to look at what he had just told regarding enrichment and the different grades produced. He had told us regarding gas centrifuges that for fuel grade uranium (3-5% U235) you needed 5,000-10,000; and for military grade fuel (8-19% U235) (like that used in submarines) you needed around 20,000; and for weapons grade (>80%) you needed 40,000 or more AND WE KNEW THE IRANIANS HAD 55,000 YES I KNOW that you can make bombs with less than 80% but they don't work reliably. Go and read about the yields of early A-bombs. When we asked how anyone could know how many gas centrifuges they had he simply said "they bought that many motors to drive them." Gas centrifuges have to spin quite fast and not even the servo motors used in robots go that fast so they use what are called spindle drives. These are the high speed motors commonly found in CNC spindles, hence the name spindle drive. So they are not classified technology but it gets noticed when somebody buys lots of them. The Iranians DO NOT have a CNC machine tool industry so when they bought enough motors and drives to operate 55,000 gas centrifuges everyone across the World's nuclear industry knew EXACTLY what they were doing. It was NOT a civilian power program. ALSO - It is simply not possible for ANYONE to to extend a fuel grade production plant into a weapons grade production plant in a few weeks that sort of thing takes months just to plan let alone execute. NONE of the countries Peter mentioned have WEAPONS GRADE fissile material and NO spent fuel rods are NOT weapons grade unless you are talking about a dirty bomb. There's a major difference between having fissile material and weapons grade fissile material. That's the sort of thing high school kids can understand.
    9
  656. 9
  657. 9
  658. 9
  659. 9
  660. 9
  661. 9
  662. 9
  663. 9
  664. 9
  665. 9
  666. 9
  667. 9
  668. 9
  669. 9
  670. AUSTRALIAN HERE with an outside observation. FIRST - I think your sentiments like others (and I can repeat this to those others) is spot on. I actually went to college in America and I can barely believe what this court has done. I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and on many occasions they explained to me how the America system is supposed to work. This decision is nothing like anything they ever explained to me. SECOND - this is obviously a massive deal to the American people, but its also a massive deal to Australia as well as every other country America deals with including places like Russia, Iran, North Korea,.... etc. For countries like Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea,.... America is our most important trading partner and our most important security partner. So its DOUBLY important that the person we have to deal with YOUR PRESIDENT is a reliable person. For everyone else there's the simple facts that America has nuclear weapons, is 1/4 of the worlds economy and the US Dollar (US$) is the worlds reserve currency. Do any of you realise that almost all international trade is either done directly in US$ or the currency exchanges are backed by US$? That's the real power America has in the world and for most of the last 75 years it has worked brilliantly and we have all benefitted except for those few times when America did something stupid like you did with the 2007-08 GFC and we all suffered. So its incredibly important to the rest of the world that POTUS is a RELIABLE and RESPONSIBLE person who is CONSTRAINED by LAW. P.S. I really do care about America. I had a great time there at college and want to see you back at your best.
    9
  671. 9
  672. 9
  673. 9
  674. 9
  675. 9
  676. 9
  677. 9
  678. 9
  679. 9
  680. 9
  681. 9
  682. 9
  683. 9
  684. 9
  685. 9
  686. 9
  687. 9
  688. 9
  689. 9
  690. 9
  691. 9
  692. 9
  693. 9
  694. Its not just American democracy its Western Democracy. America might be in the worst state but make no mistake EVERY Western Democracy is in trouble. I'm an Australian engineer, who went to college in America. We have all the same shite here in Australia. I was in Canada for work a few years back and it was the same there. We get the news out of Asia, Europe and Britain and its the same story in all those places. Its certainly more blatant in America, but make no mistake its EVERYWHERE. We have all allowed a tiny collection of hyper-wealthy insanely selfish people (usually referred to as the top 1% or just 1%ers). I've spent a chunk of my COVID downtime trying to workout how to handle mangers better. They keep pressing idiotic project strategies. Most of them have economics degrees so I started watching people like Mark Blyth (Brown U.) who's a political economist. He looks at how political and economic systems interact, which suited my engineering background because he uses techniques very similar to system engineering. Back in June 2019 he did 3 lectures at McMaster U. in Canada. One on Global Trumpism, which is easy to find. The other 2 were on "How we got here." and "Can we have it all." The talk on "How we got here" is really interesting because it covers the last 120years of economic history. He uses an analogy of 3 computer systems and how just like with real computers they need to have either of both their hardware and software upgraded. He explains that we should have had a major upgrade after the 2008 FGC and it never happened, because the top 1% were bailed out. Instead of cleaning house we made it worse and we now have this insanity where the top 1% get everything they want and the rest of us get smashed. They control our governments, media and courts. Orwell said it best "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever."
    9
  695. 9
  696. 9
  697. 9
  698. 9
  699. 9
  700. 9
  701. 9
  702. None of the other 9 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights never imagined that the people would turn on them and flip them back on the American people. I'm actually Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). I did engineering but a bunch of my Frat brothers were pre-law. So I ended up being asked a lot about how Australia worked and we had many conversations about the Amendments. These days I can barely believe what's happening. Americans used to be proud that because of civics classes they understood what their constitution was and importantly WHY it was great. These days I feel the US Constitution is one of the great tragedies of modern society. Without it the modern world as we know it might not have existed. Do you know that the reason every developed nation has a police force independent of the military is because of the 2nd Amendment. It comes from that bit about a "well organized militia" being important to public security (and safety). Prior to the 2nd no country in history had a civilian controlled police force dealing with crime and security. It had always been done via the king's or emperor's or regent's central command using their military. Go check your pre-revolution history and try and find mention of police officers. The colonies weren't a police state because the police didn't exist. It was a military dictatorship ruled over by military officers and policed by their troops. The entire Western World has the founding fathers to thank for so many basic freedoms. They might not be spelled out in our laws or constitutions the same way but we got them because the founding fathers did what they did. It took me many years to realise that my frat brothers were right about many things. Its why I now consider it such a tragedy that the nation that gave the world this incredible gift of "basic human rights" is the nation tearing it apart. As for Rupert Murdoch. We tried to warn the British before he moved there and started doing what he had done here - they didn't listen. We then tried to warn America what he was like when he moved there - you didn't listen. Every nation has some people who they wished never existed, he's one of ours.
    9
  703. I am an aerospace engineer and that's one of the better comments in this menagerie of social media shitfuckery. I'm mostly a fan of thunderf00t and what he exposes but I don't like his cheap shots at Gwynne Shotwell. He's always linking her to Elon's fantasies which isn't exactly fair. Yes she works for a clown, but thunderf00t needs to separate Falcon (& Crew Dragon) from Elon's fantasies of Starship & Mars. What he should be comparing Falcon & Crew Dragon to is Boeing's Starliner, which isn't easy because it hasn't flown a single successful mission and we don't know the costs. Thunderf00t mentions the Falcon & Crew Dragon at $60-70 million and that's a damn sight better than the space shuttle's $450million, which it was costing at the end. I've seen costs as high as $90 million for a single seat on Soyuz, but also closer to $20 million (for Denis Tito in 2001). So 4 Astronauts to the ISS for $70million is getting back to and under the 2001 Soyuz costs. THAT'S an IMPROVEMENT. Plus if you look at what she actually says there's nothing wrong technically with it. Reusable wont be that great until the usability is closer to a jet plane. I don't think it will ever get there with current materials and technology because your comparing something that goes into orbit, does 7km/s and then flies back down at Mach 20 reaching temperatures of several 1000 deg.C and the other just doesn't do that. IS tunderf00t 100% right on Gateway, John Blincow and Elon Musk? YEAH - ABSOLUTELY. IS he misrepresenting Gwynne Shotwell and what has been achieved with Falcon & Crew Dragon? Yeah, because he's linking that program to Elon & Starship instead of comparing it to Boeing Starliner or Soyuz.
    8
  704. 8
  705. 8
  706. 8
  707. I am an aerospace engineer with 30+ years in automation & control systems. The basic problem is that rocket engines are highly strung systems where you only need to be a tiny bit off and its a major hassle. With respect to Raptor, out side of the team working on it, nobody actually knows the problems. That's for the simple reason we haven't been there through the process and heard about all the problems they have so far overcome. What I can try an explain is what its like working on highly complex systems with simplistic managers. One of the problems with highly strung systems is that even the tiniest fault can be catastrophic. I have worked around race car mechanics and they get the concept because every part of a race car is being pushed to the limit and small things can be huge problems. At SpaceX you have a guy like Elon Musk who dismisses every problem with "We'll just do." He's a lot like the racecar driver and I've met them. They don't care about details, just make the car go faster. You only need to watch one of his interviews for a few minutes to realise he can't handle details. I have worked with managers who are exactly the same and they are nightmares. They don't give a damn about solving any problem or what it will take and they quite often heap loads of pressure and stress onto people. They're a nightmare for people like me who have to deal with the details and SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. I can't tell you or anyone what the actual issue with the Raptor is. It could be something simple that appears trivial and just isn't. It could be a bunch of things. What I can say is that working with managers like Elon Musk makes the process of getting ANYTHING working very difficult and very stressful.
    8
  708. 8
  709. 8
  710. 8
  711. 8
  712. 8
  713. 8
  714. I'm Australian and looking from the outside in YOU are 100% CORRECT. This will change ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. One of my old bosses here in Australia is a 100% Trumpist. He's NOT American, he's Australian and NOTHING, not any fact no matter how irrefutable will change his mind. It all comes from the fact that his support base comes from the Bottom 50% of developed society that has been left behind. In late 2022 I became aware of a Congressional Budget Office report on Family WEALTH. Kyle is one of the very few people to ever comment on that report. I emphasis that its on WEALTH and is about what people gain over time. It simply says that the Bottom 50% of America society has gone NOWHERE since that late 70s. They have basically gained NOTHING while the Middle 40% have gained some but the Top 10% have gained double digit Trillions. During Obama's last 3 years in office (less than 10 years after causing the GFC and getting bailed out) the Top 10% gained $18.3 TRILLION. The Bottom 50% of America gained $0.4 Trillion ($400 Million) over the same 3 years. I checked what I can of Australia's data and it tells the same story. I watch British Economist Gary Stevenson's channel here on YT and he says the same about Britain. These people just don't car about any of these stories. They see Trump as their wrecking ball and bulldozer who's just going to tear the system apart. They don't care what comes afterwards just so long as the system that's wrecked and squeezed their lives into oblivion gets torn apart. I can't blame them for hating the system and wanting it ripped to shreds as its totally understandable, but they need to care about what comes afterwards because we all have to live with it.
    8
  715. 8
  716. 8
  717. 8
  718. 8
  719. 8
  720. 8
  721. 8
  722. 8
  723. 8
  724. 8
  725. 8
  726. 8
  727. 8
  728. 8
  729. 8
  730. 8
  731. ​ @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
  732. That's a fairly nuanced comment and I agree. The real threat from China isn't military its subterfuge. There's an interesting interview from way back in 1984 with former KGB Agent Yuri Bezmenov. There's a fairly crappy right wing channel offensive freedom but its got an excerpt from that interview focussing on the Russian strategy. Its title is "KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov's warning to America (1984)" and its 6:49 long. You can find the full interview elsewhere but this short part is interesting. Bezmenov is 100% wrong on how effective the Russians were. After all the Soviet system collapsed and the West rolled on. That or they had very low expectations. What 's important is the reason they weren't effective back then. It wasn't the strategy. It was the lack of a delivery system. BUT THESE DAYS we have social media which is the perfect delivery system for what the Russians wanted to do. Here is where it gets scary. What do you call a lump of technology that tracks everywhere people go and who they talk to? Most people would call it a surveillance system but these days we call it Tik Tok. YES Tik Tok tracks where you go so it can be very helpful and point out places you might like. Part of loading it up is allowing it access to your photo album which means YOU HAVE GIVEN IT ACCESS past any firewall you have AND YES the Australian DSTO announced that it can access things OTHER THAN the photo album including the call logs and messaging systems. This is WHY the US Government banned it for all government employees. And the craziest aspect of Tik Tok is that the Chinese Communist Party didn't have to force it on anyone. Millions of sheep just uploaded it for free AND voluntarily allowed the CCP to start tracking them.
    8
  733. 8
  734. 8
  735. 8
  736. 8
  737. 8
  738. 8
  739. 8
  740. 8
  741. 8
  742. 8
  743. 8
  744. 8
  745. 8
  746. Aerospace Engineer here: In the last couple of years I have gotten into economics for the simple reason that economists are interfering in engineering to a staggering level, which is why we have an energy crisis, but that's another story. In looking into another profession and how it trains people you not only get to examine that profession but re-examine your own and we don't do that enough. One of the great flaws in economics is the lack of self-evaluation. They have an awful lot of theory and modelling that has NEVER been truly tested except on US and right now that's looking like very bad outcomes as they keep telling us all is well and that's not going to end well for any of us. Your profession is in a similar predicament except you are NOT costing several billion people a future like economists are. HOWEVER, what you and you colleagues are doing is modelling based on UNTESTED THEORY. Yes this is all very interesting and I like your channel because it expands my own knowledge base, but you need to temper this will reality and let people know these are theories that are UNTESTABLE because of the time frames involved. They are some every interesting theories and models but they are just that - theories and models. PLUS and I can't emphasise this enough with dating technologies whether its carbon dating or any other dating. CALIBRATING your measurement system is almost impossible beyond a few 1,000 years because where's the actual sample that you know for certain what its age is that you can use to calibrate against. Your calibration for longer time periods is theory not measured reality. You are one of the very few sciences that is allowed to get away with this lack of calibration but then we also understand that calibrating such systems is almost impossible. So you get some slack on this, but please DO NOT MISTAKE that other STEM fields are unaware of this.
    8
  747. 8
  748. 8
  749. 8
  750. 8
  751. 8
  752. 8
  753. 8
  754. I agree during his POTUS campaign there was an hour long sit down with him, a host and 2 undecided voters who simply asked him questions and he answered him. I thought he was brilliant. There was no BS, no hype - he simply answered their questions. He pointed out his main motivation which was the lack of people trained for what industry wants. I'm Australian but went to college in America. So I'm pretty interested in America from both a personnel view and from WTF is going with our most important partner. That point he raised about training people would have landed well almost ANYWHERE in the Western world. Because we all run very similar economic policies we have a lot of similar issues and training people for industry is a huge issue. Just go watch some of what people like Mike Rowe have pointed out in recent years. I actually thought Yang should have pushed to become Biden's Secretary of Education and see if he could undo some of the damage done by Betsy DeVos. He had some good ideas and could have found his feet in Washington. Instead he got into that NYC Mayor election where he got set up with that idiotic question. Even in Australia we heard how a couple of Democrat strategists got into his campaign. I have a friend who used to be involved in student politics and questions like that don't just come out of nowhere. That was a set up to put Yang back in his place. Its the sort of thing that happens all over the world when some young guy or gal comes in from "outside" the accepted party system. Its a real shame because his ideas on getting people trained were world class.
    8
  755. 8
  756. 8
  757. 8
  758. Do you know who this guy actually is? He's one of the main proponents of "offensive realism" out of the University of Chicago the home of the neocons and neoconservative ideology. He represents THE OTHER SIDE of American political ideology - American Realism as opposed to American Liberalism. I saw one of his lectures a couple of weeks ago that he did at Yale in November 2017 and it was BRILLIANT. I have never seen anyone explain why a particular political party did or was doing what it was. For anyone who wants to know WHY Ukraine eventually happened, it was the 2nd of 3 lectures on Liberal Hegemony November 2017. BUT and this is the GIANT BUT I have with this guy. His side gave the world the Invasion of Iraq for which there was no reason other than the neo-cons (his people) wanted regime change in the middle east. That cost America over a trillion dollars and cost 4,431 American lives. That's over 1,400 more than died on 9/11. It might be more pronounced in America but there's a horrible fact about Western politics that's become pervasive. and its best summed up by "What my side does is righteous and what their side does is wrong." Its an infantile selfishness that's making a mess of the world. Its like 5 year olds fighting over a sand castle. I'm Australian and we have it here, its just not as bad as America. Trump just declared everyone who didn't vote for him "the enemy." How infantile is that. Donald Trump called over 180 million American citizens "the enemy" of America. Mearsheimer's description of the American liberals is flawless and his criticism warranted, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE if Biden was a Republican neo-con he'd be singing how righteous America's response is.
    8
  759. 8
  760. 8
  761. 8
  762. 8
  763. 8
  764. 8
  765. 8
  766. 8
  767. 8
  768. 8
  769. 8
  770. 8
  771. 8
  772. 8
  773. 8
  774. 8
  775. 8
  776. 8
  777. 8
  778. 8
  779. 8
  780. 8
  781. 8
  782. 8
  783. 8
  784. 8
  785. 8
  786. 8
  787. 8
  788. 8
  789. 8
  790. 8
  791. 8
  792. 8
  793. 8
  794. 8
  795. 8
  796. 8
  797. 8
  798. 8
  799. 8
  800. 8
  801. 8
  802. 8
  803. 8
  804. 8
  805. 8
  806. 8
  807. 8
  808. 8
  809. 8
  810. 8
  811. 8
  812. 8
  813. 8
  814. 8
  815. ​ @Falcon2609  I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). One of my college mates spent time in Central America while doing his PhD which was in "How to teach teachers to teach foreign languages" and his main (after English) language was Spanish. In one case (early 90s) the State Department made the arrangements and he was in a luxury villa in a small town in one of the Central American countries. Its been years so I can't recall the exact details but this is as close as I can recall what happened. One day he woke up to what he said was a scene out of Hollywood film. The house was full of immaculately dressed soldiers with mirrored sunglasses and pristine American made M16s. He was invited to have breakfast with Person 'X.' During breakfast 'X' asked him about the town and if he was being treated well to which he said "very well." 'X' then asked if he had any questions to which he sad "No" so 'X' prodded him with something like "I know there's that one question every American wants to ask someone in my position and they should ask." So my friend as tactfully as he could asked about human rights. Person 'X' said words to the effect "That's the question every American should ask and he'd answer it as soon as America wants to discuss what they'd done in Countries A, B, C,......." The crazy part of that is that I have heard people from the small nations surrounding Australia in the Pacific say very similar things about Australia. So I know (99% certain) there's things our countries do that we would never approve of. We don't discuss things and we should.
    8
  816. 8
  817. 8
  818. 8
  819. 8
  820. 8
  821. 8
  822. 8
  823. 8
  824. 8
  825. 8
  826. 7
  827. What they have done is almost standard practice for religious movements with the goal of political power AND ITS NOT a Christian specific thing either. There's a common technique used by religious people where they lift a line or phrase out of the text and literally flip it on end and make it the opposite meaning to suit circumstances. One of the best examples of that is that snippet out of Romans 12:19 "Vengence is mine, says the Lord." Its regarded as one of the great misquotes of human history. Its been used as the Battle Cry for 100s of Christian armies over many centuries. Go read what that paragraph actually says - its the complete opposite. The Muslim suicide bombers and done similar by claiming its a from of martyrdom. Dozens of Muslim scholars have come out and said that's a misinterpretation. They completely ignore those parts that regard suicide as a sin and twist the parts on Martyrdom to include suicide if its against an enemy. The Seven Mountains people are doing similar. Both Revelations and Isiah use word pictures (like are used in parables) and its very easy to lift parts out and flip it into anything you want. But sometimes the explanations are right there in the text. In Rev 17 its says various part of the beast represent political entities as in kings & kingdoms. There's a woman riding on the back of that beast and what social institution has ridden on the back of politics like a prostitute selling itself in any way necessary to retain power, influence and wealth? Answer - organised religion. Revelation 17 is NOT about a religious movement taking over political control. Its the complete opposite. Its about secular politics getting tired of organised religion riding on its back and then turning on it and tearing it to pieces.
    7
  828. 7
  829. 7
  830. 7
  831. You're exactly right. I am an engineer (aerospace) and what we (as in society) call AI is NOT something that thinks. They are basically giant numerical models that use statistical analysis to set their parameters so they can MIMIC what a human might say or do. In certain types of data analysis where the task is well defined and repetitive like facial recognition and fingerprint analysis they can do it at incredible speed. What I hate most of all are the proponents of AI dramatically overstating its capabilities while underplaying its threat to society. The immediate threat isn't a Skynet "nuke us all" scenario, its mass unemployment because there are clowns who believe the AI will just do the job better, faster and cheaper. that might be Ok in a few places but when corporations suddenly dump massive slabs of humanity onto the streets its a problem. All of our modern capitalist economies operate on SPENDING. To spend people have to earn money first. Even with credit people must still earn. If a society is NOT earning enough money it CAN'T spend enough to keep the system going. Its a fairly simple concept and most of the worlds economists and journalists are willfully ignorant that their jobs will be among the first to go. Who will need an economist when the AI can do market analysis faster and more reliably. Who will need expensive news anchors, analysts, weather presenters, camera operators, sound people, lighting people and producers when the AI can do it all in a simulation and pump it out. 🤯🤯🤷‍♂🤷‍♂
    7
  832. 7
  833. 7
  834. The problem with this discussion is that it is simply 2 people agreeing with each other in front of an audience who want to hear what they want to hear, but they are right about a few things. I am an engineer and there is some very valid points in this like the fact that electric trucks have failed and there is no electric alternative to diesel tractors. The other industry that wont be changing at all is the metallurgical coal for making steel. They are also right that the integrated plan will NOT WORK, but the real reason why is something these 2 clowns don't talk about. But on so many other points they are either WRONG or they are just leaving out facts they should be telling everyone. One major thing they do not tell you is that the nuclear option will cost EVERY HOUSEHOLD in Australia at least $25,000 in high energy bills while it gets built. It will simply take at least 25 years to build out what's proposed and that will mean your power bills will stay the same for the next 25 years costing you at least $1000 each year. The real cause why our energy bills are so high is because we haven't built nay major power stations in 25 years. the last reasonably large (but still under 1,000MW) power stations were Millmerran and Kogan Creek in Queensland. The 3 biggest power stations in Australia at Eraring & Bayswater in NSW and Loy Yang in Victoria were all built in the 1980s. Meanwhile the population went from 15 million in the 80s to 20 million in the early 2000s and its now 27 million. WE SIMPLY HAVE NOT BUILT ENOUGH POWER STATIONS. The real problem with the Integrated plan is that our renewables HAVE NOT BEEN PLANNED. Its all be dictated by the foreign companies building it. Its NOT been well planned and that's why its a mess. As for coal to be used for power is a dead industry and they all know it. Even the Chinese have stopped building coal. They're building nuclear and renewables side by side. In fact the Chinese have installed more renewables in recent years than the rest of the world combined. In some of their provinces 80% of homes now have roof top solar.
    7
  835. 7
  836. 7
  837. 7
  838. 7
  839. 7
  840. ENGINEER HERE and I TOTALLY AGREE with your assessment of Peter as I have the same issue when he talks about engineering topics. He's great on geopolitics but lousy on engineering. Here's 2 examples. 1/2 to most of the time he talks about things like the Russian Oil wells freezing and being out of action for decades because the American experts have left Russia IS SIMPLY WRONG because he assumes that over the last 20-30 years NONE of the Russian engineers or maintenance people learned anything from operating those wells. Sorry but its an absurd idea that the American experts never trained the local Russians on how to look after their own oil wells and/or that the Russians never learned anything off the Americans. Second, Peter often mentions that Wind and Solar need 100% (or close to) of their lifetime costs up front compared to things like a nuclear power station or coal fired power station because those stations have fuel costs for the lifetime of their operation. Its actually true that when you look at LIFETIME costs Wind and Solar have most of those costs upfront because they have few costs after construction. BUT engineers and investors don't consider lifetime costs as much as they do CAPITAL COSTS which is the money you have to spend getting approvals, getting things designed, getting things constructed and then commissioned so that whatever it is your building can start earning money. In terms of CAPITAL COSTS wind & solar now annihilate nuclear and handily beat coal and other fossil fuels. Just go and look at the costs per Megawatt installed (and that word "installed" is really important). Where there is a leveling of that space are in the grid modifications to link the Wind & Solar to the power grid. I think Peter's problem in these areas is that he does NOT consult with good subject matter experts (SMEs) like the does in other areas. This is why he has certain figures that are way off. Its also likely his economics is skewed by the incredibly poor way economic is taught and that's a subject I have been researching for sometime because it has had huge effects on engineering but that's a much longer discussion. By the way - I'm Australian and love the channel. I was like many introduced to you by Ward Carroll another of the rare breed of YouTubers who endeavor to educate people.
    7
  841. 7
  842. In other countries its referred to as "balance of power" I'm Australian but went to college in America. This seems to be something that Americans don't understand well because you have evolved over time into this 2 party system. Go and check the history. America has had many other parties in the past they just never managed to last. Imagine if you have 2 major parties (A & B) and a 3rd minor party (C). Party A gets 48% of the seats, Party B gets 47% and Party C gets the other 5%. In most places Party A will form the government because they have the most seats unless Parties B & C form a coalition. Either way Party C has enormous leverage because they can independently choose to pass or block any proposal. Hence the term "balance of power." If this power is used well it can be very good, but if its used badly it can be a disaster. Here in Australia we actually had this a few election cycles back. Politically speaking it was one of the quietest times in Australian history because everyone had to behave and be reasonable. But then we were fairly lucky because the minor parties and independents we have are mostly centrists and NOT radicals. If you have a look at some of the European countries or Israel where this happens then the minor party might be a Left or Right radical. When those sorts of minor parties hold the balance of power they tend to wield it like a log splitter (as in a big heavy axe) and be very destructive. I actually think AOC and the Squad missed a real opportunity when there was the "force the vote" issue. Forget the outcome it would have shown that they COULD step up and demand action on something. It would have earned them respect.
    7
  843. Australian with an outside perspective - 100% in Agreement. Kamala won the debate buy so much Trump refused to debate her again. She then had that disaster of an interview where she said she would not do anything different. Tim Walz should have flattened JD Vance but didn't. He simply should have thrown down and said "I get things done. Look at my record. I get things done." Kamala should have said the one thing she would have liked was Joe Boden letting her do more as VP which is why she picked Tim Walz. She could have said "I know I can give him a task and he will get it done." What would have been the counterpoint to that? No matter what JD Vance said they could have replied "Why don't you go deal with your cats & dogs problem first!" I think Tim Walz should have gone on Rogan with the instruction that every time he gets stuck he could have said "that's a great point, but at least I'll have time to work on it because I don't have to worry about cats & dogs" and when Rogan finally would stop him he could say "Well what do you want - people who want to do the job or people who want to speak nonsense about eating cats and dogs? I don't have every answer to every question but at least I want to do the job." Be blunt and be direct. This is the problem with Leftists the world over and we have EXACTLY the same issue with the Australian Labor Party. They are never direct and straightforward and always send confusing messages. Instead of staying focused on the TASK they keep finding ways to turn triumph into disaster.
    7
  844. 7
  845. 7
  846. 7
  847. 7
  848. 7
  849. 7
  850. 7
  851. 7
  852. 7
  853. 7
  854. 7
  855. 7
  856. 7
  857. 7
  858. 7
  859. 7
  860. AUSTRALIAN HERE - we have some experience with bad fires, the loss of life, loss of property and general mayhem of lives being ripped apart. After our last major fire season in 2019 there was the same sort of political misinformation campaign and a lot of it came from the MURDOCH media. Murdoch people made so many claims about arson that we ended up spending millions on a full public enquiry that investigated more than 30 of the major fires that season. YES we had over 30 major fires that season and in the end NOT ONE fire was found to be caused by arson, but there were a couple of inconclusive causes. The vast majority of fires in Australia are from lightning strikes and power lines where there's been insufficient maintenance keeping the power lines clear of trees. Another major factor was a shortening of the time period when we could safely burn-off of the fuel loads. Just as Adams recent guest Dr. Daniel Swain explained about California we'd had several good years of rain that caused a lot of growth followed by a drought which dried it all out. So the fuel load in 2019 was very high making those fires worse than usual. The other thing that the faux-media (with few exceptions) point out is that like Australian Eucalyptus trees the California scrub brush is high in oil content. The sap in those trees is a form of oil. So they don't just burn they literally explode when the fire gets fierce enough. In 2019 we had trees blast apart and shower the surrounding area in eucalyptus oil. Another thing the faux-media fail to highlight is the effects of an unusually high hot wind event. We knew in 2019 that it was going to be a day of high winds and it doesn't matter who's in charge they can't affect the weather. All you can do is hope to be prepared well enough with water, fire trucks, water bombers and people, that you can handle the situation.
    7
  861. 7
  862. 7
  863. 7
  864. 7
  865. 7
  866. 7
  867. 7
  868. 7
  869. 7
  870. 7
  871. 7
  872. 7
  873. 7
  874. 7
  875. Your final line sums up the actual issue PERFECTLY and I know because its sums up the attitude that all managers have in EVERY industry. I'm an engineer who works in control systems. The combination of sensors, computers and actuators that run things like power stations, mine sites and factories. And we get exactly the same attitude from everyone else. Other people conceive, other people project manage, other people design, other people build AND THEN we make it all work in software. The most common question a control system engineer is asked by everyone else is "Can you fix that in software?" and we get asked that for every problem. The Boeing Max-8 is a perfect example of where the answer to everyone else's issue was "fix it in software." Then they wouldn't let the guys put in a proper redundant system with backups and the answer to that was "fix it in software" and we all know how that worked out. Your saying the directors, actors, sound guys and producers do the same sort of thing. Whenever I have spoken to people in other industries they all have their version of this. In politics its called "Kicking the can down the road." Its when they just keep delaying a decision or some legislation until someone else is left with the task. In some industries its called "hot potato management" which is when you (fast as possible) delegate tasks to other people BEFORE you get your fingers burnt. It all comes from business management strategies to do with delegation and avoidance of responsibility. On the surface it sounds right. If you delegate work and responsibility to people that sounds like the right thing to do. BUT in practice its more like "This is a problem, who can we dump it on and AVOID responsibility." Think about how many times you have heard lines like "It was the fault of a subcontractor!" or "We followed the advice of experts (or consultants)" or "It was missed in review" or anyone of dozens of versions of "It was somebody else's fault!"
    7
  876. 7
  877. 7
  878. 7
  879. 7
  880. 7
  881. 7
  882. I'm Australian but went to college in America (U. Illinois) and in my personnel experience of being in places like Kentucky and Texas I can say for a fact that neither Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz are representative of the GOOD people of those states. I spent my 1st thanksgiving in Bardstown Kentucky and visited Texas several times. I wasn't there for a semester I was there 3-1/2 years on a sports scholarship so I got to visit a lot of places and meet people from many states. And in my personnel experience then and since the American Political system does not represent the American people. Its certainly a reflection of their worst behaviors, but its certainly not representative of who they are as people - decent, honest and hardworking. If their was one thing I'd recommend to the bulk of the American people it would be to to TELL the the loud obnoxious ones like Ted Cruz and sneaky sleazy rats like Mitch McConnell to "Just shut the F--K UP and go away." (edit) P.S. One of my best road trips was to Texas. It was totally awesome. Years later I was there again passing through Dallas. On the plane I met this girl who a week later took me out to this awesome Tex-Mex restaurant. I've had some great times in Texas. So don't be ashamed of being Texan be ashamed that so many have allowed Ted Cruz to make Texas look bad. And yes that's exactly how I feel about some of our politicians. Take Care & Stay Safe - This stuff, COVID and other stuff are not done with us yet. 👍👍🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘
    7
  883. 7
  884. 7
  885. 7
  886. 7
  887. 7
  888. I'm Australian and before that shit he pulled at the UN he had a decent reputation from the first gulf war. Maybe not perfect, but Gulf War 1 was over and done in a month and then everyone was out. Instead of it becoming Vietnam 2.0 the US and its allies were out. Saddam had is ass kicked, Kuwait was back in the hands of Kuwait and no one was bogged down in some endless disaster. So by about 2003 EVERYBODY WANTED TO KNOW how Gulf War 2 had become the disaster it was. Everyone wanted to know how the same people who did Gulf War 1 screwed up so badly with Gulf War 2. America's own PBS delivered and in 2004 gave the world the documentary "Rumsfeld's War." I first saw it in Australia in either 2005 or 2006 when it was televised on free to air by SBS Australian one of our 2 public broadcasters. Here it is on YT -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPEWIDBrKyM So yeah a lot of people KNOW and have KNOWN for around 16 years, (I have known for at least 14years) that: - Powell LIED to the UN and knew he was lying. - Powell told Bush in a private dinner NOT to go into Iraq and that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were wrong. - Powell, Shinseki and others were shut out of the planning by Wolfowitz on Rumsfeld's direction. Before any of you tell me (an Australian) to F--K off let me tell you something. The Australian Prime Minister at the time John Howard is/was a lawyer, which means he knew the basics of International Law and that its a crime to invade a country that has NOT committed an act or acts of war against you or your allies. The invasion of Afghanistan was legal as the Taliban Government by supporting Osama Bin Laden had attacked Australia's ally on 9/11. But Iraq was NOT legal and our PM knew it wasn't legal and we helped destroy that country and and played our part in the deaths over over 100,000 innocent civilians including the 14 killed at Nisour Square by the Blackwater 4 that Trump just pardoned. So before we all go condemning Colin Powell for his part in the Iraq clusterf--k, just know that a lot of other people were involved and very few have ever been held accountable.
    7
  889. 7
  890. 7
  891. 7
  892. 7
  893. 7
  894. 7
  895. 7
  896. 7
  897. 7
  898. 7
  899. 7
  900. 7
  901. 7
  902. 7
  903. 7
  904. 7
  905. 7
  906. 7
  907. 7
  908. ​ @robertblue3795  SORRY BUT YOU ARE WRONG and I only know because I have worked in the Australian mining industry constructing new mines. Coal is not simply black stuff that comes out of the ground. Like all minerals there are grades. For starters there's thermal and metallurgical coal AND THEN there's grades within those grades. Coking coal is graded on its lack of impurities and calorific value (how hot it burns). Australia's coking coal is not only cleaner than Canadian coal but also has a significantly higher calorific value. The only other coal that is of similar grade comes from New Zealand but they can't match us in volume. There's some high end coking coal available in other places but they are small deposits and none of them come close to Australia's reserves. In terms of just coal as in all types combined. YES there are places like China and Russia with massive reserves but most are lower grades. Indonesia despite being small has massive reserves of coal BUT those reserves are mostly thermal coal. Basically you CANNOT just switch the Japanese and South Koreans over onto Canadian Coking coal as its the wrong grade. We didn't realise this until until the late 90s when the Japanese threatened to switch to Canadian Coking coal which they did at every negotiation. Eventually we told them we'd had had enough of those threats and if they wanted to use Canadian Coal then they could go use and F--CKING use it. When they backed down we found out their steel mills were set up to take advantage of Australian coal and could not use Canadian coal. The South Koreans followed suit. FYI - Most Australians are not aware of any of this. I only know from working in the mining industry.
    7
  909. 7
  910. 7
  911. 7
  912. 7
  913. 7
  914. 7
  915. 7
  916. 7
  917. 7
  918. AUSTRALIAN HERE: How do you think we feel about this? At the national level like many other countries (Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Britain, Europe,......) America is still out major trading partner and in many cases our most important security partner. Almost all international trade depends on the UD Dollar because as the World's reserve currency the deals are either done in US$ or the currency exchanges are backed by US$. So NONE OF US can afford America to malfunction like this. On the personal level I went to college in America on a sports scholarship. So I have a strong emotional link to America and there's people there I genuinely care about. I have never seen America in such a state as this. Its like everything that's great about America is being thrown in the dumpster by a pack of drunk clowns I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and through many discussions they schooled me in how America and the Constitution WORKED (or is supposed to work). I am of the opinion that the US Constitution is one of the finest achievements in human history BUT its also vulnerable. Unlike so many other systems the US Constitution was designed/intended to protect and nurture the general population and give every citizen a chance at a good life. Your constitution has things that were almost unheard of when it was created and the influence that has had has been a good thing for so many nations. HOWEVER, because it grants so many freedoms it's vulnerable to be being taken advantage of by people with selfish motives. The protection against such people was (past tense) the system of "Checks & Balances" which a small number of insanely selfish people have slowly degraded via their money and influence. SCOTUS and the Senate are effectively broken, the House is a malfunctioning clown show and the Whitehouse is a disaster zone. As an outside observer with a keen interest in seeing America get back to its best, I think BOTH major parties (Dem & GOP) need major clean outs of their entrenched elites AND TO BE FAIR I can say the same about Australia's main parties which have also become these cabals of entrenched elitist snots who see the rest of us as problems to be managed. I truly do hope America can get past this because with the world as it is and especially climate change we need America at its best.
    7
  919. 7
  920. 7
  921. 7
  922. Engineer here and I can tell you that there's a METHODOLOGY behind this when it comes to human interaction with machines. I work in control systems and that includes the control screens you see in news stories. You might the term SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) and part of my work is programming SCADA systems. What your talking about is something that has become a huge issue in engineering and it has to do with human machine interaction and necessary information versus less necessary information. We have to be incredibly mindful of information overload to operators. About 20 years ago they worked out that the process industries in America were losing more than US$20Billion a year because control room operators were being overloaded at critical times. There's been plenty of aircraft accidents happen for similar reasons of information overload during emergencies and instead of handling the situation pilots got overloaded and crashed. On cars there was a push in the 1990s to have digital dashboards. The problem is drivers don't need detailed displays. They don't need to see the exact speed or water temperature. Just seeing that your below or above the speed limit is enough or that the water is in the green zone is enough rather than overheating is enough. So analog gauges are actually a lot better for drivers as they give relevant information faster rather than detailed information that then has to be processed. The same applies to many other things, even household appliances.
    7
  923. 7
  924. 7
  925. 7
  926. 7
  927. 7
  928. 7
  929. 7
  930. 7
  931. 7
  932. 7
  933. 7
  934. 7
  935. 7
  936. 7
  937. 7
  938. 7
  939. 7
  940. 7
  941. 7
  942. 7
  943. 7
  944. 7
  945. 7
  946. 7
  947. 7
  948.  @terryparenteau1200  I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s) and I thought at the time America was showing signs of slipping. Things like basic literacy and math skills. Don't forget America has a long history of simplifying spelling. Its one of those funny subjects between America and the rest of the English speaking world. Sorry fo he longer answer but you raise an important issue. I'm fairly well informed on what's happened in Australia with education as both my parents were High School teachers and 1 cousin was a high school principal. And our system is following America's. What's masking lower education standards are the advances in technology. If you've heard about how apps like MS Word have contributed to a decline in spelling skills because it auto corrects. We have a very similar issue in engineering with packages like AutoCad. Its brilliant in how it helps engineers design BUT it also makes them very lazy with some vital skills. The equivalent to spelling in engineering is tolerancing. That's where you decide how accurate each dimension on a part needs to be. In the past engineers had to think about how accurate each dimension needed to be and now they don't. I think there's been a long slow decline in Western Education that's been so gradual we don't realise it unless we something very specific. I've noticed in engineering but I'm certain its across the board. I think its being driven by at least 2 main things. First there's the fundamentalist religions for sure. That's the point you made and its all about power and obedience. Its been well practiced for 1000s of years by many religions that literacy is for priests and obedience is for the illiterate. Second is politics where its much easier to motivate mobs if they are less educated (eg. Trumpism). After those 2 I know of 2 others. There's pressure from business who again want obedience. There's a lesser and very significant pressure from the FAR LEFT (and I mean the far far far radical nutcase left) who want to take the "we are all equal" mantra to its extreme which means none of us are allowed to be smarter than the least intelligent person in the group. I see that in a lot of industrial training where there are NO GRADES just pass/fail. Its fine for many things but certainly not all. The strange thing is all these pressure drivers need people educated. They just don't like them too educated. Its like that great line from President Snow in the Hunger Games about how a little bit of hope is good and too much is very dangerous.
    7
  949. 7
  950. 7
  951. 7
  952. 7
  953. 7
  954. 7
  955. 7
  956. 7
  957. 7
  958. 7
  959. 7
  960. I'm Australian and a British Journalist looked into the methods that America used. The documentary he made was done more than 10 years ago when there were issues over the lethal injections. It was also at a time when there were a number of ugly murders around the world and people were asking if capital punishment should be brought back. So this was a timely documentary in a number of ways, but most of all - what method. In the end when all the methods were looked at the cleanest and quickest was carbon dioxide. I remember the Lake Nyos disaster in 1986 when 1,700 people died from carbon dioxide asphyxiation remember how quick it was. Most of the bodies only took a few staggered steps before falling over. I'm an engineer and one of the things people are warned about across many industries are what we call "confined spaces." These are places where other gases can pool and the oxygen level is too low to support human consciousness. It can be incredibly dangerous. One of the major risks in confined spaces is carbon dioxide especially in open pits because CO2 is heavier than air and it can pool in the pit. Its well documented how quickly people succumb and pass out in such conditions. So its well known that if you flood a room with carbon dioxide almost any human or animal will past out within seconds and die shortly after with little or no trauma. In fact its well documented that if anything people have a moment of euphoria before passing out from carbon dioxide. WHAT HORRIFIED ME about that documentary wasn't the fact they found a quick way to simply turn off a human life but the RESPONSE of the chief medical officer they presented their findings to. He simply dismissed the idea of using Carbon Dioxide and how its far less likely to be traumatic. He said "Its a punishment its NOT meant to be pleasant."
    7
  961. 7
  962. 7
  963. 7
  964. 7
  965. 7
  966. 7
  967. I'm Australian and I can explain why not only Australia but pretty much any other country on the planet has could have a reason to pull the trigger (see below). What Tucker wants to be very careful off is who else other people might want to be rid of. Here's why almost every other country MIGHT pull the trigger on Trump and sorry if it takes some explaining. Back in 1944 there was the Breton Woods agreement where (among other things) the US Dollar became the worlds RESERVE CURRENCY. Despite all that's happened that has NOT changed and no matter what the BRICS countries for Crypto clowns claim its not going to change because there is simply too much US Currency out there in the wider world to deal with. For instance in December 2022 the Bank of International Settlements reported and alarming concern with FX Swaps (Foreign Exchange Swaps). The BIS is an institution few people know about because its NOT a normal bank. Its where all of our central banks go and settle all the foreign money they have. Whenever you buy something that was made in another country or visit another country then at some point money moved and currency exchanges happened. In the end our central banks collect that stuff and then settle it and they do that through the BIS. FX-swaps are a tool businesses that trade internationally use and in many cases they simply stockpile cash in hope the as the currencies shift they'll make money. What the BIS have reported in December 2022 is that there's now $100 Trillion in FX-swaps out in the worlds financial market place and most of it is being held by non-banking entities (as in other business entities). ALSO most of the worlds FX-swaps involve US$ either outright or as part of the mechanism because its the World's Reserve Currency. So if Donald Trump keeps playing idiotic games with it the value of the US$ then he puts the entire world economy at risk and that really does mean everyone - even the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans stand to lose and lose huge of the US$ goes of the rails. Sorry but NOBODY, not anyone of the 8 Billion people on this planet can afford to have the US$ go off the rails and right now the biggest threat to that is Donald J Trump and his clown brigade.
    7
  968. 7
  969. 7
  970. Another Aussie here YES - real estate value is regarded in Australia as the only metric that actually matters. GDP is something economists go on and on about but nobody believes economists any more. I'm actually an engineer and other than housing the really big issue NOBODY discusses properly is ENERGY prices. I found out how much crap we are in while doing a project in 2016 into our future energy needs. What surprised me even more than our situation was that most of the developed World has the same problem. Across the World we all privatised our main large-scale power stations because the economists promised that "competition would provide better services and lower prices" which has NOT happened anywhere. The elephant in that room is that many nations (including Australia) have not kept up with building new power stations as our population grew. Its really noticeable when you look at power stations rated over 1,000MW. That's why we have power shortages and higher prices. The immediate problem is that neither side has a plan that will work. The ALP 82% renewable plan wont work because we'll end up with an unstable grid like they now have in Ireland, BUT AT LEAST ITS FIXABLE however it will take 3-5 years to fix The LNP plan for nuclear power is so absurd its barely comprehensible and NOT because its a nuclear solution its because their plan is simply idiotic. It puts so much money into nuclear there wont be anything left to do anything else and there's no way it can deliver any positive effects for at least 25years. That means we'll have high energy prices for another 25 years which will cost the economy by reducing household spending by over $250 billion and that's on top of the $330 billion they plan to spend and that money can barely build 1/4 of what we'll need going forward because by 2050 we'll be over 40 million and by 2100 over 65 million people AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE WILL WANT TO TURN ON LIGHTS, TURN ON COMPUTERS and COOK FOOD.
    7
  971. 7
  972. ​ @qownson4410  You're very much on the right thinking process but you're simply not going to air launch at 70,000-100,000 feet because there's so few jets capable of that high . But you are quite right that getting as as hight is is an important part of the discussion. Sorry if this is a long comment. I actually put in a A$720 Million proposal to the Australian government based around air launching. So I did a lot of research into this subject a few years ago. The carrier aircraft I proposed was a 2nd Gen White Knight One as used to carry Spaceship One that won the X-Prize. There's a really interesting item about White Knight One. It uses the same engines as the T-38 Talon (General Electric J85) which is the military version of the General Electric CJ610 engine used in the early Learjets (23, 24, 25 & 28). What many people don't realise is that the Learjet was originally proposed as a small tactical bomber and as such had military grade engines. So White Knight One like those early Learjets could fly up to 53,000 ft which is substantially higher than the normal 35-45,000 ft limits we see with current commercial aircraft. That 10,000 ft doesn't sound much but its significant because of where it is in the flight profile. If you had unlimited access to ex-military aircraft the Convair B-58 Hustler is the plane to consider because it could not only go high (63,000ft) but also very fast (Mach 2 at 40,000ft). Going back to why that extra altitude matters. Its simple high school level science. Getting into space is all about energy and there's 2 parts to that. Straight out altitude is the potential energy equation pe = mgh. Getting into orbit requires speed and that means kinetic energy ke = 1/2mv². So no matter the launch type every bit of altitude and speed you can get matters and saving fuel matters because that's your energy source. This is as Don Pettit put it "The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWjdnvYok4I Air launching has the obvious saving that you are launching at speed and altitude. You simply avoid all the issues of the launch pad. That's when a rocket is at its least efficient because that's when its total mass is highest and the rocket nozzle needs to produce its highest thrust. Where air launching also saves fuel however is at the top of the launch profile. If you launch from a fixed location you have to burn fuel right at the top of the profile to get onto the desired orbit. This is the part of the launch sometimes referred to as "orbital insertion." You have to burn fuel getting onto the right trajectory. Air launching reduces the amount of fuel needed for that because at the moment you launch you are pointing in the right direction. Its sometimes referred to as "launching on orbit." So there's substantial fuel savings from air launching. At times its not that much and at other times its more. Irrespective every extra kilo you can lift is a bonus. That's even more significant if your payload has orbital adjustment motors because you end up with more useable fuel on the payload. The other consideration is construction of facilities. All you need for air launching is a hangar beside the runway. You don't need launch platforms or towers or spend money maintaining them or much else other than a convenient airport. People tend to forget those costs all add up. Again - sorry for the long comment but you are on the right thought process.
    7
  973. 7
  974. 7
  975. 7
  976. 7
  977. 7
  978. 7
  979. I'm Australian but went to college in America (U. Illinois) so I know both Wisconsin and Missouri. I used to have plenty of interesting discussions with friends on the US Constitution. I did engineering but a bunch of them we pre-law. My policy sci was mostly studying Orwell (AF & 1984) in high school. So I used to argue that any country or society could fall into a totalitarian nightmare because that was Orwell's warning - "Look after your country or it can turn into a nightmare." Their main argument (and they studied this stuff) was that it was impossible in America because the US Constitution was specifically written to prevent it through its system of "Checks & Balances" One thing that we never discussed because it was inconceivable was what would happen if somebody corrupted that system of checks & balances so that they could start undermining other parts of the US System. Look at what a small group of billionaires have done funding Mitch McConnell's corruption of the Senate. They now have a completely corporatized SCOTUS making judgements that suit what they want. My friends used to explain to me that SCOTUS would protect the Constitution from abuse. and that SCOTUS was impossible to corrupt because the Senate would provide the checks & balances. The House could pass new laws but the Senate would check what they wrote and make sure it was balanced. The president would make the necessary executive decisions if and when needed and the Senate would reign him in if he went to far. If you think I have misread what my college friends told me 30+ years ago (it was the late 80s) then tell me what they got wrong. A bunch of them are now lawyers and I can't wait to eventually make it to a Homecoming and ask them about this stuff and hear what they have to say now.
    7
  980. 7
  981. 7
  982. 7
  983. 7
  984. 7
  985. 7
  986. 7
  987. Australian here - seeing this from the outside. I have NO DOUBT the Russians were interfering in the 2016 election but I have seen very few people truly explain Putin's MOTIVES and what he actually sought. Masha Gessen (the Russian American Journalist) was interviewed on the Australian show called Planet America (for my mind) put forward the best explanation. FIRST - Masha explained that Putin wasn't a great strategic thinker and that's been born out with the disaster that is now Ukraine. Masha also explained Putin believes in ABSOLUTE LOYALTY and we all saw what he did to Yevgeny Prigozhin. So Putin would EXPECT someone like James Comey to keep his mouth shut. Most of all in Putin's Russia elections are decided beforehand and election days are just confirmations the general population knows their place or at least what percentage know their place. So in Putin's mind Hilary Clinton had already won long before election day. If that's the case then what was Putin really up to and what happened? Everybody has forgotten that out of 330 million Americans Putin hated NOBODY more than Hilary Clinton who had, as Secretary of State, called out Putin publicly and slapped Russia repeatedly with sanctions that personally hurt Putin. So just imagine this. 1) James Comey keeps silent on the emails because in Putin's mind that's what servants do. 2) Hilary then wins. 3) The Russians then leek the emails along with details James Comey covered up. What do you think Trump and the Republicans would have then done? No matter how it turns out Putin wins because: If Trump wins sure Putin gets to laugh at Hilary. BUT If Hilary wins Putin gets to watch America tear itself apart and at the very least Hilary's presidency is a disaster.
    7
  988. 7
  989. 7
  990. 7
  991. 7
  992. 7
  993. 7
  994. 7
  995. 7
  996. 6
  997. 6
  998. 6
  999. 6
  1000. 6
  1001. 6
  1002. 6
  1003. 6
  1004. 6
  1005. 6
  1006. To all you Americans who care. This was just shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Its been done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). The right wingers claim the ABC is leftist and the left wingers always claim they are pro-right. The fact is the ABC is publicly funded but under its charter its programming is independent, including its news and current affairs. SO it reports what comes across its desk. Does it get shit wrong at times? ABSOLUTELY, but its also a place where we can still get HONEST in depth investigative journalism. We can never let the ABC go just the same as America must never let PBS go. If you doubt that watch this Frontline from 16 years ago when all this idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan started. For that question of how did this all happen? Here are the answers. For anyone who's forgotten what people like Paul Wolfowitz did to make this shit storm happen. Here's what he and others said -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byu9Yhr0Q_0
    6
  1007. 6
  1008. 6
  1009. 6
  1010. 6
  1011. 6
  1012. 6
  1013. 6
  1014. 6
  1015. 6
  1016. 6
  1017. 6
  1018. 6
  1019. 6
  1020. 6
  1021. 6
  1022. 6
  1023. 6
  1024. 6
  1025. 6
  1026. 6
  1027. 6
  1028. YOU ARE DEAD RIGHT I'm Australian but went to college in America and first hear about this report over 6 months ago when RICHARD WOLLF mentioned it. The report was published in SEPTEMBER 2022 nearly 10 months ago. I went and checked it against the Australian data which is presented a little differently but tells the same basic story. Anyone can find the CBO report just google "congressional budget office family wealth" and the actual home page for the report should come up. On that page you can not only download the report but an Excel spreadsheet with all the data in the graphs. Here's some facts from the data of the very first graph in that report which is the one shown by Kyle at 4:26. From that graph you can not only get the effect of the 2008 GFC by comparing the 2007 data to 2010 but also the recovery by comparing the 2007 data to 2019. Adjusting for population and averaging the data on a per person value: The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.1% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL 21.8% BELOW their 2007 value. So after the GFC that they caused the Top 10% got around US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama and have since recovered and by 2019 were US$20 Trillion ABOVE their 2007 value. Estimates have them at least US$8 Trillion above that during the COVID Pandemic. The current collective value of the Top 10% can be estimated to be above US$90 Trillion compared to an estimated collective value of US$2.5Trillion for the 165 million people who make up America's Bottom 50%. This is neoliberal economics in overdrive and its made a mess of the developed world.
    6
  1029. 6
  1030. 6
  1031. 6
  1032. 6
  1033. 6
  1034. 6
  1035. 6
  1036. 6
  1037. 6
  1038. As an Australian who went to college in America in the late 80s this is something I have been trying to explain to Americans for over 30 years. America NEVER HAD a true Left like Britain has with British Labor, Australia has with Australian Labor or many other countries have with political parties that STARTED out of their union movements. What America has is 2 parties that were formed by their political and business elites and as such are BOTH fundamentally RIGHT WING PARTIES. Further they have shifted where they were on the political spectrum as well. Americans seem to forget that at one point the Democrats were the radical racist Right Wing party while the Republicans were the moderate Right Wing Party. Remember that Republican President named Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves. Go look at the history of the Klu Klux Klan they were an offshoot of the Southern Democrats. Here in Australia the our version of the Labor Party was essentially the political party of our Unions. People like Dan Osborne were its members. There has been a significant change in recent decades however. The Australian Labor Party like British Labor and other Left Wing parties across the Western Democratic World have been taken over by college educated people usually with educations in law or economics. Tony Blair (former British PM), Julia Gillard (former Australian PM), Anthony Albanese (current Australian PM) and Keir Stammer (most likely to be the next British PM) are all lawyers and all members of their respective Labor parties. So it does NOT surprise me that America might be looking for working class people to displace some of the political elite like Dan Osborne is. We had that, then lost that and need to get it back again.
    6
  1039. 6
  1040. 6
  1041. 6
  1042. 6
  1043. 6
  1044. 6
  1045. 6
  1046.  @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
  1047. 6
  1048. 6
  1049. 6
  1050. 6
  1051. 6
  1052. 6
  1053. Francis is quite right about one thing. We have had public discourse TOTALLY HIJACKED by a tiny minority on an "ideological crusade" for want of any better description. I absolutely agree with Francis these people have made public discussion of the topic almost impossible. Where Francis is wrong however is there are these very rare cases of people, who for whatever reason are genetically caught between male and female. A famous example is the South African athlete Caster Semenya who has a testable, verifiable genetic condition. So Francis can't just say there's only male & female because there are these rare cases BUT are NOT the people being discussed. What's being discussed are people who psychologically want to identify as whatever they like. This all comes from an ideology that's been pushed before. There's the famous case of David Reimer. He had a tragic accident as a child and a psychologist named John Money stepped in. John Money claimed David would be fine raised as a girl so long as nobody told him. It ended tragically when David Reimer committed suicide. People like John Money were dismissed as fringe lunatics and cases like David Reimer's PROVED their ideas were simply WRONG. How these ideas have made a comeback is ridiculous. Just like happened with the repressed memory cases of the late 1990s that also were found to be manifestations of fringe psychology the few people who were genuine cases got lost on the mess. Others got tragically destroyed in the witch hunts as happened to a friend of mine's family. This is the problem with fringe ideologies. They cause real harm and for whatever reason the psychology community seems to attract fringe ideologies.
    6
  1054. 6
  1055. 6
  1056. 6
  1057. 6
  1058. 6
  1059. 6
  1060. 6
  1061. 6
  1062. 6
  1063. 6
  1064. 6
  1065. 6
  1066. 6
  1067. 6
  1068. 6
  1069. 6
  1070. 6
  1071. 6
  1072. 6
  1073. 6
  1074. 6
  1075. 6
  1076.  @nrotko  I think your mostly right. Where Peter usually gets it right is when he sticks to his strengths of history, geopolitics and demographics. Where he gets it wrong is when he gets away from the areas he knows or gets into a country he doesn't know as well as he thinks he knows it. He also has an American centric view of the world, which gets him along with EVERY OTHER American into trouble. Having gone to college there I have seen the American Centric mentality up close. It can be fixed, but it takes an American to live outside America for 2 years or more and then go home. They need that time to acclimatise to different information. It actually happened to a really good friend of mine. Doug was in Australia for about 3 years after an ugly divorce, went home not too much different, BUT THEN when he visited a year later he was a different person. He'd had enough time outside America to see when he went home just how much of a bubble the American people live in. That was back in the late 90s. I see Peter's mistakes when he speaks about technology but then I'm an engineer. Some of the things he's said on the energy transition are just plain wrong, but I have noticed that MANY OTHER COMMENTATORS making the same mistakes. For an engineer its an infuriating time because there are a bunch of persistent meme's and its like playing whack-a-mole trying to correct them. I do think he's right in that America is going through a major political realignment and that its going to be messy for a couple more years. The thing I see is just how different it is this time. Its nothing like after the Great Depression of what happened in the 1970s & 80s. There's NEVER been a time when Americans were so divided along religious and secular lines where the "other side" isn't just the "other side" they are mortal enemies and think the other side is out to exterminate them as if they are from another planet. I actually think the US Constitution is one of humanities finest achievements EXCEPT that it needs a people who actually care about it rather than what they can exploit from it. That's part of the change that I don't hear Peter or any other American talk about much. American's used to value the Constitution and now its a club to bash the other side with. And that's why I am really concerned.
    6
  1077. 6
  1078. 6
  1079. 6
  1080. 6
  1081. 6
  1082. 6
  1083. 6
  1084. 6
  1085. 6
  1086. 6
  1087. 6
  1088. Its why engineers end up hating clowns with arts degrees. I did aerospace engineering and I had to do 2 additional pure maths classes before we started on the wonders of aerodynamics and other fun stuff. The actual number of classes I had to take added up to the equivalent of an extra semester but planned to be done in the same time as an arts degree. I have spent most of my career in industrial control systems and automation. A lot of that includes safety control functions like Emergency Stops and Safety interlocks. You know that stuff that keeps hands attached and prevents stuff blowing up. I eventually got the second highest qualification any engineer can get in that field. Getting that qualification has kept me OUT OF WORK. People like Managers and their Human Resource minions don't like people who speak out and people with qualifications are often caught out. Their employment contacts often include clauses where "if you know something you must speak out" which clashes with the reality that if you speak out you get your contract cut WHICH HAS HAPPENED TO ME just like it happed to the submariner/engineer David Lochridge who's suing Oceangate. You can't imagine how much I hate recruitment people these days. If you think engineers are angry over this sort of crap YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT and its about time there were some actual laws that protected us. Because when we're allowed to do our jobs properly YOUR LIVES are safer. - When your driving a car its mechanical engineers who designed the brakes to help you stop before the tree; - When you plug something in its electrical engineers who make it so you don't get shocked; - When you drink a glass of water its chemical engineers who make it so you don't get poisoned; - When you get in a jet to fly off on your holiday its aerospace engineers who keep the wings attached. We keep you clowns alive in 100s of ways every day. And before any of you complain just note you wouldn't even be able to read this with out engineers.
    6
  1089. 6
  1090. 6
  1091. 6
  1092. I'm an aerospace engineer with an interest in energy systems at the moment. I have been trying to tell people that some of these types of alternative wind technologies like Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWTS) will have applications in future and in particular on the tops of houses, apartment blocks and office towers where Horizontal Turbines (HAWTS) just don't work. Either they are to noisy (propeller noise) or their mountings are structurally incompatible with mounting on a rooftop. Yes without doubt big 3 bladed HAWTS have the efficiency when they are out in the open country side, perched on top of large posts with suitable footings, BUT you can't put them in your backyard or on your roof. I'm in Australia and we have 1000s and 1000s of homes with solar in places with good reliable wind, especially in coastal regions because they get incredibly reliable sea breezes. Plus Australia's sea breezes are driven by the sun but they are operate on the opposite side of the solar cycle. They start to blow in the afternoon and then blow consistently through to the next morning and drop when the sun starts heating things back up. So in certain locations the solar inverters (right now) are only pumping out power when the sun is up. If those systems are fitted with a small COMPATIBLE wind units those systems go from pumping out power during daylight hours to ALMOST being able to generate power 24/7. So I think these guys are being very smart. They aren't trying to solve to overall energy problem but instead they are trying to fill a gap that's there.
    6
  1093. 6
  1094. 6
  1095. 6
  1096. 6
  1097. 6
  1098. 6
  1099. 6
  1100. Buddy you need to realise a few very serious thing about the big lunar rockets BOTH are sad jokes. SLS will become the case study for idiotically bad management classes in college for decades to come. The fact they never even tried to find a way to recover the main engines after each flight is absurd. Then there's the idiotic fact that 2 separate teams repeat each others work. Due to politics nobody cancelled the second team and senator is willing to create unemployed people in their electorate. Starship is Elon's personal 1950s sci-fi fantasy rocket, with so many practical issues it will never to a tiny fraction as his PR machine blurts out constantly. That whole refuelling thing to be done in 1/2 an hour so they can fly another launch in a few hours is idiotic garbage at its finest. Do any of you people who don't fly ever consider why every pilot does a walk around check of the plane before they fly it? Machinery that's pushed that hard needs to be fully inspected and checked between flights. Even small failures are catastrophic. If you guys don't want to end up in 10 years time angry and frustrated as my generation is then you need to stop the fantasy and stick with reality. I watched the last men walk on the moon with class mates. Years later when I was doing aerospace engineer we all expected to build the Freedom space station and go back to the moon. Then Challenger happened and that clubbed us with a harsh dose of reality. Its taken Elon nearly 20 years to replicate what NASA did in the 1960s. At his disposal was all that experience, and all the technology developed through the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. PLUS he had gathered, by luck, one of the best rocket teams the world has ever seen to develop Falcon. AND they still took 20 years to put men into space. Even sadder still is that Boeing had even more resources, more experience, more government funding and more time and they haven't even made it that far.
    6
  1101. 6
  1102. 6
  1103. 6
  1104. 6
  1105. 6
  1106. 6
  1107. To All Americans: DO YOU RELIALIZE HOW BIG THIS ISSUE IS FOR ALL DEMOCRACIES? I'm Australian and this affects EVERY DEMOCRACY. America spent most of the last 75 years calling itself the "Leader of the free (as in democratic) world" as opposed to the NOT FREE Communist/Socialist World. The entire Puritanical Ideology of the RADICAL American Right threatens everybody's freedom in every democratically free nation. This behavior of NOT ACCEPTING and election result is what 3rd world dictators do. It was most recently done in Myanmar and Sudan. How many of you know that in many of those counting rooms there were International Observers as there always is for major elections? Most of the developed world INVITE people from everywhere else to show them HOW they conduct free and fair elections. When we have elections there are American Observers here. They don't come here looking for illegal stuff they come to watch, to sometimes advise, but mostly to see how we do it. We also sent observers to America in 2020. NOT 1 International Observer from ANYWHERE has made any claim or even questioned the integrity of the 2020 US General Elections. Yes America its not just the Dems and judges and a few Republicans saying it was fair and free. It is also the opinion of accredited observers from all over the world. If all of you want America to survive and I hope you do then STOMP on this garbage once and for all. There are real issues in the world with economies, refugees, famine and the biggest of all CLIMATE that is almost impossible to handle with America malfunctioning. Americans need to realise you do have friends in the world and they do want to see America get past this and simply doing better.
    6
  1108. 6
  1109. 6
  1110. 6
  1111. 6
  1112. Aerospace Engineer here: I work in industrial control systems which has enabled me to work across several industries giving me in experience of many of the things needed to do things like build a lunar base. So I have been involved in manufacturing, mining, water treatment, power reticulation and even done a power station project. I also have certifications in both Functional Safety and Hazardous Areas (Explosive gas & dust). So I am more qualified than Sabine to talk about Hydrogen and have commented previously on her remarks regarding Hydrogen. SHE IS WRONG it is the way forward because there is nothing else that can do the job Hydrogen can do. There is no battery system that can be large enough because there isn't enough Lithium. Simon Michaux (who I don't always agree with) is 100% right on this point. In fact there isn't enough lithium to make 1/3rd of the batteries needed for all the cars in the world let alone the trucks, buses, laptops, mobile phones and especially not the mega batteries Elon Musk and others sell. Using Hydrogen as a buffer between renewables and the power gird makes sense. The Electrolysers are getting more efficient with some experimental ones reaching 94% efficiency. There's a new generation of gas turbines coming out. Both Siemens and GE have been selling mixed fuel Gas Turbines for a few years now. These can run AS THEY ARE WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS up to 50% Hydrogen. There are numerous power stations around the world that can be replaced by these. For example: In Australia we have 2 older gas thermal power stations (Torrens Island & Newport). Torrens (built in the 1970s) puts out 800MW which is the same as the largest Siemens & GE turbines. At best Torrens was about 35% thermal efficiency when new and likely less than 30% now considering the state of other old power stations we have (and had). At better than 64% Thermal efficiency one of these turbines would use less than 1/2 the natural gas for the same power. If it also then used Hydrogen that was produced from excess energy on days when the wind blows hard and the sun shines bright then we'd have an even bigger saving on natural gas and with it even lower emissions. The problem I have with Sabine talking this way is that she is NOT a project engineer and does NOT understand that project engineers have to be very pragmatic with their decisions. As a theoretical physicist she can ponder about things. As engineers we can't. Engineers have to solve the problem that exists in front of them and that gets damn hard when other voices who DO NOT know what they are saying wont STOP SPEAKING. SHE IS RIGHT that Hydrogen is difficult to handle, but scaremongering about the Fukushima explosion is exactly the sort of nonsense nobody needs. I am qualified to talk about the safety requirements needed around hydrogen because I have been trained for it and had to deal with it in projects. The moment its known to be of noticeable quantities in a process everything changes. Hydrogen has a very low ignition energy and that included thermal ignition where simply being hot enough causes ignition. Go and ask any engineer who works in the selection of electrical equipment for use in Hazardous Areas and they will tell you hydrogen is a hassle. For those reasons: I DO NOT want to see hydrogen used in cars and busses. If there is an accident its going to be horrendous. Sabine is right hydrogen explosions are nasty because of how much energy can be released and because of how easily they ignite. HOWEVER as a buffer to the worlds energy systems Hydrogen makes a lot of sense if we are going to have a future dominated by renewables (Wind & Solar).
    6
  1113. 6
  1114.  @robynmarx7000  If by intellectual you mean, can I read, write and think - sort of. I absolutely agree that the moniker is overutilized and would add that its also insanely overrated as well. I have a degree in aerospace engineering - so what. I work in automation, robotics and control systems - so what. When I walk into rooms of engineers I'm usually the smartest or one of the smartest ones there - so what. I've learned to assume that every person in a meeting knows something of value that I don't. How I see Asimov's quote is that it highlights how societies elevate opinion or status over reason and common sense. The word ignorance doesn't necessarily mean uneducated or unknowledgeable. It comes from the verb "ignore." Ignorant is a descriptive word of a person who ignores factual information. Trump, Cruz and many others on both the political left and right went to decent colleges and got decent degrees. Go look at Cruz he really is a highly intelligent person and YET he ignores clear sound scientific evidence for political reasons. I do think Asimov's quote like any can be misapplied, but then its only 2 sentences. Its not an in depth paper or book. Its a comparison between what people accept as fact and what they chose to ignore. And right now a lot of people are ignoring obvious basic facts. If you consider what Chomsky is talking about it includes a lot of people who are ignoring some basic obvious facts. For a different example away from politics. Could NASA have faked the Apollo landing? Absolutely yes, but would they have got away with it considering 600million people watched the moon walk live and how that took 1000s and 1000s of people to make happen? It would have been obvious to everyone something was wrong. Look at the 2020 election. Could somebody have tried to swap, cheat or tamper with several million votes? Absolutely yes, but would they have gotten away with it considering the systems, technologies and observers present? Look at all the people who think Elon Musk is going to whisk them off to Mars and escape this madhouse. Are they ignoring some basic facts while at the same time claiming to be the intellectuals? 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
    6
  1115. 6
  1116. 6
  1117. 6
  1118. 6
  1119. 6
  1120. I'm also an Australian but I did aerospace engineering in America in the late 80s. One Friday we had a visiting alumni do a special lecture. He'd just finished a project at NASA on the feasibility of terraforming Mars. We were pretty exited to hear from somebody who'd actually done the math on making Mars habitable. This was just BEFORE Challenger and when Space Station Freedom was being designed, so at that time we believed that over the next 10-20 years we were going to build a space station, then a moon base before going further. This wasn't a sales pitch to a pack of space junkie clowns, this was a serious talk to serious students and professors. We were shattered to find it WASN'T going to happen. He wasn't even looking at the technology required, just the math of what it would take to raise the temperature 70-90C and then add billions of tons of oxygen and nitrogen to make a breathable functioning atmosphere. His summation was "As well as planets being massive they don't like being changed." Planets are very complex semi-stable systems and such systems with their own cycles that fight back against disturbances. Remember when Jupiter got hit by the Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 and the big giant black spots. Jupiter just absorbed that and went back to being Jupiter. That talk never got to the technology because NASA had stopped the project once they realised the scope of the task. Its easy in science fiction but near impossible in reality without god like powers. 30+ years later I was discussing this very concept with a climate expert after a space conference. He'd said in his talk that if we hit a certain temperature point we would have to start geo-engineering. I told him we don't know how to geo-engineer and he confirmed that was true but then added we'd inadvertently done it. So you really are right to call it 'Marstubation' and it still is. Its a bunch of charlatans picking bits out of sci-fi and flogging the ideas to idiots via crowdfunding. Its the old adage of "a fool is easily parted from his money." So what of "maths/engineering/science" or what we now call STEM did you end up doing?
    6
  1121. 6
  1122. 6
  1123. 6
  1124. 6
  1125. 6
  1126. 6
  1127. 6
  1128. 6
  1129. 6
  1130. 6
  1131. 6
  1132. 6
  1133. 6
  1134. 6
  1135. ​ @ChewEberrie  I wouldn't doubt it at all. I actually went to college in America and one thing I found that the rest of the world does NOT understand is just how complex of a society America is. Just on basic population you're 13 times larger than Australia. So at just a basic level you generate 13 times as much news. I have to explain this to Australian's all the time in defense of Americans. What we can get in a 1/2 hour new program would take an American 6-1/2 hours. I also have to explain it to Americans once they get over the shock of how little they actually know about the world. Think about how much time it would take to hear the news from Washington, then the news from the major centers of LA, Chicago, New York, Dallas and a few others. Then try and get the State News from what ever state a person is in. Then there's SPORT - pro-sport, college sport, local sport.... In some ways Australia is lucky we only have 26 million. We don't generate enough news so we have time to look at the rest of the world. Americans just don't unless its a major story. BUT what I'd like to see is more Americans taking a bit of time to realise where America sits in the world. A lot of the stuff we're dealing with now was set in motion decades ago. Things like Breton Woods which being honest I knew little about until a few years ago. Its effects on the world are staggering and GENERALLY POSITIVE. I honestly believe it was a good thing to do and its still a good thing to have in place BUT IT ALSO HAS TO BE MANGED RESPONSIBLY and that's my issue with the GOP. They have no sense of responsibility. And YEAH I know Rupert Murdoch has done a lot of damage to America and PLEASE feel free to deal with him.
    6
  1136. 6
  1137. 6
  1138. 6
  1139. Sorry this is long, but I think you'll find this interesting. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). Both my parents were high school teachers. In the 1970s Australia was importing American high schoolteachers because for a while we had a shortage. So I basically grew up around school teachers. One thing I noticed when I was in America in the late 80s was that America's education system was already showing signs it was sliding. I remember commenting on it to my professor one day and he told me that was BS. We just happened to be in the department office at that moment and one of the secretaries interrupted him and asked my professor if he was right then he should explain why her kids needs tutors in English, Math and Science. Back here in Oz I befriended a couple on the mid 90s. He was American she's Australian and both of them are high school teachers. So again I was around school teachers and I can tell you for a fact Australia has also STARED to SLIDE. Right now in Australia we have a significant skills shortage in things like welders, machinists, electricians,....etc. I am an engineer (aerospace) who works in industrial control systems and automation. The problem is WAY WORSE than people think. It actually goes back to the influence of the Chicago School Economics that was called Reaganomics in America, Thatcherism in Britain and Economic Rationalism in Australia. We now (collectively) call it neoliberalism. I was looking into it because its had a massive effect on engineering in areas like infrastructure and energy. If I try and explain either of those things it will take pages. Suffice to say Bidens $3 Trillion Build Back Better wasn't going to work because its really needs to be about $20 Trillion. The $1.2 Trillion Inflation reduction Act is like trying to put out a raging forest fire with a bucket. The real problem the Neoliberals have cause that's going to make everything that needs being done with infrastructure and energy is they have MASSIVELY interfered in education as well. I saw Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) describe how American kids with a 6 month welding course at a community college are getting more money than the average college graduate BECAUSE of the shortage of welders. WE HAVE EXACTLY the same issue here in Australia. The Neoliberal economists flipped our education in the 1990s and instead of training the people we actually need to keep a modern society working we sent 80% of our kids off to universities to get a lot of useless degrees. In a single generation we went form 20% to 80% of our high school graduates going to college WITHOUT ever asking what that meant. Our Economists simply said we were flipping from a manufacturing base to a service industry base AND NOBODY ASKED what that meant. In 2005 I was on a mine site and asked how they were going with the skills shortage. The shift supervisor simply turned to me and said that if I had a welding ticket (fully qualified from a 4 year apprenticeship) he'd pay me $X and $X was $50K more than I was on at the time. At that time I had 15+ years experience and was told a kid almost 1/2 my age with a welding ticket was worth $50K more a year. 15 Years after that Mike Rowe is saying that American kids at 18 or 19 with a BASIC welding ticket are worth more than a college graduate. YEAH all those economists who decided to re-wire Western Society back in the 80s, 90s and 2000s really did a number on us all. AND HERE'S the killer problem. Every generation since the start of civilisation needed people who could teach the next generation and that was irrespective of what their society actually did. It didn't matter if they were into farming or fighting they still needed black smiths and carpenters. The moment that any society forgot to teach the next generation they were done. Go look at any empire in history. They became empires because they had skill sets that enabled them to expand. The moment they stopped training those skill sets they collapsed. Here's our problem across the entire Western Developed World - we stopped valuing teachers and as such we have LOST an entire generation of teachers. That has also included the people who can train teachers. So getting that back is a monumental task. Go and ask your mother how Texas expects to TRAIN the next generation of teachers? FYI - If you ask that in Australia it clears the room faster than David Copperfield can make stuff disappear. Again sorry for the long long long blurb, but education is a damn serious issue that NOBODY wants to tackle.
    6
  1140. 6
  1141. A while back one of the ex-military pilots with a YouTube channel had one of his guys on and he presented one of the same thoughts that were discussed here. He pointed out how many of these sightings were in restricted military space and then pointed out where the military fly their developmental aircraft and secretive aircraft. He also pointed out how many of those programs are done on a "need to know" basis. In which case, no matter what you rank if you don't need to know then you aren't told ANYTHING. In other words if a pilot sees an experimental aircraft that's doing something like stealth research flying in among military flights with pilots who are NOT TOLD you're there just to test out if you can fly in among other military aircraft undetected then you're going to get exactly the sorts of reports we are hearing about. The someone showed a group media event NASA had on the subject and one of the NASA astronauts related how on one shuttle flight they were just about to close that payload bay doors when someone spotted a bright object and everyone on board the Shuttle freaked out because if they tried to land with a lose object in the payload bay it could bounce around like a bullet and do a lot of damage. They were just starting to prepare for an emergency spacewalk to go and get whatever the object was when someone realised that this bright shiny thing was Venus - YES the planet Venus was mistaken for a small object lose in the Space Shuttle's payload bay. The human brain has the incredible ability to assume conclusions from extremely ambiguous or small amounts of data and this is especially so with our vision system. We normally call this "tricks of the eyes"
    6
  1142. 6
  1143. 6
  1144. 6
  1145. 6
  1146. 6
  1147. 6
  1148. 6
  1149. 6
  1150. 6
  1151. 6
  1152. 6
  1153. 6
  1154. 6
  1155. 6
  1156. 6
  1157. 6
  1158. 6
  1159. 6
  1160. 6
  1161. 6
  1162. 6
  1163. 6
  1164. 6
  1165. 6
  1166. 6
  1167. 6
  1168. 6
  1169. 6
  1170. 6
  1171. 6
  1172. 6
  1173. 6
  1174. 6
  1175. 6
  1176. 6
  1177. 6
  1178. 6
  1179. 6
  1180. 6
  1181. 6
  1182. 6
  1183. 6
  1184. 6
  1185. 6
  1186. 6
  1187. 6
  1188. 6
  1189. 6
  1190. 6
  1191. 6
  1192. 6
  1193. 6
  1194. 6
  1195. 6
  1196. 6
  1197. 6
  1198. 6
  1199. 6
  1200. 6
  1201. 6
  1202. 6
  1203. 6
  1204. 6
  1205. 6
  1206. 6
  1207. 6
  1208. 6
  1209. 6
  1210. 6
  1211. 6
  1212. 6
  1213. 6
  1214. 6
  1215. 6
  1216. 6
  1217. 6
  1218. 6
  1219. 6
  1220. 6
  1221. 6
  1222. 6
  1223. ​ @curtisthomas2670  Yeah isn't that an interesting point. Recently I saw a lecture by a U. Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and he hammered the liberals over their interference in Ukraine. He pointed out how its hardwired into American Liberalism to interfere in any country with a government in their view oppresses their people by not allowing them liberal democracy. In particular he pointed out the nation building failures of Iraq, Afghanistan. 2 Things about his lecture 1) It was 1 of 3 lectures he gave at Yale in November 2017, long before the current Ukraine crisis. 2) He completely ignores what his side of American politics (the Realists) have done. Mearsheimer's a Realist and one of the main proponents neo-conservatism. He's basically the head coach of the neo-cons, but calls it offensive realism. I found this on Wikipedia "Realists think that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive." That might be true for some people but NOT all of society. In fact societies grow and survive by acting together. From the smallest tribe to the great empires they grow by working together and fail through selfishness. They consume all the resources and collapse. Easter Island and the Roman Empire are good examples, both failed by overconsuming resources it was just more complex in the Roman case. America is dominated by these 2 groups of thought - liberals and realists. BOTH endlessly accuse the other side of being stupid and destructive. The fact is both are arrogant, ignorant, believe 100% in their superiority and most of all DESTRUCTIVE because both are ultimately driven by selfish people. Most of all BOTH can't stop interfering in other countries out of this delusion that they are superior and know better.
    6
  1224. 6
  1225. 6
  1226. 6
  1227. 6
  1228. 6
  1229. 6
  1230. 6
  1231. 6
  1232. 6
  1233. 6
  1234. 6
  1235. 6
  1236. 6
  1237. 6
  1238. 5
  1239. 5
  1240. 5
  1241. 5
  1242. 5
  1243. 5
  1244. 5
  1245. 5
  1246. 5
  1247. 5
  1248. 5
  1249. 5
  1250. 5
  1251. 5
  1252. 5
  1253. 5
  1254. 5
  1255. 5
  1256. 5
  1257. 5
  1258. AUSTRALIAN here. The one thing I would say or ask is what the effect of the incredibly powerful Jewish Lobby in America will play in this. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee better known as AIPAC has an incredible amount of influence on American Foreign Policy as we are seeing right now with Biden being UNABLE or UNWILLINGING to condemn the insane over response of the IDF that has caused so much harm to the civilian population of Gaza. Its one thing for Israeli forces (the IDF) to go in after the Hamas terrorists and NOBODY can blame them for seeking justice for what they did on October 7th as it was an act of bastardry, but more than 20,000 civilian dead including more than 10,000 children SHOULD BE CONDEMNED and Biden had been unable or unwilling to publicly step up and face the ire of groups like AIPAC shows just how influential they are politically in America. FYI - There's also a fairly influential Jewish Lobby in Australia which also explains the similar reluctance of Australian politicians to condemn the Jewish assault on the civilian population of Gaza. The Jewish Lobby in Australia is not as open in its influence in Australia as it is in America. There aren't the large high publicity conferences that groups like AIPAC hold, BUT if a matter like Gaza comes up there are Jewish leaders here who are very quick to grab the microphone and let their views be heard. There is also a section of the Australian Jewish community who are staunch supporters of the Settler Movement in the West Bank who are also quick to grab the microphone when that subject is broached.
    5
  1259. 5
  1260. 5
  1261. I'm Australian and before that shit he pulled at the UN he had a decent reputation from the first gulf war. Maybe not perfect, but Gulf War 1 was over and done in a month and then everyone was out. Instead of it becoming Vietnam 2.0 the US and its allies were out. Saddam had his ass kicked, Kuwait was back in the hands of Kuwait and no one was bogged down in some endless disaster. So by about 2003 EVERYBODY WANTED TO KNOW how Gulf War 2 had become the disaster it was. Everyone wanted to know how the same people who did Gulf War 1 screwed up so badly with Gulf War 2. America's own PBS delivered and in 2004 gave the world the documentary "Rumsfeld's War." I first saw it in Australia in either 2005 or 2006 when it was televised on free to air by SBS Australian one of our 2 public broadcasters. Here it is on YT -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPEWIDBrKyM So yeah a lot of people KNOW and have KNOWN for around 16 years, (I have known for at least 14years) that: - Powell LIED to the UN and knew he was lying. - Powell told Bush in a private dinner NOT to go into Iraq and that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were wrong. - Powell, Shinseki and others were shut out of the planning by Wolfowitz on Rumsfeld's direction. Before any of you tell me (an Australian) to F--K off let me tell you something. The Australian Prime Minister at the time John Howard is/was a lawyer, which means he knew the basics of International Law and that its a crime to invade a country that has NOT committed an act or acts of war against you or your allies. The invasion of Afghanistan was legal as the Taliban Government by supporting Osama Bin Laden had attacked Australia's ally on 9/11. But Iraq was NOT legal and our PM knew it wasn't legal and we helped destroy that country and and played our part in the deaths over over 100,000 innocent civilians including the 14 killed at Nisour Square by the Blackwater 4 that Trump just pardoned. So before we all go condemning Colin Powell for his part in the Iraq clusterf--k, just know that a lot of other people were involved and very few have ever been held accountable.
    5
  1262. 5
  1263. 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
  1264. 5
  1265. 5
  1266. 5
  1267. 5
  1268. 5
  1269. 5
  1270. 5
  1271. 5
  1272. 5
  1273. 5
  1274. 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
  1275. 5
  1276. 5
  1277. 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
  1278. 5
  1279. 5
  1280. 5
  1281. 5
  1282. 5
  1283. 5
  1284. Its NOT a European thing - its being done every where. I'm Australian and you just perfectly described what BOTH our LEFT and RIGHT parties have preached since the late 1980s. They did it to our transport sector, our energy sector, our communications sector and more recently our water sector. AND EVERY TIME we were promised that we would get cheaper prices on these basic commodities and EVERY TIME prices went up. I hope you can see this YT from DW News. It was blocked into Australia for many months. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oyFRoxuf4g At just before 20minutes it introduces Mike Young and calls him a "renowned economist" who attended Harvard the same place where the clown who constructed the Texas Power system came from. You know the one that filed and had children freezing to death. Well he's so renowned that NOBODY I know has ever heard of him. But note what he says with pride (20:50) "It's fascinating to see how sophisticated our water markets have become" He doesn't say if they WORK or that how well they work. NOBODY asked the Australian people if they wanted or needed a "sophisticated" water market. Neo-liberalism is an ideology nothing more. It got a massive boost when Milton Freidman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics and then Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan both adopted it as their central economic doctrine. In practice its failed for 99% of us and monstrously enriched 1%. Mark Blyth keeps pointing out the Rand study on wealth that basically brags how the top 1% of America have made over $50 Trillion (yeah that's trillion with a T) since Reagan started his garbage. The hard part of countering neo-liberalism is the fact its been the main ideology taught in economics courses since the 1970s. So everybody trained in economics will tell you "No Neo-liberalism ahs brought incredible wealth to everyone" because that's all they have been taught. Go and look up Prof. Mark Blyth and listen to any of his lectures where he uses his computer analogy. Sorry to hear Romania has joined the club.
    5
  1285.  @deniseeugene1852  I'm Actually Australian but went to college in America. What freaks me out more than anything is that most people don't realise 2 incredibly important things. And sorry this is a long reply. 1) How important America is economically to the whole world. The US Dollar is the worlds reserve currency and that was decided in 1944 at Bretton Woods. Its now so ingrained there's no practical way to move to another currency. What so many don't realise is how much world trade is done in US Dollars and even when its done through other currencies the currency markets work because the US Dollar keeps them working. 2) America is no longer politically stable, because there are a pack of about 25-30 billionaires who are totally bonkers. They make most James Bond Villains look sensible. Several of the key players are engineers like Charles Koch. One of them, Robert Mercer did his PhD in computer engineering at the same college I did my degree in aerospace engineering (yeah small world). So I know what sort of things they can rationalise and that scares me as much as anything else. SO YOU KNOW - I might have done aerospace but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and we ended up discussing the constitution a lot. It was the late 80s so they'd all done Civics in high school and were doing pre-law and knew how to argue the Constitution. This is how I know about how the US System is supposed to work. Its why I think Mitch McConnell and his billionaire backers are so damn dangerous and that danger extends to the rest of the world. An unstable America means an unstable US Dollar and that's catastrophic to world trade. Sorry for the long reply.
    5
  1286. 5
  1287. 5
  1288. 5
  1289. 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
  1290. 5
  1291. 5
  1292. 5
  1293. 5
  1294. 5
  1295. 5
  1296. 5
  1297. 5
  1298. 5
  1299. 5
  1300. 5
  1301. 5
  1302. 5
  1303. 5
  1304.  @russcarvertruthjedi259  I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial automation and control systems. I'm Australian but went to college in America. So I have a pretty good handle on America but also see it from an outside perspective. My biggest concern right now is how like America Australia is becoming. Our politics are more divisive than ever with an insane desire by our Right to spend as much as possible on the military while deregulating as much as they can. Our Left is an inept mix of too many policies that confuse them as much as they confuse us. I've spent a chunk of my COVID time getting my head around economics. That started because I'm tired of clowns with economics degrees belting every proposal senseless with their mantra of "who's going to pay for that" as they waste money on useless things. That's not to say everyone with an economics degree is a clown just as I know most engineers are NOT the problem solvers they think they are. Our problem here is that our economists have too much power and influence and too little grasp of the reality that we live in a technological society and that's why they make so many bad decisions. The person I listen to the most is Mark Blyth (Brown U.) and that's because he uses "system analysis" methods very similar to what aerospace engineers use except we call it "systems engineering." In the simplest way in aerospace we can't just simply make a change to any part of a system get an outcome. We have to consider the effects of a change to all the other parts of a system and the consequences of those effects because everything is to tightly coupled from everything being designed so close to their limits. If you listen to any of Marks lectures like the 3 he did at McMaster in June 2019 he talks about systems, effects and consequences. Via the Watson Institute he's interviewed people like Adam Tooze, Albena Azmanova, Fiona Hill, Eric Helleiner, Elizabeth Berman, Stephanie Kelton and others about books they've written. If you go thought some of those he's always looking for explanations between history, politics and economics. I have just gotten copies of Angrynomics, The Defecit Myth (Kelton) and Adam Smith (WoN), plus a couple of Piketty's. If you are going to do a podcast on the things you are talking about Mark should be one of your first people.
    5
  1305.  @trashkumaneko4539  The Germans (as part of ESA) are actually working on it. They are doing an isolated lab in the Antarctic at the moment. But the top top guy on complex bio-systems is a guy named Jonathon Trent. He's done a few TEDx talks and other more complex lectures on YT. He recently left NASA after 20years and started promoting what he calls "Up-Cycling" as something different to recycling. From his NASA work he was involve din bio-processes where they converted human waste back into usable materials (food, air, etc.) In simplest terms humans generally downcycle in that they take raw materials and through various process produce waste. Upcycling is where you take biological processes to "Up-Cycle" waste back into raw materials. Its the other side of the biological cycles that mother earth does for us every day. Composting (what gardeners do) is a simple from of an up-cycle process in that takes waste and with bacteria and worms shifts it back up the scale into raw plant food. Photosynthesis is an up-cycle process in that it takes our waste C02 and converts it back into raw O2 for us to breath. Basically, moon and Mars bases can't happen without the sort of work he was doing. What he is into now is doing some of that work and using it to drive food and energy production here in our societies. Instead of simply dumping all our waste into old quarries he wants to fuel society with it. What they worked out is for Moon & Mars bases the shit out of your ass is one of the most valuable resources those bases will have if its used properly. The human gut is great for turning raw material into actively biological raw material that other processes can then use.
    5
  1306. 5
  1307. 5
  1308. 5
  1309. 5
  1310. 5
  1311. 5
  1312. 5
  1313. 5
  1314. 5
  1315. 5
  1316. 5
  1317. 5
  1318.  @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
  1319. 5
  1320. 5
  1321. 5
  1322. 5
  1323.  @nolongerblocked6210  I agree with that point exactly. Oversight has been the problem and it goes back further than COVID-19. Sorry for the long answer. You probably know some of this already. There's a really good short doco on Gain of Function by the German DW network posted 23 Jul 2021 here on YT. In it they highlight why there was the moratorium. They talk about how in 2011 a Dutch researcher announced they had made the worlds most deadly virus in their lab. The researcher was Ron Fouchier and he made a version of avian flu (bird flu) that's not normally contagious to humans but the few people who do get it have less than 40% chance of survival. Its more lethal than Ebola. He whipped up a version that's highly contagious to humans and NOBODY knew he was doing it until he made his announcement. Ron Fouchier tried to publish all his work and explain to the world how smart he was. Imagine some of the Doomsday cultists we have being fully informed on how to make a doomsday virus. Luckily the Dutch government shut him down and prevented his work being published. It was that sort of thing that caused the moratorium. THE SCARY THING happened after the moratorium. GOF used to be 3 areas of research. 1 - making viruses and other pathogens more lethal to humans 2- making viruses and other pathogens more contagious BETWEEN humans 3 - making viruses and other pathogens contagious TO humans from the natural environment. They dropped that 3rd are from the definition. It helped get the funding of a lot of programs back. Remember when Dr. Fauci had that stoush with Rand Paul and Rand Paul said (paraphrasing) "According to your definition that you wrote these NIH programs in Wuhan were Gain of Function" and Dr. Fauci replied "Your wrong that's the old definition." What Rand Paul should have done next is ask 2 questions. 1) When and Why did you change the definition? 2) What do you call these programs now? Those 2 questions would have exposed everything and instead Rand Paul was too stupid, too arrogant and so wrapped up in the politics he forgot there was truth right there for him to expose. The group Drastix uncovered a lot of the research papers that were published by the Wuhan lab and it details what they were doing and it was that 3rd type of research and it was done without supervision.
    5
  1324. 5
  1325. 5
  1326. 5
  1327. 5
  1328. 5
  1329. 5
  1330.  @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
  1331. Its only $268b on the project with $100b in contingency and Virginia's cost AU$5.5b each not $3b each. But even the right numbers make this a ridiculous deal. The fundamental problem with AUKUS is not that it was an agreement between Australia the UK and America or that it was for nuclear powered submarines. I'm an engineer and the REAL PROBLEM is the project itself which is hopelessly conceived and its costs are mindlessly stupid which is par for the course with Australian military agreements. I'm 100% in favor of Australia getting nuclear powered subs but am 100% against AUKUS. Because of how much ocean we need to patrol we need faster long range subs and nuclear powered subs are over 50% faster than subs like the Collins and that's the first of several points. Here's my 2 main points on why AUKUS needs to be ripped up and started over. 1) The Virginia requires too large of a crew and there's just no way Australia can operate more than 2 of them let alone 3 or 3 + 5 of the AUKUS subs. This point has been brought up again and again and the RAN has never answered how they'd solve this problem. 2) The basic cost of a Virginia class is AU$5.5billion and the project is costed at AU$33.5billion per sub. NOBODY has explained where the other $28billion per sub is going. I have done some research and costing on this. I even constructed a project costing model and started plugging in numbers. I threw everything I could at this and then started doubling the cost of things and even tripled some and then added in an outrageous bonus system to get stuff built on time. With all I tried I could not explain where over AU$115billion might be going.
    5
  1332. 5
  1333. 5
  1334. 5
  1335. 5
  1336. 5
  1337. 5
  1338. 5
  1339. 5
  1340. 5
  1341. 5
  1342. 5
  1343. I'm an Australian who went to college in America (late 80s). I did engineering but a bunch of friends were pre-law and we used to discuss various things about how our countries worked. I'd studied Orwell in High school (Animal Farm and 1984) which was pretty standard in Australia. I used to argue, as Orwell warned, that any country could fall into a totalitarian state. They used to argue and assure mt that the American System via its constitution that it was not possible for America to become an totalitarian state. This was in the late 80s so they'd all studied civics in high school as as law students they were very well versed in the constitution and how the various parts of the system worked. I'd love to sit down with them now and ask how this has all happened considering they all assured me that this kind of thing was IMPOSSIBLE. They assured me that stripping away people's basic right to vote was IMPOSSIBLE. There's a lot going on in America they assured me was IMPOSSIBLE. They called it the "system of checks and balances." What we never discussed, because it was inconceivable. "What would happen if that system became corrupted?" The main part of that "system of checks and balances" is the US Senate, where senior government appointments and judges are confirmed. Mitch McConnel with massive funding via the Federalist Society has manged to corrupt that system so it no longer functions properly causing serious NEGATIVE EFFECTS through the entire system. And for any country that trades with and/or has security agreements with America its as serious as it can get because it means America is no longer a reliable partner.
    5
  1344. 5
  1345. Absolutely true. Masha was interviewed on the Australian program Planet America and gave the best explanation on the entire Trump-Russian collusion fiasco. Masha's explanation was that: 1: Putin is not a master strategist and believes that all elections are a rubber stamp for what has already been decided because that's his Russia. Its all decided before hand. So he expected Clinton would win. 2: Putin like Russians before him have played the game with America from the unpredictable possibly madman perspective to America's straight man. Having Trump in the White House would ruin that vibe. 3: Putin was the master of East Germany before the collapse and destined to rule SOVIET Russia one day, but the Russia he returned to was wrecked. He wants his Soviet Empire back and just as importantly he wants to hurt the West for what happened and that included Hilary Clinton. Masha never explicitly said it but the inference was that Putin was in fact expecting to do great harm to the Clinton Presidency by releasing damaging facts after the win with a rampant Trump going nuts. We now know that assessment was right. The big was the Jim Comey didn't do as Putin expected. In Putin's world subordinates like Comey do as they are told. They don't announce to the world they found stuff and are reopening an investigation. Just imagine if Comey had kept quiet and then after the election knowledge of the additional emails were released. Just imagine how the Republicans and Trump would have reacted. Putin would have been able to sit back laughing as America tor itself to pieces. Instead he got Trump and had to wait 6 more years to start pulling the former Soviet Republics back into order.
    5
  1346. 5
  1347. 5
  1348. 5
  1349. 5
  1350. 5
  1351. 5
  1352. I like dean but am going to take a more pragmatic view on his first point. There's NO GUARANTEE that Trump won't win. Hilary tried and lost that with some of the most stupid campaign strategies ever and she's now head of Biden's re-election team. I'm Australian but went to college in America U. Illinois). So I know the Midwest and Rust Belt fairly well. The moment I heard she wasn't going to campaign in Michigan I knew she was in trouble because I knew the Rust Belt was not going to take that sort of arrogance well. I wasn't alone in thinking she was going to lose. Both Rana Foroohar and Mark Blyth predicted she'd lose but for different reasons. Rana Foroohar said it was her link to NAFTA and Mark Blyth because the Dems had just screwed so many of their BLUE states over time and time again. Not only did Hilary lose Michigan but also Ohio and Penn becoming the first Democrat since Dukakis in 1988 to lose all 3. Even Gore and Kerry won 2 of those 3. If you look at the EC votes if Hilary had won those 3 as Bill and Obama had she would have won. What NOBODY on America's Left has been willing to explain or even face up to was how Trump went from 63 million votes in 2016 to 74 million votes in 2020 when every poll for 2 years had said his base was shrinking. 1) The polling WAS WRONG and NOT by a little but by a staggering amount. An extra 11 million people turned out in 2020 to vote for this guy. Hate him all you like but he knows how to appeal to particular crowds. Jesse Ventura said he learned it from Pro-Wrestling. 2) Despite all the crap and craziness his people really do see him as someone who's going to save them from the career politicians who have made their lives miserable for the past 30+ years. They don't care at all about facts or evidence or how much BS he tells. His base hates the Washington Elite so much that they'd vote for a rapid dog if it would bite one of those elitist snobs. And yes I know Trump is actually one of those elitist snobs, but he knows how to sell his base a different story. EVERYONE FORGETS that before he beat Hilary Trump beat of 16 GOP favorite sons including Jeb Bush and he didn't just beat them he wiped the floor with them. America better wake up to itself and the Democrats need to take the coldest of cold showers and realise that those 74 million might turn out to be 85 million next year.
    5
  1353. 5
  1354. 5
  1355. 5
  1356. 5
  1357. 5
  1358. 5
  1359. 5
  1360. 5
  1361. 5
  1362. 5
  1363. 5
  1364. 5
  1365. 5
  1366. 5
  1367. 5
  1368. 5
  1369. 5
  1370. 5
  1371. 5
  1372. 5
  1373. 5
  1374. 5
  1375. 5
  1376. 5
  1377. 5
  1378. Richard Wolff the Marxist Economist gave the answer you are looking for during one of the Michael Brooks tribute shows. Its still here on YT. It was titled "Panel 3 THE MICHAEL BROOKS TRIBUTE SERIES: Mark Blyth, Ben Burgis, & Richard Wolff & David Griscom" and was posted on the 9th of December 2020. his comment states at 52:50 but at 55:00 he says regarding people in West Virginia who HAD PREVIOULS voted Democrat and switched to Trump (punctuation is mine) - ".....they're angry at the Democrats and they're giving the Democrats the middle finger...... I think it's an insult of those people to say of them they're not voting their economic interest. That's not true, they are. Now they're doing it in an impetuous way but what you would you expect. They've been literally screwed for decades. They're going to give you the finger. Its about all they can." I recommend you keep listening for what Mark Blyth (The Scot with Glasses) says about the internal structure of the Democrats. FYI - I'm Australian and 3+ years later I am still staggered the Democrats still wont admit to any of this AND before you ask Australia Labor do the same sorts of things here, with the same results and the same levels of DENIAL. I've been watching a bit of British stuff recently and British Labor do similar. There's this common thread through over educated LEFTIST elites that they are superior, they need to manage those beneath them and are NEVER at fault. The Right know when they are wrong. They just just don't care so long as they're in power.
    5
  1379. 5
  1380. 5
  1381. 5
  1382. 5
  1383. 5
  1384. 5
  1385. Nice way to put it - So did Australia although ours has hints of Thatcherism thrown in for variety. Sovereign manufacturing has suddenly become a hot topic around the world. Here in Australia there are calls for our Government to simply build the factories the we need as a nation. And its not the first time either. Way back in the 1930s the head of BHP at the time famously got Australia its first steel mills. Had we had not listened to him then we'd have been overrun by Japan for the simple reason we might have had NO steel to make anything with. What COVID has done is expose one of the great flaws of neoliberalism which is based in Milton Freidman's claim that companies owe nothing to society and have no responsibility to society, they only have a responsibility to their owners. I call COVID Acid Flu because its stripped off all the bullshit veneer our business & political leaders have shoved down our throats for these last 40+ years. I was actually in Canada a couple of years ago for work and 1 thing I found out was how dependent on certain foods Canada is. Canada grows almost no lettuce and other leafy greens. Its mostly from California. I was there when Trump tore up NAFTA complaining about Canadian timber and putting tariffs on Canadian products. I was there as Canada pointed out all that they imported from America - like lettuce. FYI - Australia is world leader in Vertical Farming technologies and could easily help Canada free itself from America on things like lettuce.
    5
  1386. 5
  1387. 5
  1388. 5
  1389. 5
  1390. 5
  1391. 5
  1392. 5
  1393. 5
  1394. 5
  1395. 5
  1396. 5
  1397. 5
  1398. 5
  1399. 5
  1400. 5
  1401. 5
  1402. 5
  1403. 5
  1404. 5
  1405. 5
  1406. I think you 100% right. I'm an Australian who went to college in America (late 80s) an watched what has happened. I also worked in Canada for a few months back in pate 2017. We also get the British NHS explained out here. We have a dual system where we have both public and private systems running in parallel with a reasonable amount of overlap. It works for us I know that Britain and Canada have similar private systems running in parallel but I think they are smaller than our private sector (as a percentage of the overall). We have had people push for a fully privatised system in the past. None of of our politicians dare try now because we all look at America and tell them to FK-OFF. Its a sure fire way to lose an election and it can end a political career quicker than any sex scandal. The problem America has and I have said almost an identical thing on 2 other videos today on completely different subjects is that our public discussions these days get hijacked by tribalized clowns who just want to scream at everything. These tribalized clowns come in all sorts of colors depending on the subject. They all believe they are 101% right and they need to save the human race from the rest of us. I'm an engineer and I can tell you with assurity that if the tribalized clowns would just STFU and go away then we can get out of the energy crisis in a way that is both cost effective and doesn't kill the planet. It won't be quick and will take some time but its doable. We just can't get heard and that's just so typical at the moment.
    5
  1407. 5
  1408. 5
  1409. 5
  1410. 5
  1411. 5
  1412. 5
  1413. 5
  1414. 5
  1415. 5
  1416. 5
  1417. 5
  1418. 5
  1419. 5
  1420. @Vebunkd Well sorry but its people LIKE YOU who are the reason why the world is the mess that it is. If you wanted to point out that many who proclaim to be intellectual and mislead many are false teachers or advisors or consultants that nobody should listen to I'd back it up. I'm an engineer and these people who call themselves "futurists" and tell us what technologies we'll have are just bullshit artists. For sure there are many college programs that are misleading because they have been written or influenced by big business to suit what they want. Its well known that the major banks have had way too much influence over business degrees at places like Harvard. BUT your call to "shut all the universities" is ignorance and stupidity at its worst. The very web browser you are using right now traces its history back to 2 University of Illinois students who developed the Mosaic program and founded Netscape. Most if not all of the products you buy and use in your life has some or most of its development based on University research. All the Doctors, Dentists and other medical specialists you have ever seen were all educated & trained at Universities. All the technology you use is either designed or made by University graduates. The electricity grids, water systems and sewerage systems that YOUR LIFE DEPENDS ON are designed and maintained by engineers educated & trained at Universities. Your life as you know it is because people went to University and got educated. If you hate Universities then fine, BUT GET OFF the INTERNET, STOP using ELECTRICITY, NEVER SEE another DOCTOR and go LIVE IN A CAVE.
    5
  1421.  @seemlesslies  Thanks mate. Its not just an aerospace thing. I'm seeing it everywhere with technology reporting. I'm Australian but did my degree in America so I watch a lot of what's going on there as well as other parts of the world and its the same everywhere. All I see are journalists and media clowns dropping buzz words like "AI" and "hypersonic" as some way of saying "What I am saying is 100% accurate." I just heard it this morning. We're having a huge debate over submarines and yet again a journalist was using the "AI" buzzword. Last week it was "hypersonic missiles" and the week before that "space lasers"_ 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂ The other thing I hate are the people who take highly polarised stances without using common sense. I like channels like CSS but damn they get arrogant if they get called out on anything. I started another thread about some things in this video that are just plain wrong. Towards the end they insinuate that air launching requires a 50-50 split in labor and that's just nonsense. Go and look at the response I got from CSS. Do I think Elon is generally a clown who speaks nonsense? ABSOLUTELY YES and he deserves to be outed, but that doesn't mean he hasn't done a couple of decent things even if he lucked into them. Yeah he lucked into Tesla and yeah he's done some stupid things but he's also managed to kick the auto industry out of its shell and got them moving on electric and hybrid drive systems. Yeah SpaceX has some issues but damn its also kicked the US space industry out of its lethargy. That last Soyuz seat cost NASA $80 million. Crew Dragon costs NASA $70 million for 4 seats. SpaceX has broken the strangle hold that Boeing, Rockwell, Lockheed,... etc. have had on the US Space Program. Breaking that stranglehold is arguably the best thing to happen to manned spaceflight since Apollo. The risk is that in his pursuit of attention Elon will send it right back to where its been. I don't know when you graduated, but I graduated in 87/88 and I've watched 2 generations lose their hopes and dreams on the BS of those few companies. We should have built Space Station Freedom in the 90s and been back on the moon by 2001 AS WAS PLANNED. We've lost almost 30 years on the hamster wheel going nowhere fast. My great fear is that Starship is just another hamster wheel. Sorry for the rant.
    5
  1422. 5
  1423. 5
  1424. As an aerospace engineer you have hit one of the big nails on the head. The media way to often do stories like this where they talk about emissions and focus on a minor subject. As they say at the start aviation is 2.5% of global emissions. When we bailed out the banks from their own selfish stupidity during the GFC the estimate was something like $17 Trillion (with a 'T'). Some estimates put it closer to $40T. So we can spend $$Trillions converting the aviation industry to hydrogen and at best we'd cut 2.5% off global emissions. BUT if we spend several Trillion on the power industry and/or the shipping industry then we could make a real difference. FYI - I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. Back in the 1990s when people first thought we'd need to change aviation over to hydrogen $$$ Millions was spent on research. Companies like Rolls Royce, GE, Siemens have ALREADY sorted out the engines. Hydrogen burns very fast and very hot compared to other fuels, but they had that all sorted out by the late 1990s. RIGHT NOW you can by from GE and Siemens gas turbines for power generation that will run on 50% hydrogen without modification. The GE 9HA for example can do 50% out of the box and they have the kit to go 100%. Here in Australia I am advocating that we go down that path. What's held back hydrogen is generating, storing and handling it. I have had to deal with Hydrogen in my work and can tell you from experience hydrogen is WAY HARDER to deal with than any other gas. In general it prefers to go bang than burn. Its why don't think it will be good for things like aviation and cars but will be brilliant for electricity generation because it will be in a contained environment. Yeah wind and solar will be huge but they both need grid level storage. At the size the world needs, hydrogen is the technology that can be done at that scale.
    5
  1425. 5
  1426. Billionaire Nick Hanauer in his August 2014 TED talk "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming" included some very interesting FACTS about Henry Ford including how he paid his workers more than other companies did. That talk is still available here on YT. At 5:15 in that talk he says "So the model for us rich guys should be Henry Ford. When Ford famously introduced the $5 day, which was twice the prevailing wage at the time. He didn't just increase the productivity of his factories, he converted exploited autoworkers who were poor into a thriving middle class who could now afford to buy the products that they made." FYI - I am an aerospace engineer who has worked in the automotive sector. Elon Musk deserves some credit for slapping BOTH the aerospace and automotive sectors which had become stagnant and both of those industries NEEDED to be disrupted. Without his disruption I doubt (having seen the auto industry in action) would have started pushing EVs as they are all doing. I know that without SpaceX that Space flight would be far worse off because there WOULD NOT be the Falcon Rockets. HOWEVER that does not excuse his idiotic behavior or ridiculous claims about things like driverless cars or colonising Mars or the even more dangerous Neuralink nonsense. Despite the success of the Falcon rockets Starship is almost doomed to be a monumental failure due to its size and complexity. Plus the launch facility in Texas shows they are way too comfortable cutting corners on fundamental safety. They were lucky not to lose the entire site at the last launch. The FAA should have yanked their license to operate. As for colonising Mars I attended a guest lecture in 1987 as an undergraduate that was given by a NASA Engineer who'd just done a project on what it would take to colonise Mars. We were all fairly stunned to find out just how impossible of a task it would be without God like powers. Over 30 years later I am yet to see anyone prove they have developed any of the basic life support technologies that would be needed or the means to get there in any sort of a reasonable time period.
    5
  1427. 5
  1428. ​ @LookB4ULeap  You've just described how EVERY Democracy works. At its core democracy allows different opinions and policies to co-exist at the same time. Even in countries where there is absolute control there's almost always a different opinion even if it doesn't dare speak out. The biggest problem the world actually has with America right now is that too many Americans are so badly informed about the rest of the world. Even worse is how little Americans know of their own country. I'm a Gen-Xr and did my degree in the late 80s. I used to find it embarrassing how well my friends understood the US Constitution while I new little of my own. Even those friends who weren't pre-law or politically minded were well informed. BUT then they had all done CIVICS in high school. If there is one thing I would add to the high school curriculum of Australia it would be a Australian version of the civics class that all Americans used to do in high school. Since I can see the effect of what Bush and Cheney did by defunding civics. I think I can fairly claim that in defunding civics Bush & Cheney committed a "social" or "societal" crime against the American people. I think its one of America's major problems right now. Trump would never have gotten away with what he did if the American people were better informed and civics gave the American people the foundation of being better informed which is why I'd like to see an Australian version of it taught here. If America ever does bring it back the one thing they need to add to that class would be some basic world geography and geo-politics. Sorry for the rant
    5
  1429. 5
  1430. 5
  1431. 5
  1432. 5
  1433. 5
  1434. 5
  1435. 5
  1436. I'm an Australian engineer and I hate to break it too you but that happens to many many engineers who get dragged into projects with massive hopes. I have lost chunks of my life to things like that. I have known other engineers to lose chunks of their lives in similar ways. Sorry for the longer explanation below. The problem with this video is that Sabine skips past a number of other areas where hydrogen technologies need to be discussed on both the pro and con sides. I've never thought Hydrogen was a solution for cars, irrespective of if it was with fuel cells or combustion. I did my degree in aerospace but have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation. I'm also formally trained in electrical equipment in hazardous (explosive) areas. Hydrogen is the most difficult gas to deal with around electrical gear because it ignites so easily. My #1 concern is how do you prevent hydrogen cars, busses & trucks doing a Hindenburg? BUT that doesn't mean its unsuitable in other areas. That's where this video is a little frustrating. Maybe she'll do more vids??? I checked Sabine's bio on Wikipedia. She's did undergrad in Math and a PhD in theoretical physics. It appears she's never worked outside of the University & Research environment. She's very good on the theory behind the issues but she has no real experience with problem solving in industrial environments. The issue of the efficiency of bulk energy supply is almost irrelevant compared to reliability of supply and the cost to consumers. Rio Tinto did a public campaign about how their new hi-efficiency coal plants had brought them up to about 42%. Most coal is under 30% and older units as low as 20%. Kirk Sorenson (Thorium proponent) points out that the Pressure Water Reactors (PWRs) are under 1%. But those systems are VIABLE because they can reliably supply bulk energy at an affordable price. Fuel cells are around 60% but theoretically capable of higher. That didn't matter for the Apollo missions because they also provided water for the astronauts at no extra weight cost. The area where I think hydrogen is going to be huge is in grid level power and grid level power is the enraged mega elephant in the room that everyone is afraid will stomp on them if they make a noise. For decades now methane fueled turbines have been used for GRID STABILITY and SURGE CAPACITY. Batteries are very good and efficient but lousy for sustained surges. Gas turbines are not only very good and reliable but they can also have steam units powered by the exhaust heat. That's called cogeneration and there are companies that quote 90% efficiency for cogen systems. You can't just feed hydrogen to a standard gas turbine, but in the 1990s Rolls Royce, GE and others worked out how to make gas turbines (for aircraft) run on hydrogen. The technology is already done, it just wasn't going to happen for aircraft because of the tank issues. So the technology is all sorted out. It just never had end users or the hydrogen supply.
    5
  1437. 5
  1438. 5
  1439. 5
  1440. 5
  1441. 5
  1442. 5
  1443. 5
  1444. 5
  1445. 5
  1446. 5
  1447. 5
  1448. 5
  1449. 5
  1450. 5
  1451. I'm Australian but went to college in Illinois in the late 80s. Even back then you could see parts of this growing. I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and we used to discuss the differences between America and Australia. I had studied Orwell (Animal Farm & 1984) and used to argue that any country could fall into an authoritarian nightmare if it wasn't careful. THAT WAS Orwell's message. They used to assure me it was impossible in America because the Constitution would not allow it as there were to many "checks and balances" what as an engineer I'd call "safety functions." The main safety function was SCOTUS and as they told me repeatedly SCOTUS will always protect the constitution. We never discussed or even considered what a corrupted SCOTUS might mean let alone do because it wasn't even fathomable HOW it could be done. So you know why this is of very serious concern to other nations. Many of us, Australia (me), Canada, Mexico, Japan, Britain, all of Europe have not only got major trade relations with America but also SECURITY arrangements with America. What Alito and others have just done is destabilise America without any regard to the consequences for America. So the rest of the planet doesn't even register with these people. What people like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene are clearly doing is trying to place themselves as Trumps running mate. What do you think that means to the rest of the world when they'd be 1 step from being in charge of nuclear weapons. And so you all know, we know Mike Flynn's brother Charles Flynn is the commanding general of United States Army Pacific. He's also a Christian Nationalist like his brother and has a command staff made up of Christian Nationalists. Paul Jay at "the AnalysisNew" channel here interviewed a lawyer who's clients are military people being harassed by Christian Nationalists.
    5
  1452. 5
  1453. 5
  1454. 5
  1455. 5
  1456. 5
  1457. 5
  1458. 5
  1459. HEY THOM: There's a report by the Congressional Budget Office on Family Wealth 1989-2019 released September 2022. Kyle Kulinski spoke about it last week after the Jacobin's Luke Savage Published a short piece on it. What's amazing is that not only was it published in September 2022 (almost 1 year ago) NOBODY on the America Left is talking about this. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America and I can tell you for a fact that our data is no better. I regularly watch British economist Gary Stevenson here on YT and he's saying the same sorts of things about Britain. Here's the bit that I am furious that nobody is pointing out in that report. When you compare the 2010 data to 2007 you can see the effect of the GFC and when you compare 2019 to 2007 you can see how people have recovered. Since Australia, Britain and other places all run similar economic policies its safe to say its the same or similar everywhere. Here's the comparisons adjusted for population and in terms of the wealth per person in each group. The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but buy 2019 had recovered and were 21.7% UP The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but buy 2019 had recovered and were 4.6% UP The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but buy 2019 were still DOWN 21.8% Yes 165 million Americans (and possibly more) had, by 2019, still NOT recovered from the 2008 GFC that they did not cause. Meanwhile the people who did cause the 2008 GFC and were bailed out with US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama had not only recovered but had gained over $20 Trillion in collective wealth which has since grown another (estimated) US$8 Trillion during the pandemic years.
    5
  1460. 5
  1461. 5
  1462. 5
  1463. 5
  1464. 5
  1465. 5
  1466. 5
  1467. 5
  1468. 5
  1469. 5
  1470. 5
  1471. 5
  1472. 5
  1473. 5
  1474. 5
  1475. 5
  1476. 5
  1477. 5
  1478. 5
  1479. 5
  1480. 5
  1481. 5
  1482. 5
  1483. 5
  1484. 5
  1485. 5
  1486. 5
  1487. 5
  1488.  @Wolfsheim23  I'm Australian but went to college in America. I did engineering but a bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law and loved arguing the amendments with me because I came form a different background with different views. The 1st and free speech around the world is a hot topic and has been long before social media. The question is one of "where do you draw the line and make someone accountable for what they say" For Americans there is that question that most never have to ask. And that is WHY was it so important that free speech was the 1st. Why wasn't a fair trial the 1st or anything else. The answer is actually in American history which almost no other modern country has. Americans had to fight for their independence and one thing the British officers did to the colonials was try and shut them up. If they spoke out against an injustice the British officers used Sedition and Treason laws and simply hanged people. The film last of the Mohicans with Daniel Day Lewis has a good example of it. Because of the American Revolution Australia, Canada and others never had to fight for independence and we never had to deal with that and we never really have. Most Australians don't know that we actually have much tighter restrictions on what we can say. We have many freedoms but they are not in our constitution as a basic right like America does. I actually think the US Constitution is one of the great achievements of human history. But it has 1 major flaw. The founding fathers never considered or predicted that people like Mitch McConnell would undermine 1 of the basic functions (checks and balances). They never expected groups like the Federalist Society would seek to influence and control ALL Federal Court appointees. The problem now is that America has all these "special interest groups" who twist the gift the founding fathers left to suit what they want without caring about consequences to others. Its basic selfishness mostly.
    5
  1489. 5
  1490. I'm Australian and this election has always had huge ramifications for us like its had for some other countries. The democrats are plagued by a group of OLD PEOPLE who just won't accept their time is over. Jimmy Carter is one of the rare examples of a Democrat getting out of the road while helping when he can. The Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons and Obamas on the other hand......... The ramifications of that attitude is staggering. I've looked at some of the stats and one that I have NOT YET seen anyone discuss is the voter turnout and its the REAL ISSUE America needs to look at. According to the stats on Wikipedia almost every election gets a larger turnout than the previous one as expected from population growth. 2012 is a rare exception, but it doesn't compare to 2024 with over 16 million FEWER voters. EVEN Trump is DOWN by 800,000 over his 2020 result. When you consider that he picked up a slab of young male 1st time voters that means a couple of million of his base give up on his nonsense. Harris is Down by 12.4 million compared to Bidens 2020 result and that means a gigantic slab of the people who turned up in 2020 just gave up. Independents were simply annihilated. Anthony Scaramucci said something the other day about the options people had. Here's some to think about. 1) If you're a college student who wants the Genocide in Gaza to stop. Do you vote for Kamala who's helped support it or do you vote for Benjamin Netanyahu's choice for President. 2) If your a mother who's son is stuck in the basement vaping and playing video games. Do you vote for DEI Kamala or the felon who brags about grabbing women by the pussy. 3) If your a father who's daughter is worried about boys in the locker room. Do you vote for DEI Kamala or the convicted felon who would grab your daughter by the pussy. 4) If you vote 3rd party or independent what's the point of actually voting when you get NOTHING for it other than an opportunity to wave your middle finger at the Democrats and Republicans who don't care anyway. 5) If your Gen-X, Millennial or a Zoomer do you vote for the party run by selfish old people who don't care about your future or do you vote for the party run by a narcissistic sociopath, liar and convicted felon who's surrounded by other narcissistic sociopaths, liars and convicted criminals NONE of who care about your future. America has alienated so many of its people that 16 million who voted 4 years ago GAVE UP ON VOTING. Simply it doesn't matter if you're being asked to eat a BULLSHlT sandwich or a CHICKENSHlT sandwich you're still being asked to eat a SHlT sandwich. Sorry for the rant but what just happened has GLOBAL ramifications and America is functioning like NASCAR on 5 cylinders.
    5
  1491. 5
  1492. 5
  1493. If you go into the history of the neo-liberal era Harvard is one of the biggest problems the western world has. In trading on its "merit" it became a target of big money wanting to promote what big money wanted. Just consider how easy it is for ANY Western Government to promote something that has as its architect a "Harvard Graduate." I'm Australian and we have a perfect example of that RIGHT NOW. Our main river system the Murray-Darling has been privatized and the water is now traded in an American style free market. Its operation is almost identical to the energy market that caused the collapse in Texas earlier this year. The architect of the Australian water market is a "renowned Harvard educated economist" it was all highlighted by the German DW news channel in a documentary. I'd like for everyone to watch that documentary BUT YOU CAN'T as you can see because its been taken down. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oyFRoxuf4g Why is it that a German documentary on Australia's water market has been taken down? Is it because how it exposed just how much of a disaster its been allowing certain market speculators to make insane profits while raising water costs to farmers by so much it has drive them from the farms their families have operated for generations? Almost NONE of what was in that documentary has been publicly discussed in Australia. It had interviews with farmers driven off their farms. It had interviews with market speculators who have made millions. It interviewed the renowned Harvard educated economist who set the whole lot in motion.
    5
  1494. 5
  1495. 5
  1496. 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
  1497. 5
  1498. 5
  1499. 5
  1500. 5
  1501. 5
  1502. 5
  1503. 5
  1504. 5
  1505. 5
  1506. 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
  1507. 5
  1508. 5
  1509. 5
  1510. 5
  1511. 5
  1512. 5
  1513. I'm Australian a few years back we found Christian fundamentalists doing what we call "branch stacking." It happens in all forms of politics and we've had it on the left as well and it ruined a number of our labor unions. Its when you move people into an area so that you can out vote the local committee and then control nominations. Its incredibly insidious because the voting public doesn't realise that the person on the ballot got there by cheating. What we found a couple of years ago were Christian fundamentalists doing it in local right wing areas. Not much was thought as our laws can deal with it because branch stacking is illegal in Australia. WHAT freaked people out was the American Right Wing Christian training video that was uncovered. As far as I know its never been identified as to who produced it or when. We know its American because of the accents and things described like Sheriffs elections and District Attorney elections (we don't have those). We estimate it was made in the 80s because it was in video not film format but its low quality by todays standards. What it described was how to take over at the very lowest political level. Things like DAs, Sherriffs, School Councils,.....etc. The aim was to eventually have a base from which they could control NOMINATIONS for state positions and then eventually federal positions. Basically its about taking over America from the ground up instead of the top down. On the expose I saw that had it they asked and American political commentator about how the Republican Party missed this bottom up take over. And the answer was the top of the GOP never cared so long as the fundamentalists kept it local and left Federal politics alone. Sorry I can't give specific details it was about 10-12 years ago that we uncovered it. It was around the time Sarah Palin was forced onto John McCain's ticket.
    5
  1514. 5
  1515. 5
  1516. 5
  1517. 5
  1518. 5
  1519. 5
  1520. 5
  1521. 5
  1522. 5
  1523. 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
  1524. 5
  1525. 5
  1526. 5
  1527. I saw this and wondered if it was going to be another brain dead clown spouting off about stuff he knows nothing about. FYI - I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. This is a great honest technology video and we need more people doing this sort of thing. Just be careful on your titles. Yes I know you need to get people to click and watch but its also easy for people with technical backgrounds to just go by and right you off. Its also possible people who ask technically qualified people will look at a title and tell others you're an idiot. I watched 3 other of your videos Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Rewrites Laws of Physics Why China is Building an Underground Nuclear Lab How This Hole Generates Infinite Energy They were all really good and each and multiple points I had not heard. I really did get something out of each one. But look at your titles. In the first one was ok, except no laws were re-written just a theory and your explanation of what they now know was superb. The second was fine, but the third was a but like the first one. The video was fine and informative, but you know there's no such thing as "infinite energy." Even our sun will one day run out of fuel as all stars do. I'd really like to see you do a follow up on geothermal systems. The public perception on it is fairly poor. Except for a couple of rare places like New Zealand and Iceland its pretty much been a failure everywhere else its been tried. We've had a couple of spectacular failures here in Australia. They started Ok but once they started removing energy from the hot rock, the hot rock got colder which somehow surprised them. This is that problem you mentioned of not getting the stream hot enough to efficiently power a turbine. That's also the main problem with nuclear fuel pellets. Its not that they stop producing heat they just don't produce enough to power a steam turbine. I actually think people need to start looking into heat recovery systems a lot more. I came across a European company a couple of years ago that had a process that needed as little as 120C to generate power. There's a lot of processes with heat waste around 200C. They were very quiet about what they did but I suspect they used the same basic process as a steam turbine system but with a fluid that had different properties including a supercritical temperature point that's a lot lower than the 600C of water. Keep up the good work, just watch those titles.
    5
  1528. 5
  1529. 5
  1530. 5
  1531. 5
  1532. 5
  1533. 5
  1534. 5
  1535. 5
  1536. 5
  1537. 5
  1538. 5
  1539. 5
  1540. 5
  1541. 5
  1542. 5
  1543. 4
  1544. 4
  1545. 4
  1546. 4
  1547. 4
  1548. 4
  1549. 4
  1550. 4
  1551. 4
  1552. 4
  1553. 4
  1554. I'm an engineer who's been informally studying economics for a couple of years and YOU'RE RIGHT. The economics we are living with right now isn't capitalism as its been described or what people think its supposed to be. Clepto-Capitalism is a great description. Look at the very title of Adam Smiths book. Its "Wealth of Nations" NOT Wealth of the few and screw the rest. The interesting thing is that the work of Smith, Ricard, Marx and others were all in the vein of how do we (humanity) not go backwards into feudalism or mercantilism and yet what we have right now is a weird hybrid of feudalistic mercantilism. I've listened to a lot of the book talks Mark Blyth (Brown U.) has done. One was with a Eric Helleiner who's described what he calls neo-mercantilism and he's given the best explanation of what China is up to. At its core mercantilism is not simply about controlling wealth but also about political control at the nation versus nation level. What we now have are people who have no allegiance towards any nation or even society itself but their means of control is through economics. I recently watched a series of 4 talks by Damon Silvers for the UCL IIPP that Mariana Mazucatto runs and yeah I watched all 6 hours. The first of those talks is titled "Understanding Neoliberalism as a System of Power" Another great thing I saw recently was a video by Simon Clark titled "Global Warming: The Decade We Lost Earth" and he highlights that the whole denial campaigns that started in the first Bush Whitehouse had NOTHING to do with fossil fuels or solar or wind. Its was a political move by American Libertarians who are 100% of the mindset that NO Government should ever do anything except leave them to do whatever they like. What you call Clepto-Capitalism (which is an awesome label) is all about this small group of people getting what they want without any consideration of the rest of society, humanity or the planet. Their ideology is basically "We demand the liberty to strip the rest of you of your liberty!"
    4
  1555. 4
  1556. 4
  1557.  @lwright1554  Your obviously a Brit. I'm Australian but went to college in America. What we are seeing in America is an amped up version of what we are seeing across the entire developed world. It comes from the inevitable result of Milton Freidman and the Chicago School's economic ideology that "Greed is Good." It started as Reaganomics and Thatcherism but we know call it Neoliberalism. Its not simply 1 concept but a bunch of ideas that when combined have 1 inevitable conclusion the rise of second Robber Barron Era and we are now there. I'm old enough to remember the start of Reaganomics. At the time i was too young to understand any of it, but I remember people saying that he was going to far while others said NOT far enough. I remember Margret Thatchers fight with the coal workers and their union. I also remember the Unions in the 1970s became their own worst enemy with ridiculous strikes where they simply held the rest of us to ransom. So we basically let the Unions die and billionaires rise. One of the great problems now faced is that all of the text books that economists study are written by neoliberals. So there's almost ZERO understanding of other economic ideas in the education system. This is why no matter who does get elected in any developed nation the economic situation never changes. That's because all the politicians and/or their economic advisors all studied the same material in college. Simply put, when it comes to economics there's no other voice in the room except the neo-liberal voice and that's why nothing changes no matter who is elected. Your a Brit - look at Keir Stammer and try and tell anyone he's actually different to Sunak, Cameron, Thatcher or any of the other recent Tory leaders except for Boris and the Lettuce Brain.
    4
  1558. 4
  1559. 4
  1560. 4
  1561. 4
  1562. 4
  1563. 4
  1564. 4
  1565. 4
  1566. 4
  1567. 4
  1568. Thanks for that. I'm Australian and was in Saskatchewan for 4 months late 2017 early 18 and loved the place. It was so like Australia except for all that white stuff. Even the numbers were the same except for the minus sign. For me December and January are supposed to be 30C but that -30C stuff wasn't much fun. Overall I had a really great time in Canada. I have hated to watch how COVID bashed you guys as hard as it has, but this trucker thing stinks. In Oz we have had this issue festering from the early part of the pandemic where the anti-5G and anti-vax peoples used social media to team up. Sure we had some protests but compared to many others they were small. 1,000s not 10s of 1,000s or 100s of 1,000s. And just like your describing the rest of us had had a gutful of their garbage. All this crap about tyranny, how unfair it all is mixed with utter garbage conspiracy nonsense. When I was there the whole Paradise Papers thing was just exploding and just like we had with the Panama Papers a lot of people were exposed and as usual NONE of them went to jail for stuff we'd get life for. Is Justin Trudeau yet another Western spoiled brat with an overdose of self entitlement who thinks his shite is gold? Yeah - but we have those as well. The Brits have those as well. Even the New Zealanders have them, because EVERYONE has them and none of them get that we see straight through their BS these days. And their political opponents are just as transparent and just as blind and deaf. That's one of the biggest stressors across the world right now - their are so many politicians spewing BS and so few with any real solutions that will actually help us go forward. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
    4
  1569. 4
  1570. 4
  1571. 4
  1572. 4
  1573. 4
  1574. 4
  1575. 4
  1576. 4
  1577. 4
  1578. 4
  1579. 4
  1580. 4
  1581. 4
  1582. 4
  1583. Not certain which brand of engineer you are. I did my degree in aerospace and have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Back in 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17). Nice guy and I wanted to talk to him about satellite maintenance he that's nice but go look at Helium-3. I did and since I'm Australian I went off to our mining industry because I though if I ever had to chance to fulfill that dream of doing what he did I'd need RELEVANT experience. I thought I knew stuff, but damn I got dozens and dozens of eye openers. During the 2nd 1/2 of the 2000s and 1st 1/2 of the 2010s we built dozens of new mines to feed the Chinese beast. Most of it was in remote locations some of it was near towns and the difference between construction in remote areas is staggering. Really basic construction stuff like concrete, scaffolding, cranes all become exercises in logistics and planning. Then there is the basic thing of accommodation and services that support the people who work there. On more than a few occasions people couldn't understand why I wanted to work on the stuff around the accommodation camp. Things like the water, sewerage, domestic power and entertainment systems. Guess what if we build a Moon base or Mars base people are going to eat, pee & poop and want to be entertained. Someone has to know about that stuff and even in companies that do this stuff every day there are head office geniuses who IGNORE what they get told. I got a monster reality check on supporting infrastructure and its way more involved than people think. Despite all that people DO KNOW from real experience across all sorts of fields of science and engineering there's always people who think they know better. What CSS is showing is that Angry is just armchair expert who knows nothing about doing real world science and engineering.
    4
  1584. 4
  1585. 4
  1586. 4
  1587. 4
  1588. 4
  1589. 4
  1590. 4
  1591. 4
  1592. 4
  1593. 4
  1594. 4
  1595. 4
  1596.  @soulsphere9242  I did this odd little engineering consult for a Taiwanese company wanting to invest in Australian Solar. In the course of it I became aware that we had stopped building major power stations. By major I mean greater than 1 Gigawatts (1,000 Megawatts). Our population was 15million in the mid 80s and hit 20 million by 2003 in that time we built many power stations including our biggest Loy Yang. Since 2003 we have not built a single major power station just a bunch of smaller ones. What's masking the problem is roof top solar and wind farms but none of that masks the rise in power bills. I did a single class in economics (actually the easiest class I ever did) and the entire class was about supply and demand in different types of markets. Irrespective if demand goes up and supply doesn't match then prices go up. Our populations gone up another 5 million and new supply has barely replaced the older stations that have been turned off. That's what's pushed prices up. In the next few years there's Liddel, Torrens Island and Yallourn W all scheduled to turn off. Its exactly the same problem Rick Flores has described for California. Its already happening in parts of Europe. About a week ago there in a conversation like this but more about energy prices. A guy from Romania described their situation. It was like he was describing Australia, except he was adding to a discussion about Britain. It was bizarre. Suddenly there were people from other places all saying the same stuff. That's Australia's nightmare. We (because of our banks) are addicted to foreign investment, which is idiotic considering our wealth. To replace our 23 coal fired units plus the older gas units is about $100 Billion (with B) and that's just to REPLACE NOT UPGRADE. To cover the expected population increases double that. BUT it gets worse, there will be no foreign investment because so many other nations are also facing the same problem and there won't be the money available. Australia like a lot of other countries has been drowning in wave of indecisive political BS overly influenced by billionaires who don't give a FK. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
    4
  1597. 4
  1598. 4
  1599. 4
  1600. 4
  1601. 4
  1602. 4
  1603. 4
  1604. 4
  1605. 4
  1606. 4
  1607. 4
  1608. 4
  1609. 4
  1610. 4
  1611. If you want to take that a step further and accept that at the most fundamental level communism is the communal ownership of property. Then by that most basic definition things like publicly owned companies where anyone can own shares in those companies are also a form of communism that overlaps with capitalism and democracy. Everyone is free to join or not join the ownership of an enterprise that is owned by a community of shareholders where each person is free to own as many shares as they like or can afford while the officers of that enterprise are democratically elected where each share gets 1 vote. I'm an engineer and I've been informally studying economics for a couple of years and one of the things I found is how badly most people understand some of the most basic concepts because of all the political culture war nonsense that's been raging. As an engineer we have things called basic principles that DO NOT CHANGE. The problem is that in Economics & Politics everything changes constantly. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America. I was there 3-1/2 years including the 1987 presidential pre-season. The single biggest issue with American politics is that the whole shitfest takes place in a manufactured bubble of noise and confusion. American politics is more Truman Show than reality. And before anyone asks yes I am aware that one of the WORST offenders in fueling the current culture war is Australian born Rupert Murdoch. But then we did try and warn you what he was like just as we had tried to warn the Brits and you didn't listen just as the Brits didn't listen. For reference go and watch or rewatch the 2004 documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism"
    4
  1612. 4
  1613. 4
  1614. 4
  1615. 4
  1616. 4
  1617. 4
  1618. 4
  1619. 4
  1620.  @MattH-wg7ou  Yeah my frat brother is a senior instructor with one of the major American airlines on 737s. He was part of a team sent to Boeing to get the Max-8 sorted out. He gave me no details but did say "they broke the Boeing system." That actually scares me because I understand what he means by "system." That includes all the procedures, tests, methodologies and engineering ideologies that they use to go from words and blank sheet of paper through to you and me at 35,000ft. Basically a library full of knowledge and experience AND they broke it. I'm well aware of how little certain pilots fly. Way back in the late 80s there was a Concorde pilot who became the first pilot ever to record 10,000 hours as pilot in command at supersonic speed. That came up in a discussion at the glider club one day where a couple of our tow pilots we ex-airline with over 10,000hrs. When I quizzed why the big deal one of them slapped back at me asking how stupid I was because he knew I was doing aerospace. I'd forgotten just how little planes can normally fly at supersonic, because of how fast it drains the tanks. Plus it also thermally stresses planes. You might know better than me, but most air force pilots have less than a single hour at supersonic speed and most never record more than 2 hours in their entire career because its all little short bursts. For what was known at the time that 1 Concorde pilot had more hours at supersonic than the entire USAF history that was known. The SR71 hours weren't known at that time and could/would have changed that assessment. Concorde truly was an amazing piece of technology.
    4
  1621. 4
  1622. 4
  1623. 4
  1624. 4
  1625. 4
  1626. 4
  1627. 4
  1628. 4
  1629. 4
  1630. 4
  1631. 4
  1632. 4
  1633. 4
  1634. 4
  1635. 4
  1636. 4
  1637. 4
  1638. 4
  1639. 4
  1640. 4
  1641. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE - This is one of the best and straight forward videos I have seen on YouTube regarding a STEM topic. There is NOTHING wrong with the title. For a planet to be habitable it has to have the most basic thing of all which is a suitable atmosphere and RIGHT NOW we don't YET have the technology to confirm a habitable atmosphere. I did my degree in the late 80s and in my final year we had a number of guest lectures. I remember 2 of those. One was an aerodynamicist from the X-29 forward swept wing experimental plane that was just the coolest plane of the era. The other was a NASA engineer who'd just done a study on what it would take to terraform Mars. At that time, even though the Challenger accident had happened, we still expected to built Space Station Freedom in the 1990s, go back to the Moon in the 2000s and then onto mars in the 2010s. So we were seriously excited to hear about what we'd be doing on Mars. His opening line was "Sorry. Its impossible and here's why!" He then introduced us to 2 topics which I now call Planetary Mechanics and Planetary Dynamics (which we know next to nothing about what we'd need to do). Planetary Mechanics is reasonably easy to understand as its about: how much stuff do you need to do certain things? How much air? How much water? How much heat do you need to gain or lose to get the planet to the right temperature? Planetary Dynamics is: how do you make all that stuff do the things you want it to do? How do you make the gas cycles work? How do you make the water cycle work? How do you trap enough heat form the star while losing enough to space to keep the planet in a reasonable temperature range? Its basically all the stuff we know about but almost NOTHING about how those systems actually work because they are all interlinked. In that lecture we never really got into any discussion on Planetary Dynamics because the issues with Planetary Mechanics simply killed the idea of terraforming Mars. Once you realise it takes 178 Trillion tons of air just to put the first 1 kilometer of air around Mars the discussion ends. Its a logistics nightmare. Either the planet you want to terraform has enough atmosphere you can convert or its game over before you consider anything else. Just trying to answer the question - Where do you get 178 Trillion tons of air from? Let alone how you deliver it? Is a project killer. This is how I expose people when they talk about colonising Mars. Other than all the how do you get the people there issues, there's the simple logistics of where to they live when they get there. Because Mat Damon's tent form "the Martian" wont work because how does that protect from the radiation? Then there's the how to you grow food? Because Mars soil is laced with perchlorates. Where do you get water? Because plants and people need water. But the real conversation killer is: Where do you get the air? Its going to be the same for ANY planet that we want to consider as being habitable. Its going to have to have those basic things. - Size so we know its got suitable gravity. - Distance from its star so we know its got the right temperature. - A viable atmosphere that's already there. - ENOUGH water to provide a water cycle AND thermohaline circulation. - At least one natural satellite large enough to help drive the thermohaline circulation. That final point of the thermohaline circulation is something that we have only just begun to understand how it works here on planet Earth as well as how important it is for life to exist here. That's things like the AMOC and Gulf Stream that keep our planet viable. If you don't have a planet that has that then how do you build something like ? Sorry for my rant, but I really liked your video and would NOT change anything including the title. It wasn't click bait.
    4
  1642. 4
  1643. 4
  1644. 4
  1645. 4
  1646. 4
  1647. 4
  1648. 4
  1649. 4
  1650. 4
  1651. 4
  1652. 4
  1653. 4
  1654. 4
  1655. 4
  1656. 4
  1657. Here's a link to the article Sagaar was talking about he other day that was done by Nicholas Wade. I would not call it the exact opposite of what David is saying, but its clearly not pro-Fauci as David is. The article by Nicholas Wade is very well done, but its a longer article than most people will read. -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ In a nutshell: - There was "gain of function" research going on in Wuhan. - There was research there being funded by other nations including America. - One of the main people investigating Wuhan with the W.H.O. Peter Daszak has an obvious conflict of interest. As a result we DO NOT have a fully detailed account of what was going on in Wuhan. From that article and other professionals I have heard, I do NOT think it was a genetically engineered weapon. Most likely it was something that became modified or enhanced in the lab that got out into the general population. How it became modified or enhanced is something NO ONE has answered. Its possible it was from deliberate "gain of function" research. Its also possible it just came from an accidental mutation in a petri dish. We just don't know and one of the principal investigators has a serious conflict of interest. BUT Rand Paul is the worst kind of opportunistic maggot politician to be asking anything of such a serious subject and we wont get the answers we need with a clown like him running the show. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    4
  1658. 4
  1659. 4
  1660. 4
  1661. Your right how important this topic is. I'm Australian (and an aerospace engineer) and we have had our version of the brain drain going on for decades now. So its really interesting to here another person talk about the same issue from their perspective. One of the things that drives Australian scientists and particularly engineers overseas is the abundance of Indian Engineers available to come here and work for what they see as a good wage but is in fact a low wage by our standards. I have actually lost work to cheap Indian labor coming here. It was prevalent circa 2010 when our visa system was being abused by our mining companies. Its one of the UGLY, UGLY, UGLY consequences of what's now labelled neo-liberal economics. That's the stuff that started as Thatcherism and Reaganomics and was pushed by clowns like Bill Clinton and all his banking friends. In neo-liberal economics labor is a commodity to be bought and sold openly. For anyone interested go and look up Prof, Mark Blyth. He's a Scotsman based in America at Brown University and he works in "political economics." Its a field of study where they do NOT treat politics and economics as separate concepts but consider them as intertwined systems. So the whole concept of labor and how its being traded and how that affects politics and economies is of interest to these political economists. And for anyone wondering the rest of the economics people in industry HATE THEM for the simple reason people like Mark Blyth aren't simply exposing their BS they are explaining their BS so people can UNDERSTAND that their BS really is BS. On the huge downside of this the part where Palki is talking about the cost to Indian growth its even worse for countries even less developed in places like Africa. Every engineer, doctor, teacher, nurse, electrician, welder, plumber who leaves for the Western World is incredibly damaging. Look at the mass migration from undeveloped nations. Why are they undeveloped? Could it be that more developed countries keep taking their talent and ability to develop.
    4
  1662. 4
  1663. 4
  1664. 4
  1665. 4
  1666. 4
  1667. 4
  1668. 4
  1669. 4
  1670. 4
  1671.  @meowy4720  You're touching on a very touchy subject but its a subject that needs discussing and some have tried in the past and some of those people were WOMEN. Sorry for the long reply but I think you'll find this interesting. Years ago I came across 2 articles 1 is about a book written by a woman and the other was a news paper article written by a woman. Circa 2010 I read this odd book review in the Sunday paper in Perth Western Australia. I've tried to find it with no luck. It was about a book written by an American Psychologist. SHE had so many female patients with the same issues she wrote a book about it. They were all well educated, career orientated, successful types BUT with a description like the female version of an incel. She said the main problem was they judged men from the glass half empty view. It wasn't about what any man was or had or did. Their judgement was based on what they weren't. They all had these insane lists of things a man HAD TO BE and if just 1 thing was missing they were rejected. This psychologist said these women were all demanding a man that has never existed. They were all miserable and frustrated and complained about why their demands weren't being met. But that was one of the main tenements of feminism - be demanding. I'm sorry I can't tell you the book title or author. One day I really have to track it down. Circa 2005-06 Australian journalist Virginia Haussegger wrote an article titled "The sins of our feminist mothers." Its easy to find via google. She still has it as a pdf on her own website. BE WARNED that article caused a nuclear level shitstorm when it was published. Even years later you need to be careful who you wave that article at because it can be like throwing rocket fuel at a blazing fire.
    4
  1672. 4
  1673. 4
  1674. 4
  1675. 4
  1676. You have one of the few smart answers I can see here. Clearly a lot of people here have NEVER worked in the mining industry or have NO IDEA about manufacturing, but then most of these idiots spouting nonsense have NO IDEA because they have never been involved in manufacturing or been involved in mining and I'VE DONE BOTH. I used to work in the Australian automotive sector before it shut down and have since worked in the Australian mining sector in control systems and automation. 1: There's a giant difference between finding a deposit, getting it properly assessed and then being able to mine it. Circa 2006 I worked on the construction of the Ravensthorpe Nickel project. BHP spent $3.5 Billion on the project. It was laterite nickel which is a bitch to process, but it was justified by the quality of the deposit and the value of Nickel. BHP did NOT complete a full drilling test pattern and the deposit was found to be NOWHERE near as good as the PR claimed. The mine was closed after about 18months and sold for less than 1/7th ($500 Million) its. The Lesson: Don't believe the PR hype even when its from a major player. 2: You absolutely do need Nickel for batteries, just as you need copper for the electrical cabling in an EV just as you need all the other metals, glass and plastics. Go and look at your car and see how much stuff is actually in one. If you have ever been in the plants where they make all those bits that go into a car you'll quickly understand that it takes a whole range of raw materials and lots of energy to make the bits that make a car and all of that uses lots of energy. The quickest way we can reduce emissions is to reduce how much energy we consume as a society. THE AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING SECTOR is one of the largest energy consumers because it not only uses a lot of energy making the cars it uses a lot of energy getting the raw materials out of the ground and processing that into the raw feed stock to make the parts the cars are made from. The best thing we can do is NOT replace old cars with new cars but replace the drive systems in old cars with EV and Hybrid systems. It will save huge amounts of energy and resources while keeping millions of people employed. BUILDING EFFICIENCY: The other great (and inefficient) user of energy are BIG BUILDINGS. Mark Blyth the political economist from Brown U. pointed out this a couple of years ago. Some engineer worked out that just triple glazing all of America's buildings would employ 1000's and 1000's of people for well over a decade and reduce America's emissions so much that meeting the Paris goals is easy because you can then turn off a bunch of dirty old coal fired power stations. All those big giant glass boxes are designed by architects to look pretty NOT by engineers to be efficient. Not only would it creat employment but raise the asset values of all those buildings as well as reduce the power costs all the tenants have making them more profitable. I'd like to hear an economist claim that's not a good idea.
    4
  1677. As an Australian who lives where we have a dual system which is similar to systems in Canada, Britain and New Zealand, here's a little clarification on this. One system is publicly owned and operated by our governments and ANYONE can walk in the door and see a doctor. Those doctors can send ANY of their patients onto a specialist. How soon those people get to see a specialist depends on the availability of a specialist. Wait times in our public system has NOTHING to do with that its a "M4A" system it has to do with how many specialists we have and how much of the specialist analytical machines (& Services - like MRIs) that are available. The other system we have is the Private system (privately owned and operated) and it is simply a matter if you (or employer) have the money (cash, insurance or credit) then you can be seen by a specialist of your choice as soon as they can see you. Our professional sports teams for instance often have specialists on retainers to keep them available. More often than not wait times in the private system are far shorter, because you as the patient can go straight to the specialist if they are available. In the public system it has to go through a system of assessment and then waiting in line for a specialist to be available. So no matter what getting to see a specialist is about availability more than anything else. Is Australia's dual system perfect? NO it has shortcomings and gaps and not everybody gets the health care they deserve. When I have talked with Brits, Canadians and New Zealanders who have similar systems we all agree on one thing under no circumstances would any of us want what America has.
    4
  1678.  @jan-willemvandijk3850  I'd simply say your assessment is utter bullshit. He and many others are putting the natural occurrence as less likely than a lab leak. There's actually nothing new in that the ex-head of the CDC Dr. Robert Redfield voiced this MONTHS AGO. Jimmy Dore pointed this out a few days ago. Not that I'd give Jimmy kudos on credibility at times. His attacks on Dr. Fauci are simply over the top, but he was dead right about 1 thing its all been politicized. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG7Kxbfp5Oc&t=403s Now its almost impossible to discuss any answer without politics, no matter how hard anyone tries. My sort of a what if came from people attacking Bret Weinstein and his wife a few weeks back (David Pakman among them). They both have backgrounds in biology and pointed out the dismissal of a lab leak WAS NOT DISPROVEN and most of the discussion on that was political NOT scientific. David's dismissal of them was political NOT scientific. His whole monologue was about the Weinstein's re-harping a debunked conspiracy. David's got a clear bug with anyone linked to the Intellectual Dark Web. As I said repeatedly my initial view that it was natural was because several epidemiologists discounted the weapon conspiracy. Their claim was nobody has the technological skill to specifically engineer a targeted viral weapon, which some were claiming. What that answer did not exclude and it was not mentioned was the possibility of other research that might produce something that escaped. I think the most damning thing in this is that a person with a crystal clear conflict of interest, Peter Daszak was running the investigation into the Wuhan Institute. That's being called out more and more along with what "gain of function" research is actually going on and how it was being funded -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQlnnCPOxyk There could be absolutely innocent answers to all this BUT CREDIBLE ANSWERS are not on the table. Even when you look at what Congressman Mike Gallagher, claimed he's put the lab leak ahead of the wet market, but that DOES NOT EXCLUDE a natural origin from somewhere else. There's now evidence that a bunch of people who worked in a bat cave contracted something a few years back in southern China. This is a mess and until the people with vested interests are put to the side and a proper investigation happens no one will know.
    4
  1679. Half the problem in this is that there are some very serious issues that need to be asked of Dr. Fauci on the subject of what was actually going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and what involvement other nations including America had. Sagaar Enjeti (at the Hill) raised this article the other day that was done by Nicholas Wade. Its very well done, but its a longer article than most people will read. -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ In a nutshell: - There was "gain of function" research going on in Wuhan. - There was research there being funded by other nations including America. - One of the main people investigating Wuhan with the W.H.O. Peter Daszak has an obvious conflict of interest. As a result we DO NOT have a fully detailed account of what was going on in Wuhan. From that article and other professionals I have heard, I do NOT think it was a genetically engineered weapon. Most likely it was something that became modified or enhanced in the lab that got out into the general population. How it became modified or enhanced is something NO ONE has answered. Its possible it was from deliberate "gain of function" research. Its also possible it just came from an accidental mutation in a petri dish. We just don't know and one of the principal investigators has a serious conflict of interest. BUT Rand Paul is the worst kind of opportunistic maggot politician to be asking anything of such a serious subject and we wont get the answers we need with a clown like him running the show. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    4
  1680. 4
  1681. 4
  1682. 4
  1683. 4
  1684. 4
  1685. 4
  1686. 4
  1687. We all get the sentiment, but someone pointed out recently that America has very specific rules about treason. It can only happen during a state of war and you have to actively work with the enemy against America. You have to remember America's constitution was largely written to prevent people being charged with treason and sedition. The reason why the 1st Amendment exists is to prevent the government simply charging people with sedition if they said something the government didn't like. The British basically used to charge people who dissented in any way with sedition and hang them. If you actively went and did things (other than just speak) against the kings interests he could charge you with treason and then they simply didn't just hang people it was hang, drawn and quartered. The entire reason the Bill of Rights exists was to prevent the government doing what Trump is doing. His supporters think he's upholding the constitution, He is the least presidential President in our lifetime if not in history. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America. My few of my frat brothers were pre-law and used to love discussing the Bill of Rights with me because I had a different perspective. These day's I firmly believe the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights is one of the greatest achievements in history. It just has 1 major flaw - some very selfish people have learned how to manipulate it for some very selfish reasons. The NRA are a perfect example of that. I truly hope America finds a way past this. COVID is hammering the country. Nobody should envy Joe Biden's task. Trump is leaving him a collection of nightmares - COVID, social divisions, Climate Change, wealth disparity jobs and the economy just to name a few. Take Care & Stay Safe.
    4
  1688. 4
  1689. 4
  1690. 4
  1691. 4
  1692. 4
  1693. 4
  1694. 4
  1695. 4
  1696.  @knockknock1246  On That we are 100% in agreement. There's so little of real journalism left its amazing. Circa 2009 I watched the second 1/2 of a lecture on late night TV about journalism. I didn't realise it for many years that the person speaking was actually a professor from my old university. I'm Australian but went to U. Illinois and only later found out that's where Robert McChesney teaches. He'd also been prominent in the 2004 documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." What I distinctly remember him saying in 2009 was that, due to changes in the the corporate structures of the media, there had been a significant change in the way journalists work. Gone were the days when reporters went out and met people and asked questions and then wrote up what they found. The new stock market controlled entities didn't care about facts and stories they cared about advertising, subscriptions and quarterly statements. So journalists had to produce more and that meant checking less. Robert McChesney said that in the 1950s there was a ratio of journalists to public relations (PR) people of 4 or 5 to 1. By the early 2000s that had flipped to 1 to 4 or 5. He said many journalists spend there days cutting and pasting material prepared by corporate PR people into what's published. Except for things like the weather, traffic and plane crashes the news we see is largely an exercise in corporate or political PR. Even a lot of sports stories are via PR people. I bring this up with people on occasion and its amazing how few people realise it. They know something has happened but not what and it was only by chance I heard this about the PR people. One of the few channels I know on YT that does proper journalism is Paul jay's channel "the Analysisnews" and he has interviewed Robert McChesney about the state of journalism and how its become a PR conduit.
    4
  1697. 4
  1698. 4
  1699. 4
  1700. 4
  1701. 4
  1702. 4
  1703. 4
  1704. 4
  1705. 4
  1706. 4
  1707. 4
  1708. 4
  1709. 4
  1710. 4
  1711. 4
  1712. 4
  1713. 4
  1714. Yes and No, listen to the comments by Dr. Wen about there were many things all happening at once. Add that to Dr. Birx comment about NOT learning from the first surge and you have America's real problem - a population that's to arrogant to listen. I'm Australian and we are getting to watch most of this from the outside. The one American I have seen publicly be consistent is Dr. Michal Osterholm the director of CIDRAP and he was sort of cut out after he did that 90minute piece with Joe Rogan and answered almost ever question that could be asked at that time. The other thing I see that nobody seems to mention is that certain countries got very lucky. Here in OZ lots of people are bragging about how we did things better and its bullshit - we got lucky. I went to college in America (U. Illinois) so I know what Americans are doing in February each year - going to indoor sports like high school, college and pro-basketball AND those were the perfect spreading events. Europe had things like soccer and the stadiums might be outdoor but the buses and trains they use to get to and from those stadiums are also perfect for spreading COVID. In Australia it was summer and we were all outdoors. Plus it arrived in the small gap between our summer sport season and winter sport season and we cancelled the major crowd events JUST IN TIME. I hate those Australians who wont acknowledge how lucky we got. So if you add up all the little things that were going on, Australia got lucky while others got unlucky. The real failure in America AND in parts of Europe are those screaming to rush back to normal and those howling about wearing masks. The dumbest thing any of us have seen recently is the REPEAT of Spring Break. Look at what we now know with how this thing spreads in crowded places. How stupid can you be to take a couple of million college kids from all over pack them into crowded venues for 7 days straight and then scatter them across the country. ITS CALLED STUPIDITY AND SELFISHNESS, and that's just one example of it. I hope I am wrong but I fear that America could be about to get another surge and if its B117 it could be the worst yet. To be fair we have some pretty bad examples down here that are almost as bad, almost as stupid and almost as selfish. So far we've managed to shut them up.
    4
  1715. 4
  1716. 4
  1717. 4
  1718. 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
  1719. 4
  1720. 4
  1721. 4
  1722. 4
  1723. 4
  1724. 4
  1725. 4
  1726. 4
  1727. 4
  1728. 4
  1729. 4
  1730. 4
  1731. 4
  1732. 4
  1733. 4
  1734. 4
  1735. 4
  1736. 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
  1737. 4
  1738. 4
  1739. 4
  1740. 4
  1741. 4
  1742. 4
  1743. 4
  1744. 4
  1745. 4
  1746. 4
  1747. 4
  1748. I'm Australian and what's so odd about your story is that its sounds so similar to stories I have heard here that every reference to "America" you could swap "Australia" and every reference to "US" swap in "Oz" and nobody would notice. Even your reference to $10K wouldn't be noticed, because that's about the same number we hear. Its even a similar to the $10K we hear that it costs to smuggle people into Australia from Asia. Other than some of those things these also a lot of very common issues and very common talking points with the entire legal & illegal immigrations issue facing Western Countries. 1) BOTH SIDES of politics use these issues to gain points in the public narrative. BOTH SIDES of politics are riddled with ruthlessly cynical bad faith actors whose only motivation is polling points. Human misery is just another stick to beat their drum with. 2) Those who have immigrated via the legal channels resent those who just arrive. They have spent huge amounts of effort, time and money doing things right and they see everyone else as cheats AND THEY HAVE A POINT. That group at around 18 minutes all said EXACTLY the same things I have heard Greek Australians, Italian Australians, Vietnamese Australians and every other flavor of Australian say to a TV camera. 3) Those who are advocates for refugees have a the similar set of common talking points. The reporter who said back to that group "the law is we have to hear and provide for everyone who seeks asylum." Just like the comments from the people she was talking to her response was EXACTLY what I hear everywhere else. 4) What I almost never hear is the actual size and scope of the problem, probably because its scary. Back int he 90s I heard people say there were 20 million refugees in the world and maybe 40million and people went nuts on BOTH SIDES. These days I hear numbers of 60-80 million and nobody bats an eye. This is maybe the biggest problem and the hardest point. How does anyone deal with that many displaced people? In so many ways the endless tropes and rants of BOTH SIDES has exhausted the rest of us. We all have enough issues without any of this. Even without COVID there's still the energy bills and other costs of living that fell out of control. Most of us just don't have time to care.
    4
  1749. 4
  1750. 4
  1751. Very interesting comment. I'm an Australian engineer and I have worked with numerous German companies and their engineering people over the the last 30+ years. I've always seen the Germans as very pragmatic with technology yet that seems to have changed dramatically. I think what your suffering is from people so ideologically driven they will ignore common sense and reality. Both the Left and Right can doit easily. We see the American Right doing it now. A few years ago I heard how the Germans spent €1.3 Trillion on renewables to REDUCE emissions. The Greens then forced the closure of the nuclear power instead of the coal power. Instead of emissions going down they went up. Its insane for a Green party to chose higher emissions over reducing emissions and its a lot of emissions. Most of the worlds coal fired power stations are not only old they are also inefficient which means they pump out a lot more CO2 than newer technology. So the German Greens are either so ideologically driven they're blind to reality or they've been infiltrated. In Australia we've just started passing new environmental that might prevent every project unless they do not damage the environment. The problem is almost every human activity damages the environment in some way. Food production, cotton production, every metal we use including recycling does some sort of damage. The materials we make wind turbines and solar panels out of do some sort of damage. Almost everything we do, does some sort of environmental damage. I love that the Greens want to save the planet. I really do, but unless they are going to behave sensibly they have to start being practical. We need to turn the coal fired power stations off. We need to delay forcing electric cars until the infrastructure exists. We can save extraordinary amounts of energy with building efficiency like triple glazing all the office towers.
    4
  1752. 4
  1753. 4
  1754. 4
  1755. 4
  1756. 4
  1757. 4
  1758. 4
  1759. 4
  1760. 4
  1761. 4
  1762. 4
  1763. 4
  1764. 4
  1765. 4
  1766. 4
  1767. As an Australian who's just watched Sagaar Enjeti completely botch this story and Kyle make a bad mistake (at one point) THANK YOU for getting the distinction right Kyle makes a pretty bad mistake at 6:15 when he says Sky News doesn't have the connections. They are part of the Murdoch Empire and they certainly have the connections. For anyone interested I go over all the things Sagaar got wrong on that page in the top (pinned) comment. What he and Sagaar both screwed up is that Alan Jones was forced by Sky Management to correct himself on air. That's the first time I have ever seen Alan jones apologize for anything. For the Americans Alan Jones is our equivalent of Sean Hannity and he NEVER APOLOGIZES. The other thing they both missed was that one of the others banned by both Twitter and YouTube is a sitting member of our Parliament Craig Kelly. He's the equivalent of a Congressman in the House. He's a far far far right winger who has been in trouble several times over recent years for climate change denial and other conspiracies. He'd be right at home as Australia's US Ambassador if Trump wins in 2024. For anyone else watching we have a program called Media Watch. Its on Australian ABC our equivalent of PBS so don't be confused by the ABC it has nothing to do with the American ABC. Here's their report on this starting at 3:21 -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnPgDf8RFR0 This is the original story presented 2 weeks ago starting at 3:29 -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df1Fnw2M6f4
    4
  1768. 4
  1769. 4
  1770. 4
  1771. 4
  1772. 4
  1773. 4
  1774. 4
  1775. 4
  1776. 4
  1777. 4
  1778. 4
  1779. 4
  1780. 4
  1781. 4
  1782. 4
  1783. 4
  1784. 4
  1785. 4
  1786. 4
  1787. ​ @pipz420  I'm Australian but went to college in America. So I know American politics and issues reasonably well. PLUS since America is our most important trading and security partner there's a real interest in having America FUNCTION properly which it simply isn't. You are 100% right on medical costs and student debt. We've managed to control out medical costs but are blowing the student debt issue almost as bad if not worse than America. But those a longer stories to explain. You are 100% right on foreign policy America needs to stop funding wars. It also needs to stop funding psychotic maniacs because its convenient. That's also a long story. You are 100% right the Military Industrial Complex needs to be reigned in and this is a major issue in Australia because we are drinking the Pentagon Kool Aid by the bucket right now. AUKUS is just 1 part of a much larger issue both our countries face. FYI - I'm an aerospace engineer (U. of Illinois) and the problem isn't the stuff our governments buy whether its military hardware, infrastructure or other stuff ITS THE COST. As a profession engineering has been hijacked by a collection of economists and lawyers and charlatans who have become incredibly adept as rorting projects in both the Government and Private Sectors. That's a really long discussion and I hope to be on an economics podcast shortly to explain it. So you are right on the problems BUT Sadly I don't think RFK is going to be able to solve any of them. He's already tied himself to big tech with his VP candidate and Big Tech is as much of a problem as anything else on the planet. But then Biden and Trump can't do the job either. America needs a generational change away from where it is AND SO YOU KNOW so does Australia and many other countries.
    4
  1788. 4
  1789. 4
  1790. 4
  1791. 4
  1792. 4
  1793. 4
  1794. 4
  1795. 4
  1796. As an aerospace engineer I can tell you quite simply the problem isn't IF or WHEN the problems are how we keep people alive up there and we get people to & from the moon reliably. These are 2 problems that have been well understood for decades. I have a classmate who is now quite high up at NASA in the ISS management program. Basically she is has one of a couple of signatures that without your stuff doesn't go to the ISS. About 20 years we were arguing over the ISS and slow it was progressing and what that meant to go back to the moon and then possibly beyond. She was very blunt about 2 subjects. Until we solved the issue of life support and the issue of propulsion NOBODY was going beyond low earth orbit. If you go through the math a 1/4 pounder is about $10k to get to the ISS. You need to multiply that by 100 to get it onto the moon. We all take for granted that the Earth cleans our air cleans, our water, deals with our sh*t and provides us with food. We need to able to replicate those basic functions which when you get into them are damn complex. This is what Elon Musk and his fanbots wont listen to when it comes to the Moon or Mars. This what so many of the other fan based programmes wont listen to. Then on propulsion, so long as we are limited to chemical rockets for orbital transfers then mass is a problem. There's a reason why Buzz Aldrin's LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) was the mission profile that won out. Its optimises the mass transfers and reduces the fuel required. Go watch Don Petits the "Tyranny of the Rocket Equation" TEDx talk to get your head around that. If you break it down as Buzz did the requirements of the vehicle needed to land on the moon is radically different from the requirements to go to and from the moon. Its better to have separate vehicles for those tasks. Its why Elon's Lunar Starship is actually a bad joke he's pulled from B-grade 1950s sci-fi. The reason why Apollo worked was because they stuck to the functional tasks required. Remember the task was "put a man on the moon then get him back safely." It wasn't, lets do a parade and tell everyone how big our rocket is or anything else. They made small improvements each mission without causing issues. That final Saturn V was actually smaller than the 8, 10 & 12 engine behemoths that other mission profiles like EOR (Earth Orbit Rendezvous) called for.
    4
  1797. 4
  1798. 4
  1799. 4
  1800. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). I did engineering but a bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law and they used to drag my ass into all sorts of hypothetical arguments. I think they did that at times because I had different background and views on things. So I got an interesting education in the US Constitution. After coming back to Oz I met many Americans and we always had interesting conversations about some of these things. All these years later I am convinced of 3 things. 1: The US Constitution is the best Constitution that any Nation in history ever constructed. Australia, like Canada, New Zealand and a few others inherited a lot from Britain including many obscure things which do cause us problems. The Founding fathers dumped a lot of stupid stuff and that allowed America its extraordinary growth. What America's done in a little over 200 years is extraordinary. America helped take humanity into the sky, then into space and then to the moon. 2: The Greatest threat the US Nation (its people and constitution) isn't Russia, China communism, socialism or any other ism or nation. Its Americans who are bent of getting what they want irrespective of any damage or consequences it does to America. Every country has those sorts of people but with the US constitution American citizens have very few restraints on what they can do. When it works well America booms like it has with the computer age, but when those people are damaging then there's almost nothing to contain that damage. These militias and the NRA being are just 1 example and that has effects outside America. America's corporations are another example and America's agencies like the CIA are another thing entirely. 3: A healthy functioning America is in the best interests of the entire Western Democratic World. Whether anyone wants to consider the economics, trade, political freedom and a host of other things America has is huge influence. Lets not forget that the worlds other 2 major powers Russia and China are both run by absolute dictators with almost no restraint to what they will do to any opposition. Putin has had people he didn't like assassinated, sometimes when they are in other countries. Xi Jinping has started a genocidal program of an entire culture that doesn't fit with his view of the world. Chinese advocates are publicly stating on social media *like YouTube) how they will crush the America and the Western World. Right now I'd encourage every America to consider 2 words "healthy" and "functioning." Is it "healthy" to have a mother give her 17year old a gun (any gun) and let him lose on the street? Is it "functioning" for a justice system to have a judge to refuse a legal advocate to state the case that 2 dead people are victims of a crime. I'd ask that of any of my frat brothers who are lawyers. How is it that even possible. The basic function of all justice systems is to allow parties (or their advocates) to state their case and have it judged. What do you call it when a judge allows one side to call the other side whatever it likes as he restricts what words the other side can use? I truly hope America can find some political leadership that has the backbone to sort this mess out. Because I absolutely believe that a "healthy functioning" America is in everyone's best interest.
    4
  1801. 4
  1802. 4
  1803. 4
  1804. 4
  1805. 4
  1806. 4
  1807. 4
  1808. 4
  1809. 4
  1810. 4
  1811. 4
  1812.  @drewking250  If you really want to freak out then work out how many nuclear detonations it takes to heat the planet up just 1 degree. FYI - I did aerospace engineering and we once had a NASA guy do a special lecture on planetary sciences. He'd done a research project where they tried to work out what it would take to make Mars habitable. Their conclusion was "its effectively impossible" planets simply don't take being forcibly changed. That was 30 years ago so I did an upgrade a while back regarding what we have now effectively managed to do. The surface area of the Earth is just over 510,000,000 km^2 and if you take just the first 1km of the earths atmosphere you pretty much have 1/2 a billion cubic kilometers of air. Its pretty straight forward to calculate how much energy it takes to heat that from say 20 to 21 deg. C and yeah its a big number with lots of zeros. Its just as easy to divide that number by the published energy release from something like the Hiroshima bomb. So its pretty easy to estimate how many Hiroshimas you need to let off to heat the planet up by a degree. Its a very scary number and makes no sense until you realise that up in the sky is a mega huge nuclear fusion reactor beaming energy at us and all you need to do is trap a bit extra for a century to start making some very serious changes. This is why Venus although only being just a little bit closer (in astronomical terms) is also massively hotter. Heads up if you do that calculation don't go trying to explain the number to average people. They can't comprehend the answer let alone understand what it means. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    4
  1813. 4
  1814. 4
  1815. 4
  1816. 4
  1817. 4
  1818. 4
  1819. 4
  1820. 4
  1821. 4
  1822. 4
  1823. 4
  1824. 4
  1825. ​ @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
  1826. 4
  1827. 4
  1828. Clearly a lot of people here have NEVER worked in the mining industry or have NO IDEA about manufacturing, but then most of these idiots spouting nonsense have NO IDEA because they have never been involved in manufacturing or been involved in mining and I'VE DONE BOTH. I used to work in the Australian automotive sector before it shut down and have since worked in the Australian mining sector in control systems and automation. 1: There's a giant difference between finding a deposit, getting it properly assessed and then being able to mine it. Circa 2006 I worked on the construction of the Ravensthorpe Nickel project. BHP spent $3.5 Billion on the project. It was laterite nickel which is a bitch to process, but it was justified by the quality of the deposit and the value of Nickel. BHP did NOT complete a full drilling test pattern and the deposit was found to be NOWHERE near as good as the PR claimed. The mine was closed after about 18months and sold for less than 1/7th ($500 Million) its. The Lesson: Don't believe the PR hype even when its from a major player. 2: You absolutely do need Nickel for batteries, just as you need copper for the electrical cabling in an EV just as you need all the other metals, glass and plastics. Go and look at your car and see how much stuff is actually in one. If you have ever been in the plants where they make all those bits that go into a car you'll quickly understand that it takes a whole range of raw materials and lots of energy to make the bits that make a car and all of that uses lots of energy. The quickest way we can reduce emissions is to reduce how much energy we consume as a society. THE AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING SECTOR is one of the largest energy consumers because it not only uses a lot of energy making the cars it uses a lot of energy getting the raw materials out of the ground and processing that into the raw feed stock to make the parts the cars are made from. The best thing we can do is NOT replace old cars with new cars but replace the drive systems in old cars with EV and Hybrid systems. It will save huge amounts of energy and resources while keeping millions of people employed. BUILDING EFFICIENCY: The other great (and inefficient) user of energy are BIG BUILDINGS. Mark Blyth the political economist from Brown U. pointed out this a couple of years ago. Some engineer worked out that just triple glazing all of America's buildings would employ 1000's and 1000's of people for well over a decade and reduce America's emissions so much that meeting the Paris goals is easy because you can then turn off a bunch of dirty old coal fired power stations. All those big giant glass boxes are designed by architects to look pretty NOT by engineers to be efficient. Not only would it creat employment but raise the asset values of all those buildings as well as reduce the power costs all the tenants have making them more profitable. I'd like to hear an economist claim that's not a good idea.
    4
  1829. 4
  1830. 4
  1831. I'll give you an example of a valid point that then missed the target. Konstantin pointed out the poor people of Asia and South America. Forgetting that he also ignored the poor of Africa he argued Britain has no influence. That is complete and utter BULLSHlT and is the same crappy argument that's used here in Australia by the pro-coal lobby. I just saw (only yesterday) a very good documentary on the world wide tax evasion industry (see below). Its almost 90minutes long but totally worth the time. Part of it covers the City of London and why its such a massive part of the tax evasion industry. There's a really insidious part to the tax evasion industry that deprives poor countries of tax income they could use to develop. I can understand why Konstantin might not know this stuff because I didn't until yesterday. I knew that London is called the "London Laundromat" because of what it does, but I didn't know some of this stuff. Way back in 1066 when William the Conqueror invaded he DID NOT capture London, but negotiated a treaty that is still in place today almost 900 years later. The actual City of London is 1 square mile marked by the old city walls as they were in 1066. The treaty was that London would surrender to William the Conqueror BUT it would get to decide how it traded with the rest of the world. When computerised off shore banking came along they used that treaty in a very unusual way. A real human trader sitting at a desk in London could be making trades but the actual trade is regarded as happening on a computer somewhere else. They gave an example of bananas from Guatemala. A trader in London buys banana's in Guatemala for very low prices from the local peasants using a company registered in the Cayman's. That company then sells the bananas in America or Europe marked up like 100 times the price (sort of thing). There is no one doing any work in the Cayman's there's just a computer there being remotely accessed. The farmer is in Guatemala, the trader is in London and the customer is in New York, Paris,.... etc. The trader pays no tax on his work because its regarded as being done in the Cayman's. The company he works for pays no tax because their profit is regarded as being made in the Cayman's. The farmer is getting ripped off, the Guatemalan Government gets no tax income, the British people get no tax income and its because of a 900 year old treaty with obscure conditions written in very old English. So when Konstantin says Britain has no influence its garbage on so many levels its hard to consider if he's ignorant, stupid or deliberately obtuse. These countries are poor because countries like Britain are keeping them poor. This is the link to the documentary on Tax Evasion -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt6O3US9IE4
    4
  1832. 4
  1833. 4
  1834. 4
  1835. 4
  1836. 4
  1837. 4
  1838. 4
  1839. 4
  1840. 4
  1841. 4
  1842. 4
  1843. I'm Australian but went to college in America on a sports scholarship (late 80s). I did engineering but a bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law and they used to drag me into all sorts of discussions. Because I had studied Orwell (both Animal farm and 1984) I used to raise the idea that if you didn't watch out ANY CONTRY could descend into a totalitarian dictatorship. That was one of Orwell's main warnings. People forget that both Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected. People forget that the early Russian Communist Party practiced democracy and held elections for their officers. It was only later that Stalin got rid of that after they democratically dumped him. Those frat brothers of mine used to explain (in detail) how that was totally impossible in America because of the US Constitution. There main points were Americans were too well educated and too well informed. Their main argument was the 1st Amendment guaranteed a free press would tell everyone what they needed to know and prevent any dictator from emerging. In my time at college a guy named Gary Hart got dumped after an affair was revealed. Trump was known to have cheated on all 3 wives. We all heard on tape how he treated women and we all know he partied with Jeffery Epstein. My frat brothers assured me the free press would keep the America government in check by keeping the American people informed. I don't think anyone ever considered that such a large part of any modern population could just ignore reality, ignore their own values and ignore their own morals and ethics. When I look over my shoulder I see the same patterns emerging here in Australia. Large slabs of our population just don't care about facts. We even have our own version of Trump a total ratbag named Clive Palmer and he's using the exact same campaign strategy. I don't like the fact that several million Australians are denying reality every day just like Trumpists, but it is a fact. More than anything else the collective future of the Western World depends on TRUTH and FACTS even when those truths and facts aren't what we want to hear.
    4
  1844. 4
  1845. 4
  1846. 4
  1847. 4
  1848. 4
  1849. 4
  1850. 4
  1851. 4
  1852. 4
  1853. 4
  1854. 4
  1855. 4
  1856. 4
  1857. 4
  1858. 4
  1859. 4
  1860. 4
  1861. 4
  1862. 4
  1863. 4
  1864. 4
  1865. 4
  1866. 4
  1867. 4
  1868. 4
  1869.  @nagualdesign  I'm an engineer and pretty much everyone in this thread is right. Sabine skips past a number of other technologies on both the pro and con sides. I've never thought Hydrogen was a solution for cars, but that does NOT mean its not the solution in other areas some of which she doesn't discuss. Sorry for the longish reply. I did my degree in aerospace but have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation. I'm also formally trained in electrical equipment in hazardous (explosive) areas. Hydrogen is the most difficult gas to deal with around electrical gear because it ignites so easily. My #1 concern is how do you prevent hydrogen cars, busses & trucks doing a Hindenburg? BUT that doesn't mean its unsuitable viable in other areas. That's where this video is a little frustrating. Maybe she'll do more vids??? I checked Sabines bio on Wikipedia. She's did undergrad in Math and a PhD in theoretical physics. It appears she's never worked outside of the University & Research environment. She's very good on the theory behind the issues but she has no real experience with problem solving in industrial environments. The issue of the efficiency of bulk energy supply is almost irrelevant compared to reliability of supply and the cost to consumers. Rio Tinto did a public campaign about how their new hi-efficiency coal plants had brought them up to about 42%. Most coal is under 30% and older units as low as 20%. Kirk Sorenson (Thorium proponent) points out that the Pressure Water Reactors (PWRs) are under 1%. But those systems are VIABLE because they can reliably supply bulk energy at an affordable price. The area where I think hydrogen is going to be huge is in grid level power and grid level power is the enraged mega elephant in the room that everyone is afraid will stomp on them if they make a noise. For decades now methane fueled turbines have been used for GRID STABILITY and SURGE CAPACITY. Batteries are very good and efficient but lousy for sustained surges. Gas turbines are not only very good and reliable but they can also have steam units powered by the exhaust heat. That's called cogeneration and there are companies that quote 90% efficiency for cogen systems. You can't just feed hydrogen to a standard gas turbine, but in the 1990s Rolls Royce, GE and others worked out how to make gas turbines (for aircraft) run on hydrogen. The technology is already done, it just wasn't going to happen for aircraft because of the tank issues. So the technology is all sorted out. It just never had end users or the hydrogen supply.
    4
  1870. 4
  1871. 4
  1872. 4
  1873. 4
  1874. 4
  1875. 4
  1876. 4
  1877. 4
  1878. 4
  1879. 4
  1880. 4
  1881. 4
  1882. 4
  1883. 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
  1884. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I like your vids they are pretty informative but there is a huge mistake in this and its being repeated EVERYWHERE. Hypersonic missiles DO NOT zig zag anything like what you have shown here and others also keep showing similar. Simply put at those speeds nothing can manoeuvre like that. First off the control surfaces just aren't large enough and second if you tired it would simply rip the missile apart because of the lateral G-forces. Regarding Hypersonics there's a lot of hype and this one of the main hype subjects. The main reason people want these missiles to go that fast is to give any defensive system less time to react. You might not be old enough to remember the Falklands war but the British ships had the SeaDart and Seacat missiles which could hit artillery shells out of the sky. I remember the Brits showing footage of these systems as their fleet sailed South. It didn't stop them losing 2 Frigates and 2 Destroyers because they just could not lock onto the sea skimming Exocets. The Russians found out similar last year when despite the CIWS systems on the Moskva failed to shoot down the Neptune missiles the Ukrainians fired. The manoeuvring issue for hypersonic missiles was demonstrated recently when Kinzhals were intercepted by Patriot missile systems. Although details are sketchy my bet would be the patriots burst ahead of the Kinzhals and the Kinzhals just ripped themselves apart when they hit the flack cloud. Go look up the Rheinmetall Oerlikon Millennium Gun using AHEAD ammunition does. This all comes back to one thing. If you can detect an incoming missile or artillery shell EARLY ENOUGH you can respond otherwise it doesn't matter how fast its going. Also when you go and look at the X-43 Hyper-X and X-51 Waverider programs they cost more like $75 and $85 million per launch but they were experimental/development programs. I think you'll find that hypersonics will be more hype than hypersonic for some time to come. If you want to discuss the inherent issue with SCRAMJETS and why despite decades of research they still aren't in common use then let me know.
    4
  1885. 4
  1886. 4
  1887. 4
  1888. 4
  1889. 4
  1890. AUSTRALIAN HERE - Calling Australia America's Deputy is not quite accurate. The correct term that the rest of the Asians use is "America's Little Bitch!" We just call ourselves the 51st State but apparently that upsets the Puerto Ricans. Here's a couple of points that Peter doesn't mention with respect to the region and the countries he talks about. 1) There are 2 CRITICAL American bases in Australia that few people talk about. There's Wikipedia pages for both. - There's the Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt at Northwest Cape and its used to talk to the US Submarines operating in the Indian Ocean so for all that stuff going on in the Red Sea with Iran and Houthis all of the comms to the submarines in the area is done via this station. - There's Pine Gap in Central Australia that is the primary ground station for American Satellites watching Russia, the Middle East, Pakistan, India, China and most of Asia. Its what I'd call a "Zero Strike" target rather than a First Strike target because BEFORE tries a first strike this place needs to be dealt with because other wise America will see your first strike coming. 2) Besides 4 small Aircraft carriers the Japanese have 6 large destroyers (over 9,000t) and 29 smaller destroyers (5,000-7,000t). The 6 larger destroyers are similar size to the American Arleigh Burke-class destroyers Of the 6 larger destroyers the 2 Maya-class (Maya & Haguro) carry the AMERICAN MADE SM-3 anti-ballistic missile. The SM-3 is a major upgrade to the RIM-161 family of surface to air missiles. The main difference is the SM-3 is an anti-ballistic missile capable of intercepting missiles at greater than 100km of altitude. They have much greater range and their speeds are greater than Mach 8 with the latest Block IIA capable of Mach 13.2. For perspective the SR-71 went Mach 3.3 and Hypersonic is regarded as greater than Mach 5. Both Maya and Haguro have successfully hit targets at over 100km altitude during their commissioning. All those details are on Wikipedia. 3) BOTH Japan and Korea import large amounts of food and raw materials from Australia. Most of the food comes out of Australia's East Coast as does the coking coal for steel production. HOWEVER all of the iron ore comes out of Australia's West coast along with significant amounts of other raw materials and goes via the South China Sea. Go and have a look at WHERE China has been setting up bases in the South China Sea. The Spratly Islands are a long way from China and China has NO history of being on the Spratly's like they do with the Paracel Islands. So WHY ARE THEY THERE? Peter has often spoken about the 7 gaps the Russians want to control for their security. Look at map of where the Spratly Islands are they are not just a long way down near the Southern edge of the South China Sea but they are at a narrow point between the Philippines and Vietnam. So these bases are in a strategic position where multiple countries could interfere with trade. Basically if you want to put a toll gate on the entrance to the South China sea the Spratly Islands are the location to do it. This is one of the main reasons Australia wants (or needs) nuclear powered submarines. The South China Sea is where a lot of our critical Exports go. Its a long way from our main naval bases and nuclear powered submarines are significantly faster than conventional powered subs and don't need to surface every day or 2.
    4
  1891. 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
  1892. 4
  1893. 4
  1894. 4
  1895. 4
  1896. 4
  1897. 4
  1898. 4
  1899.  @aaronburtram3175  I'm actually in the "it wasn't nefarious" camp. And I agree the monetary amounts are irrelevant. But I am also trying to be realistic about the socio-political environment that's just insanely toxic right now. As I have said repeatedly: If you take into consideration the SARS1 & MERS outbreaks its makes perfect sense for the Chinese to be doing the research and for other nations to be involved so they can look at "what's next." Have a look at that research paper and the funding. WHO listed right after the NIH? For all the people who have thrown crap around NONE have mentioned this -> "the USAID Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) PREDICT program to PD and ZLS" I spotted that the first time I saw this paper (the link for which came from somebody else). Its right there in the section for funding - https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 I think Dr. Fauci has done an incredible job under the worst of toxic socio-politics, BUT HE HASN'T explained a few things well. I don't hold that against him as so many think I do, but we all need to accept he HASN'T told us all he knows. Its also possible he hasn't been told all that he needs know by other people like the Chinese and/or Peter Daszak. I actually empathize with that. As an Engineer who works on projects I have learned to NOT INFORM people at times because I know how certain people are just ready to pounce on anything they can. Try working on a major multidisciplinary project like a mine site (which I've done). You get the different engineering groups setting each other up all the farking time. Its utterly disgusting, totally unprofessional and you can guarantee it will happen on every project. BUT at certain moments you have to tell what you know AND YES it never fails to start a shit fight.
    4
  1900. 4
  1901. I'm an aerospace engineer who's spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation. Over that time I gained formal qualifications in safety engineering including the second highest any engineer can get for what we call Functional Safety. I can tell you for a fact those qualifications have NEVER GOT ME WORK (contract or permanent). Pointing out that I was qualified got me into trouble on numerous occasions and even licked off projects or off site. The simple fact is that when you are QUALIFIED in safety engineering you do get sacked and there is no support or mercy coming from anywhere. This is how this stuff happens and things like the Boeing Max-8. In Australia where I am there are a couple of rare areas where formal qualifications are required by law. Most notably in structural engineering. I actually went to the Institute of Engineers in Australia to try and get them to lobby for rules requiring QUALIFIED people to approve of high risk installations. They and the other professional organisations were simply NOT INTERESTED. We have never needed more engineers across the developed world. Due to the neoliberal economics massive amounts of infrastructure everywhere is either so old it needs replacing or its so badly maintained by cost cutting it needs replacing AND YET I can't think of a worse profession to be in right now. Engineering degrees are NOT Easy there's a lot of math because engineering is fundamentally a profession of applied math. Structures, thermodynamics, aerodynamics,... is all applied math. WORSE our careers and job paths are dominated by Human Resource clowns. I have ACTUALLY DEALT with so called professional recruiters who could not tell the difference between an electrician and an electrical engineer or a mechanic and a mechanical engineer or a chemist and a chemical engineer. I have heard things from from other professions but can't really comment, but I can assure the entire Human Resources industry has been a disaster for STEM fields.
    4
  1902. 4
  1903. 4
  1904. 4
  1905. 4
  1906. 4
  1907. 4
  1908. 4
  1909. 4
  1910. 4
  1911. 4
  1912. 4
  1913. 4
  1914. 4
  1915. 4
  1916. 4
  1917. 4
  1918. @UCOaDHPHrsXLZCBjlzeLU74Q I'm not American, I'm Australian but went to college in America. So I know the Americans quite well. I know their attitudes towards taking things. I wasn't being pro-American I was replying to the sarcasm of your notion that Bruce could mine an asteroid. Just so you know for future reference. There's actually 2 versions of American politics. Its not surprising most people don't understand that because they are both what the rest of the world identifies as right wing. They are just slightly different versions of right wing. A bit like Apple OS and Android are both smart phone systems - same, same but different. On one side are the Realists and the other the Liberals. The Realists are mostly Republicans and in their view humans are greedy and selfish so they justify everything they take, like they did in Iraq, because that's human nature. They don't care who's in charge so long as they can do what they want and take what they want. These are the goons who went into places and overthrew or helped overthrow democratically elected governments and installed dictatorships. The Liberals are the same in many ways but instead of narcissism they have the "we are superior culture" line and its hardwired into their brains that they have to make the whole world American. Its a hangover from when the British wanted to make the whole world British. These are the people who often turn up after the Realists have hammered a nation and try and install an American style democracy. Either way if the American Realists or American Liberals start interfering in your nation its a mess AND YES they have done heaps to Australia. Don't misread that either. I love America and their people because they do some amazing stuff but there stinking foul politics is something they should burn.
    4
  1919. 4
  1920. 4
  1921. 4
  1922. 4
  1923. I'm Australian and before that shit he pulled at the UN he had a decent reputation from the first gulf war. Maybe not perfect, but Gulf War 1 was over and done in a month and then everyone was out. Instead of it becoming Vietnam 2.0 the US and its allies were out. Saddam had is ass kicked, Kuwait was back in the hands of Kuwait and no one was bogged down in some endless disaster. So by about 2003 EVERYBODY WANTED TO KNOW how Gulf War 2 had become the disaster it was. Everyone wanted to know how the same people who did Gulf War 1 screwed up so badly with Gulf War 2. America's own PBS delivered and in 2004 gave the world the documentary "Rumsfeld's War." I first saw it in Australia in either 2005 or 2006 when it was televised on free to air by SBS Australian one of our 2 public broadcasters. Here it is on YT -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPEWIDBrKyM So yeah a lot of people KNOW and have KNOWN for around 16 years, (I have known for at least 14years) that: - Powell LIED to the UN and knew he was lying. - Powell told Bush in a private dinner NOT to go into Iraq and that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were wrong. - Powell, Shinseki and others were shut out of the planning by Wolfowitz on Rumsfeld's direction. Before any of you tell me (an Australian) to F--K off let me tell you something. The Australian Prime Minister at the time John Howard is/was a lawyer, which means he knew the basics of International Law and that its a crime to invade a country that has NOT committed an act or acts of war against you or your allies. The invasion of Afghanistan was legal as the Taliban Government by supporting Osama Bin Laden had attacked Australia's ally on 9/11. But Iraq was NOT legal and our PM knew it wasn't legal and we helped destroy that country and and played our part in the deaths over over 100,000 innocent civilians including the 14 killed at Nisour Square by the Blackwater 4 that Trump just pardoned. So before we all go condemning Colin Powell for his part in the Iraq clusterf--k, just know that a lot of other people were involved and very few have ever been held accountable.
    4
  1924. 4
  1925. 4
  1926. 4
  1927. 4
  1928. 4
  1929.  @torontoenvironment9899  You've just given an example of one of the major problems in the world right now. We have so many commentators across all forms of media confusing the crap out of everyone. On e of the few exceptions was back in January when David interviewed Yanis Varoufakis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu0lNnXAiL0 He said somethings that really stuck with me. One was that social democracy worked when capitalism worked and capitalism stopped working in 2008. I went back and watched it again before finishing this comment and I urge everyone to go back an listen to it again. Yeah government run fire services are a form of socialism. My parents were high school teachers and they explained this to me decades ago. Its one of those things most people just don't understand because they are never taught it. Socialism and capitalism are NOT types of government they are types of economy. Democracies, monarchies, oligarchies, dictatorships are types of government. Socialism and capitalism are the economic models governments use to run nations. Mostly they are run side by side. Things that societies collectively pay for like roads, schools, police, fire brigade, the army,..... those are forms of socialism. Things where people (as individuals or groups) invest their capital (money & labor) to make money through selling products or providing services is capitalism. Most societies have run both in parallel its just the ratio of socialism to capitalism differs. In America its leans to capitalism and in Europe to socialism. Its like a tree in the wind. The wind blows one way and the tree leans that way but if the wind blows to hard the trees breaks. Worse if you don't care for the tree properly it doesn't take as much wind for it to break. Look at the old Soviet block. What Yanis explained is that after 2008 capitalism has gone so far that its breaking. As yanis said its like beating a sick cow and still expecting to get milk.
    4
  1930. 4
  1931. That's absolutely right. I'm an engineer and without any doubt when you consider the technical functionality the nuclear power option should have always been on the table. Over 10 years ago when the subs were first being mentioned I happened to be working with an American electrician who had been in the US Navy as a nuclear power plant operator on aircraft carriers. He explained a few things. We have wide open deep water territory which is where nuclear subs are simply work better. The only places where diesel electric subs (which are typically smaller) have any advantage is in Littoral waters (close to shore) where its noisy and their size makes them viable. If you actually have a look at the original French deal it was never really viable and made no sense in 2 key areas. Quick note the French Sub offered from DCNS is the Shortfin Barracuda which is the non-nuclear powered version of the Barracuda which the French Navy has. FIRST - The Collins class has basic crew of 42 and the Shortfin Barracuda requires 60. We have only been able to bring a 4th out of 6 Collins into active service because the RAN took a Frigate out of service. The real issue (that's not EVER been discussed) was how did the RAN intend to crew these 12 submarines when they can barely crew 4 now. This is going to be an ever bigger issue with the Brits and Yanks because despite the fact the British Astute and American Virginia class subs being of similar size and purpose to the Barracuda they both have bigger crews (Astute 98, Virginia 135) making them even less viable. SECOND - The actual cost per sub. The French Navy paid just over $2 Billion AUD for their nuclear powered Barracudas and yet DCNS was asking Australia to pay $7.5Billion AUD for each of the non-nuclear powered Shortfin Barracudas. Imagine walking into a car dealer who offers a Renault or Peugeot for $75,000 when YOU KNOW he's selling the same car with the upgraded engine to others for $20,000. Any reasonable person tells the salesman to "** off" and walks out the door. On the diplomatic side - we should have asked DCNS for the price on nuclear powered Barracudas and if they had said anything over $2.5Billion each ($30 Billion all up) we walk. There's no secret to what these subs cost its all available on public platforms like Wikipedia. What has to happen without any doubt is that we (the Australian people) are presented with a plan on how we will train and crew these subs and MOST importantly deal with them at the end of life. Whether its 8 or 12 or some other number in 40 years time we will have a bunch of decommissioned nuclear reactors to deal with. BEFORE WE START THIS we need to know what we are going to do with those reactors.
    4
  1932. 4
  1933. 4
  1934. 4
  1935. 4
  1936. 4
  1937. 4
  1938. FARK GUYS - I love so many of your conversations but what I can't stand is this stream of hyper-funded radical Right Wing clowns. I know you have Lefties on every so often like you did with David Pakman AND I know he acted in bad faith to you guys with a short video on his channel. I called out his bad faith on that and I got panned by some of his fans. Because the one thing I cannot stand are people who act in bad faith. Marion presents a lot of facts I agree with but I cannot stand his bad faith or the sneakiness with which he does it. For instance his claim that the energy crisis is from bad policy is 100% true BUT the claim or inference that it is totally due to Green policies is one of the worst lies being perpetrated on the planet. Yes without doubt the Greens have been very vocal on changing the source of energy to green technologies but that is only a fraction of the story. FIRST: Power stations do not last forever. They have a basic lifetime of 20-30 years which can be extended to around 50 years with rebuilds and overhauls. But no matter what is done they reach a point where they are done. So this time period where we need to build new power stations has been coming for decades. The difference in public opinion is over what type of power generation. SECOND: NOBODY has kept up with the power demands in developed nations. I'm an engineer and found out several years ago that my country (Australia) has a huge problem. We haven't built any new large bulk delivery power stations since the 1990s. We've built a few smaller power stations and some wind and solar farms but no large scale bulk delivery. I call these power stations Gigawatt class power stations because they can deliver more than 1,000 Megawatts (1 Gigawatt) of power constantly 24/7. THIRD: The Energy generation issue is 100% an economic issue. Britain is currently building one of the very few Gigawatt class power stations anywhere in the world with Hinkley Point C that has been commenced since the year 2000. Its also an economic lesson that explains the problem. Hinkley Pt. C took 7 years to approve and will take 10 years to build with a planned commissioning date of 2027. At £26 Billion pounds those 17 years are impossible to economically justify to any private corporation. Most CEOs are over 60 with many over 70 and a few very influential CEOs over 80 with a couple over 90. The same can be said for many politicians. How do you justify to people of that age to invest that much when they wont see anything for 17 years. Other large scale power generation plants might not take as long as a nuclear power station but when you're building Gigawatt class power generation NOTHING IS SIMPLE OR QUICK. As an engineer I can't begin to explain how angry people like Marion get me with the economic rationalism and other garbage. They are never the people who have to deal with building a mine or factory or power station or water treatment plant, but they tell people like me to get it done and deal with the issues THEY CREATE.
    4
  1939.  @felixisaac  There is the most terrible aspect of that. There's nothing you or I could do that will stop the next million children dying of hunger or the other million dying from a lack of basic medicine. All we can do are those things that might make the world a better place at some point in the future. I'm actually an aerospace engineer and when they did the first road map for the Australian Space Agency the very 1st item in the list was advanced space based water management with the claim it MIGHT be available in the mid 2030s. Its an area of space technology called Earth Observation Sciences. My attitude was "Why TF are we going to wait until 2035 for somebody to just gives it to us. Lets just get on with it." Australia currently has a population of 26 million but produces food for more than 75 million. If we mismanage our water (and we have a long history of doing that) then we don't produce as much food as we should and a lot of people go hungry. However - if you try and tell the Australian Government you want to spend a few hundred million so that it will help starving children in other countries it wont go far. There are these people called economists and they'll ask "What's the business case for that?" So I tried another tack. Australia's ag sector employs over 300,000 people and is worth just $200+ Billion a year. Our tourism industry employs over 550,000 people and is worth over $55+ Billion a year. So collectively we have a lot of people dependent on the management of our rivers, land, forests and ocean areas. So I pushed that as simple straight forward economic reason - protecting jobs & money. I GOT NOWHERE. Unfortunately I'd upset a few egos, which is an ever bigger issue than economics when it comes to politics.
    4
  1940. 4
  1941. 4
  1942. 4
  1943. 4
  1944. 4
  1945. 4
  1946. 4
  1947. 4
  1948. 4
  1949. 4
  1950. 4
  1951. 4
  1952. 4
  1953. 4
  1954. 4
  1955. 4
  1956. 4
  1957. 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
  1958. 4
  1959. 4
  1960. 4
  1961. 4
  1962. 4
  1963. 4
  1964. 4
  1965. 4
  1966. 4
  1967. 4
  1968. 4
  1969. 4
  1970. 4
  1971. 4
  1972. 4
  1973. 4
  1974. 4
  1975. 4
  1976. 4
  1977. 4
  1978. 4
  1979. 4
  1980. 4
  1981. 4
  1982. 4
  1983. 4
  1984. I've been trying to warn people of exactly a French or Russian Peasant style revolution for the last few years. There's a report by the Congressional Budget Office on Family Wealth 1989-2019 released September 2022. Kyle Kulinski spoke about it last week after the Jacobin's Luke Savage Published a short piece on it. What's amazing is that not only was it published in September 2022 (almost 1 year ago) NOBODY on the America Left is talking about this - including Thom. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America and I can tell you for a fact that our data is no better. I regularly watch British economist Gary Stevenson here on YT and he's saying the same sorts of things about Britain. Here's the bit that I am furious that nobody is pointing out in that report. When you compare the 2010 data to 2007 you can see the effect of the GFC and when you compare 2019 to 2007 you can see how people have recovered. Since Australia, Britain and other places all run similar economic policies its safe to say its the same or similar everywhere. Here's the comparisons adjusted for population and in terms of the wealth per person in each group. The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but buy 2019 had recovered and were 21.7% UP The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but buy 2019 had recovered and were 4.6% UP The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but buy 2019 were still DOWN 21.8% Yes 165 million Americans (and possibly more) had, by 2019, still NOT recovered from the 2008 GFC that they did not cause. Meanwhile the people who did cause the 2008 GFC and were bailed out with US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama had not only recovered but had gained over $20 Trillion in collective wealth which has since grown another (estimated) US$8 Trillion during the pandemic years.
    4
  1985. 4
  1986. 4
  1987. 4
  1988. 4
  1989. Being an Australian who was alive at that time, I remember the news broadcast of that Alan Jones test. From memory that test was at Paul Richard on the long circuit with the full length Mistral straight. It was BIG NEWS here in Oz. AJ had won the world championship was trying for a second and this car was the potential winner. BUT Jones was publicly saying these extremely stiff cars were going to be death traps. He said things to the effect that if they hit the wrong bump they would simply take off. Remember this was pre-carbon fiber and BEFORE the rules about drivers feet being behind the front axle. The almost indestructible tubs they now have were years away at this point. The tubs were basically aluminum sheet riveted and welded together. Part of the news was AJ saying that the rule changes were necessary because the cornering speeds had become too dangerous for those cars. This was before data loggers could tell the engineers what the suspension was doing. The tire compounds were real rubber from real trees not the synthetic stuff some science geek made in lab. There was actual concern being publicly voiced that our World Champion was going to be coming home in a box if their wasn't some common sense. One thing not discussed here and its related to the rule changes. As I remember was that the floating side skirts that followed the road surface were banned. The side tunnels were NOT banned but the side skirts had to be fixed and have a minimum gap to the road when STATIONARY. AJ voiced at the time that there were plans for cars to lower and seal the side skirts (or close the gap) using the normal suspension. He also said that would be just as dangerous because the cars would effectively be running with the suspension continuously bottomed. Which would be just like the car with no suspension. Great to see that footage again.
    4
  1990. 4
  1991. 4
  1992. 4
  1993. 4
  1994. 4
  1995.  @roxannehale1386  Thanks. For some reason YT threw me a recommendation to a lecture by John Mearsheimer who's a U. of Chicago professor in Realism. It was one of 3 he did on how liberalism has failed. The one YT flagged was the 2nd of the 3 and it was about how American foreign policy had lead to the mess in Ukraine. So I watched it out of order. His explanation of the current situation was flawless until he said this line about "that's why Trump is now president." It was only then I realised it was from November 2017. It was when I watched the first of the 3 lectures I realised where he was from. He's from U. Chicago the birthplace of neo-conservatism and they hate liberalism. It doesn't make what he said wrong but it explains why he can rip the US foreign policy apart. Its a real interesting insight into the basics of American political ideology which isn't a single ideology but a mixture of ideologies that overlap in some ways and viciously opposed in others. On one side are the Liberals who believe they can make the world a better place through ramming liberal democracy down everyone's throats. On the other side these Realists who just don't care because they rely on the world being exactly as it is. The Realists see the world full of selfish, lazy and gullible individuals who can be taken advantage of. Their Realist ideology is centered around this incredibly narcissistic view of the world. Liberals hope the world can be better. These people are "fark that. what can I take advantage of." Look at people like Sinema, Manchin & Cheney that's them in a nutshell. They care about nothing. They just look for things to take advantage of.
    4
  1996. 4
  1997. 4
  1998. 4
  1999. 4
  2000. 4
  2001. 4
  2002. 4
  2003. 4
  2004. 4
  2005. 4
  2006. 4
  2007. 4
  2008. 4
  2009. 4
  2010. 4
  2011. 4
  2012. 4
  2013. 4
  2014. HEY THUNDERFOOT YOU MADE A MISTAKE. I work in Industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Those 2 robots you show at 37:30 have been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. The company I left in 2001 was the (then) Kuka and Adept agent in Australia and we knew what our competitors could do. The robot on the left of your shot is a standard 6 axis anthropomorphic arm and those have been around for decades. The robot on the right is a 4-axis "Spider Robot" (just put "4-axis spider robot into google"). I know that BEFORE the year 2000 ABB had one of those available. The thing that you are NOT highlighting in that part of the video is that the spider robot is locating the items its picking off the conveyor using vision guided robotics. Notice how all those parts are randomly arranged and the spider is arranging them in organised groups so the other robot can place them on the next conveyor. There is a camera upstream of the robot looking down on the conveyor which has an encoder on it. The vision system identifies the location and orientation of each part and with the encoder on the conveyor translates that to the Spider which can then pick it up and orientate it and put it back down in the right place so the other robot can pick up the groups of 4 parts. I know how that stuff works because I had that technology demonstrated to me by an Adept Engineer when I visited their Cincinnati Office in 1998 or 99. They weren't using a Spider robot at that time. They were using a small high speed SCARA robot. So I know for a fact that technology has been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. So SORRY Thunderboy but your 15 years is wrong its at least 25. Fyi - I actually did aerospace and if you would like I'd be happy to show you how truly stupid they are being with the Artemis program. Its worse than most people realise. The closest I have seen anyone expose the real depth of the issue is Destin (another Aerospace) who has the YT channel "Smarter Every Day." For anyone interested put "smarter every day artemis" into the YT search and the top item should be titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" posted 4 Dec 2023.
    4
  2015. 4
  2016. 4
  2017. 4
  2018. 4
  2019. 4
  2020. 4
  2021. 4
  2022. 4
  2023. 4
  2024. Just as good of a question - When will the rest of American WAKE UP to the fact that these people embarrass their country time and time again? FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America. I actually love America. I love the people and love things like college sport, NASCAR and the NFL (Go Niners!) BUT FOR FÚCK SAKE your politics has gone from absurd to mindlessly ridiculous. I was there for the 87 campaign season that ended with a second term for Reagan and it was bonkers. That stuff seems tame. This stuff is off the chart. There's a guy named Richter and even he's confused on how to measure this stuff. Every day there's another story of how ridiculous its gotten. Maybe the most ridiculous part of this slow motion disaster is the Failure of the Democrats. 1) They still haven't acknowledged the 2016 election was a disaster. YES Biden won the White House but the Democrats lost seats in the House, lost even more seats in the state house and failed to gain an outright majority in the Senate. The Democrats treat this like it NEVER HAPPENED. 2) The Democrats still haven't admitted that Trump, despite being a disaster as President, somehow managed to get 74 million to vote for him in 2020 which was 11 million more than 2016. We all heard that the polls said his base was shrinking. Even Fox News said his base was shrinking AND YET Nobody wants to admit they were WRONG and its as if it NEVER HAPPENED. 3) The Democrats despite all the complete utter idiotic garbage that followed 2020 including January 6th then LOST Control of the House to Republicans and now we hear that Nancy Pelosi wants to run again. Yeah sure we have crap politicians but when ours lose they have the decency to go away and let someone else have a go. To paraphrase the immortal words of Full Metal Jacket's Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: "America UNFÚCK yourself!"
    4
  2025. 4
  2026. 4
  2027. 3
  2028. 3
  2029.  @KKOPPONG  That is actually one of the great questions that needs asking across the ENTIRE World and it addresses the biggest issue in the world right now - accountability. I'm actually Australian but went to college in America. I love America and Americans, except that 1in 5 person who screws up everything and is never held accountable. Its not that they are simply screwing up things in America (which I hate) but its also overspilling into other countries like Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Britain, Europe,............................... I bet if you meet 5 people from any country you could say the same thing. 4 out of 5 are great, friendly and fantastic to hangout with. ITS THAT OTHER 1 in 5 who's the problem. They NEVER accept responsibility for anything they do and never care about it either. They are called narcissistic sociopaths who in the most basic terms are selfish and don't care. That Lawyer in Indiana Jim Bopp is a perfect example of these people. He simply does not care about anything but his ideology or the effects he has on other people's lives. The most amazing thing in this documentary is the guy from Montana Jim Ward (25:38) who as a sitting Republican was viciously attacked by OTHER REPUBLICANS who were not from that district. Where is the accountability for that? Where are the other Republicans standing up and saying "NO, he's one of us!" And so you know we have had the same sort of things happen here in Australia in our right wing parties AND there's been no accountability.
    3
  2030. 3
  2031. 3
  2032. 3
  2033. 3
  2034. 3
  2035. 3
  2036. 3
  2037. To all you Americans who care. This was just shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Its been done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). The right wingers claim the ABC is leftist and the left wingers always claim they are pro-right. The fact is the ABC is publicly funded but under its charter its programming is independent, including its news and current affairs. SO it reports what comes across its desk. Does it get shit wrong at times? ABSOLUTELY, but its also a place where we can still get HONEST in depth investigative journalism. We can never let the ABC go just the same as America must never let PBS go. If you doubt that watch this Frontline from 16 years ago when all this idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan started. For that question of how did this all happen? Here are the answers. For anyone who's forgotten what people like Paul Wolfowitz did to make this shit storm happen. Here's what he and others said -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byu9Yhr0Q_0
    3
  2038. 3
  2039. 3
  2040. 3
  2041. 3
  2042. 3
  2043. 3
  2044. 3
  2045. 3
  2046. 3
  2047. 3
  2048. 3
  2049. 3
  2050. 3
  2051. 3
  2052. 3
  2053. 3
  2054. 3
  2055. 3
  2056. 3
  2057. 3
  2058. 3
  2059. 3
  2060. 3
  2061. 3
  2062. 3
  2063. 3
  2064. 3
  2065. 3
  2066. 3
  2067. 3
  2068. 3
  2069. 3
  2070. 3
  2071. 3
  2072. 3
  2073. 3
  2074. 3
  2075.  @thecanadianempire8767  Your right banning American oil exports hurts the American companies that export sweet crude and hurt them heaps because it sells for a lot more than heavy sour. But in terms of the worlds energy crisis you are misunderstanding the issue. 1) The energy crisis is a complex economic problem that has been coming for about 25 years. Its got a lot more to do than just Russian Gas, American light sweet and Saudi heavy sour. Most of the worlds large nuclear plants as well as many large coal fired power stations are rapidly approaching their end of life. I am an engineer and I can tell straight up this is a monster issue nobody is talking much about. These big large base load power stations are not easy to replace under any circumstances. They take years to design, years to get approved and years to build. Hinckley Point C, one of the very few that's been approved let alone started took 7 years to design and approve and will take 10 to build and wont be ready before 2028. Meanwhile Britain is farked for the next 6 years. Others might be farked for a lot longer than that because at least Britain is building something. 2) If America doesn't export sweet crude it also doesn't need to import heavy sour either. So the supply of crude isn't going down. The problem is where do you process it. If you have a plant that's been set up for American light sweet crude you can't switch it over to process heavy sour at all. Again I am an engineer and this is another fact very few people understand. Also America has its own heavy sour supplies from Alberta and Mexico so it can mix that with light sweet and process it Texas. Its not ideal but its better than being farked.
    3
  2076. 3
  2077. 3
  2078. 3
  2079. 3
  2080. 3
  2081. 3
  2082. Your right that is NOT an R-7 in the footage, unless its one of the very first test vehicles. But to say the R-7 launches Soyuz isn't strictly true. Vostok, Voshkod and Soyuz all use the same stage 1 with RD-107 boosters and RD-108 on the main core. But those engines have been slowly modified over and over. They still have the basics but its like trying to compare Chevrolet V-8s from the 1960s to todays LS series V-8s. Its one of the great lessons the Americans never seem to learn from. The Russians take what they have and make it better bit by bit. The Americans take what they have, throw it all away and start with a clean sheet. Its very costly, takes huge amounts of time and never seems to end well. Its also one of the main reasons why they haven't been back to the moon for 50 years. Go look at how much money they spent on SLS and related projects. Its one of the arguments you have to be very careful with when discussing Space-X, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic. How much have they spent reinventing things they didn't need to. If Jeff Bezos just wanted to go into space he could have paid the Russians like Dennis Tito did. If Richard Branson just wanted to get flown to the edge of space he could have simply had Scaled Composites build him a version of space ship 1 and gone 10 years ago. If Elon just wanted to go to space on his own rocket did he really need to reinvent EVERYTHING. Lots of 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ in those discussions. Good pickup on the footage.
    3
  2083.  @ZirothTech  Here's something even weirder about a competition aerobatic plane. The propellers have quite fat blades which at first seems unusual for a high performance aircraft. because they are limited in diameter they need more blade to do what's needed. The other thing is that on vertical down lines you also need braking as in like putting your foot on the middle pedal in a car. For instance a competition spin you have to complete the vertical line AFTER the spin. It goes almost against normal human behavior that after recovering a spin you then point the plane vertically at the ground. When you're doing this you aren't looking at the ground either you're looking at the wing tip gauge because for every 5deg you are off the vertical the judged deduct a point. So you push into a perfect vertical dive and at that point you WANT DRAG not thrust. So at low engine power the constant speed prop goes flat and acts like a bag fat air brake. When flying straight at the ground you don't want the prop puling you want it creating as much drag as possible. I once had a pilot tell me "You haven't experienced prop drag until you've flow a Yak." He then described how in his old plane that in a vertical down when he'd pull the engine back he'd fall forward into the harness. Competition aerobatics is this weird set of trade-offs and until you get into it there's just stuff you'll never know. Look under the wings for the small winglets that are attached to the ailerons. Look at the ailerons near the wingtips. Several planes have the last part of the wingtip well ahead of the pivot point, just like many rudders have part of the rudder ahead of the pivot point. Its not that different to other forms of competition inspired engineering. I had a boss who was into the top level of Australian open wheel racing. At the time all the cars were ex-F3000 from Europe with a locally sourced engine. Scott Dixon the Indy Car racer was in a rival team to my bosses team back then. There's stuff about those cars and how they drivers drove them that 20 years later still amazes me.
    3
  2084. 3
  2085. 3
  2086. 3
  2087. 3
  2088. 3
  2089. AUSTRALIAN HERE: Yeah it took me only a few minutes to start realising this is yet another variant of the sovereign citizen movement that's plaguing America. The reason I point out I'm Australian is that we are just starting to see sovereign citizen groups pop up here. Only yesterday I watched a video here on the YT channel Van Balion (posted 18 Aug 2024) about an Australian quoting US Law to Australian cops. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious. Like most people I get that our governments (via the mainstream parties) have completely failed and that's in part due to them being owned by our super wealthy. We all sort of know they don't give a damn about our collective future, but that doesn't mean you have to lose your mind and be stupid about it. This is why there's the current political upheaval across the parts of Europe (and other places). There's the outright rejection of centrist established parties with people flocking to all sorts of parties on the more radical Right but also the radical Left. We even have that emerging here in Australia. Its actually important to understand that THIS IS NOT simply an America problem. Look at the woman they interview - Julisa. Typical of sovereign citizens she claims that we are being told a "false history" and she complains about the narrative of Black History month. YET, she (like many sovereign citizens) is just making up a narrative to suit what she wants. Like many she also claims to know the Law. Clearly they don't understand reality but they do know how to use the law to confuse or intimidate people. Like many she uses terms like "lack of understanding" but claims to belong to an empire that no longer exists. Its as stupid as someone in Europe claiming their government has nothing on them because they belong to the Roman Empire or Greek Empire. This is similar to claims by various Asian peoples over what's theirs in places like the South China Sea. Europe or the Middle East claiming they still belong to the Roman Empire or Greek Empire or Persian Empire. The most absurd claim by sovereign citizens is that the courts have no authority over them, but then they use those same courts to harass and intimidate people. This is the real mental health crisis. People losing faith in society and then latching onto whatever idea they like. There's nothing really new to this. In times of crisis people latch onto whatever hope of a better future they can. This has been going on for 1,000s of years.
    3
  2090. 3
  2091. 3
  2092. ENGINEER HERE and you are 100% right I have recently defended Sabine in respect of criticisms she got to her criticisms of academia. Having spent time in academia she's right to criticise them. HOWEVER when it comes to engineering she, like many others needs to SHUT UP. We need hydrogen as an energy buffer NOT because its hyper efficient or economic factors but BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE IT WORK and over the next 20-30 years WE NEED THINGS THAT WORK THAT DON'T SCREW THE PLANET UP FURTHER. And I really am trying to scream that at everyone. If you want the engineers to keep the lights on and modern society as you know it to keep functioning then all the people in the road need to SHUT UP. Unlike Sabine and many others I am qualified to design electrical systems around explosive gases like hydrogen as well as explosive dusts like wheat & sugar dust (and yes dusts can explode). Hydrogen is one of the hardest gases to work with, design around AND THEN MAINTAIN. Sabine is right in that Hydrogen for practical purposes leaks from everything, explodes easily and makes many substances brittle. What she DOES NOT KNOW is we know how to engineer around those issues. The single biggest problem with hydrogen is having enough qualified maintenance personnel. That's WHY I never thought it would be practical for things like cars, buses, jets, heating & cooking in homes. Any poor maintenance in those areas could be catastrophic. HOWEVER for those few areas like energy, hydrogen is a good option because all the technical issues have been solved and being kept in a controlled environment like a power station makes the maintenance possible. As for the ongoing claim you can't get better than 40% turnaround that's pure nonsense. The latest PEM electrolyser technologies get over 90% efficiency NOT the 80% (and lower) people like Sabine keep quoting. The current generations of gas turbines form companies like GE and Siemens with cogeneration units get over 64%. That's over 57% on the main components which are available off the shelf AND THEY WORK. As for the problems with storage and compressors those problems exist for every gas. How do you think the gas actually gets piped around the world? How do you think they liquify natural gas for exports around the world? I have worked in gas plants and they use lots of energy. If the world is going to have a lot more renewable energy then that industry needs to be able to buffer that system so if can deliver as needed. Efficiency is far less important than simply having something that WORKS.
    3
  2093. 3
  2094. 3
  2095. 3
  2096. 3
  2097. 3
  2098. 3
  2099. 3
  2100.  @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
  2101. 3
  2102. 3
  2103. 3
  2104. 3
  2105. 3
  2106. 3
  2107. 3
  2108. ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    3
  2109. 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
  2110. 3
  2111. I'm an engineer and have pointed out on a few occasions that PZ doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to engineering subjects. I have repeatedly advised him and others to stop pumping out garbage, STFU and let the engineers explain what is and isn't engineering fact. My degree is in aerospace but I work in industrial control systems, robotics and automation. In 2005-06 I did a water treatment plant on a Uranium mine and as part of that we did an extensive nuclear induction. A normal mine site induction is 1-2 hours (max) this induction went for 2-1/2 days. the first 1/2 day was normal mine stuff and the other 2 days we covered uranium from when its in the ground to when its back in the ground. When it got to the subject of enrichment someone asked WTF the Iranians were up to. It was around that time that everyone was getting very anxious about what the Iranians were up to. The trainer doing the induction laid it all out and explained how EVERYONE across the World's nuclear industries KNEW 100% that the Iranians had a weapons program. It was the number of centrifuges that gave it away and we knew how many centrifuges they had because of how many high speed electric motors to spin them that they had bought along with the electronics to control those motors. The actual motors and electronics are NOT restricted tech because its stuff used in many other industries. Certain materials are restricted because they allow making the centrifuges much easier. I have explained that so many times.
    3
  2112. 3
  2113. 3
  2114. 3
  2115. 3
  2116. 3
  2117. 3
  2118. 3
  2119. 3
  2120. 3
  2121. 3
  2122. 3
  2123. 3
  2124.  @borag  Great question. I think its going to be more significant than some do. UP front I will say Sorry if this is lengthy but I have looked at Hydrogen and there's things many have NOT looked at or are aware of. Most notably many don't realise that hydrogen can be used in gas turbines. My degree is in aerospace and back in the 90s when they thought jet fuel was going to be done away with companies like Rolls Royce and GE did a lot of work on hydrogen as a fuel for gas turbines AND they solved many of the problems. These days GE and Siemens offer large gas turbines at 800MW (with combined cycle) that can use 50% hydrogen WITHOUT and modifications. The also say they have a path to use 100% hydrogen. FIRST (and this is very important) EVERYTHING has efficiency issues. If we'd used efficiency as the arbiter we would never have had the industrial revolution and possibly would never have made it out of the cave. We do need massive investments in energy storage research, but for the immediate future we need to use what we can. We can't rely on hope or maybe and have to use what we can and in ways we can. That means hydrogen will be huge, but there are some misunderstandings being bandied about. Simon Michaux (another Australian engineer) has done some really great work on the energy transition regarding the issues of just how much stuff is needed versus what's actually available. Once you realise there's 1.5 billion cars and 500 million trucks in the world, its a mind numbing task. Just to do that many cars with the same Lithium based tech Tesla uses you need in excess of 94 million tons of Lithium and according to the US Geological Survey there's about 21 million tons in reserves available. Other sources put that at 26 million tons (See Wikipedia). So there's some major problems to over come with energy storage. As Simon says "Its not impossible we just need a better plan." One thing I know Simon is wrong on is hydrogen. I have watched several of his videos including one only a few hours ago that he gave for the University of Queensland. In that video his models uses PEM cells for BOTH the hydrogen generation and power generation. Plus he insists it needs to be stored at 700 Bar which might be true for some cases BUT NOT ALL CASES. All up he gives an efficiency of 18% making Hydrogen unfeasible but I know his method is WRONG. If you use PEM cells on the generation and current generation gas turbines those have a combined efficiency of 45% with the PEM only at 70% efficiency. PEM can be as high as 80% and its believed they can get it up to 94%. At that point its over 60% without the losses for storage. Simons problem is that using PEM for generation only gets about 40% efficiency which combined cycle gas turbines are over 64% RIGHT NOW. What people forget is that if you have to flip the power from AC to DC and back to AC which you have to with these lithium based battery storage because its DC and that causes a lot of losses. A hydrogen gas turbine just produces AC directly. Now is GE and Siemens are BOTH pushing these turbines I think that means they know something. They are selling lots into SE Asia. The first couple have gone into Malaysia already and I saw a report that said one country might be buying 23. Here in Australia, we have 2 old gas thermal plants (Torrens island & Newport). Torrens is already past its "end of life" date. Based on their age I doubt if either gets better than 30% thermal efficiency. If I simply replace Torrens with one of these turbines it would be almost identical in power output but use less than 1/2 the gas. If we add in a hydrogen supply that comes down even further meaning there's more gas available in the gas market (i.e. lower prices). Based on age I'd estimate its running less than 30% thermal efficiency which is less than 1/2 the 64.7% these new gen gas turbines run at. So even without Hydrogen they'd be a massive saving on gas. With hydrogen there's an even bigger saving on gas and reduced emissions although at this point emissions reduction is only a fraction of the problem. FYI - I did my degree in aerospace and back in the 90s Rolls Royce, GE and others were flat out trying to run their turbines on 100% hydrogen because they all thought Jet-A1 was going to be phased out of the aircraft industry. So I know they've worked out the issues with using Hydrogen in gas turbines.
    3
  2125. 3
  2126. 3
  2127. 3
  2128. 3
  2129. 3
  2130. 3
  2131. 3
  2132. 3
  2133. 3
  2134. 3
  2135. 3
  2136. 3
  2137. 3
  2138. 3
  2139. 3
  2140. 3
  2141. 3
  2142. 3
  2143. 3
  2144. 3
  2145. 3
  2146. 3
  2147. 3
  2148. 3
  2149. 3
  2150. 3
  2151. 3
  2152. 3
  2153. 3
  2154. 3
  2155. 3
  2156.  @sportsfanivosevic9885  NO I am factoring in how much military contracts blow out over time. You are right - Collins compared to AUKUS looks like a bargain, but Collins compared to other current non-nuclear programs is a dog's breakfast that we should not ever want to do again. As an engineer we should have been having sensible public discussion on this years ago. This is the thing that aggravates me the most in this. All we have are clowns who are pumping their NARRATIVES with no thought to what we actually need. When the Collins replacement first came up circa 2006/07 and they emphatically said we will not go nuclear I was working with an American who was an ex-US Navy nuclear power plant technician and operator. He'd served on Aircraft Carriers, but they still had the same power reactors as the subs. Its just the ACs have 2 and the subs have 1. He EXPLAINED that with Australia's vast ocean areas why diesel-electric was stupid. The biggest factor is the speed nuclear subs can maintain. Subs like the Astute (30kts) are 50% faster than a Collins (20kts) and do not have to slow down each day to breath air. HE ALSO EXPLAINED part of the American design philosophy and that revolved about having very little automation. This is why American subs have huge crews compared to others. The French sub is 60, the British Astute is 98 but the Virginia crew is 138. This is what I find so aggravating, there is no nuance in the public discussion. Its all opinion, narrative, rage, outrage and whatboutisms. I'm lucky in that I once worked with someone who could explain this stuff and I am fortunate to remember it.
    3
  2157. 3
  2158. ITS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN KYLE IS SAYING I have been trying to highlight this report for over 6 months ago when RICHARD WOLLF mentioned it. The report was published in SEPTEMBER 2022 nearly 10 months ago. Anyone can find the report just google "congressional budget office family wealth" and the actual home page for the report should come up. On that page you can not only download the report but an Excel spreadsheet with all the data in the graphs. Here's some facts from the data of the very first graph in that report which is the one shown by Kyle at 4:26. From that graph you can not only get the effect of the 2008 GFC by comparing the 2007 data to 2010 but also the recovery by comparing the 2007 data to 2019. Adjusting for population and averaging the data on a per person value: The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.1% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL 21.8% BELOW their 2007 value. So after the GFC that they caused the Top 10% got around US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama and have since recovered and by 2019 were US$20 Trillion ABOVE their 2007 value. Estimates have them at least US$8 Trillion above that during the COVID Pandemic. The current collective value of the Top 10% can be estimated to be above US$90 Trillion compared to an estimated collective value of US$2.5Trillion for the 165 million people who make up America's Bottom 50%. This is neoliberal economics in overdrive. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America on a scholarship this is my gift to you all. Apologies if its blunt, but I do love America and the American people. I do want to see America back at its best and right now America is NOT at its best. And so you know this sort of neoliberal brain virus is doing just as much damage in Australia. We are in the midst of a full blown double crisis of housing and energy and our genius economists have said things like "its just the markets adjusting."
    3
  2159. 3
  2160. 3
  2161. 3
  2162. 3
  2163. 3
  2164. 3
  2165. 3
  2166. 3
  2167. 3
  2168. 3
  2169. 3
  2170. 3
  2171. 3
  2172. 3
  2173.  @thetruthchannel349  First off don't highlight everything it makes you seem like your ranting. Highlight the bits you want people to notice or to emphasize. Jeremiah didn't predict weapons if you are referring to wheelwork. Like may parts of the bible those are word images meant to provide readers and listeners a picture in the head to convey an idea or concept. Jesus did the same thing with his parables. He wanted people to think so he gave them word pictures so that they would UNDERSTAND what he wanted them to understand. My parents were teachers, their friends were teachers so I was surrounded by people who taught and spent their days trying to get people to think. Way to often scholars try to read way too much into every subject they study. Sometimes you don't need to read things in but simply accept the information for what it is and use it to expand your own knowledge of the world. The Dan Brown fans and followers of Kabala are and conspiracy people are always trying to read things that just aren't there. Greek is nothing like a modern computer language, whether you are talking modern Greek or ancient Koine Greek. Its a language with a different alphabet and structure to modern English - nothing more, nothing less. Computer languages are nothing like human languages. They are task orientated to process data. Human languages convey all sorts of things for which no data is definable (morals, ethics, empathy, etc.) Its what makes true AI almost impossible because how do we make a processor capable of processing raw data and human data in parallel when we've no idea how to define human data let alone process it. Smart weapons aren't that smart, as in they don't think. In WW2 bombs dropped and hit whatever they landed on. Smart bombs are guided and glide to hit the target with a very high level of accuracy. So instead of sending dozens, 100s or a 100+ bombers you can send 1 plane with a very accurate bomb and surgically destroy a very specific target. Its considered smarter to drop 1 bomb with surety than 1000s with hope. As I said I am an aerospace engineer and I work in control systems. I also have a pilots license so I know this stuff. Not as well as some do but certainly better than 99.9%. I also understand my Bible fairly well. I don't like to talk much about particularly on social media where you have no idea who you are talking to or what their motivations are. Plus so many people interpret it the same way they interpret other things - to suit their own motivations. That's arguably the real cancer of modern society - too many people wanting to interpret or reinterpret information rather than accept information for what it is.
    3
  2174. 3
  2175. 3
  2176. 3
  2177. 3
  2178. 3
  2179. 3
  2180. Australian here and your description of Canadian Trump supporters is the same we have here and they are mostly Qanon supporters as well. The one thing David misses early on here is when he's talking about their views on the CIA, FBI, DOJ is that he forgets that all those agencies have shown in the past that they cannot be trusted. This is one of the major issues facing all Western democracies these days. Our governments in general cannot be trusted they keep doing stuff expecting nobody will find out and we always do. Right now Australia has a major scandal involving our Federal Government's hiring of PwC for tax consulting. Its raised questions of other government contracts at both state and federal level with all of the big consultancies - KPMG, McKinsey, EY, Boston,... etc. NOT ONE contract has even been put on hold let alone cancelled. Plus there are incredibly serious questions over the AUKUS submarine contracts. I am an engineer and none of the costs make sense and again it involves consultants and lobbyists and think tanks with NONE of them being trustworthy. If you go and look at some of the issues in Britain right now its similar stories. Plus I have heard stories out of Canada with similar themes. Italian British Economist Mariana Mazzucato just wrote a book about the consulting industry and in the talks she has given she keeps mentioning the same consultancies and their work around the world and the effect its having an effect on our governments. There are very serious issues with the credibility of our governments these days. Even when people don't understand the details they still know that things are not going well and that makes them incredibly easy to mislead. Sorry for the longish answer. FYI - I spent 4 months in Canada late 2017 early 2018 and despite the cold I loved the place.
    3
  2181.  @HistoryScope  Cool video all round. I didn't need to really watch this. I already new the answer to what's happened since the fall of the Soviet System BUT this is a good video because it fills in a lot of the historical "how did it get here" background which I hadn't heard. The version I have heard of what happened since the fall of the Soviet system which is very similar to yours and the details sort of overlap goes like this. In the 1990s the Russians unfortunately listened to American Economists like Jeffery Sachs. These were the clowns who told the Russians to sell or auction off all the Soviet State assets. It was the same ideology that started with Reagan and Thatcher in the 1970s driven by the Chicago School economists lead by Milton "Greed is Good" Freidman. I have been trying to work this stuff out for a couple of years now, because it affects my country Australia like it does so many. Mark Blyth (Brown U.) hosts the Rhodes Centre Podcast where he mostly talks to people who've written books on economics, political-economy and history. A couple of them have been highly critical of people like Jeffery Sachs for what they have done around the world and then blamed the people in those nations for the disasters that happened. AND YES they have blamed the Russians for the mess they helped create. Basically the American economists tried to neo-liberalise Russia without understanding if the Russian people were ready. Its similar to the stupidity of ramming democracy down the throats of people in nations with none of the institutions needed in place to manage it like happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. The giant problem with trying to flip Russia into a capitalist free market society in such a short time was that the only Russians with any real experience in capitalist systems were the KGB officers who'd served outside Russia. So why should anyone be surprised that it was Ex-KGB people who knew what to do and when to do it and how its turned out.
    3
  2182. 3
  2183. 3
  2184. 3
  2185. 3
  2186. 3
  2187. 3
  2188. 3
  2189.  @myleslong5584  Thanks. It comes from 3 things. 1) I actually do care about America. I had this amazing time over there going to college and it hurts watching America tear itself apart the way it is. 2) No matter what any Australian likes or not, America is our most important trade and security partner. That has its pluses and minuses. Either way we need America to be stable and reliable. 3) No matter what any other country thinks or wants America is still 25% of the worlds economy. The US Dollar ($USD) is still the worlds reserve currency and MOST international trade is done in $USD or the money exchange is backed by $USD. NOBODY not even the Russians, Iranians or North Koreans can afford that system to be come unstable. Right now there's around $100 Trillion in Foreign Exchange (FX) Swaps held by banks, companies and others around the world. There's a Bank of International Settlements (BIS) report on it that went largely unnoticed 2 years ago. It raised the concern that over 60% of those swaps were held by non-American non-bank entities. Its NOT odd for businesses who trade internationally to hold FX swaps but there's also a lot of people using them like Casino chips AND IF the currency backing the swaps suddenly jumps up or down in value it can shock the entire global trade system. Better still is the fact that a couple of American states are now the favorite hiding places for money. There's little said about it but Idaho is America's equivalent of Switzerland and has a very secretive banking system. Its also a favored place for Russian Oligarchs to hide their money. Putin's worth around $200 Billion through various stocks and entities. Where that money is, is anyone's guess, but there's probably some in Idaho. So I really do mean it when I say NOBODY can afford America to become unstable or unreliable. Not even Putin. And Harvard, Yale and U. Chicago ARE the problem, because of what their graduates do and how they network together.
    3
  2190. 3
  2191. 3
  2192. 3
  2193. 3
  2194. 3
  2195.  @cragnamorra  YES I noticed that one too. I think it was a typo because its simply idiotic to think a carrier can go that fast. A quick check says that 90knots is 166.68kmh or 103.6mph. Its so ridiculous that it has to be a brain fart or typo. FYI - I'm Australian but did my degree in Aerospace Engineering in America. In my last semester I did a class in nautical navigation (I liked sailing). It was a class hosted by the US Navy for their ROTC students. So it was a military class with USN officers for instructors. They were awesome too and treated me very well. It was a class that had the occasional civilian (like me). Its was in 1987 and at that time there were some very serious political differences between Australia and Indonesia. So I asked one of my USN instructors a few things. In that conversation I remember 2 things. 1) He assured me that America would not allow Australia to be touched because there's a couple of incredibly important US bases here. 2) Officially America could have aircraft carriers in Australian waters in 30 days. He told me quite seriously it would be less than 8. As an engineer I can do the calculation. In 8 days (192 hours) from San Diego to Brisbane which is 6260 nautical miles you only need to do 32.6 knots. In most cases San Diego would be the LONGEST distance as Hawaii, Japan & Guam are a lot closer. Published speed of Nimitz and Ford class carriers is simply put as "in excess of 30knots" but there are claims that its over 40knots. BUT THERE'S NOBODY saying anything over 50 let alone 90. So sorry the 90 knots just has to be a brain fart or typo. That said the actual disturbing thing is that NOBODY called him out on it.
    3
  2196. 3
  2197. 3
  2198. 3
  2199. 3
  2200. 3
  2201.  @truegret7778  Buddy I have just had another clown berate me over being a spoiler for fully auto-piloted cars. I have actually spent the last 30+ years in control systems and automation. I know what it takes to write software to link sensors to actions and can unequivocally state that 99% of everyone who can program can't do that sort of work. They can't look at code and see what it does in the real world in real time. They can make some stuff work but the moment things don't work they are lost. I have no doubt they can make a car that will follow a winding road with near absolute perfection. The problem is what that system does when it encounters something NEW that isn't accounted for in the code. One of the most amazing aspects of the human brain is its ability to fill in gaps in the available information and adapt its experience at incredible speed. It also gets us into trouble at times like with pilots misreading something they see and their brain goes "UFO" because their peripheral visual system has labelled it as "out of the normal - potential threat." This is my beef with non-technical people and other ignorant types. Not only do they NOT understand these nuances and details BUT they aren't interested in hearing them. The idiot who ran this sub not only killed himself he killed 4 others BECAUSE details were inconvenient. Go ask your wife about the history of aviation and how many times untrained geniuses built planes that engineers with knowledge and experience said "DON'T do that!" and it ended tragically. Better still ask your wife what happens when over 21tons of mass going at supersonic speed rams into a flat surface? Then ask her about the geniuses at SpaceX and their brilliant launch platform in Texas. If she's wondering point out the fuel flow rate of a Raptor engine and multiply that by 33. I heard a great description of the sub-clown "Brilliant Idiot"
    3
  2202. 3
  2203. 3
  2204. 3
  2205. 3
  2206. 3
  2207. 3
  2208. 3
  2209. 3
  2210. 3
  2211. 3
  2212. 3
  2213. 3
  2214. 3
  2215. 3
  2216. If you want to complain the complain about how other nations with similar systematic issues have not been banned. Drug cheating at the Olympics has been going on for decades. If Russia feels bad about getting caught then don't - you got caught wear it. BUT Russia has every right to scream about other nations cheating particularly China and America. I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s on a sports scholarship for swimming. At the 92 Barcelona Olympics a girl from my club in California was cheated out of a gold by the Chinese and it was obvious they were cheating. FINA (the swimming governing body) were only checking swimmers they new had been tested before they went to Barcelona. That included a lot of people from various countries who were at college in America making it look like the testing was random. The British worked it out because one of their swimmers was at the University of Iowa which was a college I raced against. At the 2000 Sydney Olympics the husband of Marion Jones (who was later caught as part of the BALCO scandal) CJ Hunter was caught multiple times and yet still turned up in Sydney expecting to compete. It was later found out that the US Track & Field team had amassed around 150 failed tests prior to arriving in Sydney. Australia had a runner who finished 4th in 2 successive Olympics. Both times the 3 Americans in front of him were caught at competitions after the Olympics. The infamous Seoul Olympics 100m final where Ben Johnson was caught was a disgrace as every other Athlete in that final was either suspected or actually caught at later events. That included Carl Lewis. America has a terrible record of cheating in track and field. If Russia should be angry its should be because they are the only country punished like this.
    3
  2217. 3
  2218. 3
  2219. 3
  2220. I hate to bust anyone's nuts on this, but as an aerospace engineer this looks like a senior year project that's somehow managed to get funding. They have taken a novel idea and progressed it further with funding. But there is one major issue that your video totally did very good job of dismissing and that's the structure of the satellite itself and where that 10,000G loading is. And before you dismiss me I was doing Finite Element structural simulations on discarding sabot projectiles at 200,000G while an undergraduate in 1987. Also from that time. When the Challenger accident happened the biggest issue for satellite manufacturers was that all the satellites built for launch on the shuttle had to wait until the shuttle could fly again. They'd all been built for launch on a vehicle that took of at 4G of less. They couldn't just be moved over onto a Delta or other because the tended to launch at over 20G and some over 30G and the satellite structures were not up to it. Also from that time is the Pegasus air launched vehicle which has since become one of the most reliable launch systems ever (3 outright failures, 2 partial failures and 45 successful launches including the last 31). When it was being designed I remember the discussions of how they had to redesign for the horizontal launch and consider how that affected the vehicle structure and the payload structures for those loads. A capacitor and other parts on a circuit board is one thing, but the physical structure of the satellite is another thing entirely. This was actually where project HARP failed. By the time they had satellite structures strong enough to handle the launch loads there wasn't much left for payload. Is this system novel? Yes Does it have some things worth spending some money on? Probably Is it going to be a came changer? NO. Where I think this system is going to come unstuck is with that much mass swinging at those revolutions any failure is going to massive damage if not destroy the system. No matter how hard people try things fail. I have worked in safety systems and failure analysis and this screams on the what happens when things fail scenario.
    3
  2221. 3
  2222. 3
  2223. 3
  2224. 3
  2225. Well pointed out this is a matter of definition. I'm an aerospace engineer who did post graduate research. What angers me so much with this argument is that we are NOT getting a clear picture of what the NIH was doing in Wuhan. I remember that May 11 confrontation, because it was just after the Wade Nichols article, and yes I know there's been some debunking of that article. -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ But following on from that article others posted links to these NIH project reports which clearly show NIH funding to Ecohealth Alliance and managed by Peter Daszak for Corona virus research in China. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9491676 https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9819304 I'm not a virologist or epidemiologist (an most of us aren't). I do know what researchers can be like. At times very fine details and definitions are incredibly important because they can be doing work that is right at the balance point between 1 definition and another. For anyone who has never done research or development that's more common than you think. I did a water treatment plant a couple of years back where we had to be EXTREMELY careful about everything we said or wrote in emails and reports because there were 2 competing companies, both with patents pending that were very, very close in what they claimed as original work. Its quite possible that how researchers define Gain of Function and where they draw the line between it and other methods might not make sense to the rest of us but makes perfect sense to them. We DO NEED is clarity from an expert in the field as to why certain research is regarded as Gain of Function and some is NOT. I don't want to hear from any more commentators or politicians about this - I WANT TO HEAR FROM AN EXPERT.
    3
  2226. 3
  2227. 3
  2228. 3
  2229. 3
  2230. 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
  2231. 3
  2232. 3
  2233. Its what you have in democracies where there is NOT a clear mandate by one party having a clear majority OR you don't have strong leadership. When parties only have a slender majority they're always at risk having a small faction within them with the BALANCE OF POWER and those who hold it can often hold their nation to ransom. I'm Australian and we have had this problem here at times. Countries like Israel, Greece and Italy are notorious for having minor parties wield enormous power this way. The Tea Party were the last to do this in a big way in America, but more recently we saw it with Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin all through Joe Biden's first 2 years. The only way to get past it is with STRONG LEADERSHIP. Sorry but neither Joe Biden or Kevin McCarthy are strong leaders, they got where they are through sweetheart deals. Its grating to say it but Trump was and still is a person who's strong enough to bully and muscle his way in politics and get people to do what he wants. Think of how they all folded - Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham,... etc. One of the few exceptions was when Mike Pence refused to delay the vote counting. I hate to say it but this is why people tend to vote for scum like Trump. YES they know he's scum but they don't care because all they know he can bully all the other spineless clowns and get stuff done. Tragic as it was a lot of people around the world predicted Trump would beat Hilary, but what it also did was motivate millions of American's to get off their asses for a change and vote against him. The next POTUS is going to decide the fate of the western world. Either they will be strong enough to drag clowns like Sinema and Manchin and just roll right over idiots like Gaetz and MTG or the next 2-3 decades are going to be very rough for ALL OF US.
    3
  2234. 3
  2235. 3
  2236. 3
  2237. 3
  2238. 3
  2239. ​ @Panosky  I actually went to college in America. I proverbially love 90% of America and Americans. Its that other 10% that does all the damage. If you think these problems - social, economic, energy and development are not interlinked then you really need to take a step back. These issues might be more obvious in some countries than others but they're all there to some extent. We can hate globalisation all we like but its our reality. So all these sorts of things are interlinked because our societies are interlinked. Its a bit like those cooking competitions where they all get the same 2 or 3 ingredients and told to cook something. Yeah the dishes might be different but the ingredients aren't so there's commonality. I'm an engineer who's been looking into economics because I got so tired of clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects. One of the things I have found is that we are all running some variation of American free market economics. Its a bit like all our computers and laptops. Think of it like this. Each of us has our own customised PC/Laptop with our own selection of apps but underneath it is the same basic Microsoft operating system. Similarly we might not have the exact same economic issues but we all have similar economic issues because underneath it is the same set of basic principals. Most notably the entire world as issues with wealth inequality. Its closely followed by the energy crisis which has ALMOST NOTHING to do with the war in Ukraine and an awful lot to do with economics.
    3
  2240. ​ @Panosky  Most amazing of all this stuff (study) I have done is that it all centers around a handful of universities and some unbelievably narrow minded thinking. We've all heard about Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge,... etc but the place we all need to look at is the University of Chicago. First off, one of its original founding financiers was John D. Rockefeller and there is no secret he believed in the idea that the "Government should not do anything except public security, national security and the punishment of criminals." Especially he believed that the state should not regulate business in any way. Out of UC came, people like James Oscar McKinsey who was professor of accounting at the UC and founded McKinsey Group. Then there's Chicago School Economics from people like Hayek and Freidman. There's also Neoconservatism that once loose gave us the Iraq Invasion. A couple of years ago UC graduate and tech billionaire Barre Seid gave a company worth $1.6 Billion USD to the Federalist Society who then sold that company and as a non-profit organisation paid ZERO tax and now have $1.6 Billion to bribe senators with and get even more radical judges appointed to federal courts and the supreme court. Most recently current UC Professor of Politics John Mearsheimer said the world should back off and let Vladimir Putin have what he wants. That would mean around 20 nations with a combined population of around 270 million people being handed over to a maniac and they'd have no say in it. Yes the University of Chicago that was funded by the most psychotic robber baron in history is quietly sending America back to the 19th century so the current robber barons can build the America they wanted back then.
    3
  2241. 3
  2242. 3
  2243. 3
  2244. 3
  2245. 3
  2246. 3
  2247. 3
  2248. 3
  2249. 3
  2250. 3
  2251. 3
  2252. 3
  2253. 3
  2254. 3
  2255.  @virtuerse  I'm actually Australian, but went to college in America. I did engineering but a bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law and gave me an interesting education in the US Constitution. We used to argue endlessly over what system was better. 30 years later I am convinced they were right and that's not easy to admit. I honestly believe the the US Constitution is one of the greatest achievements in human history and Donald Trump just proved it. Every attack he made, every lie he told and every attempt to undermine it and HE STILL LOST - the system might be battered and bruised but it survived. BUT (and here is the real issue) America is not yet out of trouble. In engineering we do a thing called Root Cause Analysis (RCA). Its where we don't jus accept something failed but work out what was the thing started the process off that eventually lead to the failure. In the simplest way America right now has 2 huge problems - the money in politics and a dysfunctional congress. The Wall St issue is well known, but the dysfunction of congress is way more subtle. As an outsider (with some knowledge) the real problem is Mitch McConnell. Wall St. is obvious there's too much money on politics and that's not an American thing that's rampant across the Western World, its just America has (like COVID) got it worse than the rest of us. McConnell is the bigger problem. My frat brothers argued that America could never be undermined or be taken over by a dictator because of the system of checks and balances." The Senate is what it is with 2 from each state for the very reason *its not there for policy. Its there to assure every state that they have equal rights and that nobody can get to big that they lord it over the rest. But neither my frat brothers or the founding fathers anticipated Mitch McConnell. He has flipped the Senate from a body that checks the Presidents Appointments are sound and capable people, that checks the House have written sound and fair laws and perverted it into his own power palace where he dictates policy. Lets not forget how Mitch stifled the Impeachment trial or how he pushed through Amy Barrett. Those people appointed to the FCC, EPA, Education and other places were all approved of by McConnell. But most of all lets not ignore that the SCOTUS he stacked gave America "Citizens United" that basically let Wall St. have free reign over American politics. Its called "Root Cause Analysis" and it leads straight back to Mitch McConnell and the power structure around him. Worse what he has done stacking the courts can't be easily undone. Just know one thing - the American people do have friends in the world and we do want to see you get back on you feet. Those of us with brains realise that we can't deal with many of the issues we face without America functioning as a responsible nation.
    3
  2256. 3
  2257. 3
  2258. 3
  2259. 3
  2260. 3
  2261. 3
  2262. 3
  2263. 3
  2264. 3
  2265. 3
  2266. 3
  2267. 3
  2268. 3
  2269. 3
  2270. 3
  2271. 3
  2272. 3
  2273. 3
  2274. 3
  2275. 3
  2276. 3
  2277. 3
  2278. 3
  2279. 3
  2280. 3
  2281. 3
  2282. 3
  2283. 3
  2284. 3
  2285. 3
  2286. I'm Australian and what you have just described is happening across the entire Western Democratic World. I actually went to college in American at U. of Illinois and bizarrely these issues all trace back to one single American college - The University of Chicago. It sounds like a weird conspiracy but the largest single contributor to the founding of UC was JD Rockefeller. FIRST Out of UC has come the consulting industry starting with James McKinsey who not only founded McKinsey the mega consulting firm but he was (before that) Professor of Accounting at UC. The consulting industry MORE than the Think Tanks and lobbyists has more political influence these days. Its almost like we elect people to interface with the consultants who then decide WHAT & HOW policy will act. SECOND Out of UC came the ugly twins of American political ideology Neoconservatism and Offensive Realism. Both are at the core of American politics. THIRD (and arguably the worst thing) Out of UC came Chicago School Economics which has now infected the entire World with its profits before society mentality. Not only did UC promote clowns like Hayek, Freidman and Coase who's ideology gutted the very institutions modern society was built on but they lobbied their way to credibility with a string of FAKE Nobel Prizes including last years to yet another UC Goon. I don't know if JDR set out to have UC become the nightmare that it has become, but that's what it now is and these effects are world wide. Chicago School Economics in its various disguises dominates economics across the world. In America it might have been called Reaganomics and in Britain Thatcherism but we called it Economic Rationalism here in Australia. It might have been a different colored pig but it was still the same bacon and ham underneath. Sooner or later the whole world is going to have to understand what UC is and what it does when it comes to politics and economics. Because in understanding UC we can then go after the Consulting Industry.
    3
  2287. SORRY BUT PETER IS 100% WRONG on the project costings of renewables. FYI - I AM AN ENGINEER (Australian) I don't know where he's getting this nonsense from but he is so wrong and its infuriating. This is the sort of crap that drives engineers crazy. 1) The capital out lay of coal, hydro and nuclear is now multiple times higher than Wind and Solar. In Australia we have 22.7 Gigawatts (GW) of coal to replace and IT HAS TO BE REPLACED because most of it is old and worn out. In fact we have already turned of 6 coal fired plants NOT because of emissions but because they were so old we couldn't keep then running. BASED ON the Hinkley Point C nuclear project in Britain, the basic cost of nuclear is £10.3 Billion/GW based on a project cost of £33 Billion for 3.2GW. That £10.3 Billion is AU$19.8 Billion/GW. The current cost of wind and solar in Australia ranges from a low of AU$1.55 Billion/GW to a high of AU$1.86 Billion/GW. The Capital cost of replacing that 22.7 GW with nuclear is AU$450 Billion. Building the standard 2.2 times for Wind and Solar to make up for night time and wind not blowing the capital cost of 50 GW of wind and solar is between AU$77 Billion and AU$93 Billion. Even if we double that cost to include power grid upgrades we are still less than 1/2 the cost of nuclear. And before anyone says hydro we are also doing the Snowy 2.0 project that started at AU$4 Billion and went to AU$5 Billion before it started and will now cost at least AU$12 Billion with some estimates putting it at AU$14-15 Billion. The main reason for the cost blow out was because SOME CLOWN DID NOT include the power lines to connect it to the grid. At 2GW full capacity it will cost AU$6 Billion/GW or more than 3 times the cost of wind and solar. Because we are such a dry continent hydro is actually getting more and more expensive because it has to go into even more remote places. SO when Peter's talking about raising capital HIS FACTS ARE WRONG. 2) The actual project expenditure model Peter is are talking about is TOTALLY WRONG. When you are building coal, nuclear, hydro you CANNOT produce any power and start recouping costs until it is 100% complete. You cannot turn on 1/2 or 1/4 or any other fraction or percent of a coal, nuclear or hydro project. BUT YOU CAN WITH WIND AND SOLAR. The moment you put up the first array of solar it can be connected and start recouping money. The moment you put up the first wind turbine it can be connected and start recouping money. That money from a partially completed wind or solar project can help finance the rest of the project. The only reason people need to find 100% of the capital for a wind or solar project is they're INCOMPETENT at project management. 3) The problem with wind and solar has always been and will always be that it is cannot supply ON DEMAND and needs to have a buffer system. This has also been a huge problem with coal, nuclear and hydro power because although they can run 24/7 they do NOT RESPOND quick enough for the daily swings of modern society. This is why many modern societies have smaller gas turbine plants scattered about. They can spin up and shut down as needed. Hydro plants also use IF THE GEOGRAPHY ALLOWS to have small pumped hydro systems up higher in the hills. Because those pumped hydro systems are smaller they have smaller turbines that can be spun up and shut down as needed. Solar and Wind actually needs 2 systems in the future. The large batteries that people like Elon Musk sell are great for very fast response to changes in demand that happen every day, BUT when it comes to storing energy at one time of year to use at another time of year those batteries are almost useless. This is where hydrogen fueled gas turbines which already exist can be used. Before anyone says they don't exist BOTH GE and Siemens offer gas turbines that can run on up to 50% Hydrogen RIGHT NOW. This is not future tech needing development it EXISTS RIGHT NOW. I did my degree in aerospace back in the 1980s and when it looked like we'd need to move away from jet fuel (kerosene) they started doing research into hydrogen. By the late 1990s that technology and all the issues were worked out except for one thing. Storing enough hydrogen on a passenger plane to get it to fly anywhere was a nightmare and made it unfeasible. PETER REALLY NEEDS TO START SPEAKING TO SOME ENGINEERS.
    3
  2288. 3
  2289. 3
  2290. 3
  2291. 3
  2292. I'm also an engineer (aerospace) who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Everyone needs to be mindful of people who do these talks because even though they make many great 100% accurate comments they also either ignore inconveniencies, over simplify things or outright mislead. I've had some huge eye openers in the 30+ years since graduation. I'm Australian but did my degree in America and then came back here and spent over a decade in manufacturing. In 2002 I met Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmitt and he talked about mining the moon for Helium-3. So I went off to Australia's remote mining industry to learn about mining. The timing was sort of fortunate because we were building a bunch of new mines to supply China. Other than learning about mining the real benefit I got form that experience was a massive lesson in basic infrastructure including energy systems and water management. This guy is right on about 90% of what he's saying but he glosses over or ignores or just gets plain wrong a couple of things. That slide at 3:30 is BULLSHlT you cant have anything so many times less than something else unless you are comparing it to a 3rd item. You can only do a fraction or percentage. I truly hate anyone who does that because its so misleading. The other thing is he glosses over the minerals needed to make things like solar panel. YES I hate the clowns who usually scream about how much emissions from extracting these minerals are made, but they do have a point. These are things the Greenies are always ignoring. I have worked on both a copper mine and an an Alumina refinery and those are damn nasty energy intensive processes. Rare earths minerals are even WORSE and we need huge amounts of them for the high efficiency electric motors needed. He never even mentioned the issues with Lithium production and energy storage. There's 1.5 Billion registered cars and nearly 1/2 a billion registered trucks in the world. That's a massive task requiring a staggering amount of lithium to either replace them or replace their drive systems AS WELL AS GENERATING the electricity to power them. AND THAT does not even begin to address the energy needs of developing societies which he never even mentions. So despite the fact Ramez has a got a lot of important facts right he's also leaving out a lot that is just as important points. I'm not sure what sort of engineer you are but this is really import in any project you ever do. The problems that bite are rarely the things you are working on but the things you dismissed as less important.
    3
  2293. 3
  2294. 3
  2295. 3
  2296. 3
  2297. I wouldn't say perfect (although it is very good) because he's also gliding over some very complex issues very simplistically. Take the Lab Leak. In the early it wasn't just a lab leak it was a weapon either accidentally released or deliberately released. Dr. Michael Osterholm (director of CIDRAP) and one of the few people who's been both accurate and realistic about the whole pandemic, pointed out (earlier in 2021) that between the outright natural occurrence and the leaked weapon there's 1000s of answers but only 1 is correct. Konstantin fails to point out we never got to have a rational public discussion on the origin. There other thing he completely glides over (or outright ignores) was Trumps politicizing of the issue. America is now fundamentally a 2 bipartisan tribal state where people are (by peer pressure) driven into 1 of 2 camps. The moment Trump politicized and the rest of American politics jumped into the fray there were 2 answers and nothing else was allowed to be discussed. There in lies the problem of over simplifying complex problems which is only ever made worse by politics and catastrophic by partisan politics. The number of discussable answers becomes limited because GROUP THINK TAKES OVER and you are either 100% with your group or you are the enemy. I like these guys but he's dug a bit of a hole here which we all do at times. We want or present simple answers to complex problems. Occasionally the simple answer is all we need, but that's the exception not the norm.
    3
  2298.  @conorhealy2763  On the left v right. I consider myself a true neutral. So I can can understand why I seem like a bit of both, but that's also got a lot to do with 2 particular people. My grandmother was a card carrying member of the Australian Liberal party (our centre right party). Her daughter (my mother) was a teacher and unionist, who fought and won a battle over "equal pay for equal experience" in the mid 1970s. Both were incredibly honest about the faults of their own sides. My grandmother hated that many on the right just wanted girls to stay home, cook, clean and make babies. My grandmother ran businesses and was one of the first women in the state of Victoria to have a drivers license and own her own car and she was a farm girl. She hated the clowns on the right because they used to tell her to go home, be a good girl and cook dinner. My mother was what many would call a socialist but she utterly hated most leftists and particularly feminists. She saw them as nothing but clowns who endlessly complained while she believed in getting things done. After the team she was on won that wage claim and got all the women teachers equal pay for equal experience, the feminists went crazy. It shouldn't make sense, BUT by winning that claim they took away one of the soap boxes the feminists loved to stand on and howl at the world. So I have this quite odd background where I got educated in BOTH sides including their negatives. It took me years to work it out but what my grandmother and mother hated most of all were career politicians.
    3
  2299. On your second point which you are also right about. I'm an engineer who's been informally studying economics for several years now. I got tired of clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects with their 2 favorite lines. "What's the business case for that?" and "Who's going to pay for that?" Sorry if this is long but here's a basic run down on what I found out. Even when I had those answers they still interfered because that's all they know what to do. Its doesn't take long listening to people like Mark Blyth, Stephanie Kelton, Marianna Mazucatto and others that there is a small but getting louder minority of economists who are calling for change. Mark Blyth for instance has his computer analogy and describes how capitalism has had 3 major versions so far, each that developed its bugs and needed to be replaced (or upgraded) and that we need a new system much like we do with computers. However the most startling thing I came across was only a few weeks ago when economist Steve Keen who (in an interview) said that economists DO NOT include energy in their models. AS AN ENGINEER I find that bizarrely ridiculous because EVERYTHING needs energy to work. This is where I think Marx, Smith and everyone since got it horribly wrong. Marx & Smith put everything in terms of labor, but then how do you value the work product of an ox that pulls a plow or the horse that pulls a cart or the cow that produces milk? Better still since Smith & Marx had seen the industrial revolution up close and then how did they value coal because that was the energy that drove economic growth? How did they value wind because that was the energy that drove the ships that moved the goods? As an engineer I can barely believe that the last 200 years of economics has been founded on a combination of stupidity and ignorance. 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂🤦‍♂🤦‍♂ Pardon me if I am an engineer but universally you can't have work without energy input, whether its by labor, animal, machine or by capturing natural forces. The efficiency of any economic system is therefore NOT profit margin but the efficiency of energy use to generate wealth and I say wealth rather than profit because profit is just a measure of capital return measured in monetary units and money is nothing but transferable debt where wealth is the accumulation of value which can also include things unaccountable for with money. If you are wondering on the money is transferable debt thing. Go and watch Gary Stevenson explain what money is here on YT.
    3
  2300. 3
  2301. 3
  2302. 3
  2303. 3
  2304. 3
  2305. 3
  2306. 3
  2307. 3
  2308. 3
  2309. 3
  2310. 3
  2311. 3
  2312. 3
  2313. 3
  2314. 3
  2315. 3
  2316.  @bluerock4456  That sounds EXACTLY like the road up to Saskatoon from Kindersley. We have similar problems in parts Australia. The joke used to be you knew when you crossed the border into to New South Wales because of how much the car would start to shake. These are just symptoms of a much wider problem with infrastructure everywhere. It manifests itself differently in different places. In some places its roads, others bridges, other schools & hospitals but its really noticeable in energy if you know what information to look up. I first became aware of Australia's issues when I did a small energy project about 7 years ago and found out how old our major power stations are. Everybody thinks the energy crisis is a green energy transition issue, buts its NOT. The green transition is just a part of the issue. The real issue ECONOMICS. Many places have NOT been keeping up with their energy demands and everyone is told the same story about investments that cannot be guaranteed to earn money. That's all a misdirection. What I am talking about are the big power stations that supply bulk power 24/7. I call these Gigawatt class power stations because they supply at least 1GW (1,000 Megawatts) 24/7 except when they are shutdown for maintenance. When Australia's population went from 15 to 17.5 million we built 7 of them. As our population increased from 17.5 to almost 26 million we built NONE. California has 9 Gigawatt class power stations 8 were built before 1990. La Paloma at McKittrick was commissioned in 2003. France has not built a new power station since 1999 and since then its population has increased 12%. Its all been caused by some fundamental economics. If you own power stations the easiest way to make MORE money is don't build any new power stations and in particular big power stations. YES it sounds bizarre until you realise how supply-demand markets work. If you let the population growth increase demand then by basic supply-demand economics it drives prices higher. Since your power station has not cost increase (why would it) your profits increase. This is why new Gigawatt class power stations are NOT economical. They would increase supply and drive prices down which might be economically good for you an me but lousy for the people who own power stations. This is why the privatisation of infrastructure around the world has been so awful and why have things like: - bridges collapsing in Italy or failing in America; and - bad roads in Canada and Australia; and - water supply issues in America, Spain and other places; and - an energy crisis. I am amazed Peter doesn't talk about this more.
    3
  2317. 3
  2318. 3
  2319. 3
  2320. 3
  2321. 3
  2322. 3
  2323. 3
  2324. You've actually described something I wished a lot more people would consider. I have lived in Fremantle WA and Aspendale Victoria both located right next tot he water and BOTH get a seas breeze that's as regular as a clock. It might vary in strength but you can't prevent the basic physics of what happens due to the temperature differential between the land the the water. ANYBODY with a solar system in that sort of location has an inverter system sitting there with LITTLE or NOTHING coming in as the sun goes down. All you need at that point is a SUITABLE wind turbine with an output compatible with the solar inverter. There is a company in Iceland that has done this but they are horribly expensive but then they are built for Icelandic conditions. I actually think there is a small market for low cost VERTICAL wind turbines. They are cheap, they are simple and they are quiet if they have decent bearings. The biggest issue with small HORIZONTAL turbines is the noise they make. One of the small Scottish Islands has a couple of small HAWTS and they generate more power than the Island needs. They are as loud as hell but they are way out town. In built up areas like Fremantle an Aspendale you can't have them. It will only take 1 neighbor to complain and out they go. Against it is the misconception of efficiency. People see the lower efficiency of VAWTs and immediately dump them as no good. But if you've already paid for the solar inverter and its only working 8-12 hours a day depending on the time of year and you can extend that to around 20 hours a day (and possibly 24 at times) then you are raising the overall system tremendously. The fact you have done this and proven that in a decent location IT WORKS is music to my ears.
    3
  2325. 3
  2326. 3
  2327. 3
  2328. 3
  2329. 3
  2330. 3
  2331. 3
  2332. 3
  2333. 3
  2334. 3
  2335. 3
  2336. 3
  2337. 3
  2338. 3
  2339. 3
  2340. 3
  2341. 3
  2342. 3
  2343. 3
  2344. 3
  2345. 3
  2346. 3
  2347. 3
  2348. 3
  2349. 3
  2350. 3
  2351. 3
  2352. 3
  2353. 3
  2354. 3
  2355. 3
  2356. That's a very similar argument that's been raging here in Australia for most of the last 30 years. Under the mantra (and its only a mantra) "ALL FOREIGN investment is good" because its CASH coming into the economy. The banks love it because they get the currency transfer fees. Where this has been a disaster for us is that we have become a great place for people to hide money in housing properties (both houses and apartments). That has jacked up the price of housing to insane levels. The banks love it (as said) BUT - so do the real estate agents because they get bigger fees. - so do the people who are selling especially retirees who are cashing out their investment properties. - so do the developers of large apartment complexes. For everyone else its a farking nightmare because BOTH rental prices are soaring and house prices are soaring. The catastrophe that' snow beginning to unwind is that people can NO LONGER take out loans because they just can't afford them. Then there's 1,000s of people who bought when interest rates were low but they bought at premium prices and now that interest rates are rising they many of them are under immense mortgage stress. PLUS we have between 5 and 25% increase in electricity due to 20+ years of stupidity (FYI - I'm an engineer) that's hammering every part of the economy because every house and every business (largest to smallest) need electricity. This stupid policy of "All foreign investment is good" is killing my country just like its killing other countries.
    3
  2357. 3
  2358. 3
  2359. 3
  2360. 3
  2361. 3
  2362. 3
  2363. 3
  2364.  @ProfSteveKeen  These are the things I really wanted to talk to you and Mike and Daniel about. Part of it is what I now call Energy Economics and the other part is what I now call Planetary Economics. You already have a basic grasp of both from that data you had on GDP & Energy. Quite simply energy is not only going to be the thing that kills AI because of how much it needs, but its happening at a time when there's energy shortage caused by the neoliberal economic policies. AND because of that ideology they wont let anyone else speak. That recent CSIRO report on nuclear energy had nobody but economists on the team. Have you seen the interview. Its here on YouTube "Are politicians listening to the science in the energy debate? | Insiders: On Background | ABC News" NOTE how the title is about listening to the science and there's only economists involved in the report. BUT WAIT IT GETS WORSE. They modelled nuclear power on 30 year life and 50% Utilisation. Calder Hall the very first commercial nuclear plant and regarded as Gen 1. Its therefore not as good as the current Gen 3+ and Gen 4 Reactors, but it did run for 47 years and get 79% Utilisation (also called capacity factor). So not only was that report NOT written by scientists it was written by liars. We really are running straight at the cliffs edge and most of what people are hearing is nonsense and they don't have enough tech literacy to understand it AND the worst part of the nonsense is that it wastes time discussing the things we NEED TO DO.
    3
  2365. 3
  2366. 3
  2367. 3
  2368. 3
  2369. 3
  2370. 3
  2371. 3
  2372. 3
  2373. As an Australian let me correct and clarify some of what David said. He's right this is a huge change to Australia, but its NOT as big of a win for the Australian Labor Party. Its a massive slap in the face for the centrist right Liberal Party. However almost half of their loses did NOT go to Labor as normally happens they went to the "Teal Independents" Stephanie mentioned (6:03). Teal comes from the colour of their T-shirts, hats, etc. (light blue). The Teal Independents are RIGHT LEANING PROGRESSIVES which is why they beat out many Liberals. YES progressives can be right leaning. Go watch Sagaar Enjeti (Breaking Points) or his friend Marshall (the Realignment) as they are both right wing progressives. Remember the basis of being progressive is you want to see progress. Just like left wing progressives they value Health Care, Education and the Environment BUT they want to see a sound financial plan BEFORE it starts. Left wing progressives wany it to start but put less emphasis on financial planning and its where they come unstuck. Where Teal Independents weren't the option the Green Party who are very left have done amazingly well. What SUBURBAN Australia has really voted for is a financially sensible approach to climate change and rejected the do nothing but talk about it Liberals. Remember Trump called them the "do nothing Democrats" that's exactly what the Australian Liberals became with respect to a number of important topics like climate change and its been REJECTED. RURAL Australia is different. David didn't mention (and he might not know) to the right of the Liberals are the very conservative Nationals who like the Republicans have most of there base in rural areas. They actually IMPROVED their primary voting numbers, LOST NO SEATS and might have picked up an extra Senate seat. What has driven that is Australia's 2 main rural industries farming and mining. So diesel tractors and diesel trucks are very important to them. They are scared that there is no plan form them and they will just be stomped on like our car industry was. That is where the Left has failed miserably for several elections - a plan where our farmers and miners are LISTENED TOO and included in the plan.
    3
  2374. 3
  2375. 3
  2376. 3
  2377. 3
  2378. 3
  2379. 3
  2380. 3
  2381. 3
  2382. 3
  2383. 3
  2384. 3
  2385. 3
  2386. 3
  2387. 3
  2388. 3
  2389. 3
  2390. 3
  2391. 3
  2392. 3
  2393. 3
  2394. 3
  2395. 3
  2396. 3
  2397. 3
  2398. 3
  2399. 3
  2400. 3
  2401. 3
  2402. 3
  2403. 3
  2404. 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
  2405. 3
  2406. 3
  2407. 3
  2408. 3
  2409. 3
  2410. 3
  2411. 3
  2412. 3
  2413. 3
  2414. 3
  2415. 3
  2416. 3
  2417. 3
  2418. 3
  2419. 3
  2420. 3
  2421. As a counterpoint and some perspective. I'm Australian but went to college at Illinois so the Badgers are a rival. I went to Wisconsin a few times and there's nothing fundamentally wrong with Wisconsin or Wisconsin people. Every nation, state, tribe and village that's ever existed has had its idiots and at times let those idiots be in charge. We've got them here in Australia and we 've elected them to office too. We've done the "I don't like this person or that person so I'll try this person over here who's at least saying something different." YES - we do stupid things too. Here's a reason why Wisconsin is worth saving - the Green Bay Packers. Look across American pro-sport and there's this one anomaly. In stead of being the private property of some millionaire or billionaire there's this one team that's just owned by "normal people" (if you can call Packer fans normal). Do you know that's WHY the Packers have fans across the world? The Packers are the one club in America that people around the world can relate too. Its the one American club that's like all their clubs. If I put all the NFL fans in Australia in a room by far the biggest group are the Packer fans. Other than the Packers, the cheese isn't too bad and by Australian Standards at least Miller Genuine Draft is drinkable. American beer is so "not good" that Americans drink Mexican and Canadian beer when they can. So for Wisconsin to have made one of the very short list of American beers that's drinkable should be considered a plus.
    3
  2422. 3
  2423. 3
  2424. 3
  2425. 3
  2426. 3
  2427.  @brindlebucker4741  I was actually referring to the comment by DancingCactus. As an engineer (and I am not alone) I'm tired of trying to explain why Mars is unrealistic and why we haven't been back to the moon and why a moon base right now is almost impossible because we really are missing a number of key technologies. Most of all I am tired of uneducated social media clowns making great pronouncements. I do actually like the fact that SOME of them are standing up and calling out the (what I call) the Space Industrial Complex (Boeing, Rockwell, Thiokol,.... etc.) who have sucked up billions to NOT deliver. There's plenty of examples. BUT I hate with a passion the ignorance many of them then spout often in the next breath. Angry Astronaut is a perfect example of people who do this. He'll call out companies like Blue Origin for not delivering and in the next breath BS on about Mars colonies as if they were a finger click away. Almost 20 years ago I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) who told me to check out Helium-3. So I went off to the Australian mining industry to learn about mining. I get a hell of a reality check on just how difficult it is. Better still I got a monster reality check that would scare Godzilla on what it takes to support a workforce in a remote location. I can tell you from what I know has been published that NASA has no clue on remote construction or that kind of remote operations. A while back I was sent the official notes from a lunar conference hosted by NASA. Out of 170+ pages there was 1-1/2 pages on maintenance. I can tell from real experience that if there was 170 page compendium on potential lunar bases it SHOULD have at least 120pages on maintenance. For every 1 page on what you might deploy would need at least 4 pages on how you intend to maintain it. Anybody who has ever really been on a mine would know that. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
    3
  2428. 3
  2429. 3
  2430. 3
  2431. 3
  2432. 3
  2433. 3
  2434. 3
  2435. 3
  2436. 3
  2437. 3
  2438. 3
  2439. 3
  2440. 3
  2441. 3
  2442. 3
  2443. 3
  2444. 3
  2445. 3
  2446. 3
  2447. 3
  2448. 3
  2449. 3
  2450. 3
  2451. 3
  2452. 3
  2453. 3
  2454. 3
  2455. 3
  2456. 3
  2457. 3
  2458. 3
  2459. As an aerospace engineer this totally craps me out and for a slightly different reason than most here might think. My gripe isn't so much that these things (like Hyperloop) are garbage its that they are preventing people from SpaceX and Tesla form appreciating the incredible achievements of others. There are some great people in these companies doing great work and getting no recognition or credit. At Space X the achievement of actually getting a rocket that can fly humans into space (Crew Dragon & Falcon 9) is extraordinary. If you compare it to Boeing's effort with Starliner and take into consideration the resources and experience Boeing has access too then it really is an extraordinary achievement. BUT THEN Elon comes along with the idiotic garbage of going to Mars on Starship. I don't understand how it can be the same company. On transport its the same. I spent many years in the Australian automotive sector and for Tesla to actually have the effect it has on the entire car industry is borderline miraculous. Yes there's some issues with the cars, but then every major manufacturer has had recalls. Tesla's a long way short of the VW diesel fake engine emissions fiasco. The fact Tesla is manufacturing and selling several 100 thousand cars each year is incredible and it has changed the world. Unless you have a actually been in the industry its hard to explain just how hard it is just getting a new model into production. One of the main companies I worked with was Hella and the effort it took just for a new headlight & taillight on an EXISTING car was a huge effort. So taking a completely new vehicle and getting it into mass production is an extraordinary achievement BUT THEN Elon comes along with a truck he claims will pull a load from 0 to 60 mph in 6.5 seconds. AND THEN Elon comes along with driver less cars, taxis and trucks. AND THEN Elon comes along with Hyperloop, a 118 year old idea (Robert Goddard 1904) and claims he thought it up. AND THEN Elon comes along AFTER Hyperloop is exposed and NO its not trains in tunnels its cars in tunnels. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️
    3
  2460. 3
  2461. 3
  2462. 3
  2463. 3
  2464. 3
  2465. 3
  2466. 3
  2467. 3
  2468. 3
  2469. 3
  2470. 3
  2471. 3
  2472.  @gorey4more837  Firearms here is pretty simple. You can own anything you like if you can get the license for it. We just make certain licenses very very difficult so that we don't have people owning things just to make themselves "feel something." It all changed after the Port Artur Massacre which involved military grade weapons and at the time was the world record for fatalities in a gun rampage. Normally Australians love it when one of us breaks a world record, but no that day. The worst of it was the Mikacs, a mother and 2 young daughters (6 & 3) simply executed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Toll_booth_murders_and_carjacking We said never again. Our government bought back any guns people didn't want and there were millions. Oddly before that buy back we had won just a single Olympic medal in shooting sports in 100 years, since then we have won 10 including 5 gold and 2 of those by girls. Restricting our guns hasn't hurt our aim, it hasn't hurt gun clubs or hunters. We just don't let idiots who want to play tough guy be stupid. Our attitude is pretty simple: If you want to play with big powerful guns join the army. If you want to hunt then aim straight because you're not getting large magazines or automatic self loading rifles or shotguns. If you want to win Olympic medals you'll get all the ammunition you need to practice. If you have a "special need" then fine but you will be asked to justify that need. Anybody who owns a gun accepts that they will abide by the rules placed on them or they lose their privileges. Because in Australia gun ownership is a privilege NOT a right.
    3
  2473. 3
  2474. 3
  2475. 3
  2476. 3
  2477. 3
  2478. 3
  2479. 3
  2480. 3
  2481. 3
  2482.  @michelforever6301  All 3 of your points are invalid for the simple reason they IGNORE other factors or facts. - Starlink needs a customer base, which is rule number 1 of any product or service. Go watch a few episodes of Dragons Den and you'll get that. So WHO actually NEEDS Starlink? NOT who wants to feel cool about having there phone link to a satellite but who ACTUALLY needs it AND will WILL PAY for it. Go ask Iridium how their business is going with a 2019 profit of NEGATIVE $162 million. 5G mobile is going to hit the same wall. Who ACTUALLY needs those download rates to a phone. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ - Vertical farming. Not certain why you have even mentioned this but just go do some real investigation into the subject and you'll find the people doing it have actually done their market research. Water & power aren't just an issue for vertical farming they are an issue for EVERY business going forward. Water & power are one of my pet subjects to beat the crud out of people with economics degrees and greenie brain-space clowns who haven't a clue what it takes to make modern societies actually function. - Hyperloop, just don't bother. It was bullshite when Elon started claiming it as an original idea and its been bullshite ever since. The fact you tired to argue the temperature expansion issue at all shows you're NOT an engineer. Maybe your a physicist like that Romanian moron Sebastian who thunderf00T exposed. That clown has to be the most embarrassing failure the entire physics profession has had in decades. He publicly confused the formulas for thermal expansion (a material effect caused by a temperature change over TIME) with thermal conductivity (energy transfer caused by a temperature differential across a medium).
    3
  2483. 3
  2484. 3
  2485. 3
  2486. 3
  2487. 3
  2488. 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
  2489. 3
  2490. 3
  2491. 3
  2492. 3
  2493. 3
  2494. 3
  2495. 3
  2496. 3
  2497. 3
  2498. 3
  2499. 3
  2500. 3
  2501. 3
  2502. 3
  2503. 3
  2504. 3
  2505. 3
  2506. 3
  2507. 3
  2508. 3
  2509. 3
  2510. 3
  2511. 3
  2512. 3
  2513. 3
  2514. 3
  2515. 3
  2516. 3
  2517. 3
  2518. 3
  2519. 3
  2520. 3
  2521. 3
  2522. 3
  2523. 3
  2524. 3
  2525. 3
  2526. 3
  2527. That's a great answer on predicting all the scenarios. I'm an engineer who works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. There's so many misconceptions among the general population about technology and its because of clowns like Elon Musk and the media people who over-hype technologies. And some of it is truly ridiculous. On your point My way of getting people to see how ridiculous Elon Musk is about FSD is to ask them how many objects they can see as they drive like just down a suburban street with trees and houses. There's basically millions and millions of objects. Think of leaves and bricks and other stuff. This is the truly amazing thing about the human brain. It can almost instantly discard millions of objects by grouping them into irrelevant clumps and then discarding those clumps. We don't care about the leaves they are part of the trees and the tress aren't moving. The same with the bricks - they are part of the houses. Its actually an amazing ability that every human being has. We can discard millions of items by clumping them together and bring our attention down to a few and do it dozens of times each second. if you've ever wondered what makes some sports stars do amazing stuff, this is part of it. Its this ability to eliminate useless information and process the important information, but they do it faster than the rest of us. This is what your talking about with scenarios. A human brain can not only consider scenarios but consider scenarios its never seen before through intuition and interpolation. This is why the Tesla's do stupid things at times like trying to turn left through a van. The can't adapt to through intuition and interpolation the same way a human brain can to new situations.
    3
  2528. 3
  2529. 3
  2530. 3
  2531. 3
  2532. 3
  2533. 3
  2534. 3
  2535. 3
  2536. 3
  2537. 3
  2538. 3
  2539. 3
  2540. 3
  2541. 3
  2542. 3
  2543. 3
  2544. 3
  2545. 3
  2546. 3
  2547. 3
  2548. 3
  2549. 3
  2550. 3
  2551. 3
  2552. 3
  2553. 3
  2554. 3
  2555. 3
  2556. 3
  2557. 3
  2558. 3
  2559. 3
  2560. 3
  2561. 3
  2562. 3
  2563. 3
  2564. 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
  2565. 3
  2566. 3
  2567. 3
  2568. 3
  2569. 3
  2570. 3
  2571. 3
  2572. 3
  2573. Way back in the 90s the discussion about the death penalty came up at work and someone mentioned a British documentary where a couple of film makers just looked at the facts. They did not go either pro or con on the subject just what the facts were. Where the methods came, how long they take, how many are botched and in what way they are botched. I found it at the video rental store (it was the 90s) a few weeks later. What stunned me was how little I actually knew about the subject. Like how long various techniques take. It was a long time ago but I remember a couple of things. 1) The worst was electrocution which most people have the idea that its a pulse of volts and bang no heartbeat. More often than not the person does not die from the voltage but from the internal damage done from burning which can take almost an hour in some cases. 2) The cocktail being used at that time (mid 90s) for lethal injection was developed by 2 Nazi doctors who experimented on mentally retarded orphans. The information was recovered in the aftermath of WW2. 3) If hanged and the hangman got the drop right and the knot in the right place it was near instant from the neck being snapped. If not the person could either strangle slowly taking up to several minutes or be decapitated as happened in Iraq with Saddam Hussein's half brother. 4) Stoning, which is still practiced in a few countries can take hours. 5) Beheadings are either instant or so ugly it can't be described. 6) The firing squad is either instant or so ugly it can't be described. The ugliest fact however was during first 90years of the 20th century less than 10% of all people formally executed by "the state" (as in any nation, state or jurisdiction) were charged with a crime and given a trial. Over 90% of all the people formally executed in various nations and states were never charged with any crime let alone given a trial. They did not go into how many people were later found to be innocent.
    3
  2574. 3
  2575. 3
  2576. 3
  2577. 3
  2578. 3
  2579. I'm a white Anglo-Saxon (descent) Australian who went to college in America. I'm an engineer but my mother was a high school teacher who wanted me to understand history. One of the key things about being honest about history is just how brutal EVERY tribe and nation has been at times. Every tribe and nation ahs at one time or another practised some incredible brutality. Slavery was practiced by EVERY tribe and nation and anytime slaves revolted it was put down with staggering brutality. The Romans had that great slave revolt lead by Spartacus and it wasn't the first time. Do you know that for 1000s of years there was no difference between the concept of slaves and employees that there weren't 2 words. That's one of the confusing things about the Bible's use of the word slave. In the older languages the word slave could mean a person you owned as well as a person you employed and paid wages to. One of the things rarely spoken about by African Americans is how the black slaves were captured in Africa. If you go and watch either the 1977 or 2016 versions of "Roots" based on Alex Haley's books, Kunta Kinte was captured by a rival African tribe and sold to the white slavers. Just as happened in so many other places it was people of rival tribes or factions within a tribe who did the initial enslavement. Its right there in Jewish history how Joseph's older brothers sold him into slavery out of jealousy -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_(Genesis). Most Australian's watched Mel Gibsons "Braveheart" and cheered on the Scots and derided the English until they realised it was their ancestors who were the English and hand drawn and quartered William Wallace. But then on the Scots side they laud Robert the Bruce but he was also a total psycho who murdered any all challengers to his throne. In one case he threw a baby against a rock wall to kill it, because that baby was related to him and was in the line of succession to the Scottish throne. Its why the Bruce royal family died out - he killed them all off. EVERY tribe and nation has its dark past including racism and EVERY tribe and nation tries to hide it or deny it.
    3
  2580. 3
  2581. 3
  2582. 3
  2583. 3
  2584. 3
  2585. 3
  2586. ITS WORSE THAN KYLE IS SAYING I have been trying to highlight this report for over 6 months ago when RICHARD WOLLF mentioned it. The report was published in SEPTEMBER 2022 nearly 10 months ago. Anyone can find the report just google "congressional budget office family wealth" and the actual home page for the report should come up. On that page you can not only download the report but an Excel spreadsheet with all the data in the graphs. Here's some facts from the data of the very first graph in that report which is the one shown by Kyle at 4:26. From that graph you can not only get the effect of the 2008 GFC by comparing the 2007 data to 2010 but also the recovery by comparing the 2007 data to 2019. Adjusting for population and averaging the data on a per person value: The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.1% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL 21.8% BELOW their 2007 value. So after the GFC that they caused the Top 10% got around US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama and have since recovered and by 2019 were US$20 Trillion ABOVE their 2007 value. Estimates have them at least US$8 Trillion above that during the COVID Pandemic. The current collective value of the Top 10% can be estimated to be above US$90 Trillion compared to an estimated collective value of US$2.5Trillion for the 165 million people who make up America's Bottom 50%. This is neoliberal economics in overdrive. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America on a scholarship this is my gift to you all. Apologies if its blunt, but I do love America and the American people. I do want to see America back at its best and right now America is NOT at its best. And so you know this sort of neoliberal brain virus is doing just as much damage in Australia. We are in the midst of a full blown double crisis of housing and energy and our genius economists have said things like "its just the markets adjusting."
    3
  2587. 3
  2588. This is the 3rd of your fraud videos I have watched (along with Rogue Traders & Ponzi) and its amazing at what people ARE ALLOWED to get away with. Elizabeth Holmes technology was obviously bullshit. Her father was a VP at Enron. The flags should have been out from day 1 that it was bullshit. All of these had warning flags that they were bullshit. I saw your vid on Greensill because that is news here in Australia AND THAT had warning signs. I saw this the other day and I love your opinion on water trading. ->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oyFRoxuf4g Note" The renowned guru who fathered our water trading scheme "trained at Harvard" the same place with the professor who built the Texas power system. It took me 3 goes to get through that doco because its so upsetting. I expected it to be a doco about global water issues and instead it was all about how Australia is doing a Texas Power Grid on water and then selling that scheme to the world. The farmer on that doco is a dairy farmer. Since since 1985 our population ahs grown from 15 to 25 million and we now have huge export markets to China (for baby formula) and Japan (for frozen cream & other products). So demand for dairy production has skyrocketed. Its outpaced out nations needs with the exports. Yet in 1985 we had over 22,000 dairy farmers and now have less than 9,000 dairy farmers. I am an engineer and did Economics 101 as an elective. What they taught me was that when demand goes up prices go up (basic supply-demand concepts). People have to produce more to meet the demand. Dairy farming should be one of the greatest and safest jobs in Australia and yet they're going out of business. I'm just the ass hole engineer you're the financial wiz can you explain it? Can you explain when dairy farming should be a boom industry instead its a nightmare.
    3
  2589. 3
  2590. 3
  2591. 3
  2592. 3
  2593. 3
  2594. 3
  2595. 3
  2596. 3
  2597. 3
  2598. 3
  2599. 3
  2600. 3
  2601. 3
  2602. 3
  2603. 3
  2604. 3
  2605. 3
  2606. 3
  2607. 3
  2608. 3
  2609. 3
  2610. 3
  2611. 3
  2612. 3
  2613. 3
  2614. 3
  2615. 3
  2616. 3
  2617. 3
  2618. 3
  2619. 3
  2620. 3
  2621. 3
  2622. 3
  2623. 3
  2624. 3
  2625. Engineer here: On the base load side of the energy equation its called nuclear. On the load following side of the energy equation its called wind and to a lesser extent solar. A major problem is the pro-nuclear people and the pro-wind/solar people keep whining and finger pointing AT EACH OTHER instead of realising that BOTH are needed. Part of it comes from an odd fact I heard recently. Through the 1960s and 70s nuclear was steadily growing and REPLACING fossil fuel power stations as it did. When the Green transition started RATHER then replacing fossil fuel it started replacing low emission nuclear. Despite all the wind & solar installation there's been very little reduction in emissions because its been replacing nuclear or just increasing the supply to meet demands from growing populations. PLUS into that mix ahs been the stupidity of the nuclear industry with accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima which have been used by the fossil fuel industry to scare the crap out of the general public. One of the most notable examples is Germany where they spent a reported €1.3 Trillion on renewables then TURNED OFF the low emission nuclear and TURNED UP the old high emission coal fired power stations. The result was that after spending €1.3 Trillion emissions went UP not down. IT WAS IDIOCY AT A STAGGERING LEVEL. We can do the energy transition, but the first thing we need is for all of the special interest megaphones to STOP so that us engineers can explain what we NEED to do and I emphasize the word NEED.
    3
  2626. 3
  2627. 3
  2628. 3
  2629. 3
  2630. 3
  2631. 3
  2632. 3
  2633. 3
  2634. 3
  2635. 3
  2636. 3
  2637.  @kevinjones6328  Yeah its what happens when journalists shut up and let experts talk. As far as rethinking goes the entire Developed World is about to have a massive rethink on a whole lot of stuff. I have been listening to Peter Zeihan recently and he's a geo-political strategist who's very good at demographics. He's pointed out one of the main factors on why Russia invaded. Like most of the developed world they have a shortage of 20-25 year olds. It got too expensive to have kids in the 90s. Go look here and click on any country and scroll down to their population pyramid. I just checked Australia, UK, Canada, America, Russia, China and India. Look at how some taper at the bottom but check the massive dents at 20 for some. https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries That's happened because there were recessions in the West and the Soviet collapse. People just couldn't afford families. The Russian military is shrinking because there's not enough 18-20 year olds. If they didn't invade Ukraine now they wouldn't be able to in 5 years. Its the same for China and Taiwan. 30 year olds don't like fighting wars they want jobs and families. Russia can't rebuild its military unless its a high tech military like America's is and they've never done that EVER. Their military has always been based around having more tanks, more planes and more men. To go high tech they need engineers and skilled technicians BUT like every country in the developed world there's a shortage of those because they are too expensive to train according to economists. That's why western economists moved all the manufacturing to China. It wasn't just cheaper labor it was also a massive cost saving in training and paying technical people. Go to any university or tech college and engineers and technicians cost at least twice as much to train. They need labs and workshops and those are expensive to buy, own and maintain. All this BS economics (Thatcherism, Reaganomics, etc.) that's rules our lives for almost 40+ years is about to come crashing down around us and there is no easy fix because 20 year olds take 20years and 9 months to make.
    3
  2638. 3
  2639. 3
  2640. 3
  2641. 3
  2642. 3
  2643.  @keirfarnum6811  I'm actually Australian but went to college in America. It was a huge part of my life and there's a bunch of people there that I care about. Plus America is still Australia's most important partner (economically, socially, strategically,.....). So watching America is important for Australians but for me there's also people I care about. But I also get to watch it from the outside (at a distance), which Americans don't get to do. Your right America's politics is crazy but that doesn't mean the rest of us don't have crazy as well. There's a massive slab of Russia who think Putin's is their savior the same way Trumpists feel about Trump. Its the same in India with Modi, Brazil with Bolsonaro and many other places. Why do you think Trump got on with Kim Jong-Un. He saw the incredible power a cult of personality has and copied parts of it. Consider the North Korean policy "anybody against us is an enemy of our nation" and consider what happened on Jan 6th. We all just saw the footage of the Oath Keeper claiming they were there for "citizen arrests." What were they going to arrest people for? When did "Doing their job as per the constitution" become a crime? When it comes to crazy politicians with conspiracies as their platform we have them to in Australia. Go look up Craig Kelly or Pauline Hanson, they are both bananas to say the least. If you've seen Rand Paul try and argue expertly with Dr. Fauci compare it to this effort of brainless ignorance from Pauline Hanson -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k870cg2E4LM That's not to say Dr. Fauci hasn't got serious things to answer for or that the Australian Navy isn't bullshit free, but we all have these people that NOBODY can explain how they ever get elected and yet they not only get elected but they KEEP getting re-elected. People actually keep these people in government ON PURPOSE. To show that here's Pauline Hanson for years ago with arguably her most famous quote "please explain" form a 60 minutes interview in 1996 > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01_rmxSKys here's the original full interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU5mt7oAqH0 So people here not only elected her back in 1996 but have kept electing her again and again for the last 25 years. So what you will find is that a lot of people looking at America thinking its just totally bonkers and then they'll look at their own government and realise its not much better and in some cases WORSE. Its like there's a competition for who can elect the craziest nut job 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    3
  2644. 3
  2645. 3
  2646. 3
  2647. 3
  2648. 3
  2649. 3
  2650. 3
  2651. 3
  2652. 3
  2653. 3
  2654. 3
  2655. 3
  2656. 3
  2657. 3
  2658. 3
  2659. 3
  2660. 3
  2661. 3
  2662. 3
  2663. 3
  2664. 3
  2665. 3
  2666. 3
  2667. 3
  2668. 3
  2669. 3
  2670. 3
  2671. 3
  2672. 3
  2673. 3
  2674. 3
  2675. Australian here: - This is similar to what's been happening here too. In May 2019 we had a federal election won by the conservatives and in December that same year the British conservatives also won. There were some distinct similarities to the losing campaigns of Australian Labor and British Labor to Hilary Clintons losing 2016 campaign. When I asked a Brit it they told me that some of the same campaign people from Hilary's campaign had been involved in BOTH Australian Labor's and British labor's campaigns. This is something people don't realise is going on. There are American campaign consultants going all over the world and getting involved with other people's election campaigns. Right now we are having a referendum to change our constitution to give the first nations people a "Voice to Parliament." Its similar to the system used in the Nordic countries with the Sami people. A year ago it had massive support, but that has been eroded by an American style campaign of lies and garbage pumped out on social media. JUST LIKE WHAT HAPPENED WITH BREXIT. In the case of Brexit Cambridge Analytica who ran the Facebook campaign of conspiracy theories and lies was owned by American LIBERTARIAN Billionaire Robert Mercer who also owns Breitbart News. The No campaign here is being lead by a couple of first nations people who are LIBERTARIANS and work at or have worked at Think Tanks with links to American Libertarian Think Tanks. You can easily check this. The Institute of Public Affairs one of Australia's most influential think tanks has a page here on YouTube - check the links it has on their homepage here. You'll find the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute and others American LIBERTARIAN think tanks listed. Very shortly if they are NOT careful America is going to be told to FK-OFF and stop interfering in our nations.
    3
  2676. 3
  2677. 3
  2678. 3
  2679. 3
  2680. 3
  2681. 3
  2682. 3
  2683. 3
  2684. 3
  2685. 3
  2686. 3
  2687. 3
  2688. 3
  2689. 3
  2690. 3
  2691. Aerospace engineer here - and that's the sort of reply I wish we'd see more often. The best report on G0F I saw in the last 4 years was by DW (German). It still here on YT and titled "Gain-of-Function: Should supercharging viruses be banned?" They bring up what Ron Fouchier the Dutch scientist did with Avian Flu and it didn't take much to find out what he did AND HOW DAMN SCARY IT IS. Normally avian flu can't infect humans but the rare times it does its more lethal than Ebola killing over 60%. What was even crazier than making that variant of avian flu was that he wanted to publish how he did it. The Dutch government stepped in and said "NO". He took it to court and the court also said "NO" because like the Dutch government they knew there were people on this planet who'd use it. It was Fouchier's work that (in part) led to the moratorium on GoF, because NOBODY was really aware of what was being done in some of these labs. As an engineer I know quite well how very intelligent people can sometimes be utterly blind to the outside world and Fouchier is an example of that. It became well know that Shi Zhengli (the head virologist) in Wuhan was also like that. Plus Wuhan became the go to place where certain work could still be doen despite the moratorium. I'm amazed that after all that has happened we haven't had a proper public discussion on research funding and the oversight of research. I know there's stuff that's been going on in engineering research for decades that should either be shut down or NOT be funded because its either a waste of time and resources or that its too dangerous or that there's significant fraud going on.
    3
  2692. 3
  2693. 3
  2694. 3
  2695. 3
  2696. 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
  2697. 3
  2698. 3
  2699. 3
  2700. 3
  2701. 3
  2702. 3
  2703. 3
  2704. 3
  2705. 3
  2706. The fundamental problem with AUKUS is not that it was an agreement between Australia the UK and America or that it was for nuclear powered submarines. I'm an engineer and the REAL PROBLEM is the project itself which is hopelessly conceived and its costs are mindlessly stupid which is par for the course with Australian military agreements. I'm 100% in favor of Australia getting nuclear powered subs but am 100% against AUKUS. Because of how much ocean we need to patrol we need faster long range subs and nuclear powered subs are over 50% faster than subs like the Collins and that's the first of several points. Here's my 2 main points on why AUKUS needs to be ripped up and started over. 1) The Virginia requires too large of a crew and there's just no way Australia can operate more than 2 of them let alone 3 or 3 + 5 of the AUKUS subs. This point has been brought up again and again and the RAN has never answered how they'd solve this problem. 2) The basic cost of a Virginia class is AU$5.5billion and the project is costed at AU$33.5billion per sub. NOBODY has explained where the other $28billion per sub is going. I have done some research and costing on this. I even constructed a project costing model and started plugging in numbers. I threw everything I could at this and then started doubling the cost of things and even tripled some and then added in an outrageous bonus system to get stuff built on time. With all I tried I could not explain where over AU$115billion might be going.
    3
  2707. 3
  2708. 3
  2709. YOU ARE DEAD RIGHT I'm Australian but went to college in America and first hear about this report over 6 months ago when RICHARD WOLLF mentioned it. The report was published in SEPTEMBER 2022 nearly 10 months ago. I went and checked it against the Australian data which is presented a little differently but tells the same basic story. Anyone can find the CBO report just google "congressional budget office family wealth" and the actual home page for the report should come up. On that page you can not only download the report but an Excel spreadsheet with all the data in the graphs. Here's some facts from the data of the very first graph in that report which is the one shown by Kyle at 4:26. From that graph you can not only get the effect of the 2008 GFC by comparing the 2007 data to 2010 but also the recovery by comparing the 2007 data to 2019. Adjusting for population and averaging the data on a per person value: The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.1% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL 21.8% BELOW their 2007 value. So after the GFC that they caused the Top 10% got around US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama and have since recovered and by 2019 were US$20 Trillion ABOVE their 2007 value. Estimates have them at least US$8 Trillion above that during the COVID Pandemic. The current collective value of the Top 10% can be estimated to be above US$90 Trillion compared to an estimated collective value of US$2.5Trillion for the 165 million people who make up America's Bottom 50%. This is neoliberal economics in overdrive and its made a mess of the developed world.
    3
  2710. 3
  2711. 3
  2712. 3
  2713. 3
  2714. 3
  2715. 3
  2716. 3
  2717. 3
  2718. 3
  2719. 3
  2720. 3
  2721. 3
  2722. 3
  2723. 3
  2724. I'm Australian and this election has always had huge ramifications for us like its had for some other countries. The democrats are plagued by a group of OLD PEOPLE who just won't accept their time is over. Jimmy Carter is one of the rare examples of a Democrat getting out of the road while helping when he can. The Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons and Obamas on the other hand......... The ramifications of that attitude is staggering. I've looked at some of the stats and one that I have NOT YET seen anyone discuss is the voter turnout and its the REAL ISSUE America needs to look at. According to the stats on Wikipedia almost every election gets a larger turnout than the previous one as expected from population growth. 2012 is a rare exception, but it doesn't compare to 2024 with over 16 million FEWER voters. EVEN Trump is DOWN by 800,000 over his 2020 result. When you consider that he picked up a slab of young male 1st time voters that means a couple of million of his base give up on his nonsense. Harris is Down by 12.4 million compared to Bidens 2020 result and that means a gigantic slab of the people who turned up in 2020 just gave up. Independents were simply annihilated. Anthony Scaramucci said something the other day about the options people had. Here's some to think about. 1) If you're a college student who wants the Genocide in Gaza to stop. Do you vote for Kamala who's helped support it or do you vote for Benjamin Netanyahu's choice for President. 2) If your a mother who's son is stuck in the basement vaping and playing video games. Do you vote for DEI Kamala or the felon who brags about grabbing women by the pussy. 3) If your a father who's daughter is worried about boys in the locker room. Do you vote for DEI Kamala or the convicted felon who would grab your daughter by the pussy. 4) If you vote 3rd party or independent what's the point of actually voting when you get NOTHING for it other than an opportunity to wave your middle finger at the Democrats and Republicans who don't care anyway. 5) If your Gen-X, Millennial or a Zoomer do you vote for the party run by selfish old people who don't care about your future or do you vote for the party run by a narcissistic sociopath, liar and convicted felon who's surrounded by other narcissistic sociopaths, liars and convicted criminals NONE of who care about your future. America has alienated so many of its people that 16 million who voted 4 years ago GAVE UP ON VOTING. Simply it doesn't matter if you're being asked to eat a BULLSHlT sandwich or a CHICKENSHlT sandwich you're still being asked to eat a SHlT sandwich. Sorry for the rant but what just happened has GLOBAL ramifications and America is functioning like NASCAR on 5 cylinders.
    3
  2725. 3
  2726. 3
  2727. 3
  2728. 3
  2729. 3
  2730. 3
  2731. 3
  2732. 3
  2733. 3
  2734. 3
  2735. 3
  2736. 3
  2737. 3
  2738. 3
  2739. 3
  2740. 3
  2741. 3
  2742. 3
  2743. 3
  2744. 3
  2745. 3
  2746. 3
  2747. 3
  2748. Correct except its DU not PU (Pu is plutonium), but uranium's toxicity is something most people do not realise. On the Wikipedia page for DU it says DU is is about a million times worse than the radiation it might give off because it attacks things like the kidneys. Phil Miller is NOT entirely correct about a couple of things and most people get this wrong anyway. Depleted uranium DOES NOT come from spent fuel it comes from the enrichment process. I have worked in Australia's Uranium mining industry and part of that included a training course covering the basics of the Uranium fuel cycle from in the ground to back in the ground. Sorry for the math below but this the basics of what happens. Uranium has a number of isotopes the main 2 being U238 and U235. Its the U235 that is good for power stations and bombs. The problem is naturally occurring Uranium is about 99.3% U238 and only about 0.7% U235. To be useful you need to enrich the uranium. Its incredibly difficult to completely split the U235 from the U238 but its practical to divide any quantity of uranium where the U235 is in one of the divisions. Here's some math. If you start with 1,000kgs (1 metric ton) of Uranium its going to be roughly 993 kgs of U238 and 7kgs of U235 with a few grams of other things like plutonium. If you separate that 100kgs into 2 piles one with 100kgs but all 7kgs of the U235 and the other pile with 900kgs of U238. What you now have is 1 pile that has in now richer in U235 one one that's depleted of U235. What's more that enriched 100kgs is at 7% U235 which is suitable for use in a power station. Its reasonably easy to calculate how much depleted Uranium you get for various levels of enrichment. If you made 7kgs of pure 100% U235 its pretty easy to see you'd have 993kgs of DU. Depending on the grade you want also decides how much DU you are left with, but at 7% its pretty easy to see that every 1kg produces 9kg of DU. America has about 80,000 tons of spent fuel sitting in large pools of water underneath its reactors which sounds like an awful lot of nasty stuff to have AND IT IS. Its also means there's a lot of DU that was created in making that 80,000t. If all that 80,000t of spent fuel had been 7% then that would have created 720,000t of DU. For the 20% enriched uranium (EU) they commonly use in military reactors it creates almost 28kg DU for each 1kg of EU. For weapons wanting enriched grades over 70% U235 its over 100x. Once you understand that its pretty easy to see why Wikipedia says America has 460,000 tons DU in its stockpile and other nations also have substantial amounts of DU stockpiled. DU does have a couple of practical uses the most notable being as radiation shielding and if the future does include Small Modular Reactors then I would expect them to utilise a lot of that DU in their shielding. If nuclear Fusion ever works it will also need massive shielding. The most important thing is that we stop using it for bullets.
    3
  2749. 3
  2750. 3
  2751. 3
  2752. 3
  2753. 3
  2754. 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
  2755. 3
  2756. 3
  2757. 3
  2758. 3
  2759. 3
  2760. 3
  2761. 3
  2762. 3
  2763. 3
  2764. 3
  2765. 3
  2766. 3
  2767. 3
  2768. 3
  2769. 3
  2770. 3
  2771. 3
  2772. 3
  2773. 3
  2774. 3
  2775. 3
  2776. 3
  2777. 3
  2778. 3
  2779. 3
  2780. 3
  2781. I really like Prof Wolff, because he's at the very least giving an educated alternative opinion on economics, but there are times he lets brain take it too far. To call Capitalism unstable is to ignore what the terms stable and unstable actually mean. I'm an engineer and we have to learn and understand what stable and unstable actually mean because otherwise the modern world can't exist. Power stations and the power grid wont work, your car wont work and airplanes will tear themselves apart mid-air- that kind of stuff. Sorry this is a longish explanation. This is basic high school science level. Something that is naturally stable is something that will self correct from a disturbance. An example of stable system is a ball in a bowl. If you bump the bowl and the ball moves, it will eventually settle back down to the bottom of the bowl. An unstable system will not recover from a disturbance. If you balance a broom stick on its end. Any disturbance and it will just fall over. HOWEVER if we stand the broom stick upright on our hand and move our hand to correct for disturbances you then have something not entirely stable or unstable. We call that "artificially stable," as in there is something else keeping the system in a stable state. In engineering we have many systems that are artificially stable and quite often there's a combination of stabilisers. The suspension in your car has shock absorbers that allow you to hit bumps and not have the suspension bounce around. There's also the tires and suspension geometry. A main part of it is the drivers brain which makes corrections like steering inputs. One of the incredibly important concepts of artificially stable systems is that the stabilisers have limits and if you exceed those limits the system can break or fail. If 1 of the shock absorbers fails and reduces the cars stability. If the car hits a big enough bump and shock absorbers reach their limit. IF driver's brain cannot compensate then the car crashes. Modern capitalist systems are "artificially stable." There are shock absorbers and adjustments that governments use to keep there economies stable. Part of that system are interest rates, but there's also government spending (via policies and projects), the rate at which they print new money, bond rates and the regulations they place on private industry (like banking rules). The real problem is we are now bumping into the limits that our economic stabilisers can handle.
    3
  2782. 3
  2783. 3
  2784. 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
  2785. 3
  2786. 3
  2787. 3
  2788. 3
  2789. 3
  2790. 3
  2791. 3
  2792. 3
  2793. 3
  2794. 3
  2795. 3
  2796.  @iericgaisie3700  As an Australian who went to college in America I can give you sort of an answer to that. It DOES NOT explain everything but it might explain some of it. The first Europeans to settle in America at the Plymouth Colony left England because they felt persecuted. The Americans who revolted against English rule did so because they felt persecuted. So when Americans study their history its first few lessons have the narrative. _"We were persecuted and had to fight for our freedom." If you then keep looking into American history there are waves of other people who went to America because back in Europe "they were persecuted" or that Europe "was ruled by an unjust aristocracy." So, distrust of government and powerful elitists is ingrained into American history. In fact if you look at the first Amendment and pay attention to the very last part it you can see that its an implied statement of "you can't trust the government, so speaking out against it must be protected." In that environment anything that starts with the basic premise of "we aren't like those with power" combined with "you can't trust the government and others with power because they hide stuff from you, but here's the truth and we'll help you understand it" has a lot of appeal. I now suspect that Qanon is or was a smoke screen to get intelligent people to NOT look into the influence of billionaires by having the craziest people scream endlessly "look at this." Just the other day one commentators pointed out that America 465 billionaire collectively spent almost $900,000,000 (million) on this campaign season. Of that $900M most of it came from about 25 of them. Since its not something that can be easily hidden an easy way in America to get people looking the other way is start a brainless conspiracy of a secret cabal and make it so outrageous that most people dismiss the idea.
    3
  2797. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I love the enthusiasm you have for science and technology but I am sorry to say that we are in the deep crap zone a lot further than people realise. As an undergrad back in 1987 we had a special guest lecture one Friday. It was an Alum who worked at NASA and had just completed a project on the feasibility of terraforming Mars. He started with "Its impossible and here's why!" He introduced 2 things which I now call "Planetary Mechanics" & "Planetary Dynamics" Planetary Mechanics is simply the calculation of what you need to do. Like to put a 1km thick layer of Earth normal air around mars is a pretty simple calculation and it give 178 Trillion tons. At that point you suddenly realise how big the task actually is. Planetary Dynamics is how you make things like water cycles, oxygen cycles, thermal cycles,.... work. AND NOBODY has come close to succeeding at that. When you apply some basic planetary mechanics to the Earth it gets kind of staggering. The Earths surface is 510 million km2. If you look at just the first kilometer above the Earths surface you can basically say there's 500 million CUBIC kilometers of air. Also to get 400ppm of CO2 which is 0.04% down to 300ppm of CO2 which is 0.03% is 0.01%. So when people talk about direct air capture you have to think in terms of: "How do you process 500million or 1/2 a Billion cubic kilometers of air and extract/separate about 0.01% of that?" How do you think ANYONE is going to do that? For some of these DAC systems people talk about: - How do they process that much? - How much machinery does that take? - How to they power that much machinery? If your wondering. These are all the sorts of questions you have to ask if you are going to build a moon base, which was my goal in life.
    3
  2798. 3
  2799. 3
  2800.  @commonsenseskeptic  On another note I'd love to help you do a debunk of space mining. I did a degree in aerospace (late 80s). I've worked mainly in automation, robotics and controls systems. In 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt who was here in Oz to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Apollo 17. I wanted to discuss with him satellite maintenance. Everything from my background said it was an industry waiting to boom. He quashed that quick by getting me to answer why nobody has done it? He then told me look up Helium-3. That meant mining and by chance Australia was just starting a mining construction boom to feed the Chinese beast. It too some time but I got into mine site construction and operations. Unlike all the fanbots and schemers I actually have worked on mines and helped build them and get them running. I can tell from basic numbers just how ludicrous some of the proposals are. Forget the money the tonnage is the reality. For example I worked at the Tom Price Iron Mine at one point. It produces 20MTA (million tons per annum) and its perfect for the basic numbers. Good iron ore is about 70% iron content. Lower grades are 55-60% and the really high grades are up to 95% (basically iron filings with some dirt thrown in). So for every 20 tons of iron ORE we get about 14 tons of iron. Which just so happens also is the landing capacity for the Space Shuttle. So it would basically take 1,000,000 Space Shuttle flights to handle the what just 1 iron mine does each year. Australia doesn't produce 20MTA it produces over 800MTA of ORE and China produces over 1,200MTA of ORE. Other than for incredibly rare and hyper value substances that the entire world demand is under 100tons per year will ever be feasible. Your mate Angry Astronaut just last week just pointed out the potential to mine nickel from the moon. One of my construction projects was Nickel mine. Global production of Nickel in 2020 was 2.5 million MTA (of metal). Which if we got from the moon would require about 178,000 space shuttle flights to land it here on Earth. What about Copper that's about 20MTA a year (of metal). In a way I like Anrgry because he stands up and calls out a lot of things that need calling out. BUT THEN he states some idiotic garbage and does it regularly. People can scream and yell all they like AND THEY DO. The fanbots scream at me all the time. Even if we suddenly got a Space Shuttle with 10x the capacity it still doesn't make sense. Except for incredibly rare ultra-high value substances NOBODY will be space mining anything anytime soon. So if you do want to do a debunk on the whole space mining thing let me know.
    3
  2801.  @zachthamm9595  True, but I think it goes further than just blue collar who only vote on a couple of very narrow points. I went to U.Illinois an one of my frat brothers was from Alton, just across the river from St. Louis. I recently saw an Episode of "Abandoned" about St. Louis. St. Louis has gone form the heydays of the late 80s early 90s where it had a population over 650,000, was growing and had major manufacturing plants for companies like McDonnel Douglas to the current state of about 300,000 and has fire sales where they sell entire schools (as in the buildings and land). How the fuck does a city that once held the Olympics fall so far? And its not the only one, we all know about Detroit and other places. Then there is the Opioid Crisis. Seriously the Sackler's thought they could sell an Opioid that wasn't addictive, when every other opioid is addictive. I Saw this recently and its shameful -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG0nqRXLDOg Watch this if you have time if you don't at least watch the part after 52:40 where Richard Wolff uses West Virginia as an example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1aMsDYJCc Its still freakish to hear a Marxist justify that those people were voting in their best interest with Trump. This is where the monumental problem actually is. Everybody on the other side simply dismissed these people and let Trump radicalize them so far that they now do what they do. So what does America do with them? These aren't 74million radicalized Muslims in another country with Ak47s. These are 74million radicalized well armed Americans inside America with a giant stockpile of ammunition.
    3
  2802. 3
  2803. 3
  2804. 3
  2805. 3
  2806. 3
  2807. 3
  2808. 3
  2809. 3
  2810. 3
  2811. 3
  2812. I'm Australian and grew up in Victoria (South East) which is a similar climate to parts of Europe. In 2005 I went to work in our mining industry. I'd experienced hot days before but it was nothing like what I experienced. The air is so hot and dry it just sucks the water from your body and its dangerous. My first major project was in the area where they filmed Crocodile Dundee (far North) and it was either hot and dry or hot and humid. Unless you know how to handle your hydration these conditions are incredibly dangerous. Its incredibly easy to think that just drinking anything will help and in some cases it is, but over days and weeks it isn't. Things like sports drinks and fruit juice can be lethal because of the sugar content. In the Australian mining industry we get told these things all the time: The number 1 choice is plain water - drink lots, but women need to be careful because older women can end up over hydrating and causing other issues. The number 2 choice are the actual specifically designed re-hydrating formulas. NOT Sports drinks or powders as those have sugar. The specifically designed formulas all carry warnings on how much you can have each day. Like some things a little can help but too much can cause issues - its a balance thing. The number 3 choice are "low joule" cordials which have little or no sugar, but don't over do it. We get told if we want a bit of flavor do it as little as possible like 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 strength. Most of all look at your urine color. The more colour it has the more water you need to drink.
    3
  2813. 3
  2814. 3
  2815. 3
  2816. 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
  2817. 3
  2818. I'm Australian, I went to college in America (U. Illinois) and was working in Canada 3 years ago. About 10 years ago after a couple of medical scandals we looked at other nations and investigated America, Canada and Britain to name a few. So not only have I personnel experience with the American system Australia has done the research into other health care systems. If we add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million compared to Australia's 25.6. Yes there is massive differences in geographical size and population density. The winters are very different. BUT the medical technology, education, manufacturing capability and transportation are near identical. Australia has 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have 33,435 COVID fatalities. (sourced -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) In just the last 7 days (4-1 thru 10-1-2021) just Illinois with less than half the population of Australia has had 971 fatalities. Illinois is a Blue Democrat State and the Country has been run by Red Republicans so neither side can blame the other for this tragedy. I can personally testify that the people of those states are mostly decent, honest and hard working. They don't deserve this. I am currently in the city of Brisbane. We just came out of a 3 day lockdown because of 2 cases of the new British strain turned up and they don't how how 1 of those people got it. There is now mandatory mask wearing in all public places along with enforced distancing regulations until the 20th. That's just while they work out how we got 2 cases of the British Strain!!! Australia *DOESN'T have some magic Kangaroo juice or any other magic medical technology. Our leaders have their flaws and they do make mistakes. So how else can anyone explain what has happened in places like Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin other than a catastrophic failure of leadership?
    3
  2819. 3
  2820. 3
  2821. 3
  2822. 3
  2823. 3
  2824. Better question: What have they (the Trump side) claimed that Hilary actually did that she needed to be jailed for? I'm no Hilary fan and I've heard Kyle repeatedly mention Libya and Iraq but if the world was to start prosecuting politicians and their staffers and the MIC executives and the MIC private contractors for war crimes then we'd actually need to start a moon base or simply take over a massive slab of the planet somewhere, because there is not a single prison anywhere that can hold that many people. That's not to say we should not pursue these people. Half the reason Libya ad Iraq and Afghanistan were the disasters they were was because NOBODY AT THE POLITICAL LEVEL among Western nations was never held accountable FOR ANYTHING since the Nuremberg Trials. Sure a few Yugoslavs and African leaders were charged with crimes but WHO out of the Western Political system ever got held accountable? I'm Australian and do ANY OF YOU realise that John Howard the Prime Minister who signed us up to Iraq is a Lawyer who just seemed to conveniently forget all that he had learned about international law. How about Tony Blair who was the British Prime Minister at the time. He's also a lawyer as is his wife who is actually a notable human rights lawyer. Cherie Blair actually came to Australia to argue a human right case and was told to FK-OFF until she sorted her husbands crap out. On the "lawyers who should have known better" the Gold Medal performance goes to John Yoo. He was the clown who wrote the memos that allowed water boarding and stress positions as part of the "Enhanced Interrogation" program. You remember that stuff everyone else calls torture. The federalist Society even gave him an award for his service. He's now a tenured professor teaching law at US Berkley. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo
    3
  2825. 3
  2826. 3
  2827. 3
  2828. 3
  2829. 3
  2830. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Just some perspective on Crew Dragon and SORRY that this is long. First I absolutely agree that there's massive issues with Elon Musk and how he does business that's perfectly obvious. There's also no doubt the Gwynne Shotwell has said some dumb things which Thunderf00t and others have pointed out. I am also of the same opinion that both Starlink and Starship are doomed to fail (see below). If we are going to fairly judge Falcon9/Crew Dragon then it needs to be compared against its actual competition. You pointed out that a Falcon9 launch costs $67 Million. I have seen Crew Dragon costed at $70 Million. Crew Dragon delivers 4 people to the ISS on each flight making it a cost of $17.5 million per astronaut to the ISS. The last seat an American had on Soyuz has been reported at $80 Million for 1 person. The Space Shuttle cost $350-450 Million per launch and despite its ability to carry up to 8 people it only ever delivered 3 to the ISS for a crew rotation but the others on a flight did stuff while there so its harder to cost but its safe to say it cost over $80 Million for each astronaut who stayed and did a stint on the ISS. However the Space shuttle could also deliver at the same time 16 tons of cargo to the ISS and that's basically 4-5 times Cargo Dragon. So when you consider the Space shuttle on each flight did the equivalent of 5-6 Falcon 9s its in the same ball park as Falcon 9. Here's the ugly comparison - Boeing Starliner the Boeing Max-8 of space flight. The Boeing Starliner which has had more than $550 Million in US Government money ($92M in 2011 and another $460M in 2012) for development is yet to fly successfully. According to Wikipedia Boeing has incurred costs between 2020 and 2022 of $883M and considering its cost plus contracting the US tax payer will eventually cop those costs. So for more than $1.3 Trillion (with a 't') the Boeing Starliner has flown twice for 1 failed mission and 1 partly failed mission. Basically Crew Dragon is NOT a major step forward or a revolutionary rocket. It is however an improvement on what NASA had especially following the demise of the Space Shuttle. Importantly compared to its main opposition (Starliner) it "looks" pretty magical but that's because Starliner really sucks. Crew Dragon is a step backwards so that NASA can go forwards. Thunderf00t has been around enough engineering project and research work to know that at times you simply have to step backwards because you've run into a wall. Going back to the SPACE SHUTTLE and heads up I did a comprehensive review of its history several years ago as part of the lessons learned section of a proposal. Its basic dry weight is 75 tons. So before you even give it people and cargo you have to lift 75t around 200km and then accelerate it to around 25,000 kmh. Those numbers get bigger going to the Space Station which is why its LEO payload is listed as 30t and its payload to the ISS is listed at 16t. So that 75t is a massive cost but it was sort of offset by reusability, but even that had issues. On top of those fuel costs the Space Shuttle required a lot more manpower to service it than first planned. Its one of the main reasons manned space flight stalled. All the things needed to go further and do things like build a lunar base needed people working on the technologies needed. Not only did the Space Shuttle consume money it also consumed the time people needed to do other things. THAT'S what made the Space Shuttle a failure. Technically it was an amazing achievement but for manned space flight it cost us 30-40 years. STARLINK It will fail just like the Iridium satellite phone system failed. Its a solution to a problem that does not exist. This is what kills many (what people think are) great ideas. If you are in a remote location it might provide a service but for anyone with an easy link to broad band then what does it offer? Plus the optic fibres that broad band is based on don't need to be replaced every few years in the same way the Starlink satellites drop out of orbit. Plus if you want to upgrade your broad band system Bob the Builder's mate Eric the Electro-tech can drive to the network hub and swap out the nodes. 🤷‍♂🤷‍♂ STARSHIP Not long after the Soviet Union collapsed the Russians released a trove of information on their lunar program based around the N-1 rocket. Go have a look at the arrangement of the motors in the N-1's first stage. YES Starship has a similar arrangement and when you know what the issues with the N-1 were, which I have known for over 20 years having read reviews on the N-1 back in the 1990s. The big problem the N-1 had was if they had a motor failure in the outer ring they needed to shut down the motor directly opposite or the off centre load would make the rocket uncontrollable. The Soviets had a system to do that automatically but it failed to work properly and the N-1 did a very similar thing to what we saw with Starship. Starship not only has the same inherent issue of the N-1 their control system for handling engine failures has the same issues the Russians had in the 1970s. Clearly that first flight showed it does NOT have the control range to handle the sorts of failures it had. But that's nothing. STARSHIP LAUNCH SITE. I have spent most of my engineering career in industrial control systems which has included safety systems. I had the second highest qualification available in that area at one stage. SO I AM FORMALLY TRAINED in assessing sites and systems for hazard identification, risk assessments and risk mitigation strategies. That launch site should never have been approved. for use. 1) The launch pad had no thrust diverter and when you consider the mass flow out of those engines (~26 tons per second at over 3.2km/s) and its just slamming into a flat surface. Look up the Wikipedia page for the N-1 and look at the size of the 3 exhaust tunnels. No one should have been surprised that the launch platform failed and chunks of concrete were ripped up and tossed 100s of meters. 2) Right beside the launch pad are the rocket fuel and oxygen storage tanks. If you look at the photos it had a small deflection barrier less than 1/2 the height of those tanks. That barrier means they expected rocket exhaust gases to head towards those tanks and they were left seriously exposed. On basic safety grounds that site should never have been allowed to be used for such a launch and quite possibly ANY LAUNCH. For anyone who wants to hold Gwynne Shotwell to account this is your opportunity. As the Chief Operating Officer and a highly qualified engineer she should KNOW BETTER should be held personally accountable. I have a pilots license and that's the sort of thing that gets airlines grounded and in some cases LOSE THEIR OPERATING LICENSE. SORRY to all this is as long as it is. I mostly agree with Thunerf00t and others like Common Sense Skeptic but I also think that a few things need better context. Especially that applies to comparing Crew Dragon to its competition which in the case of Boeing Starliner its a lot better than some people think, but I'd agree with anyone who says its neither revolutionary nor an ideal solution BUT IT DOES WORK.
    3
  2831. 3
  2832. 3
  2833. 3
  2834. 3
  2835. Engineer here 1) There's nothing that says AI drones would work at anything. You're simply reading way too much into the RIDICULOUSLY OVER HYPED capabilities of AI. 2) The entire AUKUS program is ridiculous and not because its nuclear. I have supported for almost 20 years that our next submarines should be nuclear. In 2006 I had a technician who was an ex-US Navy nuclear power plant tech/operator who'd worked on aircraft carriers which have exactly the same nuclear reactors as the subs. There'd been some news story on what Australia should have after Collins and he simply crushed the stupidity that Australia should have diesel electric subs with the amount of ocean area we have to patrol. The 2 best reasons AUKUS is ridiculous are: 1) The cost. At $268 Billion for 8 Subs that's $33.5 Billion each over their lifetime. The basic cost of a Virginia class is $5.5 Billion. So where is the other $28 Billion going? No one is even asking that. So I did some research 2 years ago and even building and maintaining all that I could find listed and then multiplying the costs the closest I came to $268 was around $155 Billion. I have discussed this with other engineers and there's at least $100 billion none of us can work out where its going. 2) Crewing the Virginia class Virginia class subs need almost 140 submariners while the Collins requires 60. Australis has struggled with getting enough submariners qualified to operate 4 of the 6 Collins class subs we have. Just to crew 2 Virginia class subs would take MORE THAN the current RAN Submariner corps. Who's going to crew the other 6? An ex-RAN Submarine commander was asked about this on 4-Corners and his answer was: "We'll have to do better." YES that was his answer. Nothing about how. Nothing about training. Nothing about where these people would come from. He had nothing, nada, zip or diddley squat AND THAT'S THE BEST ANSWER SO FAR.
    3
  2836. 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
  2837. 3
  2838. 3
  2839. 3
  2840. 3
  2841. 3
  2842. 3
  2843. 3
  2844. 3
  2845. 3
  2846. 3
  2847. 3
  2848. 3
  2849. 3
  2850. 3
  2851.  @simonmasters3295  There's a few clowns in this thread but you've managed to point out the problem of water mismanagement is a GLOBAL issue and goevrnments everywhere have screwed up. Anyone whos being watching the water issues around the world knows this is a global issue. DW News have done a number of stories on this. America has 3 mega issues about to smash it. First is the Southern California Aquifer which has been drains so much that sea water is starting to soak through the ground and wells closer to the ocean are already turning brackish. Then there is the insane abuse of the Colorado system that's most obvious from the record low levels of Lake Mead (behind Hoover Dam). After that are the issues with ground water depletion across the great plains (Nebraska, Oklahoma,...etc.) I'm Australian but went to college in America so I know what Americans can be like. Meanwhile in Australia we have the Murray-Darling system which has been so badly mismanaged we pump water back up the darling via a pipeline (from the Murray) to make up for stupidity on the Darling. Back in the 1950s we did the Snowy Mountain scheme where we dammed the Snowy River which had the highest flow of any river in Australia and diverted it through tunnels and pipes into the Murray. We generated electricity and provided a massive amounts of water for irrigation. The Murray joins with the Darling our longest river. Those 3 rivers combined no longer flow into the ocean because we extract so much water from them. In Australia I first heard about this project a couple of years ago (see below) in a general news story about water management issues around the world and there are a lot of water management issues around the world. The problem for Beijing is that its main water supply the Yongding River was damned upstream for irrigation and now its dry. They built a dam on the Yongding to store and provide water for Beijing. Its never held a drop of water. This is a similar to the stories about the Aral Sea, the California Aquifer, the Hoover Dam, the conflicts developing over the Nile, the issues with the Jordan and the Dead Sea, the issues with over irrigation of the Tigris and Euphrates and then there's the mega issue of depletion of ground water across many parts of the world. This stupidity in China is being repeated around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongding_River https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/china-claims-new-project-will-revitalise-the-yongding-river/10548942
    3
  2852. 3
  2853. 3
  2854. 3
  2855. 3
  2856. 3
  2857. 3
  2858. 3
  2859. 3
  2860. 3
  2861. 3
  2862.  @krisushi1  On AUKUS, I am NOT (and keep saying it) against it in principle. I am against the terms of it. Here's an allegory. Imagine you are selling the next generation of giant dump trucks to BHP or Rio Tinto and YES your trucks are the best. They use less fuel, they require less maintenance and they have all round better features. Plus your company has a long history of making good quality trucks. As part of the contract that you put in front of BHP/Rio Tinto you ASK B.H.P./Rio Tinto to PAY YOU MONEY to fix YOUR factory because after years of neglect by your management its starting to break down and cannot deliver the trucks its supplying to other people. Do you think that's a contract BHP or Rio Tino would sign knowing that among their shareholders are smart people who would understand how stupid that is? We (as in Australia) are sending $3 Billion to upgrade the Huntington Ingalls shipyards at a time when they can't even deliver submarines (as well as ships for that matter) to the USN Navy on time. If that makes sense to you then I have no answers for anything else you might ask. Then there's the fact we hired a pack of Americans on monster pay packets starting at about AU$1.2 Million a year to tell us this garbage plan made sense. Here's an additional point of grievance I have. I recently found that one of the Australian Think Tanks (ASPI) not only gets money from the Australia Government to advise it, but also gets money from the US State department. Its there on their website which they have to do by Australia Law as a think tank & lobbyist. SO WHY TF is the US State Department funding an Australian Think Tank that's consulting to the Australian government even if its in unrelated material? More importantly WHY TF hasn't anyone in the media made a fuss about it?
    3
  2863. 3
  2864. 3
  2865. 3
  2866. 3
  2867. 3
  2868. 3
  2869. 3
  2870. 3
  2871. 3
  2872. 3
  2873. 3
  2874. 3
  2875. 3
  2876. “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
  2877.  @tammyboon6259  I don't know what to make of Liz Cheney as she has such a chequered family history. Her father is a disgrace who should have been pulled back into line long ago. He pushed the boundaries on behavior and corruption that made it so much easier for others to go even further. He was without doubt one of the key players that started America down the slippery sloped it is on right now. That not only has a profound effect on every America, but also to the rest of the world. Sorry fo the long answer below and you might already know this. I keep trying to tell people the giant threat America poses to the world is the US Dollar is the worlds reserve currency. Most people don't know what that actually means. In 1944 at Breton woods 44 allied nations agreed that the $USD would be the reserve currency. Yes - Breton Woods has been replaced but the $USD is still the reserve currency. Part of that is ALL of US store some of our gold reserves in New York at the Federal Reserve (hence the name "reserve"). Remember those giant piles of gold in Die Hard 2?? Yes - that place. When countries trade or need another currency to do some business people go into that vault and move gold bricks from pile to pile. Even countries that hate America (like Russia, Iran,...) have gold there because its how the world economy works. When they say they are freezing a nations assets what they mean is nobody is touching your stack of gold in New York. So all of the worlds trade, even when people use other currencies all relies on the Unites States of America being a RELIABLE and STABLE nation. Sorry for the long answer but I hope it explains why the rest of the world is more nervous about America than China and Russia combined.
    3
  2878. 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
  2879. 3
  2880. 3
  2881.  Michael Shlomo  For starters your making 2 claims. As to the Russian attack on America's 2016 elections, attack is the wrong word and I would use the word interference instead. There was lots of evidence to the use of cyber-bots on places like Facebook as it was also found for Brexit. What many people forget is that the Russians became very adept at misinformation during the cold war. What they never had was the mechanism for widespread misinformation campaigns. There's a great interview with a KGB Defector Yuri Bezmenov on the subject from 1984. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI If you listen to what he's saying it becomes clear that the techniques he describes failed back then but have succeeded on social media. One thing he points out is that American's do most of the damage themselves. I think he exaggerated his claims a bit for 1984, but if he was making them today he'd be understating them. On the subject of anti-Semitism, I can't recall any specific anti-Semitic remarks on any of Kyles videos and I have certainly NEVER SEEN him support or encourage anti-Semitism. I did report recently a person on an unrelated video who kept using the word "Lews" and it was obvious they were being ant-Semitic. I'm not Jewish but I have good friends who are and I took offense and reported that person. I'm not really interested in the slightest getting into the subject because of the entire Israeli-Palestinian catastrophe. If you say anything pro or con about EITHER side you're quickly labelled anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim. So I'm not interested in getting into that subject any further.
    3
  2882. 3
  2883. 3
  2884. 3
  2885.  @nancyross7935  There's an amazing thing about the 2nd that has been totally lost in the hyper BS marathon of garbage. Prior to the 2nd, every nation in history policed its people via its military. Irrespective of the existence of sheriffs and marshals and constables in various places the actual footmen with weapons were the local military. Either the local lords of the kings/emperors/regents men. No matter where in the world it was if they wore a uniform they answered to the ruler of the land. That part about the "well organized militia" is the first time any nation anywhere put the local security and policing of the population under local civilian control. What the entire western world has in terms of police forces all stems from the introduction of the 2nd. If you look at just the first 4 amendments there are key thigs every developed modern western nation now has in some form. 1) You have the right to speak out and inform people and petition the government with your grievances. 2) You and your community have the right to organize their security or at least have a say in it. 3) The government cannot simply take your property or use it or your land without compensation. 4) The government can't just search you or your property because they feel like it. They have to have or prove cause. The next 6 are basically about due process and equal/fair/reasonable treatment. Every nation takes these things for granted but it was America that actually wrote them down and said we will never be unfairly treated or dominated again. That's what makes it so tragic that the top 1% have finally found ways around it and flipped it.
    3
  2886. 2
  2887. 2
  2888. 2
  2889. 2
  2890. 2
  2891. AUSTRALIAN HERE - How do you think we see this considering the agreements we have? We are in the process of throwing in our hand 100% with an America that is growing more and more politically unstable due to the cowardice in Washington to deal with this clown. You guys should have locked him up January 7th 2020 and NOT LET HIM OUT EVER. In any other country he would have at least been arrested and charged and face trial. In many of those countries with the leaders he likes he would have NOT only been convicted but also executed by now. I was actually working in Canada on a project when he tore up NAFTA. I got to watch the Canadian reaction first hand and if you think Canada is going to trust America again while clowns like this are running about NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE. I really like America and the American people. I went to college in America and loved it. But America has a problem with holding its highest officials accountable for a long time. Its not like Australia is any better because we aren't but then we aren't a super power with nuclear weapons. I was there during the Iran-Contra affair and NOBODY was held accountable. Bush & Cheney lied about WMDs and dragged us into the mess that was Iraq and NOBODY was held accountable. Then there was the Abu Ghraib fiasco where a few underlings but NOBODY senior was held accountable. Trump near tore America apart and only a few of the poor dumb bastards who believed his crap have been held accountable. As I said Australia isn't much better at holding its political elite accountable but then we aren't a superpower with nuclear weapons.
    2
  2892. 2
  2893. 2
  2894.  @whatsername123  If you've watched a few of Glenn's recent videos on the stuff that's been surfacing its getting worse and I would suspect that even Jim Comey will be changing his assessment shortly because I do agree with Glenn. Trump and others need to be charged and prosecuted and sent to jail. BUT I would guess Comey would also want it to be quick and simple and with very little spotlight. I personally think Comey is broad thinker who looks ahead at the potential outcomes. If you consider some of the alternative outcomes in 2016 with him coming out and saying they found more emails. There's a Russian commentator Masha Gessen and Masha was interviewed on the Australian show "Planet America" and asked about Putin and interference in 2016. The assessment was interesting. Putin is NOT the strategic mastermind most people think. He's pretty smart and very ruthless but he's not the mastermind Sun Tzu type strategist. In Putin's brain elections are decided well in advance and the outcome is assured well in advance, because that's his experience with Russian democracy. So Putin expected Hilary to win and win easily and if that's basically true then what was he really up to. That gets to an interesting conclusion. Putin hates Clinton as she was instrumental in the sanctions against Russia. its pretty simple he expected Clinton to win and he wanted her at war with the Republican controlled House and Senate. Just imagine if Comey had kept quiet and Hilary had won and then after the election it came out that there were other emails and they kept it quiet. Just imagine how the conspiracy nutters and rest of the Republicans would have responded. Imagine how Trump would have responded. They would have screamed "collusion" they would have screamed about how the head of the FBI covered up. It would have been the Salem witch trials all over again. They would have impeached Clinton and Comey and thrown them in jail. I personally have no doubt Comey made the right call. As bad as it was the alternative could have been far worse and considering what Putin wanted a Clinton White house would have been a disaster. What Putin didn't plan on was that Comey would do the right thing because in Putin's world people in those positions are loyal or dead. What he got instead was the Trump WH and that's been almost as destructive on America. American politics gave Putin a win win 2016 and a repeat win win in 2020.
    2
  2895. 2
  2896. 2
  2897. 2
  2898. 2
  2899. 2
  2900. 2
  2901. 2
  2902. Australian here - and there simply is no winners in this disaster and it was predicted. Way back in 2010 Jon Stewart interviewed King Abdullah II of Jordan. It was one of 2 interviews JS gave that I feel should have changed the world and NOBODY was listening both times. King Abdullah WARNED AT THE TIME that if the Palestinian problem was NOT dealt with it would take another generation before another opportunity would come along. He warned that the fanatics on both sides would take over and it would only be a matter of time before it collapsed into something really bad. It took 13 years but that day might have finally arrived. Around the same time there was the wife of a senior British politician who caused a complete shitstorm of controversy when she referred to Israel as "that shitty little country." The remark wasn't aimed at the Jewish people but that the situation in Israel that caused so much grief for the rest of the world. And for reference the other interview Jon Stewart gave was to a guy Obama appointed to control CEO & Executive bonuses to bailed out companies after the GFC. At the time "The Guy" was labelled "the most evil man on Wall St" in the financial media. It was part of the response Obama gave to the car companies after their executives arrived in Washington on private jets begging for money. Obama's response was (paraphrasing) "Fine you can have a $$ Trillion, but until you pay it back this guy decides the wages in your companies." "The Guy" limited all wages to something like $200K or $500K. It was way above average pay packets but it stung the executives real damn hard. It overrode any any contracts and bonus agreements. I remember Jon Stewart asking how much had been paid back. "The Guy" answered it was over 90% and when asked about the other $7 Trillion handed out by Bush and Obama he said something like 4%. It should have set a precedent for every handout by any and every nation since. Here in Australia we bailed out QANTAS for the COVID shutdown. After resuming flights they have made over AU$1.4 Billion and have refused to pay any of the AU$480 million back including a $24 Million bonus to the CEO and that was after he publicly stated QANTAS would not exist without the bailout. 2 LESSONS NOBODY LISTENED TOO.
    2
  2903. 2
  2904. 2
  2905. 2
  2906. 2
  2907. 2
  2908. 2
  2909. 2
  2910. 2
  2911. 2
  2912. HEY THOM You really need to bring Professor Robert McChesney in on discussions of the media and how its been slowly eroded over decades. He was one of the people who helped make the 2004 documentary "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" He's actually a professor from my Alma Mater, but joined the faculty after I graduated. Circa 2008/09 he was here in Australia on a book tour. I caught the 2nd half of one of his talks on TV. At the time I didn't realise who he was, but I do remember an incredible point that he brought out. After WW2 most American newspapers had people around the country and the majors had people around the world. Journalists actually went out of the office and met people. So if you heard on the radio or read in the newspaper and they quoted someone it was because a journalist had gone and met that person and asked questions and written down their replies. The stories that weren't done that way were about actors, sports stars and businessmen which involved PR people. I remember that after Robert McChesney explained how journalists used to work he then explained that there were around 4 or 5 journalists for every PR person AT THAT TIME. Then when news papers, radio and TV started to merge into larger and larger conglomerates that ratio of 5 to 1 started to change. Shareholders didn't care about facts. They wanted dividends. Into that environment came people like Rupert Murdoch, Robert Maxwell and others. By the early 2000s that ratio of 5 to 1 had flipped to 1 to 5. Journalists didn't go and meet people. They stayed at their desks pumping out story after story chasing clicks. Information in stories STOPPED coming from research and started coming from PR people. Journalists shifted from doing research and investigating to "cutting & pasting & posting" from what the PR people handed them. Think about how many news stories in the media (all types) are just like an advertisement. I'm certain you already know some of this. But you should really try and get Robert McChesney on. he's done a couple of interviews for people like Paul Jay (the Analysisnews)
    2
  2913.  @Lucien86  You misunderstood my reference comparing Stockton Rush to Elon Musk. It has NOTHING to do with things like Falcon or Falcon Heavy. It has to do with Elon the PERSON not handling people who disagree with him for which there's a mountain of evidence. You don't have to lecture me on Falcon I actually defend that part of Space X. There's a contingent of people who just love to bash Space X along with Elon and they hate it when I correct them. Falcon has been a staggering success. YES it is NOT the mind blowing leap forward in rockets that Elon harps on about. In fact most of what it does was done long before Elon or Space X ever existed. I regard the Space Shuttle as a successful failure. It was successful in that they made it work. It was a catastrophic failure in that 2 crashed and its costs were nothing like that promised. What SpaceX has done is take a step back, a step sideways and a step forward. So its no giant advancement but it is something that has allowed NASA to get back to having its own system. Also Gwynne Shotwell gets a lot of flack and occasionally its warranted when she parrots Elon. The basic reality is that her and her team have built a reliable and reusable rocket. They have then got it man rated and successfully sent people into space. What the SpaceX detractors seem to ignore is that without Crew Dragon NASA and the Western Partners in the ISS are at the mercy of the Russians and the Russians were upping the price. Also the Elon detractors who bash SpaceX never hold Boeing to the same scrutiny and their system deserves to be panned. Boeing got a lot more money than SpaceX to develop a crew system. They took a lot longer and so far there system has being Boeing Reliable which is now a meme. So understand I am a huge fan of Gwynne Shotwell and her team and the Falcon program. Yes they took a lot longer to get up to Crew Dragon compared to what NASA did in the 60s but then they had staggering resources during the 60s. People forget just how many people they threw at the Apollo program. I think it was around 400,000 and they weren't just who you could find and recruit they were the best of the best that America had. On the other hand I can't stand Elon Musk and his BS. He does have 2 talents that he's seriously underestimated on. 1) He knows how to get non-technical people to respond to an idea. As in he can sell an idea to an audience like he has with Starlink which is just another "who really needs, other than the people selling it, technology." 2) He can also identify technical people who can get a task done which he's shown at SpaceX. On that in particular he's seriously misunderstood. BUT when he forgets to get the right people or he ignores them like he did at Neuralink, Hyperloop and a few other places it becomes a disaster.
    2
  2914. 2
  2915. 2
  2916. 2
  2917. 2
  2918. 2
  2919. 2
  2920. 2
  2921. 2
  2922. 2
  2923. 2
  2924. 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
  2925. 2
  2926. 2
  2927. 2
  2928. 2
  2929. 2
  2930. 2
  2931. 2
  2932. 2
  2933. 2
  2934. 2
  2935. 2
  2936. 2
  2937. 2
  2938.  @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
  2939. 2
  2940. 2
  2941. 2
  2942. 2
  2943. 2
  2944. 2
  2945. 2
  2946. 2
  2947. 2
  2948. 2
  2949. 2
  2950. 2
  2951. 2
  2952. 2
  2953. 2
  2954. 2
  2955. 2
  2956. 2
  2957. 2
  2958. 2
  2959. 2
  2960. 2
  2961. 2
  2962. 2
  2963. 2
  2964. 2
  2965. 2
  2966. 2
  2967. 2
  2968. 2
  2969. 2
  2970. 2
  2971. 2
  2972. 2
  2973. 2
  2974. 2
  2975. I'm Australian but went to college in America and that infatuation is arguably America's biggest problem and its been a problem that has been coming for decades. I did engineering but had a bunch of college friends were pre-law and they loved dragging me into discussions particularly on the Amendments. I have eventually concluded that the Bill of Rights is one of the greatest achievements in human history. For the first time ever a nation CHOSE to enshrine certain basic rights for every member of its society. The tragedy of the that accomplishment is that it never placed the slightest onus on RESPONSIBILITY and how these days so many people seek their OWN SELFISH advantage. Look at how some people argue their right to say whatever they want. Many claim that you can say whatever you like so long as its not a threat, but what about the garbage COVID claims that are killing people. The brilliance of the 1st is that it guarantees that people can openly speak their grievances with the government. Yet so many 1st advocates haven't stopped pursuing Julian Assange for years. Look how the 2nd Amendment people talk. Their right to own a gun outweighs the basic right of people to send their children to school in safety. I'm not arguing their right to own guns that's enshrined but they have taken the arguments into stratospherically stupid levels. Look at the 3rd Amendment where Americans are guaranteed that if the government uses their property or land they have to be fairly compensated. Look at all those Amendments about basic legal rights. That limit the authorities to search your person or residence. The right to fair and speedy trials. The prevention of unusual or cruel punishment. AND YET America has in recent years given extraordinary levels of access to its security agencies. Even this comment can be logged, a file started and all of our computers scanned WITHOUT a warrant. America has tortured people at various sites around the world for most of the last 20 years and or held them in secret prisons without charges let alone trials. I'd venture that many of my old college friends would be very concerned about where America is these days considering what we used to talk about. It does amaze me at times the changes that have happened because Americans used to be so proud and so adamant about those rights.
    2
  2976. 2
  2977.  @lordsamich755  Actually you are quite wrong there. Sorry if this is a bit long, but there have been dramatic changes in what we now know about the financial aspects of renewable energy. The Germans spent €1.3 trillion on renewable energy and did NOT the outcomes they expected. I'm Australian engineer and I've worked with German engineers and they are bloody smart and they worked out some things. The first thing they realised is that wind and solar are most reliable at different times of the day. Solar is obviously best when the sun is up. Wind is most reliable in early morning and late afternoon, because its driven by the different rates the land and oceans heat up and cool down. What the Germans worked out is that if you balance the amount of wind versus solar efficiency you can save around 23% in outright costs, because you don't need to install as much to get the same delivered power. Normally you need to install about 2.2kW of renewable power for every 1kW of coal or nuke you turn off. With a balanced wind solar system the Germans claim that can come down to about 1.7 kW (about 23% less). That saving on wind turbines and solar panels can go into storage where there is an even bigger advantage. The Germans worked out that FINANCIALLY the worst thing for renewable energy is the exact opposite of what most people thought. Its not when there isn't enough wind and sun its when there's too much, because it overpowers the grid. Basically if you inject to much energy into a grid the voltage climbs and stuff starts melting. From a financial investment point if your renewable energy system has to be disconnected or locked out. The its NOT making any money when it should. Even worse is if you have to pay someone to burn the excess off and that's happened in Germany. With storage you don't lose that excess energy you get to sell some of it when the wind & sun die down. In the system described here instead of earning nothing for that excess energy you get $0.70 of it back (he said its got 70% efficiency). The Liquid air battery being developed in England only gets 60% but it can be massive and can store for longer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMLu9Dtw9yI That's the really big lesson from the Germans. A smarter design that balances the wind, solar & storage costs less and works better and EARNS MORE. I hope that helps - sorry if its a long answer.
    2
  2978. 2
  2979. 2
  2980. 2
  2981. 2
  2982. 2
  2983. 2
  2984. I agree that Ukraine matters but back up your truck on the figures. In most cases world production of anything is dominated by 2 or 3 countries and after that the rest are minor. I'm Australian and work in our mining sector. Your mining claims are mostly ridiculous. Ukraine's 2017 iron production was 60.5 MTA (million tons per annum). Ours is over 880 MTA and we are a long way behind China's 1,200MTA. We have individual mines in Australia that produce over 50MTA. I have worked on some of them. I have also worked in Australia's Uranium sector and Ukraine is a minnow at best in that game. I checked you claim on corn (or maize) and yes Ukraine is #5 but its production less than 1/2 of #3 Brazils production and not even close to 1/10th of America's production. As for your claim of producing food for 600million I know that's BS. Australia's a major food exporter and we only produce food for about 75million. I expect when you check you'll find you hit the '0' key and extra time. NO DOUBT Ukraine is important for the production of numerous raw materials, food and products. But any losses are mostly covered by other countries without great difficulty. The real reason that the world should be concerned is where does Putin stop? Just over 80 years ago an idiot with an over rated ego wanted to reclaim what he felt was his countries property. After he took each piece he kept saying to the world "This is all I want." He waited and then took the next piece and again told the world "This is all I want." The real concern is do we learn from history or do we repeat it.
    2
  2985. 2
  2986. 2
  2987. 2
  2988.  @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
  2989. 2
  2990. 2
  2991. 2
  2992. 2
  2993. 2
  2994. 2
  2995. I'm an Australian engineer and just adding to the effects of Human Resources. Its been devastating to the engineering profession. Irrespective of what you do or don't like about engineers we built the modern world including its good and bad things. There is almost not a single thing in your life we don't have a hand in. Everything you have that has metal or plastic or if it went through a factory involved engineering. That includes all the obvious things but also many less obvious things. Almost all of the food consumed in the developed world involves engineering from the tractors, plows and harvesting equipment though the processing, packaging and delivery systems as wheel as the refrigerated storage you all rely on. Similarly almost all of your clothing involved engineering and that again starts in the paddock, goes through the factories that process fibre, weave cloth and then make your cloths you wear. TO BUILD the modern world you all take for granted INCLUDING the computer you are on RIGHT NOW has taken generations of SKILLs and EXPERIENCE and TO KEEP THAT WORKING also requires SKILLs and EXPERIENCE. So when HR arrived and threw away skills and experience for their psychological profiling that was aimed at weeding out anyone who might question management that emphasis on SKILLS and EXPERIENCE went out the door. It gave the world horrible cases like the Boeing Max-8. I did my degree in aerospace engineering. I'm also formally trained in backup safety systems like the MCAS system that flew those planes into the ground. That system broke so many basics it still staggers me anyone thought it was safe and YET all those engineers that HR claimed were the right people in the right place for the right reasons did what they did and all those people died. For decades Boeing (like other companies) had built up systems based on SKILLS and EXPERIENCE and they built damn good airplanes. For decades driving a car has been more dangerous than flying at speeds in excess of 800kmh at altitudes so high that if a person was exposed to the outside conditions they'd die in seconds. So if the great claim of HR is to "put the RIGHT people in the RIGHT place for the RIGHT reasons" then how did the Boeing Max-8 happen? Think about this question next time you get in the car or on a train or on a plane. Did the HR person who picked the engineers to build that car, train or plane have any idea what it takes to make SAFE cars, SAFE trains or SAFE planes or where they like the HR at Boeing?
    2
  2996. 2
  2997. 2
  2998. 2
  2999.  @cliffgaither  Dude you don't need any math skills to see that the lump of money in your hand is smaller than you need. When I was in college in America in the late 80s I used to argue with my frat brothers at times on the subject of what poor people would do. Before going there I had read Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 in high school. In 1984 the reason given that the "prols" (proletariat or working class) would never rise up against the inner or outer party (the elites and their educated minions) was that they were too ignorant to understand their situation. That's the exact point that People like Wolff and Chomsky are now arguing these people ARE NOT STUPID, but they are lashing out in frustration. I used to argue with my frat brothers all the time that if you hold a gold brick in one hand and a burger in the other a starving man will simply kill you for the burger and ignore the gold bar. Biden need to get some better advisers or he to will be a 1 term President. If he continues the Clintonesque neoliberal version of Reaganomics what follows his Presidency might be far worse and far more radical than Trump. Here's Chomsky in an interview from just the other day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huy82PVaCzs And note the $47 trillion he mentions that's been stripped is not the $35 trillion he mentions that's been hidden in tax havens. There might be some overlap, in fact there has to be. Since you say I am better at math let me describe it this way. Imagine your typical Div 1 college football stadium of about 70,000 has every seat occupied by a Jeff Bezos clone and that all the staff, water boys, coaches, players are also Jeff Bezos clones.
    2
  3000. 2
  3001.  @cliffgaither  So right on so many points. The only word of caution I have and I'd love to discuss this with Pro. Wolff is that if you take any "ism" to far its bad and that the real solution lies somewhere in the middle. He keep pointing out that countries like the Russians started down the path to equity but then stopped stagnated and collapsed. So pure Marxism is not the solution anymore than pure capitalism or pure communism or pure socialism is or any of the others are. A while back I concluded something that a few here in OZ agree with. A the core of progressives right now are 5 subjects. There are others but these 5 prevail above the rest - Education, Health Care, Environment, Economy & Industry. Education - it costs too much it doesn't deliver the skill base we need, we need to get everyone the skills they need to have a good life. Health Care - even before COVID that was a catastrophe waiting to happen in America and a disaster every where else. Environment - pretty simple humans need oxygen, water and food to survive. If we don't stop doing as we are we'll lose our life support system. Economy - its has to exist for our society not just 1% Industry - it has to provide places for the skills we have, with reasonably stable careers that supports and funds the other systems. The interesting thing is that different progressives prioritize those 5 things differently. Krystal and Saggar on the Hill are perfect for explaining this. She's a mother of 3 so her priorities are different to Saagar who's a right leaning technocrat. They are both progressives but those 5 things can be ordered 120 different ways and different progressives arrange there priorities differently BUT they all agree those 5 things are at the top of the list. I put it to other Australians and asked what would happen if a NEW party ran on those 5 as its platform. Not one person said it wouldn't or couldn't win in fact they all said it would be a landslide. One exception - many said the top 1% would kill us if we tried.
    2
  3002. 2
  3003.  @MattZaharias  In th emodern American context your right, but in the historical context its a bit more complex. In the basic definitions its confusing as its both anti-communist and anti-conservatism. There seems to be only a few things everyone is consistent on - its authoritarian, its on the far radical right and its bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions If you go into it its quagmire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism So I think we should keep it simple - its authoritarian, its on the far radical right and its bad. In the mean time I'll leave you that whack job "Wutsa hammerfir" and his delusions - good luck and don't forget: “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain Here's a few other quotes you can ram down their ignoant throats - enjoy "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” 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 “Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche “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, MASH sometime in the 1970s.
    2
  3004. 2
  3005. 2
  3006. 2
  3007. 2
  3008. 2
  3009. 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
  3010. 2
  3011. 2
  3012. 2
  3013. Sorry buddy but on the aerobatics planes you are totally wrong on several points. Your a pretty smart kid and you do some great videos but occasionally get stuff 100% wrong. You really need to occasionally go and ask people about these things. I am an aerospace engineer with a pilots license and have flown competition aerobatics. Planes like the Extra 300/330, Yaks, Edeg450 and others mostly use a symmetrical wing sections so they have the same characteristics inverted as well as upright. That's needed for things like inverted spins and negative flick rolls. Learning to fly for me was incredibly humbling because I had to start listening a lot more to a lot of people. I've become more used to ordering electricians and junior engineers about, which happens after 30+ years. It became even more so when I took up aerobatics. Suddenly I was the student with a head full of nothing. Power to weight ratio and stability (YES STABILITY) are more important than anything else. The power thing is fairly obvious but ALL of the current aerobatics planes are very stable in flight unlike planes like the Pitts which are super manoeuvrable but also very twitchy. Its maybe the thing I find so technically impressive about those planes. They not only have incredible response to inputs but also high levels of stability. They stay where they are pointed. Scoring in aerobatics is about how clean you fly the manoeuvres NOT how many Gs are pulled or how fast you roll or how clean your aerodynamics are. The scoring system is quite similar to gymnastics and diving. Judges don't score according to how hard a figure is they score out of 10 (with 1/2 marks) for how well its flown subtracting points (& 1/2 points) for mistakes. Its about how round a loop is or how straight a line is flown. The difficulty of a figure is covered by a degree of difficulty that we call the "k-factor" which is based on summing up the various parts of a figure. The area of competition flying where this stuff is most likely to find a home is in gliding. if you want to ever go and see where the future of high efficiency aerodynamics is headed then go watch some of the gliding channels here on YT.
    2
  3014. 2
  3015. 2
  3016. 2
  3017. 2
  3018. 2
  3019. Yeah your Canadian and you have the opposite issue to Australia where I am. I'm an engineer and was in Canada for a water treatment project in Saskatchewan (late 2017). I fell in love with Canadian football but that's another story. What Canada's water issue is, is the snow melt each year that dumps all that snow into the Canadian landscape. Since you have also grown by over 10 million people recently you also have an extra 10 million people flushing toilets and washing cloths. So there's a lot more water for the local waste treatment plants to handle. Because the tradition method is large ponds where the water moves every slowly allowing mother nature via sunlight and bacteria to break it all down to where it can simply be discharged into the river systems. The problem Canada has is those systems are not having to handle too much inflow and the water in those ponds is moving through them at a higher flow rate and that means mother nature hasn't had time to clean it. So when the snow melt happens its now flushing those ponds with only partially treated water into the rivers. Sorry but Canada need to do more of what I was doing, which was increasing the capacity of those waster water systems with newer technology. I made the most advanced waste water plant in the world work in Sask and within 6 weeks the local clown in charge let it freeze and wreck the whole place. I hadn't been fully paid when the plant was finished and NOBODY wanted to pay me to fix it because they were all too busy blaming each other. So I understand the Canadian issue quite well. Having been caught up in the middle of it.
    2
  3020. 2
  3021. 2
  3022. You left out the a couple of others, the most important of which is when a political party just does NOTHING for people and utterly fails to deliver. The great failure of leftist or left leaning parties across the entire Western Democratic world is that when they are in power they just don't get much done. They all fall into this "lets form a committee" mentality and all they do is investigate and discuss and waffle on. It frustrates people and frustrated people can sometimes react badly. The link below is to one of the Michael Brooks tributes. Its time stamped to a part where David's old economics Professor Richard Wolff explains part of what happened in 2016. One of the others in that conversation is Prof Mark Blyth (Brown U.) and he gave one of the best comments about America just after Trumps 2016 win. That's the other link below. In case you don't know or don't remember Richard Wolff was interviewed by David (Oct 2020) and not for the first time. David was also interviewed by Richard Wolff over on his channel "Democracy at Work" (Dec 2020). Richard Wolff is a Marxist Economist, he's about as far left as you can get when it comes to economics. Richard Wolff -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1aMsDYJCc&t=3165s Mark Blyth -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI&t=1104s If you've watched those links you'll get the idea that many people who voted for Trump didn't vote against their interests they voted with their frustration and rage they had against the establishment. A lot of people forget Trump smashed a bunch of GOP favorite sons on his way to the nomination. Trump supporters rejected the GOP just as much as they rejected Dems. Richard Wolff says they're doing it in a impetuous way. What he doesn't say is just how much of a vile opportunist Trump is.
    2
  3023. 2
  3024. 2
  3025. 2
  3026. 2
  3027. 2
  3028. 2
  3029. 2
  3030. 2
  3031. 2
  3032. 2
  3033. 2
  3034. 2
  3035. 2
  3036. That's a very valid point. One of the odd things is how rarely strategic missiles of ANY KIND have been used by developed nations. Yes there's been lots of bombs and rockets but not a lot of what might be called strategic missiles where they are targeting from range a specific thing like the Ukrainians are doing at ammo dumps right now. There's been a lot of RPGs and in a few cases missiles like the stinger that are fired from MAPADS or off the shoulder. There was a lot smart bombs dropped in Gulf War 1 and a few other places. Other than the Falklands where the Argentinians used the Exocet to great effect the only other times I can think off hand where a lot of missiles were used was Gulf War 1 where the Iraqis shot SCUDs at Israel and Gulf War 2 where America used a lot of Tomahawks for strategic strikes before sending in troops. Because of air combat there's been a huge number of air-to-air, surface-to-air and air-to-surface missiles used, but in terms of surface-to-surface tactical missiles there's not been that much. There's probably a few other cases but I can't remember when 2 sides with lots of missiles faced off. In Ukraine BOTH sides have lots of missiles and they also have guided artillery shells which have been used to devastating effect. HIMARS has been staggeringly effective. In fact so effective quite a few nations are now ordering it or increasing their order. I'm Australian and we have lots of Navy issues being discussed right now(???) and what sorts of missiles we are wanting to get like Tomahawks and LRASMs. In looking into that discussion one of the very odd things I found was how little there's been of naval conflict since WW2. Other than the Falkland's when 5 ships (4 Brit & 1 Argentinian) an older sub were lost by the Argentinians and a few other smaller boats were lost there hasn't been much. There's been a few missiles like the USS Stark in 87 and the Moskva. One of the really odd things is how few torpedos have been used. In WW2 torpedos were fired off by the 1,000. Since WW2 the number is 10 fired by submarines and I only know of 1 fired by and aircraft. There might be more. Wikipedia only lists 7 on its main page fired by submarines. I found 3 more fired by an Argentinian sub during the Falklands at what they thought was a ship and they think it might have been a whale. And just now when I was looking for details on that I found a British Lynx helicopter launched a Mk 46 torpedo at the ARA Sante Fe but failed to hit.
    2
  3037. 2
  3038. 2
  3039. 2
  3040. 2
  3041. 2
  3042. 2
  3043. 2
  3044. 2
  3045. 2
  3046. 2
  3047. 2
  3048. 2
  3049. 2
  3050. 2
  3051. 2
  3052. 2
  3053.  @herrschaftg35  YES - I am well aware of the IEA data and have been following their reports for a few years now. That's NOT the point the point is the cost of the NEXT GENERATION of power stations NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE is going to be astronomical. PARTLY because material shortages are going to keep prices high. PARTLY because the corporations who build large scale stuff are completely out of control on standards, profits and tax. PARTLY because the giant wealth shift of the last 40 years has broken every economic system in the developed world. PARTLY because we have driven 80% of our populations into Universities instead of balancing our education across the skill base we need. WORST OF ALL - a whole bunch of nations are going to try and do this at the same time which will send specialist labor and material costs even higher. Do you get where I am going? There's a bunch of factors coalescing into a MEGA-SHlTSTORM because of 40+ years of "Greed is good" stupidity. I tell my fellow Australians that we don't have any of the people we'd need to build just 1 nuclear power station let alone the 8 or more we'd need and their answer is just like its been for cars, TVs and mobile phones - "We'll buy from overseas!" PROBLEM IS EVERYONE ELSE is also in the same situation and they need their people at home doing the work they need done. Simon Michaux who I mostly agree with until it gets to the subject of what to do next recently said and I AGRRE 100% with him on this point. He basically said: "Its not that we can't do the energy transition but we need a better plan."
    2
  3054. 2
  3055. 2
  3056. 2
  3057. 2
  3058. 2
  3059. 2
  3060. 2
  3061. 2
  3062. 2
  3063. 2
  3064. 2
  3065. 2
  3066. 2
  3067. 2
  3068. 2
  3069. 2
  3070. 2
  3071. 2
  3072. 2
  3073. 2
  3074. 2
  3075. 2
  3076. 2
  3077. 2
  3078. 2
  3079. 2
  3080. 2
  3081. 2
  3082. 2
  3083. 2
  3084. 2
  3085. 2
  3086. 2
  3087. 2
  3088. 2
  3089. 2
  3090. 2
  3091. 2
  3092. 2
  3093. 2
  3094. 2
  3095. 2
  3096. 2
  3097. 2
  3098. 2
  3099. 2
  3100. 2
  3101. 2
  3102. 2
  3103. 2
  3104. 2
  3105. 2
  3106. 2
  3107. 2
  3108.  @timgosling6189  I saw a series of documentaries comparing various WW2 systems and how their OVERALL effectiveness matched up. 2 in particular I remember were comparisons between the Sherman & Tiger and Hurricane & Spitfire. They both gave odd results. The Sherman vs Tiger came out on the Sherman for the simple reason that they were so easy to produce and could simply overwhelm the tigers. Interesting they interviewed both Sherman & Tiger people who managed to survive the war. They BOTH agreed they would have preferred to be in a Tiger for the simple reason that a Sherman could only disable a Tiger with a shot to the engine, but that a Tiger would destroy a Sherman with one shot and kill all on board. Until the Firefly and others came along the German crews usually survived. The Hurricane Vs Spitfire was really pertinent to the F35 discussion. In the air the Spitfire was clearly superior and could outclass the BF109. BUT in terms of keeping them flying the Hurricane was way better. ANY DAMAGE to a Spit usually put it out for at least 2 days, because it was all metal with flush rivets needing specialized skills. The Hurricane was mainly cloth over wood (which is why so few have survived) and the local carpenters could fix them over night. It could go against the BF109 but not as well as the Spit, but it was fine against the bombers. Because is was easier to keep flying some of the squadrons with foreign pilots REVERTED back to the Hurricane after getting Spitfires. So their conclusion was that the Hurricane was more decisive in the Battle of Britain because it was able to fly more often and put more bullets into more bombers and eventually the Germans ran out of bombers. I knew a Spit pilot and brought this up with him one day and he was blunt that NO PILOT would trade a Spit for a Cane in NORMAL circumstances. It was quite simple the Spit TO FLY was better all around. So I asked about the maintenance issue and HE AGREED that the Cane was much easier to maintain. He thought the analysts were wrong because without the Spit the Canes would have had to take on the BF109s a lot more. So in hindsight neither the Hurricane or Spit could win the Battle of Britain but together they could. And that's where I think the F35 is a mistake. Its too complex and too hard to maintain and its trying to do everything.
    2
  3109. 2
  3110. 2
  3111. 2
  3112. 2
  3113. 2
  3114. 2
  3115. 2
  3116. 2
  3117. 2
  3118. 2
  3119. 2
  3120. 2
  3121. 2
  3122. 2
  3123. 2
  3124. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). I did engineering but a bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law with a few becoming lawyers. They love doing hypothetical arguments with me about the Amendments. These days I think they did it at times just to hear a different view. Either way I got a odd education in the US Constitution. 1) I think you are absolutely right about the hero worship factor and it blinds people. We have it hear too. I think every nation does to some extent, but America seems to amp it up a bit above average. Look at the current Trump, Biden, Bernie & Hilary problems. They all lack substance and in Trump's case morality and ethics, but to their devoted bases they are infallible. 2) I think his hole "substantive due process" is utter bunk. If his argument holds then all those people who hide behind the absolutism of the 1st Amendment would lose their right to say what ever they like. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, OAN and ALL the "news" outlets who push "opinion as fact" can get shut down. Alex Jones and all the other conspiracy clowns are gone as well. All the TV evangelists who promote some truly insane stuff gone as well. All of the infomercial people gone as well, in fact most of the advertising industry gone. Basically anybody who currently uses the 1st to do what they do irrespective of reality are gone. All anybody would need to do is declare them a public nuisance. 3) He goes on and on about "due process." He should have been asked about his role in founding the "Federalist Society" and the LACK of due process in allowing other opinions on the SC. If you actually consider what the Federalist Society is and its aims it exists for one thing - to circumvent the due process of allowing a broad range of opinions the represents ALL of American society on the SC. What about the due process for all those other people with other views? 4) Finally - Look at the political dodge where he was questioned about what's legal. "I don't have public opinions on what's legal." WTF. Go have a look at some of the recent comments. There's a lot of the hero worship for a guy who did one of the best ever political dodges on a straight forward question. I think you've hit the subject right on the tip. Americans are too willing to hero worship people who are at best fallible.
    2
  3125. 2
  3126. 2
  3127. 2
  3128. 2
  3129. 2
  3130. 2
  3131. 2
  3132. 2
  3133. 2
  3134. 2
  3135. 2
  3136. I'm Australian and before that shit he pulled at the UN he had a decent reputation from the first gulf war. Maybe not perfect, but Gulf War 1 was over and done in a month and then everyone was out. Instead of it becoming Vietnam 2.0 the US and its allies were out. Saddam had is ass kicked, Kuwait was back in the hands of Kuwait and no one was bogged down in some endless disaster. So by about 2003 EVERYBODY WANTED TO KNOW how Gulf War 2 had become the disaster it was. Everyone wanted to know how the same people who did Gulf War 1 screwed up so badly with Gulf War 2. America's own PBS delivered and in 2004 gave the world the documentary "Rumsfeld's War." I first saw it in Australia in either 2005 or 2006 when it was televised on free to air by SBS Australian one of our 2 public broadcasters. Here it is on YT -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPEWIDBrKyM So yeah a lot of people KNOW and have KNOWN for around 16 years, (I have known for at least 14years) that: - Powell LIED to the UN and knew he was lying. - Powell told Bush in a private dinner NOT to go into Iraq and that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were wrong. - Powell, Shinseki and others were shut out of the planning by Wolfowitz on Rumsfeld's direction. Before any of you tell me (an Australian) to F--K off let me tell you something. The Australian Prime Minister at the time John Howard is/was a lawyer, which means he knew the basics of International Law and that its a crime to invade a country that has NOT committed an act or acts of war against you or your allies. The invasion of Afghanistan was legal as the Taliban Government by supporting Osama Bin Laden had attacked Australia's ally on 9/11. But Iraq was NOT legal and our PM knew it wasn't legal and we helped destroy that country and and played our part in the deaths over over 100,000 innocent civilians including the 14 killed at Nisour Square by the Blackwater 4 that Trump just pardoned. So before we all go condemning Colin Powell for his part in the Iraq clusterf--k, just know that a lot of other people were involved and very few have ever been held accountable.
    2
  3137. 2
  3138. 2
  3139. 2
  3140. 2
  3141. 2
  3142. 2
  3143. 2
  3144. 2
  3145. 2
  3146. 2
  3147. 2
  3148. 2
  3149. 2
  3150. 2
  3151. 2
  3152. 2
  3153. 2
  3154. 2
  3155. 2
  3156. 2
  3157. 2
  3158. 2
  3159. 2
  3160. 2
  3161. 2
  3162. 2
  3163. 2
  3164. 2
  3165. 2
  3166.  @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
  3167. 2
  3168. 2
  3169. 2
  3170. 2
  3171. 2
  3172. 2
  3173. 2
  3174. 2
  3175. 2
  3176. AUSTRALIAN HERE: Thom you are wrong on where the Australian Liberal party is on the political spectrum. They ARE NOT far Right but Centre right. However they have been steadily moving to the right for the last 25years or so. Economically speaking they are almost identical to America's Democrats. The National party of Australia which forms the junior partner of the Liberal-National Coalition is further to the right and is closer to the rural conservatives of the American Republican Party. In recent years we have had some smaller parties emerge that are VERY FAR Right like Clive Palmer's United Australia Party which is just one of its names. Clive is like Trump a billionaire of dubious means and with questionable business practices. Clive's ideology is almost identical to people like Charles Koch and his Party is similar to the American Tea Party. FYI - I went to college in America and even though I did engineering I am reasonably familiar with the differences between the American Liberals and American Libertarians. The way I would describe that difference is as an outsider looking in is: American Liberals believe that individual Liberty is best defended by a healthy set of regulations and laws upheld by a functioning court system and effective government so that no individual can be stripped of their basic rights by another person or a corporate entity and that they can get restitution through the courts from injury. American Libertarians believe that individual Liberty is best defended by removing any and all controls the government has except the protection of the state from foreigner nations, the protection of individual property through the police and that the main purpose of the courts is to uphold contracts. That was expressed by Milton Friedman many times.
    2
  3177. 2
  3178. 2
  3179. 2
  3180. 2
  3181. 2
  3182. 2
  3183. Aerospace engineer here - loved it and despite seeing the issue with the second 1/2 of the quarter mile that you mention in the Edit #1 - I agree its a fair assumption. Your NOT trying to be exact your trying get a basic estimate that says YES or NO. Which is an damn important thing too many engineers NEVER Learn. Way to often I see or hear claims that it takes very little to disprove and Elon Musk provides many opportunities. Sorry if this is a bit longish but you'll get that what you've done is actually GOOD ENGINEERNG PRACTICE. My favorite example is terraforming Mars. Way back in 1987 when I was doing my final year we had a number of guest lecturers. One of those was an Alum who worked at NASA and had just completed a study into what it would take to terraform Mars. So we were damn keen to hear about it. His opening remark was (paraphrasing) "Sorry its impossible and here's why." The basic answer is that Mars like any plant is a damn big object and way bogger than we normally realise. He introduced us to 2 concepts. They didn't have labels back then so these days I call them Planetary Mechanics and Planetary Dynamics. Planetary Mechanics is just like what you've done here. You don't try for exact details you are just asking "what does this take?" Planetary Dynamics is all that stuff like making a water cycle work or an oxygen cycle work as well as keeping the planet within a suitable temperature range. Yeah that stuff we all know about but nobody knows how to actually do it. On basic planetary mechanics its sort of as simple as understanding the volume of a spere (v=pi*r^3). Even simpler is just to take the surface area of a planet and change km² to km³ because that's a very close approximation to the volume of a 1km thick layer around something as large as a planet. Mars with a surface area of 1.4437×108 km² which means a 1km thick layer is about 1.4437×108 km³ in volume. That volume with Earth standard air (sea level, pressure & density) is about 178 Trillion (with a 'T') tons. Despite Mars being a lot smaller than the Earth its still a planet and planets are big, damn big. So before we even try and think about water, oxygen, nitrogen and other cycles we'd need to figure out were we get the air from and its a lot of air. Sorry to bore you with my story but I really like this video and what you have actually shown. Its good engineering practice.
    2
  3184. Actually, there's some veracity in that. I'm Australian but in the aftermath we an English Historian explain WHY? It turns out that Bush Senior and Bin Laden Snr did oil business together and to help that they set up their sons to do some business together. So Dubya owned a business 50/50 with a Bin Laden. Its been many years so I might have some details less than perfect. Osama wasn't the Bin Laden Bush did business with that was another of the 17 (or so) Bin Laden boys. Osama was way down the Bin Laden list. His mother was Lebanese?? and became wife number 4 via a business deal. Osama's older brothers used to give him crap so he became the "better Muslim" and to prove that joined the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight against the godless Russians. That 1 brother who was in business with Bush supposedly told Osama "I get what your doing and its commendable. If you get in trouble call me, my business partner's father is ex-CIA and now Vice POTUS." Osama goes to Afghanistan where they are getting hammered by the Russians with their helicopter gunships. Osama calls his brother who calls Bush Jnr who calls Bush Snr and Osama gets stinger missiles and lots of Russian helicopters get shot out of the sky. That brother who supported Osama gets whacked by a Saudi Prince who then takes a chunk of Bin Laden enterprises for himself. Osama calls George Bush Jnr and says something like "We have to get this Saudi Prince" to which Duba says "*NO WAY* we do business with him!" Osama does NOT take that well. In his brain that's a kind of super-hyper-betrayal and decides American has to be punished and we know how that went. Again I might have some details wrong but my understanding is that it was super personal with Dubya over the murder of his brother by a Saudi Prince.
    2
  3185. 2
  3186. 2
  3187. 2
  3188. 2
  3189. 2
  3190. 2
  3191. 2
  3192. 2
  3193. 2
  3194. 2
  3195. 2
  3196. 2
  3197. 2
  3198. 2
  3199. 2
  3200. 2
  3201. Oh no - they didn't think he was intelligent they thought he was a VISIONARY GENIUS the likes of which only come along once or twice a century. I will grant to any of his fans that he does have some talent. in particular he's able to identify opportunities in technological sectors and occasionally he's able to get the right people to exploit those opportunities. For instance (and I am an aerospace engineer) Boeing, Rockwell and others had become incredibly lazy and greedy and milked the daylights out of NASA. So there was an opportunity ADN there were also a lot of disgruntled aerospace engineers who wanted to do things differently. So for Elon it was a good combination that he could milk public perception on SpaceX. Don't get me wrong I think SpaceX have done quite well with Falcon and Crew Dragon especially when compared to Boeing and they Starliner program. BUT THAT is coming all unstuck with Starship because Elon himself is running that show. Elon also lucked out with Tesla because the founders had started with a clean sheet unobstructed by corporate clowns and built a car they wanted and didn't have any Detroit legacies in terms of design ideology. So at a time Elon found a market ready for a specific type of technology and a company already to run with that technology. So he's very good at identifying technical opportunities as well as identifying start-ups that can exploit those opportunities. What he sucks at is getting out of the road and letting the talented people he's funding do their stuff without interference.
    2
  3202. 2
  3203. 2
  3204. 2
  3205. 2
  3206. 2
  3207.  @cragnamorra  Yeah it was a simple thing but the respect that I got back left an impression that has stuck. On the course I did. We started with a lot of basic chart work and plotting courses around harbours. We then did a pile of celestial navigation. Our main project was plotting the course using basic principles from New York harbour (or the Chesapeake??) to just off the coast of Britain. That included using a Great Circle Chart to get the intermediate positions and then translate that onto the Atlantic charts. We had to pre-prep a couple of star fixes as well. When I went to the chief and asked why the emphasis on celestial when GPS was at that time accurate to about 1m for the military (there was no actual admission but it was certainly under 10m). He said something I have never forgotten and its an incredibly important thing across ALL OF THE ENGINEERING FIELDS - Calibration. He said "The stars don't move." Yes we know they shift but his point was we know exactly where each star is and will be for 1,000s of years to come. What he explained is that the stars are 100% reliable while sensors and computers can make mistakes. He then pointed out "If you have to fire off a nuclear armed weapon you better know where its going to go and to do that you need to know where you are in the first place." He told me that ANY SHIP armed with nukes checked its GPS against the sun & stars every 4 hours, while the rest did it 1 or twice a day (I forget which). As I said it was one of my favorite classes, because of how much I ended up learning.
    2
  3208. 2
  3209. 2
  3210. 2
  3211. 2
  3212. 2
  3213.  @franklinwilkerson2061  That's actually a damn good way to put it. When the cold war ended so did a lot of American military spending. I'm Australian but did aerospace engineering in America. I finished late 87 went back to Oz did some post grad and then wanted to go back to America. I called up my old professor who I'd worked for in his consultancy my last year. It was circa 89/90 and he told me to forget it as every contract that had been in place for Reagans Star wars had been cancelled. On top of that many other government programs were cancelled. What few people understand is that key to breaking Soviet Russia was Reagans Star Wars. It scared the Russians into spending more than they could afford and it broke them. On the flip side of that it almost broke America too. Reagan spent around 20 years of R&D money in 5 at the same time he lowered taxes to the rich. It was why America's debt blew out and Bush was forced to go back on his word and raise taxes. Gulf War 1 actually saved the American economy because the Saudis spent huge with REAL cash through the 90s. It also gave America a new boogey man in Saddam. Now that he's gone and America is out of Iraq & Afghanistan they need a new boogey man. Look at how much money the US arms industry is making already from Ukraine. When Biden says here's a $ Billion in aid what he means is we'll spend a $ Billion in our own economy, on our own manufacturers and send you the products they make. Here in Australia we're sending them our Bushmaster vehicles. Its boom time for the company that makes them. Your dead right Putin is the next cash cow for America's main industry.
    2
  3214. 2
  3215. 2
  3216. 2
  3217. 2
  3218. 2
  3219. 2
  3220. 2
  3221. 2
  3222. 2
  3223. 2
  3224. 2
  3225. 2
  3226. 2
  3227. 2
  3228. ​ @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
  3229. 2
  3230.  @bigmike6461  Your right it Trump is the sitting President trying to prevent a legally elected person taking office after a fair and free election. The problem is that right at this moment Trump is still the legally elected President and Biden isn't anything. Until the Electoral College votes he's not actually the president elect. We only assume he is and that the EC will vote in good faith. For Trump to commit treason at this moment he would probably need to do something really stupid or drastic or specific that gets American civilians injured. That hasn't happened yet and we should hope it doesn't This is why accusations of sedition are easier right now because they are attacking and UNDERMINING an institution of government. Its all fair that Trump askes for recounts where its close or challenges if there is "real evidence of fraud," but there isn't. The Republican observers have said there isn't evidence of fraud. The international observers have said there isn't. The Trump appointed election security experts have said there isn't. Even a Trump appointed judge along with 2 other Bush appointed judges said there is no case in Georgia. Most of all his own AG has said there is no evidence of wide spread fraud that could overturn the election. So for minions like Giuliani to keep pushing this false, fake, invented, conjured narrative that undermines confidence in the function of the government and do it publicly - THAT'S SEDITION. For someone like Flynn who should still be under the UCMJ as an ex-military officer he should in big trouble. My bet is that's why Giuliani wants the pardon up front. If Flynn's lawyer has a brain they would get him to recant and apologize ASAP because his pardon does NOT include this shit.
    2
  3231. 2
  3232. 2
  3233.  @russcarvertruthjedi259  Our political chaos is nothing like America's but its on that same path. We even have a rogue billionaire by the name of Clive Palmer who has simply copied Trumps 2016 playbook and going with it. The difference here is our system is set up differently. Our House of representatives is similar to the House in America but our Senate is completely different and its where minor parties get representation. Our Senate is selected by a "single transferable vote system of proportional representation." Hypothetically if a state has 10 senators and your minor party can get 10% of the basic vote you get 1 senator and if you get 20% you get 2. So its easily possible for a minor party to get what we call "the balance of power" which is where NEITHER of the main parties wins an outright majority and needs other people to pass bills. If we get a responsible minor party it works fine, but as has been shown in places like Israel, Greece, Italy and other places if the "balance of power" is held by a nasty pack of ruthless selfish rats its chaos. You don't need to tell me about American history, I wasn't a 1 semester exchange student I was on a sports scholarship and was there 3-1/2years (7 semesters in all). Among my frat brothers were a pack of pre-law students and they used to drag me into all sorts of hypothetical arguments over the Amendments. Mainly #4, then #1 and occasionally others. So I got this unusual education in the US Constitution and I can out argue most Americans on it because I was surrounded by people training to argue it. I am certain these days they dragged me into those discussions because I threw different perspectives into the mix. You don't need to explain things like the F15. I did aerospace engineering and understand all that stuff pretty well. And I can explain the state of NASA in more detail than you can. I was in Orlando in 12 January 1986 and watched Columbia take off. We were 60 miles away and it looked like it was next door. 16 days later me and my classmates went to our first class of the day and before it ended Challenger exploded and with it all that we expected to do. And we expected to build the new space station then called "Space Station Freedom" and then go back to the moon before going further. My aerodynamics prof lost a friend on Challenger so that hit us real personal. If you want to do a podcast on it I can explain where it all went wrong. When I put forward my proposal for an Australian space program I detailed why Apollo was an incredible success and the shuttle a failure that NASA has not recovered from and what we needed to do to avoid the same failures. I can explain IN DETAIL how Jeff Bezos is an idiot over his claim to shift all the heavy industry into orbit and how Elon Musk is even more full of shite than Bezos. The amazing thing about SpaceX is that Falcon is an incredible success and Starship is a brainless fantasy. Where do you want to start?
    2
  3234. 2
  3235. 2
  3236. I'm Australian bit went to college in America. Id id engineering but a bunch of my frat brothers did pre-law and they used to drag me into discussions on the constitution. Time and again they assured me that NOBODY could ever do the things Trump has done, because one of the key parts of the American system was the checks and balances by the Senate. The President nominates people for key positions and SCOTUS and other courts and the Senate checks them out. The House passes laws and the Senate checks that the "i"s got dotted and "t"s got crossed. The Senate is not meant to drive policy or shape the courts, my frat brothers explained that 30+ years ago. Yet look at what McConnell has done. Everyone thinks Trump was the problem (and he was) but he only did what he did because the system that was meant to keep him in check wasn't working. Then there is the bigger issue and that is all the judges that the American Bar Association says are "Not Qualified". Try explaining to anybody from any other country how America has judges overseeing cases that aren't qualified. Go and look up Glenn Kirschner's YT channel he's an ex-JAG and ex-Federal Prosecutor. He's talked about this a lot in recent months and what it will take to fix. All this stuff McConnell enabled and stifled and interfered with has obvious ramifications for America and Americans, but it also has ramifications for America's allies and for the world in general. Most of the worlds business is done in $US and we can't trust that currency as much as we have done for decades. For countries like Australian, Japan, Britain and most of Europe America is a key trading and security partner and we can't trust that as much as we have. That's all because McConnell enabled Trump to do the things he's done.
    2
  3237. 2
  3238.  @usleadershipareliars  Pretty much right on all points although I might have written parts of it differently. You left out an really important point. SCOTUS might not make laws but it sets the standards or limits for how they are used. On the "all anybody does is rant" - absolutely and its not an American issue, its an everywhere issue. I'm Australian but went to college in America and I hate what is being done to America. Not only is it a country I like, but its also Australia's (and many other countries) most important security and trading partner. Yeah China is great for trade but totally shite on security. I'm certain most American's don't realise how much of a big deal all this nonsense in Washington (including SCOTUS) means for the entire world. Don't forget all our economies are now interlinked. Bush Snr introduced it and then Clinton went on his globalization crusade. The NYSE had a fall this week. Then our Stock market had a heart attack and so did a bunch of others. So when these billionaires like Elon Musk, Robert Mercer, Charles Koch, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Bezos & Suckerberg do things that affect Americans then it affects us as well. This is where SCOTUS scares us. Things like Citizens United that gives the US Billionaire class even more power has global effects. For sure its not immediate, but over time those billionaires get LEVERAGE on other nations through their companies, through their lobbyists and through the diplomatic channels. Despite our laws they find ways to PAY our political parties for influence. This group of hyper-right wing judges are bad news for all of us.
    2
  3239. 2
  3240. 2
  3241. 2
  3242. I'm Australian but did my degree in aerospace at U. Illinois (2hrs from Indianapolis). I ended up working the Australian iron ore industry. Back around 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and at that time he was a proponent of Helium-3 mining on the moon. So I went off to our mining industry for experience at building & operating remote mining sites. Around 2010 there were people trying to fund a pig iron smelter in Australia's lesser known iron ore region - the Gascoyne in Western Australia. The Kimberly region further north is where most of those Japanese, Korean and Chinese cars start. The Kimberly is known for very high grades of iron ore while the Gascoyne has lower grades. This company had come across a new version of pig iron manufacture that was suited to lower ore grades and they were telling people that the future of pig iron looked very promising because they predicted a shortfall in supply particularly in high quality pig iron which this new process was for. So I know there were some people talking about the future of pig iron at least 12 years ago. The problem was it was during the aftermath of the 2008 GFC and the industry was trying to deal with the issue of no money for anything and low prices. There were several major projects (port & rail) in the Gascoyne that died. On growth when I first went into our mining industry (circa 2005 - yeah it took time to get there) there was a growth spurt going. They wanted to increase the output from about 200 Mta (million tons per annum) to around 400 million tons. By 2005 they were up to 250+ so it finally made it possible for me to get my chance. We are now producing OVER 800 Mta. In fact in 2017 it was 885Mta. I think its back around 820Mta at the moment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emm5aHAifMg So on growth you're 1/2 right. People thought it was bonkers when they wanted to double our output. We are now more than double that and showing no signs of stopping. In fact with Ukraine off line its the best we have ever had. This is the first I have heard anyone discuss pig iron in a while. It does and doesn't surprise me. It surprises me that nobody listened 12 years ago because it made sense and doesn't surprise me that nobody listened because who listens to common sense. And yes I do have some very blunt discussions with the clowns who want to mine asteroids. They're so dumb. They really can't tell the difference between science fiction and science fact.
    2
  3243. 2
  3244. 2
  3245. 2
  3246. 2
  3247. 2
  3248. 2
  3249. 2
  3250. 2
  3251. 2
  3252. 2
  3253. ITS NOT TREASON Stop saying that - you sound just like the idiots who are backing Trump and his garbage. Look at Lin Wood claiming that of Mike Pence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_States 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. If you look at the dictionary definition yeah sure you can make that claim. I'm not a lawyer or law student BUT my understanding is that according to he constitution of the United States of America nothing that Trump or his clown brigade have done so far publicly would come close to treason. Sedition on the other hand is another thing. In almost any other country in the world they would already be in handcuffs facing court and being convicted. Just the lies about election fraud would be enough in some countries but the calls for martial law is a trip to jail in most places. Mike Flynn is in really serious trouble because he can be recalled to active duty and charged under the UCMJ for Sedition or Conduct Unbecoming as several people (of credibility) have pointed out. Lin Wood, Sidney Powell and others might well be facing disbarment for their frivolous law suits as several people (of credibility) have pointed out. Hypothetically and this is my question for all the lawyers and law professors - Isn't what these nutters in congress are doing is conspiring to deny people their 15th Amendment right to cast a vote and isn't that a crime they can be impeached for? Then there is the possibility that individual states might charge these people and that would mean Trump cannot pardon them. Simply drop the Treason line, its a waste of time when their are real charges that can be brought on these ass holes. Remember Elliot Ness got Al Capone on Tax Evasion. It wasn't murder as I am certain he would have liked, but Capone went to prison and died there. Best Wishes - 15 more days and Trump is gone.
    2
  3254. 2
  3255. 2
  3256. 2
  3257. 2
  3258. ​ @soulslip  I'll give you this explanation and sorry if its a longish. I'm Australian but went to college in America. I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and they used to drag me into all sorts of discussions probably because I could throw in different perspectives. I uses to argue all the time that any country could fail and fall into a totalitarian dictatorship because that was the main lesson I got from studying Orwell (Animal Farm and 1984) in high school. I didn't mind Animal Farm but 1984 was a headache for teenager but these days I'm grateful. One thing people sometimes miss with Orwell is that he wasn't really anti-communist but anti-dictatorship and dictatorships can be Left (like Soviet Russia, Communist China,...) or Right (like Imperial Russia or Imperial China. Iran is an interesting case because before its current Right wing RELIGIOUS dictatorship it had a Right wing monarchy. The point Orwell made was that dictatorships can take almost any from from almost any political system. People forget the Adolf Hitler and his Nazis were elected. As was Mussolini and his Fascists. My friends used to argue that I was wrong. America could NEVER FAIL because America had this system of "checks and balances." It was hardwired into the American system with multiple layers - POTUS with executive control, The House who write laws, The Senate who make certain bigger states don't dominate an SCOTUS who check those institutions are doing things in a lawful way. What NONE of us every discussed was what might happen if that system of checks and balances was undermined by very determined people with enough money to get what they wanted. There's a great PBS Frontline on Citizens United. Its here on YT and EVERY person who lives in a democracy should watch it. Its title is "How the Citizens United Decision Changed U.S. Political Campaigns" About 20 minutes in they interview the lawyer who won Citizens United. His name is Jim Bopp and he started as a pro-lifer and wanted abortions banned. To get what he wanted he had to be able to make money work how he wanted it to work. It was also exactly what some of the Fossil Fuel billionaires needed to get what they wanted. I once had the term "High Machiavellian" explained to me. Machiavelli has been wrongly credited with approving of "the end justifies the means" when in fact he was describing how certain people operated. Its important to understand this isn't about how people "act" but how they "operate" because operation implies planning and goals rather than just responding. If you watch that documentary Jim Bopp is a "High Machiavellian" and that means he truly believes that he has to do whatever it takes to get the end result he wants and any collateral damage is irrelevant. So when he says Citizens United was necessary to democracy he really believes it because the consequences to other people is irrelevant because his task was to rid America of "Roe V Wade." Nothing else mattered to him and his people. At the same time its also allowed the billionaires who backed Jim Bopp to get the people they wanted elected to congress and put on SCOTUS so they could dismantle the IRS, FBI, EPA, FDA, FAA and any other 3 letter agency that restricted their profits. The craziest aspect of throwing out "Roe V Wade" is that its also thrown out the right to privacy over medical records that were (past tense) covered by the 4th Amendment. Go look up the Wikipedia page on Roe V Wade. One of the main arguments was the right to privacy between a medical practitioner and their patient. Remember how on all those TV crime shows like "Law and Order" where they'd go to a doctor and ask for something and the doctor would say "Go get your warrant" and the judge would say "give me a GOOD SOUND reason or go away." Yeah sorry mate but that's gone. Because when Jim Bopp finally got what he wanted he also threw out you basic right to privacy over your medical records. America is now a lesson to the rest of the Western democratic world that if you allow High Machiavellians to go unchecked they will eventually do staggering amounts of damage to your nation and society that CANNOT be easily fixed. Sorry for the length of this but I have a soft spot for America and wished I did have magic wand to fix it. I really had a great time going to college there. The vast bulk of Americans I met are good people and they deserve better than the situation they now have.
    2
  3259. 2
  3260. 2
  3261. Australian here: What Elise Stefanik (and others are doing) is what David Pakman labelled "toxic sport politics" which is where a politician DOES NOT care at all about what they are saying. All they care about is what will score POLITICAL POINTS right at this instant in the current news cycle and enable them to claim some sort of political victory. Although it might be most visible in America it is NOT simply an American phenomenon. We see the same sort of garbage from our politicians here in Australia and see it in other nations via the news. The rhetoric is similar, the behavior is similar, and the lack of caring at all about the consequences is similar and most importantly these sorts of politicians DO NOT CARE about the actual job they were elected for which is run the country (or state, or city or town) they were elected to run. I hear reports all the time how the current US House of Representatives has passed a record LOW number of bills and this its not simply low but less than 1/2 the previous record. This is NOT isolated to America either. We have the same sort of issues here, where promises to take things from policy to actions and/or legislation simply never happens. Go look at the complete disaster that Brexit has become for the British people. The failure of our political parties should be one of the most pressing issues across the entire Western Democratic World. At its core is the insane influence peddling of the super wealthy. Thom Hartman reported a while back that someone analysed the funding from billionaires in the 2022 American Midterms. America has over 500 Billionaires (by some reports). They collectively spent over $900 Million supporting candidates and of that money over $800 Million came from a small group of about 25 people. Here in Australia we less than 1/13th the population of America and as such have fewer billionaires. But our super wealthy and/or their companies have learned from your super wealthy on HOW TO INFLUENCE POLITICS. So we too have influential think tanks that they fund and other organisations that peddle various causes. I keep seeing here on YouTube short blurbs that support various mining interests and its pitched as if we all benefit. Notably Glencore the Swiss based multinational is one of those peddling political influence campaigns. Glencore might be Swiss but it was founded by American Billionaire Marc Rich who was pardoned (by Bill Clinton) for tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and sanction busting. I would also warn any American about complaining about foreign influence to any British person. Many of them know the disastrous Brexit vote was influenced by the work of Cambridge Analytica which was funded by American Billionaire Robert Mercer. This is the major problem of our time. Garbage politicians only interested in toxic sport politics who are funded by the super wealthy to keep our governments from functioning properly.
    2
  3262. 2
  3263. 2
  3264. 2
  3265. 2
  3266. 2
  3267. 2
  3268. As an engineer I am READY TO SCREAM AT PEOPLE WHO BLAME THE WAR IN UKRAINE FOR ENERGY PRICES. Energy prices across the world have been rising for years all that the war in Ukraine has done is exacerbated the situation. The reason why every economist on the planet keeps claiming its the war is because they don't want to admit it was the widespread privatisation of energy assets that they championed during the 1990s that's caused this. I have spent a lot of time over the last few years informally studying economics so that I could make the argument for what they did. Prior to privatisation when governments built big massive energy projects like Tennessee Valley (America) or Snowy Hydro (Australia) or the nuclear programs in Canada, Britain, France, Japan they had 2 main metrics - GDP growth and Employment. It was a fairly simple concept they built the power stations ahead of the demand created by population growth. It created lots of extra energy so that factories and businesses could be started and they'd have cheap power making it easier to EMPLOY people and be profitable. When the flipped to privatised power ALL OF THAT WENT OUT THE DOOR. Private companies have no social responsibility to GDO growth or employment. 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..." Its just taken 25 years for the privatisation nightmare to get to this point where we are shutting down older power stations NOT because they have emissions or they are nuclear BUT BECAUSE they are just so old they can't keep running. Just this week in Australia we shut down the Liddell power station which just adds to our list of power stations we have shut down. We have built out a huge amount of solar and wind but NONE OF THAT is BASE LOAD POWER which is what industry needs.
    2
  3269. 2
  3270. 2
  3271. 2
  3272. 2
  3273. 2
  3274. 2
  3275. 2
  3276. 2
  3277. 2
  3278. 2
  3279. 2
  3280. 2
  3281. 2
  3282. 2
  3283. 2
  3284. 2
  3285. 2
  3286. 2
  3287. 2
  3288. 2
  3289. 2
  3290. 2
  3291. 2
  3292. 2
  3293. 2
  3294. 2
  3295. 2
  3296. 2
  3297. 2
  3298. 2
  3299. 2
  3300. 2
  3301. 2
  3302. 2
  3303. 2
  3304. 2
  3305. 2
  3306. 2
  3307. 2
  3308. 2
  3309. 2
  3310. YOU AR E RIGHT and ITS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN KYLE IS SAYING I have been trying to highlight this report for over 6 months ago when RICHARD WOLLF mentioned it. The report was published in SEPTEMBER 2022 nearly 10 months ago. If you listen to some of the rebel economic people like Mark Blyth we should have had a major re-think of economics AFTER the 2008 GFC made it painfully obvious the Chicago School Neoliberalism had failed. Because there were some people who were too busy enjoying their money that didn't happen. Anyone can find the report just google "congressional budget office family wealth" and the actual home page for the report should come up. On that page you can not only download the report but an Excel spreadsheet with all the data in the graphs. Here's some facts from the data of the very first graph in that report which is the one shown by Kyle at 4:26. From that graph you can not only get the effect of the 2008 GFC by comparing the 2007 data to 2010 but also the recovery by comparing the 2007 data to 2019. Adjusting for population and averaging the data on a per person value: The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.1% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL 21.8% BELOW their 2007 value. So after the GFC that they caused the Top 10% got around US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama and have since recovered and by 2019 were US$20 Trillion ABOVE their 2007 value. Estimates have them at least US$8 Trillion above that during the COVID Pandemic. The current collective value of the Top 10% can be estimated to be above US$90 Trillion compared to an estimated collective value of US$2.5Trillion for the 165 million people who make up America's Bottom 50%. This is neoliberal economics in overdrive. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America on a scholarship this is my gift to you all. Apologies if its blunt, but I do love America and the American people. I do want to see America back at its best and right now America is NOT at its best. And so you know this sort of neoliberal brain virus is doing just as much damage in Australia. We are in the midst of a full blown double crisis of housing and energy and our genius economists have said things like "its just the markets adjusting."
    2
  3311. 2
  3312. 2
  3313. 2
  3314. 2
  3315. 2
  3316. 2
  3317. 2
  3318. 2
  3319. 2
  3320. 2
  3321. 2
  3322. 2
  3323. 2
  3324. 2
  3325. 2
  3326. 2
  3327. 2
  3328. 2
  3329. 2
  3330. 2
  3331. 2
  3332. 2
  3333. 2
  3334.  @desertegle40cal  It was in the Foundation novels, which he started writing as short stories in 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series Its in one of those stories where a person from the Foundation ventures back into the remnants of the Empire. They get to a planet where things are starting to fall apart and they talk to "the engineer in charge" who is only the engineer in charge because the father was the engineer in charge. The term engineer had become a hereditary title NOT a qualification. I remember that because I was doing my degree in aerospace engineering at the time. It was in those stories Asimov developed the term "psychohistory." Which is basically a statistical method of predicting what a society will do based on emotional inputs. It was an extension to mob psychology where the accuracy was a function of the size of the mob. Hari Seldon (the lead character) wasn't dealing with just a mob he was dealing with millions of planets with billions of people on each, which made his calculations even more accurate. A couple of years later I was back in Australia doing post-grad studies. I was in the library one day looking for a specific journal as part of a literature search and stumbled across volumes of the "Journal of Psychohistory." That was circa 1988/89. So by the end of the 1980s what Asimov had written about starting in the 1940s had become a real area of science that people were doing serious academic work in. Have a look at the first subject under the heading similar concepts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional) Now you know a bit more of HOW and WHY they (our political masters) do what they do in campaigns. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    2
  3335. 2
  3336. 2
  3337. 2
  3338. 2
  3339. 2
  3340. 2
  3341. 2
  3342. 2
  3343. 2
  3344. 2
  3345. 2
  3346. 2
  3347. I'm Australian but went to college in America. I did aerospace engineering but a pack of my frat brothers were pre-law and several are now practicing lawyers. They used to love bouncing my head off the walls with hypothetical discussions on the constitution explaining how great the constitution was. Years later I believe that without doubt the US Constitution is one of the greatest achievements in human history, but this is its greatest challenge. One of the things my frat brothers never backed down on was the "that can't happen here" stance. They explained to me time and time again how the system of checks and balances could never be breached. I think a couple of them dragged me into those discussions because I would challenge them with questions no American would think to ask. But neither they or the founding fathers ever considered someone like Mitch McConnell doing what he has done. Blame my frat brothers all you like, but they explained to me just how important the Senate is as the check and balance to the President and Congress. McConnell subverted the Impeachment with no witnesses, no evidence and even allowed senators to not even be there to hear what was presented. I knew that would come back to haunt America. What McConnell did was subvert the one thing that could keep a rogue POTUS under control. As a result Trump was never kept in check. His children (Jared & Ivanka) were not kept in check. His minions (Giuliani, Ellis, Powell,....et.c) were not kept in check. Mike Flynn advocated for martial law only a few days ago. I don't think Biden or his team yet realise just what they face or what it will take to fix. Absolutely Trump has to be removed, but so does McConnell and the others who enabled this to happen. Its important they are all impeached as that will prevent any future POTUS pardoning them. Start with Trump, but don't stop there. Get all of them for what they have done to a great country and America is a great country despite some of what its done. Just know that America has a lot of friends and we do want to see you get past this.
    2
  3348. 2
  3349. 2
  3350. 2
  3351. 2
  3352. 2
  3353. 2
  3354. 2
  3355. 2
  3356. 2
  3357. 2
  3358. 2
  3359.  @patmahinie5728  Actually read my comment and actually think this time. I never said the administration or campaign was free from collusion. I'd agree that I don't think Trump himself was directly involved in any collusion, but that's more a gut feeling that Trump's too arrogant to think he'd need help. As for others in his campaign team that was never cleared up. Even Steve Banon publicly discussed how Don Jr and others who were in the meeting with the Russian who offered material pointed the finger at Manafort. Manafort was a seasoned campaigner he should have dragged them out at the first suggestion. Why he didn't has never been clearly answered. As for the abuse of power, the phone call with Ukraine was "absolute bullshit" and Trump should have been found guilty. EXCEPT Mitch McConnell decided to prove he's the most corrupt politician in American history. As for Bill Barr he lied to congress about the Mueller Report and the "memo" he relied on. A Federal Judge has already been over that and told the DOJ to release it. We'll have to wait to see where that goes. As for Giuliani he'll probably plead innocence by mental illness as in "please Mr. Judge I'm old and senile and have trouble seeing reality." As for your claim that people are using social issues to provoke civil unrest - what brainless bullsh1t. The only provoking of the January 6 riot where 5 people died was from Trump and his team. What's provoking people is the idiotic delusional garbage people like you keep pushing.
    2
  3360. 2
  3361. 2
  3362. 2
  3363. 2
  3364. 2
  3365. 2
  3366. 2
  3367. 2
  3368. 2
  3369. 2
  3370. 2
  3371. 2
  3372. 2
  3373. 2
  3374. 2
  3375. 2
  3376. 2
  3377. 2
  3378. 2
  3379. 2
  3380. 2
  3381. 2
  3382. 2
  3383. 2
  3384. 2
  3385. 2
  3386. TO ALL: I am an Australian engineer and there is some very concerning stuff here and some stuff that really doesn't mean anything. The cruise ship stuff doesn't really mean anything. It might be something that's easily explainable. In any form of engineering there are parts that can be used almost anywhere. The fact that somebody used the same generators and pumps off a cruise ship might not look good to the average person but it means nothing compared to the FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS and REQUIREMENTS. The "what does it have to do" stuff. For any engineered system the first question that should be asked is "What does it have to do?" followed by a string of questions regarding how well it has to do it. So for emergency generators and pumps it starts with things like: How fast does it have to respond? What's the minimum amount of time it has to be able to run at full power? If its a generator what's the power does it has to deliver? If its a pump how much water (flow rate & pressure) must it be capable of pumping? HOW RELIABLE DOES IT HAVE TO BE? Those answers become the Functional Specifications and Requirements. It may or may not include the specific industry. What can happen is that devices made for one industry are well enough designed to meet the requirements and or standards of other industries. An emergency generator for a cruise ship would have to have very high reliability because part of its specification would be the ship is at sea, in a storm and help is days away. Forget nuclear power station and cruise ship and think - its an emergency system so when its actually needed ITS AN EMERGENCY. I work in control system and part of that are the control circuits behind those big red buttons with EMERGENCY STOP written on them. You'd be amazed how many people, including other engineers, who just forget that the reason someone actually presses and E/STOP is because something bad is already happening. The REQUIREMENTS for any EMERGENCY device isn't what it has to do when everything is normal. It has to do its job when the shit has already hit the fan and being thrown everywhere. So the cruise ship stuff is meaningless BUT the failure to perform as SPECIFIED and REQUIRED is absolutely scream as loud as you can stuff.
    2
  3387. 2
  3388. 2
  3389. 2
  3390. 2
  3391. 2
  3392. 2
  3393. 2
  3394. 2
  3395. 2
  3396. 2
  3397. 2
  3398. 2
  3399. 2
  3400. 2
  3401. 2
  3402. 2
  3403. 2
  3404. 2
  3405. 2
  3406. MAJOR CORRECTION to one of Amy's comments and a statement in the video description. At 7:23 she implies that Watchtower is part of these political programs. In the video description there's the remark "...Watchtower, which aims to rally voters around opposition to transgender rights." I can tell you all from my involvement with JWs that BOTH her implication and the comment in the video description are 100% WRONG. Please note Andy Kroll makes no mention of them during the interview. The only person who mentions them is Amy along with the claim in the comments. BACKGROUND: The Watchtower is the corporate & legal arm of Jehovah's Witnesses that was first setup by their founder Charles Taze Russell. It and its branches only exist for legal purposes of doing things like owning property. They own properties for their offices and facilities all over the world and to own those properties a legal entity has to exist. This is no different to all sorts of organisations. For example Greenpeace owns boats like the Greenpeace Warrior and those boats have to be registered and for that a legal entity has to exist. The same goes for many sporting clubs and organisations and the properties they own. There has to be a legal entity to won the property. So there's nothing nefarious in the existence of the Watchtower. As to the claims of political activity and funding of campaigns. HERE'S SOME FACTS JWs do NOT participate in politics anywhere in the world. They do not shun governments or see them as illegitimate as some claim. In fact they believe all governments are legitimate and been ALLOWED by God. For example: When Jesus was asked about paying tax to Rome he gave the famous "Pay Caesar's things to Caesar" remark. So in general they pay their taxes and obey the laws as best they can, because there's a clear direction from Jesus to do so. HOWEVER they also follow another direction of Jesus which is to be "No part of the World." In that context of that comment other passages its a reference to politics. This is why JWs DO NOT vote in elections or run for political office. However, so long as it does not conflict with their beliefs they will accept government appointments. So the implication they are working with these other Christian Nationalist groups in political activities is 100% WRONG. The claim that they are trying to sway voters on transgender rights is also 100% WRONG because that means breaking their political involvement beliefs. HOWEVER there may be individuals engaging in these activities BUT they would be acting on their own behalf and those people would be 100% responsible for their own actions just as I am for my comments here. YES I have checked and there are various claims by people regarding transgender issues and how JWs see them. Those are social and belief discussions rather than political and any discussion here distracts from the political implications Amy has made. My comments here are to correct the implications made by Amy which I know are 100% WRONG.
    2
  3407. 2
  3408. 2
  3409. 2
  3410.  @bp6421  Do you know how accurately that describes the Australian Political Parties (Left & Right)???? And if you go and watch anything on British Politics it fits there too???? I don't come from a poly-sci or economics background. I'm an engineer so its kind of in my nature to ask WHY something is what it is because that's the basis of problem solving. Pretty much all engineers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians,.... are all fundamentally inquisitive people who like solving problems. What's amazed me is how SIMILAR the problems are across the developed world. - Politicians who can't make decisions and INSTEAD they pay consultants ridiculous money to justify why they can't do anything. - On the RARE times politicians make decisions the same wealthy people always benefit while the rest of us pay for it either in money or blood. - Economics that no matter who's in power the wealthy get wealthier and the rest of us pay for it. 90% have to face being dumped in the street while billionaires just wait for the eventual bail out. - Nobody can curb energy costs, or pay for health care or fund education but we EVERY government can still find the next BILLION for the next military toy. It all traces back to an inflection point centered around 3 people and a crisis. Back in the 1970s there was stagflation and up popped Milton Friedman. Then came Ronnie Reagan and Marge Thatcher who bashed their nations senseless with Uncle Milton's "Greed is Good!" mantra and acted as if rapacious greed was never going to bite. It was a dumb as swimming with rabid piranhas and expecting not to be eaten. Yes there were many other events in history but almost everything we are dealing with right now passed through that inflection point. You can look at things like Citizens United and trace that back to Reaganomics which was based around the idea that "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem." Brexit can all be traced back to Thatcherism. Here in Australia our issues with energy, manufacturing, banking and our massive issue with consultants all trace back to 2 key Treasurers (our equivalent to the Secretary of the Treasury). Paul Keating came from the Left and Peter Costello from the Right. They slowly demolished our manufacturing sector and sent it piece by piece to China, while employing an endless list of consultants who sold off our national assets and de-regulated anything and everything. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?
    2
  3411. 2
  3412. 2
  3413. 2
  3414. You are right about flying to hubs but only 1/2 right about Concorde. Yes its was fuel hungry but then going fast in anything is a fuel consumption issue. If you use basic high school science class then you'd know from kinetic energy that going twice as fast requires 4 times the energy because its a squared law. Drag is also a velocity squared function so going twice as fast means 4 times the drag. It does get more complicated at supersonic speed but going those speeds is very fuel hungry. On the other hand Concorde ran very profitably and for many years was British Airways most profitable division. There's a great documentary made after they retired Concorde that was made with a lot of BA Concorde pilots. Its actually a great case study in effective market analysis. After BA realised Concorde was losing money they told the pilots they were going to shut it down. The pilots said it shouldn't be losing money because the planes were basically full for every flight. The BA board challenged the pilots and said if they could get it to make money they could keep flying. So the pilots checked the ticket records and found that the most frequent users were a bunch of bankers in New York, London and Paris. They found out that these guys were doing work where people still had to meet and sign contract papers. So for them being able to zip across the Atlantic sign some papers and zip back was brilliant. When the pilots asked the bankers what they thought the tickets were worth they got a monster shock - none of the bankers knew because their travel was always done by their secretaries. So they asked these bankers what a ticket was worth to them in terms of their time and got an even bigger shock because it was $1000s more than the actual ticket price. So the pilots upped the ticket price to what the bankers believed they were worth. People kept flying Concorde and they made heaps of money. The pilots kept the board to their word and the pilots ran the Concorde division for years and kept it very profitable. What hurt Concorde in the end was Osama Bin Laden because something like 100 of Concorde's most frequent flyers died in the 9/11 attack because they worked in the World Trade Center.
    2
  3415. 2
  3416. 2
  3417. 2
  3418. 2
  3419. 2
  3420. 2
  3421. 2
  3422. 2
  3423. 2
  3424. 2
  3425. 2
  3426. 2
  3427. 2
  3428. 2
  3429. 2
  3430. 2
  3431. 2
  3432. 2
  3433. 2
  3434. 2
  3435. 2
  3436. As an Australian let me answer -> Like the complete fat orange turd that he is. That trade war he started with China. The Chinese have turned that on us at significant cost. Trump stalling any efforts on climate change gave our right wing all the fuel they needed to fark our situation and our situation isn't good. I was (by chance) working in Canada when Trump tore up NAFTA and imposed tariffs. I can tell you they went from being very very polite into psycho hockey rage mode faster than anything I've ever seen. I know there's plenty of Americans who think Australia should shut its mouth and be like a South Pacific Puerto Rico. We cop enough shite from other countries as America's 51st state because we always vote with America at the UN and that when America invades somewhere we go along like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. But we have also tied our entire future security to America with programs like the F35. My favorite question to other Australians on the American subject is: Is it in our best interests that America is a healthy functioning nation. Even those Australians who really don't like America answer YES to that. But we all agree America isn't healthy or functioning as it should. We think of America more like a good old American Muscle car - A big V8 with crap suspension and lousy brakes that's great in a straight line until it hits a bump or bend in the road. Right now we see that V8 as only firing on 5 cylinders, the brakes are shot, the shocks are shot and its approaching a bumpy swerving road at 125mph. Oh and the driver is half asleep and tanked on Jack Daniels! FYI - I'm one of the Aussies who does like America. I went to college there on a sports scholarship. So I have a lot of friends there. I have a lot of great memories form my time there. It shites me what Trump has done and is still doing to a great nation. I'm very concerned that Biden isn't capable of solving the issues that need to be solved and that will hand America back to Trump in 2024.
    2
  3437. 2
  3438. 2
  3439. 2
  3440. 2
  3441. I absolutely agree with your sentiment, what she did met the "depraved indifference" clause of US Law. My problem is with how Donald Trump has behaved with these 3 recent executions. I don't have a problem with any nation or state executions for crimes they mandate for crimes beyond what society will tolerate. I do have a problem when any state steps outside that mandate. Because once that happens, justice takes a backseat to politics and executing people for political gai is one of the most disgusting things ANY NATION does and it is done way to often. In my home state of Victoria Australia the last man executed WAS DONE for political purposes. It was well understood that Ronald Ryan did not shoot and kill George Hodson. The ballistics proved it and the main witness lied, and both those points were understood at the time. Henry Bolte the State Premier at the time faced an election and told people that the hanging would help get him re-elected and it did. You can look up Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois & Lisa Montgomery and all their crimes were depraved. I don't have a problem with their trials, their sentences or the outcomes. In Montgomery's case a few have pointed out she went with clamps and others tools that showed she at some level knew what she was doing. Was she mentally ill? Absolutely - no sane person does what she did. My problem is Donald Trump who lost his mandate to make these decisions. For 130 years American Presidents had delayed all federal executions after the election. Once the election is held the American people have spoken and handed the mandate onto the next President. Americans are very quick to speak about "the will of the people" and on November 4 2020 the American people spoke and Donald Trump lost his mandate. Lets not forget one other thing. As Donald Trump sent these 3 to the chamber, he pardoned the Blackwater 4 who killed 14 people and injured 17 others in the Nisour Square Massacre. That included a 9 year old boy. That crime also met the requirements (at least in part) for depraved indifference. But the Blackwater 4 had Erik Prince as their boss. Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy De Vos, Donald Trump's Education Secretary. Donald Trump executed 3 and let go 4 others all for political gain and that stinks.
    2
  3442. 2
  3443. 2
  3444. 2
  3445. Aerospace Engineer here: I might be Australian but I absolutely understand that sort of logic as I have seen it done. I actually work in industrial control systems which has enabled me to work across several industries giving me in experience of many of the things needed to do things like build a lunar base. So I have been involved in manufacturing, mining, water treatment, power reticulation and even done a power station project. I also have certifications in both Functional Safety and Hazardous Areas (Explosive gas & dust). So I am more qualified than Sabine to talk about Hydrogen and have commented previously on her remarks regarding Hydrogen. SHE IS WRONG it is the way forward because there is nothing else that can do the job Hydrogen can do. There is no battery system that can be large enough because there isn't enough Lithium. Simon Michaux (who I don't always agree with) is 100% right on this point. In fact there isn't enough lithium to make 1/3rd of the batteries needed for all the cars in the world let alone the trucks, buses, laptops, mobile phones and especially not the mega batteries Elon Musk and others sell. Using Hydrogen as a buffer between renewables and the power gird makes sense. The Electrolysers are getting more efficient with some experimental ones reaching 94% efficiency. There's a new generation of gas turbines coming out. Both Siemens and GE have been selling mixed fuel Gas Turbines for a few years now. These can run AS THEY ARE WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS up to 50% Hydrogen. There are numerous power stations around the world that can be replaced by these. For example: In Australia we have 2 older gas thermal power stations (Torrens Island & Newport). Torrens (built in the 1970s) puts out 800MW which is the same as the largest Siemens & GE turbines. At best Torrens was about 35% thermal efficiency when new and likely less than 30% now considering the state of other old power stations we have (and had). At better than 64% Thermal efficiency one of these turbines would use less than 1/2 the natural gas for the same power. If it also then used Hydrogen that was produced from excess energy on days when the wind blows hard and the sun shines bright then we'd have an even bigger saving on natural gas and with it even lower emissions. The problem I have with Sabine talking this way is that she is NOT a project engineer and does NOT understand that project engineers have to be very pragmatic with their decisions. As a theoretical physicist she can ponder about things. As engineers we can't. Engineers have to solve the problem that exists in front of them and that gets damn hard when other voices who DO NOT know what they are saying wont STOP SPEAKING. SHE IS RIGHT that Hydrogen is difficult to handle, but scaremongering about the Fukushima explosion is exactly the sort of nonsense nobody needs. I am qualified to talk about the safety requirements needed around hydrogen because I have been trained for it and had to deal with it in projects. The moment its known to be of noticeable quantities in a process everything changes. Hydrogen has a very low ignition energy and that included thermal ignition where simply being hot enough causes ignition. Go and ask any engineer who works in the selection of electrical equipment for use in Hazardous Areas and they will tell you hydrogen is a hassle. For those reasons: I DO NOT want to see hydrogen used in cars and busses. If there is an accident its going to be horrendous. Sabine is right hydrogen explosions are nasty because of how much energy can be released and because of how easily they ignite. HOWEVER as a buffer to the worlds energy systems Hydrogen makes a lot of sense if we are going to have a future dominated by renewables (Wind & Solar).
    2
  3446. 2
  3447. 2
  3448. 2
  3449. 2
  3450. 2
  3451. 2
  3452. 2
  3453. 2
  3454. 2
  3455. 2
  3456. 2
  3457. 2
  3458. 2
  3459. 2
  3460. 2
  3461. 2
  3462. 2
  3463. I absolutely agree with your sentiment, what she did met the "depraved indifference" clause of US Law. My problem is with how Donald Trump has behaved with these 3 recent executions. I don't have a problem with any nation or state executions for crimes they mandate for crimes beyond what society will tolerate. I do have a problem when any state steps outside that mandate. Because once that happens, justice takes a backseat to politics and executing people for political gai is one of the most disgusting things ANY NATION does and it is done way to often. In my home state of Victoria Australia the last man executed WAS DONE for political purposes. It was well understood that Ronald Ryan did not shoot and kill George Hodson. The ballistics proved it and the main witness lied, and both those points were understood at the time. Henry Bolte the State Premier at the time faced an election and told people that the hanging would help get him re-elected and it did. You can look up Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois & Lisa Montgomery and all their crimes were depraved. I don't have a problem with their trials, their sentences or the outcomes. In Montgomery's case a few have pointed out she went with clamps and others tools that showed she at some level knew what she was doing. Was she mentally ill? Absolutely - no sane person does what she did. My problem is Donald Trump who lost his mandate to make these decisions. For 130 years American Presidents had delayed all federal executions after the election. Once the election is held the American people have spoken and handed the mandate onto the next President. Americans are very quick to speak about "the will of the people" and on November 4 2020 the American people spoke and Donald Trump lost his mandate. Lets not forget one other thing. As Donald Trump sent these 3 to the chamber, he pardoned the Blackwater 4 who killed 14 people and injured 17 others in the Nisour Square Massacre. That included a 9 year old boy. That crime also met the requirements (at least in part) for depraved indifference. But the Blackwater 4 had Erik Prince as their boss. Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy De Vos, Donald Trump's Education Secretary. Donald Trump executed 3 and let go 4 others all for political gain and that stinks.
    2
  3464. I absolutely agree with your sentiment, what she did met the "depraved indifference" clause of US Law. My problem is with how Donald Trump has behaved with these 3 recent executions. I don't have a problem with any nation or state executions for crimes they mandate for crimes beyond what society will tolerate. I do have a problem when any state steps outside that mandate. Because once that happens, justice takes a backseat to politics and executing people for political gai is one of the most disgusting things ANY NATION does and it is done way to often. In my home state of Victoria Australia the last man executed WAS DONE for political purposes. It was well understood that Ronald Ryan did not shoot and kill George Hodson. The ballistics proved it and the main witness lied, and both those points were understood at the time. Henry Bolte the State Premier at the time faced an election and told people that the hanging would help get him re-elected and it did. You can look up Brandon Bernard, Alfred Bourgeois & Lisa Montgomery and all their crimes were depraved. I don't have a problem with their trials, their sentences or the outcomes. In Montgomery's case a few have pointed out she went with clamps and others tools that showed she at some level knew what she was doing. Was she mentally ill? Absolutely - no sane person does what she did. My problem is Donald Trump who lost his mandate to make these decisions. For 130 years American Presidents had delayed all federal executions after the election. Once the election is held the American people have spoken and handed the mandate onto the next President. Americans are very quick to speak about "the will of the people" and on November 4 2020 the American people spoke and Donald Trump lost his mandate. Lets not forget one other thing. As Donald Trump sent these 3 to the chamber, he pardoned the Blackwater 4 who killed 14 people and injured 17 others in the Nisour Square Massacre. That included a 9 year old boy. That crime also met the requirements (at least in part) for depraved indifference. But the Blackwater 4 had Erik Prince as their boss. Erik Prince is the brother of Betsy De Vos, Donald Trump's Education Secretary. Donald Trump executed 3 and let go 4 others all for political gain and that stinks.
    2
  3465. 2
  3466. 2
  3467. 2
  3468. Dr. Michael Osterholm (the director of CIDRAP) addressed this exact concept a couple of weeks ago in his podcast (see below) giving plausible arguments both ways. He pointed out that Wuhan just like Atlanta (home of the CDC) is a major transportation hub. If an outbreak of something happened in Atlanta most people would look at the CDC just as quickly as people are looking at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He then points out that the CDC has had a lot of incidents. He's quite open that there are people pushing research that's dangerous and its not being scrutinized or properly governed. Your analogy is quite right if there's a chocolate spill in Hershey Penn there's an obvious place to look. But what if there was a Cadbury truck passing through town on the day of the spill. Yes your suspicion is right, but then you have to investigate further to make sure. I did aerospace engineering and Boeing claimed there wasn't a problem with the Max-8 it was probably pilot error because every plane incident involves pilots AND THEN on further examination we found out there was problem with the plane. On the virology side there's a division starting to become more publicly known between those who like modifying viruses to see what they might become in future and those who are saying "No, that's dangerous and it doesn't produce results." There's a great short documentary by DW News on this subject (see below). It has some really good input from experts regarding what some researchers have been up to, including the Chinese. Going back to your analogy. It would be like after the Spill in Hershey Pen. the company says "Nothing to see here, there was a Mars Bars truck in town." AND THEN later we find out they were doing risky things in ways others have warned could lead to a spill. Is it conclusive? NO, but it should make us look closer at the evidence. AND as Dr. John points out here the Chinese aren't letting anyone investigate let alone see the evidence. Dr. Michael Osterholm -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNfScnnDVU&t=2610s DW Documentary -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18
    2
  3469. 2
  3470. 2
  3471. 2
  3472. 2
  3473. 2
  3474. 2
  3475. 2
  3476. ​ @shewolf2584  I am not surprised in the slightest. Despite all we have tried to accomplish here in Australia we still have some very ugly stuff happen AND it comes from all directions. Racism is not simply a "white thing" its something every tribe an nation does at some point. The problem for European societies is the colonial era was so well recorded and its not so far in the past that its ancient history. I studied engineering but my main humanities string was classical civilisation and I ended up doing 3 classes on ancient Greece which we often see as this enlightened society where democracy and philosophy were born and nurtured. Go read up on their wars and their politics and you get everything that's wrong with humanity. We have a lot of Asians in Australia these days and WOW do they have some history between each other. I have worked with both Indians and Pakistanis and their feelings to each other are unbelievable. I was in Canada a couple of years ago and like Australia and New Zealand they are also trying to deal with their colonial past. I think New Zealand is ahead in that process and the 3 of us are well ahead of most other nations BUT that's like saying we are clever because we have done the first mile of a 1,000 mile journey while others are yet to start. I often remind Australians that were aren't better because we have started the journey because its going to be a very long journey and we have a very long way to go. I think America's biggest problem right now is the super wealthy and especially the OLDER wealthy who just wont accept they don't need to keep earning millions each year. Warren Buffet's 93 and Charlie Munger is 99. There are a bunch of them of similar age. WHY are they still working? WHY are they still interfering in politics as much as they do? America (and a few other countries) desperately needs a younger leader to stand up an be counted and look at the future instead of being scared by it.
    2
  3477. 2
  3478. 2
  3479. 2
  3480. 2
  3481. 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
  3482. 2
  3483. 2
  3484. 2
  3485. 2
  3486. I don't have your skill set, I'm an engineer. First thanks for the explanation between local and global brain injure. I have a nephew who was born missing a language link. He knew what he wanted to say but the link between his thinking and speech didn't exist and with a lot of therapy he developed the link. So I understand what you meant by that. I did like your comment there's just a couple of things I feel you oversimplified. I don't know if I can completely agree or dismiss your assessments of Biden or Feinstein. Both of them are old Feinstein is 89 and Biden is 79 and old people decline. I can't speak for Feinstein but anyone can see Biden is not as sharp as he was in his VP & Senate days. BUT WITHOUT a detailed examination nobody can just say he has dementia. If you were to say. Biden's showing signs of decline and some of those signs are indicative of or match up with early onset dementia then that's a comment I can take 100%. And you probably can list or explain those signs better than I can. My family missed my grandmothers signs and we only put it together after she died. Herschel Walker is easy to see. If you watch the PBS Frontline documentary "League of Denial" it has interviews with NFL players before and after their decline. I saw a Herschel Walker interview from 7 years ago here on YT and the difference between then and now is almost identical to what is shown in "League of Denial." I think too many people are throwing simple one word answers at everything they can these days. I get that as an engineer all the time where people want a 1 word answer to a 10,000 word explanation. The energy crisis is a prime example there. Everyone wants to hear how we'll get cheaper cleaner energy and its just not that simple. We are trying to clean up 45+ years of bad decisions and there is no 1 word or 1 sentence answer.
    2
  3487. 2
  3488. 2
  3489. 2
  3490. 2
  3491. 2
  3492. 2
  3493. 2
  3494. 2
  3495. 2
  3496. 2
  3497. 2
  3498. 2
  3499. 2
  3500. 2
  3501. 2
  3502. 2
  3503.  @7yep4336dfgvvh  Get your facts right sunshine. The Viet Cong were never funded by the US. They were communists fighting against the South Vietnamese regime that was supported by America. I think you go you groups muddled up on that one. As for the Taliban. Certainly the US funded the mujahedeen and supported them against the Russians back in the 1980s. Osama Bin Laden joined the mujahedeen which was where he gained popularity. His greatest aid to that was an almost direct line to the White House courtesy of his brother's business relationship with George W Bush whose father George H Bush was POTUS at the time. That was how the mujahedeen got their hands on US made Stinger AA missiles to shoot down all those Russian helicopters Osama and others then linked up with Al Qaeda after the Russians left and he had issues develop back in Saudi with the Saudi king. Al Qaeda's origins go back long before Osama joined them. They were active in places like Morocco and Egypt years before. The Taliban came later and formed with money and support from Pakistan. I can guarantee you the Americans knew about that Pakistani support for the Taliban. A few years ago I worked with a young Pakistani engineer. We were discussing this one day and he told me I didn't know shite. His father was in the Pakistani government and he showed me photos on his phone of him, his family and US diplomats having dinner at his house. He then told me how his father had him sit in on several meetings as part of getting experience. And that's as much as I can tell anyone. So I can pretty much guarantee the Americans knew about the Pakistani support for the Taliban. But as for America directly or indirectly funding the Taliban I doubt anyone actually knows.
    2
  3504. 2
  3505. 2
  3506. 2
  3507. 2
  3508. 2
  3509. 2
  3510. 2
  3511. 2
  3512. 2
  3513. 2
  3514. 2
  3515. 2
  3516. 2
  3517. ​ @justadbeer  Your right to some extent. What your forgetting is that America made the rest of the world dependant on it and in particular security but it wasn't the only thing. You should go and listen to Peter Zeihan who's a geopolitical strategist. I don't agree with all that he says particularly when he talks technology, but then I'm an engineer. People like yourself are quite right. The rest of us all run to America when there's a problem. But then a lot of those problems were in part caused by various American entities in the first place. Lost in the disaster of Ukraine are a string of broken promises that America made to Russia after the fall of the Soviet System. Then there's all the economic interference that Americans advised Russia on that lead to the rise of the Russian Oligarchs. I recently heard Jeffrey Sachs, whining about how the Russians didn't listen to their advice. BS - the Russians are in the mess they are in because they DID LISTEN to American advisors who told them to sell of all their state assets. What your also forgetting is that BEFORE WW2 was even over there was the Breton Woods conference. Where America with its staggering gold reserve basically forced the rest of us to accept the US Dollar as the future worlds reserve currency. Along with that (as Peter Zeihan points out) American basically promised the rest of us it would keep international trade safe. With that we all agreed to be the cannon fodder between American capitalism and Soviet Communism. Peter even points out that China would never have had the chance for its economic growth without America keeping the world's trade routes safe and open. So there's been a lot of benefits and costs to all of us. The bug in that whole system is that certain American's learned how to take advantage of the system and these people are now a problem for ALL OF US. I'm Australian but went to college in America. I'm a very rare person in that I'm a huge fan of the US Constitution. I often say that I believe its one of the greatest achievements in human history AND I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT. However the US Constitution is not perfect and the institutions it birthed are now failing. Without doubt SCOTUS is one of the most important institutions in the world and its been so badly corrupted that its almost non-functional and that has some incredibly serious consequences. No matter what the rest of us feel about any particular American or the nation, American is still 1/4 of the world's economy and almost all international trade is reliant on the US Dollar. Either that trade is done in $US or the transactions are done via banks that operate in $US. That's what it is to be the World's reserve currency AND NONE OF US ASKED FOR IT - we inherited it and a dysfunctional America is a nightmare. So you might think that Russia is the topic but in fact America is ALWAYS the topic. America wanted to be number 1. Well you got there and with that comes responsibility and if America has an Achilles heel its responsibility. None us are really good at it, but we aren't the World's reserve currency. Our Economists don't trapse around re-organising other countries. Our agencies don't sneak in and overthrow governments so our companies can come in and strip those nations. Most of all we don't have an arsenal of nuclear weapons to wave at people like its a giant middle finger. Apologies for the long rant.
    2
  3518. 2
  3519.  @justadbeer  If you look through the comments you'll find there are a lot of Australians and others watching people like Thom. I don't think Americans really get how scared we are of an American collapse and I don't just mean financial. Trump has tapped into a staggering amount of anger and frustration that IS LEGITIMATE. Richard Wolff who's a Marxist economist had this great comment about West Virginia in one of the Michael Brooks tributes (panel 3 just before 35mins). He points out how much the Dems & GOP have screwed those people. Trump gave them an alternative to being screwed yet again. I keep pointing out to Americans there's Congressional Budget Office report Bernie Sanders had updated on Family Wealth 1989-2019. If you just look at the first graph it shows how screwed 50% of America really is. Even when the economy has been better they haven't been better. The Top 10% have got it better the middle 40% have had it reasonable but the bottom 50% have been screwed and screwed and screwed. I've checked what I can of Australian data and its the same basic story. It should be because many of our top economists went to Harvard, Yale,.... etc. Trump and people like him aren't the problem. They're symptoms of a much larger economic issue. Thom is one of the very few with even 1/2 a grasp of it. He understands what the Neoliberals have done. What he might not realise is that they have done it across the entire Western World. But here's the issue. If Australia collapses, then so what? We won't take the world down with us. Neither will many other countries. BUT if America collapses we all go down. Global trade relies on the US dollar because back in 1944 at Breton Woods we all agree it would be the World's reserve currency. So if the US dollar breaks the worlds economy breaks. We can't afford 4 more years of either Biden or Trump, but especially Trump. I can give legitimate security and financial security reasons to at least 100 countries to give him a Chitown love tap. FYI - I went to college at U. of Illinois so I know what a Chitown love tap is. And I do mean that we really can't have Trump 2.0.
    2
  3520. 2
  3521. 2
  3522. 2
  3523. 2
  3524. 2
  3525. 2
  3526. 2
  3527. 2
  3528. 2
  3529. 2
  3530. 2
  3531. 2
  3532. 2
  3533. 2
  3534. 2
  3535. 2
  3536. 2
  3537. 2
  3538. 2
  3539. 2
  3540. 2
  3541. 2
  3542. 2
  3543. 2
  3544. ​ @jeffyoung60  I spent 4 months in Saskatchewan building a water treatment plant back in 2017/18 so I am fairly well aware of how Canadians feel about America. They especially made those feelings known when trump tore up NAFTA and smacked them with tariffs. YES - I was there when that happened. But I agree on the 51st state thing. Its a joke Australian's like to tell regarding Australian foreign policy. A few years ago when Australia was nominated for a 2 year stint on the UN Security council those who opposed it simply said "Why should we bother they'll only vote how America tells them to vote!" Our answer to that was "That's outrageous the American's never tell us how to vote. Our diplomats sound out suggestions and then wait for the Americans to nod." Actually we knew full well we had been annexed during the war. There was actually a lot of tension at times between American servicemen stationed in Australia and the local population. There were a lot of Australian men overseas fighting and a lot of American's here chasing their wives and girlfriends. It didn't go down well. Its not something you hear much about these days except from older people. As for NOT bullying Canada and Australia please go and check out trade negotiations. When NAFTA was re-negotiated the Canadians were very seriously bullied into accepting the deal. It wasn't that Canadians were against re-negotiating the deal. When I was there and Trump tore up NAFTA they weren't upset with that. They were pretty logical abut it. They knew American industry was hurting and their needed to be re-negotiation of the trade agreements. What they objected to was being made the scapegoat. Right now if you are not aware of it there could be a monstrous backlash from the Australian population against America. There's a lot of American soft influence going on. Its mainly through consultants like McKinsey, EY and KPMG. Right now PwC has been outed as having screwed Australia and that should end up in criminal convictions. On top of that its been revealed that a bunch of retired American Navy men have been here since 2012 consulting on the submarines and other Navy purchases. Most of them have salaries over $$$ million and their advice is turning out to be the same sort of worthless shite that American 60 Minutes recently showed regarding the US Navy procurement system. Right now it feels like every Australian issue involves overrated overpaid American consultants for crap advice. We do need to accept responsibility for hiring them but the backlash is coming.
    2
  3545. 2
  3546. 2
  3547. 2
  3548. 2
  3549. 2
  3550. 2
  3551. 2
  3552.  @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
  3553. ​ @mapper7310  I'm An Aussie and that is the point I keep trying to tell people. These issues are WORLDWIDE. I'm an engineer and my interest in economics came from a small project I did in 2016 into Australia's energy sector. Its way worse than ANYTHING the Australian people understand. When I look about the world for similar information I get the same story again and again and its all the fault of economists. I even heard the other day companies are leaving NZ because of energy costs. It took me a couple of year s to get an understanding of the cause and its 2 things. FIRST - economists think the rest of the human race are a problem they have to manage. SECOND - economists don't understand how economies actually function at the nuts & bolts level. They know how markets function because that's WHAT they are trained in. What they don't get is that market solutions don't work for certain basic requirements. They don't get that every business and household needs things like energy and water AND if you screw those things up then everything suffers additional costs. That's why their market solutions don't work for education, health care, infrastructure in general and PARTICULARLY ENERGY. They don't understand how that stuff functions and supports society. I watch people like Gary because it helps me understand how mainstream economists think and operate. His video on "Why are economists always wrong?" is something EVERYONE should watch because it explains so much. He's not perfect but the value of his information is staggeringly high.
    2
  3554. 2
  3555. 2
  3556. 2
  3557. 2
  3558. 2
  3559.  @susanstraitfox  Until the Wade Nichols article (see below) a few weeks ago and the subsequent evidence people have posted, there wasn't anything beyond conspiracy stuff that was so badly presented anyone with a brain simply dismissed it. That was the thing the Chinese and Partners and main stream media took advantage of and used to at least downplay the lab leak. I'm Australian and we heard nothing of his links outside of the far right conspiracy channels. They were all so anti-China and ranting that it was impossible to take anything they said seriously. Then the Wade Nichols article came up and caused a lot of discussion. Another person put up the 3 links below that shows without any doubt NIH money was helping fund COVID research in China. A few weeks back Fauci answered Rand Paul (who is a total complete asshole) that there was no NIH money funding "gain of function" in Wuhan. That might be absolutely true, but Dr. Fauci NEVER explained what the NIH money WAS doing in China. He kept saying what it wasn't doing BUT DIDN'T explain what the NIH money was doing. He never came out and said something like "I know this lab and its doing COVID research which they have to do after the SARS1 & MERS Outbreaks. We are involved in that research because its in our interests incase another variant jumps to humans. We need to be ready for that possibility." My question for Dr. Fauci is:- Why didn't you simply say something like that? Wade Nichols Article -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ NIH Project -> https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9491676 NIH Project -> https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9819304 Chinese Research in part funded by the NIH -> https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698 Note: On the first 2 Peter Daszak (named in the Nichols article) is listed as the Project Leader. If you look at the 3rd scroll down to the part listing who funded the research - its around the middle.
    2
  3560. 2
  3561. 2
  3562. 2
  3563. 2
  3564. 2
  3565. 2
  3566. 2
  3567. 2
  3568. 2
  3569. 2
  3570. 2
  3571. 2
  3572. 2
  3573. 2
  3574. 2
  3575. 2
  3576.  @MentourPilot  This is some ways reminds me of the Dallas Fort Worth Crash of Delta 1141 which was covered in "Aircraft Investigations." That incident also came back to not following procedures and being distracted, but at a different stage of the flight. The pilots being momentarily distracted at the wrong moment forgot to set the flaps and slats for take-off. There's actually an interesting thing that came out form that regarding checklists. NASA did a study and if you look hard you can still find it. I have a copy somewhere. I found it really interesting because my day job includes writing procedures for commissioning industrial plant. What NASA found was that people have a tendency to skip steps or assume answers if lists are either very short (<8 steps) or if they are too long (>12 steps). They also found its important to have it all on the same side of the card or sheet of paper. In the Dallas crash the co-pilot called the flaps & slats which were the last item on the page and turned it over. The pilot was momentarily distracted by ground radio. because the page had been turned the assumption was the step had been done. Their procedure was over 30 steps. You might or might not notice that many of your procedures are broken into groups with 8-12 steps. That way you can complete a group and then move on. You should also have most procedure groups on the same side of the card or sheet and your training is NEVER to turn to the next page without confirming the END of the procedure with the other pilot as parts of CRM training. Most pilots don't know the history of the 8-12 step procedure or that it came via NASA or that it has affected other industries. Its not infallible but its greatly reduced errors.
    2
  3577. 2
  3578. 2
  3579. 2
  3580. 2
  3581. 2
  3582. Sorry if I am going to be a spoiler in this but Viking is playing a hype game. Yes this would be great for Australia IF IT HAPPENS. I am a Melbourne born lad and WOULD LOVE TO SEE this happen. I am also an engineer and I have 30+ years of experience in control systems, automation and robotics. I worked in the manufacturing sector for over a decade including in Melbourne but have spent most of the last 20 years in the mining and resources sector. There are some things to this that have me very concerned especially since the collapse of the Sun Cable project near Darwin. That project had a well credentialled team and backing of 2 billionaires AND IT STILL COLLAPSED. There are some monstrous issues with power generation and distribution around the world AND THERE ARE NO SIMPLE FIXES TO ANY OF IT. So here's my list of things to be cautious about. 1) Why is Viking claiming that NOT using Nickel or Cobalt awesome when Australia produces both? We are the 3rd largest producer of Cobalt, 5th biggest Nickel producer with the 2nd largest reserves of both. So how is NOT using what we have in abundance a good thing? What has Russia or China got to do with any of that? 2) David Collard might be a local Geelong boy who's done very well in New York and made partner at PwC but his degree is in accounting NOT ENGINEERING. There is NOTHING that says he knows anything about manufacturing. I'd expect any body with his sort of background to know there is a huge undersupply for batteries and energy storage. They should also be able to work out there is NOT enough lithium supply to do both the cars and stationary storage. That's NOT and Australian thing that's a world thing. 3) Recharge Industries has NOT PRODUCED ANY BATTERIES ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. That's one thing Viking has right, they are a start-up. That's not necessarily a bad thing but it is something people should be aware of. 4) Citing Robyn Denholm as an authority on ANYTHING is not wise. Go and look up the Channel "Common Sense Skeptic" here on YouTube. She was sued by the Tesla shareholders over the Solar City fiasco and ended up settling out of court with them. CSS goes through her court testimony and its pretty clear she's nothing but a professional boardroom sitter. She's very good at getting appointed company boards. 5) The Recharge CEO Rob Fitzpatrick also has NO obvious EXPERINCE in manufacturing but sits on or advises many company boards. His LinkedIn page shows 14 in just the last 10 years and he is still on several along with Recharge. I am warry about this with good cause having been burned on a couple of start-ups and watched other engineers get burned on start-ups. I'm NOT saying don't work for these people or get involved. Just realise that even with billionaire backers projects can fail and fail in the blink of an eye. Just look at what happened with Sun Cable.
    2
  3583. 2
  3584. 2
  3585. 2
  3586. 2
  3587. 2
  3588. 2
  3589. 2
  3590. 2
  3591. 2
  3592. 2
  3593. 2
  3594. 2
  3595. 2
  3596.  @SuperCroc69  Fun and games. Sorry for the longish reply but as a Sydney sider you and others should be asking the RIGHT QUESTIONS in the RIGHT PLACES. FYI - I'm an engineer with 30+ yrs in automation, robotics and control systems. I started with a degree in aerospace but we don't have a space program YET. I ended up in the mining sector as most of us now do and did about 15years there. Way back around 2010 the civils got all "concerned on a project I was on." It turned out that they had found out WHY a lot of new buildings fell down in the previous Chinese Earth Quake - sub-standard reinforcement bar (rebar). The Chinese had developed this idiotic "scam" called thinning. They would take standard rebar and stretch it SO FAR that it would NOT spring back. Just like if you take the spring out of a pen and pull on it to hard. They'd cut it back down to length and sell the excess for scrap. The new piece of rebar would look just like a perfectly good piece except it was just slightly thinner (hence the label - thinning). There's 2 monstrous issues. First its now NOT the same mass of steel providing strength. Second because it was stretched so far its LOST MOST of its TENSILE STRENGTH. That's super important in reinforced concrete. You see the concrete itself is brilliant at handling compressive load (as in when its squeezed) but has crap tensile strength (as in when its stretched. The job of rebar is to give the concrete structure tensile (stretching) strength. BUT if its Chinese Thinned rebar ITS GOT STUFF ALL TENSILE STRENGTH. I learned all about this stuff back around 2010. When I heard about it I asked our civs and they had (by that time) confirmed NOE of it was in the mine site works. I asked a mate of mine who does structural engineering about this stuff and he could barely believe anyone would be that stupid. JUMP A HEAD TO 2019 and after I saw the 60 minutes on Opal Tower my brain was WTF did they use Chinese rebar. I waited for the report and there is NO MENTION of rebar. Jump ahead a few months and at a bar-bi-q I meet this guy who says he's one of those guys who installs rebar. So I ask him about my concern with rebar and wonder if someone was using cheap Chinese rebar. YES, Australia does import cheap Chinese rebar and YES it was used throughout Opal Tower. How did he know that? Because he worked on it. How did he know the Chinese rebar was crap? "its light and flimsy" his words and I never prompted him for a description. The question isn't was Opal Tower made using sub-standard materials critical to its safety the question is HOW MANY OTHER BUILDINGS does Australia have with this crap in them. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    2
  3597. 2
  3598. 2
  3599. 2
  3600.  @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
  3601. 2
  3602. 2
  3603. 2
  3604. 2
  3605. 2
  3606. 2
  3607. 2
  3608. 2
  3609. 2
  3610. 2
  3611. 2
  3612. 2
  3613. 2
  3614. That's actually one of the few sensible rational comments in this. The initial claims that it was a bio-weapon were totally idiotic and there has never been any evidence that it was ever a weapon. But a lot of evidence has turned up that shows the possibility of a lab leak is very real. The problem is the media and politicians have made a mess of the public discussion making it very hard to know what's fact and what's not. The fact that the Chinese openly published their research is absolutely conclusive that it wasn't a weapon. Nobody develops weapons and the tells the world how they did it - that's simply idiotic. That would be like developing the next -gen stealth fighter and then putting the design on Facebook. Dr. Michael Osterholm (the director of CIDRAP) did a great analysis of this mess and how the media has handled it in a recent podcast. This link is time stamped to that part of that podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNfScnnDVU&t=2610s Note that he honestly points out the issues the CDC has had and how many incidents the CDC has had. Note how he explains that Wuhan and the Wuhan Institute of Virology might just be a coincidence because like Atlanta (home of the CDC) its a major transport hub. Go watch this from DW News that sheds a lot of light on what the Chinese were actually doing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It DOES NOT conclude it was a lab leak, because nobody has conclusive evidence, but there is a lot of evidence that a lab leak was possible. What it also highlights is that the Lead Scientist in Wuhan Dr. Zheng-Li Shi WAS MODIFYING Bat Corona Viruses, but by the definition that she and others use it wasn't Gain of Function. What they show in that documentary is that there is division among virologists over what research is safe to do. They highlight the hyper deadly variant of H5N1 Avian flu that came out of a lab in 2011. Here's the DW documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18 Here's an example of what the Chinese published out of Wuhan. Click on the authors names and you will see where they work. You can also see that the lead scientist in Wuhan mentioned in the DW documentary is also one of the authors of this. -> https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
    2
  3615. 2
  3616. 2
  3617. 2
  3618. 2
  3619. 2
  3620. 2
  3621. 2
  3622. 2
  3623. 2
  3624. 2
  3625. 2
  3626. 2
  3627.  @jonathandnicholson  You absolutely right except for the fact that it was the survivors of war who most often got to breed. And they tended to be the violent ones or the ones who could be violent. Do you know Genghis Kahn and his men used to shag every woman in the cities he captured. They spent days after battles just shagging everything. As a result its something like 1 in 4 Asians are direct descendants of him and his family. On your last part about method. I've seen a couple of documentaries on the subject. (Sorry if this is a bit lengthy) One of them made by a couple of Brits in the 90s just simply went through what various states did and the most horrendous was actually electrocution. But their most interesting point was that in the first 80-90 years of the 20th century only 1 in 10 people formally executed by states was even charged with a crime. What I got from that documentary was that the path leading up to an execution is just as important as anything. Making sure you are doing what you are advocating and doing is justified. As the Americans keep demonstrating its too easy to execute someone for the wrong reasons or a lack of conclusive evidence. The other documentary I saw was also by a Brit after more recent calls for reintroduction of the death penalty in Britain. When he looked into the current and previous methods they all had issues, including the availability of drugs. So he looked at how industry deals with animals and he found the calmest way that they kill animals is with CO2. They simply put them in a chamber and flood it with CO2 and they just fall over. There was the Lake Nyos disaster where CO2 basically wiped out an entire town -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster So there is no doubt that you could reuse the old gas chambers and instead of Cyanide use CO2. The executed would simply get light headed and go to sleep. The Journalist took that concept to the chief medical officer in America for executions and said "Here this could work and replace lethal injections and it would be painless and very quick." The reply was staggering - "NO, its not meant to be pleasant its a punishment." The concept of using CO2 was dismissed because, it was too nice and not a real proper punishment. I changed my stance a bit on capital punishment after that line. I still see it as a necessary option but only in the most extreme cases and ONLY when we are absolutely certain. Then its about being clean and quick.
    2
  3628. 2
  3629.  @mggailitis7231  You've hit on something where you are half right and half wrong. You are absolutely right on how deplorable people like Trump are. They exploit the disenfranchisement of so many people. Its the exploitation that sh-ts me. BUT on the concept of the people who vote for them voting against their won self interest you aren't wrong but you aren't right either. If you look at those people and we have a few million of them in Australia and we have politicians who take advantage of them. Have a look at this its a recent discussion that includes Richard Wolf and Mark Blyth (the Scotsman). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1aMsDYJCc Wolf is an unapologetic Marxist who teaches Marxism and other stuff. Blyth is a socio-economics professor who predicted Trump would win 2016 6-months before hand. They both condemn the DNC for ignoring the plight of working class Americans. I know its a long video but at least watch the few minutes starting just before 53:00 where Professor wolf talks about West Virginia. Have a listen to Mark Blyth at 59:30 about how the DNC simply wrote off 80million Americans as irrelevant. Just think on that a Marxist professor and a left leaning professor are defending why those people vote for people like Trump. The Labour Party in Australia has done exactly the same thing they are describing. They used to be the unionists and working class people now they are a pack of overeducated lawyers and activists who have also written off the working class. They even use DNC election advisors and then wonder why they lose. What everybody has forgotten is that Trump wiped the floor with a pack of elitist snobs in the GOP before he smacked another elitist snob in Hilary. This is one thing I really hate at the moment. The Elitists who dominate our party politics (in the west) have the ugly habit of ignoring or righting off slabs of working class people and that just leaves those people open to following after people like Trump. As Prof Wolf says they know Trump is an ass hole but at least he doesn't ignore them. Biden's biggest challenge by far is re-engaging those people and that's a monumental task because he is surrounded by elitist snobs while they are being goaded on by a narcissistic maniac. He's in a shit situation and nobody should envy him.
    2
  3630. 2
  3631. 2
  3632. 2
  3633. 2
  3634. 2
  3635. 2
  3636. 2
  3637. Australian here - You have just described BOTH sides of Australian politics, but more so with the Left. We have Australian Labor on our Left and the Liberal National Coalition on the right. Australian Labor do this sort of self destruction thing every time they get into power. They let ideology take over from common sense and of course they never ask if their ideology actually makes sense. Historically Australian Labor like British Labor was started as a political party OUT OF the union movement. It wasn't like the European Communists in France or Italy that came from political movements. The Australian Unions funded the start of Australian Labor and the ACTU was the main force in Australian Labor. That changed with the introduction of neoliberal economics. America had Reaganomics but we called it Economic Rationalism. Our Unions self imploded with stupid strikes either became irrelevant or corrupt. Into the power vacuum on the Left came a herd of Leftist Intellectuals. In America you'd call them Liberal Elitists and just like the Clintons and Obamas they have MBAs, PhDs and Economics degrees. Only 2 Weeks ago Australian Labor self imploded in one of our State Elections. We don't hold all our elections at the one time like America does. Anyway they Labor ran a campaign so like the Democrats you would think that they hired the same campaign strategists. The LNP conservatives ran with "youth crime out of control." Yes there's been a slight uptake in youth crime but if you look at the last 25 years we were at historic lows and its just crept up a bit. It was just like the GOPs adds on crime rates in America AND IT WORKED. Kyle is dead right on his comment about red meat. Right Wing parties like the GOP and LNP understand very clearly that HALF of the population have an IQ under 100 and they DO NOT CARE ABOUT POLICIES. They do no vote intellectually they vote emotionally and the LEFT JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT.
    2
  3638. ​ @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
  3639.  @kevincowan2639  If you have enough money then YES. I'll assume you're not Australian by the question, so here's something. We have a banking sector addicted to foreign investment. It sis the cash cow that never stops giving. The love it because they get transfer fees when the money comes in. They also get another set of transfer fees when the money goes back out and its usually more money so the fees are bigger. Anther economic addiction we have is the housing sector which is a major employer. That sector doesn't care where the money comes from, but they love foreign money because its raised prices which means the builders got more money for what they built. Anther economic addiction we have is the real estate sector and the more expensive housing gets the more money they make from commissions. This is why our property sector is incredibly over inflated at the moment and we are OVERDUE for a major correction. We had a stupid government under a clown named Jon Howard who gave tax relief to investors and the older baby boomers loved it while the rest of us got smashed. that system has to change we just haven't worked out how to do it yet. If you are a foreigner and want to invest here you better have EXCELLENT 1st CLASS INFORMATION or you will get destroyed. Understand that we have had people here selling scams to people overseas. Its the same type of scam that was done in Florida and California in the 1920s. Sometimes the first we hear about them is when some person gets off a plane and asks where their house is. So by all means invest here. If you have good advice it will be good for you. BUT if you are not careful you'll get burned.
    2
  3640. 2
  3641. 2
  3642. 2
  3643. 2
  3644. The main reason they must keep a second pilot is REDUNDANCY. I have a degree in aerospace engineering and a private pilots license but I work in industrial control systems. I am formally trained in programmable safety systems. So I am formally trained in WHY WE USE REDUNDANCY for critical safety functions. When we are talking about "critical safety functions" these are for ABNORMAL events. We start with the premise that no system is perfect and will eventually fail if put in service long enough. This concept causes a lot of conflicts with other engineers because they don't like being told their work is not perfect. Its actually not easy to get them to grasp that once they are not involved (as in the plane has been delivered to the customer) they have nothing more to do Risk Assessment not only includes people but their training & competency. Redundancy can also include operators. For complex and heavy aircraft the second pilot is a key part of the safety strategy. Their fundamental job is to reduce the workload on the pilot who is flying the plane. One of the key parts to that strategy is CRM (Crew Resource Management). And the key takeaway that other industries have adopted from CRM is "agreement." Its not a matter of one person checking another persons work. Its a matter on them agreeing its been done correctly. After the fiasco of the Max-8 this should NOT even be a discussion any longer. I can explain in detail that the Max-8 was always going to have those sorts of fatal accidents because it was a single point failure system. The Max-8 will be a case study in "What not to do!" for generations of engineers. Boeing are not alone as Airbus also have had some shocking accidents to overreliance on automation. Any engineer who thinks this can be done clearly has no cockpit time and no proper training in safety systems or safety management and NEEDS TO BE RUN OUT OF THE INDUSTRY.
    2
  3645. 2
  3646. 2
  3647. 2
  3648. 2
  3649. 2
  3650. 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
  3651.  @gabrielproulx6316  I absolutely agree America does not have a Left as everybody else does. It has a party that is "Left of" the other party which is now so far right its barely even comparable to everybody else's right. The party that is to the left (the Dems) is now so far right its what everybody else calls a right wing party. FYI - I'm AUSTRALIAN and have been trying to explain what a real left is to Americans for 30+ years. Ever since I went to college there on a scholarship. Sorry for not mentioning that but you don't need to explain Britain which we are so closely linked to we may as well still be a colony at times. I have actually worked in Canada and was there when Trump tore up NAFTA and imposed tariffs on them. What blew me away about Canada was just how close of a mirror image it is of Australia with the exception of the snow. Americans fundamentally don't understand the actual origins on both their parties (compared to other western democratic systems) OR how they have shifted over the decades AND ITS WORSE NOW than I have ever seen it. America started sliding with Reagan into their version of a fundamentalist theocracy like Iran did. The reason most people have missed this was because of how slow and gradual it was done. 2 things have prevented it going further than it has. First - there's still enough functioning educated humans involved to stop it. And Second the American Constitution exists. I now consider it (I didn't back then) one of the greatest achievements of human history. The USC only has 1 critical flaw and its the flaw all others stem from -> The founding fathers falsely assumed that all future generations would ACTUALLY value it from a sensible rational educated standpoint and protect it. They hoped (sort of 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️) that future generations would not twist it into a tool (or weapon) to subjugate or force their views on others. For example the NRA have not subjugated anyone but they have forced their view on American society by twisting the 2nd into an abomination it was never intended to be. It was intended to provide security under the control of the civilian populace. The tragedy is the USC 2nd Am. is the first time in history that a population was given the right to control its own security and safety. Prior to that and still in most countries the government has absolute control of public security and safety. For most of the 30+ years since I was in college I have seen Australian governments get away with stuff that no American could (or should) BUT in the last 20+ I have watched America slowly GIVE IT AWAY. The freaky thing is the most vociferous people on that subject (the GOP) have done the most damage. For example Trump signed off on the most intrusive surveillance of people's online activities - HOW DID that happen with the 4th Amendment? When ever I ask an American about that they have no answer. Some try but end up mumbling stuff. I do hope America can find a leader who will restore common sense and clean out the grifters and husslers and schysters.
    2
  3652. 2
  3653. 2
  3654. 2
  3655. 2
  3656. 2
  3657. 2
  3658.  @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
  3659. 2
  3660. 2
  3661. 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
  3662. 2
  3663. 2
  3664. 2
  3665. 2
  3666. 2
  3667. 2
  3668. 2
  3669. 2
  3670. 2
  3671. 2
  3672. 2
  3673. I was doing my degree in aerospace when that happened. I was actually in Florida only weeks before and watched the previous mission take off from about 60 miles away. Even at that distance it was impressive. A year later when I was working in the summer for my professor in some of his consulting work I walked into his office one day to see him head in hands. When I asked, all he said was "They're going to do it again." He'd actually been at Morton Thiokol the day before to meet with the engineers from Lockheed to discuss their simulation results on the redesign for the SRBs. My professor's specialty was the structural analysis of axisymmetric structures using computers. What we call Finite Element Analysis (FEM). At the time he was one of the top 2 or 3 in the world on the subject. He was so dismayed by the behavior of the people involved that he predicted they'd lose another Shuttle. The SRBs didn't fail the second time but the ATTITUDES of people making decisions certainly played a major factor in the loss. So you know - the engineers knew within a few hours that there had been a significant strike to the wing. They had requested it be examined by re-tasking a spy satellite to take photos. They were overruled because someone decided they couldn't do anything anyway and that the photo would cost too much money. What that did was take away ANY OPTIONS. By doing stupid things LIKE NOT having a backup ROV on the support vessel Oceangate took away ANY OPTIONS that might have existed once they started getting into trouble.
    2
  3674. 2
  3675. 2
  3676. 2
  3677. 2
  3678. 2
  3679. 2
  3680. 2
  3681. That's actually not that abstract and you are on the right path. What you are basically saying is that you want the wage floor to be at a point where everyone has the opportunity to gain. I might re-define that slightly as: A prosperity wage enables a worker the ability to provide a family with equal opportunities to use their abilities as far as practical. I say "as far as practical" because you have to set practical boundaries. That's the giant failure of Milton Freidman's idiocy. Its doesn't take any genius to realize what he preached was lunacy. Corporations have no other obligation but to deliver for their owners. Just think through that - all of society exists for the financial benefit of the corporate owner class WITHOUT LIMITS or BOUNDARIES. There's another word for that its called "serfdom" and serfdom failed to grow any nation any real true wealth for 1000s of years. Freidman just wrapped serfdom up in a nice piece of pretty silk that we called Reaganism, Thatcherism or neo-liberalism. His claim to fame was the Nobel Prize for Economics. Its not even a real Nobel Prize. Go check it it was NEVER sponsored by Nobel or his family. It was sponsored by a Swedish bank to raise the public image of economists like Freidman. Its a PR device used to drive governmental policy and in that it has been incredibly effective. You must listen to this person because he won the Nobel Prize for Economics. Freidman's lunacy is why we've had no wage growth for 45years while the cost of living have gone up and up. Mark Blyth had a cracker that he gave in the analysis of Trump's 2016 win. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI&t=1104s Based on what Mark Blyth said the money exists for paying what you call a prosperity wage. Instead with Milton Freidman's greed is good serfdom that money goes to a tiny minority in the form of bonuses. More recently Mark Blyth pointed out the Rand study that says the top 1% has made of with $47trillion between 1975 and 2018. That's only grown since. Here's the time article on the Rand Report -> https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/ Here's the actual Rand report -> https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WRA516-1.html I'm an engineer with Economics 101 as my 1 and only class in business and I can see how obvious this stuff is.
    2
  3682. 2
  3683. 2
  3684. 2
  3685. 2
  3686. 2
  3687. 2
  3688. 2
  3689. 2
  3690. 2
  3691. 2
  3692. 2
  3693. 2
  3694. 2
  3695. 2
  3696. 2
  3697. 2
  3698. 2
  3699. 2
  3700. 2
  3701. 2
  3702. 2
  3703. 2
  3704. 2
  3705. 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
  3706. 2
  3707. 2
  3708. 2
  3709. 2
  3710. 2
  3711. 2
  3712. 2
  3713. 2
  3714. 2
  3715. 2
  3716. 2
  3717. 2
  3718. 2
  3719. 2
  3720. EVERYBODY STOP AND NOTE WHAT Kevin McCarthy actually says. I cut & past this form the transcript of the video. The punctuation is mine. Starting at 1:24 "Despite these serious allegations. It appears that the president's family has been offered special treatment by Biden's own Administration. Treatment that not otherwise would have received if they were not related to the President. These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption and they warrant further investigation by the House of Representatives." Think about what that actually says. 1) There's allegations NOT EVIDENCE. 2) There's appearance NOT EVIDENCE. 3) Regarding the allegations of favoritism to family members, maybe he can explain how Jared & Ivanka were given positions in the Trump Whitehouse despite having NO RELEVANT Experience for those positions. 4) Regarding the allegations of abuse of power, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored what Trump did with his "perfect call" to Ukraine during Trump's 1st Impeachment. 5) Regarding the allegations of obstruction, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored Trumps obstruction with counting votes on January 6th during Trump's 2nd Impeachment. 6) Regarding the allegations of corruption, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain why there has been NO Investigation regarding Jared Kushner's use of government resources to play various Arab states against each other to secure several hundred million dollars to bail out his family's investment in the New York office tower 666 Fifth Avenue OR How Jared Kushner was able to get $2 Billion from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund as he left the Whitehouse. OR How Donald Trump's golf courses made millions of dollars because he spent so much time at them as President that countries were forced to rent suites and villas at them to hold meetings. PLUS the US government had to pay for the rental of suites and villas and golf carts and food at those golf courses for Whitehouse Staff and Secret Service agents.
    2
  3721. 2
  3722. 2
  3723. 2
  3724. 2
  3725. ​ @ramonaboggio7402  I'm Australian but went to college in America. So I know what we have down under and I have some experience of being in America. We also hear lots about places like Canada and Britain. My father also had a heart attack while visiting Italy so my family has seen their system in action. No one has the perfect system BUT the one thing I can state with absolute certainty is that NOBODY in the world wants to copy what America has right now. The problem for America is how do you change a system with 330 million people in it. Australia has 26 million and we struggle to change things. So changing the health care system for 330 million people is going to be unbelievably difficult and anyone who simply says _"Lets just do A, B, C..." is talking out their butt. I can't see America moving to a British NIH type system but maybe you could move to a system like Australia which has BOTH public and private systems running in parallel OR maybe something like Canada has which is sort of part way between Australia and Britain. The one thing I think America could do which would be a massive step in the right direction is to control the prices a lot better. We hear of some of the prices you guys pay and fall over in disbelief. At the core of it America's real problem isn't capitalism its the type of unrestrained capitalism that's running right now where profit is the only measure of economic value. Your lobbyists, Think Tanks and Super Pacs are simply out of control. Looking back the stupidity and ludicrous nature of the Citizens United, that decision has to be overturned. Until that's fixed there's almost zero chance of fixing anything in America because whoever has more money to lobby with and spin the public narrative with wins.
    2
  3726. 2
  3727. 2
  3728. 2
  3729. 2
  3730.  @meechisminners  We have very similar issues with our coal industry here in Australia. We vie each month for who's the biggest exporter of coal with Indonesia. The difference is that Indonesia only exports thermal coal where ours is split 50/50 with thermal and metallurgical. We have the single largest ultra high grade reserves of metallurgical coal in the world. I actually helped commission a new metallurgical coal mine 5 years ago. That part of the coal industry isn't going anywhere. If you need high quality steel you need high quality coal to make it. Plus that same high quality coal is what you make carbon fiber, carbon nanotubes, graphene and all the other high end carbon products out of. So that part of our coal industry isn't going anywhere and they know it. The thermal coal industry other hand is zombie technology. Its dead but just refuses to stay dead. Wanting to keep it alive as one of our primary power sources is like not wanting to have mobile phones or only have 3-5 TV stations and never have the internet. As for people who vote along a single subject we have those as well - EVERYONE does. Its not just on the right either - look at the Greenies for example. They scream "we must save the planet" and I support that, but after that they haven't a single conscious thought. Ours here made huge news when they went into the coal areas to protest before the last election. NOT ONCE did they propose ANYTHING to do after the coals mines close. So when you say WV got nothing to replace coal mining, we have EXACTLY the same here. As Richard Wolff said these people are not stupid, they know answers like becoming coders is bullshit. Plus WV is home to Marshall U. most well know for its football team but its also well known as a first class engineering college. Places like Australia, America, Europe need to be smarter. We live in uncertain times and people NEED answers and if they don't get them they will turn to people who at least recognize their plight and as history keeps proving that's dangerous.
    2
  3731. 2
  3732.  @meechisminners  No problem on Krystal, I think she's one of the smartest commentators (male or female) in America. I saw this piece as the Hill is one of the Channels I watch regularly. I remember last year there were people commenting that she would make a great White House Press Secretary in a Sanders Admin. I can't say I disagree with that sentiment, but as history has written a progressive WH is still only a hope for America. Saggar is a hit or miss with me. When he's preaching right wing ideology (mild or otherwise) he tends to drop reality. When he's being honest about RW politics he's at times brilliant like he was about the Gamespot story. On that "smugness" of MSNBC its pretty revolting, but then the DNC corporatists have utterly failed to get clear messages across. You look at that Fox News Poll and what you find is that the DNC elite are utterly disconnected from electorates they don't like. I just found out that the crazy Q-Anon bimbo in Georgia won because the DNC candidate withdrew before the election. To not even try and just right off an entire electorate and let a Q-Anon maniac represent them in congress with out any effort is just disgusting. Here's Mark Blyth's latest talk on Angrynomics and he yet again points out how the DNC put a fence around 80million working class & rural Americans and simply wrote them off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meJD04IwUlA The crazy thing about West Virginia is that it does produce the high quality coal used for steel manufacture. That part of the coal industry isn't going anywhere because that's the same stuff they make carbon fiber, carbon nano-tubes, graphene, carbon filters and other stuff out of. WV has one of the best engineering colleges in the world in Marshall. So they have all they need to develop new carbon industries and the jobs that go with them. I keep pointing out the same thing to parts of Australia, because we have lots of high quality coal too. 🤚😉✋
    2
  3733. 2
  3734. 2
  3735. 2
  3736. 2
  3737. 2
  3738. 2
  3739. 2
  3740. 2
  3741. 2
  3742. 2
  3743. Your on the right path. The problem isn't that there is a death penalty there is the way its used and how inconsistent its used let alone how many mistakes are made. For sure there are those people we can all admit the world is better off without. As for most we can all debate how they are dealt with, but if we are being honest there are those very few that we collectively all agree they need to go. The debate is where we draw that line. As for the rest of these people the inconsistencies are staggering and that is something I rarely see discussed. Last year Trump during his lame duck period sent 3 men to the execution chamber. For 130 years NO OTHER president did that. Once the election was over they handed those cases onto the next President. Among those 3 was Alfred Bourgeois who committed horrible crimes against his young daughter including killing her. We could endlessly debate the right or wrong of that execution, but what should have been debated was what Trump also did. After sending Alfred Bourgeois to the execution chamber Trump pardoned Nicholas Slatten and 3 others of the Nisour Square Massacre. Slatten had been convicted of 1st Degree Murder by an American court for his actions that got 17 people killed in Nisour Square, one of which was a 9 year old child. How does anyone correlate executing 1 person for killing a child at the same time they pardon another person for killing a child and 16 other innocent people? How can anyone say these laws are fair when they can be acted on so inconsistently?
    2
  3744. 2
  3745. 2
  3746. 2
  3747. 2
  3748. 2
  3749. 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
  3750. 2
  3751. 2
  3752. 2
  3753. 2
  3754. 2
  3755. 2
  3756. 2
  3757. 2
  3758. 2
  3759. 2
  3760. 2
  3761. 2
  3762. 2
  3763. 2
  3764. 2
  3765. 2
  3766. 2
  3767.  @mikesbruv  have you seen any of the interview Your Bezmenov gave way back in 1984? He's totally wrong on how effective Soviet influence was at that time. We all know it was the Soviet system that collapsed on a few years later. But if you take what he said an apply it to the social media era then its terrifying, because social media is a perfect delivery system for psyop work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI He's a thought on Qanon. If you're the billionaires who fund massive amounts of political influence it's impossible to hide. There's no way to hide the think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute. There's no way to hide that the Federalist Society has picked most of SCOTUS. There's no way to hide that fact that there's 4 SCOTUS judges form Harvard, 4 from Yale and the other from Notre Dame is a known Federalist or that the judge who's been favoring Trump in Florida is also a known Federalist. So what can they do? Consider the saying "You can't see the forest for the trees!" What if you flip that into "You can't see particular trees because of the forest!" What do you have when you have millions of clowns all screaming and ranting "Look at this. What about that." Who cares what "this" or :that" is when anyone trying to have a reasonable public discussion about the influence of the billionaires sounds like a crazy person. And when I'm talking about billionaire influence, its not just America I'm talking about the entire Western Hemisphere. I can't say who started Qanon or why they did it. I don't even think anyone can call it an orchestrated psyop. But its been a giant distraction from discussing the billionaire influence in politics and other important subjects.
    2
  3768. 2
  3769. 2
  3770. 2
  3771. 2
  3772. 2
  3773. 2
  3774. 2
  3775. 2
  3776. 2
  3777. 2
  3778. 2
  3779. 2
  3780. 2
  3781. 2
  3782. 2
  3783.  @limitlessapocalypse2702  Actually you're wrong the Democrats and Republicans did flip. The Democrats were founded in the South and supported slavery. The KKK were a militant offshoot. They went through a change after the great depression, that really took hold after WW2 and they slid to the left supporting the "New Deal" but only far enough to get support from workers and unions to win power. The Republicans started in the North. Lincoln was a Republican and he freed the slaves and now white supremacist's support the party who fought against slavery. One day I really want to see a Klansman explain how they went from being Democrats to supporting the party that "freed the slaves." The Republicans actually started sliding to seriously to the right during the Reagan years when the evangelicals of the South shifted and began supporting Reagan. The most bizarre claim made during Reagans time was by David Koch one of the 2 Koch brothers. He ran against Reagan on the libertarian ticket claiming "Reagan was too far to the left." Its people like the Kochs who have dragged the Republicans further and further to the right. Charles Koch the other brother was interviewed recently and complained that politicians who he put in place would NOT DO AS HE WANTED. Its not the only case in America of a political entity doing a 180flip. The NRA before the early 70s supported gun control. They used to hold the competitions that selected US teams for the Olympics and World Championships. They were against the madness we see today. In the early 70s the gun lobby got tired of them and funded a new group to get control of them. It worked, they got control, flipped the NRA and voila no more of those pesky gun control people. The NRA went from being a sports association to a political machine. I don't know if they even hold competitions any more.
    2
  3784.  @limitlessapocalypse2702  Aaaaand your ignorance of actual history is so staggering it barely deserves a reply, but for others I'll try. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln#Emergence_as_Republican_leader) and these days White Supremacist's back the Republicans like they did with Kelley Loeffler. Take your pick from this list. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=kelly+loeffler+white+supremecist The first grand Wizard of the KKK wanted to overthrow Republican governments. "Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was elected the first grand wizard, and claimed to be the Klan's national leader.[35][74] In an 1868 newspaper interview, Forrest stated that the Klan's primary opposition was to the Loyal Leagues, Republican state governments," Cut & pasted from -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Creation_and_naming Here's one of many videos on how the democrats changed -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6R0NvVr164 The NRA flipped in the 1970s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#History Pay attention to their shift in activities from being a sport association to a political movement in the section 1970s-Present. Here's a short vid on how it happened https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zyVprh4f0 Now if you want to be ignorant (and ignorant means to ignore) and stupid (as in you don't think) then bother someone else. In the mean time do some real study of history or go back to school and next time listen to your teachers.
    2
  3785. 2
  3786. 2
  3787. 2
  3788. 2
  3789. 2
  3790. 2
  3791. 2
  3792. 2
  3793. 2
  3794.  @dontworrybehappy4569  Well that all depends on your idea of what "liberalizing" means. There’re 2 main schools of ideology battling it out in America right now (and by extension most of the developed world) - Liberalism and Libertarianism. Both those words come from the root word liberty and both those groups want liberty they just want it for different reasons in different ways. Libertarians want no government with no rules, so they have the LIBERTY to force themselves on society. Liberals want a government with laws in place protecting LIBERTY so people can think and do freely (so long as it harms no one else) from those who would force themselves on society. Liberalism requires consideration of others and thinking ahead of the consequences caused by the side effects of their choices and it's their under and over considering side effects and consequences coupled with doing everything by committee where they get lost and confused. They fail to deliver beneficial outcomes irrespective of intentions and as a result they are seen as unreliable. Libertarianism requires no consideration of others, other than "are they obeying the instructions fed to them by what they perceive as their benevolent overlords." Because their decisions are consistent, they are seen as reliable even when society knows they don't care. People follow libertarians because even though they will be enslaved they at least know they will be fed even though they know one day the food will run out, but that day isn't today or tomorrow. With liberals who knows what will happen today and we might all starve tomorrow. That's why Libertarians win elections and Liberals never learn from their mistakes to get things done.
    2
  3795. 2
  3796. 2
  3797. 2
  3798. 2
  3799. 2
  3800. 2
  3801. 2
  3802. 2
  3803. 2
  3804. 2
  3805. 2
  3806. 2
  3807. 2
  3808. 2
  3809. 2
  3810. 2
  3811. ​ @CuriousKey  I absolutely agree with that. I recently checked something. Bush 2.0 went to Harvard for his MBA Clinton went to Yale as well as Hilary for their Law Degrees while Al Gore went to Harvard for his BA. Obama went to Harvard as well as Michelle for their Law Degrees. Trump went to U. Penn another of the Ivy League colleges. Of the 9 SCOTUS judges 4 went to Harvard and 4 went to Yale. The other (Amy Barrett) who is also a Federalist Society member went to Notre Dame. Do you see the pattern? FYI - The Federalist Society was started by students from Harvard, Yale and the university of Chicago. In Britain the vast vast majority of government control in both the parties and public service is held by Oxford and Cambridge graduates. In Australia its less obvious but we have the same issue. Its not just a case of very narrow education (as in Law degrees) but also the concentration of power among graduates of a small number of select universities. This also explains that no matter which party is in power in our nations nothing seems to actually change. Either the elected members are lawyers or they have a legal advisor or they are economists or have an economics advisor and in both the Law and Economics the education is highly concentrated to a few colleges. I am actually an engineer and have been looking into the economics issue because of the incredible amount of interference in the engineering space by economists. That's how I know their education is so narrowly focused.
    2
  3812. 2
  3813. 2
  3814. 2
  3815. 2
  3816. 2
  3817. 2
  3818. 2
  3819. 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
  3820. 2
  3821.  @supertrendymoneymaker0722  Just looking at this and a couple of other comments. Ron Paul - sorry but if you saw him get numb nutted by Dr. Fauci you would not want that clown deciding anything let aloe government policy. Warren was her own candidate, but she did sabotage Bernie with that bullshit liar claim. She actually blew here own chances with overly complicated financial polices that only economists could understand. Professor Mark Blyth (Brown U.) who has a lot of street cred as he was one of very few to get both 2106 and Brexit right said here polices were sound but too complicated for politics. As for Warren being their to purposefully sabotage Bernie, that's a 50/50. I think she was more a convenience to the Obama/Clinton camp they took advantage of rather than something deliberate. As for MSNBC sabotaging Andrew Yang again, that's almost a guarantee. In fact they will sabotage anyone who does not fit their version of mild right politics. Being honest America does not have a real left it just has people who aren't as whacked out far right as some. It just has shades of right going from the Progressives with their faint hints of leftism the the mild right Dems to the basic right establishment corporate Dems to the almost understandable establishment corporate Repubs onto the seriously f--k-d up Fundamentalists & Trumpists. You only have to watch about 30seconds of Rachael Maddow or about 60secodns of Chris Hayes to realise that MSNBC and Fox are like comparing Budweiser and Miller. Its still beer and if you drink too much it will f--k you up kill your brain cells and leave you with a hangover. MSNBAC and Fox are just brands for the same product type and the product is biased corporate establishment political bullshit.
    2
  3822. 2
  3823. I AM LIKE Marc Andreessen in that I am ALSO an engineering graduate (aerospace) of the University of Illinois. I graduated the year before Marc Andreessen started his degree in computer science. So I never met him BUT I DO KNOW the environment into which he was able to develop his skills. In the late 80s UIUC was the World Center of Computing. Cray Supercomputers had moved the head quarters to Champaign and UIUC had NOT 1 but 3 Cray Supercomputers at that time. It was also heavily funded by both the Illinois State and the US Federal Government. UIUC hosted the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). On top of that UIUC hosted the core of the PLATO System which was a forerunner of the Internet. We also had rooms full of Apple, IBM and other desk tops we could just use however we wanted AND THAT'S the SHORT story. So for anyone doing a degree in computer science it was one of the best places you could be AND AT THE RIGHT TIME. When I was there the Plato system was a text based system which you are all lucky to have never used. So they was an opportunity to make this awful system look like and be user friendly like the Apple Macs we used to do our term papers on. Marc Andreessen stepped into that opportunity and developed (along with Eric Bina) the Mosaic program which was the first practical web browser. They renamed it Netscape and eventually sold it to AOL for $4.3 Billion. I do not begrudge Marc Andreessen for his success or wealth. He had an opportunity and made it work and with it helped to make the Internet function. WHAT I OBJECT to are his public stances on funding education. He got what he got because the State of Illinois and the US Federal Government FUNDED the university where he got that opportunity. So for him to come out and denigrate the US Federal Government as he often does is INCREDIBLY NARCISSISTIC and UNGRATEFUL. Marc Andreessen has what he has because the American people helped to fund his opportunity. To try try and deny similar opportunities going to others is disgusting.
    2
  3824. 2
  3825. 2
  3826. 2
  3827. 2
  3828. 2
  3829. 2
  3830. 2
  3831. 2
  3832. 2
  3833. 2
  3834. 2
  3835. 2
  3836. 2
  3837. 2
  3838. ENGINEER HERE: So we are all clear. Depleted Uranium is NOT produced from spent fuel its a by-product of the enrichment process. Natural Uranium is approximately 99.3% U238 and 0.7% U235 or about 7 grams per kilogram. Commercial grade nuclear fuel rods start at between 3 and 8% and to get to that higher concentration its enriched. What enrichment does is split the raw uranium into 2 parts, one with a higher concentration of U235 and one with a lower concentration of U235. For example If you take a kilogram of natural Uranium it would have 7 grams of U235. If you split that into 1 part with a mass of 120grams but has 6 of the 7 grams of U235 that 120grams has a U235 percentage of 5%. That's fuel grade and can go into a reactor. The other part with a mass of 880 grams with the last 1g of U235, would have a U235 percentage of 0.11% which is down from the original 0.7%. That's why its called depleted Uranium. which is down form 0.7% and that's why its called depleted uranium. Its been depleted of U235. U238 does not have many uses. Its very good for radiation shielding because of its density and can be used to make glass (see Wikipedia). However U238 is fantastic for making armour piecing bullets because when the bullet hits the armour it doesn't simply smash into the armour it literally explodes in an exothermic (heat generating) reaction that literally burns through the armour. Even if it does not go right through the armour it can generate enough heat so that the armour on the inside of the vehicle melts and spray around. So depleted Uranium rounds are fairly horrendous things.
    2
  3839. 2
  3840. 2
  3841. 2
  3842. 2
  3843. 2
  3844. I sort of agree but there's a lot NOT being said about Powell in this sort of discussion. Other than admitting what he said at the UN was wrong. Powell actually tried to stop the invasion, which is not as widely known as it should be. Its all covered in the 2004 PBS Frontline episode "Rumsfled's War." I saw it here in Australia circa 2005/06 and it blew the lid of who the people who'd caused that mess. A lot of finger pointing was at Powell because of his UN speech but that's only 1 part of it. Powell tried his hardest to get Bush to back away. He even had a private dinner with Bush and bluntly told Bush that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton and others were NOT military men and weren't experts in military matters while he and others were. That's why a lot of the political people ended up hanging Powell out to take the blame. The one military guy who is NOT mentioned enough is a Colonel named Douglas Macgregor who had made a name for himself as a tank commander in the first Gulf War at the Battle of 73 Easting. People like Powell and Eric Shinseki said invading Iraq would take several hundred thousand TO SECURE THE COUNTRY. Macgregor told Rumsfled, Wolfowitz and others that was nonsense and it would only take around 80,00 because the Iraqi was weak and disorganised from the sanctions. In that Frontline episode he's actually interviewed and says that. Powell, Shinseki and others tried to tell Bush and Congress that wasn't the point. The point was SECURING the country AFTERWARDS, which we know was a disaster. The Iraqi militias raided the military supply depots because there just wasn't anyone there to stop them. I hate the fact that despite making some mistakes that its ignored that Powell tried to stop the invasion. These days I find it despicable that Macgregor has NEVER been held accountable and these days he's trotted out as an expert by various think tanks and parts of the media.
    2
  3845. 2
  3846. 2
  3847. I know this will sound callous but they are using the wrong gas. They should be using Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Please bear with because there is a shocking part to this story. A number of years ago when the types of drugs being used were under question a British Journalist did a straight forward "what are the alternatives" documentary. I saw it on the website for the Melbourne Age (part of Fairfax media) in Australia. After evaluating all the different ways that animals are disposed of and humans are executed the most reliable and least invasive and least cruel method this journalist found was carbon dioxide. Above a particular level CO2 simply knocks a person out after a brief moment of euphoria (light headedness). Its very quick as was shown with the Lake Nyos (Cameroon) disaster in 1986. A cloud of CO2 was released from the lake and it swept downhill and wiped out several villages. They could see from the footprints that most people were knocked out instantly with only a few taking a couple of foot steps. THIS IS THE SHOCKING PART. When the journalist presented what he found to the doctor in charge of executions in one of the US States (Sorry I forget which one) that doctor replied that he didn't care and said (paraphrasing) "Its not meant to be nice its a punishment." Just so we are clear my issue with the death penalty is not that it exists. There can always be some argument made that person 'X' did crime 'Y' and its so egregious that they deserve death. My problem with the death penalty is THE ATTITUDE of those pursuing it. As in are they pursuing justice or something else like vengeance or political gain. In my home state of Victoria (Australia) our last execution was Ronald Ryan a small time criminal who was convicted of killing a guard during a prison escape. There were numerous flaws in the evidence presented with at least 2 witnesses lying. The ballistics made it almost certain the guard was accidentally shot by another guard in a tower on the prison wall. Government papers from meetings that were only released only a few years ago have made it clear the government of the day were fully aware of the actual facts (the lies and the ballistics). Its in the record that when presented with these facts the Victorian Premier Sir Henry Bolte was noted to have said words to the effect "We have an election to win later this year and this will make me look tough on crime." They went on to win that election in a landslide.
    2
  3848. 2
  3849. 2
  3850. 2
  3851. 2
  3852. 2
  3853. 2
  3854. 2
  3855. 2
  3856. 2
  3857. 2
  3858. 2
  3859. 2
  3860. 2
  3861. 2
  3862. 2
  3863. 2
  3864.  @originalsinquirls1205  You're argument isn't without merit but you are seriously underplaying Elon's motivations and behavior. What ever you like to claim at the end of the day its about Elon being center stage (as in he's a narcissist) and about having power, which is starting to become more and more obvious in how he deals with people. Go look at any of the financial analysts who have looked at the value of Tesla. Forget the people who just don't like him because there answers are obvious. Listen to what the analysts are saying and they are all saying (if they have a brain) "Don't buy Tesla, because its massively overvalued." But then several of the major Gig-economy tech stocks are also seriously overvalued and they all work the same way. Almost 20 years ago my fathers stockbroker explained to me the concept of price earnings ratio. A bunch of these tech stocks don't have a PER because they have never paid any dividends. They trade on their price going up endlessly and that has NEVER worked - Real Estate is the classic example. Its traded as always going up, but long term history says that every 80-120 years housing prices collapse and lose 90-95% of their value. Occasionally its only 20-30% (like 2008). There were a few mavericks who study that stuff desperately trying to tell the world that BEFORE the 2008 GFC. Some of those people are saying it again now, because housing prices are now even higher than it was in 2008. We just saw what happened to the fantasy land that was Crypto. Before too long the fantasy that is Gig-Tech is going to suffer the same fate.
    2
  3865.  @rlh12345  Absolutely, its one of the things that separates Elon from other scammers. He actually has some very good products to sell. I try and make the point that he is a great technology promoter and maybe is the best person we have ever seen at it. Jobs and Gates were good but I think Elon's better than both of them at promoting technology. For example: Tesla that car would never have been where it is without Elon's ability to promote it. Also SpaceX has blown Boeing away on getting people into space. The last time an American flew to the ISS on the Soyuz it cost $80 million for 1 seat. SpaceX with crew dragon costs $70 million for 4 seats. I get into arguments with BOTH sides of the Elon argument. I hate the fanbots because they believe everything Elon says and take it as techno-Gospel. I argue with the debunkers because they ignore the things he has gotten right. Like getting an electric vehicle into the main stream market when the car industry said it was impossible was world class and deserving of praise. He smashed that class ceiling. What SpaceX has don in saving the US manned space program is also deserving of praise. BUT and its a damn huge BUT Elon's success does not give him the right to lie and bullshit people with garbage or rip off share holders with selfish deals, like he did with Solar City, Hyperloop, driverless cars and this idiotic nonsense with Starship. I am an aerospace engineer and Starship is a delusional ego trip. He has Crew Dragon and it works. He has Falcon Heavy and it works. That means he has BOTH a taxi to space and work truck to space. Shit that's 100% of what you need to do serious stuff. Instead of finding ways to go to the Moon or Mars he's off in the sci-fi section of Egoville.
    2
  3866. 2
  3867. 2
  3868. 2
  3869. 2
  3870. 2
  3871. 2
  3872. 2
  3873. 2
  3874. 2
  3875. 2
  3876. 2
  3877. 2
  3878. 2
  3879. 2
  3880. 2
  3881. 2
  3882. 2
  3883. 2
  3884. That's a reasonably nuanced answer with merit but what we are talking about is a group of people who claim to be the ONLY GROUP capable of interpreting something written by people who are no longer alive. This is not simply a problem with the US Constitution its a problem with so many social & political institutions and the dogmas created by people in these "We know the truth!" groups. On another subject but equally plagued with dogma is economics and that currently has an incredible effect on our lives. There's the 2 competing ideologies of capitalism that came from people like Adam Smith and David Ricardo versus the socialism & communism that came from people like Karl Marx. Right now we are dominated by Chicago School neoliberal economics that was formulated by people like Hayek and Freidman. Most of us have NO IDEA what any of them were on about. We rely on people interpreting what they meant. There are 100s of acolytes who will all happily explain the virtues of what Smith, Marx and Ricardo wrote and champion their causes AND they will do it no matter what evidence there is that the systems they put in place HAVE FAILED. The pure socialism and communism of Eastern Europe FAILED, but you can't tell that to a Marxist Lefty. The pure capitalism of America and the West is FAILING but you can't tell that to a Freidmanite Capitalist. I'm Australian but went to college in America. I think the US Constitution is one of the greatest achievements in human history BUT BECAUSE of these people who claim to be the true interpreters its now regarded as a joke around the world. I think the original Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) is sublime genius but its been trampled on by packs of ideological M0R0Ns who act of of pure selfishness and arrogance.
    2
  3885. 2
  3886. 2
  3887. 2
  3888. 2
  3889. 2
  3890. 2
  3891. 2
  3892. 2
  3893. 2
  3894. 2
  3895. 2
  3896. 2
  3897. 2
  3898.  @daveg2104  I'm did aerospace engineering in America courtesy of a sports scholarship and have a classmate very high up at NASA. We had a very interesting "exchange" abut 20 years ago arguing over how the ISS was being built. I was coming at the problem from the industrial "get it done" mentality. Putting it mildly got put in my place. I was informed NASA does not actually decide much of what it does, the senate committee overseeing NASA does. NASA proposes and they select and once you understand that many things you wondered about these last 50 years become quite apparent. When you wonder why didn't they simply do X instead of Y and you get the answer "how was that going to win person Z votes in their state." When you ask why did the spend so much doing..... and the answer is it got a lot of people employed where Senator Z is their representative. Similarly when you look at the nightmare disaster the F35 supply chain (not the plane, the supply chain as in where all the bits are made) is you understand it was done that way so that almost any US senator who questioned it got a tap on the shoulder from the boss of a company in his state telling him how many jobs could be lost. Going back through our military spending, there's been some good decisions like the Mirage and F111, but since the early 90s its been a lot of ugly questions nobody would want to ask publicly but they should be. Lets not mention the Super Seasprite. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♀️ So our subs are just another disaster in long, long, long list of engineering disasters,
    2
  3899. 2
  3900. ENGINEER HERE: It doesn't matter because once the Australian people realise just how badly this disaster has been put together they are going to go nuts. 1) The Virginia-class is simply not suited to Australia's navy. yes the technology is arguably the best there is but the Americans have a different philosophy to other nations. Not only do they build large but they have large crews. The Virginia-class has a basic crew of 140, the Astute is 100 and the French Barracuda is 60 like the Collins-class. The German 212-class which isn't nuclear but is Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) has a crew of 27. Singapore has a variation of the German 212. We don't have enough submariners to crew 2 Virginia-class subs let alone 5. 2) We are being taken to the cleaners on the costs. When you look at what these subs have as delivered (as in what the US, British or French navies pay) then we are being screwed to a level of absurdity that should horrify people. Its not the only Australian Navy Contract that needs to be publicly questioned. - The Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels are more than 10 times the cost of the Armidale-class boats they are replacing. Plus the need 30% more crew and weigh over 5 times as much meaning their operational costs will be much higher. - The Hunter Class Frigates are over 3 times the price the British Navy is paying for the same vessel. There is nothing in the variation or that they are being made in Australia that can justify that. I have actually done a ALTERNATIVE project costing on the submarines. I have 2 Astute-class variations and then 4 AUKUS with 6 German 212s. that would be a sub fleet that would be VERY HARD for Australia to crew. - The nuke boats are all built in England with an Australian work force on site of 6,500. The first 212 would be built in Germany with an Australian workforce of 1,000 and the last 5 built here in Australia. - I have included some borderline outrageous bonuses for the Australian people working on them overseas as a means to getting it done on time and on budget. - I have included costs for port upgrades in both Western and Eastern Australia based on publicly available information. - I have included costs for disposal of the subs after their service using parts of Olympic Dam in South Australia. Why because its already a site with 30% of the World's known Uranium. It can't be contaminated any worse than it already is. I have TIRED to OVER COST things and am still AU$115 Billion *UNDER the lower AU$268 Billion we are being told it will cost Even if I stick a AU$50 Billion contingency on top of all the other contingencies I already have in the project I still can't explain where AU$65 Billion let alone AU$165 Billion is going. MAYBE THIS IS WHY ACTUAL PROJECT DETAILS ARE HARD TO COME BY.
    2
  3901. Aerospace Engineer - Your 100% right on the first point and sort of maybe on the second. Like Thunderf00t I had my time in Academia but actually walked away from my PhD Scholarship in disgust at the behavior of my supervisors. Mine just simply admitted to financial fraud to my face one day. I've spent the last 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation across a bunch of industries mostly manufacturing and mining. On one hand I absolutely agree that Elon Musk is a techno-charlatan BUT the reason he's got away with it is because he's actually done a couple of good things. I spent a chunk of my career building small production cells for the Australian automotive sector and I can tell that entire sector needed a super monster kick in the arse. In some ways its a brilliant industry and in others its easily one of the worst run industries on the planet. Mining is worse by the way. Sorry to all but, its an inescapable fact, that Tesla has shaken the automotive industry and given it the kick it needed. Love him or hate him it can't be denied, but that doesn't mean Elon is innocent either. All the stupid claims about FSD technology and other stuff was crap and garbage and he deserves all the scorn he gets for it. On the SpaceX front there's also a giant hit and miss. The Falcon rockets which Elon had effectively zero to do with have been a gigantic success. Its even more obvious when its compared to Boeing Starliner which so far has had 2 partially successful uncrewed test flights. Despite being originally scheduled for its first crewed flight in 2017 is yet to fly a person anywhere. Meanwhile Crew Dragon had 3 successful test flights followed by a manned test flight followed by 9 successful crewed missions a with 2 more crewed missions currently attached to the ISS. On the flip side just to show Elon is stupid. He's had little to do with Falcon & Crew Dragon, but been heavily involved with Starship and that's almost as bad as Boeing's Starliner. I wont go into it because its pages long. I'd say Elon has 2 things he very good at. 1) Identifying people who are technically very good at their job. Without that Tesla and SpaceX would have nothing. 2) Identifying what the non-technically trained general public will latch onto as the next super technology. In that respect he's like PT Barnum, the Warner Brothers, Walt Disney, Vince McMahon and many of the other entertainment industry leaders have been like - Elon knows what the general public will buy into.
    2
  3902. 2
  3903. 2
  3904. 2
  3905. 2
  3906. 2
  3907. 2
  3908. 2
  3909. 2
  3910. 2
  3911. 2
  3912. 2
  3913. 2
  3914. 2
  3915. Its got nothing to do with ex-Presidents and everything to do with a DOJ that has been inept for decades. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). There used to be this pride among Americans that bad people would go to court and be prosecuted. Now the only threat to some is becoming the subject of an episode of Law & Order. Just recently PBS reposted a 2013 episode of Frontline about the 2008 GFC. Go watch Lanny Breuer make excuse after excuse because he was afraid to lose. Go and check the comments and see how stunned people are 14 years later. There's a real problem with the DOJ going back decades. First they stopped prosecuting Anti-Trust and now the world has Amazon, Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft and others who pay almost no tax anywhere are global monopolistic powerhouses that only exist as they do because of the DOJ. Trump wont be charged by the DOJ unless its a 100% slam dunk and even then they might not out of fear of losing. And before anyone asks - YES we have the same problem here in Australia. We had a Royal Commission into our banks and found them totally out of control. They committed so many crimes we could have easily charged them under our equivalent of RICO. Nobody was charged, nobody went to jail and they just carried on as if nothing happened. Afterwards there were changes recommended and they successfully lobbied to have those dismissed. About the only thing that happened was they had to return money STOLEN from accounts. Yeah they actually STOLE money out of peoples accounts and nobody got charged. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
    2
  3916. 2
  3917. 2
  3918. 2
  3919. 2
  3920. 2
  3921. 2
  3922. 2
  3923. Yeah as an aerospace engineer, let me say that Elon is on one hand fantastic in that he's upset the status quo of the aerospace industry and started forcing a lot of people to wake up and that's been fantastic. On the other hand some of his garbage PR work is going to come crashing back down on his ass. When I saw the title of this vid I thought WTF is she doing. Thankfully she's just done a lot of people a huge favor and pointed out how ridiculous the concept is. FYI - When I was doing my degree we occasionally had guest lecturers. One time we had an alumni who was on the team that did the X-29 forward swept wing which was damn good. Another time we had a NASA guy who had just completed a project evaluating the potential for terraforming Mars. Their conclusion in 1987 was its impossible with any current technology or proposed technology. The reasons Sabine just highlighted were pretty much the same as I heard back in 87. One thing Sabine did not mention that I remember from 87. Planets are big complex semi-stable systems that do not respond to being forced into a new state. They have developed over millions of years into the state they are in. If we try to change it will not just simply let us change it. As we are just starting to find out from Earth if you try and change a planet's characteristic behavior (like any system) it will try and restore its equilibrium. We barely know how to alter Earths systems except through colossal ignorance and stupid behavior. Anyone who thinks they can actually change Mars into something habitable in less than a few million years is either delusional or idiotically delusional.
    2
  3924. 2
  3925. 2
  3926. 2
  3927. AUSTRALIAN HERE - After our last major bushfires in 2019-20 the Right Wing scumbags at Murdoch Media did the same sort of crap and garbage. The smoke hadn't settled and they started making all sorts of claims especially arson and it wasn't just their Australian people. There's an infamous Tomi Lauren rant where she literally screeches that Australia is a nation of arsonists. Due to all the claims a full police inquiry was held. Sort of like one of your congressional hearings. Out of the 30+ major fires they investigated NOT 1 was found to be arson but a couple were inconclusive. Most were the result of lightning strikes combined with high fuel loads. YES in the end it was found that the severity of our fires in 2019-20 were compounded by several good years of growth from higher rainfall followed by several years of drought that dried it all out. Additional to that is that Australia's most common native tree species are Eucalyptus varieties which contain high amounts of natural oils. Go and watch either of the interviews Daniel Swain gave Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Adam Conover in recent days here on YouTube. California has been through an almost identical few years to what Australia had experienced. PLUS the native scrub in California is also like Australia's Eucalyptus high in oil content. What's going on with these Right Wing nutcases in America right now is the same garbage we had to deal with in 2020. At some point someone is going to lose it with these people and their garbage.
    2
  3928. 2
  3929. 2
  3930. Do you know who this guy actually is? He's one of the main proponents of "offensive realism" out of the University of Chicago the home of the neocons and neoconservative ideology. He represents THE OTHER SIDE of American political ideology - American Realism as opposed to American Liberalism. I saw one of his lectures a couple of weeks ago that he did at Yale in November 2017 and it was BRILLIANT. I have never seen anyone explain why a particular political party did or was doing what it was. For anyone who wants to know WHY Ukraine eventually happened, it was the 2nd of 3 lectures on Liberal Hegemony November 2017. BUT and this is the GIANT BUT I have with this guy. His side gave the world the Invasion of Iraq for which there was no reason other than the neo-cons (his people) wanted regime change in the middle east. That cost America over a trillion dollars and cost 4,431 American lives. That's over 1,400 more than died on 9/11. It might be more pronounced in America but there's a horrible fact about Western politics that's become pervasive. and its best summed up by "What my side does is righteous and what their side does is wrong." Its an infantile selfishness that's making a mess of the world. Its like 5 year olds fighting over a sand castle. I'm Australian and we have it here, its just not as bad as America. Trump just declared everyone who didn't vote for him "the enemy." How infantile is that. Donald Trump called over 180 million American citizens "the enemy" of America. Mearsheimer's description of the American liberals is flawless and his criticism warranted, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE if Biden was a Republican neo-con he'd be singing how righteous America's response is.
    2
  3931. 2
  3932. 2
  3933. 2
  3934. 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
  3935. 2
  3936. 2
  3937. 2
  3938. 2
  3939. 2
  3940. 2
  3941. 2
  3942. I did aerospace at Illinois (late 80s). One day we had an Alum visit who had just completed a study on terraforming Mars. his conclusion was forget it. Planets are just massive systems. We just forget that the Earth is so big that it looks flat from most perspectives. He introduced us to some basic concepts that I now refer to as planetary mechanics. Kind of nuts and bolts stuff. Like how many tons of air do we need to cover Mars in a layer of air 1km thick and then warm that much air form -60C to +20C. Its the kind of stuff before you consider the dynamics (how stuff works over time) of the planet rotating and absorbing heat from the sun and discharging it out into space. Just before COVID I was at a space conference (in Australia) where there was a senior Bureau of Meteorology scientist who told us that at 1.5C we will have to start geoengineering. That snapped my brain back to 1987 in Champaign where I was told that's impossible. I got his card and called him a few days later. Yes we have inadvertently geoengineered the plant. Where that takes us is not sure. What the NASA guy said 35 years ago is that planets are semi-stable systems that have their own natural rhythms and they don't like being pushed out of those rhythms. Think of it like pushing a child on a swing that has a set frequency and amplitude and you try and force it abruptly into another frequency and amplitude - it will resist and push back. I'm Australian and this year after several years of drought and bushfires we are now experiencing our worst flood year ever. We've had some towns flooded 3 times before even starting winter. Some say its normal, others the apocalypse. Me I see it as the planet pushing back against what we're doing and the harder we push the harder it will push back and its roughly 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons (21 zeros) of rock doing almost 30,000 meters per second around a star. Its a big object and its going to do what it wants. We can either stop pushing or get rolled. My prof was a Boilermaker.
    2
  3943. 2
  3944. 2
  3945.  @EngineeringwithRosie  As an other Australian who has worked in the Australian nuclear industry on the mining side the short answer is: Yes we will need to have nuclear power in future. The long part of this discussion is why and its probably a whole series of videos on the subject starting where the hell are we going with energy generation? Easily the biggest part of the problem is that there are a staggering array of technology promoters all spouting that their solution will save humanity and everything else is worthless. news flash every one of them is WRONG and also partly right. None of them are going to save humanity or the planet, but some of them will play a part in our energy future and if we get very lucky we might save the planet. I did an odd little consult job about 5 years ago and during I discovered just how old our power stations are in Australia and just how big the problem is of replacing them. When I checked around the world its just as bad and in some countries worse. The problem started about 25 years ago when planning for new MAJOR power stations effectively stopped and then construction with it. By "major" I mean Giga Watt class stations of (1,000MW or larger). The problem has been partly masked by the massive rollout of rooftop solar. In the 80s & 90s when our population went from 15 to 20 million we built a bunch of new stations. in the 2000s and 2010s our population went from 20 to 25 million and we built NONE. Anybody who ever took a class in economics knows what happens when demand goes up and supply doesn't match it. Prices go up and that's exactly what's happened. Australia has a huge problem and nobody wants to publicly talk about it. (edit) I had a typo it was supposed to say 25 million not 50
    2
  3946. 2
  3947. 2
  3948.  @acmefixer1  Stop trying to argue with an engineer - its annoying. PAY ATTENTION. The Hornsdale mega battery in South Australia has 193.5 MWh (Megawatt hours). The Torrens Island gas thermal power station currently has 800MW capacity down from 1,280MW since they decommissioned the oldest part of it. PAY ATTENTION. 193.5 divided by 800 equals 0.24 or just under 1/4. That means that battery can back up the main power station for the South Australia for less than 15 minutes. Elon's mega battery and all the others like it are good for very fast but very short surges. THAT'S ALL. THEY ARE USELESS for the early morning and late afternoon surges that all modern cities demand. THEY ARE USELESS if a main power station fails. Are they helpful? YES, providing grid stability is a very good thing. Are they good for the long term? NO DAMN WAY. Power stations are needed for at least 25 years. How long does it take before the battery in your phone or laptop starts to show degradation? 12-18 months and they are throw away objects within 5 years. That's because Lithium ion batteries degrade. Hornsdale no longer has 193.5MWh and its getting worse everyday. They need to replace the battery packs every 3-5 years. The current type of Lithium Ion battery cell is NOT SUITABLE FOR GRID LEVEL STORAGE AND NEVER WILL BE. Its great for cars, phones, power tools and other stuff but not grid power. Besides we need that Lithium in our cars, phones, power tools NOT ON OUR WALLS! If you want to ask questions fine but don't try and tell me how to do my job.
    2
  3949. To ALL: I think David is partly wrong here because he's comparing the term "civil war" in the frame work of a the classical concept of war - this side from this place versus that side from that other place. In the modern context however civil wars are not that, they are something else. Thomas started this with the words terrorism and insurgency and if you look at the most recent major civil war in Syria both of those things were and still are present. Its a civil war for sure but it is not a classical civil war of this side from this place versus that side from that other place. I met a Syrian taxi driver in Sydney Australia a few years ago and I asked him if that I was right that "so long as other countries like America and Russia were involved the Syrian people could never solve their own problem." He told me yes except I was totally wrong in that it wasn't just America & Russia it was at least 8 countries including Iran, Saudi, Turkey and Israel all in there supporting different factions. Plus in the middle of that was Isis. So the civil war was not one of 2 distinct identifiable sides. For sure every faction was either pro-government or anti-government but in the middle was Isis who were anti-everybody. That will be the problem if there is a civil war in America. It wont be a simple this side from this place versus that side from that other place. It will be a mish mash of factions in various locations. Some with strong links to others while some will have no links to anything else. If it really descends into chaos don't be surprised if there are so many sides no one knows what side they are on or who is the enemy. The only thing anyone will know for certain is that if America descends into chaos the only 2 people we know who will be happy are Trump and Putin. Trump because he's a selfish narcissist who has the childish mindset that "If I can't have it, I'll smash it so no one else can." And Putin because he's also a selfish narcissist who blames America for the fall of the Soviet Empire which is BS because the Russians did it to themselves just as America is doing this to itself. To All - Take Care & Stay Safe.
    2
  3950. 2
  3951. 2
  3952. 2
  3953. 2
  3954. 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
  3955. 2
  3956. 2
  3957. 2
  3958. 2
  3959. 2
  3960. 2
  3961. 2
  3962.  @LennyAllen-cp9cl  This is in reply to your nuclear thermal engines comment. They were first proposed back in the 1960s and this is a classic case of people looking back at old ideas who don't ask the most important question: "Why didn't it work back then?" Yes there is the possibility NT engines will offer an improvement, but nobody has even proven they can actually work. Its a classic case of people confusing ideas with reality. Sometimes even great ideas just don't work. Proverbially speaking 99.99% of all technology ideas never go anywhere for one or more basic reasons. When engineers do projects they generally look at dozens of solutions and end up dismissing all but 1. Its not that the other ideas were bad or would not work they just choose the best option for that CIRCUMSTANCE. Here's one of the best examples I know of. Its a 2011 TEDx Talk by MIT postgrads Leslie Dewan and Mark Massie about Waste Annihilating nuclear reactors. At the time it was genuine 1000% game changing technology and it wasn't from some flunky amateur. These were 2 super smart MIT kids with a brilliant idea. Here's their 2001 TEDx talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAFWeIp8JT0 When I checked where they were at a couple of years ago they had folded the company after spending over $100 Million in funding. They made all their research and development free for the world to use. Way back at the very start they had missed a very basic item that they had taken for granted and their method was NEVER GOING TO WORK in the way they conceived it. Its a lesson for all the people who dig up technologies from the past. You MUST ASK: "Why didn't it work?"
    2
  3963. 2
  3964. 2
  3965. ​ @wgowshipping  On your next video you should highlight the failure test of carbon fibre and glass fibre hulls that Carl Ross posted 10 years ago. He posted 2 videos titled Collapse of Composite Submarine Pressure Hulls Collapse of Carbon & Glass Fibre Tubes under External Hydrostatic Pressure. I have no idea who Carl Ross is (or was) but there's 2 things to note about those videos. 1) How sudden the failure is. If you look at how titanium fails its much like any other metal there's deformation eventually followed by failure. I am an engineer (aerospace) but did my first year in mechanical and we did that stuff in the lab. Most of the failure videos of things being crushed or bent in a hydraulic press show that but they also often show the sudden failure of carbon fibre composite materials. So you and other are most likely right the people in Titan probable had no warning it was all about to fail other than hearing a lot of cracking. 2) the Carl Ross videos show very little damage to the Carbon fibre tube other than what looks like a crack down the side. What people need to understand is that it was done in a small pressure test rig NOT the open ocean so there was very little water to keep applying pressure once the tube failed. I have done work in the petro-chem industry and other places where they pressure test pipes with water. If something does let go during a hydrostatic test there's no explosion of water because its incompressible. That test cell Carl Ross used has very little water in it so there's not a lot of volume to rush into the test model and do lots of damage. It just had enough water to break the cylinder.
    2
  3966. 2
  3967. 2
  3968. 2
  3969. 2
  3970. 2
  3971. 2
  3972. 2
  3973. 2
  3974. 2
  3975. 2
  3976. I'm also an aerospace engineer, but I have spent the last 35+ years in industrial control systems. I'm Australian but did my degree in America and unfortunately Australia's engineering policies like everywhere else are a joke which is why I have done other things. I sort of fell into energy after doing a small consulting job in 2016. *The energy issue is way bigger than anyone realises and because there have been too many people speak without understanding the problem we are all for a rough time. The real problem is NOT technology but ECONOMICS and the interference of economists. However on the technical side YOU, SABINE and others like Simon Michaux ARE WRONG for one simple fact. What else is there because NONE OF YOU are offering anything??? We do not need anymore people telling everyone what NOT to use or in their opinion that's a stupid idea and THEN NOT OFFERING a viable solution. In Australia, we have one pack of clowns screaming we need nuclear and another claiming we can do it all with wind and solar. BOTH ARE WRONG. Too much Wind & Solar causes grid instabilities. Go watch the vid on Real Engineering he explains it well. Nuclear, although fantastic in the long run has no viable private sector business model but does have a fantastic state owned business model. Its problem is it takes so long to build and thanks to the clown brigades we have in Australia we don't have the time needed because we need at least 4 major power stations in the next 3-5 years. Both Siemens and GE have a new generation of Gas Turbines that with combined cycle units can get almost 65% thermal efficiency AND THEY CAN RUN ON UP TO 50% HYDROGEN. This is what gets me damn angry. When we have days when there's lots of wind and lots of solar we have to lock down wind turbines and disconnect solar farms and lose 100% of that potential. Latest gen Electrolysers get over 90% thermal efficiency and we'd lose some in pumping the hydrogen to the power station BUT SO WHAT. We'd recover at least 50% of that energy that otherwise never gets produced and is LOST. Go and look at the Wikipedia page for Hinkley Point C which is getting 2 EPR 2 reactors which are Gen IV reactors. EPR 2s have a thermal output of 4,524 MWt and an electrical output of 1,630 MWe for a thermal efficiency of 36%. CAN YOU AND SABINE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY we are supposed to spend billions and wait 15 years to get power stations that run at 36% when we can get turbines in less than 2 years that get almost 65% that can also be used to recover giant amounts of excess Wind and Solar energy that would otherwise be lost.
    2
  3977. 2
  3978. 2
  3979. 2
  3980. 2
  3981. 2
  3982. 2
  3983. 2
  3984.  @kevinathans4191  I agree with all of that, although I wouldn't describe religion as a conspiracy theory but would describe conspiracy theories as pseudo religions because they have common fundamental threads: a) People looking for a convenient answer (or answers) to life and death. b) People following an ideology because their family follows that ideology. c) People following an ideology because it makes up for their social position. They know something others don't and it gives a sense of superiority or control of their own destiny when for other aspects of life they have none. d) Once people have settled on their chosen ideology they will follow it blindly to destruction. e) These ideologies are dominated by people who range from good to fantastic at public speaking and public debate. In particular they are able to stir crowds up and get them moving in a desired direction. They have a feel for mob psychology rather than a technical understanding of it. They are extremely Machiavellian in that they don't care in the slightest about what the consequences are so long as they have attention, power, money or all 3. They are opportunists rather than strategists, of which Trump is the perfect example these days. I went to an Australian private high school and we studied various religions and one of the odd things is that most of the worlds religious movements were started on some basic simple truth. The founders may have had faults but they founded things on some basic realities. Martin Luther is a good example in that he put out a pamphlet listing a bunch of basic truths regarding the Catholic Church. Mohammed pointed out that neither the Jews, Christians or Zoroastrians could be the "true religion" because of how they treated their own people. Which is odd considering how conflicting Islamic groups now treat each other. But common to all these groups is that once the founder was long dead and those who had actually been around that founder were also long dead then others hijacked that ideology. Christianity is a great example of that. By the time of the counsel of Nicaea in 325 they were so far off the basics Jesus wouldn't have recognized himself. Look how rapidly Trumpism devolved from his original message which was "I'm not part of the establishment." He now is the establishment and its all happened in a couple of years and even with footage of what he and others said only a few years ago. His latest asking for $45 flies in the face of his claims back in 2015 that he was incorruptible because he was rich and didn't need anyone's money. If he's as rich as he claimed in 2015 why does he need to ask for money. I think the biggest issue with humanity right now are people blindly following what is most convenient to them without any understanding of what is and isn't fact.
    2
  3985. 2
  3986. 2
  3987. 2
  3988. 2
  3989. 2
  3990. Over 20 years ago a couple of us at work were discussing exactly the same question. One of the people present mentioned that a couple of British Journalists had done a documentary of capital punishment. They didn't argue if it was right or wrong they just presented the facts of how capital punishment was practised so that people could decide for themselves. I have seen that documentary and its got some brutal facts. 1) In the first 90 years of the 20th century less than 9 out of 10 people formally executed by nation states were NEVER charged with any crime, let alone went to court or had any from of legal representation or right of appeal. They were simply accused and then executed. Don't forget we had 2 World Wars and several ugly revolutions. 2) The times various methods actually take to kill a person is far higher than most proponents are willing to admit. In some cases the so called "clean & quick" can take minutes and in some cases 10s of minutes before the body of person being executed gives out due to the injuries. Among the worst is electrocution which can take around 30 minutes before the internal damage from the shocks finally causes death. Go look at what happened to Ethel Rosenberg wife of Julius Rosenberg, electric shocks do not necessarily stop a human heart. 3) The actual chemical mix used in America (at that time, mid 90s) was developed by a pair of German doctors during the Nazi era. There task was to find a "cleaner more efficient" method for the "final solution." Those 2 doctors experimented on orphans and mentally ill patients with various cocktails before they came up with the desired effect - quick & clean.
    2
  3991. 2
  3992. 2
  3993. 2
  3994. 2
  3995. 2
  3996. 2
  3997. 2
  3998. 2
  3999. 2
  4000. 2
  4001. 2
  4002. 2
  4003. 2
  4004. 2
  4005. 2
  4006. 2
  4007. 2
  4008. 2
  4009. 2
  4010. 2
  4011. 2
  4012. There's one thing you didn't point out about Colonel Douglas Abbott Macgregor Ret. and that's his involvement in the Invasion of Iraq (Gulf War 2). There's a PBS Frontline documentary called "Rumsfeld's War" (October 2004) that's mostly about Donald Rumsfeld's conflicts with the Pentagon when he was Secretary of Defense with Paul Wolfowitz as his deputy under George W Bush. There's at least 1 copy of that documentary here on YT. When the Neocons first wanted to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power which had nothing to do with WMDs or 9/11 as it was purely ideological thing where they simply wanted regime change. They went to the Pentagon and asked "How many troops?" The answer from people like Eric Shinseki was "several hundred thousand" while others had said 560,000. The reason Shinseki gave was with respect to "post hostility control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems." This is all covered in the PBS documentary with footage of Shinseki saying that to congress. Those are direct quotes from the documentary. It also shows Wolfowitz who had zero military experience telling congress that it was hard to imagine that it would take more people to secure the country than to fight the war. This is when Macgregor stepped in with his genius. He's actually on the documentary saying how he laughed at the number 560,000 and said no you just needed 50,000 in a rapid deployment. Just rush up to Bagdad and remove the Iraqi Government because the Iraqi military is weak. He then wrote the battle plan for the Invasion. They even show the cover page for Macgregor's plan in the documentary. The simple fact is Macgregor DID NOT LISTEN to what others were saying. It wasn't about taking Bagdad it was about SECURING the country AFTERWARDS. YES Colonel Douglas Abbott Macgregor Ret. is the architect of the Invasion of Iraq that ended with the exact sort of disaster that others had predicted - ethnic tribal warfare. Thanks to this clown giving a group of idiotic politicians what they wanted to hear he helped destroy a country that, cost 1,000s of American and allied lives, several 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives and cost America and its allies well over a $$$TRILLION. Noone should take this clown seriously and yet he's rolled out again and again as an "expert."
    2
  4013. 2
  4014. 2
  4015. 2
  4016. 2
  4017. 5 Reasons why the BRICS currency will fail. B) Nobody trusts Brasil economically because they keep flipping from radical Left to radical Right presidents. Despite some fairly decent development and technological advancements their main industries are soccer players and ripping down the Amazon rainforest for cattle to make McDonalds hamburgers. R) Nobody trusts Russia to do anything economically or much else. There main industries are resources and selling the worlds most popular form of population control - the AK47. I) Nobody trusts India economically because they are a giant basket case of corruption. C) Nobody trusts China and their economy is a bigger basket case that anyone else's and the environmental damage is disastrous. They have damaged or destroyed over around 30,000 rivers, creeks and waterways. S) Nobody trusts South Africa because they are so hopelessly corrupt. BONUS REASON - The Bank of International Settlements which is the bank where all of our central banks settle out all the foreign currencies they hold reported in December 2022 that there are now over $100 Trillion in Foreign Exchange swaps being held by various banks and non-banking entities. A massive amount of that is not only in US$ but those US$ are held by NON-Americans who trade internationally in US$. Does anyone actually think that all those people who have relied on the US$ for international trade for 70+ years are just going to swap 10s of Trillions into a currency run by the Brazilians, Russians, Indians, Chinese or South Africans when those countries have the issues they have?
    2
  4018. 2
  4019. 2
  4020. WHY DOES DAVID - Who is supposedly an intelligent guy keep speaking that crap about wind turbines having a high capital cost. Its a meme that the fossil fuel clowns started and its sadly become an accepted meme among the LEFT MEDIA. I AM AN ENGINEER and this is so annoying to keep hearing. The capital cost of wind depends on a number of factors. 1) Is it in a easy to access site? Offshore is obviously NOT because you need a special jack up barge to do the installation. The top of some hills which are more productive might be harder to access with cranes and other heavy equipment. 2) is it close to an existing grid connection. No matter what type of power anyone builds it has to be connected to the power grid and that is NOT as simple as some wires. As Australia his finding out the Snowy 2.0 project (pumped hydro) has almost tripled in price because its in a very awkward location to connect to the grid. 3) Capital cost must also be measured against the time taken to start earning money which includes the construction time. Hinkley Point C (a nuclear plant and one of the few that ) has an estimated build time of 10 years at a cost of £33B (~$42B USD). That is a staggering amount of money to spend and then wait a decade before you start earning money followed by the years breaking even. Wind turbines take weeks to construct and connect. 4) Similar to the length of time to construct is the question - Can the wind turbines in the wind farm be connected to the grid BEFORE completing the entire wind farm. For both wind and solar it is often possible to connect each wind turbine as its completed or each solar array as its completed. In such a circumstance the wind farm or solar farm is ALREADY earning money before completion and therefore does NOT NEED as much capital to complete. This is almost NEVER possible with coal, hydro or nuclear. If you are building a modular gas turbine power station then that might be able to operate each turbine as its commissioned. This is also one of the things that make Small Modular Reactors practical. There's just the problem that SMRs wont be commercially available until the mid 2030s. So can everyone please stop repeating these ignorant memes about what certain things cost.
    2
  4021. You should be very well aware of the old saying that "The way to make a pile of money in aviation is to start with a mountain of money." In other words what ever you are going to invest in aviation you are not going to make as much money as the hype suggests. HOWEVER that does not mean you can't make money. There's a really great documentary that was put out after Concorde was retired that was done with the help of the pilots. I'm an aerospace engineer and a pilot so I found the technical stuff pretty interesting, but what EVERY business or economics student should do as a case study was how the pilots saved Concorde. Sorry for the long answer below, but its actually an important part of aviation history. The first few years Concorde was terrible financial losses. There was no way to make money and they were about to shut it down. The pilots responded by telling management how that wasn't possible because the planes were full on almost every flight. So British Airways management challenge their pilots to run Concorde and if they didn't make money it was over. The pilots then did one of the greatest examples of customer/market analysis ever. They looked at their users and found this odd group who dominated ticket sales. They'd fly across the Atlantic and then almost immediately fly back with some doing it several times a week. So they asked who these people why they used Concorde that way. It turned out they were mostly lawyers working for major banks and corporations. This was BEFORE the internet and big contracts needed to be done in person. Just as the internet sped up how we all communicate now, Concorde sped up the work of these people enormously and they put a premium value on it. The pilots asked these people DIRECTLY (not via intermediaries but direct) what they thought a ticket on Concorde was worth and 2 things stunned them. First these people had no idea what the tickets cost as their secretaries were the ones arranging flights and purchasing the tickets. Second the value they came back with stunned everyone. if you go look back at the ticket prices there was this massive jump in the early days and every one said it would drive away the customers. IT DIDN'T because the main users valued the tickets that much. The pilots then asked what would make these customers business even better. The result was installing nice highly secure offices for people to meet in the terminals. So these frequent users could fly across the Atlantic, meet their clients in the terminal without having to go through customs and then fly back. For about 25 years Concorde was British Airways most RELIABLE and profitable division. It simply didn't matter what the economic situation in America or Europe was those contracts had to be negotiated and Concorde was the most efficient way to get that done. What killed Concorde was a combination of the Internet, Osama Bin Laden and Airbus. The internet reduced the amount of work needed to be done in person. On 9/11 Concorde lost around 50% of some of its most frequent users because they all worked in the towers. Airbus hated the Concorde and wanted people focussed on the A380. As owners of the Concorde Intellectual Property they simply refused to service the aircraft. Richard Branson eve offered to by the fleet and keep it going, which means he knew it could make money. Airbus said "NO!" When they stopped flying most of the Concorde fleet had flown less that 25% of their design lifetime. Again sorry for the long answer but the story of Concorde needs to be told. You probably have a way better chance of meeting those pilots than I do. If they can correct any of what I've written I will defer to their knowledge of what happened.
    2
  4022. Following but less about Concordes history. After I graduated I did 2-1/2 years of research into ramjets & scramjets (Mach 2 -7 flight). Some of the first papers I read were on the Concorde SNECMA Olympus engines and their inlets. Those inlets were a masterpiece of 1960s technology. Even by todays standards they are brilliant. Consider that nobody has done better. In college I did classes in aircraft propulsion and inlet design geometry. The simplest way to put it is the inlet makes the engine work and that includes bot subsonic and supersonic. Its the inlet geometry that affects the air flow before it reaches the first of the compressor stages. Its a lot like racing cars. Those guys spend massive amount of time & effort getting air into the engine. I've been around those guys and they describe it like "if you can't get the air into the engine nothing else matters." Jet engines are the same. If you have a look at your 737 engines you'll notice the inlets are flat along the bottom edge. That's NOT for ground clearance. If you look closer it also has a different profile than the top and sides. That's to prevent compressor stall when you pull back on the yoke at take off. The top and sides are optimised for cruise at altitude. Everything about that part of of the inlet geometry is about minimising drag and getting the air into the engine at exactly the right pressure for the fan to operate at maximum efficiency. I did my degree in the late 80s just as CFD was becoming available. In fact my college the U. of Illinois was a world leader as we had CRAY Supercomputers. There were 2 areas for aircraft the postgrads were into and that was wingtip design for drag reduction and engine inlet design for efficiency. And fun fact the speed limit for the Concorde of about Mach 2.2 wasn't an issue of aerodynamics or engines it was limited by aerothermodynamic heating of the air frame. If they went much above Mach 2.2 the metals the plane was built from risked degrading to the point where it could fail. Go check a lot of the fighters form that time period and they too had the same limits. If you look at the Mig 25 Foxbat that could go faster. They basically had to rebuilt the engines after going above Mach 2.7 on any flight. Its one of the things that made the SR-71 so incredibly special. You might actually find the speed limits of the Sonic Boom have more to do with aerothermodynamic effects on the airframe than they let on. Even Carbon fibre and the resins used get effected by temperature.
    2
  4023. 2
  4024. 2
  4025. 2
  4026. 2
  4027. 2
  4028. 2
  4029. 2
  4030. 2
  4031. 2
  4032. 2
  4033. 2
  4034. 2
  4035. 2
  4036. 2
  4037. 2
  4038. 2
  4039. 2
  4040. 2
  4041. 2
  4042. 2
  4043. 2
  4044. 2
  4045. 2
  4046. 2
  4047. 2
  4048. 2
  4049. 2
  4050. 2
  4051. 2
  4052. 2
  4053. 2
  4054. 2
  4055. 2
  4056.  @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
  4057. 2
  4058. 2
  4059. 2
  4060. 2
  4061. 2
  4062. 2
  4063. 2
  4064. 2
  4065. 2
  4066. 2
  4067. 2
  4068. 2
  4069. To all you Americans who care. This was just shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Its been done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). The right wingers claim the ABC is leftist and the left wingers always claim they are pro-right. The fact is the ABC is publicly funded but under its charter its programming is independent, including its news and current affairs. SO it reports what comes across its desk. Does it get shit wrong at times? ABSOLUTELY, but its also a place where we can still get HONEST in depth investigative journalism. We can never let the ABC go just the same as America must never let PBS go. If you doubt that watch this Frontline from 16 years ago when all this idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan started. For that question of how did this all happen? Here are the answers. For anyone who's forgotten what people like Paul Wolfowitz did to make this shit storm happen. Here's what he and others said -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byu9Yhr0Q_0
    2
  4070.  @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
  4071. 2
  4072. 2
  4073. 2
  4074. 2
  4075. 2
  4076. 2
  4077. 2
  4078. 2
  4079. 2
  4080. 2
  4081. And for anyone who's interested. As an engineer I agree 100% with CSS's summation of the NASA assessment of OAC's CLD proposal. My bet it took more time for someone at NASA to write up the assessment than it actually took to reject the proposal. Also CSS's assessment of the docking issues are spot on as are the balance issues he points out. This is exactly the sort of thing I wished more people in the media would point out regarding space subjects. My pet subject for unrealistic space issues is space mining and here's the basics of why. I'm Australian but did my degree in America. After meeting Harrison Schmitt in 2002 who spoke about mining the Moon for Helium-3 I went into the Australian mining industry to learn how to build and operate remote mines. I have over 15 years of first hand on site experience building and operating mines and I can state in all honesty that even the boffins at NASA haven't got a clue. I written to several people who have done TEDx talks on space mining and the one who did reply was actually an architect. He is actually a decent person who did the TEDx as a public speaking exercise. He was quite honest that he didn't know the subject that well. He sent me the main source of material for his talk which was the published papers from a NASA Conference on future lunar activities. It included quite a bit on mining and I can tell you all the NASA people need to actually spend some REAL TIME on mine sites seeing how they actually work. The biggest giveaway for anyone interested is to look at how they plan to do maintenance. If they say nothing then that shows they know nothing about mining and if they say robots then they know nothing about maintenance of heavy duty machinery. At its most basic mining is about getting what you want out of rocks. Just digging rocks and dirt out of the ground puts wear and tear on the machinery. After that you smash those rocks into smaller rocks and in some cases into powder. Yeah - at its most basic mining is about smashing rocks and that is incredibly hard on all the machinery. Anyone who thinks there's no maintenance is delusional and anyone who thinks it can be done with robots is ignorant of heavy duty machinery. And if CSS wants me to help on a "Why space mining is bunk!" video - then YES I WILL HELP IF HE ASKS.
    2
  4082.  @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
  4083. 2
  4084. 2
  4085. 2
  4086. 2
  4087. 2
  4088.  @jboyer1435  I did a quick check because I knew the quote but wasn't certain. Everywhere I looked it was patriotism not patriotic. I think the better Asimov quote is: “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. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s. At that time I was reading Asimov's Foundation series (the one Apple+ just made into a series). Interestingly in the books one of Hari Seldon's principle reasons the Empire was going to collapse was because education was failing. Its not explicitly said but its obvious from some from some of the stories in the books. A few 100 years after the collapse a few people ventured out from the Foundation to try and re-establish the knowledge that had preserved. Most planets they found had totally collapsed into dystopian disasters, but one still had functioning power and utilities. When the person from the Foundation questioned the chief engineer of a power station they discovered that they were uneducated and that the society had regressed into a form of techno-feudalism where titles like "chief engineer" "chief surgeon" "chief judge" were inherited and NONE of those titled people were actually educated. Even back in the late 80s there were signs that America was in trouble. They weren't as obvious as they are now, but they were there. What bothers me is that Australia like most of the Western World is going down the same path. Our education systems are going backwards. You might think that with all the advances in technology engineers would be better trained now than in the 80s and you'd be wrong. There is a distinct lack of practical knowledge in fresh graduates these days. Their computer skills are staggering by comparison but their engineering skills suck. There are some very serious issues with Western society these days, not just America, and it all centers around education.
    2
  4089. 2
  4090. 2
  4091. 2
  4092. 2
  4093. 2
  4094. 2
  4095. 2
  4096. 2
  4097. 2
  4098. 2
  4099. 2
  4100. 2
  4101. 2
  4102. 2
  4103. 2
  4104. 2
  4105. Long comment but it reads just like a few other comments I have written and others have written in recent years. If you go back and look for an interview Yanis Varoufakis did on the David Pakman Show (here on YouTube) he makes a really interesting point at one stage. Yanis (paraphrasing) said that Capitalism worked while Social Democracy worked because SD kept capitalism civilised and kept it in check. With no outside threat America lost its mission which was to beat Russia and because there was no "what do we do when its over" plan its ended up in this mess where the oligarchs are out of control and those oligarchs like funding the populist clowns like Trump, Marjorie TG, Lauren "happy hands" Boebert and Mike "chosen by God" Johnson and others because they keep everyone DISTRACTED. I think Richard is right about a lot of things, BUT ALSO he's so into his Marxism GOOD Capitalism BAD thing, that he occasionally blinds himself to certain realities. Like BRICS being a solution - its NOT because BRICS is a NOT a real thing. Its a term invented by an American economist/banker to describe those countries. They might be forming a lose organisation now but they simply wont go far because all of those countries have massive structural issues. Both Russia and China have massive demographics problems (see Peter Zeihan on that). India unfortunately has a number of major cultural issues that makes a lot of development difficult and also quite destructive because they also want a coal based energy economy. Brasil and South Africa are both rife with corruption and structural issues as well. The Middle Eastern Oil States that are joining in are also rife with corruption. On Marxism Richard also ignore the following 2 points. 1) Some of the worst human rights abuses in all of human history happened in the Marxist regimes of Soviet Russia and Maoist China. He never talks about that. 2) Some of the worst environmental disasters like the destruction of the Aral Sea, the toxic waste dumps of Eastern Europe and the destruction of the Chinese water ways did not involve a single capitalist. He never talks about that. A lot of Richards analysis and criticism of capitalism are VALID and its why I listen to him BUT he rarely puts his alternative Marxist systems to the same scrutiny and the few times I have heard him do it he's been dismissive of the reality and just criticised the leaders of various nations.
    2
  4106. ​ @emceeboogieboots1608  My brother called us the 51st state every chance he had. On being aligned with America has kept us safe for 70+ years. Yes we have had to go to the occasional war but security is never free. I don't think Australians think we are better than Americans on a person by person basis but most of the Western World is better than America on things like labor standards, gun control and superannuation. On education and Healthcare its a split decision because for those Americans who get both they get fantastic in both. But for the majority of the US population we beat them by several miles. Its actually the greatest risk there is with America at the moment - the cultural divide. Eventually they are going to work out that the real divide is NOT between Left & Right which America actually does NOT have. American has Diet-Lite Right and Hard Core Right. The real divide in America is the Rich and the Rest. Right now its easier to go from being a millionaire to billionaire than it is to becoming a millionaire in the first place. They've geared the economic system in favor of those with money and they keep everyone else trapped in a fictitious culture war hoping they don't wake up. As George Carlin famously said "It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it." The saddest thing is Australia is so hell bent on following the American lead we are in serious danger of ending up like them. We have seriously well funded think tanks and lobbyists here pushing damn hard to do EXACTLY what America has done.
    2
  4107. 2
  4108. 2
  4109. 2
  4110. 2
  4111. 2
  4112. 2
  4113. 2
  4114. 2
  4115. 2
  4116. 2
  4117. 2
  4118. 2
  4119. 2
  4120. 2
  4121. 2
  4122. 2
  4123. 2
  4124. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Playing a little bit of devils advocate and NOT defending the BULLSHlIT. Elon has done a couple of very good things BUT THEY DO NOT excuse all this nonsense and garbage that just wastes everyone's time. 1) TESLA has dragged the car industry off its collective butt and made them move on from ICE (Internal Combustion Engines). Having worked in the automotive industry they are an industry that is incredibly slow at innovation. That comes from how much it now costs to develop any new car. A previous client of mine was Hella the head and tail light manufacturer. Just the tooling for things like head lights can run into millions of dollars. Its why they quite often reuse one cars headlights or tail lights on another car. A famous example of that were the Toyota Corolla tail lights on the Lotus Esprit. So for ANYONE to get the main stream auto sector to shift is nothing to be belittled. THAT SAID - Elon has also MONSTROUSLY MISLEAD people over things like self driving cars and whether its even possible to make enough batteries to replace 1.5 Billion ICE cars with hybrid or electric or the 500 million ICE trucks in the world. 2) SPACEX has similarly dragged manned space flight out of the multi-decade failure of the Space Shuttle. YES the Space Shuttle might have been an amazing technical achievement but it was a long term disaster because of how much it sucked up in both in money and manhours. That's why going back to the Moon hasn't happened. The Space Shuttle consumed the money and instead of people doing lunar projects they were working on keeping the Space Shuttle flying. If you want to fairly compare Crew Dragon then compare it to Boeing's Starliner which was funded in parallel to Crew Dragon. DESPITE the same level of funding and development time Starliner is yet to fly a single crewed mission, while Crew Dragon currently has 4 active vehicles C206 Endeavor (4 flights), C207 Resilience (2 flights), C210 Endurance (3 flights) and 212 Freedom (2 flights). Despite the fact that Crew Dragon is not very innovative and can even be considered a technological step backwards from the Space Shuttle it also saved the manned space program from OBLIVION, which is more of an indictment on the entire program than it is a gold star for SpaceX. On the other SpaceX's Starship, that really is the joke that Thunderf00t and others describe. As for Elon's Mars proposals they're so bad they make the worst 1950's sci-fi films look like inspired documentaries. If Thunderf00t did wants to do a video with me on the whole "Can Mars be terraformed?" subject then I'm IN, because despite the fact I will defend a couple of Elon's successes I am farking tired of his nonsense. FYI - back in 1987 a NASA engineer gave me and my fellow classmates a special lecture on the project he'd just finished at NASA on terraforming. YES back in 1987 NASA had worked out how much bunk terraforming Mars was and I'd be happy to explain what he said.
    2
  4125. 2
  4126. 2
  4127. 2
  4128. Me neither but then I think I might have been caught on this one too, because its a very fine line between 2 almost identical examples and unless you get BOTH questions up front it could (not would) be easy to jump on a simple answer like JP did and then get caught out. I'm Australian and really proud that Jim Jefferies has asked such a brilliant pair of questions. The British lawyer Jeffery Robertson used to come to Australia and do these hypothetical discussions with panels of people and this was his stock & trade. Ask the first question with the aim to get a simple straight forward answer and then flip it on its head with the follow up question. If you take that first question in isolation and say forcing (through law) a business to serve a particular person is authoritarian. Being honest its the government asserting its authority to make and enforce rules. So such a rule is authoritarian, but the point Jim makes is that Governments can make rules & laws that are good for everyone. This something people on the Right and especially Libertarians can't grasp. When they make a rule or law its NEVER authoritarian because in their mind they are preserving liberty and WILL FORCE that rule on everyone as they are doing in America with the abortion laws (and yes that's a big deal around the world). BUT WHEN other people make rules and especially rules or laws they don't like then Right Wingers scream foul and Libertarians being even further to the right go off their rockers. JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW - American Libertarians are pushing their agenda's across the world right now. Here in Australia we just failed to pass a referendum that (in part) would recognise that Australia's Aboriginal peoples (First Nations) in the constitution. The No campaign which was straight out fee mongering, was lead by people (including Aboriginal people) who are involved in Australia's Right Wing Libertarian Think Tanks and those Think Tanks have links to America's Right Wing Libertarian Think Tanks. FOR PROOF - go and look up the Institute of Public Affairs here on YT. The IPA is Australia's most prominent and vocal and well funded Think Tank. If you scroll down their home page to "Other Organisations" you'll see the links to Heritage, CATO,.... etc.
    2
  4129. 2
  4130. 2
  4131. 2
  4132. 2
  4133. 2
  4134. One of the things rarely discussed is the influence of big corporate money over business colleges. We hear all about the lefties running rampant at colleges and universities. I'd agree there are some absolute nutters in the social sciences, but we rarely here that other side where right wing money is. In the Early 2000s the BBC Program Panorama (The British version of PBS Frontline) did an expose on the money being paid to professors in business colleges. They started with the question: Why are politicians from either side in almost every western country using policies that are so pro-banking and pro-business? They found lobbyists presenting politicians with papers written by professors with claims like: "You Mr. Politician should legislate as per this paper by distinguished professor ABC at University DEF. Here go and ask your advisors." What wasn't being said was these professors were being funded to write these papers promoting what the businesses wanted. First - these weren't average professors these were people at places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, and other highly rated universities. Second - Some people advising the politicians had had these professors in college or used their text books or read their works. So none of this information being presented as "independent study" was independent. The reason nobody hears much about the right wing money in business colleges is the people funding it have enough money to keep it out of the news. Its why the only place I have heard about it is from public broadcasters like PBS, BBC, etc.
    2
  4135. 2
  4136. 2
  4137. 2
  4138. 2
  4139. The fundamental problem with AUKUS is not that it was an agreement between Australia the UK and America or that it was for nuclear powered submarines. I'm an engineer and the REAL PROBLEM is the project itself which is hopelessly conceived and its costs are mindlessly stupid which is par for the course with Australian military agreements. I'm 100% in favor of Australia getting nuclear powered subs but am 100% against AUKUS. Because of how much ocean we need to patrol we need faster long range subs and nuclear powered subs are over 50% faster than subs like the Collins and that's the first of several points. Here's my 2 main points on why AUKUS needs to be ripped up and started over. 1) The Virginia requires too large of a crew and there's just no way Australia can operate more than 2 of them let alone 3 or 3 + 5 of the AUKUS subs. This point has been brought up again and again and the RAN has never answered how they'd solve this problem. 2) The basic cost of a Virginia class is AU$5.5billion and the project is costed at AU$33.5billion per sub. NOBODY has explained where the other $28billion per sub is going. I have done some research and costing on this. I even constructed a project costing model and started plugging in numbers. I threw everything I could at this and then started doubling the cost of things and even tripled some and then added in an outrageous bonus system to get stuff built on time. With all I tried I could not explain where over AU$115billion might be going.
    2
  4140. 2
  4141. Actually Kyle is 100% WRONG. If you look at his argument on attacking Cheyanne or Nebraska he leaves out 1 point and its right there on the screen at 13:47. In clause 3 it says "a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, it territories, POSSESSIONS, or armed forces" Sorry but its the usual legal & political machinations that take advantage of vagueness. Certainly the Houthis are no threat to America or its territories so it comes down to possessions or armed forces. Its arguable that the Houthis shot missiles at American Warships or they were just in the vicinity at various times. So it comes down to the word "possessions." Like if there's American cargo on any of those ships or cargo that could be claimed by America's allies then yeah sure there MIGHT be a claim of possession. What isn't in doubt are the freedom of navigation rights. Those rights are well established and the Houthis are violating those rights, but I will grant anyone that America (and others) bend those rules to suit what they want all the time. I suggest you all look at the YT channel "What's going on with shipping?" hosted by Sal Mercogliano and watch the various video's he's done recently. Just the other day Sal pointed out an Iranian registered cargo ship called the Bershad which for a cargo ship just goes up and down a part of the Red Sea and never goes into port anywhere (Yeah its a spy ship). It can see and spot anything going SOUTH out of the Suez canal into the area where ships are being attacked by the Houthis. So the Houthis SHOULD (depending on what the Iranians tell them) know which ships they are attacking. I get Kyle's passion and he's 100% right on the slaughter of innocent civlians in Gaza. He's also right how America let the Saudis also get away with wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians in Yemen in recent years. I just watched the Scott Galloway talk with Ian Bremmer about the worlds "2024’s Top Geopolitical Risks" and in that Scott pointed out the fact that America invaded Iraq and got over 400,000 innocent civilians killed AND NOBODY WAS HELD ACCOUNTABLE. As Joseph Stalin is reported to have said "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic".
    2
  4142. I'm Australian and have had no real contact with Finnish people but as an observation there's a few of note in car racing and they make for an interesting analysis. In Formula 1 Finland has had 3 World Champions and arguably a 4th and a bunch of other successful drivers. Their world champions are Keke Rosberg, Mika Häkkinen and Kimi Räikkönen. The sort of 4th is Keke's son Nico Rosberg who was born in Germany. The one thing that commentators noted about ALL OF THEM was their ability to tactically out think others and win championships with strategy rather than outright speed. Eddy Irvine who was Schumacher's team mate at the time talked about it in several interviews with respect to Mika Häkkinen. Another point of interest is the Rally of Finland also known as the 1000 Lakes Rally. First run in the 1950s it wasn't until 1990 when Carlos Sainz won that a non-Scandinavian won. It never seemed to matter what the cars were or what rules they raced under non-Scandinavians always struggled. I remember a driver (sorry I forget who) saying that they grow up in those conditions and just understand what it takes to do things there. Also there's a video here on YT about an incredibly successful Finish sniper from the Winter War. He didn't use a telescopic sight because they fog up. He just used iron sights and was a nightmare to the Russians. So if you add this up (and YES its limited information) what you have is a nation that can think strategically at a high level and know their environment in a way nobody else seems to.
    2
  4143. 2
  4144. 2
  4145. I'm Australian and we just won the 2032 games. NO ONE ELSE BID and nobody is asking why? We have plenty of idiots celebrating and making it out to be a good thing. Some of those idiots a have even started the lies. The worst is the claim that 80% of the venues are already built. That's just idiotic garbage. I am currently in Brisbane. I have lived here previously and there is NO WAY they even 25% of the venues and those they do have will need major upgrades before 2032. If Japan is a massive financial failure it only joins the financial failures of others. As a kid I watched the 1976 Montreal games. To the best of my knowledge they have never recovered the costs. 1980 in Moscow was a success because they had cheap labor which also gave Seoul in 1988 an advantage. LA & Atlanta were held in cities with massive sports facilities and massive universities with huge dorms they could use for the athletes village. Barcelona already had a couple of major stadiums. London already had all those football stadiums and the rest of the facilities. Beijing like Seoul and Moscow just had all that cheap labor to build what ever they wanted. Brisbane has 2 main stadiums the Gabba (oval shaped) at 42,000 and Suncorp (rectangular) at 52,500. Neither of those are up to Olympic standard which needs to be around the 80,000 mark. Brisbane held the 1982 Commonwealth games and did a great job. Every since they felt that justified they could host the Olympics. Brisbanites TOTALLY ignore all the extra sports the Olympics have and all the extra athletes and support staff and the extra media. They are planning to spend $1Billion upgrading the Gabba from 42,000 to 50,000 and don't get that's a joke by Olympic Standards. PLUS there's the lesson of Sydney they have already forgotten. It still hasn't been paid for and will most likely NEVER recoup the money spent. Why did one else bid for 2032? Because they were awake.
    2
  4146. 2
  4147. 2
  4148. 2
  4149. 2
  4150. 2
  4151. 2
  4152. 2
  4153. 2
  4154. 2
  4155. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I am an engineer, I work in control systems and this is my main beef with the pro-AI crowd. What most people do NOT understand is that AI is a fallacy. There is no logical explanation for what intelligence actually is and by logical we can't write out a general algorithm or set of formulas for what intelligence is. What we have algorithms that mimic specific human tasks that are basically repetitive. These claims that they learn are simply garbage. You've hit the next major issue and that's calibration. All engineered tech needs to be calibrated either by actual testing or against an accepted standard. There is no standard for social media algorithms. There is no standard test for social media algorithms. We are just expected to accept what is being forced on us. As an engineer its actually infuriating to watch people shamelessly promote imaginary technologies that don't exist or don't work and will never deliver as promised. Yeah we get called boring because we can actually use basic math for real world problems. The best PR & BS I have seen recently is Elon Musk's Starship, which he claims can take 100 people at a time to Mars. Problem is that NASA has already worked out the minimum volume needed in a space craft per person for that kind of travel. When the simple arithmetic is done Starship has barely enough space for 17 people not 100. It really would be a sardine can in space AND YET 1000s of people still believe Elon is going to whisk them off to Mars. The volume of techno PR garbage these days is staggering and yet so many people just suck it up as if its gospel fact.
    2
  4156. 2
  4157. 2
  4158. 2
  4159. 2
  4160. 2
  4161. 2
  4162. 2
  4163. 2
  4164. 2
  4165. 2
  4166. 2
  4167. 2
  4168. 2
  4169. 2
  4170. 2
  4171. 2
  4172. 2
  4173. 2
  4174. 2
  4175. 2
  4176. 2
  4177. 2
  4178. 2
  4179. 2
  4180. 2
  4181. 2
  4182. I'm an aerospace engineer and there's 2 points I like to remind people of just so the Muskrats don't go screaming and howling and claiming we are BLIND. And being fair there is a very mixed bag when we objectively look at Musk and his companies. 1) SpaceX did an amazing thing in breaking through the barriers to the space launch business that companies like Boeing dominated. We tend to forget that Boeing got more money to help develop Starliner which is yet to have a 100% successful flight. Crew Dragon in my view is a very good success. Its not ideal but it did get NASA back into flying its own astronauts from its own facilities back into space without having to fly via the Russians. HOWEVER that success does not and will never excuse Elon's stupidity over the Mars fantasy or idiocy on other space related things like Starship. YES my view of Starship is the complete opposite of Crew Dragon because Crew Dragon fulfilled an actual need while Starship does what other than pump Elon's ego? 2) Tesla did an amazing thing by becoming a successful EV manufacturer. I have worked in the Auto sector and getting that sector to change anything is staggeringly hard and yet Tesla go that entire industry to change. HOWEVER when you look at Elon's actual involvement in the development its been disastrous. There's a court case between Martin Eberhard one of the actual founders (with Marc Tarpenning) that's been covered by the YT channel Common Sense Skeptic. The really obvious thing is Cybertruck. That's not something Elon can blame on anyone else. The real tragedy in my view is that there's some fantastic engineers in both SpaceX and Tesla who have done some amazing work. Unfortunately its likely they will never get any credit because Elon will take that from them and once Elon does trash his empire the reputation of those people will also be trashed.
    2
  4183. 2
  4184. 2
  4185. As an engineer I can say that's so damn true. I'm Australian but did aerospace at U. Illinois just over the border from Indiana. By chance in 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and he was pushing to mine the moon for Helium-3. So I went off to Australia's remote mining industry for experience. One of the major learning lessons from that was how to do basic engineering in remote places. One of my personal is "How do we build a workshop & foundry on the moon?" The simple fact is we never built a moon base because its just to damn hard to fly everything there. Its at least 10x the cost to land anything on the moon. It really comes down to some incredibly simple things like How do you make pipe on the moon? How do you make electrical cables on the moon? How do you get the raw stock from local ore to make pipe, cablesand other stuff? To actually get information on the subject I have taken to watching the amateur machinists here on YouTube, because they have to make do with less than what the professionals have. I watch the pros as well because they show how to do stuff properly, but its the amateurs with little hobby lathes & mills I watch the most. At the start of off world their will be people doing things like black smithing because we just wont be able to take the processing hardware. We just wont be able to take an industrial lathe or mill or the tooling or a blast furnace. All the skills the amateurs with help from the pros have kept alive will enable a moon base. NASA are skull stuffed on the subject, while Musk & Bezos are so far into fantasyland it makes you wonder what drugs they're on.
    2
  4186.  @TybudX  Interesting while I was there (late 2017) I heard nothing about salmonella outbreaks. Not surprising about the regulatory issues. If you get into any of the current discussions regarding the legacy of Reaganomics and Thatcherism (what's called neoliberalism or libertarianism) one of its trademarks is de-regulation. Reagan famously said government is the problem not the solution. Its now pretty much accepted that he was not only senile he was an idiot as well. Don't forget he was the actor made famous for doing the "duck and cover" commercials for handling a nuclear attack. If there is a scary thing about Reagan its that some claimed he wasn't far enough to the right. One of the famous Koch brothers ran against him claiming he Reagan was too LEFTIST and wasn't libertarian enough. With COVID I have had some time to look into where its all gone wrong. Partly we are living in the last days of an economic system that's failed. Prof. Mark Blyth has been talking about this for a few years and been trying to tell people we are at the end of the Reaganomic era. Here's his primer on it -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJD5rE4omY Here's a lecture he gave on it (2019) -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJoe_daP0DE Part of the reason its getting really bad is that we should have had a system upgrade after 2008 but it didn't happen and now the system is just falling apart. I've seen/heard reports that the US Economy actually started falling BEFORE COVID-19 really struck and they what COVID-19 actually did was push it off the cliff it was already falling over. I call COVID "Acid Flu" because more than anything else it has exposed the flaws in our current economics. I don't think a radical leftist agenda is the solution but we need a completely new way of running the worlds economy because this idiotic shit we're doing now is killing us. What you've pointed out with the salmonella and no way to regulate what these companies do is just another symptom of the disease. I just watched a vid story about an Australian swimmer (I used to swim) who got caught with Ligandrol in her system. Ligandrol is one of the current FAD drugs among gym junkies. Its actually experimental and not yet approved for human use. How the farq is it even available and yet gym junkies are claiming its easy to get? Same disease, different symptom - a lack of regulations and enforcement of regulations. We've just had ANOTHER major building project in serious trouble. We almost had a brand new massive apartment block collapse a couple of years ago. Same disease, different symptom - a lack of regulations and enforcement of regulations. What did Reagan and Thatcher and the others want? Those farqers might be gone but we've been left to clean up the mess.
    2
  4187. 2
  4188. 2
  4189. 2
  4190. 2
  4191.  @jl8942  DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA AT ALL about where America sits economically in the world? If America has another event like it did in 2008, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE? Have you ever heard of the Bank of International Settlements? BIS for short. Its where central banks like the Fed and the European Central Bank and the Bank of England go to settle things like all the foreign exchange that goes on from trade and tourism and people moving money about. Their December 2022 quarterly report had a shock in it. If you look it up it starts on page 68. In a nutshell they have reported there is now $100 Trillion in off book FX Swaps (Foreign Exchange) which are a form of derivative trades. Its basically gambling on exchange rates. Most of these swaps are NOT held by banks but other businesses AND NONE of it is recorded on any balance sheet anywhere because of how accountants record these sorts of "financial tools." Below is the opening summary of that report. And note that 25 + 35 = 60 and that's just the short term. In total (short + long term) its around $100 Trillion and most of it is in US Dollars. TAKE note of the last 2 words - that's a reference to all this stuff being OFF BOOK. If America sneezes and the US Dollar suddenly jumps then it will be bit more serious than 2008. This is the opening summary from that report. _"FX swaps, forwards and currency swaps create forward dollar payment obligations that do not appear on balance sheets and are missing in standard debt statistics. Non-banks outside the United States owe as much as $25 trillion in such missing debt, up from $17 trillion in 2016. Non US banks owe upwards of $35 trillion. Much of this debt is very short-term and the resulting rollover needs make for dollar funding squeezes. Policy responses to such squeezes include central bank swap lines that are set in a fog, with little information about the geographic distribution of the missing debt"_
    2
  4192. 2
  4193. 2
  4194. 2
  4195. 2
  4196. 2
  4197. 2
  4198. 2
  4199. 2
  4200. 2
  4201. 2
  4202. 2
  4203.  @mikejohnson555  A better description might have been "when they make quantum computers work." First if you want if mention NASA & supercomputers together, I did aerospace at U. Illinois where they had access to the first generations of Cray supercomputers as I was doing my degree. All that fancy CFD you see these days was started by one of my professors. I knew a guy via the swimming team who was doing his masters on compilers for parallel processing systems. These days I work in industrial control systems and robotics. So I am fairly well aware of where we've been and what we now have and what the advances have been. There's a couple of great vids on why they believe quantum computers will change everything. Compared to even todays supercomputers they'll be so far ahead in data processing throughput its almost impossible to compare. Its like comparing an abacus to the latest CPUs. What made the Crays so powerful in their day was the parallel processing in conjunction with vector processing. Todays CPUs have inherited those methods but they are all limited by physical constraints that doesn't apply to quantum processing. As for AI that's fantasy. There has been so much idiotic crap put forward via journalists and other proponents that they deserve to be slapped. Yes they have lots of sweet and interesting algorithms that mimic various human traits but as for anything like actual intelligence its idiotic. Go look for the honest TED & TEDx talks on the subject. There've been plenty of people in that field coming out and trying to tell people what AI is and what its not. In engineering we use words from the common lexicon that mean things in our field but the meaning just not the same. We talk about "teaching a robot" where we teach the robot where we want to it move. We talk about process controllers (PID & Fuzzy logic) that "learn" how to run the process better over time. BUT those things are totally different to teaching and learning in humans. I have actually done that kind of work, including at the code level. I find it quite annoying that people have blown what AI is out of all proportion.
    2
  4204. 2
  4205. 2
  4206. 2
  4207. ​ @taranullius9221  Careful because although you are right about many things and that fact our immigration camps left a lot to be desired they were never close to concentration camps. I'll agree any day of the week we could have done better and should have done better. Many years ago when there were similar issues with Ethnic Vietnamese fleeing southern China, by chance I met a lawyer who handled some of those cases. She couldn't tell me anything about any case but I asked the general question of why these cases take so long. I think at the time they were taking 3-5 years. She basically told the single biggest problem is these people carry no identification. The first thing they do when they start to their journey is destroy everything that might link them to anything. That way they can't be sent back to anywhere because NOBODY knows where back is. This is why they get caught in limbo. They can't prove their claims and nobody else can prove or dis-prove anything. I also just checked what I could and Statista has a graph showing that at 2000 the number of displaced people in the world was less than 25 million. By 2014 it was over 50 million and by 2018 it was over 75 million. Its a gigantic global problem that nobody can fix because there's too much money for various people. From the corporations who pillage the 3rd world by supporting dictators to the arms traffickers who supply those dictators to the smugglers transporting people. THEY'RE ALL MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY to want to do anything.
    2
  4208. 2
  4209. 2
  4210. 2
  4211. 2
  4212. 2
  4213. 2
  4214. 2
  4215. 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
  4216.  @sdfswords  We actually have a combination of several things including parts of the English caste system. We don't lack entrepreneurship at all. We have all 3 basic types. 1) Scam artists who want to take all your money; and 2) Narcissists who actually have something but still want to take all your money; and 3) The incredibly rare who not only have something BUT WANT to take others along for the ride. Like everywhere else in the world we have too many of the first 2 kinds and very, very few of the 3rd. Australia's biggest issue is the insane concept that economists know what they are talking about. Its NOT a matter of what's the missing magic, but a case of what's the shite in the system. 1 Word -> Economists. We have taken the worst stupidity of the clown brigade out of places like Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge and the LSE. Like in other countries, they have levelled chunks of our industrial base, smashed our energy industries, destroyed our river systems and effectively nuked our housing sector. One of our worst is an Australian born Harvard educated clown who did EXACTLY the same thing to our rivers & water systems as one of his fellow Harvard clowns did to the Texas energy sector. You know the most energy rich state in the world where children freeze to death in their beds because they don't have the energy to warm their home. We also imported a Yale to head the economics department at one of our top Universities. She's an outright sociopath as well as a fraud and liar. How economics is practised and how its taught is going to be one of the biggest shitfights of the next few years and maybe one of the biggest ever.
    2
  4217.  @luiscrawford1249  That's a brutal and sadly accurate assessment of our media. My biggest complaint with our current media landscape is that its dominated by attention seeking clowns who are ruled by a gaggle of narcissistic sociopaths drunk on Milton Friedmans "greed is good" jungle juice. Sorry for the longer reply but this is WHY I hate economists and journalists. I'm actually an engineer and a few years ago I did this odd little consult job on Australia's power industry. What I found shocked me because we are headed for an economic collapse. When I looked around I found the same problem everywhere I looked. Like everything else power stations wear out and need to be replaced. Big populations require big power stations underpinning their economies. Everybody stopped building big power stations in the 1990s with almost none being built after the year 2000 anywhere in the Western world. A lot of smaller power stations have been built, plus lots of wind and solar installed, but they are only HIDING the problem. The economists don't want to admit they gave bad advice and the journalists aren't interested in telling anyone that much bad news. Here in Australia we are planning to turn off 5 of our biggest power stations over the next few years because of age. Several were built in the late 60s early 70s. They are that old that there's just no way to keep them running. We have already turned off one major and 4 more minor power stations because of age. Most of the big power stations we do have broke down at various points this winter causing all sorts of chaos. AT THE MOMENT WE DO NOT HAVE EVEN 1 PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE. I recently checked California and France as part of a discussion and its a similar same story. Britain is at least building one but it wont be ready until around 2028. This is why I hate economists so much. They are doing all that they can to hide the fact their advice played a massive part in creating the energy crisis. What I hate about journalists and the media is they won't talk to anyone who might actually tell people what's going on let alone discuss solutions. Between these 2 groups of people the general population of the planet is confused and exhausted and no solutions are being presented. This is an accurate summation of the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404
    2
  4218. 2
  4219. 2
  4220. 2
  4221. 2
  4222. 2
  4223. 2
  4224. 2
  4225. 2
  4226. 2
  4227. 2
  4228. 2
  4229. 2
  4230. 2
  4231. 2
  4232. 2
  4233. 2
  4234. 2
  4235. 2
  4236. 2
  4237. 2
  4238. 2
  4239. 2
  4240. 2
  4241. 2
  4242. 2
  4243. 2
  4244. @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
  4245. 2
  4246. 2
  4247. 2
  4248. 2
  4249. 2
  4250. 2
  4251. 2
  4252. 2
  4253. 2
  4254. 2
  4255. 2
  4256. 2
  4257. 2
  4258. 2
  4259. 2
  4260. 2
  4261. 2
  4262. 2
  4263. 2
  4264. 2
  4265. 2
  4266. 2
  4267. 2
  4268. Actually you are 1/2 right. The initial claims that it was a bio-weapon were totally idiotic and there has never been any evidence that it was ever a weapon. But a lot of evidence has turned up that shows the possibility of a lab leak is very real. The problem is the media and politicians have made a mess of the public discussion making it very hard to know what's fact and what's not. Dr. Michael Osterholm (the director of CIDRAP) did a great analysis of this mess and how the media has handled it in a recent podcast. This link is time stamped to that part of that podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNfScnnDVU&t=2610s Note that he honestly points out the issues the CDC has had and how many incidents the CDC has had. Note how he explains that Wuhan and the Wuhan Institute of Virology might just be a coincidence because like Atlanta (home of the CDC) its a major transport hub. Go watch this from DW News that sheds a lot of light on what the Chinese were actually doing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It DOES NOT conclude it was a lab leak, because nobody has conclusive evidence, but there is a lot of evidence that a lab leak was possible. What it also highlights is that the Lead Scientist in Wuhan Dr. Zheng-Li Shi WAS MODIFYING Bat Corona Viruses, but by the definition that she and others use it wasn't Gain of Function. The fact that the Chinese openly published their work is absolutely conclusive that it wasn't a weapon. Nobody develops weapons and the tells the world how they did it - that's simply idiotic. That would be like developing the next -gen stealth fighter and then putting the design on Facebook. What they show in that documentary is that there is division among virologists over what research is safe to do. They highlight the hyper deadly variant of H5N1 Avian flu that came out of a lab in 2011. Here's the DW documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18 Here's an example of what the Chinese published out of Wuhan. Click on the authors names and you will see where they work. You can also see that the lead scientist in Wuhan mentioned in the DW documentary is also one of the authors of this. -> https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
    2
  4269. 2
  4270. For start its Marianne NOT Miriam. Your right however as Yang proved - zero political experience doesn't work. Look at his NY Mayor run. He got sucked into having a couple of Bloomberg's DNC people and they dumped him in the fryer with that Israel question. That was a stone cold set-up by the corporate Dems and he was a lamb to a slaughter. As for the Justice Dems, Kyle has explained again and again how they got hijacked by clowns. Kyle brought up one of Krystal's tweets the other day about the CIA manual. It was really interesting to see that the Left, including progressive groups implode through the same stuff again and again AND what causes it. What I hate about SOME progressives is the claim that progressives are Left and only Left and in most cases RADICALLY far Left. Its totally NOT TRUE. Go have a look at Saagar or Marshall they are both politically Right and yet both are progressive. its the same for Conservatives and Regressives they aren't all on the Right. Look at the old school communists in Russia who want the Soviet system back. They are as Left as you can get and they're considered Conservative or Regressive. Progressives can be both Left and Right because all Progressive means is you want to see society make progress. Conservatives want things conserved and Regressives want to go backwards to some past state. I hate people who claim that certain things have to be Left or Right because it immediately excludes good ideas. Idiots on the Left will exclude any discussion on certain things because those things are considered Right and do exactly the same thing with ideas they consider Left. ITS STUPID, because good ideas are good its what makes them good ideas.
    2
  4271. 2
  4272. 2
  4273. 2
  4274. 2
  4275. 2
  4276. 2
  4277. 2
  4278. 2
  4279. 2
  4280. 2
  4281. 2
  4282. AUSTRALIAN HERE with an observation. Britain has 1st past the post and Australia has a preferential voting system. In our system all those votes from down the list would have been switched to their secondary preferences. This is how this might have gone with our system. I suspect all the Reform UK who are all 100% Brexiteers would have put Liz Truss as their second preference. So on that her vote would go to 21,175. I have no doubt the Greens would vote Labor (as they do here) taking their vote to 13,685 The real question is what the Independents & Lib Dems would do. In Australia the sorts of people who vote for minor parties at #1 tend to be swing voters with their preferences. They typically give preferences to the existing government if its doing well and against if its not. With this clearly being a protest vote AWAY from the previous election where Liz Truss got 26,195 votes I'd expect those people would have also voted Labor on their preferences making Labor's vote 22,585. So under a preferential system I'd expect the same result but with a bigger margin. Another question that could be asked is what happens if you have something like Australia's compulsory voting system. You only had 59% turnout in this seat meaning about 30,000 didn't vote at all. In Australia those people tend to do some interesting things. If they are unmotivated they do what's called donkey voting and either they just put 1,2,3,4,.... down the list or do something so that no vote is counted at all. My brother used to add his football team to the list and vote for them and of course such votes don't count. But one of the massive benefits of compulsory voting is that when our governments screw up (and they do) these people tend to do massive protest votes. So in this case I'd expect MOST of those people to vote Labor as a way of flipping the finger at Liz Truss and this would have been a massacre not a narrow loss. FYI - There was an American political analyst in Australia during one of our elections and she said that if America switched from first past the post to preferential AND made voting compulsory then it would re-shape America for the best. Preferential but NOT compulsory has been tried in a couple of states with significant changes. Her main reason for wanting both is that it prevents parties from having a "culture war" mentality because they have to engage with the general population not just those motivated to vote. And if you put that into the context of where America has gone in the last couple of years I think she had a valid point.
    2
  4283. 2
  4284. 2
  4285. SORRY PETER BUT YOU DESERVE SOME OF THE CRAP YOU GET WHEN IT COMES TO SUBJECTS LIKE THIS I have pointed out some of your faults on engineering previously but you keep repeating the similar mistakes. First - as an engineer who does projects I can tell you that you can't talk about percentage of life time costs when the technologies are so different and the construction costs are so radically different. You DO NOT NEED 100% up front capital for a Wind Farm or Solar Farm. This is because they are fundamentally different to something like a Coal or Gas fired plant and especially a nuclear plant. You have to build 100% of a nuclear, coal or hydro plant. You can't build part of one of those plants BUT YOU CAN build a fraction of a wind farm and get it making money before being 100% finished. Yes you need a higher percentage of the life time costs up front but its a much smaller number. Its like 99% of 10 (as in 9.9) is a smaller number than 50% of 50 (as in 25). 99% of 10 is even smaller than 10% of 100 because 9.9 is less than 10. You might be right that the percentage is higher but the actual capital cost is much lower. In terms of a real world comparison for plants under or near construction RIGHT NOW. Vogtle in Georgia and Hinckley Point C in Britain are 2 nuclear plants for which data is readily available (see Wikipedia). Vogtle has 2 x Westinghouse AP1000 reactors with a CONSTRUCTION cost of of US$34 Billion for 2.2 GW (Gigawatts). Hinckley Point C in Britain with 2 x EPR 2s has a CONSTRUCTION cost of £32.7 Billion (US$ 41.5B) for 3.2 GW. THESE ARE UP FRONT COSTS Vogtle has up front costs of US$15.46B per GW and Hinkley has US$12.97B per GW. SunZia at US$11B for 3.5GW is US$3.14B per GW. For comparison Snowy 2.0 In Australia which is a massive pumped hydro plant with estimated costs (so far) of AU$15B for 2.0GW. That's about US$5B per GW but I'd also warn that those costs might blow out. I am Australian and despite that I think it will eventually prove worthwhile that project is a dumpster fire in terms of project mismanagement. NOW BEFORE ANYONE SCREAMS - Yes I know 3.5GW of wind is NOT the same as 3.5GW of nuclear, gas, coal or hydro. The general rule is that it takes 2.2 times as much capacity to produce the same effect as coal, nuclear, hydro,..... The Germans proved that with a better mix of wind & solar that number can come down to as low as 1.7. It might come lower with bulk storage and by bulk storage I don't mean batteries even mega batteries. Bulk storage is when you can supply from storage at least 1 day if not 2 of reliable. Australia has a planned Mega battery on the site of a recently decommissioned coal fired plant. At 750MWH it sound impressive but the power station was 2,000MW and that 750MWH is about 22.5 minutes worth of power. So by current general practice SunZia has costs more like $6.9B per GW, but that might be lower with the right balance of wind & solar coupled with a bulk storage system. Irrespective US$11B its a lot less money than the US$34B that's been paid for Vogtle for a similar amount of power.
    2
  4286. 2
  4287. 2
  4288.  @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
  4289. HEY JORDAN: I normally love these interviews you do but sometimes you NEED TO PUSH BACK instead of just agreeing with everything. This is one of the great failings many people like yourself. Its great that you have people like Marc on to discuss their thing but for things this important you NEED A COUNTERPOINT. FYI - Just like marc I did my undergraduate at the U. of Illinois except I was in aerospace and a few years ahead of him. I was there when they were going through the "what do we do with this" phase of large data bases. We had a system called Plato which was a pre-Internet information system AND IT WAS AWFUL to use. When PCs arrived Apple, IBM, AT& T just dumped machines with various departments. In aerospace we got a truckload (about 50) AT&T PCs with Unix operating systems. They had a amazing computational capacity compared to both the IBMs and Apples but that version of Unix was so damn horrible to use these machines were basically useless. I knew a guy who was working on the Cray Supercomputers it was pretty interesting to here the technical details of what they were dealing with. I have spent 30+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Mostly I have worked in manufacturing and mining but also water and waste water treatment, energy systems and gas plants. I have seen a lot happen in that time and I can tell you from that experience that Marc is simply dead wrong on a number of topics. No doubt on these AI platforms he knows more than I do but by the same token I know a lot more than he does on industrial issues. In industry we have had so many tech clowns form the IT industry waft in an make pronouncements. What the IT people NEVER UNDERSATND is that industry does not play games with software or any of the technology. When you are working on multi-billion dollar lumps of stuff you just can't take the blasé attitude of the IT industry. these are lumps of stuff that you just cannot have data errors and software crashes. In my field we pay attention when ever the IT people are close because they JUST DO NOT GET WHAT WE DO. You'd be amazed just how lacking in knowledge other engineers are of what control system people do. IT people are just worse than normal. Putting it mildly without control system engineers writing incredibly stable software the world as you know it does NOT EXIST. You wouldn't be reading this now because you wouldn't have electricity. We keep society as you know it working NOT the Marc Andreesens of the world. His claims AI will be running everything are just FALSE. I assure you he has no idea of what we do or he'd never make those claims.
    2
  4290. 2
  4291. 2
  4292. 2
  4293. 2
  4294. 2
  4295. 2
  4296. 2
  4297. 2
  4298. 2
  4299. 2
  4300. 2
  4301. 2
  4302. 2
  4303. 2
  4304. 2
  4305. 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
  4306. 2
  4307. 2
  4308. 2
  4309. 2
  4310. Aerospace engineer here - this is one of the most annoying subjects wasting out time these days. There's no real need to go into the technologies. You can kill this entire argument just by asking how they'll process 1 Billion cubic kilometers of air to remove 2.5 Trillion tons of CO2? Here's the explanation. FIRST - the basic task comes from the fact we have (since the start of the Industrial Revolution) put an extra 2.5 trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere with 1.5 Trillion Tons of that being just in the last 80 years and at current rates we'll add another 1/2 a Trillion tons by the early 2030s. Way back in 1987 as an undergraduate (in America) we had a NASA Engineer (as a guest lecturer) explain to us why terraforming Mars was utterly impractical. He'd just completed a project for NASA on what it would take. It was simply the amount of stuff needed to do the job. Before you even get to the subject of making things like water, oxygen and carbon dioxide cycles work you need to just get enough air and water. Its a subject I now call Planetary Mechanics which is doing basic calculations on volumes, mass and energy. He showed us just the basics. From that its relatively easy to calculate that to give Mars a layer 1km thick of Earth standard air requires 178 Trillion (with a 'T') tons of air. Plus you need to raise its temperature from -60C to +20C and that's a lot of energy for that much air. And you'd need a lot more than just 1km to make a planet viable. The related subject is Planetary Dynamics which is how you make things like the water and gas and thermodynamic cycles work which is incredibly complex. Planetary Mechanics is reasonably easy for anyone to grasp except for how big the numbers are, because its mostly just being able to calculate volumes and what mass it takes to fill that volume. That's how you get 178 Trillion tons of air. So coming back to Earth. Earths surface is just over 500,000,000 km² so in the first 1km above the Earths surface you have about 1/2 a Billion cubic kilometers of air. Its actually about 2% more than that. But its just easier to use 1/2 a Billion. Because if you want to consider the first 2km above the Earths surface its about 1 Billion cubic KILOMETERS of air and that's where most of the excess CO2 is and there's 2.5 Trillion tons of it we need to remove. So how do any of these clowns with plants that can do 1,000 tons per year plan to remove 2.5 Trillion tons? How much will it COST in BOTH money and materials to build all these plants? How much CO2 will be produced getting all those materials and building all those plants? How much energy with it take to just build those plants and then operate those plants? You don't need to explain the technology, because just the scope of the task rules it out as impractical. If you want to know why an aerospace engineer is interested in all this stuff its pretty simple. My goal in life was to build a moon base. You then start with a couple of very simple issues. How do you build a volume of space that you can seal so that you have somewhere to live? How do you fill that volume with air? How do you get enough water to sustain life, because water is life? How do you create just enough of biologic systems that they can become reasonably close to self sustaining so that you have enough air and food to survive? I think creating a 100% self sustaining system is impractical so the actual task is how close can you get for it to be practical in that it doesn't require too much effort to keep functioning. THEN FINALLY - how do you power it all? This is where Kirk Sorenson got to when he was at NASA and re-discovered molten salt reactors. If you want to do a video on this stuff let me know.
    2
  4311. 2
  4312. 2
  4313. 2
  4314. 2
  4315. 2
  4316. 2
  4317. 2
  4318. 2
  4319. 2
  4320. 2
  4321. 2
  4322. 2
  4323. 2
  4324. 2
  4325. 2
  4326. 2
  4327. 2
  4328. 2
  4329. 2
  4330. 2
  4331. 2
  4332. 2
  4333. 2
  4334. 2
  4335. 2
  4336. 2
  4337. 2
  4338. 2
  4339. 2
  4340. 2
  4341. 2
  4342. 2
  4343. 2
  4344. 2
  4345. 2
  4346. 2
  4347. Half the problem in this is that there are some very serious issues that need to be asked of Dr. Fauci on the subject of what was actually going on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and what involvement other nations including America had. Sagaar Enjeti (at the Hill) raised this article the other day that was done by Nicholas Wade. Its very well done, but its a longer article than most people will read. -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ In a nutshell: - There was "gain of function" research going on in Wuhan. - There was research there being funded by other nations including America. - One of the main people investigating Wuhan with the W.H.O. Peter Daszak has an obvious conflict of interest. As a result we DO NOT have a fully detailed account of what was going on in Wuhan. From that article and other professionals I have heard, I do NOT think it was a genetically engineered weapon. Most likely it was something that became modified or enhanced in the lab that got out into the general population. How it became modified or enhanced is something NO ONE has answered. Its possible it was from deliberate "gain of function" research. Its also possible it just came from an accidental mutation in a petri dish. We just don't know and one of the principal investigators has a serious conflict of interest. BUT Rand Paul is the worst kind of opportunistic maggot politician to be asking anything of such a serious subject and we wont get the answers we need with a clown like him running the show. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    2
  4348. 2
  4349. 2
  4350. 2
  4351. 2
  4352. 2
  4353. 2
  4354. 2
  4355. 2
  4356. 2
  4357. 2
  4358. 2
  4359. 2
  4360. 2
  4361. 2
  4362. 2
  4363. 2
  4364.  @blackknight4996  There's a really smart sensible TEDx done by another engineer Emily Calandrelli called "Making science nicer, stupid" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9haKpJakU4 Yeah I know the whole "T" for technology in TED/TEDx has deteriorated in the last couple of years into fantasy futurism crap, but that talk is from when it still meant something and they had quality people on. Emily pointed out that one of the biggest issues in the world right now is STEM literacy coupled with STEM people NOT talking sensibly to the world. these days I get way more frustrated with the techno-promoters than almost anyone. Every time some techno-promoter says something that the media jumps onto it can take months if not years to straighten out. Look at Prof Wolff's comments on automation, robotics and AI. He's just repeating what so many have said. Here's a perfect example of the garbage about automation and if you tried to remove this item of automation from society 1/2 of the developed world will simply kill you. Its called the clothes washing machine. Prior to it, women had to wash EVERYTHING BY HAND 1 item at a time. There was a TV series back in 2000 called the 1900 house. They took a typical family of 5 (2 girls and 1 boy) and put them into a 1900 tenement house where they had taken out EVERYTHING made after 1901. I only saw a few episodes but there was 1 where the wife explained laundry. After explaining how much time it took, she said "No wonder girls didn't go to school!" So when people bash automation I like to tell them "Fine lets start with washing machines, so that girls DON'T get to go to school and learn how to read an write and when that special time of the month comes around there wont be any modern products for that either." People forget all the automation in their lives that make things easier and better.
    2
  4365. Well pointed out this is not simply a matter of definition its a matter of public confusion because of partisan politics. I'm an aerospace engineer who did post graduate research. What angers me so much with this argument is that we are NOT getting a clear picture of what the NIH was doing in Wuhan. I remember that May 11 confrontation, because it was just after the Wade Nichols article, and yes I know there's been some debunking of that article. -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ But following on from that article others posted links to these NIH project reports which clearly show NIH funding to Ecohealth Alliance and managed by Peter Daszak for Corona virus research in China. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9491676 https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9819304 I'm not a virologist or epidemiologist (an most of us aren't). I do know what researchers can be like. At times very fine details and definitions are incredibly important because they can be doing work that is right at the balance point between 1 definition and another. For anyone who has never done research or development that's more common than you think. I did a water treatment plant a couple of years back where we had to be EXTREMELY careful about everything we said or wrote in emails and reports because there were 2 competing companies, both with patents pending that were very, very close in what they claimed as original work. Its quite possible that how researchers define Gain of Function and where they draw the line between it and other methods might not make sense to the rest of us but makes perfect sense to them. We DO NEED is clarity from an expert in the field as to why certain research is regarded as Gain of Function and some is NOT. I don't want to hear from any more commentators or politicians about this - I WANT TO HEAR FROM AN EXPERT.
    2
  4366. 2
  4367. 2
  4368. 2
  4369. 2
  4370. 2
  4371. 2
  4372. 2
  4373. 2
  4374. 2
  4375. To All Americans: DO YOU RELIALIZE HOW BIG THIS ISSUE IS FOR ALL DEMOCRACIES? I'm Australian and this affects EVERY DEMOCRACY. America spent most of the last 75 years calling itself the "Leader of the free (as in democratic) world" as opposed to the NOT FREE Communist/Socialist World. The entire Puritanical Ideology of the RADICAL American Right threatens everybody's freedom in every democratically free nation. This behavior of NOT ACCEPTING and election result is what 3rd world dictators do. It was most recently done in Myanmar and Sudan. How many of you know that in many of those counting rooms there were International Observers as there always is for major elections? Most of the developed world INVITE people from everywhere else to show them HOW they conduct free and fair elections. When we have elections there are American Observers here. They don't come here looking for illegal stuff they come to watch, to sometimes advise, but mostly to see how we do it. We also sent observers to America in 2020. NOT 1 International Observer from ANYWHERE has made any claim or even questioned the integrity of the 2020 US General Elections. Yes America its not just the Dems and judges and a few Republicans saying it was fair and free. It is also the opinion of accredited observers from all over the world. If all of you want America to survive and I hope you do then STOMP on this garbage once and for all. There are real issues in the world with economies, refugees, famine and the biggest of all CLIMATE that is almost impossible to handle with America malfunctioning.
    2
  4376. 2
  4377. 2
  4378. 2
  4379. 2
  4380. 2
  4381. 2
  4382. Sorry but AI will already be using it as a data source for WHAT NOT TO DO. Everything that is digitised as data including our comments right here right now is food for the AI beast. I am an aerospace engineer so you might expect I am pro-technology because that's how I make my living. I am 100% against AI for some simple reasons. 1) We DO NOT NEED IT despite all the promises and claims we DO NOT NEED IT. Yes, there are some things that it will help speed up but WE DO NOT NEED IT to get any of those tasks done. 2) Its a technology that has been massively over played on its capabilities and what it can actually do and most importantly HOW IT WORKS. AI for all the claims DOES NOT THINK and NEVER HAS. It calculates statistical probabilities based on the available data. Its just doing it in such a complicated way and considering so many variables that it appears to be thinking. 3) It has been proven time and time again that BAD DATA makes for bad simulations. Almost every engineer is told the simple thing of "garbage in, garbage out" when it comes to any and every form of simulation. The great problem of AI right now is that its being trained on public information WITHOUT first being trained on what the some concept of a FACT is. 4) The most egregious aspect of AI is that we have unleashed a technology that few understand and without any consideration of the effects whether they be short term effects or long term effects. Its being driven by technology obsessed narcissists who believe they know what you want, what you need and how you should think. Many years ago back in High School we studied a book that was as boring and depressing as any book any kid in High School ever read. It was about a man named Winston who lived in the middle class of his society. He had a good job for that society and even found a girl and fell in love with her. But it was a society where EVERYTHING was monitored and facts were what the ruling party decided what they were. One day Winston in his job came across a photo that he should not have had because it contradicted the facts as the ruling party had decided they were. Unfortunately took Winston down a fateful path. Eventually he was taken by the ruling and tortured. Eventually he broke and betrayed the girl he loved. Right now someone's AI is reading this and that AI is also noting that you have read this far. That book I studied in High School was George Orwell's novel "1984."
    2
  4383. 2
  4384. 2
  4385. 2
  4386. 2
  4387. 2
  4388. 2
  4389. 2
  4390. 2
  4391. 2
  4392. 2
  4393. 2
  4394. 2
  4395. 2
  4396. 2
  4397. 2
  4398. 2
  4399. 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
  4400. 2
  4401. 2
  4402. 2
  4403. 2
  4404. 2
  4405. 2
  4406. 2
  4407.  @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
  4408. 2
  4409. 2
  4410. 2
  4411. 2
  4412. 2
  4413. 2
  4414. 2
  4415.  @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
  4416. 2
  4417. 2
  4418. 2
  4419. The shuttle was horrendously bad on expenses but it wasn't that bad. The overall mission costs for each flight were about $350-450 million depending on the mission because the mission costs includes the payload costs. But that doesn't take away form the fact the shuttle cost too much to operate. I am an aerospace engineer and I do try and explain to people that the Space Shuttle was BOTH and amazing success and horrible failure. It was a success in that it actually worked. Despite all the interference from the USAF and CIA they actually made something that worked. If you go through the technical developments they got through it was extraordinary that they even made it work once let alone 130+ times for only 2 losses. It was a horrible failure in that its COSTS were so over what was intended. From the outset it starved other programs of money and people. You are right the refurbishing of the motors between flight was a major part of those costs but not the only costs. The heat shield was major hassle as well. Because of the insistence the shuttle be used it also meant the ISS cost a lot more than planned. All those costs have added up and all the people required to get it done is the main reason we are still yet to go back to the moon. Just so you all know I was doing my degree when Challenger happened. I was actually in Florida only 16 days earlier and watched Columbia take off. Up until the day Challenger happened all of my classmates and me expected that we'd build Space Station Freedom in the early 1990s and be headed back to the moon circa 2000-2002. And yeah that wasn't a good day. One of my aerodynamic profs lost a friend on that flight.
    2
  4420. 2
  4421. 2
  4422. 2
  4423. 2
  4424. 2
  4425. 2
  4426. 2
  4427. 2
  4428. 2
  4429. 2
  4430. 2
  4431. 2
  4432. 2
  4433. 2
  4434. 2
  4435. 2
  4436. 2
  4437. 2
  4438. 2
  4439. 2
  4440. 2
  4441. 2
  4442. 2
  4443. 2
  4444. 2
  4445. 2
  4446. 2
  4447. 2
  4448. 2
  4449. 2
  4450. 2
  4451. 2
  4452. 2
  4453. 2
  4454. 2
  4455. 2
  4456. 2
  4457. 2
  4458. 2
  4459. 2
  4460. 2
  4461. 2
  4462. 2
  4463. 2
  4464. 2
  4465. 2
  4466. 2
  4467. 2
  4468. 2
  4469. 2
  4470. 2
  4471. 2
  4472. 2
  4473. 2
  4474. 2
  4475. 2
  4476. 2
  4477. 2
  4478. 2
  4479. 2
  4480. 2
  4481. 2
  4482. This is a cut and past of another comment I made but its inline with what you have said. Its about presenting people with something to vote for and not something to vote against. HEY DAVE do you see now why I have been trying to point out that you need to be doing a lot more reporting the Democrat candidates instead of story after story of "Look how bad Herschel Walker is!" or "Look how bad Dr. Oz is!" or "Look how bad this terrible GOP candidate is!" Jeff Daniels famous "America is not the Greatest" comment as the character Will McAvoy in "The Newsroom" includes a swipe at the liberals as losers when he says "if liberals are so f--king smart how come they lose so goddamn always?" The answer to his question is they are so transfixed on bad GOP candidates that they ARE NOT presenting reasons for people to get out and vote. They have to present things for people to vote for NOT vote against. Consider how the GOP have all those cringe adds saying they will protect people's 2dn Amendment rights. Yes they are cringy and at times disgusting, but they are messages to people that: IF you want "this" whatever "this" is then vote for me. The Democrats are like a football coach obsessed by the other teams offense and defense and pays little or no consideration to his own teams offense or defense. This is why Hilary lost on 2016 and why Brexit went how it did and why Australian Labor and British Labor both lost in 2019. All 4 of those losing campaigns were "Don't for that" but had almost nothing that said "If you want this then vote for it."
    2
  4483. 2
  4484. 2
  4485. 2
  4486. 2
  4487. 2
  4488. 2
  4489. That is such a great line and the full quote is even better "a scream of defiance against weaponized stupidity and the influences of ignorance." I'm an aerospace engineer and the staggering amount of ignorance in the media on reporting almost everything in technology is staggering. I'm Australian but did my degree in America in the late 80s during the Reagan Star Wars era. We worked out back then that the whole energy weapons zapping ballistic missiles was NEVER GOING TO WORK. The classic was that lasers bounce off shiny surfaces. Even if you can deliver the energy required you have vehicles moving at insane speeds and the task of being able to identify track predict and target accurately anything is incredibly hard. Yet just recently here in Australia the head of our "space force" announced they would be pursuing "soft kill" technologies for satellites and the media jumped on it like they have with the word "hypersonic." The ignorant mass of Australia egged on by the clickbait brigade in the media are preparing to spend several billion dollars on junk science that CANNOT EVER WORK. And that's just one of the idiotically stupid things we are up to. Every other developed nation is also doing similarly stupid things. Other than the media a major problem is the consulting industry who just drown the business world and governments under mountains of BS. Go look up British-Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato who's recently written a book called "the big con" about the consulting industry. There's a bunch of talks she's given here on YT about the subject of the consulting industry and how pervasive it is.
    2
  4490. 2
  4491. 2
  4492. 2
  4493. 2
  4494. 2
  4495. 2
  4496. 2
  4497. 2
  4498. 2
  4499. 2
  4500. 2
  4501. 2
  4502. 2
  4503. 2
  4504. 2
  4505. 2
  4506. 2
  4507. 2
  4508. 2
  4509. 2
  4510. 2
  4511.  @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
  4512. 2
  4513. 2
  4514. 2
  4515. 2
  4516. 2
  4517. 2
  4518. 2
  4519. 2
  4520.  @nedludd7622  Actually you are very very right except on the final point. The most important function of the second Amendment was providing SECURITY of a free state. There is NOTHING about the government. A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What many Americans don't realise is that first part A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,... had incredibly profound effects on the world. Prior to the American revolution most societies had people like sheriffs, marshals and bailiffs BUT NONE of them had a civilian police force separate from the military. All those sheriffs, marshals and bailiffs used regular military units or special units of the military like the Praetorians of Rome for enforcing government rule over civilians. EVERY country was (to some extent) a military dictatorship. When Pilot sent his men to get Jesus they were Roman soldiers, not police officers. The concept of what we now call a police force didn't exist. Then one day a group of people decided they'd had enough of that threw out their king and his soldiers and started this country called America. After deciding that (like the Athenian Greeks) every citizen could help choose the government they decided every citizen had some basic rights. The FIRST right was citizens could believe what they wanted, say what they wanted and most importantly tell the government what they didn't like (as in their grievances) and not be publicly executed for it. It was a truly revolutionary concept that most of the kings and emperors since have come to regret. The SECOND thing they decided was that it would be local citizens under local control who would supply security for the villages, towns and cities of this new nation. It was a revolutionary concept the federal government would not use the military to rule over the population and enforce laws. That task would be done by a "well organised militia". They went even so far that local people could not only vote on who would be their sheriff but who would be the lawyer responsible for trying criminal cases. Not every country since has taken it that far, but every developed nation since that has a civilian police force TOTALLY SEPARATE from their military owes that to the Founding Fathers of America. FYI - I'm Australian and studied engineering in America (late 80s) and a bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law and used to drag me into discussions on the Bill of Rights. So I had a fairly unusual introduction to American civics.
    2
  4521. 2
  4522. 2
  4523. 2
  4524. 2
  4525. 2
  4526. 2
  4527. Sorry Sabine, but you are being INCREDIBLY DISHONEST about current construction times and costs. You are playing a statistical data game and that is totally unnecessary. I believe we will need nuclear for practical reasons and there is NO NEED TO MISLEAD PEOPLE. FIRST - I'm an aerospace engineer and nuclear power is the answer to a moon base and that's part of my interest. I work in industrial control systems and automation. I'm also TUV certified as a Functional Safety Engineer so I have a better understanding of what it takes to make industrial plant safe than you do. My reason for being pro-nuclear power for other than a moon base is based on practicality. Power grids need 2 types of generators - base load and load following and I EXPECT YOU and most of your viewers KNOW THAT. I am actually of the belief that we'll need a mix of nuclear, hydro (where it can be practically done) and renewables (wind & solar combined with storage). In most cases that mix will depend on skill sets and geography. You need the skill set to do nuclear and wind, solar and hydro are all dependent on geography. The reason I believe we'll need a mixture is because Nuclear is great for 24/7 base load but struggles with load following while wind & solar struggle with base load but are good for load following because they can be switched in and out. Hydro can sort of do both, but despite the claims there are 1,000s of places we can do new hydro most of those sites are impractical because of how far off grid they are. Snowy 2.0 in Australia (my country) has gone from an initial AU$2 Billion to more than AU$12B and most of that is the grid connection. The greatest advantage of nuclear however is it can be built on the sites of de-commissioned coal fired power stations and take advantage of the existing grid infrastructure. So I am pro-nuclear because I believe it fills a particular requirement in modern energy grids. SECOND - you are being incredibly dishonest with the construction times because you are ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE TYPES of REACTORS that people are building NOW like the American AP1000 by Westinghouse or the European Power Reactors (EPRs) like the one recently completed in Finland or the 2 under construction at Hinkley Point C in Britain and Flamanville in france. The 2 AP1000s at Vogtle in Georgia took 9 years and the 4 AP1000s in China took 9 years. The EPR in Finland Olkiluoto Unit 3 took 18 years to start producing commercial power, but it had some interruptions. The 2 EPRs at Hinkley Point C are expected to take 10 years with first power in 2028. The EPR at Flamanville (Unit 3) was started in 2007 and is currently expected to be commissioned in 2024. Sure anyone can look up the Japanese reactors and find out things like SHIKA-2 took 4 years to build but its Operating Factor was only 47%. You can also look up the Illinois Energy Prof here on YouTube and see his explanation of what went wrong with Fukushima. They were storing the spent fuel ON TOP of the reactor instead of under it like everyone else because it saved money and time on construction. So when Fukushima blew its lid, and yes Illinois Energy Prof explained it was a chemical (hydrogen) explosion it blew up the spent fuel and scattered it across the site which is why it was so contaminated. So the current GEN IV reactors are taking at least 9 years and as much as 18 years to construct and commission. THIRD on costs you claimed that a nuclear power station in America costs between $5 and $10 Billion. Forgetting the explanation you gave you should NOT have said anything when people can get on Wikipedia and find that: - The 2 AP1000s at Vogtle have an estimated cost of US$34 Billion (see Wikipedia). - Hinckley Point C with 2 EPRs currently has an estimated cost of £32.6 Billion. - Flamanville 3 (another EPR) was originally quoted by EDF at €3.3 billion. By 2012 that cost had escalated to €8.5 billion and by 2020 its cost was estimated at €19.1 billion. All of this data is easily available on Wikipedia and other places for anyone to look up. So please don't quote nonsense numbers because its easy to get into trouble. FOURTH I know you're a theoretical physicist and its OBVIOUS you have no experience in complex construction projects. Your explanation for labor costs and productivity is just repeating what ECONOMISTS have been claiming for years and THEY ARE WRONG. This is NOT a nuclear industry thing either. Its across every industry. I do have experience in complex construction projects courtesy of almost 20 years in mine site construction. By chance in 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and he told me about mining Helium-3 on the moon. So I went to Australia's remote mining industry for experience and stayed a bit longer than planned. What I got was some profound experience in the economics of large complex projects and how contracting companies operate. When economists put profits above everything else one of the side effects was how the contracting industry operated. On large long term projects the contractors employ all their people on hourly rates. The more hours you can charge the more profit you make. So the incentive is NOT on getting the job done but booking as many hours as possible. So the incentive is to hire SLOW & LESS PRODUCTIVE people because they are more profitable. Also claiming that it takes longer because of regulations is a great way to blame someone else why your people are slow and less productive. When I hear people like you REPEAT these claims by economists I literally want to scream. You have no idea what can happen if you actually want to do a job properly or on time or just do a quality job. I have been kicked of projects for getting the job done. I've actually given up on safety engineering because having those qualifications make me almost unemployable thanks to these types of cost adding behaviors. Safety and regulations do NOT cost money. Bad incentives, greed and things blowing up costs money. Summing up: The biggest enemy nuclear power has IS NOT THE IDI0T Greeny who's so stupid its amazing they don't need reminding to breath. Its because of videos like this which are full of basic errors and repeating nonsense that can be refuted easily just fact checking on Wikipedia. MISINFORMATION IS WHAT'S KILLING NUCLEAR and a lot of it is coming from pro-nuclear people. I hope you are going to do a correction video after this.
    2
  4528. 2
  4529. 2
  4530. 2
  4531. 2
  4532. 2
  4533. 2
  4534. 2
  4535. 2
  4536. 2
  4537. 2
  4538. 2
  4539. 2
  4540. 2
  4541. 2
  4542. 2
  4543. 2
  4544. 2
  4545. 2
  4546. 2
  4547. 2
  4548. 2
  4549. 2
  4550. 2
  4551. 2
  4552. 2
  4553. 2
  4554. 2
  4555. 2
  4556. 2
  4557.  @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
  4558. 2
  4559. 2
  4560. 2
  4561. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE - Sorry Sal but you have gotten your nuclear reactor COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. To all the reason aerospace engineers understand the nuclear options are because we'd like to build a Lunar Base. It was an aerospace engineer Kirk Sorenson who used to work for NASA and who was tasked with working out how to power a Lunar Base. From that Kirk kicked off a massive part of the nuclear discussion with his advocacy of Molten Salt reactors and Thorium fuel. I have also worked in Australia's nuclear industry on the mining side and as part of that we did an induction course that covered the full nuclear energy cycle from ore in the ground all the way through to spent fuel buried back in the ground. Also one of my workmates used to be a US Navy nuclear power plant technician/operator on aircraft carriers. FOR SHIPPING there is currently only 1 option and that is civilian versions of existing naval nuclear reactors. So for American commercial ships with nuclear power THEY WILL HAVE to use a CIVILIAN VARIANT of the GE Power reactors currently used in US Navy submarines and aircraft reactors. ALSO most of the Small Modular Reactor technology is based on Naval reactors. ALSO until the money is spent to actually develop commercially usable Molten Salt Reactors then just like with SMRs people need to stop making STUPID claims about using them. Sorry mate, I love your channel and watch it all the time but on this you are 100% WRONG. I you want I would happily do a video with you explaining these technologies.
    2
  4562. 2
  4563. 2
  4564. 2
  4565. 2
  4566. 2
  4567. 2
  4568. ​ @janecreek681  I though it sounded Orwellian. As an Australian kid who went to high school in the 80s I studied BOTH Animal farm and 1984 and hated both at the time. NOWDAYS I want to go back and thank my teachers for making us understand how democracy dies. Interestingly even though I did engineering (U. Illinois) a bunch of my friends were pre-law and they used to drag m into their discussions. I think it was because I could be relied on to put in odd or unusual ideas. One thing I used to always argue (mainly because it was all I had) was the Orwellian idea that ANY democracy could fail. They used to argue back that America could NOT fail because of how it was structured under the constitution. There are the 4 pillars (The House, The Senate, SCOTUS & the Whitehouse) and as such it was impossible for anyone of them to gain enough power to overrule the others. So I have had the American system of "Checks & Balances" explained and argued by a bunch of people many of whom are now practising lawyers. *What we never discussed, because it was never considered possible, was what would happen if a Mitch McConnell type simply refused to do his job like he did with BOTH Trump impeachments. the first impeachment was more obvious that Bill Clinton's penis being in Monica Lewinsky's mouth. The 2nd Impeachment was even more obvious than the first and BOTH time McConnell simply refused to do his job and Merrick Garland has since refused to step up and do his job as well. On Jan 6th. If anybody tried that in any other country they would have been in prison that day and in many countries executed shortly after the very short trial. So these days I am pretty amazed because the one argument I used to make and always had shot down is now what's happened.
    2
  4569. Actually the British were at Gallipoli and in fact their losses were greater than the ANZACs. In fact there was one quite special regiment that was annihilated. There was the Sandringham Regiment that came from the farming families that worked on the King's estate at Sandringham. There was a film made about this called "All the Kings Men (1999)." NOTE: that film was heavily criticized because it had some scenes for which there was NO evidence ever produced. But the loss of that regiment through incompetence by the British officers was something the British could simply hide. They were not simply soldiers from somewhere else, they were young men the King actually knew because they worked for him on the Kings farm. Its only an idea, but the loss of the Sandringham Regiment MAY have had something to do with the British getting out of Gallipoli. The reason the British losses are less known is because to the British Gallipoli was just another part of the War. To Australia and New Zealand this was everything because our entire force was sent to Gallipoli. I don't know if you've been to Australia or not but in many small country towns there are WW1 monuments that list all those from the area who lost there lives. We had some towns that lost EVERY young man at Gallipoli and families who lost all their sons at Gallipoli because in those days we put brothers and cousins and neighbors in the same unit. We trusted the British and they threw away 1000s of lives including many British. One thing we never heard much about until recent years were the Turkish loses. With the increase in Australians visiting Gallipoli, the Turkish government also pointed out the Turkish losses. I never really knew until recently how bad they were. What that's done is give many Australians a better appreciation for how pointless the Gallipoli campaign was. There's an Australian film about the campaign called "Gallipoli." Its famous as one of Mel Gibson's first major films. Its goes into how stupid the whole thing was. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_(1981_film)
    1
  4570. 1
  4571. 1
  4572. 1
  4573. 1
  4574. 1
  4575. 1
  4576. 1
  4577. 1
  4578. 1
  4579. 1
  4580. 1
  4581. 1
  4582. 1
  4583. 1
  4584. CORRECTION TO THIS - Nuclear like EVERY energy source we use has a carbon output. No matter what anyone says or does it is simply impossible to get the Carbon Output to zero. We can start with the simple reality of extracting Uranium Ore form the ground AND BEFORE ANYONE ASKS I have actually worked on a Uranium Mine (ERA Ranger in Australia). So I know how that part of the process works and YES it has carbon emissions. PLUS every engineered installation on the planet needs maintenance and the replacement of parts. That's an ongoing process and those NEW REPLACEMENT PARTS, irrespective of what material they are made from involve carbon emissions. So lets just be factual and say there is NO such thing as the ZERO Carbon system here on the Earth. What we actually need to be working towards is a SUSTAINABLE CARBON CYCLE. Before the industrial revolution there planet had its own stabilised carbon cycle. Since the Industrial Revolution "WE" (the human race) have thrown that carbon cycle out of whack and we now need to un-whack it. Will nuclear power help us un-whack the carbon cycle? ABSOLUTELY, but its NOT the only thing we need to do. Sorry if this next part is longish but it actually links up with your video on the AC system the ex-NASA engineer has done. The biggest thing by far will be energy efficiency. We have to be more efficient with energy. So you understand there's a direct correlation between GLOABL energy production and GLOBAL GDP. If Global GDP keeps increasing we will get to the point where global energy use literally cooks the planet. Forget greenhouse effects energy use alone will do the damage. The energy issue has been ignored by mainstream economists for decades but has NOT been missed by a few economists, engineers, physicists and other scientists. The core problem is energy efficiency. If you look at the energy efficiency through the entire process then what you use for things like kettles, TVs and the computer your at right now is as little as 5% and for most things across the developed world less than 10% efficient of the actual energy used. This comes from 2 simple realities. One there's the energy consumed for raw materials an infrastructure. Two there's the basic efficiency with which we produce electricity which is only about 35-36%. Go look at the basic data for the EPR 2 reactors at Hinkley point (36%) or the AP1000s used at Vogtle (35%). They're no different to coal fired power stations for the simple reason they boil water and the Carnot efficiency (1 - Tc/Th) for steam turbines is limited to about 36% because of the boiler-turbine-condenser combination. It can be raised to about 42% with high temp high pressure flash boilers but that's NOT as easy as it sounds or it would have been standard practice. The reason why Gas turbines get around 45-46% efficiency is because they operate at a better Tc/Th ratio (eg 1700-800C at 45.6% versus 500-225C at 35.6%) It also why cogeneration works so well because IF your gas turbine exhaust is 800C you can use that to boil water. Yes there's some losses but you can boost the over all efficiency to around 64-65%. The GE 9HA in cogeneration gets about 64.5%. Then there's the losses with the high voltage transmission to your local substation, then the losses of transforming to medium voltages and transmitting that through the local grid and then finally the local transforming down to the low voltage at your house and the power loop through your house back to the grid. So the electricity you use at your computer is lucky if its arriving at the power point at 20%. Then when you look at how much of the energy in a computer is lost as heat in the power supply and chips and you are lucky if your above 10%. This is why technologies like the AC technology from the ex-NASA engineer I just saw in another of your other video are so important. Across the board we have to be more efficient with energy. Another example are buildings as in large office blocks and towers. Prof Mark Blyth (Brown U.) has several times mentioned an engineering study that said if America triple glazed all of those glass clad towers in major cities then America would meet its carbon reduction requirements for the Paris Agreement AND IF THEY DID IT the operational cost reductions would greatly enhance the profits of the owners of those buildings. Plus all the work needed to get that job done would keep 1,000s and 1,000s of people employed for at least a decade maybe 2. But then America just re-elected Captain Greed and his army of Planet F⋃CKING Maggots. So your guess on what's next is as good as mine.
    1
  4585. 1
  4586. 1
  4587. 1
  4588. 1
  4589. 1
  4590. 1
  4591. 1
  4592. 1
  4593. 1
  4594. 1
  4595. 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
  4596. 1
  4597. 1
  4598. 1
  4599. EVERYONE - JUST STOP going on about policies Robert is 100% RIGHT. The average voter NEVER walks into a voting booth thinking about policies especially things like foreign policy. They want something simple like Obama's "Hope & Change" or Trumps MAGA. Go and watch Mark Blyth explain why someone like Elizabeth Warren DID NOT win the nomination in 2020 despite having the best understanding of banking reform that any politician might ever have had. Its here on YouTube just search "mark blyth trumpism" posted by McMaster Humanities. The video is titled "Mark Blyth - Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy" and the question is at 1:19:54 YES its from 2019 but its themse are just as important now as they were then. If you are interested in how the world works then the whole video is worth the time and there's a brilliant explanation of why Bitcoin is a joke just before the Warren question. Listen carefully to what he says and you'll see why Trump's COVID response ended his presidency. All Biden had to do was say "I'm not that stupid!" Harris NEEDS to have 1 BIG SIMPLE SLOGAN which right now is "We aren't geriatrics! and we want to do stuff" which has a lot of people excited. Obama's was "Hope & Change" which people wanted but he failed at. Trump's was MAGA which tapped into how a lot of people felt and why his followers still believe in him. Bidens was "I'm NOT Trump" which tapped right into the suburban housewives who hated Trump. Harris & Walz need something very simple like "Our NEW future" or "A REAL Future" with an emphasis on "we are here for YOU" If they want a "lets go Brandon" they could go with "FTO" as in F--K the Oligarchs. It doesn't matter what they actually say just so long as people have something to chant.
    1
  4600. 1
  4601. this is only the second comment on this page I have found that is sensible there's a 3rd below this one. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I'm an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  4602. 1
  4603. 1
  4604. 1
  4605. 1
  4606.  @blogintonblakley2708  I get your point up to a certain degree. I'm an engineer and work in automation - robots & production machinery are among what I have done for a significant part of my working life. I have had that bullshite line that people like me cost other people their jobs. At times YES, when you upgrade a production system there might fewer jobs, but that is not always true. WHEN companies do upgrade and INVEST its very rare that they then shut shop and go somewhere else. The jobs that remain actually become more secure. If you are a worker in any western company for the past 40 years and management DOES NOT upgrade. Then your job is at risk. if you are in a company where they are investing in new automated plant automation then your job is usually secure. Most job loses were through retirement or attrition (people who just moved on). Plus most of the tasks that get automated away are jobs people don't like doing. Tasks that get automated are tasks that are repetitive. Where there is a real problem with automation is the utterly false assumption by managers that workers need less skill. They actually need to LEARN more skills. The easiest example to give from my experience is welding robots. I can program robots to do almost anything. My grandfather taught me to arc weld when I was about 13. BUT I CAN'T out program a welding robot compared to someone who was formally trained as a welder. NONE of the robot engineers can. So what happens with robotic welding is that the welders have to learn the basics of programming or at leat how to adjust exisitng programs. They don't need to learn how the robots communicate with master control systems that's my job. The don't need to learn how to configure the robot to do welding - that's my job. But when it comes to getting the robot to weld parts together so that the new part is what its supposed to be - THAT'S THEIR JOB. So there's a lot of misunderstanding about manufacturing and jobs. There's also another aspect. When companies don't upgrade to maintain their production machinery, which accountants love to do because they just hate letting engineers spend money, one of 2 things eventually happens. 1) It breaks down and broken machinery costs money. Wages still have to be paid, bills still have to be paid and there's the cost of fixing things. And if companies are stupid enough (and many are) machinery eventually catastrophically fails and it can't be fixed. 2) Other manufacturers will simply pass you by with more efficient production and just as likely higher quality production. Its sounds obvious but you'd be amazed how many economists, accountants and business managers don't get is that newer, upgraded or well maintained machinery makes better parts.
    1
  4607. 1
  4608. 1
  4609.  @stephenbrickwood1602  What do you think you'd get for $40Billion? An AP1000 (based on Vogtle) is $28.3 Billion for 1,100MW (1.1GW) An EPR2 (based on Hinckley Pt. C) is $41-47 Billion for 1,600MW (1.6GW) So just to replace Hazelwood (1.6GW) & Liddell (2.1GW) the 2 big coal plants we have already shut down with equivalent nuclear would be 2 x AP1000s at Liddell and an EPR2 at Hazelwood, for a cost of $97-103 Billion. That just replaces what we had. it doesn't take care of the other 22+ GW of coal we still have and it doesn't take care of the fact we need MORE power for our expanding population. And those coal plants are going no matter what anyone say because like all machines they wear out. You have to remember as engineers we can't just make up numbers. We have to present numbers we can say with some level of certainty. Do you notice how this clown and all the others like him NEVER PUT UP a list of details of where their numbers came from????? Remember Snowy 2.0 started at a cost of $2.0Billion. It went to $4 Billion during design and $5 Billion before they even put the ceremonial shovel in the ground. Its now estimated the dam, tunnels and power station will cost $12 Billion. BUT WAIT the geniuses behind that clown show never included the cost of the power line to connect it. That's now estimated at $8 Billion. SO HOW TF did that project go from $2 to $20 Billion???? What makes anyone think we can build nuclear and keep it within budget???? The Summers plant in North Carolina was budgeted at US$9B for 2 x AP1000s and they stopped when it blew out to $25B. Vogtle with 2 x AP1000s ended up costing $36.8B. Hinckley Pt C was expected to be £31–35 billion in 2015 prices and is now £41.6–47.9 billion in 2024 prices (see Wikipedia). These people are idiots.
    1
  4610.  @stephenblack8804  I'm an Australian engineer who did his degree in America and I don't think you are very well informed. One of the main design points of the Westinghouse AP1000 like the 2 at Vogtle in Georgia and the 2 unfinished ones in South Carolina and the 4 in China was that it was a consistent design to be replicated with minimal changes from site to site. Its almost impossible to exactly replicate any major processing plant of any type because they are basically handmade, but you can get a lot of replication. One of the other features of the AP 1000 design was that large chunks it if could be made offsite at a common construction plant and taken to site on barges. That couldn't be done for Vogtle which caused some problems. But the overall idea of the AP1000 and French EPR 2 was to keep building the same design in place after place to reduce those design costs. I'm not against nuclear power as like any decent engineer knows we need to replace our older power stations across the entire planet with newer ones. That's simply a matter of the fact that things wear out. So no matter what everyone is now trying to work out what they do for their next generation of power stations. That depends on a bunch of factors including geography. One of the few things anyone can say with certainty is that we are all moving on from fossil fuels and in particular coal. As an engineer I don't have to care about what people want me to build. I don't care if its wind, solar hydro, nuclear or any of the other low emissions systems. WHAT I DO CARE ABOUT is the public discussion STOPS BEING A POLITICAL and/or IDEOLOGICIAL DISCUSSION where people are deliberately presenting misleading information. For that to happen the slimy pieces of garbage like Gerrard Holland who is nothing more than an accountant have to SHUT THE F--K UP
    1
  4611. ​ @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
  4612. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  4613. 1
  4614. 1
  4615. 1
  4616. 1
  4617. 1
  4618. 1
  4619. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  4620. 1
  4621. 1
  4622. 1
  4623. 1
  4624. 1
  4625. 1
  4626. 1
  4627. SORRY PETE I love your work, BUT I disagree on the conclusion it was the Russians who blew up Nord Stream. Gas and oil pipelines are giant money pumps and you know that. They might be expensive to install but once that's done they just pump money from one place to another. Rockefeller worked that out over a century ago. Even if the explosives are Russian it would prove nothing because there are so many places in the world that anyone could get tons of Russian explosives. Just look at all the countries they sell military stuff too. In any crime there's a thing called MOTIVE. Nord Stream is owned by a combination of Russian state enterprises and the Russian Oligarchs. Its a huge money earner for both. On the other hand the biggest critics of Nord Stream has been the America government. As you have highlighted repeatedly America has lots of gas out of North Dakota but can't sell it because it requires infrastructure. To sell it to Europe means liquifying and the shipping and that can't compete with a pipe. Then there's the German nuclear industry that was shutdown by the German Green Party. Funny how the Germans are now recommissioning those nuclear power stations to make up for the gas shortage. Then there's opportunity. To plant the explosives and blow up 50 meters of pipeline at the bottom of the sea requires underwater demolition skills. Yes the Russians most likely have those skills but so do the Germans and Americans. And lets not forget something else. America due to its recent 20 year war now has a number of Private Military Contractors available full of ex-US Military people who probably have the necessary skills. Plus PMCs are great for "plausible deniability." SO WHO'S GOT MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY to blow up Nord Stream.
    1
  4628. 1
  4629. 1
  4630. 1
  4631. 1
  4632. 1
  4633. 1
  4634. 1
  4635. 1
  4636. 1
  4637. 1
  4638. 1
  4639. 1
  4640. 1
  4641. 1
  4642. 1
  4643. 1
  4644. 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
  4645. 1
  4646. 1
  4647. 1
  4648. 1
  4649. 1
  4650. 1
  4651. 1
  4652. THIS IS NOT GAIN OF FUNCTION RESEARCH Because they changed the definition of what is and isn't GoF. REMEMBER the infamous Rand Paul versus Dr. Fauci when Rand Paul read out what Dr. Fauci had written and then Dr. Fauci said (paraphrasing) "That's the old definition." and then waved a letter signed by a bunch of people saying that the research being done funded in Wuhan was NOT GoF. Go and watch the DW short doco on GoF (here on YouTube) titled "Gain-of-Function: Should supercharging viruses be banned?" It mentions the work of Ron Fouchier, a Dutch Scientist, who made the most deadly virus human kind has ever known. YES - what he cooked up is even more dangerous than Ebola. It was a version of Avian Flu that is normally very hard for humans to get but on the very rare occasions it happens over 60% of people die. Without anyone knowing what he was really doing Ron Fouchier made a variant that was highly contagious to human beings. It was his work and the work of others that lead to the moratorium on Gain of Function Research. PRIOR to the Moratorium Gain of Function included 3 types of research. 1) Human lethality as in specifically making a virus or pathogen more deadly to humans. 2) Human to Human transmission as in making it easier for one human to get it from another human. 3) Animal to Human as in making it easier for a virus to go from the natural host to humans. This is the type or work Ron Fouchier was doing with Avain Flu and what they were doing in Wuhan with bat born Corona viruses. When they RE-DEFINED Gain of Function it only included the FIRST and SECOND of those types of Research. So a lot of the work involving animals and/or has nothing to do with TRYING to make it more dangerous to humans is NO LONGER considered to be Gain of Function. The aim of this Ebola research was NOT to make Ebola more dangerous to humans. Its to use it to study how it works and as such is by the NEW definition NOT Gain of Function. ITS A WORD GAME. Its a word game that has allowed many researchers to continue what they were doing and continue to be funded and the WORST OUTCOME is that it has prevented external OVERSIGHT of these research programs. Between the nonsense about a Chinese bio-weapon and a section of the research establishment making sure the concept of a lab leak was never properly investigated or sensibly discussed the discussion on oversight has NOT YET happened. Nobody knew what Ron Fouchier was doing until he told the world how clever he was. Nobody knew what they were really doing in Wuhan and we still don't. Who knew the Chinese were actually doing research with Ebola let alone re-engineering it? I actually believe there is valuable research being done in IDENTIFYING and CATALOGING potential future pandemic pathogens (viruses, bacterium and everything else) BUT its being done WITHOUT oversight to make sure its done safely and that's madness. Sorry to all for the long answer but this is the sort of discussion Kyle and others SHOULD BE HAVING in stead of ranting and raging because that helps NOBODY.
    1
  4653. 1
  4654. 1
  4655. 1
  4656. 1
  4657. 1
  4658. 1
  4659. 1
  4660. 1
  4661. 1
  4662. 1
  4663. 1
  4664. 1
  4665. 1
  4666. 1
  4667. 1
  4668. 1
  4669. 1
  4670. 1
  4671.  @ChickensAndGardening  Not suggesting but stating it for a fact. The idea you could just move an asteroid from where they are to Low Earth Orbit is nothing but Star Trek fantasy. Here's something I tell people who go on about this nonsense. Jeff Bezos has claimed he wants to move the heavy industries like iron ore processing into Low Earth Orbit where there's lots of sun light 24/7 to use and you don't have to worry about pollution. One of the iron ore mines I once worked on has a capacity of about 20 million tons a year. Its a good example because the math is very easy. At about 70% iron by weight that produces about 14 million tons of raw iron a year ready to make stuff out of. The Space Shuttle could bring back from LEO 14 tons of payload which was about 13-1/2 tons more than anything else. So if you want to bring back those 14 million tons of iron ore from LEO it would take about 1 million Space Shuttle flights. Australia in total produces about 815 million tons of iron ore a year which would require over 40 million Space Shuttle Flights. Even if we made a new magic rocket that was 100 times better than the Space Shuttle that's still 400,000 flights a year. And so you know Australia produces less that 1/3rd of the worlds iron ore. Sorry but its 99.99% space fantasy nonsense. The other 0.01% is however very interesting. There are some very rare materials available from places like the moon where for those very rare substances the option of mining them in space is plausible. World Platinum production is about 215 tons a year and our needs there have been growing. If we can get a rocket that makes the logistics practical then that's plausible. If Helium-3 were to become the main fuel for nuclear fusion that needs about 5-9 Space Shuttle Flights to power the entire planet each year. But the issue there is nobody yet has a power station that runs on Helium-3. At the end of the day its just guys selling visions of the future.
    1
  4672. 1
  4673. 1
  4674. 1
  4675. 1
  4676. 1
  4677. 1
  4678. 1
  4679. Its not simply that they aren't prosecuting Trump the DOJ have a history going back decades of not prosecuting difficult cases against top people. Just recently PBS re-posted a Frontline episode form 2013 about the 2008 GFC. Its here on YT and you can watch Lanny Breuer make excuse after excuse to not pursue charges against the Wall St CEOs. They prosecuted around 3,000 lower ranked people. Do you see the similarity with Jan 6th. Go back a bit further and look at the prosecutions for prisoner abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were many successful cases against enlisted men for what they did but none against senior officers. John Yoo the lawyer who wrote the infamous torture memo that set those abuses in motion was never charged as were all the other senior officials involved. John Yoo is currently a professor teach law at UC Berkley. Do you see the similarity with Jan 6th. Go back even further there were times when the DOJ used America's antitrust laws to break up monopolies like Standard Oil and Bell AT&T. How come they haven't even tried to deal with Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Walmart or any of the other monopolies. How about Purdue Pharmaceuticals - they only monopolized drug addiction. Has the DOJ done anything there? Can you see the pattern yet? The DOJ no longer pursues difficult cases that it might lose face over. Go and watch Lanny Breuer's body language. The cancer in the DOJ runs incredibly deep and it might be impossible to fix unless there is a President with enough backbone to get the job done.
    1
  4680. 1
  4681. 1
  4682. 1
  4683. 1
  4684. 1
  4685. 1
  4686. 1
  4687. 1
  4688. 1
  4689. 1
  4690. 1
  4691. 1
  4692. 1
  4693. 1
  4694. 1
  4695. 1
  4696. 1
  4697. 1
  4698. 1
  4699. 1
  4700. 1
  4701. 1
  4702.  @Skinflaps_Meatslapper  I'm actually Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s. I was there when Reagans Star Wars was the big game in town. Most of us realised it wasn't going to work, especially the post grads, but they were on scholarships so they kept that part quiet and go there degrees. As an undergrad our focus was Space Station Freedom which we expected to build and then be back on the moon circa 2001. The first major hint all was not going well was when SSF got canned after the 3rd attempt. It 1st came in with a $20Billion price tag and VP Bush freaked out and said it had to cost less. So they came back with a redesign that had a price tag of $30 Billion and VP Bush went bananas and re-iterated "cheaper." On the 3rd attempt they had a price tag of $40 Billion and VP Bush said "FK-OFF." While we were pondering that Challenger happened. I'd actually been in Florida only 2weeks earlier and seen Columbia take off. Sadly we were 60 miles away but even at that distance it was spectacular. Probably the saddest part of the last 40+ years has been the exploitation of the research funding. If you look through the X-Planes there's a significant number of "never delivered" projects that really should have delivered. If you look at the X-38 crew return vehicle, what a wasted opportunity. Its compatriot the X37 ACTUALLY WORKS so why didn't they just scale it up and man rate it for 4-6 people? Its no different here in Australia. We finally got a Space Agency a few years back. One of its first publications was a "Road Map" for Australia's space future. The VERY FIRST item detailed was "Advanced Space Based Water Management" with the hope it would be available in the mid 2030s. So I spent my own time and money doing a detail project plan using air launched small satellites based on a scaled down Pegasus XL. Because funding here isn't that great I went with money I knew was available because there were a couple of very controversial over funded security contracts. I ended up with a budget of $720 Million and got told to go away. Then they gave our Air Force $7 Billion (10x as much) for a Space Program based around some of the ideas I had seen FAIL as part of the Reagan Star Wars program 35 years earlier. So I have a fairly nuanced (frustrated) and critical view of these matters of WASTE and STUPIDITY.
    1
  4703. 1
  4704. 1
  4705. 1
  4706. 1
  4707. 1
  4708. 1
  4709. 1
  4710. 1
  4711. 1
  4712. 1
  4713. 1
  4714. 1
  4715. 1
  4716. 1
  4717.  Yee Tian  Well being from Canada should make you appreciate having choices and a government that can be held accountable. I'm Australian and there is growing anger over Chinese influence peddling here and across the Southern Pacific. We went to bolster our laws with foreign money in our politics after we'd finally had enough of the Americans, British, Israeli, Saudi and Chinese money in our politics. BUT only China complained and only China threatened us with sanctions. Anytime we speak China waves a finger at us and tells us to mind our own business and then they come down here and try and bribe our leaders. Trust me many many Australians are getting tired of China's hypocrisy. To be fair we've had enough of the hypocrisy of others as well and that includes our own leaders. If you really are in Canada you should be furious over the Fentanyl crisis that has devastated parts of Canada. I was there in 2017 when it was raging so I know it all comes from China and can only be exported out of China with the CCP letting it happen. There are many things abut Trump that were so bad and so flawed that its hard to start listing them. But one of his catastrophic failures was HOW he dealt with China. What he should have done was slap them with a CARBON TAX and used it to hammer them. Europe, Australia and others would have followed suit and then we might have a chance to save the planet. The CCP, GOP, British Tories and others better learn real fast that we all live on this planet and if it dies we die.
    1
  4718. 1
  4719. 1
  4720. 1
  4721. 1
  4722. 1
  4723.  Seiki  I can tell very simply why Australia is about to break a lot of contracts with China. We've caught them repeatedly interfering in our country. They are not the only ones to have done so. We had Britain doing it for many years. But then they joined the EU and told us to get lost. It almost bankrupted our economy. We have had the Americans since and the Japanese to a lesser extent. When we finally had enough of foreign money in our politics and went to tighten our Laws ONLY 1 COUNTRY PROTESTED - CHINA. The Chinese view of foreign affairs is we do what we like we do what we want and fuck the rest of the planet. Its not that far from the American or British or Russian policies of the past, but the fact is we don't live in the past we live in the here and now. When I was there I rode the maglev in from Shanghai Airport and rode the Fast Train back. China is NOT a developing nation it is a DEVELOPED NATION and can start acting responsibly as a developed nation. And the first step in that is they STOP interfering in other countries. The 2nd step is they stop the staggering environmental damage they are doing in that they burn half the worlds coal supply. The then STOP selling coal technology ad other damaging technologies to developing nations. The world cannot afford China or the way China does business. The Uighurs are just indicative of the Chinese Communist Party's view of itself and the world wont tolerate that much longer just as it wont tolerate American bullshit or any other bullshit either. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    1
  4724. 1
  4725. 1
  4726. 1
  4727. 1
  4728. 1
  4729. 1
  4730. 1
  4731. 1
  4732. 1
  4733. 1
  4734. 1
  4735. Scott Galloway had this great comment a couple of weeks ago. "The only thing Biden is owed is to be buried in the same hole as Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Diane Feinstein." he went on to explain how these selfish geriatrics and their supporters did damage that will take decades to recover from. Remember Ginsberg was replaced with Amy Coney Barrett who was 48 when appointed. Barret is not only a nutcase member of a fundamentalist Catholic offshoot but she could easily be on SCOTUS for another 30+ years. The whole Feinstein case should have resulted in criminal charges for elder abuse and impeachment for the officials involved in covering up her state. More importantly going forward the Clinbamas need to be given their marching orders. If you look at the early days of the Kamala Harris & Tim Walz campaign it said more than anything else "CHANGE." This is the change form the old guard to the next generation. THEN the Clinbamas stepped in and hijacked the campaign doing things like bringing the Cheneys onboard AND THAT SCREAMED LOUD AND CLEAR - there will be no change, we're still in charge and it will be "More of the Same." They all forgot that Hilary lost in 2016 with "More of the Same" as her campaign theme. This is the real appeal of Trump to his voters. Even though the hard core of them are deranged many of them are just fed up with "Status Quo" economics. They are so tired of getting nothing and having no hope of change that they will vote for the Orange Gorilla and his wrecking ball. The real question is: What comes after Trump tears the system apart?
    1
  4736. 1
  4737. 1
  4738. 1
  4739. 1
  4740. ​ @stephenbrickwood1602  Great comment - What angers me is that the entire energy debate is now a purely political-economic-emotional discussion. No matter what's chosen its going to be engineers, technicians and laborers who build whatever we choose AND RIGHT NOW we are totally locked out of the discussion. The worst part is we were always going to need new power stations for the simple reason stuff wears out and needs replacing. PLUS our population has gone from 19 to 26 million since 2000. Forget climate, we were always going to need a SENSIBLE discussion on what to build next and that hasn't happened. There is actually a couple of points about nuclear that do make sense but the pro-nuclear clowns are just as stupid as the pro-wind/solar clowns. Once you start having lots of wind/solar you get into some really serious grid stability issues and its NOT just the base load it has to do with frequency stability. They have a major issue in Ireland right now. In previous eras what was taken for granted was the rotating mass of the large turbines which had a lot of mechanical inertia which holds the frequency stable and it doesn't matter if they are steam, gas or hydro. In Ireland they are considering a giant flywheel to spin up and hold the frequency stable. This is what annoys me. The pro-wind/solar people refuse to admit there's a problem and the pro-nuclear people are too stupid to say here's a solution. That doesn't mean we'd use it and there are other options, but its not even in the discussion because these people ARE NOT ENGINEERS and they wont shut up. This is all just politics at a time when we need to build power stations and we can't even get started because we can't even have the right conversation. Sorry for the rant but I think you get it.
    1
  4741. 1
  4742.  @tylabarros1506  To answer your questions its pretty simple - its profitable. Billionaires are usually billionaires because they are insanely greedy people. These are people who are not just interested in making their lives and the lives of their families & friends better. These people are insane with their greed. They can wrap it up in whatever way they like and it takes almost nothing to peel back a few layers and expose just how greedy they are. Look at the Koch brothers. The 2 maniacs Charles & David were both MIT chemical engineering graduates. You can't graduate engineering anywhere without brains let alone MIT. I know I am an engineer myself and yet they have been the greatest proponents of fighting against climate change initiatives, which is insane. They have spent over $125 million funding and setting up think tanks with labels like "Foundation" and "Institute" as if they are benevolent or academic or both. Look at what they do. The Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute are nothing but PR machines spouting an endless stream of misinformation. Its the main reason I don't believe in this Deep State garbage. They do all this out in the open, because they know most people can't or wont think though what's right there in plain sight for all the world to see. Do you know the F35 was purposefully designed to NOT get cancelled like the F22 was. The F35 includes parts from as many states as possible so that if any Senator ever questions it they will have to face job losses in their state. Its why the damn thing is overweight, slow, twice as expensive as promised and almost as expensive to fly as the F22. How did it happen? Simple - the military industrial complex wanted to make more money that they did from the F22. The reason the Deep State doesn't exist is because it doesn't need to. Its more convenient for most people to believe in a super secret conspiracy than simple reality.
    1
  4743.  @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
  4744. 1
  4745. 1
  4746. 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
  4747. 1
  4748. 1
  4749. 1
  4750. WTF - DOES ANYONE EXPECT. This stuff is going on EVERYWHERE because people have finally had enough of the very top 1% and to a lesser extent the next 9% pocketing ridiculous amounts of money and paying no tax because they can afford to hide it. The middle and working classes HAVE HAD ENOUGH of executives taking multi-million dollar bonuses and pay-outs while the rest of us suffer. Here in Australia ONLY WEEKS AGO Alan Joyce the out going CEO of QANTAS got over $20 million as a final bonus. By his own words QANTAS would not have survived the COVID Pandemic had not the people of Australia bailed them out. Worse his actions in dumping employees during that crisis has since been deemed illegal. Back in 2008 there was Branko Milanovic's infamous Elephant Graph that showed how the Top 1% had won huge while the rest of us suffered. After that there was the 2019 RAND Report that showed the TOP 1% in America had made almost US$50 Trillion since the mid 1970s up until 2018. In 2022 Bernie Sanders had the US Congressional Budget Office update its family wealth report and it now includes data up until 2019. That Report shows that not only have the Top 10% who caused the GFC and were bailed out HAVE RECOVERED and are now over 21% UP on where they were in 2007. MEANWHILE the BOTTOM 50% of America have not only NOT RECOVERED from the GFC they didn't cause they are still DOWN over 21% from where they were before the GFC. MAYBE and it sonly a suggestion that some of you analyst types NOT ACT SURPRISED when people finally go nuts after being treated like crap for 30+ years.
    1
  4751. 1
  4752. 1
  4753. 1
  4754. 1
  4755. 1
  4756. 1
  4757. 1
  4758. On your next video you should highlight the failure test of carbon fibre and glass fibre hulls that Carl Ross posted 10 years ago. He posted 2 videos titled Collapse of Composite Submarine Pressure Hulls Collapse of Carbon & Glass Fibre Tubes under External Hydrostatic Pressure. I have no idea who Carl Ross is (or was) but there's 2 things to note about those videos. 1) How sudden the failure is. If you look at how titanium fails its much like any other metal there's deformation eventually followed by failure. I am an engineer (aerospace) but did my first year in mechanical and we did that stuff in the lab. Most of the failure videos of things being crushed or bent in a hydraulic press show that but they also often show the sudden failure of carbon fibre composite materials. So you and other are most likely right the people in Titan probable had no warning it was all about to fail other than hearing a lot of cracking. 2) the Carl Ross videos show very little damage to the Carbon fibre tube other than what looks like a crack down the side. What people need to understand is that it was done in a small pressure test rig NOT the open ocean so there was very little water to keep applying pressure once the tube failed. I have done work in the petro-chem industry and other places where they pressure test pipes with water. If something does let go during a hydrostatic test there's no explosion of water because its incompressible. That test cell Carl Ross used has very little water in it so there's not a lot of volume to rush into the test model and do lots of damage. It just had enough water to break the cylinder.
    1
  4759. 1
  4760. 1
  4761. 1
  4762. 1
  4763. 1
  4764. 1
  4765. 1
  4766. 1
  4767. 1
  4768. 1
  4769. 1
  4770. 1
  4771. 1
  4772. 1
  4773. 1
  4774. 1
  4775. 1
  4776. 1
  4777. 1
  4778. 1
  4779. 1
  4780. 1
  4781. 1
  4782. 1
  4783. 1
  4784. 1
  4785. 1
  4786. 1
  4787. 1
  4788. 1
  4789. 1
  4790. 1
  4791. I know these people are completely off the rails, but we also need to take a moment to realise just how bad politics has become to allow this sort of thing to happen. I'm in my 50s and all I have heard for the last 5 decades is how much politicians LIE and CHEAT. That's been backed up by scandal after scandal. Its not an American thing either its been going on in every developed country. I'm Australian and we've had so many scandals we've lost count. Meanwhile it hasn't mattered who's in power they suck up to the oligarchs and screw the rest of us. There was the Rand Corporation report into wages a couple of years ago that highlighted how the Top 1% had made almost $50 Trillion (with a 'T') dollars. Just recently in September 2022 the US Congressional Budget Office did a report on Family Wealth that shows that 1/2 of America is still to recover from the 2008 GFC while the Top 10% have made in excess of $30 Trillion (with a 'T'). Both those reports are about America but the trends they detail are being played out everywhere. No matter who wins the any election they do the same things to the general population because they are backed by the same oligarchs. On top of that there's the genuine threat of Climate Change and I suspect that most of the deniers are deniers because they just don't want another thing to deal with. Nothing excuses these people flocking towards such an obvious fraud as Donald Trump, BUT THE REST OF US need to acknowledge that these people had been beaten down by hopeless political leadership that delivers nothing for so long that it left them vulnerable to the narcissistic nonsense of a person like Trump.
    1
  4792. 1
  4793. Did you not listen? Old people die, its called old aged. He's not claiming when old people die it means nothing. We've all lost parents and grandparents to various conditions. I lost one grandparent before I was born, another from old age, another from a heart condition exacerbated by surgery and the 4th from cancer. Its NORMAL that out of any population each month a number of people die. In fact if you take any age group each month a certain number are expected to die from any number of causes. What he is saying is that out of the vaccinated older group we are now seeing the NORMAL number of deaths. Medical people have to deal with death and they sometimes seem very cold about it. The oncologist who told me my mothers breast cancer had gotten into her bones and that she would die in 3 to 6 months said it as casually as describing the weather. My sister in laws father is a geriatric specialist all his patients die. He has years of practice at telling people their loved one is about to die or just died and he's got very good at it. I'm Australian but went to college in America. Last year I started equating the COVID toll to the size of US college football stadiums because I thought enough people had been to college and been to a game and had an idea what 50, 60, or 70,000 people looked like in one place. The largest football stadium in America is Michigan Stadium at 107,000. In the next week or 2 they will have gone past that number for the 5th time. How is anybody not meant to be a little numb at this point?
    1
  4794. 1
  4795. 1
  4796. 1
  4797. 1
  4798. Aerospace engineer here and I am starting my comment with that so YOU KNOW I am well educated. I am UTTERLY DISGUSTED with one of your comments. I work in industrial control systems and automation and have several post graduate qualifications in engineering safety. I have been studying economics for almost 8 years after becoming incredibly frustrated with the INTERFERENCE of economists in engineering. Primarily they interfere with engineering and engineering projects via management consulting and secondly they interfere in the careers of engineers via their "work place compliance sociopaths" known as human resources who in particular take great offense to engineers who have opinions, which after 30+ years they tend to have. Its called experience by the way. What I have found is that economists not only interfere in engineering they INTERFER in EVERYTHING. Notably they interfere in political policy, education and healthcare and a major problem is that economists often have NO IDEA what they are doing. My interest in watching channels like yours is because I am interested in understanding WHY economists think, as Prof. Mark Blyth at Brown puts it "they believe that everyone else is a problem that they have to manage." One of the major problems are the academics like Milton Friedman and yourself is you have so little understanding of how the REAL WORLD ACTUALLY WORKS that your opinions are garbage. The reason I know you are a disconnected from reality garbage academic is your claim that banks want to work with people to solve their problems with their mortgages. GARBAGE - That statement is so far from reality that I want to scream at you. Due to an illness I got at work and the problems I have with HR I missed a lot of work and ended up behind in my mortgage. At the time I had almost 50% equity and the bank was neither interested in re-financing or working with me. I been on the OTHER SIDE. YOU HAVE NO DAMN IDEA HOW RUTHLESS BANKS ARE YOU HAVE NO DAMN IDEA OF THE SOCIOPATHIC LIARS AND THIEVES THE EMPLOY TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK. Congratulations - You are now the poster child for garbage academics.
    1
  4799. 1
  4800. 1
  4801. 1
  4802. 1
  4803. 1
  4804. 1
  4805. Dude you are usually very good on your technology - your video on ventilators was a 12 out of 10, not just a 10 or an 11 it was a 12. It shut up quite a few people who were building ventilators out of industrial components that WOULD have killed people. I do industrial automation and I know industrial equipment cannot work accurately enough to match the requirements you described. That video may well have saved lives. But on this one you have screwed the pooch a bit on the South Australian information. Like most industrialized countries its simply not accurate to say that power grids are designed. They don't simply design and plan power grids. The y are constantly being reviewed and added to and are better described as "evolved." South Australia's real problem was that they turned of both of their base load cola fired plants before they had *ANY alternative generation let alone renewable generation ready. As for the Tesla "big battery" it does NOT respond to frequency it responds to voltage. Possibly that was just a mind slip. What design there is in Power grids comes from the standpoint of where power is generated to how it is distributed. In Australia we now have a huge issue with WHERE our power is now being generated. In Victoria (where I am from) our grid evolved around 3 major coal fired units in the Eastern part of the state and we now generate vast amounts of wind energy from the Western side of the state. So our grid was designed to inject power in the East NOT the west. In South Australia there grid evolved around 2 coal fired units right next to each other in Adelaide. Now its generated 100s of kilometers away. Now one of our biggest problems is that where we generate the grids cannot handle the power we are trying to inject. On the liquid batteries this was fantastic. I have seen other vids on them and they are potentially a game changer. Having each house have its own battery is very nice for the shareholders of Tesla but its totally uneconomical for an entire society. We will move to large localized batteries in future, because most substations have room around them to do their job efficiently. The most important thing about batteries is that they stabilize the grid and with more and more small scale generation (including domestic solar) getting connected to the grid large local batteries (sometimes called community batteries will become vital for grid stability. BUT for actual backup power for grids batteries are unlikely to solve the problem. They are great for transient dampening but suck if you need to keep a power grid up for a couple of days. Pumped hydro is great for massive storage the Snowy 2.0 project is planned to have 7 days of energy reserve. BUT pumped hydro has 1 massive issue - you must have suitable geography for it. Hydrogen is a great possibility because if you can generate enough and cheap enough you can simply use it instead of coal in existing power stations. It has one huge issue and that is its basic nature. I work in automation and control systems. I'm trained and certified in EEHA and hydrogen is a bitch because you have to be extra careful because of how easily it ignites and how violently it explodes and hot hot it burns. Hydrogen really is a bitch to do any electrical work around. One technology I had not hear of until recently is the liquid air battery. I find this really interesting because it uses a lot of off the shelf technology that we know and understand. In automation we call that kind of design work "integration' where we take bits form other solutions and combine or integrate them into a new solution for a similar or unrelated problem. Here's a link to the vid done by Dave Borlace on his channel Just Have a Think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMLu9Dtw9yI In that system large chunks like the compressors, liquid air system and turbines are fairly standard items. The thermal storage part is the innovation. My opinion is that is a technology that should be pursued because it can provide several days of backup.
    1
  4806. 1
  4807. 1
  4808. 1
  4809.  @lordsamich755  Red herring I can call that bullshit and say that all you are doing is arguing in circles. Its strange how you keep writing things that make sense and then you run off on tangents that make no sense at all. You say batteries are no good and then pumped hydro is the solution. You clearly haven't done any actual research because you just parroting stuff I already know. Yes Pumped Hydro exists and has existed for decades. A boss I worked for who had been in that industry explained that to me over 25 years ago. It has one huge flaw its limited by geography as all hydro is. Do you even know WHY it has existed for decades? Hmmm - Clearly you don't or you wouldn't be arguing nonsense. Hydro turbines take time to spin up and shut down they do not have a fast response like gas turbines and stream turbines. Once spinning and synched to the network the operators & owners don't like turning them off. So when demands drop they have 2 choices dump energy or recover it. That's why they have pumped hydro its a way to recover and store energy for when network demands rise. Australia is currently building the biggest pumped Hydro in the world Snowy 2.0. I argue with people all the time about how important it is. They think it will clash with the renewable sector when instead it will help support it, by providing the storage needed. Yes it has issues, but they'll get sorted out. Wind turbines matched with batteries is the same principle as traditional hydro & pumped hydro with but with different technologies. Now if you wan to learn something fine if you want to just be an argumentative clown bother someone else.
    1
  4810.  @lordsamich755  I am Australian you effing clown - how do you think I know about Snowy 2.0. I also know it has several major conceptual flaws that need to be dealt with but probably wont. Some of the stupidity surrounding it is so bad we should reintroduce hanging. But on the other hand if you actually understood the engineering issues with renewable energy you'd know its one of the most important projects Australia will do in the next 50 years. If you understood the issues with hydro it always comes down to geography. As for our rivers that's our saddest joke and its you New South Welshmen right in the middle of that screw up. Your governments corruption and mismanagement there is staggering. They bought back low class water at nearly 10x the value they sold it netting close to $50 million for a company based in a Caribbean tax haven. Then there's stupidity of the $470M NSW spent pumping water out of the Murray UPSTREAM to Broken Hill. Gladys Brainspace is arguably the stupidest political leader in Australian history, but sadly others are challenging her for that title. After the stupidity of water rights there is the straight out theft that's gone on because the NSW government disbanded the police unit set up to investigate water theft. And that's before we get onto the bullshit the Queenslanders have done which is almost as stupid and what the South Australians wont admit to which is equally as stupid or the issues Victoria ignores which are just as disgraceful. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-06/billions-of-litres-of-water-missing-from-murray-darling-basin/10873782 Don't tell me about the water mismanagement. Our space Agency commissioned the "Space Road Map" one of the few things they did well. Its first item was advanced space based water management but put it its delivery at around 2035.* My degree is in aerospace and I spent a year of my life working out how we could start to deliver that in 3 years. The Space Agency were so stupid they ignored their own report. They claimed it could no be justified and instead wanted to spend their money on GPS, because Suzie Super Brain and the rest of the millennials need to know the location of there mobiles to the nearest centimeter. Yeah - Our Ag and tourism industries which rely on water are worth over $200billion a year and employ over 850,000 Australians. If you want to ague that go argue with Deloitte and the Farmers Federation they gave me those numbers. I asked for $720million over 6 years (which was based on half the Manus Island contract) and that was too much but then they gave the Airforce $7 billion for a their version of Space Force and the navy $55billion for new submarines that's since blown out to $80 billion. That's why were aren't getting any major advancements in water management. The navy needs subs and the air force wants more toys and we know many other ass holes want their money too. If I sound like a pissed of frustrated angry engineer ready to tear the head off the next idiotic clown - FINE, that's what I am. As far as energy goes I scored a small consult job a few years back with a Taiwanese investment firm who handed me the 2016 clean Energy Council report asked me to make sense of it. Combined with PowerStation data (ages & commissioning dates) from Wikipedia the cost of kW for kW replacement of our aging coal fired power stations over the next 15 years was ~$80billlion. But from other research that needs to be multiplied by 2.2 and it jumped to ~$176 billion then you ad in the fact our population has risen from 20 to 25 million with out building a single baseload power station and its expected to rise to 35million by 2035 and that number is above $260billion. That's why arguing about semantics is fucking worthless. The idiots in Victoria turned of 3 power stations with no replacement and South Australia switched of both theirs without replacement. All that has been built is renewable and according to the clean energy council less that 20% of what has been turned off has been replaced. What's actually saved Australia has been the domestic solar which has installed so much its the equivalent of a big power station BUT WITHOUT STORAGE it creates issues. So those German engineers who were defending their work a few years ago while assholes like Michael Schellenberger played their misdirection games might just be able to save us a $30, $40, $50 billion or more. Go check the Clean Energy Council Reports and International Energy Agency reports because its not just Australia the entire world is heading into an energy crisis. It started 20years ago when we stopped building power stations while various groups squealed and screamed at each other.
    1
  4811. 1
  4812. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE - On the subject of accuracy with aerial bombing. When you get the time go and look at the YouTube of Ex-F117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter) pilot Thad Darger on the channel Air Zoo titled "Flying the Nighthawk with F-117 Pilot Capt. Thad Darger" 18 Oct 2022. About 38 minutes in the shows a couple of clips that show just how accurate the F-117 was and points out that this was in the LATE 1990s using technology that developed in the 1970s. At one point he hints/alludes/suggests that with that sort of accuracy there's no need to kill people when you can simply break the infrastructure and make it impossible to do war. This is sort of what the Ukrainians are doing to Russian tanks with drones. They don't need to blow the tank to bits with a giant bomb pr fancy missile they just need to damage it enough to disable it and remove it from the war. If you are accurate enough with a small charge delivered to the right spot you can simply break something critical on the tank OR on a ship OR some piece of infrastructure. We also watched the Americans drop smart bombs through sky-lights during the 1990-1991 Gulf War (also called the FIRST Gulf War). I remember Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf and his press conferences where he highlighted just how accurate the American bombers were. THAT WAS OVER 30 YEARS AGO. SO IN 2024 THERE IS NO EXCUSE TO NOT BE PRECISE. In fact its the level of precision that's available that makes what Israel's doing EVEN WORSE and EVEN MORE INEXCUSABLE.
    1
  4813. 1
  4814. 1
  4815. 1
  4816. 1
  4817. 1
  4818. Yeah but he's also completely IGNORANT of what White Supremacy actually is. Its NOT the be all and end all of everything. As an African American I sure he see's it as the be all and end all BUT HE IS WRONG. Its fundamentally a racial superiority issue that EVERY tribe and culture has some version of it. Irrespective of if you take a look at ancient or modern history we see the same thing again and again and we have so many examples that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE PEOPLE. Thom's example of Korea is just one example of the entire Asian continent. Dig a little and you will find examples of this racial superiority in all of them and at one time or another they have all used to to do great harm to each other and there was not a WHIT PERSON ANYWHERE. FYI - I'm Australian and yes we have a serious issue with White Supremacists but we also have some other racial issue that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE PEOPLE. We have sizeable communities of Pakistanis and Indians and others form the sub-continent and you have to be damn careful what you say around them. Most of them are fine but like every culture there are those who have this racial superiority trait and they can fly off the handle. Another 2 groups we have to be very careful with are Vietnamese and Cambodians. There's several 1,000 years of conflict there and there is NOT A WHITE PERSON INVOLVED. This guys claim that the African conflicts are 100% the fault of White People is just nonsense. There are tribal conflicts going back 1,000s of years just as there is everywhere else. I can understand his point of view being African American but he's simply WRONG.
    1
  4819. 1
  4820. 1
  4821. 1
  4822. 1
  4823. 1
  4824. 1
  4825. 1
  4826. 1
  4827. 1
  4828. 1
  4829. 1
  4830. 1
  4831. 1
  4832. 1
  4833. 1
  4834. 1
  4835. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  4836. 1
  4837. 1
  4838. Australian here and from the outside that is a damn good assessment of what's gone wrong in America. I actually went to college in America and was there for the 87 campaign season and I thought "this is crazy." At the time there was the hysteria over Gary Hart's alleged affair with Donna Rice. It was known he'd had affairs but the level of hysteria was the insane thing and Newt Gingrich later proved how insane it all was. Then during the whole Clinton "It wasn't sex just a blowjob" affair the whole world got to see how crazy and toxic American politics was getting. In contrast none of the major players from Iran-Contra got held accountable but Bill Clinton got a blowjob and the World's economy was forced to take a pause. YEAH that crap affected the whole world because we had no idea which way it would go at the time. Then we find out that Ken Star was NEVER given permission to investigate the "Lewinsky Affair." His job was too look at Whitewater and Ken Star decided all by himself to investigate that blowjob. It emerged a couple of years later what he did to Susan McDougal. Go look it up on Wikipedia, its disgusting and she was basically tortured. What I remember hearing at the time from human rights watchers, was that she was regularly body cavity searched and the claim was she was being systematically raped at the instructions of Ken Star. Even if that allegation wasn't true, at the very least her basic human rights were violated. Meanwhile the Speaker for the House Newt Gingrich was having an affair that even to this day he simply dismisses because he and his wife had an open relationship. And that was after we all found out Rupert Murdoch had paid him $5 Million in a book deal.
    1
  4839. 1
  4840. 5 Reasons why the BRICS currency will fail. B) Nobody trusts Brasil economically because they keep flipping from radical Left to radical Right presidents. Despite some fairly decent development and technological advancements their main industries are soccer players and ripping down the Amazon rainforest for cattle to make McDonalds hamburgers. R) Nobody trusts Russia to do anything economically or much else. There main industries are resources and selling the worlds most popular form of population control - the AK47. I) Nobody trusts India economically because they are a giant basket case of corruption. C) Nobody trusts China and their economy is a bigger basket case that anyone else's and the environmental damage is disastrous. They have damaged or destroyed over around 30,000 rivers, creeks and waterways. S) Nobody trusts South Africa because they are so hopelessly corrupt. BONUS REASON - The Bank of International Settlements which is the bank where all of our central banks settle out all the foreign currencies they hold reported in December 2022 that there are now over $100 Trillion in Foreign Exchange swaps being held by various banks and non-banking entities. A massive amount of that is not only in US$ but those US$ are held by NON-Americans who trade internationally in US$. Does anyone actually think that all those people who have relied on the US$ for international trade for 70+ years are just going to swap 10s of Trillions into a currency run by the Brazilians, Russians, Indians, Chinese or South Africans when those countries have the issues they have?
    1
  4841. 1
  4842. 1
  4843. 1
  4844. 1
  4845. 1
  4846. 1
  4847. 1
  4848. 1
  4849. 1
  4850. Yeah we do and here's my reply to Gerrards pile of garbage and the LNPs garbage. Don't get me wrong Labor aren't much better and there's a serious flaw in their plan to. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  4851. 1
  4852. 1
  4853. 1
  4854. 1
  4855. 1
  4856. 1
  4857. 1
  4858. 1
  4859. 1
  4860.  B G  As an Australian I can tell all of America (and I have seen many others from around the world say the same) "Citizens United" is one of the stupidest things any nation has ever done in all of human history. Its a self induced malignant cancer that is metastasising into a nightmare not just for America but the entire World. If you listen to the most recent vid Thom did with Richard Wolff he remined us all that 44 allied nations agreed at Breton Woods in 1944 that the US Dollar would be the worlds reserve currency and how that works. YES - Breton Woods has been surpassed by other agreements, but the US Dollar remains the worlds reserve currency. Even though it is being traded less and less the stability of the currency exchange markets still relies on the stability of the US Dollar. Even though that annoys the crap out of many people we put up with it because it works. However with Citizens United certain billionaires are now going UNRESTRAINED on what influence they can buy. People like Charles Koch and Robert Mercer who have unusual views on how they should run America. See Thoms other vids on Koch & Mercer if you haven't. What those 2 are working on should scare everyone. If that disaster of a Constitutional Convention Koch wants goes ahead America as we know it ends. That would be incredibly bad for America and likely end in civil war and or the complete break-up of the United States of America. For the rest of the world it would also completely destabilise the currency markets because we all have money in New York Federal Reserve as Prof Wolff Described. Think of the bank rush there'd be if nations panicked and started scrambling to get their money out and what that would do to the NYSE and with it the other major stock exchanges.
    1
  4861. 1
  4862. 1
  4863. 1
  4864. 1
  4865. 1
  4866. 1
  4867. 1
  4868.  @malin5468  The things that aggravate me as an engineer isn't just that people with non-engineering backgrounds think they are technically literate because they took a couple of science classes and can use a computer but they think they're also qualified to make technical decisions on things like energy. My main motivation on informally studying economics was so I could find a way to speak their language back at them as a means to stop them hogging all the oxygen in every public discussion. Between the idiots on the Left and the maniacs on the Right the rest of us trapped in the middle really are in serious trouble. There's a whole raft of things BOTH side of politics have done over the last 40+ years that are now coming into this perfect storm of complete crap BECAUSE they never consider the consequences. I did my degree in aerospace and we're trained different to all others because our systems have such narrow margins of failure. We HAVE to be mindful of effects and consequences. If we don't then stupid stuff like the Boeing Max-8 happens where the computer that was supposed to prevent accidents flew the plane into the ground. The idea of consequences seems to be devoid in economics. I was just pointing out in another comment how economists with their "Greed is Good!" mantra is one of the main drivers of the migration crisis. There's a great doco on tax avoidance here on YT called "The Silent Killer of the Middle Class." About 35 minutes in they describe how bananas bought from Guatemala are traded via the Caymans before being sold in Europe. They do this huge mark up trick in the Caymans that avoids tax being paid. The Guatemalan farmers get squat so pay little tax. The traders in Europe don't make much so they pay little tax. They estimated that a country like Guatemala is NOT getting about $400 Million a year in tax revenue. Just imagine what some of those poorer countries could do with that sort of money if it was spent on infrastructure, schools and health care. Why would people migrate out of desperation when their country actually has a future? This same stuff goes on for all sorts of stuff our corporations pillage from poor countries. Because those countries get no tax revenue they get no chance to develop and as a result the people in those countries try and migrate to Europe, America, Canada, Australia,.... I am very concerned that if the economists don't back off then its going to get very nasty. If you haven't heard we have a series of major scandals here in Australia with the big consultancies (KPMG, PwC, EY & Deloitte). Most of those consultants are economists. They've cost about AU$20 Billion in fees and we've got so many giant piles of crap to deal with we don't know where to start.
    1
  4869.  @malin5468  Explaining the Max-8 stall characteristics takes a bit so bear with. FIRST - I have a pilots license and an aerobatics endorsement and I have competed in competitive aerobatics. So I'm pretty familiar with stalls and spins. There was never an actual problem with the engines or the balance of the Max-8. It wasn't even a problem that it had a an abrupt stall characteristic many other planes also have abrupt stall characteristics. To make any plane have very low drag means the aerodynamics are generally fine tuned for level flight. As such there are many planes that you really don't want to ever stall. Like 1,00s of others I first learned to fly in Cessna 152s and 172s. The reason is simple they are super stable including a very benign stall. In fact you actually have to force a 152 or 172 to really stall and drop the nose. After the Cessnas I did my retractable undercarriage and constant speed prop endorsements in Mooney M20s, which is fabulous plane but also designed to be a low drag palne. The Mooney was designed with the aim of doing 200knots on 200hp which is not easy. HOWEVER to do that the Mooney has a very slippery full laminar flow wing that is brilliant in level flight but sucks if it stalls. AGAIN that's nothing odd and is characteristic of quite a few of the fast and slippery light aircraft are similar. But if you stall a Cessna you don't lose a massive amount of altitude. In fact if you recover well it might be as little as 50ft and if you really work hard and fully stall Cessna you can still recover in a few hundred feet. A Mooney however can lose 1,500feet in a stall and do it incredibly fast. Considering that the standard landing pattern is done at 1,000ft then its incredibly important to know and understand what a plane like the Mooney feels like as it gets close to stalling. AND YES I did a lot of that but up at safe altitudes. So please understand this. There never was anything wrong with the concept or design of the Max-8. Even the Airbuses and other similar planes like Learjets ALL HAVE nasty stall characteristics. Make no mistake no pilot ever wants to stall any of those planes, because they will drop their nose and try an punch a hole in the planet. The Max-8 was just a little worse than others so they decided that it needed more than just a set of alarms to tell the pilots to back-off. There's nothing odd about that either. The Max-8 was not the first plane with MCAS or similar override systems. Before I explain the problem you need to understand that in engineering redundancy means having backup. In basic terms a standard redundant system has 2 of something - 1 to do the job and 1 backup. A triple redundant system has 3 and can check them against each other. Its normal that in pilot assistance systems like MCAS they have redundancy. The MCAS problem was HOW & WHY IT WAS DONE. The WHY was to save money -> One of the issues with any new plane is pilot training. The competing Airbus had been done so well it was NOT considered an all new airplane and pilots didn't need extra training for it. It was regarded as an upgrade rather than new plane rather. that made it easy for airlines to buy. One of the genius sales monkeys at Boeing made a deal with one airline for 200 Max-8s. As part of that deal he made an agreement that if their pilots needed extra training then Boeing would reimburse them $1 million per plane or $200 million in total for that training. If Boeing had put in a fully redundant system then under FAA rules pilots would have needed extra training and on that one deal Boeing would have lost $200 million. THAT'S THE WHY. The HOW was by not installing a redundancy in the sensors. Unfortunately that meant if that one sensor faulted in the wrong way and said the aircraft was stalling it would push the nose down irrespective of what was actually happening. As part of the WHY above the pilots were given the minimum of information to also keep the costs down. That meant they were NOT fully informed about the MCAS system on the plane or how it was configured. Sorry if that's long winded, but the problem really stemmed from people who knew nothing about aircraft or flying aircraft making decisions.
    1
  4870. 1
  4871.  @dennism5731  Here too in Australia we went down the path of sending 80% of our people to university. Both my parents were high school teachers and in the 90s a bonus system for high schools was installed. For every kid they got enrolled in university each high school got a bonus. That made it untenable for any teacher to help a student get into a diploma coarse at what we call TAFE or do an apprenticeship or go into the military, the police or other similar government institution. That was coupled with the funding of our universities which were remodelled economically in the 90s. They were told to "be more business like" but that was taken as "be like a business" they flipped the priority from educating people into making profit. These monetary functions are just more symptoms of neoliberal stupidity. BUT the real catastrophe was the shortage of skilled and semi-skilled tradesmen. All through the 2000s and into the 2010s we had massive shortages of the people we needed to construct the mines and gas plants to feed the Chinese machine. It ended up adding BILLIONS to the costs. BUT the true stupidity of sending 80% of high school students to university is simple math. An IQ 100 is the average and if you have 100 people 50 will be an IQ of 100 or higher and 50 will be an IQ of 100 or lower. So if you send 80 out of every 100 high school students to university it means 30 of them have IQs under 100. Its genuine idiocy because instead of those people doing diplomas, or doing apprenticeships or something else they end up wasting time going to university which costs money. Many of them drop out because they can't do the work and end up with no qualifications or useful skills. The ones who do pass go into easier degrees that nobody wants or needs. Its madness.
    1
  4872. 1
  4873. 1
  4874. 1
  4875. 1
  4876. 1
  4877. 1
  4878. 1
  4879. 1
  4880. 1
  4881. 1
  4882. 1
  4883. 1
  4884. AUSTRALIAN HERE - from the outside they do nothing different to every other non-conservative option in politics. THEY DON'T LISTEN and THEY DON'T LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES Go and watch a video of a lecture by Mark Blyth from July 2019 at McMaster U. (in Canada) during the Q&A after the lecture he was asked about Elizabeth Warren's policies. Its insanely accurate what he says. 1) He said Trump would win again if he didn't blow up the economy. Trump didn't blow up the economy COVID did and Trump botched the response and Biden won by default. 2) He said the strategy of the Democrats putting up candidates who they thought Republicans would vote for would NOT work especially if they alienated Bernie supporters doing it. Look what happened during the Harris campaign. It started with "we are changing to a new Democrat ticket" and then the DNC said "No you are NOT" and went straight to the strategy Mark Blyth described 5 years earlier, when they waved the Cheney's at them. Then you had people like Destiny openly tell the progressives NOT TO VOTE because we don't need you and we don't want you. Go watch the debate between Destiny and Cenk Uygur that David Pakman hosted. EVEN AFTER THE LOSS destiny was still holding onto blaming the progressives for the loss and admitting he told them NOT TO VOTE. HERE'S MY ISSUE 1) We (like a lot of other countries) now have to deal with Trump wo we know is a malignant narcissistic sociopath. 2) These Dum-o-crat campaign strategists and consultants work all over the world INCLUDING Australia and our Left (the Australian Labor Party) have used them in the past AND LOST (like in 2019).
    1
  4885. You are a combination of 1/2 right and 1/2 utterly wrong. Your are right the price increases are straight out because of privatisation. 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.” As for the reliability of networks you are 100% WRONG. You can get just as much unreliability from private systems as from public. Look at what happened in Texas a couple of years ago. When 5 year old kids are freezing to death in their beds don't try and say private markets work like the M0R0N from Harvard did. You can also look back to Enron. What they actually got caught doing was an unusual form of market manipulation. They'd deliberately trip out a power station every so often. Usually in the late afternoon when there was the daily surge. What that did was spike the local power market at a peak time by causing an artificial supply shortage. Despite losing the income from that power station their other power stations would make a killing off what ever reserve power they had available. As for break downs. I'm an engineer and you can get slack people in both public and private sector employment. These days its a matter of rewards. Traditionally there were none in the public sector. They never tried anything like "If you guys keep the power on by keeping the system well maintained we'll give you a bonus based on performance." And so you know I don't know of many private sector companies that have reward systems for maintenance. I have done maintenance engineering and it sucks because all anybody in the accounting systems see are costs. They never see any benefits. The problem with maintenance is that the better you do your job the less evidence your doing it well exists. Poor maintenance has lots of evidence. Good maintenance has nothing. Famous example of that is QANTAS the Australian airline. Early one when they got their first 747s they had a corporate risk assessment done that said you can't EVER afford to lose a plane. So they built the best maintenance any airline had ever seen. it was so good other airlines took their 747s to it and IT MADE MONEY. After NOT having any 747s fall out of the sky and after having made money QANTAS sold off that division. That's what engineers get for doing maintenance properly.
    1
  4886. 1
  4887. 1
  4888. I'm Australian and an outside observer to all this nonsense. Its pretty damn obvious all of the Hunter Biden & Joe Biden nonsense is simply a distraction from just how close this mess cam to ending democracy in America. I actually went to college in American. I did engineering but a bunch of friends were pre-law and they used to drag me into all sorts of their discussions. I had studied Orwell in high school (Animal Farm & 1984) so I used to always put forward that ANY DEMOCRACY could fall into a totalitarian dictatorship (Left or Right) because that was what Orwell warned about. People think Orwell was only about what happened in Russia and that's not true. His message was a warning against ANYFORM of absolute dictatorship. My friends used to argue that such a thing was IMPOSSIBLE in America because the US Constitution had too many checks and balances to get around. I am stunned at what's happening now because that system of checks and balances has failed. At the moment I put the blame squarely on 2 people in particular - Mitch McConnell and Merrick Garland. McConnell could have slapped down Trump at the FIRST impeachment the same way they muzzled Clinton with a "We aren't throwing you out but you are now going to behave and do your job." McConnell could have at the SECOND impeachment simply said "No this is too much. Get out and stay out!" Garland should have seen the failure of McConnell and done the right thing by simply charging Trump the moment there was sufficient evidence and there was enough. The fact he put his Institutionalist ideology in front of the reality of the situation will haunt America for generations.
    1
  4889. 1
  4890. 1
  4891. 1
  4892. 1
  4893. 1
  4894. 1
  4895. 1
  4896.  @dkf119  In Australia voting is compulsory for anyone over 18. Its rarely enforced however. The actual law isn't so much that you must vote, because there are many reasons why people do not vote. Its that you must be on the electoral role in the first place. Our entire system is also preferential, like they are trialling in certain American states. In fact that's so ingrained to our system we think its bonkers others do not use it. However we have always had a problem with what we call the donkey vote. That's where people simply go 1,2,3,4... down the boxes. So there's always fights over how voting cards are arranged. The one thing I think we need to change is actually take a lesson from America. I went to college in America in the late 80s. I was surrounded by people who had done civics in high school. I was constantly stunned how well informed Americans were. They knew how their country functioned and that protected America way more than its military or anything else. As an outside observer I see that as America's biggest single issue, because its allowed this nonsense to happen. America now has 2 generations of people who just don't know how their country works at all. This whole nonsense that an election could be stolen is ridiculous and can only happen because people just don't know how it works. In Australia we never had that type of civics education as a specific class. So in a way were less educated than America. Right now I'd say we are better educated and in light of what's happened in America I think we should do something to strengthen that.
    1
  4897. 1
  4898. 1
  4899. 1
  4900. 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
  4901. 1
  4902. 1
  4903. The corruption is debateable because there's always going to be the issue of who paid to get what done, BUT WITHOUT ANY DOUBT the narcissistic selfishness is the real problem. This is not just an American problem its starting to rise everywhere. I'm Australian and it might be more obvious that this sort of thing is happening in America but its actually starting to emerge across the developed world. There's been a failure of centrist governments everywhere because they have tried to appease everyone and ended up pleasing nobody. The more radical political people on BOTH the Radical Left and Radical right have seized on this. Its more noticeable with the Radical Right and they are louder and more vocal. The Radical Right also have a lot more political power and media power at the moment. There's no billionaire support for the Radical Left, but they are there and just as bat crap crazy as they have ever been. Where BOTH the Radical Right and Radical Left are going to come undone is the same reason they always come undone - their hypocrisy. Unfortunately we are heading towards a point where political violence is almost guaranteed. Just the other day I heard someone point out that we have forgotten that there were over 4,000 bombings on American college campuses in the 1970s and 1,000s of other protests (many violent) on other campuses across the developed world. I was young in the 1970s but I remember that there were times when it seemed like everyday there was another violent protest with a city on fire or another bombing or another hijacking. I don't want to see us go back to that part of the 1970s but I think its now inevitable we will because our political leadership is so poor and lets radicals like Roberts, Trump and others just get away with stuff.
    1
  4904. 1
  4905. 1
  4906. 1
  4907. 1
  4908. 1
  4909. 1
  4910. 1
  4911. 1
  4912. 1
  4913. 1
  4914. 1
  4915. 1
  4916. 1
  4917. 1
  4918. 1
  4919. 1
  4920. 1
  4921. 1
  4922. 1
  4923. 1
  4924. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  4925. 1
  4926. 1
  4927. 1
  4928. 1
  4929. 1
  4930. 1
  4931. 1
  4932. 1
  4933. 1
  4934. 1
  4935. 1
  4936. 1
  4937. 1
  4938. 1
  4939. 1
  4940. 1
  4941. 1
  4942. 1
  4943. 1
  4944. 1
  4945. 1
  4946. 1
  4947. 1
  4948. 1
  4949. 1
  4950. 1
  4951. 1
  4952. 1
  4953.  @sonicblue7real357  Your on the right line, but its solar energy that the planet turns into thermal energy not potential energy. The fascinating part is the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycles which is the long term cycles of ice ages where CO2 and Water vapour play major parts. The CO2 lets solar energy in but then keeps in the Earths thermal energy and warms the plant. Water vapour does 2 things. Like CO2 it helps hold in thermal energy but when there's enough in the atmosphere it forms a think cloud that reflects solar energy and stops the planet getting any warmer. But also at the point it slows the Earth cooling Its that property of water that throws the Earth into ice ages. As it builds up it helps warm the Earth after an ice age but at certain point it ends that and stops the Earth warming further. Eventually it cools enough and all that water falls as snow and rain in a massive way because there's not enough to keep the Earth warm the Earth dumps even more thermal energy off into space and we get an ice age. Right now we are at the top of the Milankovitch cycle and instead of the Earth having a warm humid patch before cooling into the next ice age we are overdriving the cycle. That's why the modelling gives 2 scenarios. We COULD either go into thermal runaway and end up like Venus or a massive thermal dump and end up like Mars. My bet is we'll end up with something in between, but its going to be wild with lots of wild weather. More thermal energy in the atmosphere means everything is running harder. Look at Texas last year and I have been there. Most of its a hot arid environment and yet it snowed so badly children froze to death in the beds. Australia was always picked as one of the most vulnerable nations. For the last few years its been stinking hot with some of the worst droughts ever and some of the worst bushfire seasons ever. This year its floods, floods and more floods. Our Snow season looks to be the best in decades. What worries me is this much water will cause huge amounts of growth in our forests so that when the next dry comes there will be huge amounts of fuel to burn. At some point in the next few years we will burn from one end to the other and just like they are doing now the deniers will claim its all natural.
    1
  4954.  @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
  4955. 1
  4956. 1
  4957.  @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
  4958. 1
  4959. 1
  4960. 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
  4961. 1
  4962. 1
  4963. 1
  4964. 1
  4965. 1
  4966. 1
  4967.  @t.isurvivalist7537  On actually starting some form off world colony. Its the moon or the moon first. Nobody with a brain is going to spend billions and billions sending people to die on Mars. Its 6-9 months away so if there's any issues its over they all die. The moon is 3 days away so there is at least a chance you can get something there. That's the argument that came out of the Columbia tragedy. they knew the foam had hit the wing. There were engineers who wanted to roll a spy sat over and take a high res photo and some clown said NO there wasn't anything that could be done. That turned out to be complete BS and that clown got 7 people killed on top of losing $3.5 Billion worth of space plane. The whole thing with a lunar base needs a proper plan and from what I have seen so far NASA is either inept at planning that sort of thing or is being hampered in making sensible plans. In 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and he told me about Helium-3. So I went off to the Australian mining industry to learn how to build remote mine sites. Its not a bad analogue because there are a lot of similarities. You're essentially 3 days away by road you only get planes according to the schedule so you have to plan everything around those logistics. And it forces you to think quite differently than you do when working in a city. In one of our cities I can generally make a call and get almost anything I want in an hour. Out on a mine site I have to PLAN contingencies and I have to solve problems with what I have at hand not what I might want in 3-7 days. Remember the bit in Apollo 13 with the CO2 filter they had to bodgey up. That's what working on a mine site is like. The other aspect of remote Australian mine sites is paying attention to how dangerous the environment is. basically you treat everything that's alive and not human can kill you - even the insects because an infected bite out there is lethal. The bigger poisonous things just kill you faster. And even if nothing bites you the heat and dryness can kill you in 3-6 hours if you aren't careful. I can tell you from materials I have read that NASA really doesn't understand certain aspects of remote site operations. Most notably in maintenance.
    1
  4968. 1
  4969. 1
  4970. 1
  4971. 1
  4972. 1
  4973. 1
  4974. 1
  4975. 1
  4976. 1
  4977. 1
  4978. I'm an engineer who's worked in both our manufacturing and mining industries. I left manufacturing because I could see it was doomed. As far as electric Viking goes. I hate to slam someone but this guy gets a lot of his basic technical facts wrong. I have tried helping him out and found he's like most YouTubers only interested in clicks. I consider him just another clown in a field of clowns. While the thermal coal industry is doomed because we just can't keep burning the stuff the coking coal industry isn't going anywhere because we still need steel. No matter what you've heard the green steel thing is mostly myth. You can't use hydrogen instead of coal because you end up with garbage that's too brittle to use for anything. But that's NOT Australia's real problem. I did a small consulting job in 2016 and was stunned to find out how bad our energy plans were. 8 years later they are still a joke. The source of the problem is AEMO and that pack of clowns (mostly economists) need to be sacked and I am serious on that. The actual problem is we need to replace our older power stations and upgrade the grid anyway. The whole energy transition was always going to happen for the very simple reason that THINGS WEAR OUT. No matter how well anything is built and no matter how good the maintenance is eventually everything wears out. Power stations and energy grids are no different. It took me a couple of years listening to some fairly smart people to work out why economists have this insane need to be involved in things they have no training in or understanding of and its quite simple. Economists consider everyone else is a problem that they have to manage. They really do see you, me and everyone else as a problem. Even crazier is they have done it all across the developed world and until we can get them out of the road NOTHING anyone wants to do can happen. And its not just energy they have gotten into health care, education and everything else they can get into. That's why there's so much frustration with governments. No matter who anyone elects the economists step in and interfere because in their minds we only elect problems and they have to manage them. In Australia we need to replace over 30GW of older power BECAUSE ITS OLD with new and more power to feed a growing population as well as upgrade the grid to handle that new power. Unfortunately we have this group of clowns who wont get out of the way and clowns like Electric Viking who add to the noise and confusion.
    1
  4979. 1
  4980. 1
  4981. 1
  4982. 1
  4983. 1
  4984. 1
  4985. 1
  4986. 1
  4987. 1
  4988. 1
  4989. 1
  4990. 1
  4991. 1
  4992. 1
  4993. 1
  4994. 1
  4995. 1
  4996.  @L98fiero  Yes ask the Iranians, Guatemalans, Chileans, Indonesians and a few others what its like to elect a government they US does not approve of. When I was in college in America (late 80s) the New Zealanders put a complete ban on nuclear vessels. NOT just nuclear armed but also nuclear powered. America tore up the ANZUS treaty over it and Americans went nuts. People actually came up to me all aggravated and upset that New Zealand would dare tell America anything. When I mean aggravated they were going nuts. Their brains shorted out and blew fuses. They could not handle the concept that ANYONE would tell them something like the New Zealanders did. When I told people "Its their country, they are allowed to chose for themselves." Americans went bonkers, like genuinely bonkers and a few times I was scared it was going to get violent. There's actually a problem with BOTH sides of American politics (the liberals and realists) where its hardwired into both that with foreign policy America has the superior system and others must acknowledge and accept America's ideological superiority. I recently saw a 2017 lecture by John Mearsheimer - U. Chicago REALIST professor and one of the fathers of the neo-cons. He explained how the American LIBERALS can't help themselves interfering in other countries they feel aren't giving their citizens an acceptable liberal democratic system. He was 100% right about the American liberals but totally avoided that his side "the realists" who are almost hyper Machiavellians. They'll interfere with any country that has resources they want and do it by what ever means are effective. America is unlike almost every other nation. They DON'T have a left and right like the rest of us have. They have 2 Right wing variants that are like the 2 sides of a coin. They are also identical in most ways accept for how they exercise power. One side believes every voice should have its chance to be heard and the other side believes their voice is the only one that should be speaking. And they both agree that America has the right to interfere in other countries.
    1
  4997. 1
  4998. 1
  4999. 1
  5000. 1
  5001. 1
  5002. 1
  5003. 1
  5004. 1
  5005. 1
  5006. 1
  5007. 1
  5008. 1
  5009. 1
  5010. 1
  5011. 1
  5012. 1
  5013. 1
  5014. 1
  5015. 1
  5016. 1
  5017. 1
  5018. 1
  5019. 1
  5020. 1
  5021. 1
  5022. 1
  5023. 1
  5024. 1
  5025.  @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
  5026. 1
  5027. 1
  5028. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  5029. GREAT TO SEE YOU CALLING OUT CORPORATE STUPIDITY I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. A lot of that includes safety control functions like Emergency Stops and Safety interlocks. You know that stuff that keeps hands attached and prevents stuff blowing up. I eventually got the second highest qualification any engineer can get in that field. Getting that qualification has kept me OUT OF WORK. The last time I saw a job specifically asking for that qualification I called up the recruiter to enquire. By that time my qualification needed to be renewed, but that was just a fee. I asked that if I was offered the job I'd pay the fee before starting. The reply was "Your the 4th or 5th person to put that too me today" and then they hanged up. That meant that other engineers had been experiencing EXACTLY the same situations I had. That's what being qualified means to engineers these days. You work you ass off to get your degree which with all the math and applied math classes is damn lot harder than any arts degree. If you then take the effort to get further qualified your job prospects can GO DOWN not up. People like Managers and their Human Resource minions don't like people who speak out and people with qualifications are often caught out. Their employment contacts often include clauses where "if you know something you must speak out" which clashes with the reality that if you speak out you get your contract cut WHICH HAS HAPPENED TO ME just like it happed to the submariner/engineer David Lochridge who's suing Oceangate. If you think engineers are angry over this sort of crap YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT and its about time there were some actual laws that protected us. Because when we're allowed to do our jobs YOUR LIVES are safer. - When your driving a car its mechanical engineers who designed the brakes to help you stop before the tree; - When you plug something in its electrical engineers who make it so you don't get shocked; - When you drink a glass of water its chemical engineers who make it so you don't get poisoned; - When you get in a jet to fly off on your holiday its aerospace engineers who keep the wings attached. We keep you clowns alive in 100s of ways every day. And before any of you complain just note you wouldn't even be able to read this with out engineers.
    1
  5030. 1
  5031. 1
  5032. 1
  5033. 1
  5034. 1
  5035. Look Viking, I am totally empathetic to your family situation having been their myself, but I'd be negligent as an engineer who has worked in the automotive industry not to call out the hype in this video. You need to tone down "the Elon will save the human race nonsense." I did my degree in aerospace but have done 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation. I worked in Australia's automotive sector building automated work cells before going off to the mining and resources sector. I have spent a lot of my personal time in the last few years looking into economics because of all the clowns with economic degrees interfering with projects. There are over 1 billion cars in the world and almost 500 million trucks. It is going to take decades to swap them over from fossil fuels. Then there is the EXTRA POWER GENERATION NEEDED to power them. There's all the Lithium, Nickel, Cobalt, Phosphate and other minerals needed to make the batteries and motors and other stuff. NOBODY KNOWS what the operating costs of electric trucks because NOBODY has been operating them long enough. You and many others in the "technology will save us" and "disruption is magic" brigade of cheerleaders need to wake up that all this stuff will TAKE TIME. LETS NOT FORGET that Elon Musk himself promised these trucks and fully 100% self driving cars and neither has come close to fruition. He promised these trucks would start being delivered customers more than 4 years ago and he still hasn't built the factory to make them. Look after your family NOT Elon Musk. Best wishes to your wife and kids.
    1
  5036. 1
  5037. 1
  5038. 1
  5039. 1
  5040. 1
  5041. 1
  5042. 1
  5043. 1
  5044. 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
  5045. 1
  5046. 1
  5047. 1
  5048. 1
  5049. 1
  5050. 1
  5051. 1
  5052. 1
  5053. 1
  5054. 1
  5055. 1
  5056. 1
  5057. 1
  5058. 1
  5059. 1
  5060. 1
  5061. 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
  5062. 1
  5063. 1
  5064. 1
  5065. 1
  5066. 1
  5067. 1
  5068. 1
  5069. 1
  5070. 1
  5071. 1
  5072. 1
  5073. 1
  5074.  @loripip3285  You've missed my point - I've said you are entitled to your opinion. The first Amendment guarantees that. BUT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED to call for martial law, that's sedition and sedition is a crime. Trump can say whatever he wants - he's POTUS. But he has NOT called for martial law and neither has Giuliani because both of them know what would happen. You and a lot of others need to wake up and realize that Giuliani and others don't give a crap about you. *This is about raising money and putting as much as possible in their pockets.*So far the number I have seen published is $207 million and that's a week old. You haven't been watching REAL hearings in front of REAL judges. You've watched staged hearings that Rudy Giuliani has put on in a hotel and hearings in front of state legislators. REAL JUDGES in REAL COURTS have said "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" and they've said it 58 times in 59 cases so far. The one case Giuliani's team won was in Pennsylvania where the officials tried to extend the deadline for people to verify their mail in ballots and the Judge said NO you must follow what is already written in the law. You need to stop listening to Giuliani and the other liars. You just claimed (and I quote) "there is a reason for all these losses in court , the judges and supreme courts dont make the call on costitutional law" First you ADMIT that there are REAL LOSSIES in the REAL COURTS. Second making calls on the constitution is exactly what the courts do especially the Supreme Court. That is why the Supreme Court exists. This how much Giuliani and others have twisted reality. They have people so confused and drowning in misinformation that you have just claimed that the job SCOTUS exists for isn't really what they exist for. That's like claimin 1+1=3. The Electoral college has met and voted and even Mitch McConnell has acknowledged Biden won and Trump lost.
    1
  5075.  @loripip3285  On a side issue that I think might be of interest. Do you understand how stunned a lot of people are that Trump got and extra 12million votes than 2016? Its driving the Dems nuts because they can't explain it other than to scream is a cult. Sorry if this answer it a but long, but I think it will surprise you. I guarantee there will be Dem supporters screaming at me, but among the Dems are some real idiots. There are a few people trying to answer how Trump got more votes and how the Dems failed. And the Dems did fail in the House where they lost seats and failed to win the Senate. 2 are University Professors and both leftists, in fact one teaches Marxism. BOTH have supported your right vote for Trump and BOTH have acknowledged the reasons people voted for Trump. One of these Professors is Mark Blyth who is originally from Scotland and was one of the very few who predicted Trump would win in 2016 and predicted it 6 months before. The other is Richard Wolf (the Marxist) who recently spoke against the Democrats who claim that people who voted Trump voted against the best interests. He has openly said the Dems are wrong. Mark Blyth has pointed out that for the first time since BEFORE the Reagan years that there ahs been real wage growth for the bottom of the US economy and that it has happened 3 years in a row. That's genuinely amazing and I wish we could say the same here in Australia. All we ever hear about is GDP growth. Its a bullshit fantasy because its been driven by population growth not by wages or productivity or anything else. America has actually had something no one else has had and you have had it for 3 years in a row. If you don't believe me here they are talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g1aMsDYJCc&t=2708s I don't expect you to listen to the whole vid, but you should listen to a couples of minutes at the point in the link. The guy speaking is Mark Blyth (Economics Professor at Brown). He slams the Dems and explains out how Trump got the Bottom 20% wage growth. If you watch on a bit further you'll see Prof Wolf rip the shit out of the Democrats when he talks about West Virginia (its at about 53 minutes) Just think for a moment: How come its the Leftist Professor who is pointing out that millions of Americans have had real wage growth for the past 3 years? How come its the Marxist Professor who is defending why people voted for Trump? Here's some things that should surprise you. In my opinion: 1: Hilary would have been a disastrous President because she would never have fixed the real problems facing millions of real Americans. 2: Joe Biden will not solve the underlying problems either. He'll be less destructive than Trump on some issues, but worse in others. Here's why I think that. We have the same issues in Australia and the same types doing the same shit as people like Biden and Hilary.
    1
  5076. 1
  5077. 1
  5078. 1
  5079. 1
  5080. 1
  5081. 1
  5082. 1
  5083. 1
  5084. 1
  5085. 1
  5086. 1
  5087. 1
  5088. 1
  5089. 1
  5090. 1
  5091. 1
  5092. 1
  5093. 1
  5094. 1
  5095. 1
  5096. 1
  5097. 1
  5098. 1
  5099. 1
  5100. 1
  5101. 1
  5102. 1
  5103. 1
  5104. 1
  5105. 1
  5106. 1
  5107. 1
  5108. 1
  5109. 1
  5110. 1
  5111. 1
  5112.  @perrymason866  Sorry buddy but you're wasting your time with M0R0NS like SK-VG3mw. He/She is what the Americans call a Libertarian and the rest of us an Anarchist. You can tell because the VERY first thing he/she tries to argue on is TAX on the basis of: "The government can do NOTHING right and all they do is waste our taxes." That's the Libertarian mantra. One of the concepts Libertarians & Anarchists NEVER accept is that governments have to build, own and operate certain things because there's NO business case for the private sector unless its heavily subsidised by the government which defeats their claim. This highlights their insanity. They'll howl about government wasting tax dollars but then insist the government help them when they need it. They say they don't believe that but go listen to what they actually preach or watch them in action. AS such they can't conceive that the government needs to tax and use that to build, own and maintain things like roads, bridges, water systems and sewerage systems that free marketeers CANNOT provide because there is no business model for BUILDING that stuff without subsidies. There is however an AWESOME business case for BUYING from the government because its already built. They don't need approvals or anything else. They just buy it and start charging money AND because its often a basic utility like Thames Water the customer base (like Gary says) already exists and already pays because they have to use it. I'm an Australian engineer so I know about the engineering stuff like infrastructure. Our mega problem is energy but we also have some other major issues. Its these problems caused by these insane economic policies why I've been listening to people like Gary. Its so that I can speak the language of economists and explain their mistakes. Their single biggest mistake is NOT understanding that governments MUST invest in things that DO NOT need to make money so long as those things ENABLE other things to make money. Sorry about the longish reply. I can ramble on about this stuff for hours, but Libertarians drive me nuts because they really are that stupid.
    1
  5113. 1
  5114. 1
  5115. 1
  5116. 1
  5117. 1
  5118. 1
  5119. 1
  5120. 1
  5121. 1
  5122. 1
  5123. 1
  5124. I hate to break everyone's balls on PART of this. She's actually right that America does not have the energy grid set up for shifting everyone to electric cars and that nobody has a real DETAILED plan to get there, BUT THE REASON WHY there's no plan or progress is because of people like MTG. Remember the now infamous Exxon memo that told their people the plan was to delay all action on climate change for as long as possible? That and other factors, including narcissistic liars such as MTG, are combining into a perfect storm. Here's an explanation sorry if its longish. I'm an Australian engineer who went to college in America. We have the same problem here in Australia and the same problem is in Europe and Asia. This isn't simply an electric car or environmental issue. A few years ago I became aware of how badly Australia's energy grid was being managed. After the 1990s we just stopped building major power stations. By Major I mean those greater than 1,000 Megawatts (1 Gigawatt). Power plants like Diablo Canyon in California, which is 2256MW and Eraring in Australia, which is 2880MW. Diablo Canyon of 36 years old and Eraring is 40 years old. Most power stations are built for 25 years of life which they extend with rebuilds to 40 or more years. Think about how many of you have cars older than 25 years let alone 40. These are the big power stations that underpin our energy grids and keep modern society running. When I looked around its the same everywhere across the entire developed world. Except in China and a few rare cases we all stopped building new coal fired plants because of CO2 emissions. After Chernobyl and Fukushima everyone stopped building nuclear power plants. The problem has been masked by new wind and solar combined with more efficient appliances and lights, but we are starting to hit limits there. The problem is like we are running towards a cliff and people are too busy playing politics. All of our major power plants are now old and only getting older and less reliable. Here in Oz we are at the cliffs edge with old unreliable power stations. So there's not only a shortage of energy supply just to keep society going we don't have enough energy generation to change to electric cars. That's all before we ask where is all this Lithium to make the batteries coming from. Elon Musk's new mega-battery wont be able to make 3% of what's needed and that's by his estimates. So MTG's right that the infrastructure isn't there, BUT her fossil fuel friends ARE THE PROBLEM with getting it done. If there is one thing I'd fault David on is his oversimplification of the plan. Yes there is a general plan but NO there is NOT a detailed plan and the "devil is in the details." Its very frustrating to be an engineer when other people oversimplify what needs to be done. Things like where's all the lithium coming from for the batteries? And then how are we going to make that many batteries? Who's going to build all these new factories? David doesn't have to answer those questions but engineers do. Sorry for he longish comment.
    1
  5125. 1
  5126. 1
  5127. 1
  5128. 1
  5129. 1
  5130.  @waynet8953  The classic when you look at the F35 is one of the aircraft it was to replace was the A10. First off the air force has tried to kill off the A10 for decades, but the Army canned that every time because there simply hasn't been a better close support system deployed since. From and engineering perspective the case study to compare the A10 and F35 is amazing. On one hand you have the plane that was designed to do everything and has ended up doing few of those things well at all. Versus the plane that was designed for a specific role and does it so well that 50 years after first being conceived they are building a new batch. Then there is the supply chain issue that the VOX video goes into. That video and what Anna refers too is pretty common knowledge. Particularly the stuff about how the F35 project has bits made 46 of 50 US states. That means 92 out of 100 Senators would be voting against jobs in their state if they try and cancel it. Its been done before but never to that extent. Its was Lockheed's response to getting the F22 cancelled. And its that supply chain that is the real problem. No matter what system you want to talk about - if its hard to maintain its a monumental problem in a war. Even the USAF can't get the spares it needs to keep its F35 fleet flying. So what chance does Australia or anyone else have. One of the main reasons Germany lost WW2 was because they OVER RELIED on things like the Tiger Tank. Yes it was almost invincible, but it was incredibly expensive, took a huge amount of labor to build and was hell to maintain. In the end the Germans didn't have enough tanks ACTUALLY fighting and they simply got overwhelmed. Think of car racing and in any category there have been many incredibly fast cars, but too many of those have been fragile. Fragile cars might win some races but they don't win enough races to win championships. Military history should have warned EVERYONE that the F35 was a dud from day one.
    1
  5131. 1
  5132. 1
  5133. 1
  5134. 1
  5135. 1
  5136. In Australia I first heard about this project a couple of years ago (see below) in a general news story about water management issues around the world and there are a lot of water management issues around the world. The problem for Beijing is that its main water supply the Yongding River was damned upstream for irrigation and now its dry. They built a dam on the Yongding to store and provide water for Beijing. Its never held a drop of water. This is a similar to the stories about the Aral Sea, the California Aquifer, the Hoover Dam, the conflicts developing over the Nile, the issues with the Jordan and the Dead Sea, the issues with over irrigation of the Tigris and Euphrates and then there's the mega issue of depletion of ground water across many parts of the world. In Australia we have the Murray-Darling system which has been so badly mismanaged we pump water back up the darling via a pipeline (from the Murray) to make up for stupidity on the Darling. Back in the 1950s we did the Snowy Mountain scheme where we dammed the Snowy River which had the highest flow of any river in Australia and diverted it through tunnels and pipes into the Murray. We generated electricity and provided a massive amounts of water for irrigation. The Murray joins with the Darling our longest river. Those 3 rivers combined no longer flow into the ocean because we extract so much water from them. This stupidity in China is being repeated around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongding_River https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/china-claims-new-project-will-revitalise-the-yongding-river/10548942
    1
  5137. 1
  5138. 1
  5139. 1
  5140. 1
  5141. 1
  5142. I'm a born bred and raised Victorian who's NOT living in Victoria for the moment and with stuff like this going on AM GLAD I'm NOT living in Victoria. This is the typical "throw a band aid on an arterial bleed" response that has plagued Australian politics for decades. Its NOT just clowns on the Far Left that do this. The Far Right are equally as bad they just do it in different ways. Let me explain something I do know about. I'm an engineer and circa 2016 I had an odd little consult job and discovered just how bad our energy situation actually is. I can simply say that the general public has no idea how bad our situation is and what sorts of costs we are going to encounter over the next few decades. If we are lucky it will cost about AU$2 Trillion *(YES with 'T'), but if we let the clown brigades fight like they are we could be up for as much a AU$10 Trillion. If people want I will explain those numbers and it has little do do with the energy transition because we were always going to require a massive rebuild replacing the old worn out power stations as well was building new power for the increased population. But right now the far Right is preaching the nuclear solution BECAUSE ITS CONVENIENT. There's actually a very sound argument for having PART of our system become nuclear. I am in favor of nuclear power being part of our energy mix, but we can't even have the discussion because of the CURRENT POLITICAL RIGHT and how they are promoting it. The way its being promoted along emotional reactionary lines makes it a terrible public discussion JUST like this idiotic ministry which is also a reactionary political response makes for a terrible public discussion. And that's the real problem. We have these REACTIONARY political activists pumping needed public discussions with emotional nonsense and they make sensible public discussion near impossible no matter what the topic is.
    1
  5143. 1
  5144. 1
  5145. ​ @spacescatatford  If you want to talk about "scientism" which is an idiotic ideology that is SEPARATE from science and technology that's promoted by clowns who claim science will solve everything then maybe you have a point. I absolutely hate that crowd. The amount of time I have to spend undoing all the false narratives they promote is incredibly frustrating. They also make it unbelievably easy for bad faith actors like Steve Koonin, Richard Linzen, Alex Epstein, and many others to convince people of EQUALY BAD SCIENCE. The Hypocrisy of BOTH SIDES of the Climate debate is DISGUSTING. I hate the Greenies almost as much as I hate the Steve Koonins. They all cherry pick data and confuse people with it. Right now as I type this there is a thumb nail titled "Richard Lindzen exposes climate change as a politicised power play motivated by malice and profit." There's another one with Alex Epstein titled "Neither an energy transition nor climate crisis exists..." BOTH CLAIMS ARE UTTER BULLSHlT. FIRST: The climate denial campaign came from the same people who denied tobacco causes cancer and other things. It was and still is 100% politically motivated. It was started by a small group of extremist Libertarians from the Reagan/Bush era. They have the fundamental belief that Governments can do nothing right and should not regulate anything. It has nothing to do with science and never did. SECOND: Humanity has gone through numerous energy transitions. Without an energy transition we would never have had the Industrial Revolution. Without another energy revolution we'd never have transitioned from horse & buggy to cars. Without further transitions we would never have had the jet age, the rocket age or nuclear power. Its just such a ludicrous claim.
    1
  5146. 1
  5147. 1
  5148.  @buddygrimfield7954  I have been doing industrial robotics since the late 1990s but not a lot in the last few years. Most people have no idea what we use industrial robots for and most of the stuff the media pump out are PR pieces for companies that will never sell a damn thing. One thing everyone needs to know is that the sci-fi stuff is sci-fi as in FICTION. Boston robotics has been promoting their electric dogs for years now and what are they actually good for. They can't sniff for drugs at the airport, they can't case sheep, they can't fetch a ball or stick. So what are they actually good for? 10-12 years ago they released the Internet equipped refrigerators, how many did they actually sell and how many do they sell now? Answers are not many and zero because not many people bought them and nobody makes them anymore because like so many techno gadgets they were a solution to a problem that never existed. Remember how a couple of years ago everyone was going have self driving cars and truck drivers were to become extinct? ANY and every engineer who knew what they were talking about said BULLSHIT. because we know what the task actually entails and its just impractical with current computers. One of the great buzzwords is AI and that's arguably the biggest tech lie ever. There is not such thing as an artificial intelligence. What we have are algorithms that can mimic specific tasks like a human does. Things like facial recognition and finger print I.D. Looking at stuff and deciding if they are the same or similar. There's so much misinformation about technology these days its almost a full time job explaining what's real and what's not.
    1
  5149. 1
  5150.  @buddygrimfield7954  YES its crap. Here's an example I use, sorry if its a longish explanation. When your driving and you turn a corner into a street you have never driven before. In your field of vision are staggering array of objects numbering in the millions. Leaves on trees, bricks, grass, parked cars and all the bits of those parked cars. What the human visual cortex can do is group things together. You don't see each leaf on a tree you just a tree. You don't see all the parts of a car just a car. You don't see every brick in a building just the building. The human visual cortex can not only identify groups and distinguish between those of concern and those that are irrelevant but do it in less than 1/50th of a second, even if the scene is totally knew. You brain is doing this right now. In the room where you are there are literally 1000s if not millions of separately identifiable objects plus all the sounds you can hear or things you can smell. The human brain can process sensory data in an extraordinary way and the data flow is barely comprehensible. If you ask anyone who's honest - How does a human brain do that and what's the algorithm that we can replicate in a computer? They'll simply stand there silent because we have no idea how it actually works except in the most basic terms. This is why a bunch of companies that a few years ago were madly telling the world how they would be first to have a fully autonomous car and/or fully autonomous helicopters to taxi people about have gone very silent. Nobody knows how a human brain actually does what it does let alone how to replicate it in a computer.
    1
  5151. 1
  5152. 1
  5153. 1
  5154. 1
  5155. 1
  5156.  @nomdeguerre7265  Yes they are all EPR 2s of which 2 are now running (1 in France and 1 in Finland) with 2 under construction in Britain (Hinkley Point C). The ones in France and Finland took 17-18 years each to build but they were also the first 2 on the new design. The ones in Britain started in 2018 and are expected to be running by 2028 (10 years). They have a design lifetime of 70 years, which on one hand is a huge bonus to the end users because the incredible cost to build gets spread out over a long time. On the downside that time frame makes them impossible for anyone in the private sector to build. The Brits have made a ridiculous blunder because they are trapped by the ideology of free market economists who claim that the government MUST NOT invest in anything because the private sector does everything better. The problem with that ideology is that when there is no viable business case for the private sector NOTHING happens. The actual investors in Hinckley Point are the French and Chinese governments through a couple of corporations that are 100% owned by the French & Chinese governments. The basic rule on investment is 1 in 2 out, as in for every dollar that goes in you have to get 2 out. The first dollar out recovers the investment and the second is the profit. With really long projects it can be 1 in 3 out, 4 out, 5 out,.... depending on the time frame. So the British people via their energy bills will end up returning over those 70 years a giant pile of money. In fact it will be enough money to cover the costs of several of the reactors (up to 14 EPR 2s) the French are building. That's also the answer to deathgun3110's question on the costs.
    1
  5157. 1
  5158. ​ @bobmister250  Buddy sorry if I am an engineer who knows his stuff and your just another clown repeating ignorance. FIRST I work as an industrial control system engineer and spent over a decade in the auto industry before moving to the mining industry where I've been for most of the last 20 years. So please don't try and tell me what I do and don't know about manufacturing cars and mining minerals when all you're doing it repeating other people's talking points. 1) NOBODY is recycling Lithium batteries because compared to digging new lithium out of the ground its not economical. Recycling cars does NOT mean recycling all of it. We don't recycle the paint, the plastics, the cloth trims or many other parts to cars. 2) Of course GM is buying into Lithium reserves because there's NOT ENOUGH Lithium in the known reserves. There's only 28 million tones in the reserves according to the US Geological Survey and we need over 94 million tons to replace the 1.5 Billion cars in the world with EVs if they use a similar amount to what Tesla S uses. So if you want to either restrict what your competitors can access or simply make sure you can make cars the of course you buy into the reserves. 3) You like so many others DO NOT understand the difference between reserves and resources. Go look at the Wikipedia page for Lithium and scroll down to "Production." You'll see where I get the 28 million from at the bottom of the table. That column with resources it what people think is there NOT what can be actually mined and extracted. Resources are what people can actually get. The figures for the Salton Sea fall under the category of RESOURCE not reserve. If that changes and the companies involved can actually develop the means to extract the Lithium form the Salton then it would be a massive step in the right direction, but from the figures I have seen it would only double the Lithium reserve when we need to at least Triple it. 4) THE SINGLE BIGGEST BREAK THORUGH that has to be made is NEW battery chemistry. We either have to make Lithium batteries that are better or use another chemistry. I know there's a lot of effort in that area with things like Sodium instead of Lithium as well as liquid battery systems like the Sadoway battery. The Sadoway uses liquid layers of magnesium and antimony separated by a layer of molten salt. BUT the Sadoway battery is only good for stationary applications but then that would free up Lithium for automotive. 5) Don't try an explain engineering subjects to an engineer when you aren't an engineer.
    1
  5159. 1
  5160. 1
  5161. 1
  5162. I am an aerospace engineer and I can explain in detail all the stuff that they have simply not bothered to think about. Its not simply Musk or his fanbots, NASA aren't exactly innocent. There's a staggering amount og science fiction PR garbage in the space industry at the moment. Back in 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and at that time he was talking up the Helium-3 opportunity on the moon. As an Australian at that stage there was no easy way into NASA or even their programs. So an independent project with credibility was possible. At that time Australia was just starting a mining construction boom to feed the Chinese beast. It took a couple of years but I snuck my way into remote mine site construction and the analogies to setting up anything on the moon become fairly obvious after some time doing that work. 1) EVERYTHING needs to be thought ahead. When you are in the middle of the desert nothign is just down the road because the road is 1500km long. Prior to that time I worked in our manufacturing sector and 90% of everything was at worst an hour away. On a remote mine site, even if airplanes come regularly you have to consider everything is at least 3 days away. Its a giant non-stop logistical exercise that never ends. 2) Everything you take for granted in a city like water and power has to be treated very seriously. Most people never consider what happens when they flush the toilet. On a mine site that's a serious consideration along with all other waste. Most of all the food has to be trucked or flown in, then stored, then cooked, then eaten and then cleaned up. Humans eat, shit, pee and breath. Spaceship earth is great for cleaning our mess and we take that for granted. 3) Mine sites are primarily dirt and rock crushing & grinding plants. That means wear and tear on everything. I got hold of the papers for a NASA conference on the moon (well over 200 pages). The total commentary on maintenance was less than 1-1/2 pages, 1/2 of which was a diagram and all they said was we'll do it with robots. That told me that NONE OF THEM had ever spent any time on a mine site. When I see clowns talking about mining asteroids I can tell NONE OF THEM had ever spent time on a mine site. When I hear Jeff Bezos talking about taking all the iron ore processing off planet I know he's not done any of the basic math hon that.
    1
  5163. Buddy as an aerospace engineer who has spent 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation INCLUDING BEING FORMALLY TRAINED in Electrical Equipment in Hazardous Areas (EEHA) you are completely misunderstanding the nature and risk of hydrogen. Sorry this is long but everyone thinking hydrogen is the magic solution needs to understand that it has some fantastic properties and I really do think it will be a major part of future energy, but it has some very serious risks. I am proposing 2 new massive power station projects here in Australia that are partly fueled by hydrogen BUT and I can't stress enough how hard hydrogen is to engineer around. Your comment comparing kerosene to hydrogen is so far off the mark its scary. In terms of safety Hydrogen is nothing like kerosene. If I compared your skills and training as an airline pilot to a bus driver in the same way you have compared Hydrogen to Kerosene you'd be insulted. I have a pilots license so I know what that means. Here are some basic facts that they teach engineers. 1) You need 3 things to have combustion or an explosion which is basically hyper-rapid combustion. FUEL + OXIDISER + IGNITION SOURCE. Fuel alone does nothing. Fuel with just an ignition source does nothing. Fuel with just an oxidiser does nothing. You must have all 3. The reason solid rocket propellants like gunpowder & C4 explosive can be so dangerous is because they combine the fuel and oxidiser. Its why they are impossible to extinguish once ignited. Once the Space Shuttle and Artemis boosters are lit they will go until the fuel is consumed. All that can be done is detach them. 2) Flammable liquids DO NOT actually burn or ignite. The vapor above the surface burns. There's videos shown to engineering students where they drop a lit match into a jar of gasoline and it just goes out because below the surface there's no oxygen. This is also why cars don't explode when the fuel tank has a submerged pump. Because its submerged and totally surrounded by fuel there's no oxygen. Its also why cars can explode if the fuel level sensor gets a shot circuit because you can get a spark in the vapor space above the fuel level. Its why empty fuel tanks with vapor are far more dangerous than full fuel tanks where there's almost no vapor. 3) A droplet of liquid fuel does NOT BURN its surface burns because the heat boils off the liquid and that allows it to mix with air and meet oxygen molecules and react. This is why fuel injection in cars and trucks works so much better than a carburetor. There's not only finer droplets with more surface area but the droplet size is more consistent making combustion more stable and more reliable. 4) Gases and vapors at the right mixture can EXPLODE. For almost any gas you can find 2 numbers given in percentage called the LEL (lower explosive limit) and UEL (upper explosive limit). Between the LEL and UEL the mixture explodes. In room temperature air: - Methane has an LEL of 5% and UEL of 15% - Hydrogen has an LEL of 4% and UEL of 74% So hydrogen wants to EXPLODE over a much wider range of fuel-air ratios. This is also why its been so hard to get it to burn reliably in engines. It reacts so fast its hard to get a stable flame. 5) Everything that can burn or explode has an ignition energy usually expressed as MIE (minimum ignition energy) with the units mJ (milli-joules). Hydrogen has the lowest of all MIEs at 0.017 mJ (in air) and 0.011 mJ (in oxygen). By comparison methane 0.26mJ gasoline is 0.80 mJ and Kerosene is 20 mJ. Kerosene takes just over 1176 times the energy to ignite than hydrogen. A kerosene leak compared to a hydrogen leak is nothing in terms of risk. 6) Many gases and flammable substances can ignite from temperature. Again Hydrogen is very low on that scale compared to most other substances. When you select equipment that is in a area with hydrogen you have to check the temperature rating as well as all the other factors. 7) The Hydrogen molecule is the smallest molecule in the universe. That makes sealing everything incredibly hard. You can't just by valves, pistons, pumps, pipe fittings like you do for other gases. It will leak from the tiniest of holes and narrowest of gaps. If you have any leak in a place that's not well ventilated it gets very dangerous. Hydrogen is amazing. Its actually very easy to make through electrolysis of water, but its also a hassle to use which is why its never really been used as much as people think it should have been. Sorry if this feels like I am yelling but its a very serious topic. I 100% believe the hydrogen economy is going to boom and be a major part of our energy future, but I also expect some tragic outcomes because people will simply ignore what people with expertise warn them about.
    1
  5164. 1
  5165. On the capturing CO2 from the atmosphere its all dependent on how its done. I'm an engineer and the major problem we collectively isn't so much we are having to transfer from dirty to clean energy, its that we are at the next great energy transition. Just as we moved on from horse & sail to coal & steam then onto oil & gas and then 1/2 way to nuclear, we are now at the next great energy transition. Its being heavily influenced by the need for clean energy but we'd be making a transition anyway. The single biggest factor is efficiency. We have more people and that means more energy is needed but that actual supply of raw materials isn't keeping up. I'm in Australia and we had a power station called Hazelwood. It was old an dirty, but worst of all was its was hopelessly inefficient. Most coal fired power stations could get about 30-35% efficiency with the very best ones with advanced boiler technology could get over 42% thermal efficiency. When it closed Hazelwood was getting about 20% thermal efficiency. So it was burning twice as much coal per watt of electricity. Hazelwood was closed NOT because it worked but because it was so inefficient. Right now we have another power station at Newport which is an old gas thermal. If we simply replace it with a gas turbine we can save about 30% on raw gas input. If we add a steam turbine to the exhaust we can increase the power output by 60%. If we then added a hydrogen supply we'd reduce the emissions by another 50% down to 30% of where it now is. This is actually a hard thing to discuss with non-engineers. If you are not being efficient with energy then ANYTHING can be insanely expensive. Also some things that look or sound inefficient aren't when you take into consideration of the overall system efficiency. With direct CO2 extraction a lot will depend on where they get the energy from and then how they use it. I think the real problem with it will be that it just can't do enough. When you look at how much needs doing the real problem is being able to do in engineering what green vegetation does already. I think it will end up with systems that blend what we can do in engineering with what we can do with plants.
    1
  5166. 1
  5167. 1
  5168. 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
  5169. 1
  5170. 1
  5171. 1
  5172. 1
  5173. 1
  5174. 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
  5175. 1
  5176. 1
  5177. 1
  5178. Hi Rosie, I'm Australian born but did my degree in aerospace in America. I was lucky and got a scholarship. This is one of those topics that's a great thing for college students to go through to show them just how impractical some things are. My final year project was a cometary fly-by space craft where we spun up a shield (for stability) and released it ahead of the space craft and we flew in the protective envelope behind the shield. The idea is that you avoid all the dust storm like being under an umbrella. It was a fabulous exercise to do as a final year project. Its also utterly pointless. You see just like being under an umbrella there's the run-off except flying through the dusty tail of a comet its not water but plasma and/or highly charged/energised particles. Its because your smashing into that dust with insanely high kinetic energy. As I have said to you a couple of times I went off to the mining industry after meeting Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) back in 2002. That was because he said we'd be most likely going back to the moon to mine it for Helium-3 and I wanted mining experience. What I got from our mining industry was a gigantic reality check in fundamental infrastructure. When they build some of these mines there is actually NOTHING there. Its actually an incredible analog to the Moon or Mars. You have to build everything from scratch - the power systems, the water (clean & waste), the accommodation, workshops, storage (hardware, fuel & food). There's actually an incredible amount of stuff to build long before you even think about the hole the ground you're there for. 2 things really frustrate me these days. 1) The people who think we are about to have a permanent Moon base or go to Mars and have no clue about what it will actually take. That includes a lot of NASA people. I got hold of the entire conference output from a NASA conference a couple of years ago and out of nearly 200 pages there was all of 1-1/2 pages on maintenance and their answer was robots. Nothing was mentioned about spare parts or parts that wear or consumable items. it was stunning to see how little anyone at NASA was putting into the subject. 2) How staggeringly ignorant the politicians and economists are to the state of the developed worlds infrastructure. Especially the energy infrastructure. Its sort of why this video isn't completely crazy because its an exercise in what people need to consider. I just watched an ABC business interview with renowned economist Nouriel Roubini (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f0Fp9-2PFw) and for the first time (just before 6:00) I have seen an economist note that we have not kept up with energy infrastructure. In Australia we are very serious trouble. I found out about 6 years ago we had a bunch of very old large power stations that were rapidly ageing. I found out this is common around the world. I found out that nobody has plans to replace the old power stations once they close. Its an energy cataclysm we are marching right into. Nouriel Roubini says that Goldman Sachs have said everything not just energy but all commodities are about to go up this year. Of course they are, I did a basic economics class as an option. And if supply falls or demand rises then prices go up. Our populations have increased and with it energy demand, but we haven't invested in enough new power. That's economics 101 - demand increases and supply doesn't match it then prices GO UP. If energy goes up then everything that uses energy goes up BECAUSE EVERYTHING that's manufactured uses energy to make and everything that is transported uses energy. Its so staggeringly simple to see and yet a renowned economist who sees the problem doesn't say "we need to build power stations" he says "we need to understand the effects on the bond and equity markets." The whole Moon thing and the Mars thing is about to hit a wall, because the developed world is about to hit a wall. The worst of it is we should have seen it coming.
    1
  5179. 1
  5180. 1
  5181. 1
  5182. 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
  5183. 1
  5184. 1
  5185. 1
  5186. 1
  5187. 1
  5188. 1
  5189. 1
  5190. 1
  5191. 1
  5192. 1
  5193. 1
  5194. 1
  5195. 1
  5196. Australian here: These days YES absolutely YES. However - YOU mentioned at 19:40 the issue with virtue signalling and then immediately attached it to the "woke" arguments. 1) I deplore the people on the LEFT who hijacked the word "woke" in the first place. The word "woke" came out of African American blues music in the 1950s and until around 3 years ago it was singularly a reference to whether or not people understood (as in awake to) the ECONOMIC plight of African Americans. Then it was hijacked by a pack of Radical Leftists who as usual made a mess of public discussions with a potent combination of idiocy and ignorance. 2) I deplore the fact that people on the RIGHT have picked up the word "woke" to use as a club to bash anyone who does not comply with their views of the world on every subject. The hypocrisy of the Radical Right is so unbelievable. What ever they do is justifiable and whatever anyone else wants or does is a crime. They howl about political interference in courts and then interfere in court cases themselves. They howl about cancel culture and then cancel people. They demand they rights as they strip away the basic rights of others. So lets be clear VIRTUE signalling does not just come from the Radical Left but it also comes from the Radical Right and BOTH SIDES accuse the other of doing it while denying they do it. The reason we have these issues with Virtue Signalling is simple. The Entire media landscape from the Radical Left through the centre all the way to the Radical Right now has it its core activity VIRTUE SIGNALLING and they do nothing but use it to drive wedges between people on every issue possible. As Professor Robert McChesney said a few years ago "presenting facts doesn't make money anymore." As Scottish American Professor Mark Blyth (Brown U.) said of the Murdoch Media empire "Their product is outrage." The only thing that's unfair about Mark Blyth's statement is that it singles out the Murdoch Empire when it applies to the media landscape in general. There are very few media services commenting on political, social, and economic issues that aren't divisive virtue signallers and the human race must face the future united or it will fail.
    1
  5197. 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
  5198. I'm Australian and you can expect a blow up from here shortly over this stuff. Among the furore over the AUKUS submarine deal (which wont be going ahead as currently planned - heads up) it has been revealed that there have been a group of retired US Navy personnel hired as consultants. Some of them have been here since 2012 and have been paid as much as $8,000 per day by some reports. That's $40,000 a week. Their advice to everything has basically been distilled down to "Spend more money." Google "us navy consultants australia" The submarine project has gone from A$50 Billion to A$268 Billion with there advice. We are currently replacing our patrol boats. The last ones cost under $30 Million each the new ones are $300 million each and there are calls to increase the number on order from 12 to 18. We have another Navy project to build new frigates. There's reports that has blown out from $30 to over $45 Billion. Added to the Australian Navy former US Director of Intelligence James Clapper is here consulting on our intelligence agencies. He helped establish Australia's Office of National Intelligence. How many retired US personnel are advising our Army and Airforce is yet to be revealed. If America is doing this to Australia imagine what they are doing to people they don't like. FYI - I went to college in America. I absolutely believe that Australia's most important trading and security partner is America. BUT American's need to realise that there are Americans who DO NOT REPRESENT the best interests of YOU, ME or ANY OF US. Not only are there the military consultants there's also the corporate consultants like McKinsey, KMPG, PwC, EY,.... etc. We just caught PwC defrauding our government on a contract advising about closing tax loopholes. They were also passing on the same advice to their corporate clients (for a fee) on how to get around what they were advising the government to do. Go look up Italian British economist Mariana Mazzucato on what American consultancies are up to ACROSS THE WORLD.
    1
  5199. 1
  5200. 1
  5201. 1
  5202. 1
  5203. 1
  5204. 1
  5205. 1
  5206. 1
  5207. 1
  5208. 1
  5209. 1
  5210.  @jacobmccandles1767  Yeah but the A10 was NEVER meant to go against ANY fighter so that's a mute point. The A10 was built for 1 thing close in ground support. As far as I know they have always operated with fighter over watch. WW2 was a series of ugly lessons in fighter support. First for the Germans and then for Bomber Command and the 8th Airforce. That was one reason for developing the F117 and B2 the way they were. Get without anybody knowing you are there and get out without them even seeing where you are. From what people like Lt Col. Chip Berke has said the F35 is actually damn good at. And he's flown most of them including the F22, F16, F18 on top of the F35. Therein lies the issue with close support of ground forces. Hiding isn't an option. Who ever they are they know where your ground forces are and can see or hear what's in the sky. Somebody put it well a while back. All other pilots avoid getting hit but an A10 pilot expects to get hit. Because they do go that close to the action and do it in almost any condition including broad daylight. Go check some of the vids. Sure there's those that are all hype but there's also some really good ones that explain what it is and what it does. The USAF keeps trying to retire it and the US Army keeps say NO -Hmmm 🤔🤔 And now they are planning on all new wings for the existing fleet and then a whole brand new fleet to replace and increase the existing fleet. Look at all the places America and its allies have ground forces. Hmmm 🤔🤔
    1
  5211. 1
  5212. 1
  5213.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  On the A10 sure there are the drones and helicopters and gun ships for CAS, but nothing else has that gun. For sure that's just one aspect but what military anywhere wants their men or hardware on the wrong side of that gun. On the Pierre Sprey thing that was what Chip Berke pointed out that surprised me a lot - its the dramatic change in air-to-air. He said the very nature of air combat has fundamentally changed. Sorry about the F16 stuff but its also less relevant than most people think when you put it into the comments Chip made about avoiding unnecessary interactions. On the maneuverability Chip Berke said nothin on that and he's flown all these planes. If it was a non issue in straight open air he would have said so - I think. And by open air I mean well clear of land and other obstructions physical or visual. Nothing else meant by it - just 2 planes in open clear sky. Chip didn't really say it but implied something that I first heard way back in the 1980s that was to the tune of "if you could see it, you could hit it with a missile and destroy it." That was how they at least described what they had. There was a documentary way back then that literally concluded that a modern European War could be back to swords and shields in a matter of a weeks because the missiles would simply take out everything. What Chip alludes to with the F35 over the previous planes (except the F22) is that your chances of being seen are so low to begin with that no pilot would pick another plane for any mission (except the F22). It was those remarks that really changed my view on the F35, from being a lemon to being something a LOT more. I still have some reservations over the maintainability of the F35, but that's another subject in part based on my engineering experience.
    1
  5214. 1
  5215. 1
  5216. 1
  5217. 1
  5218. 1
  5219. BECAUSE ITS GARBAGE and GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  5220. 1
  5221. 1
  5222. 1
  5223. 1
  5224. 1
  5225. 1
  5226. 1
  5227. 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
  5228. 1
  5229. 1
  5230. 1
  5231. 1
  5232. 1
  5233. 1
  5234. 1
  5235. 1
  5236. 1
  5237. 1
  5238. 1
  5239. 1
  5240.  @lostbutfreesoul  ITS A COMBINATION OF EFFECTS. It started with baby boomer Prime Minister John Howard giving a monster tax break to investment housing. THE CLAIM was it would have a lot of his generation investing their retirement savings into housing and expanding the rental market making it easier for younger people to save up for a deposit to buy their own homes. HOWEVER they also let foreigners buy into that market because that allowed the housing developers to build massive apartment blocks. What you also have to know is that Australia's population was 19 million in 2000 and is now 27 million. We have roughly 400,000 immigrants each year. Because we also run our version of neoliberal economics we have roughly 50% of our population living bellow the line where they can ever save for a house. We shut our manufacturing down and that made this part of the equation worse. There's also a fixed number of new houses each year. We only have so many builders and they can only build so many houses. So its essentially a fixed supply market of about 40,000 houses (from what I have heard). I don't know how many new apartments are available each year but when you're importing 400,000 people each year they simply swallow that up. The whole system is complex but its basically manged to keep the housing supply limited by matching it with immigration. That keeps the values going up and up and that helps developers and banks and arguably the 3 most influential lobbies in Australia are mining, banks and housing developers. So this system is loved by 2 of those 3 groups. Donal Trumps mantra is "Drill baby drill" in Australia we have 2 mantras. "Dig baby dig" for our miners; and "Build baby build, but no too much" for our banks and developers. Sorry for the length of comment, but you asked a great question and I hope that answers it or at least covers it enough.
    1
  5241. 1
  5242. 1
  5243. 1
  5244. ENGINEER HERE - I wish I had seen this story when it first came out. What you have here is a variation of the Enron Strategy. Most people know that Enron collapsed after being caught doing various things. One of those things was market manipulation which they did by TURNING OFF power generating systems. The Enron Strategy relies on some basics of energy generation systems. 1) Most energy systems do NOT run at 100% and there's always some spare capacity in the system so that the next person to turn on a light doesn't collapse the system. So among the power supply companies there's reserve capacity and if its in a system that is already powered up and running then it costs very little to fuel that reserve capacity. So it can be very profitable to sell the reserve capacity if it can be sold. 2) There are 2 power spikes in every modern society every day. There's 1 in the morning when people wake up and start turning things on as well as business starting up and turning more things on. There's a second spike starting in the late afternoon when people start going home and turning stuff on. So if you can create a shortage of supply that's timed when people want more power not only can you sell the reserve capacity but you can sell it and any other energy you sell into the energy market AT HIGHER PRICES . Enron were caught DELIBERATELY TURNING OFF power generators claiming it was just faults and failures. That caused the energy markets to spike and Enron profited by sell energy at much higher profit margins. Its called market manipulation and its illegal and Enron got caught.
    1
  5245. 1
  5246.  @AMortalDefiant  Australia is 1/13th the population of America, but unfortunately we have a coal industry that's incredibly powerful. I think it was in 2018 or 2019 China installed in a single year more wind & solar then America had in its entire history. So America is not only behind its being surpassed. I'm an engineer and the real problem with nuclear is the actual reactor technology used. There was an alternative technology developed in the late 1960s called "Molten Salt Reactors" (MSRs). MSRs use salt instead of water to transfer the heat. At around 600C salt is just a liquid that flows like water while water flash boils. The problem with water reactors is they containment technology which if it fails you get Fukushima or Chernobyl or worse. But MSRs lost out the same way Betamax lost to VHS in that it was the second technology developed and those who owned the patents on the first won. This tech was reviewed as part of a NASA study into powering a moon base. Since then its gone further and instead of using Uranium they can now use Thorium it just works better in an MSR and is much easier to process into useable fuel. Uranium is a pain in the ass to purify into a useable fuel. I have worked in the Australian Uranium industry (on the mining side) and as part of that went through the ANSTO induction which covers the Uranium fuel cycle form in the ground to back in the ground and all the in between steps. And yes the Iranians do have a weapons program but that's another issue. On the Wind Solar front up to a certain point they are now way better than coal, hydro or anything else in terms of investment. If you think in terms of building a gigawatt of coal/nuclear/hydro you have to spend years building the thing. As an investment you get zero return until its 100% complete. But if you are going to do a gigawatt of solar or wind you are starting to get a return almost immediately. As soon as you connect the first solar panel or wind turbine to the grid you can make money. You don't have to wait until its all built. So in terms of an investment solar and wind annihilate the competition up to a point. At around 80% it begins to hit a problem. There's only so many places the wind blows reliably or the sun shines reliably and they start getting farther and farther away from the grid they need to supply. In Australia our best solar is in the middle of the country where its bright sun 360 days of the year. You get maybe 4 or 5 days when its not as bright. But there's 2 issues. First Solar panels are less efficient when they get hot and central Australia is very hot. Second its a long way from any of our population which means very expensive power lines. For wind our southern coastline (along the Great Australia Bight) is the best place in the world for wind. Its directly exposed to the southern ocean and its mostly a 50m cliff so the turbines are already high above sea level. BUT it so far off grid it also needs a very expensive connection. There rest of the world faces similar issues. The best place for Europe to get solar power from is North Africa. The Sahara is a solar gold mine except for getting the power into Europe. Yes I know about Hydrogen as an energy medium but Hydrogen has its own set of handling issues most of all it likes to explode rather than burn and when it does burn its pretty violent.
    1
  5247. 1
  5248. 1
  5249. 1
  5250. 1
  5251. That's actually their purpose. If you go back to Reagans infamous "Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." This is the sort of shitfuckery that Libertarians just love, because they claim it proves their point when in fact THEY are the sort of people THAT ARE the reason why government is the problem. Just hours after this vid was posted there's another one about an Ayn Rand clown named Norton who called in to debate Sam. Among the top comments was "The only thing I find interesting about Libertarians is trying to guess how long it will take before they completely contradict themselves. The over/under is usually 5 minutes." Look at Milton Friedmans comment on minimalist government (see below) and note the second part on the economy because if Friedman's advice had been taken by Reagan and Thatcher then they would never have rearranged their economies. Reaganomics and Thatcherism would never have existed because both are examples of a government rearranging their economies. This is the destructive stupidity of people like Matt Gaetz. They deliberately interfere and cause problems with government to prove that government is the problem. Plus note Friedman's point on legislating morality which is EXACTLY what the GOP tries to do. Its mindless. Milton Friedman said, "Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player."
    1
  5252. 1
  5253. 1
  5254. 1
  5255. 1
  5256.  @aylbdrmadison1051  I don't what you replied to but you are on a very interesting point in that American politics are all to the right of the political spectrum when compared to any other part of the Western Democratic World. I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s. I tried explaining back then that America had a right wing party and a far right wing party and they just don't get it. The concept of left wing political parties doesn't exist in America and never really did. Both the Democrats and Republicans are founded on right wing principals and ideologies. Most people forget that Lincoln (who freed the slaves) was a Republican and at that time the Democrats were the far right racist radicals who eventually produced the KKK. Its only been since WW2 that the Republicans shifted more to the right and the Democrats became more moderate. The Republicans (particularly under Reagan) aligned themselves with the Southern Evangelists and haven't stopped driving that as a way to win elections. The Dems aligned themselves with the unions during the "New Deal" era but never became anything like the Labour parties of Britain, Australia, Canada,... etc. The problem is that so few Americans spend anytime outside America long enough to get a better perspective. Being honest the years I spent in America were the best eye opener I could have gotten on where Australia lies politically. It gave me an alternative perspective to experience and see how others saw my country and where it sits politically in the world.
    1
  5257. 1
  5258. 1
  5259. 1
  5260. 1
  5261. 1
  5262. 1
  5263. 1
  5264. 1
  5265. 1
  5266. 1
  5267. 1
  5268. 1
  5269.  @clairewright332  Simple answer is "Not really" Its Left of the Libertarian view but America basically does NOT know what a real Left is in the first place because both your major parties are fundamentally to the political Right. America never had a union based political party like British Labor or Australian Labor. American has the Democrats who started in the South and were so far to the Right the Klu Klux Klan was formed out of them. The Republicans under Lincoln freed the slaves while the modern Republicans would re-introduce slavery in a heartbeat. Obama famously admitted his economics were in line with Ronald Reagan's. America doesn't have Left and Right it has Right and Far Right. Don't panic in Australia right now we refer to our parties as SHlT (Lib Nat Coalition) and SHlT LITE (Australian Labor). BUT what America does have that's similar to everywhere else is they have to political sides that basically see each other as the nations greatest threat. A couple of years ago there was a comment attributed to Johnathon Haidt that basically went "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." I think that's essentially true in almost every developed nation right now. Each side just screams at each other and its exhausted the rest of us. Its very true in Australia and from what I can see Britain, New Zealand and Canada as well. Every public debate is framed in the context of "Its their fault because they are terrible and a threat to our way of life, our freedoms and our basic rights." You often hear lines like "We have to take our country back!" I even heard that from One of the New Zealand politicians recently and their politics is usually tame compared to ours. Fueling it all is a media (all of them) that's totally (and often fanatically) obsessed with attention. They will do anything to get their audience's attention and then lock it down with the right social media tags. AND IF a story isn't burning bright enough they will throw rocket fuel at it until it does. AND IF it causes both sides to be outraged at scream even louder at each other they see that as an invitation to throw even more rocket fuel at it.
    1
  5270. ​ @kindGSL  I largely agree except that what you are doing is EXACTLY what so many other Americans do. You believe that America cannot fall and yet it almost did on January 6th. You had a President totally out of control and NOBODY willing to reign him in. That's as dangerous as it gets. I agree 100% it will be very hard to break America but you can break anything if you really want to. Since then American has utterly FAILED to deal with him and this is part of an ongoing issue with America NOT holding its top echelon accountable. Nobody at the top was held accountable for the invasion of Iraq. Nobody at the top was held accountable for the prisoner abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB. Nobody at the top was held accountable for the 2007/08 GFC. On that there's a PBS Frontline on it where Lanny Breuer (Eric Holder's Deputy) says straight to the camera they chose NOT to pursue charges against the Wall St CEO's for economic reasons. Mitch McConnell could have simply said "NO, this is too much." and simply impeached Trump after January 6th and disqualified him from future office. I went to college In America and had these sorts of discussions 30+ years ago. I've heard all about the systems of "Checks & Balances" that would never fail and allow someone like Trump to do what he did. What NOBODY has grasped is that we are NOT living in the 80s or 90s when these systems still worked. Reagan was held accountable for Iran-Contra. I was in college in America as that went on. Bill Clinton lied about getting blown and was held accountable. Then 9/11 changed everything and ever since America's systems have slowly been broken. Back in the 80s or 90s if anyone had told an American that in their lifetime they'd see an enraged mob storm the capital chanting "Hang the Vice President!" they would have called you crazy and yet that happened and NONE of the instigators have been held accountable. If you had told anyone back in the 80s or 90s that half of Oregon wanted to split away and join Idaho they would have called you crazy but that is happening right now. American's are always talking about the "slippery slope." Well News Flash you are already on that slippery slope and sliding. The only question is how far will you slide before you wake up. And so we are totally fair Australia is doing the same sorts of stupid things and its mostly because we have had a lot of people go to places like Harvard and Yale and they wave their degrees in our faces AS PROOF of their irrefutable expertise. We have stuff going on here RIGHT NOW that could easily break our nation. Societies are fragile things and can break if you aren't careful.
    1
  5271. 1
  5272. TEACHING INUDSTRIAL ROBOTS: 2 of the most common tasks industrial robots do are welding and pick & place. Welding is mostly a matter of following the joint line between 2 pieces of metal. Pick and place is our term for tasks like stacking boxes on a pallet as in we pick something up and place it down which is a very common task in robotics. For all the robot guys out there. This isn't for you this is for all the non-robot programmers so things are more phonetic than code. Imagine we have a robot and has a gripper that closes to grab hold of a part and opens the let that part go and we want it to pick that part up from Point A place and put it down at Point B. To do the most basic pick and place we have to get the robot to know at least 3 points. There's the pick position (Point A), the place position (Point B) as well as a home position which we'll call PHome where its out of the road of everything else . Now to make a robot work we don't just tell it to go to a position because it will (in general) take the fastest path which might not be a straight line. Robots aren't that smart and will simply crash into or through whatever is in the road. Even the best anti-collision software (like airbags) only limits the damage. So we never just tell the robot to go to the safe position. In most cases we tell it to go vertically up to get clear of everything so it can then go directly to the home position without hitting anything. So we end up with a list if commands that looks a bit like this except its all phonetic rather than in code. 1-move (current location + home position height) 2-move (home position) 3-wait for a go signal. 4-move (pick position + vertical clearance) 5-move (pick position) 6-pick part (as in close the gripper) 7-move (pick position + vertical clearance) 8-move (place position + vertical clearance) 9-move (place position) 10-place part (as in open the gripper) 11-goto step 1 NOW TO MAKE IT WORK we have to TEACH the robot those 3 points and this is where the word tech has a completely different meaning to how normal people use the word teach. We take the hand control pendant and MANUALLY DRIVE the robot from point to point and when we get to the location we want with the right orientation we will go into the right menu on the pendant and RECORD that location and save it to memory. We don't stand there and tell it something. It doesn't have a camera and a brain to work it out. We have to MANUALLY drive it to the right location and record that location. Things like vertical clearances we'll work out along the way and just put them in as distances from the location. As things get more complex we have to go around things we just "teach" more points for the robot to go to or go through. We don't just move-stop-move-stop we'll also move-go through the next point, then through the next point,........ and onto the final point. For really complex paths which we get with things like welding and gluing we'll do the programing on a cad system then go out to the robot and "teach" it some reference points and then link the complex paths to those reference points. When we "teach" a robot we don't talk to it we don't read stories to it. We drive it to a location and record that location. Once it starts going it will simply crash into or go through whatever is in the road. The only comment in movies or TV I ever saw was a comment in the film the "Terminator" when he said it does not think and can't be reasoned with it just has its program and will do it. This is why we encase them in gages with interlocked gates for normal operation.
    1
  5273. AUTOMATION SYSTEMS and LEARNING This is again another word we use in engineering that maybe we shouldn't because in engineering its nothing like what learning is for humans. The most common place in my work where we see this is in what we call closed loop control which is where we use some kind of sensor to loop back into the control system. The alternative to closed loop is open loop and we use the basic data of a system to estimate what's needed. Its simpler and suitable where accuracy isn't required. But where you need accuracy you have a sensor feeding back data. If you draw a diagram of this it has what looks like a loop - hence the term closed loop. Between the sensor and what ever you are controlling which could be the speed of a pump or the position of a control valve there will be some kind of algorithm and that algorithm will have parameters that need setting up. At the most basic level we call setting up algorithms "tuning" as in we are tuning the algorithm. More complex systems have statistical data analysis algorithms constantly refine the system over time. In essence these systems are LEARNING how to do the job better and better over time BUT THEY ARE NOT learning like a human being does. They just collect data and use statistical analysis (or similar) to refine the parameters. I once installed an oven on a process line. When we first set it up, its controller would take about 45 minutes to heat the up the oven and settle the temperature down before production could start. Over the first 9 months (or so) it collected enough data from each days start up to refine its parameters and got that 45 minutes down to around 15 minutes giving them about an extra 1/2 hour each day of production. The controller did that without any human involvement at all. To a non-engineer these days it might sound like we installed an AI on that oven - WE DIDN'T. As I said it was just a data analysis package. In past generations they'd usually task a young engineer to collect data over several months and do all that analysis by hand as a character building exercise. If you listen to what people are saying about systems like ChatGPT its not that much different except the data its analysing is NOT something as basic as a temperature or pressure sensor its analysing a massive amount of written information. But they do a similar thing in that they effectively average out all the data which is why some people are calling them stochastic parrots. The danger is assuming the stochastic parrot was trained on good data because just like having a faulty sensor causes problems so does a faulty data set for teaching a language AI like ChatGPT.
    1
  5274. 1
  5275. 1
  5276. 1
  5277. 1
  5278. 1
  5279. 1
  5280. HEY ROBERT THERE IS A GRAPH SHOWING FAMILY WEALTH Google "congressional budget office family wealth" The very first item should be a link to the report Bernie Sanders commissioned. That report covers the years 1989 to 2019 is an update of an earlier report that only went up to 2013. If you go to the governments web page the report and an Xcel spreadsheet with all the data for all the graphs is downloadable. The very first graph from that report has had almost zero coverage by ANYONE. Richard Wolff commented on the report when it first came out. Politico ran a story about it MONTHS later and Kyle Kulinski dis a short video on the politico report. I have NOT heard anyone including Bernie Sanders make any noise regarding this report and that is an Indictment on all of you. That FIRST graph shows the family wealth of the Top 10%, Middle 40% and Bottom 10% of America from 1989 to 2019. It shows that over those 30 years how the actual wealth of the Bottom 50% has FALLEN because the actual value has barely changed while the number of people it represents has grown. Even better is when you compare the data for 2010 to 2007 versus 2019 to 2007 because that shows the effect of the GFC and the recovery afterwards. Correcting for population this is what's happened. The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of the wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were UP 21.7% on their 2007 wealth. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of the wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were UP 4.6% on their 2007 wealth. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of the wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL DOWN 21.8% on their 2007 wealth. So the people who caused the GFC and were bailed out with $4 Trillion from bush and another $4 Trillion from Obama and got $3.5 Trillion in tax breaks from Trump collectively were $30 Trillion better off by 2019 than they were in 2007. Meanwhile the People who did NOT cause the GFC but were hit hardest by it had by 2019 NOT RECOVERED. Plus since this is the congressional budget office data, which is basically irrefutable. I will dispute the claim by Heather that the Bottom 50% have combined wealth of $3.5 Trillion because that would mean they have suddenly gained $1.2 Trillion in wealth since 2019 when the CBO said they were worth $2.3 Trillion and that's just 5 years and in that time COVID happened. FYI - I am an Australian Engineer and it should NOT be an engineer let alone one form the other side of the planet point this out to you or any other American. My interest in Economics is in Energy Economics which came form a small consulting job/task I did in 2016 about Australia's energy future which is a disaster in progress and a disaster that's being repeated around the world and a disaster CAUSED BY ECONOMISTS. If you want to know about that let me know.
    1
  5281. 1
  5282. 1
  5283. 1
  5284. 1
  5285. 1
  5286. 1
  5287. 1
  5288. 1
  5289. 1
  5290. 1
  5291. 1
  5292. 1
  5293. 1
  5294. 1
  5295. 1
  5296. This is a great factual report, BUT it needs a follow up on "How to make Tree Planting Work" because we have to make it work. I'm an aerospace engineer and as an under graduate we once had a guest lecturer from NASA talk to us about Terraforming Mars. He broke our hearts with "Sorry but its impossible!" and then explained why. He introduced us to 2 subjects that I now call "Planetary Mechanics" and "Planetary Dynamics". Planetary Mechanics is when you just calculate the basics of what's needed. Planetary Dynamics is how you make it all work and includes things like water, oxygen and nitrogen cycles. When you look at Mars and ask something like how much air would we need to cover mars in a 1km thick layer of Earth Standard Air. It turns out to be 178 Trillion tons. So even before you start asking lots of other questions you have to ask where are you going to get 178 Trillion tons of air? Now applying that to the Earth and our problem of having too much Carbon Dioxide. If you do a simple estimate the 1st kilometer above the Earths surface is approximately 500 Million Cubic Kilometers of air and we need to reduce the CO2 level by about 30% (415ppm down to under 300ppm). The basic questions form that are: 1) How do you process 1/2 a billion cubic kilometers of air to extract slightly more than 1/4 of less than 1% of that air? 2) How much energy is it going to take to build all the hardware needed and then power that hardware? Let me introduce you to the cheapest carbon extraction and sequestration pump there is - A TREE. Trees are low maintenance solar powered carbon extraction and sequestration pumps. The problem is the size of the task because we need every human on the planet to plant or have planted in their name 1,000 trees. Yes 8 Billion people need to plant about 8 Trillion trees and then look after them and let them clean up the mess we have made. To make it work as this video says we need to THINK and plant the right trees in the right places for the right reasons. So that a reasonable percentage of them grow to maturity and suck out the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It can't just be endless groves of the same stuff. It has to have bio diversity.
    1
  5297. 1
  5298. 1
  5299. 1
  5300. 1
  5301. 1
  5302. 1
  5303. 1
  5304. 1
  5305. 1
  5306. 1
  5307. 1
  5308. Answers below Just in case you thought I was being facetious. 1) There's a very thin film of plastic. What's odd about the process is that for a plastic process its done at much higher temperature than injection molding so that it sticks to the paper/cardboard. Normally polyethylene and polyethylene/polypropylene mixes are moulded at 160-180℃ while for paper coating its 300-320 2) Because reflectors have to deal with heat from the light bulbs they were traditionally made from thermoset plastics which look and feel a bit like bread dough. Its pushed into the die where it is HEATED then cooled. The shiny surface is created by first spraying the front side in a lacquer that's UV cured and then under vacuum has a layer of Aluminum about 50-200 atoms thick embedded in the lacquer. Its the lacquer that makes one side shiny and the other dull grey. 3) Copper like many metals is first extracted from the ore using acid leaching. Aluminum does not dissolve from the bauxite using acids and it is instead done with caustic at temperature and pressure. The process is known as the Bayer Process and yes it was by a member of the Bayer family now famous for pharmaceuticals. 4) Copper unlike most metals work hardens as you bend and flex it so it need to be softened through the opposite process to the quench hardening you see on the sword & knife channels. It differs from tempering. Annealing unlike tempering aims to make the metal as soft as practical while tempering aims to specifically keep some hardness while reducing brittleness. To see examples of these processes I recommend watching the sword & knife channels for hardening and tempering and the hobbyist channels making things like model steam engines for annealing. the channel Blondihacks is currently building a model steam engine made from copper. 5) I'd expect that any mechanical engineer knows the difference between a lathe and a mill. Look at what is rotating in the main spindle. A lathe has the part held to the spindle and rotates while the tool is moved in 2 or more axis to shape the part. A mill has the tool mounted in the spindle and it rotates while the part is held to the table and moved around in 2 or more axis to make the part. Where it gets confusing is that it is possible to use a mill as a lathe and a lathe as a mill.
    1
  5309. 1
  5310. 1
  5311. 1
  5312. 1
  5313. 1
  5314. 1
  5315. 1
  5316. 1
  5317. 1
  5318. 1
  5319. 1
  5320. 1
  5321. 1
  5322. 1
  5323. 1
  5324. 1
  5325. 1
  5326. 1
  5327. 1
  5328. 1
  5329. 1
  5330. 1
  5331. 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
  5332. 1
  5333. 1
  5334. 1
  5335. 1
  5336. 1
  5337. 1
  5338. 1
  5339. 1
  5340. 1
  5341. 1
  5342. ​ @benfaunce7496  Fair call. There's actually a couple of interesting things about this interview that's not being discussed. 1 - is the fact that here's professor Chemerinsky lamenting originalism and the federalist Society and yet on the Staff of the UC Berkley law school is John Yoo the infamous member of the Bush Administration who wrote the infamous "Torture Memo" that lead to all sorts of problems. John Yoo should be in prison not be a tenured law professor teaching anything. 2 - is the problem of ideologists taking their ideology too far. A couple of years ago I heard Jordan Peterson (when he still had brain function) describe how they know when people go too far on the Right (they get racist) but there's no clear indicator when someone on the Left goes too far. I think he was 1/2 right and 1/2 moronically wrong. At the fundamental level people have gone too far when they let an ideology dictate what's real rather than facts. We see this all the time with both Leftists and Right wingers. Its even with centrists who are so into appeasing BOTH sides that they never get anything done out of fear of upsetting someone. Look at all the Lefties who scream about capitalism these days. Emma Vigeland being an example of this who repeatedly say "Capitalism is the problem." She like many others forget the utter misery of what happened in Eastern Europe when socialism and communism were let run rampant. I find it amazing that the Green parties around the world are on the Left when some of the greatest environmental catastrophes were done by socialists and communists. There were no capitalists involved with the destruction of the Aral Sea or the destruction of the Chinese water ways. Which capitalist built all those coal fired power stations in China or ran their mines so badly they burned as much coal in the mines as they did in the power stations? Whenever we let ideologists go too far we are always in trouble its just a matter of what it takes to clean up afterwards.
    1
  5343.  @benfaunce7496  I saw your comment about not being able to agree to progressive ideas and be a republican. I see your point but if you look at what the basics of what progressive, conservative or regressive mean than its easily possible to be a republican and be progressive and just as easy to be a democrat and be conservative. I'm an engineer so I tend to take some of these ideas at a very straight forward definition unlike poly-sci, sociologists and economists take these things and word salad them. To me a progressive wants to see progress, a conservative doesn't want change and a regressive wants to go back to some past state. As such I don't see a lot of conservatives as conservative but as regressive in that they want to go back to some 1950s "Happy Days" TV fantasy that never really existed. I see the word progressive as people who want to see the human race make progress IRRESPECTIVE of the social, technical or political issue. Although that mostly means they lean Left it does not exclude them being right leaning on issues like economics and industry. There's not many right leaning progressives but they do exist. Saagar over on Breaking points is one I know of. His buddy Marshall who does the Realignment is another. In an interview on Krystal Kyle and Friends, Jesse Ventura described himself as Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative. So he could be described as a right leaning progressive. I'll grant you any day that Right leaning progressives are rare but I do think they exist, but I'd also agree that I doubt many would vote Republican at this moment in time. That doesn't mean they haven't in the past. I'd also add to that I think its impossible to be a socialist and be progressive because at its core socialism with its "nobody owns anything and money doesn't exist" mentality is so close to ancient feudalism its scary. Probably the weirdest thing I see in all these ideologies is THEY ALL BELIEVE in some version of an impossible utopian fantasy that never existed but they all claim is easily attainable if we only do A, B, C,...
    1
  5344. 1
  5345. 1
  5346. 1
  5347.  @piccalillipit9211  Shame - see if you can pick it up with a VPN. I'll try and give you a brief synopsis. There's a huge issue with the top 1% of humanity NOT paying any tax. At the same time the top 1% are squeezing the middle class harder and harder with increases in living costs while keeping wages frozen. That lack of tax income is also preventing many nations from using their institutions to lift their people out of poverty. At the center of the world's tax evasion industry is the City of London. Way back in 1066 when William the Conqueror invaded he stopped at London. A treaty was negotiated. the City of London surrendered but was allowed to conduct trade however it saw fit separate from the rest of England. That treaty is still in effect 900 years later. The actual City of London is 1 square mile delineated by the old walls from 1066. Under that 900 year old treaty the bankers in London get to decide where the business they are doing is regarded as having taken place. Its like the whole place is some magic black hole. They give an example of bananas grown in Guatemala and sold to America and Europe. The Trader in the City of London remotely accesses a computer in the Caymans to buy bananas very cheaply from farmers in Guatemala and then sells them at a massive profit to consumers in America and Europe. Nobody is actually in the Caymans. There's just a computer, but because of the treaty they can claim that the trade is done in the Cayman's which means the company making the profit pays NO TAX because their profit was made in the Cayman's not in London or in Guatemala. So the Guatemalans get little for their bananas and NO TAX from the actual deal. The British people get no tax either because according to the treaty no money was made in Britain. Even the trader who never left Britain can avoid tax because his work is regarded as having taken place in the Cayman's. There are 4 major hubs for this from of tax evasion (or avoidance as they call it) Switzerland, Singapore, Bermuda and the Cayman's. So Britain has influence over 1 (Singapore) and 100% control over 2 more. BUT it also has 100% control of another dozen or so island states across the world. This is why despite all the noise about the Panama Papers, Paradise papers and Pandor Papers went nowhere, because no laws were actually broken. With tax laws for international trade there's legal, illegal and a grey zone in between. That grey zone is the tax havens around the world controlled through the magic black hole that is the City of London. This is why Konstantin is so totally wrong about Britain having no ability to affect what happens with climate change. These countries are poor and will remain poor because the City of London keeps them poor by tax evasion or avoidance as they call it. The documentary says it all so much better.
    1
  5348. 1
  5349. 1
  5350. 1
  5351. 1
  5352. 1
  5353. 1
  5354. 1
  5355. 1
  5356. 1
  5357. 1
  5358. 1
  5359. 1
  5360. 1
  5361. 1
  5362. 1
  5363. 1
  5364. 1
  5365. 1
  5366. 1
  5367. 1
  5368. 1
  5369.  @djknox2  Bottom line is Dj they aren't correct and a lot of us are fed up having to repeat the same evidence again and again. Here's the data from NOAA that actually counts along with the NASA page on this: NOAA: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ I'm an aerospace engineer not a climate scientist. These days I work in control systems which are the computers that run processing plants, factories and mine sites. Part of my job is setting up the alarms so that operators are alerted when something isn't right. Just like the little warning lights in your car. I can tell you for a fact that if this was any sort of industrial plant we would have already shut down about 70 or more years ago because it was so far outside normal. To give that perspective how far CO2 is out of normal its like running the 100m in about 7seconds flat. Can you imagine of somebody just appeared and ran that fast. Would everybody stand back and applaud or would they start demanding drug tests? Imagine if one of the Formula 1 teams was suddenly 20-30seconds faster than everyone else. Do you really think the other teams would just go "wow" or do you think they would be screaming for the stewards to inspect the car? Well that's what people like Patrick Moore are asking us to all do. They are asking us to ignore the data and ignore all the other scientists and ignore the extraordinary state the planet is in and just accept what they say.
    1
  5370. 1
  5371. 1
  5372. 1
  5373. 1
  5374. 1
  5375. 1
  5376. 1
  5377. 1
  5378. 1
  5379. 1
  5380. 1
  5381. 1
  5382. 1
  5383. 1
  5384. 1
  5385. 1
  5386. 1
  5387. 1
  5388. 1
  5389. 1
  5390. 1
  5391. 1
  5392. 1
  5393.  @xelakram  To be clear one of the things I point out is that what people call things and what nations practice are usually not the same thing. Did you know that the old East Germany and the North Korea both call themselves "Democratic Republics." East Germany never held a single election as did NK. Plus Since NK started passing the leadership via inheritance its actually became an absolute monarchy. Its really important thing to no confuse labels with reality. The problem with any of these political systems isn't what they espouse, its that ALL of them can be bastardized into something they aren't. Did you know the Russian Communists used to have elections? Then one day they voted Stalin out so he and his buddies purged the Party. I recently watched/listened to Prof. Wolff's series on Marx (the man) and was fascinated to find out that more than anything he was an economist. Here's part 1 of that -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srx5kXts1Jg All communism was meant to be was collective ownership of some things like a tractor, or bus or factory. At its most basic publicly listed companies whose shares (not stocks or goods) are traded is a form of democratic communism. Because its your democratic right to be part of or not part of a COLLECTIVELY owned entity. The crap the Soviets and others practiced where they literally banned private ownership wasn't communism it was just a pack of criminal thugs taking everything they could. Similarly socialism at its most basic level is nothing more than communities deciding to do things together. Socialism comes from the world social and being sociable means doing things together. So when we collectively pay for schools, police and other services its actually socialism in practice. Go back 500 years and the local police didn't exist, but the kings army did. Its 1 reason why America has the 2nd Amendment. All this talk that socialists want to take all your stuff and control what medical care you get is just garbage. Capitalism is no different - what it is supposed to be and deliver for a society isn't the reality we see. Every person in Western society should have a job, a career, be able to buy a house, afford to raise a family and yet that's not what we see for millions. Instead we have seen the greatest transfer of wealth in human history and entire chunks of society exist in financial servitude via credit. Its worse than when the kings and emperors simply took everything at least then you could see what they were doing. As a teenager in high school I studied both Animal farm and then 1984 (by Orwell). By the end of that all we wanted to do was kill every socialist and communist on the planet. Both my parents were high school teachers and my mum one day sat me down and we went over this stuff. She got me to understand the problem isn't ever what the ideology preaches or claims its what the preachers practice and do to the rest of us that matters.
    1
  5394.  @xelakram  Well for starters you replied back to me with the incredibly standard American response of "socialism bad" line. Your words -> I have no time for communism or real socialism either. If you actually studied politics then you should have known that's in incredibly simplistic and inaccurate line. If you actually had any grasp of places like East Germany you'd know that their version of what they called socialism wasn't actually socialism - it was straight forward totalitarianism. Stalin also labelled himself as a socialist, which might have been the worst label in history except for Hitler doing the same. If you want to criticize states people who want to advocate a pure communist or pure socialist system then go after them for the fact those systems are easily hijacked into totalitarian nightmares. At least with capitalism and plutocracies they don't hide the fact its about money and power. That's the point with these sorts of labels and why way too many people these days ignorantly throw them around. I did engineering and this stuff interests me because my brain is wired for wanting to understand the faults in systems so they can be fixed. One of the biggest issues these days is people throwing words and labels around. Your right on one thing America should be described as a geriatric plutocracy. Mark Blyth recently pointed out he incredible age of some of Biden's cabinet like John Kerry. My preferred description has been "bi-partisan oligarchy," because there are 2 distinct partisan groups ruled over by oligarchs. That comes from being an engineer and considering functionality. But for a single word plutocracy is probably a better description because oligarchies are more often associated with tyrannical oppression, where as plutocracies are more to do with wealth control.
    1
  5395. 1
  5396. 1
  5397.  @xelakram  Yeah - what you just wrote is word for word what Australia has done and the baby boomers have made like bandits while the rest got fukt. If you watch Mark Blyth's stuff they all bought houses and got to write the interest off against inflation. There's a really important intergenerational cut off with those born between 1960 and 1965 (I'm a 64 my brother is a 61). Because he went to work not college he was able to save and make that 1st deposit on a house in his mid 20s. I graduated into the end of the cold war, my degree lost value then Australia had the "recession it had to have" under the stewardship of then treasurer Paul Keating (a NEW Labour acolyte - a white collar leftist). So I never go those initial few years to save enough for that 1st deposit and only bought my 1st property in the very late 1990s and even then it was only an apartment not a house. Plus if you consider Mark Blyth's work my age group never got any real wage growth at any time in our entire working lives. That group just ahead of us did for a short time and it allowed them that first asset to grow from. Yes it didn't grow like our parents but it did grow Paul Keating installed the Superannuation scheme that many have derided but it created a secondary saving system that operated just like the American hedge funds. The incredible downsides to that system is its contributed to wage stagnation because it was the employers who paid that money. Its called superannuation and instead of hedge funds Australia is dominated by "super-funds." The fund managers of those super-funds have NEVER looked after the funds under management because we were never the share holders we were the cash supply. Its been an incredible boost to our stock market because by law those super-funds have to by law invest in the ASX top 200. Its become a big thing in investor circles - if you go public with any company its hyper important you get into the ASX-200 because the moment you do super-fund managers BY LAW have to start buying your shares as they dump the shares of the company that just dropped out of the ASX-200. Because by law they have to spread those investments across the ASX-200 they can't hedge in just the top 50 or 20 or 10. So for the investor class (mostly boomers) they got a double whammy bonus - on top of their asset growth which was that boost to their share portfolios that none of the following generations have generally had. But better than a double whammy was the triple whammy many could take advantage of. To support our building and construction industry those who can invest in housing were given huge tax incentives. They could take advantage of with negative gearing. Houses take wear and tear so they can right of those costs as well. So even though the following generations struggled to buy a house the baby boomers got to invest and buy houses for them that they then charged rent on. Basically our entire economic system is geared towards those with an asset base and excess cash - i.e. the Boomers and those few who found ways to make enough to move forward. And there are several industries where you can get ahead. But we have massive blocks of our society who are trapped. Its our version of Reaganomics and Thatcherism.
    1
  5398. 1
  5399. 1
  5400. 1
  5401. 1
  5402. 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
  5403. 1
  5404. 1
  5405. 1
  5406. 1
  5407. 1
  5408. 1
  5409. 1
  5410. 1
  5411. 1
  5412. 1
  5413. 1
  5414. 1
  5415. 1
  5416. 1
  5417. 1
  5418. 1
  5419. ​ @blacklion8208  Sorry buddy but you are ONLY HALF RIGHT. You are spot on that the Russians have a problem with their own mentality, but as many others have explained that's come from generations learning to survive Russian Winters. That's forced them to always put the group first and individuals second. Its sort of why it was easy for them to adopt Marxism. America from its foundation put the individual first and the group second. Its right there in the preamble and the Bill of Rights and its created 2 very similar groups American Liberals and America Libertarians. Go and watch John Mearsheimer if you want both explained. FIRST - I do not like John Mearsheimer. In one respect he's just another University of Chicago goon who promotes a pretty ugly ideology called "Offensive Realism." Its the complicated way of describing American Libertarians who believe that all people are selfish and if you don't allow them what they want then they will take it anyway. That's the Milton Friedman "Greed is Good" crowd. On the other hand Mearsheimer's critique of American Liberals (the other side of American ideology) is better than anyone else on the planet. Mearsheimer points out and this is the part where you are HALF WRONG its hardwired into American Liberals that any country NOT having (in their view) a functioning liberal democracy then they must go in there and re-wire that country into a liberal democracy. Those are the idiots who thought they could convert Afghanistan and Iraq into liberal democracies overnight. American Liberals were also the people (including many economists) who went into the post-Soviet Eastern Block and proceeded to re-wire them. In some cases its helped and in others its been disastrous. For Russia its been disastrous as they convinced the Russians to privatise everything at a time when they were NOT READY for it. That allowed those who understood Capitalism (like the KGB officers who served in Western Countries) to take advantage. American Libertarians are the ones who SNEAK into countries find the most narcissistic mongrel they can to take over (by force if necessary) so that they can plunder that nations resources. Those are the people who went into countries like Chile and Iran (before the Revolution) and support various dictators. Sorry buddy but BOTH SIDES of America politics can't keep their noses out of other countries. Its just that 1 of those sides is misguided and the other are ruthless narcissists.
    1
  5420. 1
  5421. 1
  5422. 1
  5423. 1
  5424. 1
  5425. 1
  5426. 1
  5427.  @sergeikhripun  Your not wrong on any of that, except I wouldn't put Pakman in the same level of deceit as CNN & MSNBC. He at least tries with limited resources to stay factual, but could do better at times. The RussiaGate thing was so stupidly done because NONE of them every asked what were the Russian really up to. There were some Russian born American commentators in 2017/18 trying to tell the world they they had the whole thing wrong. These are people who are native Russian speakers and know the culture. One of them Masha Gessen was interviewed on Australian TV and Masha gave the best explanation I saw anyone give. Its long explanation but the conclusion was that Putin expected Clinton would win (no matter what anyone did) and he was trying to set up Clinton (like a chess game) was Clinton versus GOP civil war in Washington. What the Putin missed was that Clinton would do some stupid things like snub Michigan. That's why the whole RussiaGate was stupid. Clinton lost because she was arrogant and did dumb things like snub Michigan. Right now its happening again. CNN, MSNBC, BBC, DW, France24 and others are being stupid with some of the people they have on. But there are some like Konstantin Kisin who's a Russian born Brit who've been trying to tell everyone how they misjudged Putin and the whole Ukrainian thing. He co-hosts the Triggernometry channel here on YT. There's a vid there where he's on a BBC discussion panel you should go watch. He basically tells a few people to WTFU If you can't find it let me know.
    1
  5428. 1
  5429. 1
  5430. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s) and it DID NOT surprise me Trump won. Anyone with a basic understanding of Americans could see it coming and plenty of people saw it happening. Sorry it this takes explaining. FIRST - Trump won because people were fed up with the status quo and voting for Trump was a way to stick it to BOTH the GOP and DNC. People FORGET he steam rolled 16 GOP stalwarts including a several favorite sons like Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz. That sort of election protest happens all over the world. Brexit was essentially a protest against the influence of Brussels, the French and the Germans. The Brits felt that since they rescued Europe (including the French) from the Germans then they should run Europe. They didn't like the answer and eventually protested with Brexit. Now the Europeans are making them pay for it. ON TRUMP BEATING HILARY 1) Prof. Mark Blyth at Brown U. predicted it because he could see the backlash against the globalisation that Hilary represented. Remember it was Bill Clinton who gave them NAFTA. 2) Rana Foroohar predicted it after the first debate, because when Trump threw the NAFTA & globalisation line at Hilary and she had no response. 3) I thought Hilary lost when she announced that she wasn't going to campaign in Michigan BECAUSE THEY'D VOTE FOR HER ANYWAY. I went to college at U. Illinois and knew that sort of arrogance was going to lose her the rust belt. They'd been been smacked again and again by globalisation. Go look at past presidential elections. Biden won Michigan and Penn Obama won all 3 twice Kerry won Michigan and Penn Gore won Michigan and Penn Bill Clinton won all 3 twice. You have to go back to Dukakis in 1988 to find a Dem who lost all 3. THAT'S HOW BAD HILARY DID and it was easily predictable because she was arrogant and flipped the middle finger at them. YES its an aberration how anyone in America voted for Trump, but if you consider that he represents a form of PROTEST against the machinations of the Wall St. and the Washington establishments then its actually easy to see why he won. WHAT IS TOTALLY beyond comprehension is how Trump and his goon squad were not rounded up IMMEDIATELY after January 6th and locked up. The Dems showed just how pathetic they are. They should have dragged Mitch McConnell and the money behind him into a room and told then BLUNT as F*CK that they could either help get rid of Trump and his goons or they'd unleash the FBI and NSA onto all of them and anybody with even the slightest link to January 6th would be thrown in jail INCLUDING. They should have said we will find our version of Joe McCarthy and stage our version of an Anti-American Commission and tear you apart inch by inch. Put it this way if Hilary had tried what Trump did what do you think the GOP would have done? Despite ZERO evidence against Joe Biden look what they are doing right now.
    1
  5431. To all you Americans who care. This was recently shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Gretchen Carlson's interview as a single video is available as well -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOEAsp95AE4 This was done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. I've already been trolled for these comments. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. They are a Murdoch operation and absolutely hate ABC Australia screaming endlessly they are a leftist propaganda machine. ABC Australia is not a leftist organization they are (as a public broadcaster) controlled by a government appointed board. The current Australian Government is right wing and they have board level control of the ABC. So the claims of left wing bias are garbage. ABC Australia isn't perfect and have lost 2 defamation cases this year, but those cases are tiny compared to News Corp cases. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). That's because the ABC like the BBC has ripped into Murdoch over the years for shoddy journalism and other practices like illegal surveillance including phone tapping.
    1
  5432. 1
  5433. 1
  5434. 1
  5435. 1
  5436. 1
  5437. 1
  5438. 1
  5439. 1
  5440. 1
  5441. 1
  5442. 1
  5443. Aerospace Engineer here: We've chatted a couple of times so I know your engineer and I'll hope you'll take this with the intent it is given. You and others need to stop putting up things like 116% efficiency or the 145% efficiency you had for the Fibonnaci turbine. I have seen a pile of this recently (most notably with heat pumps with insane claims) and we both know that there is simply no way in any engineered system to get mor than 100% efficiency. In fact if you have studied Thermodynamics then you know its fundamentally impossible in a engineered system because there's some loss somewhere that can't be recovered in every cycle. The problem isn't that you and I know what you mean that 116% means 16% above some other standard or reference. The problem is that people who ARE NOT engineers or have forgotten even their high school science class just think its possible. Where this becomes a massive problem is in dealing with the energy crisis. As an engineer I have to deal with it from a very pragmatic perspective. First and foremost we have to do things RIGHT NOW that we know are going to work. No matter what project you ever do you must start with something you know will work or have a very high level of confidence it will because the parts you are using are known to work in similar projects. Being honest I haven't always done that and its caused soe serious heart break at times. Here in Australia we are having this insane argument over nuclear power. No matter if we do or don't decide to go with nuclear it wont fix a damn thing RIGHT NOW because it takes time (a lot of time). We have the butt ugly situation of having power stations that we should have closed 5-10 years ago that are limping along because all of the public discussions are shitfests or stupidity fueled by armies of idiots stoking whatever their narratives are. Just this week I have saw a left wing think tanker claim that coal is NOT a mineral with the smuggest of looks on her face and NOBODY to correct it because it was here on her think tanks YT channel On the flip side we have the pro nuclear crowd telling so many lies its impossible to keep track and even more impossible to correct because they have mixed those lies in among actual facts. Do I think we will need nuclear? YES, the question isn't if we'll have it but when and what type and how much. Real Engineering did a great recent video on grid stability issue when you have a lot of wind feeding into a grid. Australia has an insane amount of wind available, but to make it work we need something to absorb the grid disturbances. Nuclear can do that and do it well but we can't even get a sensible discussion going. Just today I watched one of our Senators who was a test pilot and has a technical background in systems engineering and he mixed a staggering array of lie in among some important truths. I have the background to sort the lies from the facts most people don't. A week ago a neighbor of mine told me I had no idea what I was talking about because the Meisner Effect was the answer to everything. He had no idea that even if the Meisner effect (which is the effect of superconductors pushing away from magnets) has NOTHING to do with energy production and until we can use it practically it will have almost zero effect on energy distribution. BUT HE SAW the crap idiotic video by someone (I suspect 2 Bit Da Vinci) and now thinks he's an expert on energy. I have seen Thunderf00t's debunk of the 2 Bit video and its straight forward on how stupid that video was. I don't always agree with Thunderf00t, but most of the time he is spot on because like me he can see the lies through the crap. I think you have a great channel, but like a lot of younger people you haven't yet worked out just how problematic misunderstandings can become. These days we have so many people telling so many things that are simply wrong that its causing a lot of confusion and with that we can't have some of the very important things that need saying.
    1
  5444. 1
  5445. 1
  5446. 1
  5447. 1
  5448. ​ @keenannorris3309  GREAT and IMPORTANT question: Empircal data is fantastic until you get people FILTERING IT and MAIPULATING IT to suit their agenda or narrative. Here's a perfect example and sorry if this takes explaining. Yale educated Economist Gigi Foster who's based in my country Australia made some famous claims during COVID. She was adamant that lockdowns were wrong and we should do the Swedish thing. She famously said on 60 Minutes Australia "They'll die anyway" in reference to older and infirmed people. She was panned by other staff from UNSW where she works and especially those who work in microbiology and health care. BUT SHE NEVER LET UP. In 2023 on a public discussion panel (ABC Australia's QandA) she made the claim that the Australian Governments response to COVID had saved at most 10,000 lives and she had the "Empirical Data" to prove it. She really slammed down everyone on that panel and in the audience with the "I have the data you don't and I am right!" routine. THERES A PROBLEM and I hope one day to ram this down her disgusting arrogant throat publicly. I know the data she was using and I know how she manipulated it. I was watching the COVID stats for the world via worldometers(dot.com) and they had the data from every government agency on a single page. For many countries like Australia, Canada and America you could also access their data state by state. What Gigi Foster did was make that claim based on the world average and at the time she made that claim the world average of COVID deaths per million people compared to Australia's stat said we could have had 20,000 more dead when we had around 10,000. HOWEVER when you check the Swedish Data and Sweden was the example she cited again and again AT THE SEWIDH fatality rate we would have had over 60,000 dead. So her claim on having and presenting Empirical Data was MANIPULATIVE, FALSE, MISLEADING and a clear case of ACADEMIC FRAUD for which she has never been held accountable. And this illustrates something with the way people use and manipulate data and in fact any data. WHAT FILTERS and AVERAGING and STATISTICAL manipulations are they using. There have been many many scandals out of Academic research over this and they will continue so long as people can make money or get their research funded OR WORSE there is a political angle they can push. Sorry for the long reply but I hope that answers your question because it is actually a very valid question.
    1
  5449. 1
  5450.  @gedias1  Your right but that's not the point I was making. The point is that things change over time. Just look where the 2 American parties are now they have both slid a long way to the right. According to Obama the Dems are now where the Republicans once were. I saw a piece on the Koch brothers the other day and when one of them ran against Reagan on the libertarian ticket they claimed Reagan was not far enough to the right. They were rejected by the GOP as nutters and radicals. They have spent over $125 million funding think tanks to drag America to their version of the right. Charles Koch was interviewed recently and openly complained the politicians he helped get elected would not do as he wanted. Then there's the billionaire who owns OAN, Robert Herring who is certifiably nutts, driving it as well. But adding to the Republican shift is the fuindmentalist Christians. We found out about this in Australia a couple of years back when some fundamentalists started using illegal means to take over parts of out right wing parties. An American training video surfaced. Where it came from and when it was made no one has really said. We know its American from the accents and think it was made in the 80s. Its basically about how to take over a party from the grass roots by taking over small local offices and taking over small local elected positions like mayor, DA, sheriff, school boards,.... etc. The aim it eventually to have a base you can move onto controlling state legislatures and then federal nominations. That's how Sarah Palin was forced on John McCain. That's how people like Pence and Pompeo got where they got. Then there is the centrist position of the Dems that's so broad that the only policy options for the Republicans is on the far right. No one should be surprised where the Republicans are. What everyone should be asking is how to you get them out of it? Because right now there are over 50million well armed (stocked with tons of ammunition) radicalized people who think they just had their country stolen. You can't lock them up - so what do you do to defuse that and then de-radicalize them. Look at this David Pakman did today -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeAznCt-pPo That cannot be ignored.
    1
  5451.  @specter0023  The truly crazy point about America is that it actually has an incredible history in higher education. I went to U. of Illinois in the late 80s. When I got back to Australia we were just getting the nations first supercomputer. It was a baby Cray (one of the small ones). At the same time Illinois was installing its 3rd and they were all big ones. It was like Australia had a Japanese 4 cylinder and Illinois had 3 stonking V8s. Meanwhile a couple of grads from about that time developed a program called Mosaic. They ended up founding Netscape and sold it to Bill Gates for a gazillion or 2. I've been in the American system and seen just how good it can be. We all hear about America's wealth disparity but there is also an education disparity as well. The most bizarre thing is that if you took away 1% of the military spending and spent that on giving everyone a fair and decent education you'd boost America so far the rest of the world would be left behind. And I don't mean just the universities and high schools but also the junior colleges and vocational colleges. Go listen to Andrew Yang on that subject he actually knows what he is talking about. You can't have high tech manufacturing with out the skilled personnel. We've done similar in Australia with failing to train people in those areas and it effing aggravates me. I'm an engineer and you can't get stuff made without the skilled technicians. You can't maintain stuff either. America needs Biden to make Yang the next education secretary.
    1
  5452. 1
  5453. 1
  5454. 1
  5455. 1
  5456. 1
  5457. 1
  5458. 1
  5459. 1
  5460. 1
  5461. 1
  5462. The why are you listening to an accountant who is doing nothing but pushing an ideology instead of engineers who lay out the facts. I am and engineer and have previously challenged Gerrard to a public debate. The response I got was they deleted every reply and comment I made on this page. Sorry if this comment is long but here's some actual facts. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  5463. 1
  5464. 1
  5465. 1
  5466. 1
  5467. 1
  5468. Its very simple to his fans he's a force for change and they want change at any cost. Its a reaction to the utter failure of liberal status quo politics which has resulted in the super wealthy becoming even more wealthy while millions are dumped in the gutter. There's a massive slab of America who have been beaten down for decades by a lack of opportunity. They are angry and frustrated and are lashing out. Anthony Scaramucci had this great observation late last year. America has flipped from being aspirational to desperational. Remember Obama's great claim was "Hope & Change" and he failed to deliver BOTH. Hilary Clinton campaigned on "More of the Same" and Joe Biden ran on "Back to Normal" AND THEY ALL FAILED. Richard Wolff who's a Marxist Economist on 9 Dec 2020 during a podcast commented on West Virginia as an example. (Its still here on YouTube) He said those people actually did vote in their economic interest when they flipped from the Democrats to Trump and it was for the simple reason the Democrats had failed them repeatedly while Trump actually went to their towns and said he'd do something. The fact he turned up was enough. A couple of weeks ago Jessica Tarlov commented on a Trump supporter who said "Yes we know he's crazy but crazy doesn't look down on me." That enshrines the real problem with American Liberalism its incredibly SNOBBISH. BOTH Obama's went to Harvard, BOTH Clintons went to Yale and all the people around them think their SHlT doesn't stink and the reason people are poor because they aren't as smart as the elites are. This is why people like Trump and Musk are so appealing. Because as bat crap crazy as they are they don't look down on their fans who are their support base.
    1
  5469. 1
  5470. 1
  5471. 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
  5472. 1
  5473. 1
  5474. 1
  5475. 1
  5476. 1
  5477. 1
  5478. 1
  5479. 1
  5480.  @danrl9710  Have a look at what you gave as an example. The implication that Prof Wolff mad is that capitalist who made that 1$ of that other persons labor did NOTHING to earn that $1 and that's a false assumption at every level. Even the most ruthless, heartless mongrel did some work to earn that $1. The issue Prof Wolf should have pressed is about FAIRNESS. I'm an engineer and the implication is that if I hire people to make something I have designed, I am a thief if I profit from selling what those people make. My objection is that Prof Wolff has totally devalued my work, totally devalued my effort to get my qualifications and totally devalued my investment in time to design that "something." However if I don't pay those people a FAIR WAGE for their time, effort and skills then I am a thief because I in that case I have devalued their time, effort and skills. And that's the point where I think he failed in that discussion. He never distinguished between what is fair and what isn't. Because there was one thing in that video which is one of the greatest thoughts I have seen anyone make against capitalist ideology. Capitalists always talk about THEIR RISK of their money, time and effort, but they never talk about the risk employees take. He pointed out that most capitalists have a range of investments particularly the wealthier capitalists. So their risks are spread across a range of businesses. However most wage earning employees have a single 100% risk that their employer will keep providing a job. Even if wage earners do spread some of their risk with savings or other investments they still have this one massive risk in their lives. If they lose that main job they are in serious trouble. I think he also failed a bit on that discussion because he didn't distinguish between small businesses owners and the plutocratic class. Because small business owners with only a few employees also have a singular major risk. To just group them in with the plutocrats is madness and I think he'd agree. So I really do like Prof. Wolff because he gives such a great take from a totally different perspective and his discussion on risk was brilliant, but he's not perfect either.
    1
  5481. 1
  5482. 1
  5483.  @danrl9710  I did aerospace engineering and a significant part of that discipline is what we call systems engineering. Early in the space age they realised you cannot solve problems in isolation when you have complex systems where the sub-systems are all tightly interlinked. In most engineering disciplines the systems are linked but nowhere near as tightly as they are in aerospace. The easiest way I describe it is like this. Imagine we are sending a rover to Mars and somebody wants to change the camera to a new one because it has better resolution, but it weighs 115 grams (1/4lb) more. So first you have to fly and land that extra 115g on Mars and that changes the amount of fuel needed to get it there which changes the weight of the rocket and that changes the fuel the rocket needs just to get of the launch pad. Then there's that camera with higher resolution. That's more data that requires more onboard storage that needs more power to store and then transmit back. That means a bigger solar panel and that's more weight and that needs more fuel to get that bigger solar panel to get to and land on Mars. It just goes round and round in circles, which is why it takes 10 years to design test and then fly them. Over in Economics they are dealing with an insanely complex system called humanity. So things like profit, labor, financial investment and regulations are not a simple components with a single simple definition and certainly how they interact isn't simple. That's my fault with that video Prof. Wolff did. He tried to simplify a very complex component of an insanely complex system and that almost never works. That's why I said he needed to clarify things better. I have just been watching some stuff on the COVID lab leak and the journalism that's going on in that subject is horrendous. Then you get to the management of COVID and that's even worse. Back in engineering and science I see people doing the same sort of thing with all sorts of things. Its why there is no coherent solution to climate. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    1
  5484. 1
  5485. 1
  5486. 1
  5487. 1
  5488. 1
  5489. 1
  5490. 1
  5491. 1
  5492. 1
  5493. 1
  5494. 1
  5495. 1
  5496. 1
  5497. 1
  5498. 1
  5499. 1
  5500. 1
  5501. 1
  5502. 1
  5503. 1
  5504. 1
  5505. 1
  5506. 1
  5507. 1
  5508. 1
  5509. 1
  5510. 1
  5511. 1
  5512. 1
  5513. 1
  5514. 1
  5515. 1
  5516. 1
  5517. 1
  5518. 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
  5519. 1
  5520. 1
  5521. 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
  5522. I understand this guys point of view because he's African American but he is completely IGNORANT of what White Supremacy actually is. Its NOT the be all and end all of every problem. Its fundamentally a racial superiority issue that EVERY tribe and culture has some version of. Irrespective of if you take a look at ancient or modern history we see the same thing again and again and we have so many examples that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE PEOPLE. Thom's example of Korea is just one example of the entire Asian continent. Dig a little and you will find examples of this racial superiority in all of them. At one time or another they have all used some form of racial superiority to to do great harm to each other and there was not a WHITE PERSON ANYWHERE. FYI - I'm Australian and yes we have a serious issue with White Supremacists but we also have some other racial issues that HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHITE PEOPLE. We have sizeable communities of Pakistanis and Indians and others form the sub-continent and you have to be damn careful what you say around them. Most of them are fine but like every culture there are those few who have this racial superiority trait and they can fly off the handle. Another 2 groups we have to be very careful with are Vietnamese and Cambodians. There's several 1,000 years of conflict there and there is NOT A WHITE PERSON INVOLVED. This guys claim that the African conflicts are 100% the fault of White People is just nonsense. There are tribal conflicts going back 1,000s of years just as there is everywhere else. I can understand his point of view being African American but he's simply WRONG.
    1
  5523. 1
  5524. 1
  5525. 1
  5526. 1
  5527. 1
  5528. 1
  5529. 1
  5530. 1
  5531. 1
  5532. 1
  5533. 1
  5534. 1
  5535. 1
  5536. ENGINEER HERE: One thing I wish Peter would be more clear about is that we would be doing the energy transition ANYWAY. Forget green or anything else for a moment and realise that modern societies need energy to simply function. You need energy to turn on the lights, supply water to your home, store your food, cook your food and take away your crap when you flush the toilet. Then when you leave the house you need energy for everything else. One of the consequences of privatising so much of our societies following the Reagan-Thatcher revolution was that we STOPPED spending enough on certain parts of the infrastructure to keep up with the needs of our societies. Just population growth alone increases the demands on energy supply. Forget how you generate energy, if the population goes up 50% then the energy they need goes up 50%. The only way to change that is with more energy efficient end user products, but that only goes so far. Right now the entire developed world is suffering from an energy crisis that started in the 1980s when Reagan and Thatcher started to privatise everything they could and then everyone else followed. We don't generate enough energy and the energy generation systems we have ARE OLD and NEED TO BE REPLACED. There have been dozens of power stations turned off for the simple reason they got old and wore out and now they need to be replaced. We now need to replace a lot of hardware and we were ALWAYS going to have to replace it. Things don't last forever. Its just happening at a time when we are also changing HOW WE GENERATE and distribute energy.
    1
  5537. 1
  5538. 1
  5539. 1
  5540. 1
  5541. 1
  5542. 1
  5543. 1
  5544. 1
  5545. 1
  5546. 1
  5547. 1
  5548. 1
  5549. 1
  5550. 1
  5551. 1
  5552.  @NYCBigBull  Yes and No. Its like so much of the entire COVID thing. Its so damn complex that everyone has somethings right an somethings wrong. Its why its so damn hard to say anything that's clear cut. ESPECIALLY once the politics gets into it. I'm an engineer and I find the whole change in definition issue to be incredibly egregious because in any area of science and technology you have to be incredibly clear to everyone when you change or adjust a definition or people get confused. I really can't stress how important that is. I can't say for certain but I think it was done to deliberately confuse people outside the pathogen research establishment to make oversight difficult. I have been in research and although most researchers are decent and honest some just aren't making it no different than any other profession. Bret Weinstein has been right about some things but then also horribly wrong about other things AND with the politics shoving people like him into a box its made it impossible to have a sensible discussion. David Pakman interviewed Vincent Racaniello who's incredibly well credentialled and 90% of what he said was 100% right. But right near the end of that interview he claimed that the Chinese weren't even working on the COVID-19 virus. I knew instantly that he had LIED because I was already aware that people had found the database records that showed Peter Daszak had delivered a bat known to host the COVID-19 virus from Laos to the lab in Wuhan. Its clear to me that there's a part of the pathogen research establishment who are more interested in protecting their funding and NOT having anyone check what they are up to. That's what DW were leading people to realise. Its what people like Alina Chan and others have been warning about.
    1
  5553.  @NYCBigBull  Here's why I think it was a lab leak. Sorry if its long. The first 5 points aren't conclusive and are circumstantial but they are also fairly indisputable. 1) There was a lack of oversight at the Wuhan Lab 2) There were researchers aggressively pursuing their research which is more common than you think. 3) We know they were working on lots of corona viruses that naturally host in bats because Wuhan was publishing. 4) The Wuhan lab was NOT suitable for handling an airborne pathogen like COVID-19. Alina Chan (MIT $& Harvard) has explained that. 5) That lab like any other was full of people in the 20s and 30s (post grads and post-docs) who are the most likely people to get COVID-19 and be asymptomatic. In other words they could walk out the door at any time showing no symptoms. These next 5 points might also be circumstantial but they are absolutely indisputable. What we can say for certain. 6) We know the Americans were funding a lot of programs there via the NIH through a company called EcoHealth Alliance run by Peter Daszak because there are the documents to prove it. 7) We know other international agencies were involved in Wuhan because the funding bodies are listed on some of the published papers. 8) It was NEVER a weapon because nobody publishes the data on weapons research and the Chinese wouldn't be doing it with international partners either. 9) We know they were adapting viruses to make the jump from their native hosts to humans because that's in the published papers. That's the sort of research that was dropped from the gain of function research definition I mentioned previously. 10) We know that mice and ferrets are both used as intermediate species to do the jump from the natural host to humans. That's covered in the DW doco. Here's what clinched it for me. Early in the pandemic the Danish mink industry put down millions of minks when COVID ran rampant through the mink farms. Go and google "Denmark ferrets COVID" If they were doing what's called passage research to modify a virus and used ferrets as the intermediary species then it makes sense that members of the ferret family would be highly susceptible to COVID and minks are in the ferret family. No where in the world was any other domestic animal - cats, dogs, pigs, sheep, goats, cows,.... terminated at any level due to COVID. The only animal culls for COVID were Danish Minks. What's the conclusion. The version of COVID that first arrived in Europe was ALREADY ADAPTED to ferrets. AND Why would a bat virus be adapted to an animal on the other side of the world unless it had already had contact with members of that animal family? Its all been there in plain sight for all the world to see for 3 years. I'm an engineer not a microbiologist and I can see that. Why can't anyone else including Bret Weinstein?
    1
  5554. 1
  5555. 1
  5556. 1
  5557. 1
  5558. 1
  5559. 1
  5560. 1
  5561. 1
  5562.  @TheAngelOfDeath01  Its not just the Torries its pretty much the entire Western Democratic political system. Its just that the Torries are doing it a bit worse than others right now. Even the Left wing parties aren't that left anymore. If you think about British Labor, Australian Labor and any of the other Leftist parties they are mainly full of lawyers, and other professionals who just lean left on social issues. Sorry this is a long reply/comment. You are dead right it goes back to Reagan & Thatcher, but its worse than you think. I'm actually an Australian engineer but I went to college in America where they don't have a Left at all. They just have one of their right wing parties not as far right as the other. A few years ago I started looking into economics because I got fed up with clowns with economics degrees interfering in engineering projects. When I mean interfering I mean billion dollar interference too, not just million dollar simple stuff. One of the things I found out is that ALL ECONOMICS CURRICULIUMS have at their core the same neoliberal economic ideology. In case you didn't know - what started as Reaganomics and Thatcherism is now called neoliberalism. Its all centred around Milton Freidman's "Greed is good" and "Corporations have no other responsibility than to deliver profits to their owners & shareholders."_ That's driven this incredible 45+ year wage stagnation that's highlighted by Branco Milanovic's famous "Elephant Graph." BECAUSE even the left leaning parties are full of people who did the same economics classes with the same ideology AND all the central banks are run by people who also learnt the same economics, we now have this insanity where there is almost NOTHING NEW in economic thinking. They all know there's something wroing but they can't conceive of any solutions other than interest rates and deregulation. If you don't know who Mark Blyth is then you need to start there. He's one of a lose collection of maverick economist or people associated with economics who's trying to bring this to light. He's coined the term "Angrynomics." What he's saying in a nutshell is we should have had a system UPGRADE after 2008. Instead what we got was a reboot and patch. The result of that are system glitches like Brexit and the current energy crisis which I can tell you as an engineer who has learnt about economics is about to crash the entire global economy and it has NOTHING to do with climate change or the war in Ukraine. But that's another very long comment Here's Marks intro to Angrynomics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJD5rE4omY Here's to longer explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJoe_daP0DE
    1
  5563.  @warfarenotwarfair5655  The snarky anti-American attitude isn't towards you or the American people its aimed at the American government and in particular unelected American bureaucrats who do stuff around the world. I'm Australian but went to college in America on a sports scholarship. So I love America and the people and the culture. BUT when it comes to understanding the rest of the world Americans are very poorly educated. Do you ever bother to ask what it is that people don't like about America? Australia has exactly the same problem with respect to the Pacific Island nations. We treat them the same way America treats Mexico and the rest of central and south America - LIKE CRAP. We interfere in their governments and use their people as cheap labor AND THEY DON'T LIKE IT. We spend lots of money in those countries. It never seems to do anything other than fuel corruption which annoys Australians, so we complain about it and tell them not to be snarky as they're wasting our money. This snarky attitude isn't about you or any other American in general. Its about the attitude of your government, which just like mine is run by unelected manipulative self righteous a-holes. Did you or any American ever vote for people like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Miller or John Bolton? How about John Yoo? He was the Lawyer who told Bush and Cheney they could torture people so long as they called it "enhanced interrogation techniques." He was the guy who approved all the stuff at places like Abu Ghraib. You know the stuff other Americans went to jail for. Did you or any American ever vote for him? Do you ever hold any of those people accountable? Its not about you.
    1
  5564. 1
  5565. 1
  5566. 1
  5567. 1
  5568. 1
  5569. 1
  5570. 1
  5571. 1
  5572. 1
  5573. 1
  5574. 1
  5575. 1
  5576. 1
  5577. 1
  5578.  @Teasehirt  Interesting you put CRT in with Cancel Culture, Virtue Signalling and Gender Ideology because CRT is nothing like the other 3, BUT the public discussion of CRT is exactly like the other 3. CRT is actually a great example of a subject being hijacked by bad faith political actors. The entire public hysteria about CRT was NOT a manifestation of woke culture it was created by a right wing sociopath in America to stoke the culture war and influence the midterm elections. It looks like a woke issue but isn't. Its certainly a social issue about disparity, but the public hysteria wasn't created by them. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s) so I'm interested in what's goes on in America. The public CRT explosion is an insane shitfest manufactured by a person named Chris Ruffo. FACTUALLY: CRT is not and never has been taught as a subject in any American high school. Its not even an undergraduate class and any university. It gets mentioned in some classes and that's all. It was only an area of post graduate study trying to ask a very legitimate question: WHY are African Americans, despite all the changes and programs, still at the bottom of the socio-economic scale? Part of that was considering: Are there some racial issues ingrained in "the system" that are not being addressed. We should be asking similar questions here in Australia about our indigenous peoples. Despite all the programs, why aren't they doing better? Its a legitimate question. What Chris Ruffo did was take CRT and flip it into a shitfest of hysterical nonsense. He was confronted about his lies. He made no secret he didn't care about facts. He wanted to win at the midterms and didn't care what it took. So long as the right won nothing else mattered. So CRT might look like a woke subject and its certainly a subject about inequality and disparity, but the public hysteria is a right wing construct done by narcissistic sociopath.
    1
  5579. 1
  5580. 1
  5581. 1
  5582. 1
  5583. 1
  5584. 1
  5585. 1
  5586.  @patriciawilkes5079  Sorry this is longish. Its a great point you raise but its also not a simple answer. In respect of Fentanyl absolutely we should have come down hard on China. Its a straight forward thing for them to fix and it doesn't cost them squat politically. However in terms of war crimes, imperialism and other crap you can't compare those to illicit drugs, because they are just so different politically. That's not to say its not worth discussing but its a very different discussion AND I will agree with you its a discussion that needs to be had. 1) There are so many countries either tacitly or actively involved with America in those issues that its way more complex than something like Fentanyl. 2) Both China and Russia do the same or worse and have been doing the same or worse for decades. Other than what Russia is doing right now in Ukraine the Chinese just claimed a vast slab of the biggest shipping channel in the world. Go look where the Spratly Islands actually are. They're not even close to the Chinese mainland compared to Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Then there is Uyghur genocide that's going on and that's been quietly put aside for the moment. So I would agree that to come down on China over Fentanyl and then NOT address the issues of American, Russian and Chinese imperialism is WRONG. But one of those problems can be dealt with quickly while the other is incredibly complex. Don't forget that neither America nor Russia nor China nor a bunch of others are current signatories to the ICC. So how do you arrest and try anyone form those countries? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court I actually hate when Americans start howling about holding people from other countries accountable for War Crimes. America withdrew its support for the court system it helped set up after WW2 and it used to try, convict and execute Nazis. Its a subject that can't even be officially discussed or the GOP start screaming and 100 million Americans start waving guns and flags and threatening to nuke everything in sight. The Russian's and Chinese do similar. If you can tell me how we drag George Bush and others off to the Hague over Iraq then fine, but don't say something stupid like "Just arrest them!" John Bolton one of the worst criminals of that whole disaster currently travels the world on a diplomatic passport. He was here in Australia recently and I couldn't believe nobody challenged him. But then he has blanket immunity and travels with a team trigger happy US Secret Service agents. So its not easy.
    1
  5587. 1
  5588. 1
  5589. 1
  5590. 1
  5591. 1
  5592. 1
  5593. 1
  5594. 1
  5595. 1
  5596. 1
  5597. 1
  5598. 1
  5599. 1
  5600. 1
  5601. 1
  5602. 1
  5603. 1
  5604. 1
  5605. 1
  5606. 1
  5607. 1
  5608. 1
  5609. 1
  5610. 1
  5611. 1
  5612. 1
  5613. 1
  5614. 1
  5615. 1
  5616.  @insightfulhistorian1861  Great summation of how both of America's parties operate. If you ever want to go into the GOPs fear mongering. Rick Wilson (no relation thankfully) talked about it to the Commonwealth Club of California 29 Jan 2020 (I checked). Listen to the part where he talks about why Bernie Sanders was the perfect candidate for Donald Trump. Bernie allows the GOP to scare the crap out of conservative America and NONE of the Bernie Bros ever understood it. The horrible thing is that the circumstances you describe equally apply in Australia (my country) as well as Britain (form where we get most of there news). You'll love this ditty. After the 2020 British Election I asked Brit why they did what they did. Jeremy Corbyn (British Labor) lost from a seemingly winning position using a campaign strategy eerily similar to Australia Labor's strategy earlier that year and eerily similar to Hilary Clinton's losing 2016 strategy. They had an endless stream of policies for everything and simply believed people would turn up and vote for them instead of voting for "that simplistic stuff like MAGA" So I asked this Brit WHY did British Labor use the same strategy that lost in Australia and lost in America? The answer they gave still stuns me. British Labor had done the same thing Australian Labor had done and employed campaign strategy people from the LOSING Hilary 2016 campaign. YEAH BUDDY - according to the Brit who told me this the same people lost 3 major elections in 3 different countries using the same strategies. Prof Mark Blyth (Brown) in a talk on Global Trumpism at McMaster U. (in Canada) in 2019 was asked (1:19:57) about Elizabeth Warren. Go and listen to what he said about policies for everything. Its here on YouTube and easy to find. In case your wondering how I know the exact time stamp. Its because I have a saved link to that very moment BECAUSE ITS THAT GOOD. That lecture by Mark is something every body with even the slightest interest in current global politics should watch. Even 5 years later its still relevant.
    1
  5617. 1
  5618. 1
  5619. 1
  5620.  @SteelBalor  On your analysis here. I pretty much agree on all that you've said with one exception. I think you are being lenient on Obama. I accept he did manage to do some great things, most notably getting elected, but even more importantly NOT having any major scandal. My brother pointed that out to me one day. He's spent time in America too and pointed out that it must have driven the GOP bonkers NOT to have something to go after Obama. Carter had his brother Billy, Clinton had Monica and Joe has Hunter. What did Obama do that was scandalous? BUT Obama never wound back Reaganomics or globalization despite the obvious signs they were damaging America. By his own admission, his economic policies were just like Reagans and I consider Reagan the WORST of all of America's presidents in my lifetime. Not because he was a criminal (like others) but because he set America on the destructive path that lead to Trump. Reaganomics as we now know were based around an agglomeration of Freidman "Greed is Good" idiocy and Libertarian de-regulate everything stupidity. You add that together and you get things like the Boeing Max-8 while the top 1% make $55 Trillion as the middle class goes nowhere and the bottom 50% go backwards. I was doing me degree in aerospace when Reagan was doing "Star Wars." We all knew it was stupid but the money was too good. A grad student in one of my classes - his work was the deciding factor in a $2Billion contract and that's 1987 dollars. Where Obama is coming unstuck is his desire to remain relevant. He's sadly put "his legacy" (as he put it during Hilary's disastrous 2016 campaign) to be more important than the American people. He was clearly better than the stupidity of the Bush era and better behaved that Clinton or Trump but he never RESET America after the 2008 GFC. Yes I've taken note of Mark Blyth's computer analogy, but I am an engineer. On Biden - he's definitely less destructive than the wrecking ball Trump was, but then he's not strong enough to be the solution America needs. A stronger person would have simply smacked Kirsten Sinema and Joe Manchin into place and made sure Trump was impeached for Jan 6th. Jan 6th truly astounds me. How TF did America get to that and how did people like Mitch McConnell excuse it and pay no price? I know that if I had told any of my friends in the 80s that Jan 6th would happen in our lifetime they would have put me in a straight jacket and tossed me in the nearest asylum.
    1
  5621. 1
  5622.  @russcarvertruthjedi259  I wouldn't call anything the Russians or any other of the Soviet satellite states that claimed to be communist or socialist state "liberal" My point (and its been my point for decades) is that ANYONE who takes any ideology to some extreme position is a serious threat to society. Kill of anyone who can argue the law and anyone who can teach anything other than doctrine. Why do you think the radical half of the GOP are relentless in their attacks on education? Look at the CRT dog whistle effort. Its nothing more than a way to attack education. No society can survive when you have people doing that sort of thing. When ideology takes over from logic and common sense ANY society is in trouble. Jordan Peterson (before his drug fallout) when he was pretty good at discussing psychology pointed out regularly that its pretty easy to identify when people on the right who have become radicalised - they become racist and quite often nationalistic or tribal. He said its far less clear for people who are radicalised on the left because their radicalisation takes different forms. BUT I would contend its easier than he suggested if you just consider how they place ideology over logic. Its the same thing Left or Right people who are radicalised have just dropped all sense of logic (or common sense) and allow their ideology to EXCUSE horrendous acts. here's 2 of the most notable examples. Pol Pot (leftist) murdered millions Hitler (right) murdered millions And both used their ideology as the excuse.
    1
  5623. 1
  5624. Sorry about the other reply this is actually your comment I meant to reply too. I agree with this comment and there's more to that story. Other than admitting what he said at the UN was wrong, Powell actually tried to stop the invasion of Iraq, which is not as widely known as it should be. Its all covered in the 2004 PBS Frontline episode "Rumsfled's War." I saw it here in Australia circa 2005/06 and it blew the lid of who the people who'd caused that mess. A lot of finger pointing was at Powell because of his UN speech but that's only 1 part of it. Powell tried his hardest to get Bush to back away. He even had a private dinner with Bush and bluntly told Bush that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton and others were NOT military men and weren't experts in military matters while he and others were. That's why a lot of the political people ended up hanging Powell out to take the blame. The one military guy who is NOT mentioned enough is a Colonel named Douglas Macgregor who had made a name for himself as a tank commander in the first Gulf War at the Battle of 73 Easting. People like Powell and Eric Shinseki said invading Iraq would take several hundred thousand TO SECURE THE COUNTRY. Macgregor told Rumsfled, Wolfowitz and others that was nonsense and it would only take around 80,00 because the Iraqi was weak and disorganised from the sanctions. In that Frontline episode he's actually interviewed and says that. Powell, Shinseki and others tried to tell Bush and Congress that wasn't the point. The point was SECURING the country AFTERWARDS, which we know was a disaster. The Iraqi militias raided the military supply depots because there just wasn't anyone there to stop them. I hate the fact that despite making some mistakes that its ignored that Powell tried to stop the invasion. These days I find it despicable that Macgregor has NEVER been held accountable and these days he's trotted out as an expert by various think tanks and parts of the media.
    1
  5625. AUSTRALIAN here - Do you Americans think that everyone of America's allies isn't going to take this seriously? I was actually in Canada for work when Trump just tore up NAFTA and slapped them with tariffs. Trump proved in that moment he doesn't care about being President unless he can treat America's allies the same way he's treated people his whole life - LIKE SHlT. I can tell all of you straight up that NONE of US has a problem with the vast majority of the American People. I actually went to college in America on a sports scholarship. I love America, its people and its culture. I'm not too happy toady because I'm a Niners fan, but I tell people all the time and explain why I think the US Constitution is one of humanities finest achievements. BUT America has let its politics become this toxic cesspool of insanity. The Bill of Rights is brilliant except for one thing - it DOES NOT put any onus on the American people respecting the freedoms and protections listed. There's no claim or urging of being respectful of those rights. As such it allows people like Trump to trample all over those rights. When Merrick Garland was appointed it was seen around the world that he would bring some common sense back into the DOJ and that he would deal with Trump and those around him. Instead we have seen a repeat of what's happened in the past. Just like after the disgrace of the Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB prisoner abuses the foot soldiers were help accountable BUT NONE of the LEADERSHIP that caused it. Just like after the 2008 GFC when over 3,000 banking personnel were prosecuted BUT NONE of the CEO's and CFO's who caused it. For a change America needs to hold its leaders accountable and deal with them. FYI - YES we also need to start holding our political leaders accountable and deal with them when they do the wrong thing. This seems to be the real plague of the 21st Century - NOT holding those in power accountable. Oh Yeah - to the Packers and Cowboys fans. Yeah I now know how you feel about the Niners.
    1
  5626. 1
  5627. 1
  5628. 1
  5629. 1
  5630. 1
  5631. 1
  5632. 1
  5633. 1
  5634. 1
  5635. 1
  5636. 1
  5637. 1
  5638. 1
  5639. 1
  5640. 1
  5641. 1
  5642. 1
  5643. 1
  5644. 1
  5645. 1
  5646. 1
  5647. 1
  5648. 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
  5649. 1
  5650. 1
  5651. 1
  5652. 1
  5653. 1
  5654. 1
  5655. 1
  5656. 1
  5657. 1
  5658. 1
  5659. 1
  5660. The Fauci mask thing is actually nothing substantial which is why it gets no serious commentary any more. However you are on the right path and it goes back to the Nicholas Wade article. The really major issue is what PART of the virology research industry have been up to. DW News did really great short documentary on Gain on Function research. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18 The very first thing they point out is that its NOT 1 type of research but 3. 1) Making viruses and infectious contagions more deadly to humans; and 2) Making viruses and infectious contagions more transmissible BETWEEN humans; and 3) Making viruses and infectious contagions from the natural environment more readily transmissible TO humans. What they show is that a section of the "virology" research industry have done is MODIFY that definition and dropped the 3rd type. There was a moratorium placed on Gain of Function because a lot of people became concerned these scientists were doing stuff that was just too dangerous. Like that nightmare H5N1 avian flu they whipped up in 2011. The change in definition was done to get around that moratorium and some of the researchers could keep doing as they wanted. About the Nicholas Wade article. Now being honest there are claims by many he got stuff wrong, BUT remember the name he mentioned repeatedly. If you have forgotten you'll find it here on the now famous Lancet Letter that was published in support of the Chinese researchers. As in this letter right here -> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext#%20 How come that same name keeps coming up? Like on these 2 NIH project reports supporting COVID virus research in China!!!! https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9491676 https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9819304 Fauci and masks is a red herring and nothing worth pursuing. Its no longer relevant. The real issue is how part of the virology and infectious disease research community altered one of their own key definitions so that they could keep doing research that others said was too dangerous to continue.
    1
  5661. 1
  5662. 1
  5663. 1
  5664. 1
  5665. 1
  5666. 1
  5667. 1
  5668. 1
  5669. 1
  5670. 1
  5671. 1
  5672. 1
  5673. 1
  5674. 1
  5675. 1
  5676. 1
  5677. 1
  5678. 1
  5679. 1
  5680. 1
  5681. 1
  5682.  @alexanderbrown4250  Like any rational person I agree with all of that except the Flynn thing and that's because there are Military people calling for him the be reinstated to active duty so they can court martial him and that happens completely outside of politics. Neither The Chairman OTJC or head of the Army is an elected official and they are in a bind because if they don't uphold the UCMJ and throw Flynn under the Leavenworth Bus then they are opening the door for other senior military officers to also speak out like Flynn has. That's not a slippery slope that's a slippery cliff. FYI - I'm Australian and went to U. Illinois where I just found out Kelly Loeffler went, which helps nothing for the schools reputation. But while I was there my frat brothers took it upon themselves to hammer my brain with how awesome the US Constitution is. I did aerospace engineering so I'm not short on brain function and put up a struggle. So they had to explain WHY it was awesome and that meant explaining HOW it came about and why the founding fathers did what they did. I certainly don't have the training you and others have, but I have no doubt I am well above the average American. I get into arguments here form time to time and I NEVER lose. What really amazes me are the howling screaming people claiming to be patriots and upholding the constitution when they simply aren't either. Its incredulous that America is at this point because of all the things my frat brothers and others were unmovable on was that America could never be taken over by a dictator and yet that is basically what has happened. The reason I keep pointing to McConnell comes from my perspective which is seeing this at a distance and not being right there surrounded by this. Plus as an aerospace engineer I taught to analyze complex systems in ways other engineers aren't. We aren't taught to analyze by isolating a problem we are taught to work out what's causing the problem so that we DON'T do stupid things like the Boeing Max-8. So when I put that skill set and perspective to the American situation the one person who pops out is McConnell. In pursuing his agenda with Judges with any regard to other consequences he's done incredible damage. They all told me this could not happen because at its core the American system had an entire institution who had 1 purpose - to make sure all the others did their job. The House runs the country, the Executive makes the big national decisions and the Senate makes sur the "i"s are dotted and "t"s are crossed and all the check boxes are ticked. McConnell has made that dysfunctional and brought huge consequences as a result - most notably a delusional out of control POTUS. We are not going "back to normal" as David P just pointed out Trump finally got of his ass secured 100million doses of vaccine. For starters that will only vaccinate 50million and those doses wont be delivered until about July. So what are the other 280milllion Americans gonna do?
    1
  5683. 1
  5684. 1
  5685. 1
  5686. 1
  5687. 1
  5688. 1
  5689. 1
  5690. 1
  5691. 1
  5692. 1
  5693. 1
  5694. 1
  5695. 1
  5696. 1
  5697. 1
  5698. 1
  5699. 1
  5700. 1
  5701. 1
  5702. 1
  5703. AEROSPACE ENGNEER here: When I first saw the title of the video I was very sceptical considering some of the ridiculous claims made by other solar powered systems. Thunderf00t has debunked at least 1 of those. But this looks damn interesting and a genuine breakthrough. Because I work in industrial control systems and automation AND have worked in mining where they do a lot of water treatment I have worked on both RO and Multi-effect systems although the MES system I encountered was called a Mechanical Vapour Compression system. One thing people misunderstand with RO is that its NOT that cheap and its often compared to more expensive options. Its biggest advantage is that you can turn it off and on quite easily. With MES systems they are tricky to get started and you just can't turn them off and back on. One of the effects they use is to keep the system under vacuum because you can get the water to boil at around 70℃. I think the limit is about 67-68℃. One they are running and stable they use very little power because of the thermal exchanges going on. BUT those systems have 1 major drawback - they only operate over a very narrow range of flow rates. So you turn them on and cross your fingers they will start as expected. The best analogy I have is that MES systems are like a 2 stroke motorcycle. When they are on song in their happy place they are brilliant. When they are not happy and off song they are horrible. And if you're wondering why and aerospace engineer is interested in water treatment. Ask what would be one of the first items of critical infrastructure for a moon base.
    1
  5704. 1
  5705. 1
  5706. 1
  5707.  @illsaveus  Your very right on all that, but do try and remember that Elon has also lucked into a couple of things where he was blessed with some superb engineers. He's also one of the best ever marketers of other peoples technology. First at PayPal - his code might have sucked and they wanted nothing to do with him but he was smart enough to make money out of it. Second with Tesla - his input to the car and development is a joke. I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control and safety systems. Anyone who understands even the basics of vision guided systems knows how full of shite the driverless car stuff was. Have you notice that not even Uber mentions that stuff anymore. Third with SpaceX where he got blessed with Gwynne Shotwell and her team on the Falcon series. Yes they've had issues, but when you compare them to Boeing Starliner or SLS they actually have things that work including a man rated rocket. Yes I have seen some of the criticism of Gwynne Shotwell regarding some of her comments, but if you actually listen to what she's said there's no issue except for who she works for. As far as Starship and Starlink go. They are both Elon fantasies that will end in tears. Just like the hyper-inflated ridiculous valuations of Tesla shares will end in tears. Its one of those things with Elon Musk, at times you need to untangle some of the things he's into from the garbage he claims. If Jeff Bezos asked me the quickest way to go to the moon. I'd tell him to buy that chunk of SpaceX with the Falcons. Use Falcon Heavy to launch an Earth-Lunar transfer vehicle, a Lunar orbit transfer station and a Lunar lander. Use Dragon to take the crew up & down. Development time 2-3 years. Its call breaking the problem into manageable chunks. But then Elon isn't into manageable chunks he's into fantasy ships to Mars.
    1
  5708. 1
  5709. 1
  5710. 1
  5711. 1
  5712. 1
  5713. 1
  5714. 1
  5715. 1
  5716. 1
  5717. 1
  5718. 1
  5719. 1
  5720. 1
  5721. 1
  5722. 1
  5723. 1
  5724. 1
  5725. 1
  5726. 1
  5727. 1
  5728. 1
  5729. 1
  5730. 1
  5731. 1
  5732. 1
  5733. 1
  5734. 1
  5735. 1
  5736. 1
  5737. 1
  5738. 1
  5739. I'm an engineer whose been privately studying economics for a couple of years and COVID gave me a lot of time to watch a lot of economics lectures and talks. One such person is Mark Blyth (Brown U.) Listen to what he said in 2019 about Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0&t=4673s It wasn't until another interview and he mentioned a Bank of England report (Q1 2014) that I worked out what Economists mean by "a unit of account." That report had 2 articles about how money is created in a modern economy. In a nutshell that term "unit of account" is how value is measured. To an economist value is like what temperature pressure, length, weight and time are to engineers. We know what those things are but we need ways to measure them reliably. Money is the way value is measured. Centimeters and Inches are to length what currencies are to value. And we also have conversions factors, like the 2.54 that converts inches to centimeters called exchange rates. The bit that's strange to an engineer is that our conversions are constant they do not change. Money is different because economies are dynamic and they change and the value of things going from one economy to the next also change. It works because there's a reasonable amount of stability in economies. In fact economic stability is a requirement to make this work. Once you understand that basic concept of what money is and why economies work because they are reasonably stable then you can understand why Bitcoin is not money and the Chinese call cryptos "Digital gambling assets."
    1
  5740. 1
  5741. 1
  5742. 1
  5743. 1
  5744. 1
  5745. 1
  5746. 1
  5747. 1
  5748. 1
  5749. 1
  5750. 1
  5751. 1
  5752. 1
  5753. 1
  5754. 1
  5755.  @wgowshipping  AUSTRALIAN HERE MATE: When you get to Australia let me know I owe you at least the first beer and it will be a real beer. FYI - I'm an aerospace engineer who works in industrial control systems and automation. I have spent most of the last 20 years in our mining industry because I met one of the last 2 guys to walk on the moon and he said we'd be most likely going back to the moon for mining. There's a couple of very rare and potentially very valuable substances on the moon. At its most basic its a logistics problem of how do we get people & supplies to the moon and people & product back. Back in 2010/11 when working on a Alumina smelter project the manager I worked for one day told me that in the future LOGISTICS would be the most important facet of world trade. I didn't quite understand it at the time, but have come to understand its insanely important to so many things in our lives. You might not realise it but the Apollo Missions to the moon were a success because Buzz Aldrin and a couple of other guys solved the LOGISTICS problem of getting back. Getting there was one thing getting back was another. Go watch the video titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" by Destin who's an aerospace engineer and listen to what he says about the new Artemis mission. Its a logistics issue with some serious flaws. These days my primary interest is in Energy Economics because the main stream economists have utterly screwed the pooch with all of our Energy Sectors which are all about logistics. It doesn't matter if we talk electricity, gas or oil they all involve moving stuff from one place to where its needed. I bet you never thought of the power grid as a logistics system BUT IT IS. It moves electrical power from where its generated to where its used and that's a logistics system. I'm scheduled to be on the Steve keen & Friends Podcast this week to discuss Engineering and Economics and there's a better than fair chance you're getting a plug because like engineering, economists don't really get logistics and that's a major issue.
    1
  5756. 1
  5757. 1
  5758. 1
  5759. 1
  5760. 1
  5761. 1
  5762. 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
  5763. 1
  5764. 1
  5765. 1
  5766. 1
  5767. Actually there were some really interesting comments from people like Mark Blyth and Richard Wolff about Trump and Trump supporters. If you look at the basic Trump supporter they are Baby Boomers and Gen Xers who DID NOT go to college. So they are people from working class backgrounds - factory workers, miners and other blue collar professions AND THEY GOT SMASHED by the globalisation of the 90s and 2000s. I'm Australia but went to college in America in the late 80s. I can remember staying with the families of friends at Thanksgiving and Christmas and meeting their high school friends who didn't go to college. So I have actually met people who would eventually become Trump supporters. They are NOT fundamentally bad people, but they have been so smashed over such a long time that they were just ripe for being taken advantage of by a charlatan like Trump. Add to that the media led by people like Rupert (yes I know he's Australian) Murdoch who just don't give a damn as long as they make money. There's no doubt this has already done massive damage to America and if its allowed to playout then that's even worse. Irrespective of if you like America (and I do) or hate it - America is still 1/4 of the worlds economy and the US$ is still the worlds reserve currency. On straight up economic grounds not even the Russians, Chinese or Iranians can afford for America to collapse. On security grounds it gets even worse. America does not simply have to deal with Trump and his minions it has to deal with its ingrained flaws. AND before you ask - YES Australia has many of the same or similar issues and we are also being just as stupid by ignoring most of them.
    1
  5768. 1
  5769. 1
  5770.  @captainawesome730  You've hit one thing on the head - "everyone else sucks" If you go and watch people like Mark Blyth talk about things like "Global Trumpism" (and he's done talks on that) its way more common than you think. There's a lot of frustration in world politics. Through media scrutiny and polling data influence most of the developed world's governments have become trapped in their own garbage. They can't make decisions that some people don't like and these days the "other side" which every Western nation has sees everything the government does as WRONG and pounds away at the media yelling and howling about it. Its now so bad most of the establishment parties can't put forward any real leaders BECAUSE THEY HAVE NONE. They have pushed them all out. Go look at the Dems or GOP. Go look at British Labor or the Tories. Go look at Australia, Canada, Japan or anywhere in Europe. The power players in the parties have been killing off the careers of anyone who might threaten the baby boomer leadership. Interestingly Peter Zeihan the geopolitical strategist has been pointing out that Putin in Russia and Xi in China have also killed of any potential contenders. The actor Tom Walker who plays the fake political correspondent Jonathan Pie ahs said in interviews there's no leadership on either side of British politics. How is it that an actor who plays a spoof has a better handle on politics than the real media. This is what mainstream media and establishment politicians DON'T GET. We can all see through them and their crap.
    1
  5771. 1
  5772. Sorry but if you believe in the basics of engineering then why are you taking engineering advice from an ACCOUNTANT? SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS ALSO COWARD I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  5773. 1
  5774. 1
  5775. 1
  5776. 1
  5777. 1
  5778. 1
  5779. 1
  5780. 1
  5781. 1
  5782. 1
  5783. 1
  5784. Aerospace Engineer here - Its the difference between having a technology wrapped up in advertising hype versus having control of a marketplace irrespective of the technology or its real capability. Engineers see this all the time in various industries. Its one of those ongoing arguments we have with people who have business degrees. They don't care what the technology is or if it works. They only care about what they can make money with. Right now and for the foreseeable future AI DOES NOT AND WILL NOT DELIVER as per the advertising Hype. I just heard on another podcast claims General AI superintelligences are 4 years away. That's utter BULLSHlT for a string of reasons including the most basic fact that AI is fundamentally a simulation of thinking rather than actual thinking. HOWEVER in terms of control of the internet and what we see via promotions, recommendations and searches AI is going to dominate and with that control the information marketplace. Right below this comment is another complaining about the pollution of the Internet with AI generated content that's often misleading. Kyle Hill did a great video last year on the new science channels popping up loaded with AI generated garbage content. Most of them ac clickbait garbage often breaching copyright rules. But with AI people can create dozens of new channels each day with 100s of clickbait videos. They only need people to click those videos to make advertising money from YouTube. By the time YouTube can react to the copyright breaches the hosts have created 100s of new channels with 1,000s of AI generated content. Plus everyone needs to grasp the concept that there's a prevailing ideology among the tech-bros where they believe they are going to save humanity with technology. So we all need to understand that some of the advertising claims are borderline religious prophecy wrapped up in technology.
    1
  5785. 1
  5786. 1
  5787. 1
  5788. 1
  5789. 1
  5790. 1
  5791. 1
  5792. 1
  5793. 1
  5794. 1
  5795. 1
  5796. 1
  5797. 1
  5798. I'm Australian and we just won the 2032 games. NO ONE ELSE BID and nobody is asking why? We have plenty of idiots celebrating and making it out to be a good thing. Some of those idiots a have even started the lies. The worst is the claim that 80% of the venues are already built. That's just idiotic garbage. I am currently in Brisbane. I have lived here previously and there is NO WAY they even 25% of the venues and those they do have will need major upgrades before 2032. If Japan is a massive financial failure it only joins the financial failures of others. As a kid I watched the 1976 Montreal games. To the best of my knowledge they have never recovered the costs. 1980 in Moscow was a success because they had cheap labor which also gave Seoul in 1988 an advantage. LA & Atlanta were held in cities with massive sports facilities and massive universities with huge dorms they could use for the athletes village. Barcelona already had a couple of major stadiums. London already had all those football stadiums and the rest of the facilities. Beijing like Seoul and Moscow just had all that cheap labor to build what ever they wanted. Brisbane has 2 main stadiums the Gabba (oval shaped) at 42,000 and Suncorp (rectangular) at 52,500. Neither of those are up to Olympic standard which needs to be around the 80,000 mark. Brisbane held the 1982 Commonwealth games and did a great job. Every since they felt that justified they could host the Olympics. Brisbanites TOTALLY ignore all the extra sports the Olympics have and all the extra athletes and support staff and the extra media. They are planning to spend $1Billion upgrading the Gabba from 42,000 to 50,000 and don't get that's a joke by Olympic Standards. PLUS there's the lesson of Sydney they have already forgotten. It still hasn't been paid for and will most likely NEVER recoup the money spent. Why did one else bid for 2032? Because they were awake.
    1
  5799. 1
  5800. 1
  5801. 1
  5802. 1
  5803. ​ @Jeff-q4u  Aerospace engineer here - PLEASE can everyone STOP mentioning metals and minerals on asteroids & comets. We worked out decades ago that asteroids and comets could NOT supply Earth with anything in a practical way. Its simply the costs of getting there and getting back. The only space resource anyone has even come remotely close to being practical is Helium-3 from the Moon BUT that would only be practical if we had Helium-3 fusion reactors to use it. So far we haven't made any nuclear fusion reactor work in a positive power mode let alone a He-3 one. As for the rest of Elon's Mars fantasy that's also just another wild claim of his that's a great distraction. Its not that we can't get there or get back its keeping the crew alive. Its a funny thing but humans need breathable air, edible food and a way to process human waste. It surprises people that we still don't know how to keep people alive on long duration space missions AWAY from the Earth. Too many think its just something to do and its just not that simple. As for Jeff Bezos plan (or idea) to process things like iron ore in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) those are as equally insane as going to Mars. In that case its the actual volume of iron ore we mine each year. It wouldn't take a few 1,000 rockets each year it would take more like a 1,000s each day. Most people do not realise we dig up over 2.5 billion tons of iron ore each year and the biggest rocket currently planned (Starship Block III) has a limit of 200 tons to orbit. We'd need 12.5 million Starship launches a year or more than 34,000 a day. Sorry but some of the crap these clowns keep telling people really are fantasy land stuff.
    1
  5804. 1
  5805. 1
  5806. 1
  5807. EVERYONE SHOULD GO AND WATCH the PBS Frontline on the 2008 GFC and the reasons why the DOJ did not prosecute the Wall Street CEOs. I'll get to why this is important. Lanny Breuer, Eric Holders (2IC) and the lead on the cleaning up after the GFC straight up admits to the camera that they couldn't do it for "economic reasons." Yes the guys who gave the world the GFC that cost you me and the rest of the planet $17 Trillion (by some estimates and over $40T on others) got off because of economic reasons. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT - Because the 2 guys in the Whitehouse - Obama and Biden were/are both lawyers. Obama went to Harvard and then was a professor at U of Chicago's Law School and he could NOT manage America's legal issues. Basically this rot in the American justice system goes back a long way and is now so cancerous it risks the entire US System and that has grave consequences for the rest of the world. I'm Australian and we are lining up to buy submarines from a country we might NOT be able to depend on because the President is either senile or too temperamental. Other than what Australia has with submarines, the single most important thing for Americans to get is that ever since Breton Woods back in 1944 the US Dollar has been the World's Reserve Currency. Fairly much all of global trade is either done in US Dollars or the money exchanges are backed by US Dollars. So if the US Dollar becomes unstable because America puts another maniac or senile old man in the Whitehouse then all of global trade is at risk. All Krystal has said is "the Democrats can do the same thing the Republicans did with Reagan and it will all be Okay!" Sorry girl but the world wasn't at war when Reagan was in office and besides that there were people doing some seriously stupid stuff during that time - like the Iran-Contra deal. SORRY - Krystal the Reagan thing didn't work. America needs a real leader in the Whitehouse. Democrat, Republican or something else IS YOUR CHOICE. Just don't forget the rest of the world has TO DEAL WITH YOUR CHOICE.
    1
  5808. 1
  5809. 1
  5810. 1
  5811. 1
  5812. 1
  5813. 1
  5814. 1
  5815. 1
  5816. 1
  5817. 1
  5818. 1
  5819. 1
  5820. 1
  5821. 1
  5822. 1
  5823. 1
  5824. 1
  5825. Why is anyone surprised? Milton Freidman the man who coined the term "Greed is Good" also had at the cornerstone of his ideology the following "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 go and look up that quote you'll find a McKinsey article titled "from-there-to-here-50-years-of-thinking-on-the-social-responsibility-of-business" you'll see one of the greatest proponents of this ideology explain why its so good. If you look closely you'll also see how they have cleverly edited that quote because the full quote is actually "There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud” If you scroll down that page at McKinsey it quotes the following from Freidman "In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom." So even Freidman who was a malignant narcissist recognised there were LIMITS to what the rest of society would tolerate. After all there's historical precedents like the French and Russian Revolutions where the lower class basically hit their limits and tore the aristocracies down to the ground.
    1
  5826. 1
  5827. 1
  5828. 1
  5829. 1
  5830. 1
  5831. 1
  5832. 1
  5833. 1
  5834. 1
  5835. 1
  5836. 1
  5837. 1
  5838. 1
  5839. AUSTRALAIN HERE: Same is so true here. There's an American report by there Congressional Budget Office on family wealth 1989-2019. It was commissioned by Bernie Sanders and was an update to an earlier report that only went up to 2013. I have checked it against what Australian wealth distribution data I can and found our situation to be very similar. If you google "congressional budget office family wealth" you can not only find the report but there's also all the data for all the graphs available. The single most important graph is the very first one which at a glance shows that overall society is much wealthier but it also shows that the wealth growth has been among the top 10% and Middle 40% while the Bottom 50% has gone nowhere for 30 years. But that's not the most amazing aspect of that graph. Comparing the 2010 data to 2007 shows the effect of the 2007-08 GFC. Comparing the 2019 data back to 2007 shows what happened during the decade after the GFC and how well people recovered. The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC and by 2019 were over 21% MORE wealthy than they were in 2007. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC and by 2019 were almost 5% MORE wealthy than they were in 2007. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC and by 2019 were STILL DOWN OVER 21%. So the people who caused the GFC and were bailed out with US$4 Trillion from Bush, another US$4 Trillion from Obama (but he did get about US$1 Trillion back) and then got Tax cuts worth US$3.5 Trillion from Trump WERE (collectively) UP by US$20.3 Trillion which has only grown more since. The Middle 40% (with 4 times as many people) were up by US$3.7 Trillion which is probably nice EXCEPT the total combined wealth of the Bottom 50% as of (2019) just US$2.3Trillion. YES in the 245 years (1776-2019) half of the American population has gathered a combined wealth (US$2.3 Trillion) that is LESS than what the Middle 40% made (US$3.7 Trillion) during the recovery after the GFC. But that is nothing compared to the US$20.1 Trillion made by the Top 10% in the same decade. That data is also irrefutable because its from the Congressional Budget Office and if they lie or mislead then they are lying to or misleading Congress and that's a criminal offense in America. That's why I use/quote that data.
    1
  5840. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Like many engineers I am TIRED of clowns promoting garbage to the public that we then have to explain and explain and explain why its not possible or it won't work. This crap and nonsense is going on constantly, with scammer after scammer promoting the next thing and wasting everyone's time and money. Just the other day I had some ignorant clown tell me that here in Australia we ALREADY HAVE a couple of Small Modular Reactors operating. Funny thing is NONE of the companies involved in SMRs are saying anything other than they HOPE to have them available by the mid 2030s. According to this clown somehow Australia has time warped in a couple of SMRs. As an aerospace engineer I hear all sorts of nonsense from terraforming Mars (which is simply a fantasy), to Jewish or Chinese Space lasers causing grass fires to hypersonic missiles that manoeuvre and dance around the sky AND ITS ALL BULLSHIT. What Thunder00t is doing with these basic calculations of HOW MUCH IS NEEDED is what I call planetary mechanics. Along with my classmates we were introduced to this by a NASA engineer who did a guest lecture one day. He'd just finished a project for NASA on what it would take to terraform Mars. Once NASA realised just how much stuff (like air) is needed to cover a planet they gave up on the idea of EVER terraforming Mars. But 35 years later there are millions of Elon Musk fans who think they will be going to Mars to terraform it. DID you notice for this proposal the team leader is an Architect? If Architects knew how much engineers HATE THEM. Other than a few of the very best architects who know what their designs do to the people who have to make them, the vast majority of architects are PROBLEM CREATORS. The worst part of their attitude is THEY KNOW they are creating problems for other people to deal with.
    1
  5841. 1
  5842. 1
  5843. 1
  5844. 1
  5845. 1
  5846. 1
  5847. 1
  5848. 1
  5849. 1
  5850. 1
  5851. AUSTRALIAN with an observation: The Lesson learned from 2024 is that the Clinton-Obama-Ivy League clown show that runs the Dumocrats is INCAPABLE OF LEARNING FROM THEIR MISTAKES. AND SO YOU ALL KNOW - in early 2019 Australian Labor (our Left) LOST an easily winnable election to the LNP (our Right) and then in late 2019 British Labor (their Left) LOST an easily winnable election to the Torries (their Right) running an almost identical campaign strategy to Australian Labor. Lots of policies that they simply believed & expected the entire population to vote for WITHOUT any explanation WHY. It was eerily similar to Hilary Clinton's LOSING strategy - remember when she claimed she didn't need to campaign in Michigan because they'd vote for her anyway???? So I asked some Brits here on YouTube on the BBC channel WTF was going on. One of them replied - British Labor like Australian Labor used campaign advisors from Clintons 2016 campaign. These people who have now lost or failed in AT LEAST 4 major recent elections - Hilary 2016, Australia 2019, Britain 2019 and Harris 2024. Plus lets NOT forget what actually happened in 2020. Biden might have won the Whitehouse but the Dumocrats were belted in the House, failed to win the Senate and got smashed in the state elections. YES WE KNOW. Plus through some of the worst failures of political leadership the US Supreme Court along with significant portions of the US justice system is now broken. YES WE KNOW ABOUT THAT TOO. What many Americans DO NOT realise is that your campaign advisors, consultants and strategists travel the world going from election to election to election to election to election to election to election to election to election.................. So when YOU here people say things like "Stop interfering in our elections!" this is one of the things we mean. Just so you guys also know the US State Department also funds programs in Think Tanks around the world. I discovered this because our Think Tanks (by Law) have to publicly disclose their funding. By chance I discovered that one of the main think Tanks here in Australia ASPI that advises our government on MILITARY POLICY also gets funding from the US State Department.
    1
  5852. 1
  5853. 1
  5854. 1
  5855. 1
  5856. 1
  5857. 1
  5858. 1
  5859. 1
  5860. 1
  5861. Why can't any of these idiotic journalists do some basic fact checking. What really hurt Concorde wasn't the technology or noise or costs - it was 9/11. This was all made clear on a documentary that a group of the pilots help make. FIRST Concorde made money, in fact for most of its life it was British Airways most profitable division. After losing buckets at first British Airways were going to cancel the entire program and the pilots challenged management that they had the ticketing wrong because the planes were MOSTLY FULL. Management challenged the pilots to run it better which they then did for more than 25 years (and profitably). The first thing they did was one of the great exercises in market research. they found they had a group of lawyers and bankers using Concorde several times a week. Those people flew across the Atlantic for sensitive document and contract signings. So they changed the ticket price to what that group believed a Concorde ticket was worth. The original pricing was based on standard subsonic flights. The tickets they were initially selling were grossly under valued. The main users of Concorde were business people for who time was very serious money. The cost of jumping on Concorde flying across the Atlantic for a quick meeting and then flying back were worth it for the type of business those people did. SECOND what really hurt Concorde was that over 50 of its top 100 users died in the Twin Towers on 9/11. THIRD what killed of Concorde wasn't the accident but Airbus who owned all the technology rights refusing to maintain Concorde so they could sell more of the normal aircraft. Don't ask for the logic on that. FOURTH Concorde was NEVER outdated because nothing else came along that was better at doing what it did AND STILL HASN'T.
    1
  5862. 1
  5863. 1
  5864. 1
  5865. 1
  5866. 1
  5867. 1
  5868. 1
  5869. 1
  5870. 1
  5871. 1
  5872. 1
  5873. 1
  5874. 1
  5875. 1
  5876. 1
  5877. 1
  5878. 1
  5879. 1
  5880. 1
  5881. OH FARK can't any of you clowns get why they fall for this stuff? Its called anger and frustration which is a deadly combination. In Germany the general population were totally screwed while a handful of rich people had everything. In a fit of rage they handed their country over to Hitler and the Nazis. Go and look at the French and Russian revolutions. The French handed their country to Robespierre who went on a rampage known as "The Reign or Terror" where he didn't sack people he just publicly guillotined them. The Russians simply handed their country over to Stalin, who then proceeded to kill millions of them. David's old professor Richard Wolff pointed out a Congressional Budget Office report of family wealth. Full title "Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2019" Report number 57598 from September 2022. JUST LOOK AT THE FIRST GRAPH that separates America into the Top 10%, Middle 40% and Bottom 50%. See how little the Bottom 50% have made over those last 30 years which includes 2 x 2 term Democrat Presidents. No matter what happens no matter what the economy id doing they get screwed. Remember the 2008 GFC that was caused by the greed of the Top 10%. Its that dip in the graph after 2007. The Top 10% LOST 11% of their wealth, the Middle 40% LOST 13% and the Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth. By 2019 the Top 10% had not only recovered but were $20.2 TRILLION AHEAD of their wealth in 2007. Bush gave them $4 Trillion and Obama gave them another $4 Trillion MOST OF WHICH WAS NEVER PAID BACK. Meanwhile the Bottom 50% of America which is 165 Million people have still not recovered. They were worth $2.7 Trillion in 2007 and by 2019 were worth $2.3 Trillion. If you can't see why these 165 million Americans don't feel cheated out of the American Dream then you're blind. FYI - I'm Australian and because we have almost the same economic policies as American we have the same problem with our Bottom 50%. We get all the news from Britain and they have the same problem. Since the GFC when not one country did a damn thing to change the system the wealthy have thrived the middle class has paid for it and the working class have been smashed. That's why we keep seeing wild swings in elections across the entire Western World. People are so frustrated and angry they will vote for anyone INCLUDING Donald Trump, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Giorgia Meloni in Italy and lets not forget they keep electing Vladimir Putin in Russia.
    1
  5882. 1
  5883. 1
  5884. 1
  5885. 1
  5886. 1
  5887. 1
  5888. 1
  5889. 1
  5890. 1
  5891. 1
  5892. 1
  5893. 1
  5894. 1
  5895. 1
  5896. 1
  5897. 1
  5898. 1
  5899. 1
  5900. 1
  5901. 1
  5902.  @CatarinaStone  AND SINCE YOUR SO IGNORANT There have been many alternatives to this disaster over many years. It never needed to happen at all. Do you realise that it was the Arab League who voted against the 2 state solution back when Israel was formed? The Europeans (Britain & France) who'd controlled the region since the end of World War 1, knew that there was no way the fanatics on both sides would never live in a single state together so they put forward a 2 state solution and the ARAB LEAGUE voted it down. Did you know there was polling before the 2024 October 7th attacks that showed Hamas was losing support from the Palestinian people. Hamas was basically operating as a collection of criminal gangs and could not afford elections. Did you realise that it was Benjamin Netanyahu who helped fund Hamas in the first place so that the Palestinians would be politically divided? That's why Palestinian elections weren't happening. Neither Hamas nor the Israeli RIGHT wanted fresh elections among the Palestinians or that political divide might have been extinguished. HERE'S A SOLUTION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN PUT FORWARD DECADES AGO. When ISRAEL gave back the Sinai to Egypt which it had controlled from 1967 to 1982 and forced the Jewish Settlers to leave that region could have been ceded to the Palestinians and Gaza instead of being a narrow strip of misery could have been massively expanded and the people of Gaza could have had the room to grow. Go look at the Wikipedia page for the "Israeli occupation of the Sinai Peninsula" There were a few people at that time who suggested giving more land to the Palestinians in Gaza, but were shouted down by EVERYONE, because the last thing ANYONE wanted was the Palestinians to be anything else but slaves to the politics of the region. There have been many reasonable and sensible suggestions and solutions brought forward over the last 70 years but NONE of the active political entities want them because then what would they shout about. If you can and you want to be slightly more educated then go and look up the interviews Jon Stewart had with King Abdullah of Jordan on the daily show (2010 & 2012) where Abdullah laid it all out on how to deal with the Palestinian issue and the War on Terror. In a way Abdullah predicted this sort of thing would eventually happen.
    1
  5903. 1
  5904. 1
  5905. 1
  5906. 1
  5907. 1
  5908. 1
  5909. 1
  5910. 1
  5911. 1
  5912. 1
  5913. 1
  5914. 1
  5915. 1
  5916. 1
  5917. 1
  5918. 1
  5919. 1
  5920. 1
  5921.  @nozealotlikeaconvert  If you actually go back and review what Mark said he was very very close to perfect accuracy. The DNC relied on Biden winning over some Republicans which he did. They completely underestimated how many, which was why they lost house seats and didn't get outright control of the Senate. Trump was a winner if he didn't blow up the economy. Trump didn't just blow up the economy he blew it up during the worst pandemic in a century which he mishandled so badly that it cost 400,000 Americans their lives. I'm Australian but went to college in America (U. of Illinois). If I combine the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its almost identical to the population of Australia. We have 940 dead they have over 48,000. Its not geography or some magic medical technology or the weather or population density. We got lucky early on and they didn't with the initial spread. Trump didn't respond and his moronic son in law was so busy watching the stock market he let the disaster unfold. The world hasn't forgotten "there will 15 cases and then it will be gone" followed by "there wont be more than 50,000 dead" followed by "there wont be more than 60,000 dead." The current count is 633,000 and still climbing. Its hard to campaign when your supporters are dying form your own stupidity. As far as Mark giving Trump credit. Trump deserves a hell of a lot of credit. Despite all the stupidity he managed to increase his vote by 11 million. That takes ability, it might be deplorable but the DNC underestimated it in 2016 and lost. Don't forget for nearly 2 years every poll said his base (and vote) were shrinking. So where di those 11 million come from. Trump might be a big fat lying sack of crap who cheats at everything he does, but don't ever be stupid and underestimate he knows what Americans like. 11 million people turned up and voted for him who didn't vote for him in 2016. Underestimating that ability again will cost the DNC and will cost America.
    1
  5922. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS NOT ONLY WRONG but is also a COWARD I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. NOTHING he presented is based on engineering, physics or economics and his logic is flawed. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  5923. 1
  5924. 1
  5925. 1
  5926. That's of course sensible and its what scientists have argued for some time. Because of all the ridiculous howling and screaming over COVID one thing that needed to be discussed but has NOT been discussed is the oversight of these labs. Back in 2011 there was a Dutch Researcher named Ron Fouchier who created a variation of avian flu that has been described as the deadliest virus humanity has ever encountered. Had it escaped rather than COVID we'd have already have over 64 million dead instead of 6.6 million. The problem that emerged after Ron Fouchier's work was that nobody was really aware of what he was doing. The Dutch government actually had to step in and shut him down because he wanted to tell the whole world how he did it and show how clever he was. He never considered the maniacs who would use it. If you do take a look at the whole Wuhan issue it was obvious there were issues. I DO NOT think that what they were doing was fundamentally wrong. China had faced MERS and SARS so investigating what might be next was smart. Getting other nations to help with that research was also smart. DOING THAT RESEARCH IN AN UNSAFE WAY WAS NOT SMART. An airborne virus like COVID needed to have been researched in a Level 4 lab NOT a Level 3 lab AND THAT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY EXPERTS. And 1 other thing. They redefined what was and what wasn't gain of function. Ron Fouchier's work would no longer be considered gain of function. Just like the work in Wuhan is also not considered to be gain of function. This is something else that has NOT been discussed publicly.
    1
  5927. 1
  5928. 1
  5929. 1
  5930. 1
  5931. 1
  5932. 1
  5933. 1
  5934. 1
  5935. 1
  5936. 1
  5937. 1
  5938. 1
  5939. 1
  5940. 1
  5941. 1
  5942. 1
  5943. 1
  5944. 1
  5945. 1
  5946. 1
  5947. 1
  5948. 1
  5949. 1
  5950. 1
  5951.  @makeamericagreatagain3401  You didn't need that opening because it sort of masked that you made several really good points. Kyle exists in his bubble but then all of them live in their bubbles, even Pakman. They all filter their content to some extent which is why you can't just watch one of them. All the American progressives make one major fundamental mistake and that's the idea that Progressive is a purely LEFT concept. Its wrong for the basic reason America does not have and never has had a true left. Both parties were started in their respective bubbles of American ideology. America never had a party like British Labour that STARTED among its labour unions or any of the similar Leftist parties in Europe. The most fundamental thing about Progressives is that they all want to see PROGRESS. Yeah sure that's left wing things like Education, Health Care and Environment. BUT it also includes right wing things like economy and industry (as in jobs & career). I'm certain you've seen Sagaar & Krystal. They are BOTH progressives. Even though Sagaar is a right winger he's also a Progressive right winger. They are rare but they do exist. I'm actually an Australian engineer who went to college in America. I equally hate politics and economics because its mostly BS. But I have had to start considering both so that I can deal with them. One thing I found (worked out) was that true right and true left people tend to hyper-focus on a single topic like abortion or LGBT rights. Progressives look at a raft of topics. The 5 most common I have found are Economy, Industry, Education, Health Care and Environment. Those 5 things can be prioritised over 100 different ways which is why progressives sound confusing. Its also why they seem leftist but they are actually pretty centred. They try and balance things which makes them appear confused because they aren't hyper focused on a single topic or 2.
    1
  5952. 1
  5953. 1
  5954. 1
  5955. 1
  5956. 1
  5957. 1
  5958. 1
  5959. 1
  5960. 1
  5961. 1
  5962. 1
  5963. 1
  5964. 1
  5965. 1
  5966. It goes even further, they want to throw out the funding for EVERY government department. This is exactly what people like Milton Friedman have wanted since the formation of America as a nation. Friedman famously said (among other things) "Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player." If you actually think about that what it means is that the only purpose of a government is to PROTECT the rights of commercial interests. The military to protect their interests outside America. The police forces to protect their interests inside America. The Courts to enforce their rights to the detriment of everyone else because profits come before people. Its the idiotic nonsense of people like Ayn Rand and her "me before society" nonsense. Its the ideal world of people like the famous robber baron John D. Rockefeller. This is also exactly how people like Bill Gates, Mark Suckerberg and Elon Musk all operate. Uber went around the world and simply tore up what every government had in the way of taxi regulations. Air BNB have done similar to the worlds rental markets causing grief everywhere they operate. So long as they make money anything and everything is justified.
    1
  5967. 1
  5968. 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
  5969. 1
  5970. 1
  5971. 1
  5972. 1
  5973. 1
  5974. 1
  5975. 1
  5976. 1
  5977. 1
  5978. 1
  5979. 1
  5980. 1
  5981. Australian here: As an outside observer you have just perfectly described the Democrats greatest weakness. They make assumptions that are usually terrible and wrong and end up having consequences the entire planet has to deal with. If you are all wondering WHY people on the other side of the planet care about this and will comment on this its pretty simple. THIS AFFECTS US TOO. No matter how for or against America a person is there are several inescapable facts. 1) America is still the worlds dominant military superpower. Despite the losses in Afghanistan and Iraq if America chooses to smash something they can and do it without anyone else being able to say NO. 2) Not only is America 1/4 of the worlds economy that we all interact with but the US DOLLAR (US$) is still the worlds reserve currency. Almost every international transaction and trade is either done in US$ or the currency exchanges are backed by US$. SO NONE of US can afford to have anything but a responsible and reliable US President and we haven't really had that since George Herbert Walker Bush was in the white house. Clinton could not keep his d*ck where it belonged. Bush 2.0 let Cheney and his goon squad run the show. Obama despite being a great Orator was a failure as a leader. Trump was what happens if you let Psychotic Bart Simpson into the White House. Joe Biden was there for a while before his age caught up and nobody knows who's been in charge since. For all appearances America is run by puppets controlled form the shadows by a small group of billionaires who now have so much control they get to select who's on SCOTUS and re-write the constitution as they see fit. The Democrats should have realised Biden was sliding and started to promote Kamala Harris 2 years ago AND THEY HAVE NOT. This whole "if you don't vote Joe the alternative is worse" rhetoric is IDI0TIC and not only do the America people deserve better but so does the rest of the planet.
    1
  5982. 1
  5983. 1
  5984. 1
  5985. 1
  5986. 1
  5987. She also nailed the biggest issue the left across the entire Western Developed World have. The Left DON'T have clear answers or plans for working class people. That's staggering considering the left are historically associated with the working class. Ideas like coal workers simply retraining as coders doing apps is bullshit. I'm an engineer and know how much that's BS. On the flip side she completely regurgitated the right wing bullshit on Obama Care, which was actually a rebadged Mitt Romney policy. On that subject she behaved like any other right wing partisan hack. She was also consistently against the left as if they are ALL far left. I agree on most of what she says about the FAR left, but they don't represent a lot of left leaning people just as the far right don't represent a lot of the right. She never compared the far left to the far right or what they do that's very similar and equally revolting. Its possible her work as part of Fox makes her NOT want to acknowledge that. She's very right about being able to talk about things. If you go back to Jordan Peterson's famous outdoor speech about the freedom to use words its similar. He said you have to be able to use words and discuss things even if they are uncomfortable or you'll never solve the problems that exist. On the rest of it she's pretty much spot on considering I'm commenting 9 moths later. It has stayed tribal and it has stayed ugly. The Afghanistan evacuation just ended (or the main part of it did) and the GOP hacks are screaming about how bad its been as they forget and ignore that Trump did the deal with the Taliban. There's one thing I absolutely agree on. Joe Biden is NOT the solution to America's problems. He's too tied to the other side of America's corporate establishment. He hired economic advisors out of Goldman Sachs and Blackrock just like Trump did. That stuff is really at the core of Americas wealth and division issues. And that's been covered up by the failed media empires of which she has been a part.
    1
  5988. 1
  5989. 1
  5990. 1
  5991. 1
  5992. 1
  5993. 1
  5994. 1
  5995. 1
  5996. 1
  5997. 1
  5998. 1
  5999. 1
  6000.  @manofsan  Are you seriously that ignorant to try playing the acronym game???? It best when you have no idea or clue about what you're talking about to ask questions instead of making stupid claims. What they currently have for an Environmental Control and Life Support System on the ISS is nothing like what is needed for even long duration missions. For starters its not a closed loop system. It requires constant replenishment of materials. As an engineer its so frustrating to put up with dealing with all the BS and hype and garbage and misleading information that's put out these days. There is an insane difference between what they have operating on current spacecraft including the ISS and what is needed for off-world bases. They do not yet grow any food space which is the simplest thing to point out. They do not recycle the atmosphere, they filter out the CO2 and replenish the O2. People like you need to STOP listening to the PR clowns who imply Star Trek is a documentary and we actually have all the technology that's needed. FYI - I am an aerospace engineer and have been doing industrial automation and control systems for over 30+years. I actually work in industries where stuff has to work and PR means nothing. In 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and he told me to check up on Helium-3 as that was what we'd be going back tot he moon for. So I went off to the Australian mining industry to see how they built and operated mines. You see I thought some practical experience would be worthwhile. What I learned a lot about where the peripherals to the actual mining operation. A few hundred people on a mine site need food, water, shelter, power, communications and they also produce heaps of sh1t and waste that has to be dealt with. Fortunately the air is breathable. It was fortuitous timing as they were doing a lot of building and upgrades in the iron ore industry to meet Chinese demand. So I got first hand experience with what it takes to build and then operate mine sites in remote places. I've seen seen the garbage presented at conferences by NASA and others. They haven't a clue about those kinds of remote operations. They all claim they'll do the maintenance with robots and AI and that's just total BS. I doubt if any (if not all) of them have ever set foot on a mine site let alone spent time working on one. They have zero understanding of those environments. The people promoting asteroid mining are even worse. That's not to say the idea of mining asteroids is bad, but the people promoting it these days are ignorant clowns with great PR. They have utterly no idea about mining. They see the price of platinum claim there's an asteroid and yell out how much money can be made without any brain function put towards HOW it can be done. But the worst of all is Mr. Bezos claiming he will move heavy industry to Low Earth Orbit. Its a staggering level of hubris and bullsh1t. You only need to look at the worlds iron ore production and consider what it would take to lift that to LEO and then bring back the iron produced. Its an insane proposition. The heat generated from bringing that much mass down from orbit would literally burn the atmosphere off the planet. As Dunning says "ignorance can't recognize itself."
    1
  6001. 1
  6002. 1
  6003. 1
  6004. 1
  6005. 1
  6006. 1
  6007. 1
  6008. 1
  6009. 1
  6010. 1
  6011. 1
  6012. 1
  6013. 1
  6014. 1
  6015. 1
  6016. 1
  6017. 1
  6018. 1
  6019. 1
  6020. 1
  6021. 1
  6022. 1
  6023. 1
  6024. 1
  6025. 1
  6026. 1
  6027. 1
  6028. ​ @ASS999ish  Australian here and I'll give you guys all something to mull on. What do you think certain countries are going to do if Trump gets the GOP nomination considering how much of a threat he is to them? I can simply tell you that even in Australia Trump 2.0 is a threat and we are in a far better position than most as we host several incredibly important US Installations. But there's other countries that would see a second Trump presidency as an outright threat to their existence. Other than the obvious issue with Ukraine there's a whole list of countries that used to be part of the Soviet block and they KNOW that Trump already wants to throw Ukraine under Putin's bus. So what do you think they feel? Then there's all of NATO who are wondering WTF their security might be under Trump 2.0. Then on the Economic front what do you think negotiating and trade agreements will be like with Trump 2.0. That's gonna scare the entire Pacific Rim because they all remember what Trump did to the Canadians. Let me put it this way the only country I know off hand that would welcome Trump 2.0 is Russia. Then there are all the people who were involved with Epstein that Trump knows about. What do you think they believe Trump 2.0 can get away with considering he'd be truly off the leash by that stage. Lets not forget how he's blackmailed Lindsey Graham. There are so many people on the planet who DON'T want Trump 2.0 and for a whole host of reasons that its just a matter of which one of them does it. And I haven't even mentioned the Palestinians or Iranians.
    1
  6029. 1
  6030. 1
  6031. 1
  6032. To all you Americans who care. This was recently shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Gretchen Carlson's interview as a single video is available as well -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOEAsp95AE4 This was done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. I've already been trolled for these comments. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. They are a Murdoch operation and absolutely hate ABC Australia screaming endlessly they are a leftist propaganda machine. ABC Australia is not a leftist organization they are (as a public broadcaster) controlled by a government appointed board. The current Australian Government is right wing and they have board level control of the ABC. So the claims of left wing bias are garbage. ABC Australia isn't perfect and have lost 2 defamation cases this year, but those cases are tiny compared to News Corp cases. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). That's because the ABC like the BBC has ripped into Murdoch over the years for shoddy journalism and other practices like illegal surveillance including phone tapping.
    1
  6033. 1
  6034. 1
  6035. 1
  6036. 1
  6037. 1
  6038. 1
  6039. 1
  6040. 1
  6041. 1
  6042. 1
  6043. 1
  6044. 1
  6045. 1
  6046. 1
  6047. 1
  6048. 1
  6049. 1
  6050. 1
  6051. 1
  6052. 1
  6053. 1
  6054. 1
  6055. 1
  6056. 1
  6057. 1
  6058. 1
  6059. 1
  6060. 1
  6061. 1
  6062. 1
  6063. 1
  6064. 1
  6065. 1
  6066. 1
  6067. You are absolutely 100% correct NOTE WHAT Kevin McCarthy actually says. I cut & past this from the transcript of the video except the punctuation is mine. Starting at 1:24 "Despite these serious allegations. It appears that the president's family has been offered special treatment by Biden's own Administration. Treatment that not otherwise would have received if they were not related to the President. These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption and they warrant further investigation by the House of Representatives." Think about what that actually says. 1) There's allegations NOT EVIDENCE. 2) There's appearance NOT EVIDENCE. 3) Regarding the allegations of favoritism to family members, maybe he can explain how Jared & Ivanka were given positions in the Trump Whitehouse despite having NO RELEVANT Experience for those positions. 4) Regarding the allegations of abuse of power, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored what Trump did with his "perfect call" to Ukraine during Trump's 1st Impeachment. 5) Regarding the allegations of obstruction, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored Trumps obstruction with counting votes on January 6th during Trump's 2nd Impeachment. 6) Regarding the allegations of corruption, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain why there has been NO Investigation regarding Jared Kushner's use of government resources to play various Arab states against each other to secure several hundred million dollars to bail out his family's investment in the New York office tower 666 Fifth Avenue OR How Jared Kushner was able to get $2 Billion from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund as he left the Whitehouse. OR How Donald Trump's golf courses made millions of dollars because he spent so much time at them as President that countries were forced to rent suites and villas at them to hold meetings. PLUS the US government had to pay for the rental of suites and villas and golf carts and food at those golf courses for Whitehouse Staff and Secret Service agents.
    1
  6068. 1
  6069. 1
  6070. 1
  6071. 1
  6072. 1
  6073. 1
  6074. 1
  6075. 1
  6076. 1
  6077. 1
  6078. 1
  6079. 1
  6080. 1
  6081. 1
  6082. 1
  6083. 1
  6084. 1
  6085. 1
  6086. 1
  6087. 1
  6088. 1
  6089. 1
  6090. 1
  6091. 1
  6092. 1
  6093. 1
  6094. 1
  6095. 1
  6096. 1
  6097. 1
  6098. 1
  6099. 1
  6100. 1
  6101. 1
  6102. 1
  6103. 1
  6104. 1
  6105. 1
  6106. 1
  6107. 1
  6108. 1
  6109. 1
  6110.  @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
  6111. 1
  6112. 1
  6113. 1
  6114. 1
  6115. 1
  6116. 1
  6117. 1
  6118. 1
  6119. 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
  6120. 1
  6121. 1
  6122. 1
  6123. 1
  6124. 1
  6125. 1
  6126. 1
  6127. 1
  6128. 1
  6129. 1
  6130. The problem with this discussion is that it is simply 2 people agreeing with each other in front of an audience who want to hear what they want to hear, but they are right about a few things. I am an engineer and there is some very valid points in this like the fact that electric trucks have failed and there is no electric alternative to diesel tractors. The other industry that wont be changing at all is the metallurgical coal for making steel. They are also right that the integrated plan will NOT WORK, but the real reason why is something these 2 clowns don't talk about. But on so many other points they are either WRONG or they are just leaving out facts they should be telling everyone. One major thing they do not tell you is that the nuclear option will cost EVERY HOUSEHOLD in Australia at least $25,000 in high energy bills while it gets built. It will simply take at least 25 years to build out what's proposed and that will mean your power bills will stay the same for the next 25 years costing you at least $1000 each year. The real cause why our energy bills are so high is because we haven't built nay major power stations in 25 years. the last reasonably large (but still under 1,000MW) power stations were Millmerran and Kogan Creek in Queensland. The 3 biggest power stations in Australia at Eraring & Bayswater in NSW and Loy Yang in Victoria were all built in the 1980s. Meanwhile the population went from 15 million in the 80s to 20 million in the early 2000s and its now 27 million. WE SIMPLY HAVE NOT BUILT ENOUGH POWER STATIONS. The real problem with the Integrated plan is that our renewables HAVE NOT BEEN PLANNED. Its all be dictated by the foreign companies building it. Its NOT been well planned and that's why its a mess. As for coal to be used for power is a dead industry and they all know it. Even the Chinese have stopped building coal. They're building nuclear and renewables side by side. In fact the Chinese have installed more renewables in recent years than the rest of the world combined. In some of their provinces 80% of homes now have roof top solar.
    1
  6131. 1
  6132. 1
  6133. 1
  6134. 1
  6135. 1
  6136. 1
  6137. 1
  6138. 1
  6139. 1
  6140. 1
  6141. 1
  6142. 1
  6143. 1
  6144. 1
  6145. 1
  6146. I'm Australian and I can SADLY SAY that Andrew Marr is hopelessly WRONG "Stop the Boats!" is an incredibly powerful campaign slogan that works, just ask an Australian. Go and google "stop the boats Australia" and see what comes up. There was stuff being said here that is straight out of the Australian election from about 12 years ago when our equivalent of the Conservatives ran that exact campaign and WON. There's even a Guardian article from March this year pointing out how similar Rishi Sunak's policy is to Tony Abbotts winning 2013 campaign. This is one thing the LEFT never understand. When the average person in the street is under stress and struggling they DO NOT GIVE A DAMN about refugees. All they see are people who don't care about them. In late 2022 the American Congressional Budget Office published a report on Family Wealth from 1989 to 2019. I've checked the Australian data it paints a very similar picture. The 2008 GFC hit the lower 50% of America almost 5x harder than the top 10% and almost 4x harder than the middle 40%. Between 2007 and 2010 the bottom 50% of America lost 49.5% of its wealth. By 2019 the Top 10% who were bailed out after the GFC had not only recovered but they were over $20 TRILLION (with a 'T') ahead of there 2007 position. meanwhile the bottom 50% were still almost 22% BEHIND their 2007 position. Not only does the Australian data paint a similar picture but I am certain its the similar across the entire Developed World because there's similar stories of supply shortages, housing crisis and energy crisis. Basically 50% the developed world has been smashed for around 15 years and its only getting worse. So I am sorry to tell the British LEFT but "stop the boats" will work.
    1
  6147. 1
  6148. 1
  6149. 1
  6150. 1
  6151.  @anirudhmitra4232  I don't know who "spacefanboy" is or what he's claiming. At its most basic the idea of us becoming an "interplanetary species" within this solar system its pretty ridiculous as there's so few places with even the right gravity for our bodies to function properly. It doesn't matter if you believe in god or mother nature our bodies work best in 1g and 14.7psi of air that's about 21% oxygen and 79% nitrogen. The moment you start getting away from that human bodies don't do so well. Remember above a certain height on Mt Everest you start to die no matter how well conditioned you are. Its not fundamentally wrong to think we'll live on other planets, but the proponents overlook so many basic facts. Its easy to do and we've all done it at some point, but then you also need listen to people who have expertise and experience, which so many of the clowns these days just won't do. Back around 2000 I got into an argument with a friend who was at NASA on the ISS construction. Like many others I wanted it finished so we could get on with stuff. When we'd been in college in the late 80s we all expected to build the next space station in the 90s and be back on the moon circa 2001. Then we got the rudest wakeup when Challenger blew up one morning. So by the year 2000 a lot of us just wanted the ISS finished so we could get on with stuff. At that time I wanted to go into fixing satellites. Instead of just dumping them when they ran out of fuel I wanted to refuel them. I was was just 1 of 100s wanting to do that. This friend of mine just slapped me down with the fact of the basic fuel and life support requirements for a mission like that. Her and others at NASA were tired of complaints on how long the ISS was taking. She'd had enough at that stage and told me to do some basic math or never bother her again. SHE WAS RIGHT and I apologised when I worked out what she and others at NASA already knew. There were a bunch of technologies that weren't ready and most still aren't ready. There were decisions made way back in the 1970s before me and my friend were even out of grade school, let alone out of college, that have had some very negative consequences we are still living with. Its one thing I do agree with the Angry Astronaut about. Right after Apollo we were betrayed. Some stupid decisions were made and the big aerospace companies stepped in and started milking NASA by the billion. I honestly don't know how far we'd be if smarter decisions had been made. I like to think we'd at least have a lunar base but can't say for certain because its just damn difficult. I heard claims just last week on one podcast about plans for being on Mars by the mid 80s, Saturn by the 90s and Alpha Centauri by 2000. It was just a ridiculous and stupid remark and yet its the sort of stuff people latch onto. Its very frustrating being an engineer these days because there are so many people saying things in bad faith. The person who made the claims about Mars in the 80s,... etc is doing a book promotion tour. He's not saying these things because they are true he's saying these things to get people to buy his book. And that's so common with so many people. They are trying to sell something.
    1
  6152. 1
  6153. Its about 2 digits too few and you keep letting it all burn down. Below this is the comment I addressed to Thunderf00t sorry but its longish ----------- ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    1
  6154. 1
  6155. 1
  6156. 1
  6157. 1
  6158. 1
  6159. 1
  6160. 1
  6161. 1
  6162. 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
  6163. 1
  6164. 1
  6165. 1
  6166. 1
  6167. 1
  6168. Great comment and you are right all across the board. I'm an aerospace engineer and I hate to break it to you but the bulk of this audience don't care for scientific facts. I beta my head against the wall at times with the nonsense some of these people push. Robert Zubrin has been dismissed so many times that serious people aren't interested in his nonsense any more. The things he's right about he is right. NASA did lose its way after Apollo and many technologies we did need to develop either stalled or died. I loved the initial enthusiasm of the Mars Society to do stuff because it started to redress that. But then he and the Mars Society just reverted into this delusional science fiction fantasy nonsense. There was NEVER a serious Mars mission planned for 1980 or Saturn by 1990 or Alpha Centauri by 2000. I can barely believe some of the nonsense he's said here. That claim about matter not being able to be made or destroyed. Sorry but Einstein not only worked that out he gave is the formula E=mc². Then he claimed the moon has no carbon or nitrogen and yet IT DOES, its just in very small amounts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_resources#Carbon_and_nitrogen. You've pointed out that nobody has worked out how to make a stable self sustaining ecology with enough plant life so we can process waste and produce food, clean water and breathable air. Yes people have been at that but nobody has come close to cracking it. Its not that its impossible its just that its so damn hard because biologival systems are incredibly complex. I find it very frustrating that he's found a way to grab the microphone again and again. I don't mind him talking about the things that need saying but peddling science fiction as science fact helps nobody. It's why NASA and others want so little to do with him these days.
    1
  6169. 1
  6170. 1
  6171. 1
  6172. 1
  6173. 1
  6174. 1
  6175. ​ @seanarmstrong8255  Yeah charters of any type are usually profitable because you simply look at the actual costs and then add a percentage and that works for anything - planes, boats, cars,... On fuel Concorde was always thirsty but then so has every other plane in history when it flew supersonic. Its one of the reasons why the generations of jet fighters after the 1970s got slower on their top end speed. I remember an engineer who worked on the F111 who said that with full tanks off an air refueling with no external load to add any extra drag that it had enough fuel for about 4-1/2 minutes at full speed. One day when I was at my glider club in 87 one of the tow pilots mentioned that one of the Concorde pilots had just logged his 10,000th hour as pilot in command at supersonic speed. At that moment he had more time as PIC at supersonic than the entire USAF had logged in all its known history. The SR-71 time was unknown at that stage because it was still pretty secret but it was still estimated at only a few 1000 hours. People don't realise that even though there's F15, F16, F18,.... pilots with 1,000s of hours they have only an hour at most at supersonic with most of them only minutes. Its simply not something they do a lot of. Its a combination of fuel and much it stresses the airframe and engines. I was checking something recently about the MIG 25 Foxbat which was built to counter the potential of the XB-70 and could go faster than Mach 3. Yes it really could go that fast but it did so much damage to the engines they were tossed at the end of the flight and scrapped. Not rebuilt but scrapped. When you know these things it just makes you realise how special planes like the Concorde and SR71 actually are/were.
    1
  6176. 1
  6177. 1
  6178. 1
  6179. 1
  6180. 1
  6181. 1
  6182. 1
  6183. 1
  6184. 1
  6185. 1
  6186. SORRY MATE but GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  6187. 1
  6188. 1
  6189. 1
  6190. 1
  6191. 1
  6192. 1
  6193. 1
  6194. Its actually less than that. The idea of copyright or intellectual property just DOESN'T exist in Chinese culture. I'm Australian and we have already had huge issues with Chinese grifters. The worst trouble we have in recent years is that as soon as any new company in Australia registers a logo or brand name then its copied by Chinese grifters and registered in China. They then try and extort the Australian company to get their logo back. Its a problem because Australian food products are popular in China. Sorry for the longish answers but here's the 2 best Chinese copycat stories I know of: 1) The guys who copied LG, which I heard about at an engineering conference. They didn't copy any particular LG product. They copied LGs paperwork and systems. They designed a bunch of products, subcontracted the manufacturing out and then sold stuff branded as LG and sold through parts of SE Asia. The paper work was so good that the manufacturing subcontractors and retailers all through they were actually dealing with a division of LG. It was only found out when a real LG person saw some odd products in among the standard LG merch somewhere. 2) And this is an engineering thing, which I heard from my boss one day. In the oil & gas industry a lot of valves get used and they can get very expensive. One of the main American manufacturers (who my boss had worked for) told me how they suddenly started getting warranty claims on some flow control vales. These were from a range of very expensive very high quality valves meant to last in the field for years and every valve is individually serial numbered. When they checked those serial numbers against sales records none of them were where they were supposed to be. As in they weren't even in the right country let alone the right oil rig or refinery. When they checked back through their records a Chinese company had bought 1 of each size valve in that product line. Nobody thought anything about it at that time, because its not unusual for end users to buy like that for spares or by a set to test in their facilities. As a result of those valves and some other things there are companies operating in Australia's oil & gas industries that will not allow Chinese ANYTHING in their plant's. In those cases these days we have to submit copies of quotes (with some redactions) to prove our tenders aren't planning to use Chinese materials. If you then win the tender you have to provide receipts for those materials when you deliver the project.
    1
  6195. HEY BEN: Just a counterpoint and some perspective to this. In September 2022 the US Congressional Budget Office produces a report on Family Wealth 1979-2019. Anyone can look it up. I first heard Richard Wolff mention it and as far as I know he's not mentioned it since. I saw Kyle Kulinski bring it up a few weeks ago in response to it being reported on Poilitico. I'm Australian and the first time I looked at that report I thought _"this is going to break America!" because just the first graph tells the ugliest of stories. It breaks the American population into 3 groups - the Top 10% the Middle 40% and Bottom 50%. If you just look at that very first graph the raw data says the Top 10% have sucked up a staggering amount of wealth while the middle class have done OK but the working class have been hammered and gone from nowhere to nowhere. But the really telling thing is to compare the 2007 to 2010 change against the 2007 to 2019 change because that explains what happened in as a direct result of the 2008 GFC and how those 3 groups have done since. I also corrected for population and looked at the average for a person in each of those groups. The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of the wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.7% UP on their 2007 wealth. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of the wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% UP on their 2007 wealth. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of the wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL DOWN 21.8%. YES the people who ACTUALLY CAUSED the 2008 GFC and got bailed out are not only ahead but ahead by a massive amount while the Middle Class who bailed them out have only just begun to get ahead while the Bottom 1/2 of the American people who got smashed are still well behind. So here is my point to you Ben and all the other Americans and the Others who crap on about American Imperialism and what it ahs done to the world. I have 3 questions for you? 1) What do you think the 132 Million Middle class Americans who BAILED OUT the Top 10% think about it? 2) What do you think the 165 Million Working class Americans who've been smashed think about it? 3) Do you think they care in the slightest about American Imperialism or do you think they'd just see you and others as whiny clowns? Because they certainly haven't done as well as your Cuban friend makes out. Have they?
    1
  6196. 1
  6197. 1
  6198. 1
  6199. 1
  6200. 1
  6201. 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
  6202.  @jonathanstein5049  Actually I don't think Mearsheimer is naive or unappreciative of history. He's just a classic realist which means he's got a solid slab of pure narcissism where most people have a spine. He's what somebody once described to me as a "high Machiavellian" they are at the extreme end of "the end justifies the means." He really would hand over the security of 270 million people to Vladimir Putin and not have a single atom in his body care about what they want or what happens to them. So long as his side gets what they want nothing else matters. If you look at the Wikipedia page on "Realism_(international_relations)" and scroll down a bit right below the 4 common assumptions it says "Realists think that mankind is not inherently benevolent but rather self-centered and competitive." If you track done further you'll find Mearsheimer listed under the heading "Neorealism or structural realism" and if you click on the link for "Offensive Realism" you'll get to what Mearsheimer is really on about. Look at the tenements. Its narcissistic view of the world, but instead of being narcissistic to people around you, we're taking about it on the international stage involving 100s of millions of lives. Sure Mearsheimer's critique that American Liberal Hegemony is full of stupid assumptions, garbage and behavior but at least their view is to give people a choice through a democratic process. Mearsheimer's view is FK-IT lets just go with "might is right" and if my gun is bigger than your gun then I'm right and you're not. Lets not forget that during the Cold War America promoted itself as the "Leader of the Free World" and yet (via the CIA) overthrew democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia and Chile to name a few. That's Mearsheimer's realism at work. Who cares what happens to those people over in that country if we get what we want?
    1
  6203. 1
  6204. 1
  6205. 1
  6206. 1
  6207. 1
  6208. 1
  6209. 1
  6210. 1
  6211. 1
  6212. 1
  6213. 1
  6214. 1
  6215. 1
  6216. 1
  6217. 1
  6218. 1
  6219. 1
  6220. *EVERYONE ELSE IS GETTING TIRED OF ELON MUSK SUCK-UPS EXCUSING EVERYTHING HE DOES*. Unlike other Musk detractors I will defend the GOOD Things he has done. Right now any and every discussion on Elon Musk is either 100% pro or 100% con and many of these discussions are NOT that simple AND most require some nuance. FOR EXAMPLE: I am an aerospace engineer (by degree) and I hate the Musk haters who do NOT recognise the fact that SpaceX have saved the West's manned space programs from the disaster that the Shuttle became. While on one hand the Space Shuttle was an extraordinary technological achievement in that they made a reusable space plane work, on the other hand it was also a colossal sponge of both financial and human resources. It enabled more people to go to space than any other system but it starved so many other programs of resources it the single biggest reason we haven't gone past LEO for 50+ years. When you compare SpaceX's Falcon system with Crew Dragon to Boeings Starliner the difference could NOT be more obvious as to how well Gwen Shotwell and her team have done with the Falcon series. HOWEVER Elon's Starship is a bigger white elephant than the Space Shuttle and Starliner combined. Go and watch Destin who is also an aerospace engineer (on the channel Smarter EveryDay) pulled apart the mission profile for Artemis using Starship. You can see that in the video titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" The launch facility of Texas is so incredibly dangerous I think (my opinion) its only a matter of time before they have a major accident. It would NOT PASS a HAZOP study in any other industry. The fuel storage tanks are not only too close to the launch platform they are unprotected as was PROVEN in the first launch when they were struck by debris. They were all incredibly lucky there wasn't a major incident. After that is the actual launch platform itself which does not have diversion trench for the blast. To not follow standard practices that are well tried and proven is ridiculous. His involvement in politics is all over the place. One moment he's a free speech absolutist the next moment he's cutting off all access to various people because of political influence. And these things HIGLIGHT the problem with everything Elon Musk. His fans think he is the techno Messiah who will save the world. His detractors think he's the worst person on the planet. Reality is that its a lot more complex than that.
    1
  6221. 1
  6222. 1
  6223. 1
  6224. 1
  6225. 1
  6226. 1
  6227. 1
  6228. 1
  6229. 1
  6230. 1
  6231. 1
  6232. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: This is what I am now calling a "Zombie Technology" which is a reference to "Zombie Economics." Those are the Economic Ideas that no matter how many times they fail a few years later they come back with a new name. A Zombie Technology is one that has been irrefutably dismissed for one or more fundamental reasons AND YET it keeps re-surfacing every decade or after people have forgotten WHY it was dismissed. Elon Musk's Hyperloop is a good example. Trains in Vacuum tubes were first proposed 100 years before Elon insinuated that he invented it by the father of modern rocketry Robert Goddard. Yes - trains and/or pods look really cool in sci-fi but the practical operation of such a system makes them utterly impractical. The most basic one is how many people they can actually move per hour. Here in Australia where I live the proposal for a high speed rail network going from Brisbane to Sydney to Canberra to Melbourne ahs gone through multiple studies, reviews and estimation projects AND EVERY TIME its the same answer. Out population is too small and the distances are too large making it cost too much. There's several good videos here on YT covering that AND YET I know that in a few years somebody will to the zombie thing and give it life again. Another great one is Space Tourism, which is also popular to throw up here in Australia because we already have a large tourism industry. Its all hype, hype and more hype that just never adds up. Ask Richard Branson who started with technology that actually works and still hasn't started regular flights over a decade later. Ask the people of Arizona who paid a mountain of money for the space base Virgin Galactic would use and years later still isn't doing a thing. Just a few days ago the Victorian State Government announced it would spend $37 million supporting an American Company do Space Tourism. YES Watch this space for that one to fail as well. Orbital Solar power stations were first proposed decades ago and quickly dismissed for some very basic reasons like the cost of flying that much stuff into orbit and then maintaining it. After that comes the entire issue of a beam of energy with power measured in GIGAWATTS being beamed down through the atmosphere. What part of that did people keep dismissing? NOTE: How every time someone reinvigorates a ZOMBIE TECH they dismiss previous issues with claims of "we have a new method" RIGHT BEFORE they hold their hand out looking for investors.
    1
  6233. 1
  6234. 1
  6235. 1
  6236. 1
  6237. 1
  6238. 1
  6239. 1
  6240. Buddy his analysis isn't simply WRONG its wrong by almost $1 Trillion dollars. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  6241. ENGINEER HERE I have recently defended Sabine in respect of criticisms she got to her criticisms of academia. Having spent time in academia she's right to criticise them. HOWEVER when it comes to engineering she, like many others needs to SHUT UP. We need hydrogen as an energy buffer NOT because its hyper efficient or economic factors but BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE IT WORK and over the next 20-30 years WE NEED THINGS THAT WORK THAT DON'T SCREW THE PLANET UP FURTHER. And I really am trying to scream that at everyone. If you want the engineers to keep the lights on and modern society as you know it to keep functioning then all the people in the road need to SHUT UP. Unlike Sabine and many others I am qualified to design electrical systems around explosive gases like hydrogen as well as explosive dusts like wheat & sugar dust (and yes dusts can explode). Hydrogen is one of the hardest gases to work with, design around AND THEN MAINTAIN. Sabine is right in that Hydrogen for practical purposes leaks from everything, explodes easily and makes many substances brittle. What she DOES NOT KNOW is we know how to engineer around those issues. The single biggest problem with hydrogen is having enough qualified maintenance personnel. That's WHY I never thought it would be practical for things like cars, buses, jets, heating & cooking in homes. Any poor maintenance in those areas could be catastrophic. HOWEVER for those few areas like energy, hydrogen is a good option because all the technical issues have been solved and being kept in a controlled environment like a power station makes the maintenance possible. As for the ongoing claim you can't get better than 40% turnaround that's pure nonsense. The latest PEM electrolyser technologies get over 90% efficiency NOT the 80% (and lower) people like Sabine keep quoting. The current generations of gas turbines form companies like GE and Siemens with cogeneration units get over 64%. That's over 57% on the main components which are available off the shelf AND THEY WORK. As for the problems with storage and compressors those problems exist for every gas. How do you think the gas actually gets piped around the world? How do you think they liquify natural gas for exports around the world? I have worked in gas plants and they use lots of energy. If the world is going to have a lot more renewable energy then that industry needs to be able to buffer that system so if can deliver as needed. Efficiency is far less important than simply having something that WORKS.
    1
  6242. 1
  6243. 1
  6244. 1
  6245. 1
  6246. 1
  6247. 1
  6248. 1
  6249. 1
  6250. 1
  6251. 1
  6252. 1
  6253. 1
  6254. 1
  6255. 1
  6256. 1
  6257. 1
  6258. 1
  6259. 1
  6260. 1
  6261. 1
  6262. 1
  6263. 1
  6264. 1
  6265. SORRY PETER, but your economics of construction is a giant pile of BULLSHlT and if you bothered to ever talk to an engineer who actually understands project engineering and project management you'd know why. The rest of this is pretty good and your points on people NOT budgeting for the resources needed to construct this is spot on. Unfortunately on that subject if you try and tell the Greenies about the materials issues they freak out and respond in some pretty ugly ways. Here's some basics on construction versus operation. 1) When you are in construction YOU DO NOT BUDGET for operational costs like fuel and maintenance that is the job of others. 2) If you are going to compare construction costs then COMPARE construction costs not a mix and match with operational costs or you just confuse things which you have done. 3) When you build any power station you can start making money as soon as you have any of your generating units commissioned and connected to the grid. COMPARING SOMETHING LIKE A BIG NUCLEAR/COAL PLANT VERUS A BIG WIND FARM IS PRETTY SIMPLE With large nuclear or coal plants you have to wait until it is 100% complete before you can start earning money. That can be a huge amount of capital spent over several years (or even a decade) paying interest or not paying dividends before you even start earning money and even THEN YOU HAVE TO PAY BACK THAT CAPITAL BEFORE you actually break even. If you are building a 100 turbine wind farm (it makes the percentage sign easier to use). When you have the first turbine up you are 1% finished but you can start earning money to help pay for the rest of construction. When you are 10% complete you can earn 10 times the money you earned from when you are 1% complete. When you are 50% complete you can earn 50 times the money you earned from when you are 1% complete *AND YOU PROBABLY DON'T NEED ANY CAPITAL TO FINISH THE PROJECT. This is also part of the business strategy behind the Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. As soon as the first reactor is in it can start earning money and help pay for the other reactors. I love your work on geopolitics and strategies BUT PLEASE TALK TO SOME ENGINEERS. YES I know we are pains in the butt, but then do you want to be called out by one of us?
    1
  6266. 1
  6267. 1
  6268. 1
  6269. 1
  6270. 1
  6271. 1
  6272.  @EngineeringwithRosie  And here is the real thing to consider Rosie. We are due to shutdown at least 5 of our GIGAWATT class power stations before 2030. So you know I define a GIGAWATT class power station to be one that has a nameplate rating of greater than 1,000Mega Watts or more and supplies BASE LOAD POWER. And there is a giant problem around the world that's about to come hammering in on developed nations. We all built big base load power stations starting after WW2 and then continuing through the 50s & 60s, but by the 1970s with the population rapidly expanding they all became Gigawatt Class power stations. Some are huge like the one in Toronto at over 6 GW. But if you ga and look at the lists of power stations available in places like Wikipedia (it one of the easiest sources) you find something really odd. Despite population growth the entire developed world just stopped building them. California has only built 1 since 1990. We haven't built 1 since the late 90s and the French haven't built 1 since the mid 1990s. Other than a few exceptions like Hinkley Point C in Britain and c couple in America NOBODY in the West has built any new major power station in over 20 years. China and India are exceptions but they are developing rather than developed nations. The reason is simple, we all got conned by the economics clowns who told us to privatise everything. If you just paid several billion for an asset you need it to make money and preferably as much as possible. Its even better if you can raise the prices of what you produce, but that's not so easy because there are regulations. But there is an easy way around that. Don't build anything new and PREVENT (through lobbying) anyone from building anything new except smaller power stations that you can also buy into. As the population increases demand increases and basic supply demand economics drive the price UP while your costs remain almost stationary. Its super bonus time for 20+ years and it only gets better and better. So here we are 25+ years later with a bunch of rapidly ageing power stations and almost no way to replace them before they fail or shutdown through age. So to simply keep our society going we will need every last kW of generating capacity we have producing at its best. Fun times ahead.
    1
  6273. 1
  6274. Great point and that makes it far more than simply an American issue. Climate Change is NOT an American issue its an issue for the entire planet, BUT without the cooperation of several major players its an impossible task rather than simple an incredibly difficult task. 3 of the countries that have to be involved are America, China and Russia who are NOT getting on well at the moment. China and Russia for all their faults are simpler because we all know who makes the decisions in those countries - Putin and Xi. America is a lot harder because POTUS isn't in charge or Congress or the Senate and that's because SCOTUS has now taken charge. They are deciding what the other arms of government CAN'T DO. Its a very unusual thing. They ARE NOT deciding what the Government CAN DO or what it SHOULD DO they are deciding what it CAN'T DO. That basically means that no matter who the American people vote for they can't do what they want unless SCOTUS allows them, which is insane. FYI - I am Australian but went to college in America. I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and we often discussed things like the constitution. What bother's me more than anything is that this is the sort of thing that they assured me COULD NEVER HAPPEN in America. I had studied Orwell in high school (Animal Farm & 1984) and one of the main warnings Orwell gave was that ANY SOCIETY could fall into a totalitarian dictatorship. My friends argued that was impossible in America because of how the constitution worked. These days I would love to ask them how this has happened.
    1
  6275. 1
  6276. 1
  6277. 1
  6278. 1
  6279. 1
  6280. 1
  6281. 1
  6282. 1
  6283. 1
  6284. 1
  6285. 1
  6286. 1
  6287. 1
  6288. 1
  6289. 1
  6290. 1
  6291. 1
  6292. 1
  6293. 1
  6294. 1
  6295. 1
  6296. 1
  6297. 1
  6298. 1
  6299. 1
  6300. 1
  6301. 1
  6302. 1
  6303. 1
  6304. 1
  6305. 1
  6306. 1
  6307. 1
  6308. 1
  6309. 1
  6310. 1
  6311. 1
  6312. 1
  6313. 1
  6314. 1
  6315. 1
  6316. 1
  6317. 1
  6318. 1
  6319. 1
  6320. 1
  6321. 1
  6322. 1
  6323. 1
  6324. 1
  6325. 1
  6326. 1
  6327. 1
  6328. 1
  6329. 1
  6330. 1
  6331. 1
  6332. 1
  6333. 1
  6334. 1
  6335. 1
  6336. 1
  6337. 1
  6338. 1
  6339. 1
  6340. 1
  6341. 1
  6342. 1
  6343. 1
  6344. 1
  6345. 1
  6346. 1
  6347. 1
  6348. 1
  6349. 1
  6350. 1
  6351. 1
  6352. 1
  6353. 1
  6354. 1
  6355. 1
  6356. 1
  6357. 1
  6358. 1
  6359. 1
  6360. 1
  6361. 1
  6362. 1
  6363. 1
  6364. 1
  6365. 1
  6366. 1
  6367. 1
  6368. 1
  6369. 1
  6370. 1
  6371. 1
  6372. 1
  6373. 1
  6374. 1
  6375. 1
  6376. 1
  6377. 1
  6378. 1
  6379. 1
  6380. 1
  6381. 1
  6382. 1
  6383. 1
  6384. 1
  6385. 1
  6386. 1
  6387. 1
  6388. 1
  6389. 1
  6390. AUSTRALIAN HERE: This Political Culture War fighting for the sake of fighting and making as much noise as possible is not simply an American problem. It might be more prominent in America but we all have some version of this garbage. No matter what ideology a party has they all have these people who's job is to waste other people's time by making as noise and creating as much chaos as possible. Its more prevalent on the Right but the Left do it as well. How I know about this is because one of my best friends was involved in student politics at University in Australia. I actually went to college in America (late 80s). I was there during the 87 campaign season which was bizarre. One time when discussing the hopelessness of politics with this friend he told me I had know idea how bad it actually was. After hearing a number of horror stories including how those on hos own side tried to set him up. I asked WHY student politics so vicious and WHY the parties supported it? He said the parties used it as a proving ground. He said they wanted to know if people could "hack it" if they made it into parliament (congress). The actual party systems themselves are set up and operate like Districts 1 & 2 from the Hunger Games. They are internally ruthless so that they produce winners or at least potential winners. The actual capability of party candidates has NOTHING to do with their ability to do anything of value to any society. They have to first be electable and secondly be able to stay elected. if that means they are a hardcore ruthless berserker type culture warriors then so be it. What's perfect about such people is they are perfect for the billionaire class. They give the billionaires what they want while keeping everyone else distracted.
    1
  6391. 1
  6392. 1
  6393. 1
  6394. 1
  6395. 1
  6396. 1
  6397. 1
  6398. 1
  6399. 1
  6400. GO and look at a report Bernie Sanders commissioned the Congressional Budget Office to produce on Family Wealth. I covers 1989-2019. Just look at the first graph and you'll have an accurate assessment of the Entire Developed World because we all followed the brilliance of Milton Freidman and the Chicago School Economists which was called Reaganomics in America and Thatcherism in Britain. Here in Australia we called it Economic Rationalism. Most of the World no calls it neoliberalism and its fundamentally based on "Governments are hopeless and therefore should do as little as possible while free markets can solve every problem society has." The problem is IT NEVER WORKED and that's what that CBO report shows. The first graph shows how the Top 10% have gained and gained especially after the 2008 GFC that they caused and were bailed out of while the rest of us paid for those bailouts. The Middle 40% eventually recovered and even got ahead by 2019. HOWEVER: Note how the Bottom 50% lost almost 1/2 of their wealth in the GFC and that by 2019 had STILL NOT RECOVERED. In 2007 they were worth US$2.7 Trillion and by 2019 were only worth $2.3 Trillion. To put perspective on that. During Obamas last 3 years in office (2013-2016) the Top 10% of America gained US$18.3 Trillion in family wealth. YES the Top 10% of America by 2019 roughly 10 years AFTER the GFC they caused were worth over US$80 Trillion which was over US$20 Trillion more than they were worth BEFORE the GFC. So when Trump rocked up saying America sucked and I want to Make America Great Again 50% of the population (around 165 million people) KNEW EXACTLY what he was talking about while the political establishment were in denial as they still are. Trump won again last year for the same reason he won in 2016. He just tapped into the frustration people have with the political establishment.
    1
  6401. 1
  6402.  @shewolf2584  Its called American Exceptionalism. It basically comes from White Christian Nationalism although I would NOT call the majority of Americans White Christian Nationalists. AND YES it pisses off the rest of the planet. When Americans are at their best and I have seen them at their best they do amazing things like the Apollo program which has benefitted the entire planet from the technologies that were spun out of it. I maintain that America doesn't lack for good leaders in their society. I got to personally see the effect a person like Walter Payton had on people of every racial type. He's best of America in a single person I have seen in my life. BUT politically America has next to zero leadership. Here's proof: There's a report that came out September 2022 from the Congressional Budget Office on Family Wealth 1979-2019. Almost nobody has spoken about it because the story it tells is horrendous. 50% of America have not only gone nowhere for the last 30+ years but they LOST 50% of their combined wealth in the 2008 GFC and have still NOT recovered. Meanwhile the Top 10% who caused the GFC and got bailed out ($4 Trillion by Bush and another $4 Trillion by Obama) have made an estimated $30 Trillion since the GFC. That's 15 times the combined wealth of the bottom 50%. That's 165 million people who got smashed and the people who smashed them not only got bailed out BUT HAVE NOT PAID the money back and now pay EVEN LOWER taxes due to their buddy in crime Donald Trump. A real leader would have said NO and taxed the crap out of the top 10% and also charged interest for that $8 Trillion.
    1
  6403. 1
  6404. 1
  6405. 1
  6406. 1
  6407. 1
  6408. 1
  6409. 1
  6410. 1
  6411. 1
  6412. 1
  6413. 1
  6414. YES I KNOW Bowen needs to wake up BUT GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  6415. 1
  6416. 1
  6417. 1
  6418. 1
  6419. There's some great points being made but there's also some serious over-hyped BULLSHlT as well. Slavery was being practiced for 1,000s of years before Capitalism was a thing. Emma's a smart girl but damn sometimes she gets her wires crossed. I'm reading Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations" right now. Yeah there's some dumb backward stuff but there's no mention of slavery. He talks a lot about labor, skilled labor and the value of labor. If you go and listen to Richard Wolff on Marx then you'll find Smith and Marx were contemporaries with differing views on the value of labour. They were both against the system that was in place BEFORE capitalism - a system called Mercantilism and it wasn't based on labor or slavery it was based on trade, but it did go hand with slavery and oppression. Go read up on the British East India Company. There's a great lecture by Mariana Mazzucato titled "Redefining Economic Value" (here on YT) About 7 minutes in she has a slide and goes through the different economic ideologies of the last few centuries and how they focused on different ways to create value. Between the Mercantilists and Classical Capitalists there was a short era called the Physiocrats who were pre-industrial revolution and based value creation around agriculture. They absolutely relied on slavery because tractors and combine harvesters didn't yet exist. They operated just as kings and emperors had going all the way back to the dawn of civilisation in Ancient Egypt. If you had large areas to farm you needed lots of slaves to farm it. That's why America had slavery they needed them to pick all that cotton and then pick out the cotton seed.
    1
  6420. 1
  6421. 1
  6422. 1
  6423. 1
  6424. 1
  6425.  @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
  6426.  @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
  6427. I'm Australian and before that shit he pulled at the UN he had a decent reputation from the first gulf war. Maybe not perfect, but Gulf War 1 was over and done in a month and then everyone was out. Instead of it becoming Vietnam 2.0 the US and its allies were out. Saddam had his ass kicked, Kuwait was back in the hands of Kuwait and no one was bogged down in some endless disaster. So by about 2003 EVERYBODY WANTED TO KNOW how Gulf War 2 had become the disaster it was. Everyone wanted to know how the same people who did Gulf War 1 screwed up so badly with Gulf War 2. America's own PBS delivered and in 2004 gave the world the documentary "Rumsfeld's War." I first saw it in Australia in either 2005 or 2006 when it was televised on free to air by SBS Australian one of our 2 public broadcasters. Here it is on YT -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPEWIDBrKyM So yeah a lot of people KNOW and have KNOWN for around 16 years, (I have known for at least 14years) that: - Powell LIED to the UN and knew he was lying. - Powell told Bush in a private dinner NOT to go into Iraq and that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were wrong. - Powell, Shinseki and others were shut out of the planning by Wolfowitz on Rumsfeld's direction. Before any of you tell me (an Australian) to F--K off let me tell you something. The Australian Prime Minister at the time John Howard is/was a lawyer, which means he knew the basics of International Law and that its a crime to invade a country that has NOT committed an act or acts of war against you or your allies. The invasion of Afghanistan was legal as the Taliban Government by supporting Osama Bin Laden had attacked Australia's ally on 9/11. But Iraq was NOT legal and our PM knew it wasn't legal and we helped destroy that country and and played our part in the deaths over over 100,000 innocent civilians including the 14 killed at Nisour Square by the Blackwater 4 that Trump just pardoned. So before we all go condemning Colin Powell for his part in the Iraq clusterf--k, just know that a lot of other people were involved and very few have ever been held accountable.
    1
  6428. To America: This behavior of this SCOTUS no longer just involves America. Absolutely this is way more important to you that anyone else, but for every country that trades with America and especially any country with security arrangements with America this SCOTUS is of serious importance. If any American company gets into an issue for activities outside America they drag the case back to America. Go and look up the case with Steven Donziger and Chevron. That case had nothing to do with America or American courts. Yet it was dragged back to the American Courts where Chevron had everything in their favor. As for security who knows how far this court will go in future. Today they are making SOCIO-POLITiCAL decisions for 328 million people who did NOT vote them into office. What decisions will they make in future that might have grave security implications. The 45th President has been found (in breach of American laws) in possession of classified materials. What if this court makes some ridiculous decision regarding that? What are other countries meant to do if future Presidents just do as they please with classified materials and there's no recourse? FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America. A bunch of my friends were pre-law and we ended up discussing the constitution a lot. I can barely believe what's happening with SCOTUS. This is the sort of stuff they told me could never happen. The system of "Checks & Balances" was rock solid. I don't think anyone ever considered that a pack of billionaires along with a few insanely corrupt Senators could smash that system, but they have. SCOTUS is a massive issue but if you don't FIX THE SENATE and get rid of the cancer that's there it won't matter.
    1
  6429. 1
  6430. 1
  6431. 1
  6432. 1
  6433. 1
  6434. 1
  6435. 1
  6436. 1
  6437. 1
  6438. 1
  6439.  @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
  6440. 1
  6441. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: The reason you need a nuclear power plant on the moon has NOTHING to do with energy density. Kirk Sorenson (of Thorium fame) went through this as part of a study into powering a moon base. On the moon there's 3 options, Solar, Chemical and nuclear. Chemical (as in fuel cells or combustion) wont work because you'd need to constantly re-supply it. Solar can't work except at a couple of places near the South Pole. The problem is the moon is tidally locked and all the face that points towards the Earth, which you'd use so you have constant communications gets 14days of light followed by 14 days of darkness. If you tired you'd need double the number of solar panels and a huge battery which becomes a hassle flying it all there. Nuclear becomes the only viable option quite quickly and that means discussing WHAT TYPE - Uranium, Plutonium or Thorium fueled and then PWR, MSR, or straight thermal using something like a Sterling engine or Peltier effect. The problem with both PWR and MSR is getting all the stuff there and then getting it installed and then making it work and then maintaining it. Arguably one of the biggest problems is how far away do you install said reactor. Because the further away you place it from the base then the longer the power cable to connect it and copper IS NOT LIGHT. Also that plastic sheath you have on normal cables doesn't last well in space due to the radiation. THIS IS ALL PART of why we haven't been back to the moon in 50 years. We could have kept going but what would have been the purpose as we'd learned what we could with the technology we had. Then the Space Shuttle which was technically amazing was also tragically super expensive and required a lot more man hours to maintain so it ended up starving many programs like the ones needed to develop tech for a Moon base and so stuff didn't get developed. Then the ISS which is also technically amazing did the same thing AGAIN. The problem isn't knowing what's needed for a Moon base its just that most of it has been so starved of funding and people power is just not developed to the point where its deployable. If you read this far thanks and sorry for the long reply.
    1
  6442. 1
  6443. 1
  6444. 1
  6445. 1
  6446. 1
  6447. 1
  6448. ENGINEER HERE On that 9th point about Russian Enriched Uranium Sorry if this is a long comment, but this is a subject that's getting almost zero coverage anywhere in the world right now. WaPo's description is woefully inadequate and as a result Kyle has totally misunderstood the issue. RIGHT NOW 1 in 20 American homes is powered by nuclear fuel that comes from Russia because America DOES NOT produce enough enriched Uranium to supply its existing power stations. Trying to explain this as simply as possible. Between the Uranium Mine and the Nuclear Power station is the Enrichment plant which is where they increase the percentage of Uranium-235. Its similar in principle to the oil refinery that's between the oil well and the gas station. The major issue that the pro-nuclear lobby is NOT mentioning is the capacity of the enrichment plants. There's not enough capacity in America so they have to get the rest of the enriched fuel needed somewhere else and that somewhere else is Russia because they actually have spare capacity. I first became aware of this when Jame Krellenstein was recently interviewed on Decouple Media on the subject of Enrichment including how its done and the history and the current status of enrichment. That interview is here on YT and if you are pro or anti nuclear its worth your time to go watch it. As an Engineer I was fully aware of what enrichment is and how its done, but was NOT AWARE of much of the History or the current status. That's why I'm giving James Krellenstein credit for what he's been trying to explain to people. Here's my brief explanation on enrichment and the problem. Enrichment (as said) is sort of like refinement in that it takes raw stuff and makes it useable but its more complex because your separating isotopes not oil. Natural Uranium is roughly 99.2% Uranium-238 with about 0.7% being Uranium-235 and the other 0.1% being other Uranium isotopes. Natural uranium can be used in special reactors like the Canadian CANDU, but for the rest of the nuclear energy industry they typically want between 5% and 8% U-235. Military reactors like those used in submarines can be as high as 20% which is how some of those run for 20-25 years without re-fuelling. Weapons have to be at least 20% but they don't work that well until it gets up around 80%. This is why its called enrichment because its making the Uranium richer in U-235. Traditionally there's been 2 ways to do this. In the West we used a process called Gas Diffusion. The Russians used Gas Centrifuges which was actually a German method going back to World War 2 (go watch that Krellenstein interview to hear about that - parts of which are sort of funny). The big difference is how much energy those 2 systems use. Gas Diffusion uses more than 30x the energy that Gas Centrifuges use. When the French switched to gas centrifuges they reduced the energy needed to produce the fuel for their reactors by more than 97%. I went and checked out part of what James Krellenstein said about this. The new plant, which cost €3 Billion, uses about 75 Megawatts. The 3,000 MW that was freed up earns more than €800 Million a year. So that plant was paid off in less than 4 years while French society basically got a bonus of an extra 3,000MW of cheap power because it was already built and paid off. So the French have their own capacity to supply themselves and others with the fuel they need. Because of neglect in this area America has 1 plant in Arizona that is owned by Urenco a consortium of British Government, Dutch Government and German PRIVATE ownership and it uses Gas Centrifuges. That plant (although substantial) does NOT supply enough for the existing American nuclear plants which is why America buys fuel from Russia. There were other plants in places like Ohio but they used Gas Diffusion and failed. So right now America NOT ONLY has a shortage of nuclear fuel production it also DOES NOT OWN any of its enrichment system that supplies 19% of America's energy. This is NOT just an issue for the 1 in 20 American homes powered by Russian nuclear fuel, but it also needs to be put into the political context of what America told the Germans about being dependent on Russian gas. Because according to politicians like Joe Biden it was bad for Germany to be dependent on Russian gas but now we find out that its fine for America to be dependent on Russian enriched uranium. Sorry this was longish but that's the story WaPo and Kyle are NOT telling you. And if you have time go watch that interview with James Krellenstein on Decouple Media here on YT. And so we are clear I have nothing to do with Decouple Media and have never met or talked to James Krellenstein its just open of the most informative interviews on nuclear energy I have seen.
    1
  6449. 1
  6450. ​ @gootmanboats3864  NO and the simple answer is America is dependent on Russian enriched Uranium because America DOES NOT produce enough of its own and NOBODY ELSE has enough excess capacity to supply what America needs. What production America does have are Gas Centrifuges and they are just as efficient as what the Russians have there's just not enough capacity to produce what America needs. Also that system (in Arizona) is NOT owned by Americans its owned by Europeans. Possibly there's another place in America where they make some for the military or research because there are places like Livermore Labs and Idaho National Labs, but who knows. It's a complicated history which is so convoluted I had to listen to it several times to get WTF happened, but here's the basics. America started with (like others) Gas Diffusion which requires over 30x the energy to produce the same amount of enriched Uranium. That didn't matter until the American producers faced competition from the Europeans, but then the Europeans only had that advantage because the Russians and Americans BOTH drank a jug of stupid juice. At the end of WW2 the Russians captured the Germans who knew how to do Gas Centrifuges which is how they got the bomb and a nuclear power industry, BUT the Russians never realised just how much of an advantage they had and let the Germans go home and that was their jug of stupid juice. One of those Germans went to America but America didn't believe anyone could have superior technology to America and that was their jug of stupid juice. So the German went back to Europe where finally someone listened. Then the Europeans went back to America with the technology the American's didn't believe existed and through the beautiful simplicity of American Free Market Capitalism were more competitive than the American companies who then went broke and now the Europeans with their plant in Arizona are America's main supplier. But for all sorts of reasons that plant in Arizona doesn't produce enough to meet America's needs so America has had to go to the Russians to get the rest of what they need. And if that sounds as FKD UP as the Denver Broncos benching Russel Wilson (no relation) to avoid paying his injury insurance its because it is that FKD UP. Its about as logical as 32 NFL teams thinking there were 198 players better than Tom Brady or that there were 261 players better than Brock Purdy. FYI - I'm a Niners fan and I can't explain how Mr. Irrelevant Brock Purdy is "the guy" but he is.
    1
  6451. 1
  6452. 1
  6453. 1
  6454. 1
  6455.  @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
  6456.  @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
  6457. 1
  6458. 1
  6459. 1
  6460. 1
  6461. 1
  6462. 1
  6463. 1
  6464. 1
  6465. 1
  6466. 1
  6467. 1
  6468. 1
  6469. But what you are seeing is what happens when ideological extremists, OF ANY SORT, get power or become unrestrained. Look back at things like the French and Russian Revolutions and even the American Revolution there was a legitimate right for people to rise up and break the shackles they were under. But in the French case they went on a rampage that to this day is still know as the "Reign of Terror." The Soviets went on a 70 decade rampage where they ended up turning their own country and 1/2 of Europe into a giant prison. Look at America they threw off the British yoke, declared "all men are equal and have certain inalienable rights" and then used slavery and genocide to establish their new nation of Freedom and Liberty. Jordan Peterson (before he dissolved a chunk of his brain) pointed out that its easy to see when people have gone too far to the Right because they become racist, but that for other people it was harder. I think Peterson was 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong. Yes - people on the Right have gone too far when they become racist. However I think when you have any group that has an identity coupled with an ideology that THEY PLACE ABOVE the basic rights of anyone else, which starts with "To live in peacefully and in safety." then they have gone too far. Have a look at how the French, Russian and American's all behaved after their revolutions one way or another they simply put their "new" ideology out front and used it as a justification to strip other people of everything they had including their lives. Such people also tend to kill with impunity because they see those they kill as sub-human.
    1
  6470. 1
  6471. 1
  6472. 1
  6473. That's of course sensible and its what scientists have argued for some time. Because of all the ridiculous howling and screaming over COVID one thing that needed to be discussed but has NOT been discussed is the oversight of these labs. Back in 2011 there was a Dutch Researcher named Ron Fouchier who created a variation of avian flu that has been described as the deadliest virus humanity has ever encountered. Had it escaped rather than COVID we'd have already have over 64 million dead instead of 6.6 million. The problem that emerged after Ron Fouchier's work was that nobody was really aware of what he was doing. The Dutch government actually had to step in and shut him down because he wanted to tell the whole world how he did it and show how clever he was. He never considered the maniacs who would use it. If you do take a look at the whole Wuhan issue it was obvious there were issues. I DO NOT think that what they were doing was fundamentally wrong. China had faced MERS and SARS so investigating what might be next was smart. Getting other nations to help with that research was also smart. DOING THAT RESEARCH IN AN UNSAFE WAY WAS NOT SMART. An airborne virus like COVID needed to have been researched in a Level 4 lab NOT a Level 3 lab AND THAT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY EXPERTS. And 1 other thing. They redefined what was and what wasn't gain of function. Ron Fouchier's work would no longer be considered gain of function. Just like the work in Wuhan is also not considered to be gain of function. This is something else that has NOT been discussed publicly.
    1
  6474. 1
  6475. 1
  6476. 1
  6477. Australian here with an outside view and the same comment I left on another MR video. Yes the Trump Team of Chaos Merchants are a problem and the corruption we expect to see has no limit to the damage it will cause across the World. HOWEVER the American Left have utterly failed to ONE prevent this from happening and TWO accept any responsibility for what has happened. Anyone can see the panel of Democrat campaign staffers on Pod Save America just blow each other and accept NOTHING. In early 2019 Australian Labor Lost a similar election with a similar strategy. Later in 2019 British Labor with an almost identical strategy lost an also similar election to the clownish Boris Johnson. That strategy which was the same as Hilary Clinton's LOSING Strategy was: 1) Our policies are so great that EVERYONE will just vote for them. 2) The other candidate is so bad that NOBODY will vote for them. When I asked a Brit WTF was going on and why did BOTH British Labor and Australian Labor follow the same strategies as Hilary Clinton in 2016. That Brit told me that campaign staffers from the Clinton Campaign had advised BOTH British Labor and Australian Labor. The yesterday I watched these people YET AGAIN deny any responsibility. A few days ago I watched Destiny debate Cenk on the David Pakman show and Destiny CONFIRMED his belief the strategy of telling the progressives to get lost was RIGHT and THAT WAS AFTER LOSING. When will people learn that these Democrats ARE the REASON why Trump is back in power.
    1
  6478. 1
  6479. 1
  6480. 1
  6481. 1
  6482. 1
  6483. 1
  6484. 1
  6485. 1
  6486. 1
  6487. I started with a degree in aerospace but have spent most of the last 30+ years in industrial control systems and automation (manufacturing, mining, water treatment,... etc.) A couple of years ago I started informally studying Economics because I got so tired of clowns with economics degrees screwing up stuff. I've watched a lot of YT vids and read some books. The problem with ALL ECONOMISTS is they all have a common core curriculum that's full of nonsensical assumptions and theories all focused around market economics. Its why they can't ever shut up about markets. Its not unlike that all courses have core subjects its just that there's are full of insanely stupid market fundamentalism which is an ideology NOT a science. LIKE ALL ECONOMISTS this guy has almost zero grasp of what production actually means or takes to achieve AND YET like all economists he actually thinks he understands what production is. Just the other day one I was watching Australis REBEL economist (yes they do exist) and he dropped something that's not only filled in one of the things I needed to hear but its so astounding I can barely believe it. Steve said that in none of the economic models that have been used so far ENERGY DOES NOT EXIST. Its just not in the models. Its as if for all these decades economists have only considered that energy is the stuff that magically comes out of power points. As far as they are concerned its used everywhere but has NO BEARING on any economy. After watching heaps of these guys over the last few years this admission that they don't even include energy in their models is stunning. Imagine if you built a factory and didn't bother to find out if the local power grid was capable of supporting that factory in that location. At the macro economic level these clowns treat power grids as if they don't even exist. Go and look up a podcast Steve did with a pair of British undergraduates titled "Value in economics Explained by Prof. Steve Keen" on the channel Wellbeing Economics Brighton. Its an hour and 8 minutes that will stun you. If you are looking for other Rebel Economists try the Brit Gary Stevenson.
    1
  6488. 1
  6489. 1
  6490. 1
  6491. 1
  6492.  @moegreen3870  I think the US Constitution is incredibly strong. Just look at the fact that the 3 Trump appointed SCOTUS judges went against him recently. Just remember that Lindsay Graham openly said the reason why Amy Barret needed to be appointed was so she could make the decisions to help win the election. The real test will be the next few years. Be seated when you read this quote. Somebody else put it up a while back. I keep it in a word document with a few others so I can easily cut & paste it. Henry A. Wallace, Vice President of the United States - “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. - New York Times, April 9, 1944” I have only one question about Henry Wallace - HOW DID HE KNOW? As in how did he know Trump would do just as he described 76 years ago. What did he know that he could predict what Trump would do. Trump wasn't even born (14 June 1946) when that statement was made. So how did he know Trump would do just as described? Look at what he said about METHOD and misinformation. SERIOUSLY - HOW DID HE KNOW?
    1
  6493. 1
  6494. 1
  6495. 1
  6496. 1
  6497. 1
  6498. 1
  6499. 1
  6500. 1
  6501. 1
  6502. 1
  6503. 1
  6504. There was a quote attributed to Jonathan Haidt that went: "There's this cacophony where the Radical Right and Radical Left just scream at each other while the rest of us trapped in the middle are exhausted." Until we can get the Radicals on BOTH SIDEs to STFU and let the rest of us get on with doing what we can we are stuffed and the future is bleaker than bleak. And in that list of people who need to STFU I include all the M0R0Ns running around claiming there technology is going to save the planet. I am an engineer and there is no one technology that's going to save the planet. Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Hydro - NONE of then by themselves are going to solve much at all and certainly not the planet. Its going to be a combined effort. Also in the transition a lot of the greenies are going to need to STFU on fossil fuels because we just can't do some things without them. We just don't have enough Lithium to make all the batteries needed for cars so a lot of other vehicles like tractors will still be running on diesel for decades to come. What we do need is to clean up how much they emit which is doable. So the clown brigade can just stop screaming at the farmers because we all need to eat and their lives are hard enough already. Aviation wont be getting away from fossil fuels either but they can use more efficient engines and burn cleaner fuels. My degree is in aerospace engineering and there's simply no easy fix to aviation unless we ban air travel or make it so expensive only a few people use it. The Greenies are also going to have to back right off on nuclear because there's no other way to underpin the power grids and keep them secure and NOT emit billions of tons of CO2 by burning coal. What we do need is some SERIOUS INVESTMENT to make nuclear power more efficient and NOT produce the waste that it does. ON THE NUCLEAR SUBJECT the nuclear industry needs to STFU and stop avoiding telling the truth about what is and isn't possible. They need to be honest about the costs and be realistic about delivery timeframes. Right now nothing they propose is possible because there's a major shortage of enrichment capacity. Forget SMRs or normal large scale reactors there's no way to fuel them. America can't even supply its own nuclear industry at the moment and has to buy fuel from the Russians. YES that country that is bombing Ukraine. Of all the trade restrictions that are on Russia one that's not been touched is enriched Uranium for reactor fuel. Sorry to all for the rant but damn as an engineer I am so bloody tired of all the clowns who just open their mouths and let noise come out.
    1
  6505. 1
  6506. 1
  6507. 1
  6508. 1
  6509. 1
  6510. 1
  6511. 1
  6512. 1
  6513. 1
  6514. 1
  6515. 1
  6516. 1
  6517. 1
  6518. 1
  6519. 1
  6520. 1
  6521. 1
  6522. 1
  6523. 1
  6524. 1
  6525. 1
  6526.  @BlankBrain  Good points. If you have a look at events like the American, French and Russian revolutions they were all very different in specific ways and incredibly common in others. In common they were all fundamentally leftist in that they confronted an established entrenched elite power that simply pushed their society until it broke. What worries me these days is that the reset you talk about might be a peasant revolution rather than just an economic reset like the Great Depression. The problem with peasant revolutions is that they are born from frustration and deprivation and they result in a actions that are incredibly destructive. Right before the French Revolution the French lead the world in Science and Technology much like America was positioned by the mid 80s. Then overnight they just snapped and started killing anything wearing decent clothes. If you look at America right now it is eerily similar to pre-Revolution France. It has a an elite hyper wealthy class who have that "let them eat cake" attitude as well as an elite techno class. I'm an engineer and I can tell you the AI issue is all BS. Unless they make Quantum computing work AI wont be possible because there's just no way to process the data in the way needed. Most of what they call AI now is nothing close to intelligence. What they have are algorithms that mimic human tasks or how a human might do a specific task. The thing that scares me more than anything right now are people believing the hype and allowing algorithms to operate without anyone knowing what they are doing minute by minute. There is a horrible Sheldon Cooper style arrogance among too many in the STEM community that think the rest of us are monkeys to be managed. They might not be wrong in some cases but do you think it would be wise to let a pack of hyper techno geeks control our lives. Look at the shite they have already done. Imagine if we gave them real power?
    1
  6527. 1
  6528. 1
  6529. 1
  6530. 1
  6531. 1
  6532.  @GaryBickford  Sorry but I am calling BULLSHlT to your comment. ESPECIALLY the remark about very few economists in government being Freidmanites. They are almost exclusively Freidmanites BECAUSE they were all taught classical and neo-classical economics which is the polite way of saying they are all Freidmanites. Its most notable when you listen to the people in charge of places like the US Fed or Australian Reserve Bank or European Central Bank. You'll hear them refer to the "market adjusting" in some way and how they need to "show restraint." That's the give away they are a Friedmanite as it shows they believe the market will self adjust to a stable state. You might have gone to one of those odd little colleges most people haven't heard about OR one that is Left leaning like Brown U. (the ugly duckling of the Ivy League) OR one of the ones who had people like Richard Wolff who taught Marxist economics for decades. You should go and look up Prof Wolff's story on HOW & WHY he became a Marxist economist despite going to Harvard. Its actually an interesting story. He also did a series on Marx's contributions to Western Economics a few years ago. I'm no Marxist and actually think like Smith he was WRONG about wealth only being created by labor, but it was an excellent series to give perspective on how we got here. FYI - I think Prof Wolff is right about many things and 1,000% utterly and totally wrong about others. On post-Keynesianism I doubt you would even know what a post-Keynesian looks or sounds like and suggest you go and look up Steve Keen. He genuinely is a post-Keynesian and has NOTHING good to say about the economists in government anywhere on the planet. He hosts a weekly podcast Steve Keen & Friends and if you actually want to understand this stuff I suggest you join in.
    1
  6533. 1
  6534.  @ProfSteveKeen  Here's an example I have to deal with all the time. I just had ANOTHER guy on another YouTube page tell me I had no idea what I was talking about when it came the Jeff Bezos wanting to move heavy industry into orbit because there would be unlimited energy and pollution is irrelevant. The Tom Price iron ore mine where I have WORKED does 20mta (million tone per annum). Its a really convenient mine because anyone can follow the math. Iron ore ranges from about 50% to 95% iron content per ton. YES we really do get some it almost pure and tis called "high grade fines" you can spot the stock piles of because of how black they are. Anyway the rough average is Australia's iron ore is 70% and I use that because it makes the math really easy. At 70% every 20 tons of ore produces 14 tons of iron and that's the same number a Space Shuttle could bring down from orbit. So 20 MILLION tons of ore would make 14 MILLION tons of iron and that would take 1 MILLION Space Shuttle flights to bring down. I had someone once tell me we could do better than the Space Shuttle. So I said even if you had something 100x better than you still have to do 10,000 flights a year just to service that 1 mine. Australia has many iron ore mines and collectively they produce over 900mta EVERY YEAR. Tom Price is convenient for the math but it is only about 1/45th of our current output. THIS IS THS SORT OF STUFF I REALLY WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ON THE PODCAST. That actual reality of some of the things facing us and how large these problems are and why 99.9% of all the commentary is either partly wrong or absolutely wrong.
    1
  6535. 1
  6536. 1
  6537. 1
  6538. 1
  6539. 1
  6540. 1
  6541. 1
  6542. 1
  6543. 1
  6544. 1
  6545. 1
  6546. 1
  6547. 1
  6548. 1
  6549. 1
  6550. 1
  6551. 1
  6552. 1
  6553. 1
  6554. 1
  6555. 1
  6556. 1
  6557. 1
  6558. 1
  6559.  @YoungSandyGray  Absolutely there is hypocrisy on the left just as there is hypocrisy in every corner of politics. BUT there is a difference in that at least some politicians (on both sides) get embarrassed when they get caught. What most American do not realise is that it DOESN'T have a left and right it has 2 tribal partisanships ruled by oligarchs with insanity and hypocrisy on both sides. Its just one side is occasionally embarrassed and they other shoves it in your face. Lindsay "use my words against me" Graham is a good example. He flatly denied Merrick Garland a SCOTUS hearing as REQUIRED by the constitution and 4 years later BROKE his own rules to rush through Amy Barrett who doesn't have a single day as a trial judge and only limited time as an appellate judge. Sure the Dems have their hypocrisy but the shit people like Graham & McConnell have done is just disgusting. And to be truthful America does not have a real left side of politics and NEVER has. The Dems were for most of the last 200 years further right than the GOP. They were the party of the South that started the civil war and supported slavery. Its staggering Obama was the POTUS for the party that helped create the KKK. Its only since Reagan that the GOP trekked to the radical right and by any relevant standard the GOP are now so far to the right they are almost unrecognizable. Most of that has happened because people like the Koch brothers dragged it there. One of those Koch brothers actually ran against Reagan on the Libertarian ticket because he thought Reagan was "too far to the left". The Kochs are just part of a gaggle of hyper conservative billionaires who truly believe government is the problem that they need to control. And they just don't exert pressure in America they do it across the globe. The Kochs support and fund over 90 Think Tanks across the world and they have changed how Universities teach. Charles Koch was interviewed recently and he straight out said he expected politicians to do as he wanted if he helped get them elected. He was actually upset if a politician did something out of good conscience. Go watch the Axios interview its f--king scary. Americans DOESN'T have a left and right. It has 2 tribal partisanships ruled by oligarchs with insanity and hypocrisy on both sides. Its just one side is occasionally embarrassed and they other shoves it in your face.
    1
  6560. 1
  6561. You're 100% RIGHT there's just 1 problem. LEFISTS across the world just DON'T GET these 2 points. 1) The Right understand that most of humanity don't want to hear the truth or facts. They want to be told they're fantastic and champions. Just look at how Hollywood promotes particular memes like the Marvel movies all do. 2) The Right NOT ONLY control more of the media but are incredibly good at delivering their message. Despite being a convicted felon, sex predator, incessant liar LOOK HOW WELL Trump and the people around him delivered their message. Despite getting made a fool by Harris in the debate and made to look like a M0R0N they kept on the rest of their message. "We can fix the economy and they can't!" I'm Australian and here's my way of using American football to describe American politics. The Democrats are like a team that's always racking up stats (running, passing,.....) but they struggle in the red zone and settle for fields goals too often. They are always harping on about stats and how often they score. The GOP are like that team that sucks but keeps finding ways to score touchdowns. Their offense is rabble but it scores touchdowns. Their defense is rabble but they hold firm in the red zone and get turnovers. Now imagine a game where: One team struggles to be coherent but their defense gets a couple of takeaways including a pick 6 and they find a way to convert a takeaway into another touchdown. Finally they scramble their way to a 3rd touchdown. The other team dominates racking up stat after stat but keeps stumbling in the red zone. They get 2 field goals and and then get a touchdown and 2pt conversion but then settle for 2 more field goals. Who scored on 5 drives and who scored on 2 drives? Who raved about their stats and but whined about missed opportunities? Who won the game 21-20?
    1
  6562. 1
  6563. 1
  6564. 1
  6565. 1
  6566. 1
  6567. 1
  6568. 1
  6569. 1
  6570. 1
  6571. 1
  6572. 1
  6573. Actually the lowest paid jobs are the last that will be replaced by robots and automation. I know I am an engineer who has worked in automation for 30+ years. The jobs that are most often replaced are jobs nobody wants to do or jobs that have a high risk of injury or its simply more productive to have the robot do part of the job like put its hand where the human doesn't want to like the inside of a power press or injection molding machine where they can lose that hand in a blink. Right now the people most at risk from automation are the university graduates with degrees in the financial areas - accounting, economics,.... etc. Accountants wont be needed in future, we already have software that's faster & cheaper. Economists will become totally irrelevant as they will never be as fast as the software can be at analysis. Stockbrokers & Financial consultants are even worse of as who will actually need them. In future stockbrokers and financial consultants will be down to very clever traders in basements making second by second trades for groups of people. They'll trade globally 24/7. It already works that way for the main players, but with computers and automation - guess what. My recommendation is don't do a business degree unless its a dual degree with IT. As for the rest of engineering we aren't going anywhere. All those computers need electricity and someone needs to build the power stations and networks and then keep them running. In fact the next generation of automation technology will be our revenge on the financial clowns for fucking with our careers.
    1
  6574. ​ @ittt6339  I was in college in America in the late 80s and got to see the 85 midterm and 87 POTUS seasons firsthand and all I thought of was WTF isn't it good were aren't this bonkers. BUT I WAS YOUNG AND NAIEVE because by the 90s our politics was already following on. Interestingly in 2010/11 I saw the back 1/2 of a lecture on the death of journalism that was om super late one night. I didn't find out for several years that it was given by Robert McChesney who was a major contributor to the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004). He's the guy near the start describing the scene from the Godfather Part 2 about Cuba. In this lecture I saw he was describing how the ratio of journalists to PR people has flipped since the end of WW2 from 5:1 to 1:5 It to 50-60 years so nobody really noticed except a few academics like Robert. By the early 2000s across the Western World many journalists we simply gotten rid of because of the vast expansion in communications as well as the corporatisation by people like Rupert Murdoch who simply bought everything he could. the days of every town having its own newspaper ARE GONE because shareholders want profit not stories on Farmer Jones cows or the local kid with dreams of the big time. Later on I found the Robert McChesney is a professor at my Alma Mater (U. of Illinois) but I he started there after I graduated. There's actually a few really good interviews he's given that are here on YouTube. Every time I check I keep finding older stuff that says people like him were trying to warn us about these media issues for a long long time BUT NOBODY WAS LISTENING and now we are paying the price. And it's a recuring theme with a few issues. We are finding out just how bad the climate is as well as energy and water systems. Energy is of interest to me because I'm an engineer and that problem is so staggering that at times I wonder what will happen because I can't get people to listen and the media are so bad. We have so many stupid people making so many stupid claims we can't have a sensible public discussion BECAUSE at the core of it all is a media that thrives on conflict AND DOES NOT CARE.
    1
  6575. 1
  6576. 1
  6577. 1
  6578. 1
  6579. 1
  6580. 1
  6581. 1
  6582. 1
  6583. 1
  6584. I did Econ 101 as one of my humanities options to doing aerospace engineering. After a couple of lectures of this guy explaining yet another market type with yet another supply-demand graph I asked him (after class) what the math was behind these graphs. He asked what was I talking about and I asked again "you're drawing these graphs I was wondering what the math is?" He then asked what my major was and I said "aerospace and when we draw a graph there's a formula or there's data." I might NOT have all that conversation perfectly remembered but I'll never forget his reply. "This is economics we don't do math here!" I did press him further and he eventually admitted that at the higher levels they did some, but nothing like engineering. In recent years I have been trying to understand WHY economists are doing what they do. My main motivation is they have infected engineering with some very bad practices that's lead to some very bad outcomes, most notably in electricity generation and distribution and its a disaster across the entire Western developed world and its going to cost TRILLIONS to fix. Eventually I stumbled across the Australian Economist Steve Keen and he's what I'd call one of the rebel economists. He's been trying to expose and educate people to what Economists have done. The most amazing of Steve's revelations is that mainstream (classical and neo-classical) economists don't even include energy in there modelling. Another person I stumbled across who talks a lot like Mark Paul is professor Mark Blyth (Brown U.). He leads a unit at Brown called the Rhodes Centre and he does interviews like this one where he talks to other "fringe" economists, sociologists and others who have written books similar to what Mark Paul has written. One Mark Blyth's recent interviews was with George DeMartino’s who wrote the book, “The Tragic Science: How Economists Cause Harm (Even as They Aspire to Do Good)” The YouTube video title is The Rhodes Center Podcast: Does economics do more harm than good? There's a whole bunch of similar interviews with authors Mark has done and if anyone wants to get the gist of what these people are on about without having to get the book and read it these interviews are FREE and here on YT.
    1
  6585. 1
  6586. 1
  6587. 1
  6588. 1
  6589. 1
  6590. 1
  6591. 1
  6592. 1
  6593. 1
  6594. 1
  6595. Its sad to say that David's acted in bad faith on this and I think its because you dented his American self superiority on a few points. Calling you guys right wing is utterly stupid on his behalf and he really should apologise. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America and Americans have a ridiculously skewed concept of what's right and left in politics. I did engineering but ended up in lots of political discussions surrounded by other university students as I was. Like most things American its NOT simple and my apologies for the longish answer. Due to being told for multiple generations that America is the Greatest Nation on Earth and now finding out that's NOT true. Remember they won 2 World Wars (just ask them) and have now lost or failed to win almost every conflict since. They've been humiliated in both Iraq and Afghanistan just as they were in Vietnam. They are having a hard time dealing with ANYONE from any other nation that challenges them intellectually and you guys pushed back hard and refused to concede some points. I don't think he's bad guy but I think he's acted in bad faith on this and does need to apologise. Further to trying to explain part of his reaction. Part of it comes from the very American centric education he's been brought up with. Typical of many Americans he has no real understanding of how the rest of the world views LEFT & RIGHT politics. One of his college Professors is noted teacher of Marxist Economics Richard Wolff. So David sees himself as very LEFTIST. The problem is America has no real LEFT and never did. It actually has 2 competing versions of right wing capitalism. Americans talk about left and right but they are more like opposite sides of the same coin. Like all coins no matter which way its up it still has the same value. There's American Liberalism which is based on the idea of a sound set of regulations so that everyone has a fair chance at making it rich. Then there's American Realism which is based on the concept that people are selfish and will do whatever they feel is in their best interests as in "I might as well forget rules and just do whatever makes me rich." Make no bones about it both sides of America consider being rich the #1 thing. The liberals just think they are doing it playing inside the rules they believe everyone should play by, while the realists don't care so long as they win.
    1
  6596.  @michaelk.jensen1611  For starters try writing clear sentences. If you go over to David's channel here on YT he has a video titled "Progressive Double-Teamed by Right-Wingers, DISASTER" ->https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_KO72BIfEU What's the disaster? There's actually no commentary by David or any of his people explaining anything about what was disastrous. What there is a 20 minute EDITED version of their discussion. If you go back a year David didn't do much click baiting, and I've been watching him for a couple of years. He's done some click baiting BUT that title is really bad as such with that title acting in bad faith. In the past he's done the occasional "it doesn't end well" title and some of those have nothing controversial, but then as far as click baiting goes David's a 1 out of 10 on a platform infested with 10 out of 10s. Do I think the guys at Triggernometry are completely innocent in this? NO - I think that whole discussion on transgender people in prison was handled badly by BOTH sides. They were BOTH trying to win points and make the other person "concede" something. It was a stupid stance by both of them because it SOLVED NOTHING. There is an idiotic behavior among some people that dictates they have to dominate others and score points. IT DOES NOTHING and IT SOLVES NOTHING. As I said I am an engineer and I see the same types of arguments between the pro-wind/solar people and the pro-nuclear people with respect to clean energy solutions. I'm tired of them. They cherry pick all sorts of information and come up with specific cases to make points that have no real basis for generating a solution. I'm tired of people making bad faith arguments or spinning arguments around in circles that SOLVE NOTHING. If you look at their transgender argument. Does David have a point that a 5'3" effeminate trans-male is likely to be brutalised in a male prison? YES, and we have only 1 other option so what do we do? Konstantin - no answer except denial. Did Konstantin have a valid point that only having that 1 other option is bad? YES, and did David conceded that only having 1 other option isn't acceptable? NO he just pushed the you must concede line. ALL BOTH of them wanted was to win a point without conceding anything. AND THEY SOLVED NOTHING. And while they continue this spat they will SOLVE NOTHNG.
    1
  6597. 1
  6598. 1
  6599. 1
  6600. 1
  6601. 1
  6602. 1
  6603. 1
  6604. 1
  6605. 1
  6606. 1
  6607. 1
  6608. 1
  6609. 1
  6610. 1
  6611. ​ @godsrevolver9737  Hey DlCKHEAD he said what he said and the reason why I cannot stand DlCKHEADS like you Konastantin AND the Radical Left is you all either hijack language or you wait until the other side hijacks language and then exploit it. And so you know one of Orwell's main themes in 1984 was the hijacking of language. That's what doublespeak is all about. First example - the word woke only applied to the economic state of African Americans since it was first used in the blues music in the 1950s. THEN out of nowhere the radical Left (who I can't farking stand) hijacked it. to mean anything the Social Justice warrior brigades wanted to apply it too. It had nothing to do with LGBT anything, or environmental issues or energy transitions or education. It was purely an economic term as it applied to one group of people - African Americans. Second example - the word progressive meant 1 thing and 1 thing only. It applied to anyone Left, Centrist or Right who wanted society to make progress and not just on 1 thing but across the broader spectrum of society by allowing opportunity and NOT restricting it which the radical Right do or forcing equality which the Radical Left do. The reason I hate what the Radical Left has done is they claim to be progressive but want the world to GO BACKWARDS and try again at that Marxist/Socialist/Stalinist nonsense. That's NOT progressive that's regressive because they want to GO BACKWARDS to something that already failed catastrophically. This is why the Radical Right are just as pathetic they want the world to GO BACKWARDS to some robber baron theocratic form of feudalism. This is why I hate what Konastantin has chosen to become. 2-3 years ago he was someone who wanted a better world. Now he's just another cheap punk on the payroll of the American Libertarians and there's no shortage of those DUMB PRlCKs or the money supply they feed on. If you don't like that for reasoning then FCK OFF.
    1
  6612. 1
  6613. 1
  6614. 1
  6615. 1
  6616. 1
  6617. 1
  6618. 1
  6619.  @rejvaik00  If you are going to criticise another country for what ever reason GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. YES - we have compulsory voting BUT that does NOT MEAN you actually have to vote for anyone. As you said people can simply mismark the voting form. I had a family member who used to draw an extra box and write his football team's name beside it and tick that box. Same thing. The only thing that is compulsory is that you turn up and fill out a voting slip. How you fill it out is your choice. If you don't turn up then you get a please explain letter and so long as you give a reasonable explanation NOTHING ever happens AND I have never heard of anyone being fined. SECONDLY we DO NOT have first past the post like America and Britain. We have what is called preferential voting which I think Alaska has now adopted. It encourages more people to step up as candidates and provide more options. If the main parties get slack and put up crap candidates then it leaves the door wide open for other people. Its a system that keeps our parties a lot more honest. This is how the Teal Independents won so many seats at the last election. The main parties got slack. A lot of swing voters who had voted Right at the previous election did NOT vote LEF but voted Teal. Just as the Democrats have issues accepting that 2020 wasn't that good of a result Australian Labor doesn't accept the last election wasn't that good of a result for them. A lot of of swing voter didn't swing to them but swung sideways. So please in future GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT AND NOT BULLSHlT PEOPLE.
    1
  6620. 1
  6621. 1
  6622. 1
  6623. 1
  6624. 1
  6625. 1
  6626. 1
  6627. 1
  6628. 1
  6629. 1
  6630. 1
  6631. 1
  6632. 1
  6633. 1
  6634. 1
  6635. 1
  6636. 1
  6637. 1
  6638. 1
  6639. 1
  6640. 1
  6641. 1
  6642. 1
  6643. 1
  6644. 1
  6645. 1
  6646. 1
  6647. YES - Its proof yet again that no matter what your tribe, culture, nation or political system, there is no greater threat to any society than its own fanatics. I remember a TV mini-series (many years ago - 1981) about the Siege of Masada. In one scene Peter Strauss playing the Zealot Leader Eleazar Ben Yair meets Peter O'Toole playing the Roman general Lucius Flavius Silva and Eleazar tells him that if he wants to destroy the Jews simply leave them alone and very quickly they will start fighting among themselves. Look at America right now. We might not see it that clearly because the effect took 30+ years to surface but by winning the Cold War and with it the collapse of the Soviet Empire they lost that 1 major threat. Yeah sure China has sort of stepped up as a challenger and there was the war on terror but neither were the same threat Russia was. In the years since without that 1 real challenger the Americans have simply started fighting among themselves. Sure they had rivalries but not since the civil war have there been factions in America that actually believe that other Americans are their worst enemy imaginable. On the flip side who did more damage to Russia than the Communists. Other than how they treated their own people their industries never really developed that much. I'm an aerospace engineer and Soyuz might be old and less technically developed but its reliable. Where they truly screwed up was environmentally and the best example there is the Aral Sea disaster.
    1
  6648. 1
  6649. 1
  6650. 1
  6651. 1
  6652. 1
  6653. 1
  6654. 1
  6655. 1
  6656. 1
  6657. 1
  6658. 1
  6659. 1
  6660. 1
  6661. 1
  6662. 1
  6663.  @InformedKiwi  It never ceases to amaze that Kiwis think arrogant stupidity is a virtue. Listen and you might learn something. History is littered with better technologies that were never adopted. Example 1: VHS tapes. Sorry but BetaMax was better in every way but 1. Better picture, better re-record, better in almost everything except they were more expensive to make and Hollywood wanted cheaper. Example 2: Molten Salt Reactors were better and more efficient and produced less waste than Water cooled reactors but were developed second and NOBODY held the patents that they could control. If Chernobyl or Fukushima had been MSRs then there would have been NO ACCIDENTS. Do you know the coal industry developed a new generation of boilers for power stations that would have reduced world CO2 emissions by several billion tons a year? Rio Tinto was one of the main players in that. They even had advertisements on TV at one stage telling everyone about their new technology. They even built a power station in Japan that used it. It was a technology that wasn't adopted, because Rio Tinto and others would have lost billions because the amount of coal they sell would have dropped significantly. The issues with producing and using Hydrogen from wind were solved years ago. The issues with using it in gas turbines were mostly solved in the 1990s BUT nobody wanted it at the time especially the jet fuel industry and the natural gas industry. The jet fuel guys didn't need to worry because they might have worked out the engine issues but not the fuel tank issues. Try coming down of your self imposed arrogance high chair WTFU. Being good at rugby means JACK SHlT about everything else. Just be grateful there's something you clowns are good at. And just because Scott Dixon, Scott McLaughlin and Shane Van Hamburger can drive doesn't mean the rest of you farking can.
    1
  6664. 1
  6665. 1
  6666. 1
  6667. 1
  6668. 1
  6669. 1
  6670. 1
  6671. 1
  6672. 1
  6673. 1
  6674. 1
  6675. 1
  6676. AUSTRALIAN HERE - I went to college in America in the late 80s on a scholarship and did aerospace engineering at the U. of Illinois. That was when the Internet was being born and the Cray supercomputers were doing amazing things. Marc Andreessen did his degree in computing at Illinois in the years just after I graduated. Andreessen along with Eric Bina and others developed the worlds first practical web browser Mosaic while there. I actually used the precursor system called Plato while there and its hard to explain how bad it was and how much a functional web browser was needed. Mosaic eventually morphed into Netscape which Microsoft bought and then morphed into MS Internet Explorer. Go and look at the Wikipedia page for the U of Illinois notable Alumni and look down the list of people who have made huge contributions to America's computer industries and other technologies. You'll see references to YouTube and Tesla in that list. So I know first hand what the value of the American State funded college systems are worth. I mention Andreessen specifically because he has been so vocal in recent years about defunding state backed college systems. I find that repulsively hypocritical because I KNOW from FIRST HAND experience what an incredible advantage in life he got from attending a state funded college. FYI - The Illini thumping Michigan was fantastic, but what would be better is that America can find a way past its current political issues because that's a benefit to the whole world.
    1
  6677. 1
  6678. 1
  6679. 1
  6680. 1
  6681. 1
  6682. 1
  6683. 1
  6684. 1
  6685. 1
  6686. 1
  6687. 1
  6688. 1
  6689. 1
  6690. 1
  6691. 1
  6692. 1
  6693. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Ryan a few weeks ago you blasted off at Sagaar over on Breaking Points for talking about subjects he doesn't know about. THIS TIME ITS YOU who's talking about things he doesn't know about. I did my degree in the late 80s when Ronald Reagans Star Wars program was in full flight. Almost all of the post graduate students were sponsored by DARPA. During my final year when we had to do our high level options we shared class time with the post grads. To get a higher post grad level credit they had to do technical papers and present them. So we got to listen to what they were doing and several of them were doing very interesting things. The class I that in some ways I wished I had never done because it was so hard is also at times like this the answer to stupid claims made these days. That class was Space Craft Dynamics, which is an extension of orbital mechanics and is about how things fly in space. I CAN ASSURE YOU ITS NOTHING LIKE Star Wars, Stra Trek or any other science fiction book, TV show or film. Its easily the single hardest class in all of engineering because of the math involved and yes I have argued it with other engineers. In that class were 2 guys I remember because what they were doing was so far out there it was hard to follow. One guy was doing the dynamics of rail guns and the other pointing of space craft. The dynamics of rail guns had to do with how the rails flex and vibrate due to the electrical forces. It sort of like the issues with projectiles being fired out of guns and the barrels flex. They might be small deflections but they can have big consequences. The guy who was doing the pointing was easily the smartest engineer I ever met in terms of doing complex applied math. What you get from being around someone like him and seeing what the work was like is to understand just how hard it is to accurately target anything in space. Looking at stars with telescopes is easy by comparison because their positions are known before hand. After that everything else just gets harder and harder to the point of being utterly impractical. The main 3 issues are that everything moves in curved paths, everything moves incredibly fast and the distances involved requires accuracy that's incredibly hard to do. That was what we really got out of Reagan's Star Wars program. Just how utterly impractical its goals were. The fact Trump came out and shifted an existing part of the Air Force into a new independent "Space Force" was politics and nothing more. The fantasy stuff about having troops stationed in space has been utterly debunked. The claims by clowns like Elon Musk for using giant rockets to deploy troops has been debunked. People making wild claims about space based lasers starting grass fires has been debunked. Politics like Hollywood can make what ever claims they like. Engineering is not like that. We either make stuff that works or stuff that fails or something in between. Either way we have to deal with reality NOT fantasy. So long as its difficult to physically get into space and physically demanding to stay in space and support crews in space then space will be about communications and surveillance and nothing else. If you'd like I'd happily come on and explain these things in more detail.
    1
  6694.  @DHD52  Do you actually know what killed off Reagans Star Wars program??? SIMPLE PRACTICALLITIES And I genuinely want to scream that in your face and in the face of so many other people these days who push all these fantasy BULLSHlT cases. I seriously doubt you work in space unless its maybe one of these BULLSHlT start-ups claiming some crap and nonsense hoping to get a DARPA contract. I seriously doubt you have a degree in aerospace or ever done any sort of real course in either orbital mechanics or space craft dynamics. The fact you call it space dynamics is a give away. HERE'S THE PRACTICALITIES WE WORKED IN IN THE LATE 80s 1) Lasers reflect of shiny surfaces. 2) Lasers loose power over distances. Its Ok for communications but NOT energy delivery. 3) All electrical space electrical hardware like computer chips and sensors are hardened against radiation and as such are near impregnable to microwaves. 4) NOTHING can hide in space. We all know where everything is and have done so since the early 80s. To actually catch up to something requires lots of careful orbital adjustments that take time. So NOBODY has been sneaking up on anybody. 5) Collision/Explosive based systems cause debris fields. Every test anyone has ever done has been disaster. 6) Collision based systems like what were called "brilliant pebbles" require targets to stay on a predictable course. Almost any deviation causes a miss because there's no time to react at orbital speeds. Sorry but I can spot BULLSHlT on this subject and your full of it.
    1
  6695. 1
  6696. As an Australian who went to college in America in the late 80s this is something I have been trying to explain to Americans for over 30 years. America NEVER HAD a true Left like Britain has with British Labor, Australia has with Australian Labor or many other countries have with political parties that STARTED out of their union movements. What America has is 2 parties that were formed by their political and business elites and as such are BOTH fundamentally RIGHT WING PARTIES. Further they have shifted where they were on the political spectrum as well. Americans seem to forget that at one point the Democrats were the radical racist Right Wing party while the Republicans were the moderate Right Wing Party. Remember that Republican President named Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves. Go look at the history of the Klu Klux Klan they were an offshoot of the Southern Democrats. Here in Australia the our version of the Labor Party was essentially the political party of our Unions. People like Dan Osborne were its members. There has been a significant change in recent decades however. The Australian Labor Party like British Labor and other Left Wing parties across the Western Democratic World have been taken over by college educated people usually with educations in law or economics. Tony Blair (former British PM), Julia Gillard (former Australian PM), Anthony Albanese (current Australian PM) and Keir Stammer (most likely to be the next British PM) are all lawyers and all members of their respective Labor parties. So it does NOT surprise me that America might be looking for working class people to displace some of the political elite like Dan Osborne is. We had that, then lost that and need to get it back again.
    1
  6697. 1
  6698. 1
  6699. 1
  6700. 1
  6701. 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
  6702. 1
  6703. 1
  6704. 1
  6705. 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
  6706. 1
  6707. 1
  6708. 1
  6709. 1
  6710. 1
  6711. 1
  6712. 1
  6713. 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
  6714. 1
  6715. 1
  6716. 1
  6717. 1
  6718. 1
  6719. ​ @Battleneter  Yeah don't remind us about how much money our politicians have in their pockets. What I will say as an engineer is we need to be clear about what type of coal are those mines producing because there's 2 distinct types. As an engineer I hate the fact that none of this is rarely explained so here's the basics. ONE is THERMAL COAL and its only good for burning to generate heat, hence the name "thermal coal." Its what's burned in power stations and other heating applications. Thermal coal is a zombie industry. Its dead but refuses to stay dead and who knows how many times we have to shoot it to finally be rid of it. As I like to put it to the pro-coal clowns "If burning coal is so fantastic then why don't we go back to steam powered trains and have coal powered trucks?" THER OTHER is METALLURGICAL COAL and that's what is used to process iron ore into steel hence the name. What makes it different is the lack of impurities. Its almost pure carbon so when its used in making steel you get good quality steel with few impurities. That's really important when you want to make things like stainless steel and you want bridges not to fall down. Because its got few impurities its also good for other applications like water filtering and for manufacturing carbon fibre to make lighter cars, boats and air planes. The metallurgical coal industry which Australia is a leader in is NOT GOING ANYWHERE because we need steel. If you want wind turbines they need steel towers. If you want public transport then trains, train lines, buses and boats all need steel. Then there's the millions of other products that are made from steel. Yes there's lower emission systems but to replace the worlds entire steel production industry will take years and cost $$ Trillions. These just aren't things we can simply buy from K-Mart or Amazon.
    1
  6720. 1
  6721. 1
  6722. 1
  6723. 1
  6724. 1
  6725. 1
  6726. 1
  6727. 1
  6728. 1
  6729. 1
  6730. 1
  6731. 1
  6732. 1
  6733. 1
  6734. 1
  6735. 1
  6736. 1
  6737. 1
  6738. 1
  6739. 1
  6740. That's of course sensible and its what scientists have argued for some time. Because of all the ridiculous howling and screaming over COVID one thing that needed to be discussed but has NOT been discussed is the oversight of these labs. Back in 2011 there was a Dutch Researcher named Ron Fouchier who created a variation of avian flu that has been described as the deadliest virus humanity has ever encountered. Had it escaped rather than COVID we'd have already have over 64 million dead instead of 6.6 million. The problem that emerged after Ron Fouchier's work was that nobody was really aware of what he was doing. The Dutch government actually had to step in and shut him down because he wanted to tell the whole world how he did it and show how clever he was. He never considered the maniacs who would use it. If you do take a look at the whole Wuhan issue it was obvious there were issues. I DO NOT think that what they were doing was fundamentally wrong. China had faced MERS and SARS so investigating what might be next was smart. Getting other nations to help with that research was also smart. DOING THAT RESEARCH IN AN UNSAFE WAY WAS NOT SMART. An airborne virus like COVID needed to have been researched in a Level 4 lab NOT a Level 3 lab AND THAT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY EXPERTS. And 1 other thing. They redefined what was and what wasn't gain of function. Ron Fouchier's work would no longer be considered gain of function. Just like the work in Wuhan is also not considered to be gain of function. This is something else that has NOT been discussed publicly.
    1
  6741. 1
  6742. 1
  6743. 1
  6744. 1
  6745. 1
  6746. RICHARD I know your an economics professor and that you know your stuff. I'm an engineer who's been informally studying economics for a couple of years. I have listed to many podcasts and regularly participate in the Steve Keen & Friends. You, Steve, Stephanie Kelton all know your stuff and can explain the crap out of almost anything on economics. HOWEVER - YOU ALL SUCK at explaining money creation because you all think we took basic money theory. MMTers like Yourself and Steph Kelton explain quite well that NATION STATES are toe sole provider of currency. Seve Keen and others explain quite well that BANKS create money through loans. What all of you DO NOT realise it that it confuses a lot of people because they here 2 halves of the story. Nation States produce EXOGENIC money Banks produce ENDOGENOUS money Wikipedia has a great opening paragraph on the page for Endogenous Money. it reads: "Endogenous money is an economy’s supply of money that is determined endogenously—that is, as a result of the interactions of other economic variables, rather than exogenously (autonomously) by an external authority such as a central bank." Nation States produce EXOGENIC money when they have their assigned institution (treasury or central bank) either print new currency or put money into accounts. Steph Kelton explains that well. Banks produce ENDOGENOUS money by placing 2 equal numbers into their ledgers AS A LOAN. One number is in their assets and the other is in the account of the customer. Steve Keen explains that well. What you have explained well is that ITS THE NATION STATE that decides the VALUE of CURRENCY. YOU GUYS ALL NEED TO EXPLAIN THAT BETTER Instead of in pieces.
    1
  6747. 1
  6748. 1
  6749. 1
  6750. 1
  6751. 1
  6752. 1
  6753. 1
  6754. 1
  6755. 1
  6756. 1
  6757. 1
  6758. 1
  6759. 1
  6760. 1
  6761. 1
  6762. 1
  6763. 1
  6764. 1
  6765. 1
  6766. 1
  6767. 1
  6768. 1
  6769. 1
  6770. 1
  6771. 1
  6772. 1
  6773. 1
  6774. 1
  6775. 1
  6776. 1
  6777. 1
  6778. 1
  6779. 1
  6780. 1
  6781. 1
  6782. 1
  6783. 1
  6784. 1
  6785. 1
  6786. Sorry you are wrong and there's actually a huge mistake made by Paul Robichaud at 28 minutes. Before he died Daniel Ellsberg who was their during the Cuban Missile Crisis gave an interview to theAnalysisNews -which is available here on YT. The American's NEVER depth charged the Russians but were actually trying to SIGNAL the Russian submarines by throwing hand grenades into the water. That wasn't working because they'd blow up before they went deep enough. So they started wrapping the hand grenades in toilet paper. They'd throw the hand grenades into the water which would then sink before the toilet paper fell away. What the American's didn't know was that this freaked out the Russian because at depth the hand grenades had a concussive effect that made the Russians feel like they were being attacked. What saved the world was the oddity that Vasily Arkhipov was on the particular submarine that thought it was under attack. Normally it only takes 2 people (the commander & political officer) to use a nuclear weapon. The submarine Arkhipov was on (the B-59) was one of 4 Foxtrot submarines sent to Cuba by the Russians. He was NOT the commander of the B-59 he was the overall Commander of the flotilla of 4 Foxtrots. On the B-59 the actual commander Valentin Savitsky and his political officer DID PREPARE to launch their T-5 nuclear torpedo, BUT because Arkhipov was on that submarine it also required him to agree and he didn't. He worked out the Americans were only trying to signal them. THAT'S HOW CLOSE IT WAS. Had Arkhipov been on one of the other Foxtrot submarines then Savitsky would have launched the B-59s nuclear torpedo which the Americans didn't even know they had. The Americans didn't find out for many years just how close it came. As a side note of trivia the character played by Liam Nesson (Mikhail "Misha" Polenin, E) in the film K19: The Widomaker is based on Arkhipov.
    1
  6787. 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
  6788. 1
  6789. 1
  6790. 1
  6791. 1
  6792. Well I'll take the other more pragmatic view on his first point. There's NO GUARANTEE that Trump won't win. Hilary tried and lost that with some of the most stupid campaign strategies ever and she's now head of Biden's re-election team. I'm Australian but went to college in America U. Illinois). So I know the Midwest and Rust Belt fairly well. The moment I heard she wasn't going to campaign in Michigan I knew she was in trouble because I knew the Rust Belt was not going to take that sort of arrogance well. I wasn't alone in thinking she was going to lose. Both Rana Foroohar and Mark Blyth predicted she'd lose but for different reasons. Rana Foroohar said it was her link to NAFTA and Mark Blyth because the Dems had just screwed so many of their BLUE states over time and time again. Not only did Hilary lose Michigan but also Ohio and Penn becoming the first Democrat since Dukakis in 1988 to lose all 3. Even Gore and Kerry won 2 of those 3. If you look at the EC votes if Hilary had won those 3 as Bill and Obama had she would have won. What NOBODY on America's Left has been willing to explain or even face up to was how Trump went from 63 million votes in 2016 to 74 million votes in 2020 when every poll for 2 years had said his base was shrinking. 1) The polling WAS WRONG and NOT by a little but by a staggering amount. An extra 11 million people turned out in 2020 to vote for this guy. Hate him all you like but he knows how to appeal to particular crowds. Jesse Ventura said he learned it from Pro-Wrestling. 2) Despite all the crap and craziness his people really do see him as someone who's going to save them from the career politicians who have made their lives miserable for the past 30+ years. They don't care at all about facts or evidence or how much BS he tells. His base hates the Washington Elite so much that they'd vote for a rapid dog if it would bite one of those elitist snobs. And yes I know Trump is actually one of those elitist snobs, but he knows how to sell his base a different story. EVERYONE FORGETS that before he beat Hilary Trump beat of 16 GOP favorite sons including Jeb Bush and he didn't just beat them he wiped the floor with them. America better wake up to itself and the Democrats need to take the coldest of cold showers and realise that those 74 million might turn out to be 85 million next year.
    1
  6793. 1
  6794. 1
  6795. 1
  6796. 1
  6797. 1
  6798. 1
  6799. 1
  6800. 1
  6801. 1
  6802. 1
  6803. 1
  6804. 1
  6805. 1
  6806. 1
  6807. 1
  6808. 1
  6809. Like others you are also 100% RIGHT NOTE WHAT Kevin McCarthy actually says. I cut & past this form the transcript of the video. The punctuation is mine and there's correction of the word warrant which the YT algorithm had the word "weren't." Starting at 1:42 "Despite these serious allegations. It appears that the president's family has been offered special treatment by Biden's own Administration. Treatment that not otherwise would have received if they were not related to the President. These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption and they warrant further investigation by the House of Representatives." Think about what that actually says. 1) There's allegations NOT EVIDENCE. 2) There's appearance NOT EVIDENCE. 3) Regarding the allegations of favoritism to family members, maybe he can explain how Jared & Ivanka were given positions in the Trump Whitehouse despite having NO RELEVANT Experience for those positions. 4) Regarding the allegations of abuse of power, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored what Trump did with his "perfect call" to Ukraine during Trump's 1st Impeachment. 5) Regarding the allegations of obstruction, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored Trumps obstruction with counting votes on January 6th during Trump's 2nd Impeachment. 6) Regarding the allegations of corruption, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain why there has been NO Investigation regarding Jared Kushner's use of government resources to play various Arab states against each other to secure several hundred million dollars to bail out his family's investment in the New York office tower 666 Fifth Avenue OR How Jared Kushner was able to get $2 Billion from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund as he left the Whitehouse. OR How Donald Trump's golf courses made millions of dollars because he spent so much time at them as President that countries were forced to rent suites and villas at them to hold meetings. PLUS the US government had to pay for the rental of suites and villas and golf carts and food at those golf courses for Whitehouse Staff and Secret Service agents.
    1
  6810. 1
  6811. 1
  6812. 1
  6813. 1
  6814. 1
  6815. 1
  6816. 1
  6817. 1
  6818. 1
  6819. 1
  6820. 1
  6821. 1
  6822. 1
  6823. 1
  6824. 1
  6825. AUSTRALIAN HERE: If this was overdubbed with an Australian accent I would NOT be able to tell the difference. Even with the British accent I am struggling to understand if he his talking about Britain or Australia. I'm actually an engineer who's been looking into Economics because of the interference I have seen in the engineering space and the training of skilled tradesmen from economists. AND YES I watch Gary Stevenson's channel here on YT as part of that. Gary has recently confirmed something I worked out and something economists like Steve Keen have been trying to explain. There's 2 major issues with Economics education. 1) It is very narrowly focused on market economics and includes NOTHING regarding any understanding of things like infrastructure or energy systems. Everything is taught from a market perspective rather than a functional perspective. This is why Thames Water has the current issues it has and those issues are being repeated across the entire Western Democratic world and not just in water but also energy, infrastructure, rail and worst of all education. 2) It is uniform across all of the tertiary education systems. All of the text books are printed by Harvard Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,... etc OR they are written by people who studied at or teach at Harvard Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,... etc. The problem at the political level is that EVERY politician in the Western World NO MATTER if they are Left, Right or Center all studied the same economics at university or they have advisors who studied the same economics at university. This is why no matter who wins political power the overall economics doesn't change or only changes very little AND WHY there's no real solutions in sight.
    1
  6826. 1
  6827. 1
  6828. 1
  6829. 1
  6830. 1
  6831. 1
  6832. 1
  6833. 1
  6834. 1
  6835. 1
  6836. 1
  6837. 1
  6838. 1
  6839. 1
  6840. 1
  6841. 1
  6842. 1
  6843. 1
  6844. 1
  6845. 1
  6846. 1
  6847. 1
  6848. 1
  6849. 1
  6850. 1
  6851. 1
  6852. 1
  6853. 1
  6854. 1
  6855. 1
  6856.  @jdsd744  Have you even been listening? The entire mission to 16-Psyche (at $400M US) is all because its Iron and Nickel. They keep going on how its worth $4 Quadrillion and maybe as much as $10 Quadrillion and will cure the worlds debt. You might get that fact that its totally impractical, but there are promoters with gigantic mouths and people without the background to realise how much shite they're being fed. And when it comes to space and space exploration their is an awful lot of shite being fed to a very gullible audience who have zero perspective. Other than asteroids there's the utter garbage that going to Mars will be just a few years away. We haven't been away from LEO for nearly 50 years. The last guys who did have an above average rate of heart disease. Nobody knows if it was from cosmic radiation or something else. The spent only a few days outside the Van Allen Belts and got permanent damage for it and NOBODY knows why. Even some of the stuff being said about going back to the moon is complete garbage. There are NASA people claiming all the maintenance will be done by robots. Total bullshit from boff heads who've never been on a mine site and have ZERO understanding of what happens to mining equipment in the field. I can tell you as an aerospace engineer who specifically went to work in mining to LEARN how to build and operate mines so that I might get a chance to go to the moon one day, that most of these people are totally clueless. I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) back in 2002 and he told me to look into Helium-3 lunar mining. That was what sent me off into mining. Its wasn't just a wishful thought it was from one of the 12 guys who actually went to the moon. After a career in robotics and automation I got an education in remote mining. I'd be lucky if I know a fraction of 1% of what there is to know about mining and yet I know I am years ahead of NASA. At best they have visited mines I WORKED THERE.
    1
  6857.  @X85283  DO PEOPLE LIKE YOU ACTUALLY LISTEN? I don't know your education level so I wont blast of at you yet, but you better start listening. Do you have any idea how much iron ore we dig up EVERY YEAR and convert into iron and what that would take to fly into orbit and then fly back? Which is what Jeff Bezos proposed a few years back. He put forward the idea of taking all the mineral processing into orbit without any idea what it takes. Its not just that we could do it its how much stuff has to be moved up and down. I actually worked at the Tom Price Mine (iron ore) and it does 20mta (million tons per annum). Its a very convenient number because the math is very simple. The Space Shuttle could fly 30tons into orbit but only bring 14 tons back. The typical iron content in the ore is about 70%. yes it can be as low as 50% but also in the mid 90s fro high grade fines. But most grades are around the 70% mark. So every 20 tons produces about 14 tons of iron which is the same as the Space Shuttles. So if they wanted to process the output of a mine like Tom Price using the space shuttle it would take about 1 million space shuttle flights per year. AND THAT'S JUST 1 MINE Total Australia production of iron ore is now over 900 million tons and that would require about 45 million Space Shuttle Flights. FYI - China does over 1,000 million tons of iron ore production. EVEN IF you said don't bother with Space Shuttles and just build a glider our of the iron. 2.1 Billion tons of iron at 8kms (kilometers per second) is a lot of kinetic energy that has to be dissipated. Go look at the film for the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteor that was about 9,100 tons. The worlds production of iron would be about 230,000 of those and it wouldn't be a one off it would be every year. If you feed 2.1 billion tons at 28,000kmh into a kinetic energy calculator you get 6.35E+19J which is 6.35 with 19 zeros after it. The Hiroshima bomb was about 63TJ (tera joules = trillion joules) or 63 with 12 zeros after it. YES that much iron coming down has the same energy as about 1 million Hiroshimas and you thing we could do that every year. Shifting iron ore production off world is logistically absurd and thermodynamically a planet killing exercise.
    1
  6858. 1
  6859. 1
  6860. 1
  6861.  @chiangkaishrek5123  I'd say you're dead right on all 3 points. I don't think you've disagreed with what I said but described it from a different angle. Have you read or seen any of the book talks on "Angrynomics." Mark Blyth uses an analogy (even before writing Angrynomics) how the economy is like a computer. He describes populists as hackers or rogue programmers. In the book he and Eric Lonergan explain WHY people flock to populists and its NOT a new thing. The main reason people follow after them is they become disenchanted and/or disenfranchised with the current regime. In democracies (like we see all over the world right now) there's almost no difference in voting Left or Right because they do the same things. Populists offer an alternative. Eric & Mark point out that most populists are at their core opportunists and quite often narcissists. Plenty have pointed out that although Kinzinger has publicly spoken out against Trump he also voted with Trump most of the time. So in a way he's also an opportunist as is Liz Chaney and in fact almost everyone in politics these days. Its matter of how much. Hilary was just another arrogant narcissistic machine politician except she was too stupid to realise how much people despised her. I'm actually Australian but went to college at Illinois. I'm not an expert of the Midwest but have a decent handle on it. When I heard Hilary was NOT going to campaign in Michigan and instead did a fundraiser in New York I knew it was a truly idiotic mistake. Basically she double insulted the entire Rust Belt by not going and then hanging out with the very people who had sold their jobs to other places. She ended up losing Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Anyone with a functioning brain should realise that's 54 EC-votes which represents a 108 EC-vote swing - you lose 54 they gain 54 (duh). Hilary and her campaign staff were among stupidest people in democratic history and I don't mean the US Democratic Party I mean ALL OF democratic history across every democratic state & nation.
    1
  6862. 1
  6863. 1
  6864. 1
  6865. 1
  6866. 1
  6867. 1
  6868. 1
  6869. ​ @Stroporez  Actually I'm also anti-centrist for the most basic fact that the so called "Enlightened Centrists" have so utterly failed. If you want to simply lump people into Left, Right and Centre then you're as ignorant to the reality of humanity as most of the clowns who run this planet. They might be enlightened but when it comes to getting anything done "Enlightened Centrists" are f*cking hopeless, which to your point is why the world is a mess. Just as there are different shades to the Left and Right there's also different shades to what's in between. What I hate about the so called "Enlightened Centrists" is that they all suffer Dunning-Kruger Syndrome just as bad as the Radical Left and Radical Right. The giveaway of their stupidity, ignorance and arrogance is: - they are too stupid to realise that doing nothing but making compromises goes nowhere; - they are too ignorant to know people will accept tough decisions when the goals are explained; - they are too arrogant to accept that there are people on the Left and on the Right with better ideas. I'm what you might call a "Practical Centrist" but then I'm an engineer and practically minded. I'm of the basic opinion that you listen to the Left and Right and pick their brains for the good ideas. You explain to the rest why whatever it is, is a good idea and ask for their input. IMPORTANTLY you don't let them stall or interfere which is the GREATEST failure of so called "Enlightened Centrists" they let BOTH the Left and Right stall and interfere. Its why they end up getting NOTHING DONE.
    1
  6870. 1
  6871. 1
  6872. 1
  6873. 1
  6874. 1
  6875. 1
  6876. 1
  6877. 1
  6878. 1
  6879. 1
  6880. 1
  6881. 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
  6882. 1
  6883. 1
  6884. 1
  6885. 1
  6886. 1
  6887. 1
  6888. 1
  6889.  @jonathandnicholson  I pretty much agree with all of what you said but with some slightly different perspectives on a couple of points. On the moral grounds I get where most people are coming from, but there is also the aspect of those crimes so depraved that the only option is to lock someone in isolation until they die and that has consequences. I'm Australian and we have had to actually deal with that. Arguably our worst was Martin Bryant who committed the Port Arthur Massacre. During that there was a part that was truly depraved. He shot and killed the mother of 2 small girls in front of them and then shot the 2 girls dead in front of their father. The girls were 3 and 6 at the time. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)#Toll_booth_murders_and_carjacking Authorities recently released the footage of the police interviews taken the next day. Bryant's behavior was incredible and barely describable. He treated the police interview like it was a game and he was the center of attention. The one time I heard that they tried to put him into the general prison population the other prisoners simply tried to kill him on sight. He's since spent over 20 years sitting in a bed in the prison hospital, because there was no where else to keep him safe. The last I heard he was almost a vegetable from the lack of human interaction. No one speaks to him or has anything to do with him beyond what's necessary. Therein lies one of the conundrums with crimes of extreme depravity. What do you do? There are people who would say that keeping a man in the state Martin Bryant is kept is depraved and inhuman. It has clearly done damage, but what else can we do? We've had the discussion many times but there is simply no right answer.
    1
  6890. 1
  6891.  @jonathandnicholson  Why are you trying to make a clearly very grey issue a black and white issue? My position is that I am not so much in favor as much as I am not opposed to the principal, because there are those moments when there is no doubt to the existence of what the Americans call "depraved indifference." Its one of those weird legal terms that has no clear definition but when its obvious its obvious. My opposition is where do we draw the line and who gets to decide where the line is. My opposition to the death penalty is the arbitrary nature that it gets applied. Our last hanging in Australia was clearly a political decision not a legal one and its turned out that the police knew about the ballistics information that said the guard George Hodson was shot from an elevated position not ground level where Ronald Ryan was. They knew that George Hodson was most likely accidentally shot by another guard in one of the towers and they even knew which guard was most likely responsible. They knew the main witness lied as well. BUT they still hanged Ronald Ryan, because it was politically convenient at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Ryan But on the concept of depraved indifference I have told you about Martin Bryant. There's no doubt he showed depraved indifference, but he was also mentally deficient which made that a whole grey zone with no right answer. But there is a very good example of depraved indifference where there is no doubt the person involved just didn't care - Timothy McVeigh who detonated the Oklahoma City Bomb that killed 168. Have a look at the casualties and you'll find there were 19 children most of whom were in day care center in the targeted building. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#Casualties Scroll down that Wikipedia page to the heading on "Children Affected" and look at the photograph and read the bit about what came out in the trial. He skipped one building because it had a florist and instead targeted a building with a day care center and let the bomb off at a time of day when he knew children would be there. So you know that's depraved indifference. Martin Bryant was depraved no doubt, but also mentally deficient, but Timothy McVeigh was depraved and justifiably executed.
    1
  6892. 1
  6893. 1
  6894. 1
  6895. 1
  6896. 1
  6897. 1
  6898. 1
  6899. 1
  6900. 1
  6901. 1
  6902. 1
  6903. 1
  6904. 1
  6905. 1
  6906. 1
  6907. 1
  6908. 1
  6909. 1
  6910. 1
  6911. 1
  6912. 1
  6913. 1
  6914. 1
  6915. 1
  6916. 1
  6917. 1
  6918. 1
  6919. 1
  6920. 1
  6921. 1
  6922. 1
  6923. 1
  6924. 1
  6925. 1
  6926. 1
  6927. 1
  6928. 1
  6929. 1
  6930. 1
  6931. 1
  6932. 1
  6933. 1
  6934. 1
  6935. 1
  6936. 1
  6937. 1
  6938. 1
  6939. 1
  6940. 1
  6941. 1
  6942. 1
  6943. 1
  6944. 1
  6945. 1
  6946. 1
  6947.  @danielbrown8812  Someone corrected my on the terminology a while back. An Oligarchy is when a very small group control a nation by whatever means. A Plutocracy is when a very small group control a nation specifically using wealth. Its a type of Oligarchy. So when we talk about the Russian Oligarchs they're actually Plutocrats as are people like Bezos, Gates, Suckerberg, Musk, the Kochs, the Murdochs..... The problems aren't just in America either its all across the Western World. I'm Australian but went to college in America so I watch a lot of what's happening in America. And yes I hate that Murdoch (an Australian) is a huge part of the problem. I was in Canada for work a couple of years ago. We get a lot of British and European news here and ITS THE SAME EVERYWHERE. The specific versions might differ a bit from nation to nation but its basically the same stuff EVERYWHERE. Small groups of hyper wealthy people in total control of political parties or the government outright. Putin is apparently worth billions. Saddam Hussein was worth Billions. Most of the worlds dictators are billionaires. Most of the worlds democratic parties are funded (& controlled) by billionaires. Even here in Australia we have our own version of Trump. A true POS named Clive Palmer. I recommend looking up Mark Blyth (prof from Brown) who spoke about "Global Trumpism" and showed how its all across the world and that there's Trump like people on BOTH the LEFT and RIGHT. That's arguably one of the very important points he's made there are Trump like people on the LEFT as well as the Right.
    1
  6948. 1
  6949. 1
  6950. 1
  6951. 1
  6952. 1
  6953. 1
  6954. 1
  6955. 1
  6956. 1
  6957. 1
  6958. 1
  6959.  @john-yc8ud  You are absolutely right and its in almost EVERY Western Nation. I can also tell you the cause if you are interested, but it does take a bit of time and thought. The answer is fairly obvious when you have certain data explained. A number of months ago Kyle did a short vid on a piece he saw in politico regarding a 2022 report Bernie Sanders had commissioned by Congressional Budget Office on family wealth. Its an easy report to find just google "congressional budget office family wealth." Kyle only talked about the first graph and in a simplistic way because its pretty obvious that 1/2 the US population has gone nowhere for 30 years. Meanwhile the middle 40% have done Ok but the Top 10% have boomed. It gets even more interesting when you crunch the data and being an engineer I can crunch data. I checked Australia's data and its similar. I listen to people like the British economist Gary Stevenson and he says the same about Britain. BASICALLY we have thrown 50% of our populations under the economic bus and the data confirms it beyond all doubt. So when Trump and people like Trump started yelling MAGA (or similar) it tapped straight into what 1/2 the population felt. This is the great failure of the West. Our politicians have said again and again "All is well. GDP growth is good. Yee-ha." The fact is it might have been good for some but NOT EVERYONE and that failure to consider everyone is what has handed populists like Trump, Putin and Netanyahu political power. And from that we get Ukraine and Gaza.
    1
  6960. 1
  6961. 1
  6962. 1
  6963. 1
  6964. 1
  6965. 1
  6966. 1
  6967. 1
  6968. 1
  6969. 1
  6970. 1
  6971. 1
  6972. 1
  6973. 1
  6974. 1
  6975. 1
  6976. 1
  6977.  @Levy214  Your absolutely right, except that it goes a lot further than just America. Trump is simply America's version of a fake populist. By fake populist I mean he doesn't actually believe in what he says he just uses what's convenient and gets the right response from his base. I'm Australian and we have a billionaire named Clive Palmer who's just as disgusting as Trump and runs on the same platform. Our system has a vulnerability in that our country is governed by the parliament not an executive. Much like Canada, Britain and many other places. If you look at Israel they often have the main party forming coalitions so they can have a majority. That tends to give incredible power to tiny parties as it has done in Israel, Italy, Greece and other places. Clive Palmer knows this and wants just enough where he can become a partner and secure a couple of key cabinet positions. Countries can also get leftist parties just as radical and just as crazy like the German Greens. That lot is so moronic they chose to turn off nuclear power (that produces little or zero CO2) and then wound up their dirty old coal plants to the max to make up for it. After spending €1.3 Trillion on clean renewable power their CO2 emissions went UP not down. *Its total madness, but that's the thing with populists. They don't care about if something is mad, crazy, stupid or idiotic so long as their base loves it.* Prof Mark Blyth (Brown U.) spoke extensively about "Global Trumpism" and what it means. Here's one of his lectures if you want to really understand it. I highly recommend the Q&A session after it and in particular listen for his answer to a question on Elizabeth Warren. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0
    1
  6978. 1
  6979. Aerospace Engineer here: This is all a result of the economic policies placed on universities that started back in the 1990s. This is yet another symptom of what people are referring to as neoliberal economics. I have experienced this stuff personally in both the academia and the industrial sectors. I graduated in early 88 and did a few years of postgraduate. I never got my masters because of department politics and walked away from a PhD Scholarship after my supervisor admitted to my face that he was committing FINANCIAL fraud. The scholarship I had included a small equipment budget and he said to my face he was using that money for airline tickets to a conference. When I said that's wrong he simply said back to me, "This is how it works get used to it!" That was 1992 and yes I know there have been other issues with universities going back decades if not centuries, but what I am talking about is what happened starting in the 1990s Around that time all the universities were being told to "Be more business like." The actual true purpose of universities is to develop, expand and disseminate knowledge while training people with the higher level skills society needed. That has since morphed into a business model that can be summed up as: "We are a business and the students aren't students they are clients and the job is getting them a certificate that says they are qualified. The purpose of research is no longer to get results its to do enough to get the next grant." A couple of years ago I started informally studying economics because I got tired of the interference and crap I was getting on projects from clowns waving economics degrees. Their 2 favorite questions were/are "What's the business case for that?" and "Who's going to pay for that?" I actually work in industrial controls system and automation. Part of that is doing safety control systems. In 2007 I got what was at the time the second highest rating an engineer can achieve in the world for that work. I was certified under the German TUV system. That actually got me nowhere and never helped me get a job and in many cases got me disqualified from getting work because the clowns with economics degrees don't like technically qualified people they can't push around. At one point (circa 2014) there was some potential work. When I enquired about a renewal (or refresher) course what I was told was there was no such course all I had to do WAS PAY to have my name put back on the list. There was ZERO INTEREST in checking if people were still up to standard. When I pointed out this was about SAFETY they simply said back "What's the business case for that?" I have other examples of this mindset of economics and the "business case" before everything mentality. Its infected every aspect of the training systems we have for people including our universities and other tertiary training systems. Its driven bad behaviors in academia as well as industry. The Boeing Max-8 is a perfect example of that. What's happened at Harvard and now Stanford is part of the same problem which is ironic because its institutions like Harvard and Stanford who have pushed the economics first ideology.
    1
  6980. 1
  6981. 1
  6982. 1
  6983. 1
  6984. 1
  6985. 1
  6986. 1
  6987. 1
  6988. 1
  6989. 1
  6990. 1
  6991. 1
  6992. 1
  6993. 1
  6994. 1
  6995. 1
  6996. 1
  6997. I think you'll find that the counter argument for that will be the unborn child breaths via their mother. Before you howl back that also means that until a fertilised egg attaches to the wall of the uterus and connects to the mother via an umbilical then it is NOT a breather. There's also other problems religious fundamentalists utterly ignore. Here's 2 I know about but there are probably more. FIRST are those pregnancies like ectopic pregnancies where the fertilised egg or embryo is unviable and will not survive and the mother is likely to die without treatment. A friend of mine's older sister had one of these and by the time they worked out what was happening it was a drop everything, emergency surgery and hope she survives moment. I remember how worried that family was because for a couple of hours they did not know if she would survive and thankfully she did. However in certain American States right now that most likely would have resulted in her death because of the legal fight that would have delayed the surgery. SECOND are those pregnancies that the mothers system aborts by itself because there is something wrong. Many years ago another friends wife explained to me just how common this is thought to be. It might be as common as 80% or 90% of all eggs that sperm reach and fertilise either simply go though without attaching or are aborted for some reason during the pregnancy and at times well before the mother even suspects she might have gotten pregnant. Another friend of mine (a girl) kept having trouble having pregnancies progress beyond the first trimester. She had a number of pregnancies fail quite early but then also had to healthy wonderful girls. The doctors suspected but could not confirm that for some reason her system could not handle a male embryo and would reject it early on. So my problem with these people is that they would have let one of my friend's sisters just die AND they might well have blamed another friend of mine for her failed pregnancies and MAYBE locked her up.
    1
  6998. 1
  6999. 1
  7000. 1
  7001. ​ @TheDesertRat31  I 100% agree with that summary. I'm actually an engineer and I have been forced to informally study economics because of the influence of economists into the engineering world with some terrible consequences. Most notably the energy crisis is 100% the result of failed economics and like religious fault they refuse to accept any blame for their ideology AND make no mistake the issue with economics is an ideological one. The amazing thing I have found is that just like religions the economists are NOT taught to think but to follow the doctrine. This is why country after country can't solve their energy issues. Its also why America cannot solve their health care industry issues. The most amazing thing I have found out about economist is how disconnected from HISTORY they are. Since your a historian of sorts I suggest you go and watch the Rhodes Centre Podcast hosted by Mark Blyth and look for a book talk he had with Jacob Soll who's written about the history of the capitalist free market. Rather than being a "New Thing" its actually a very old idea. What Jacob Soll highlights is the disconnect from HISTORICAL CONTEXT. I think this is a major problem these days. We are generally taught so little history that we can't put some of these things into context. Both my parents were school teachers and I have friends who are also school teachers. We were all stunned in the late 90s when (here in Australia) there was a push to get rid of history and replace it with a new "social sciences" curriculum that would teach by doing case studies. When I asked how anyone could teach any sort of lesson with case studies and NO HISRORICAL CONTEXT they all just shrugged at me. That was 20+ years ago and these days the lack of context in so many discussions is bewildering, but there were also warning signs it was coming. There's the famous 2004 documentary "Outfoxed' about Rupert Murdoch's war on journalism where there was a clear warning about misinformation. Go watch Jon Stewart's latest Daily Show on guns. The disconnect from reality is staggering. In this time how do we get people to understand context when context has been killed off?
    1
  7002. 1
  7003. 1
  7004. 1
  7005. 1
  7006. 1
  7007. 1
  7008. 1
  7009. 1
  7010. 1
  7011. 1
  7012. 1
  7013. 1
  7014. 1
  7015. 1
  7016. 1
  7017. 1
  7018. 1
  7019. 1
  7020. 1
  7021. 1
  7022. 1
  7023. 1
  7024. 1
  7025. 1
  7026. To all you Americans who care. This was just shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Its been done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). The right wingers claim the ABC is leftist and the left wingers always claim they are pro-right. The fact is the ABC is publicly funded but under its charter its programming is independent, including its news and current affairs. SO it reports what comes across its desk. Does it get shit wrong at times? ABSOLUTELY, but its also a place where we can still get HONEST in depth investigative journalism. We can never let the ABC go just the same as America must never let PBS go. If you doubt that watch this Frontline from 16 years ago when all this idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan started. For that question of how did this all happen? Here are the answers. For anyone who's forgotten what people like Paul Wolfowitz did to make this shit storm happen. Here's what he and others said -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byu9Yhr0Q_0
    1
  7027. 1
  7028. 1
  7029. 1
  7030.  @priapulida  When people are as ignorant as you are there's no point in discussing anything BUT FOR EVERYONE ELSE HERE'S WHY YOUR ENERGY BILLS ARE WHAT THEY ARE. So everyone knows the main reason I hate the culture war nonsense is that it sucks all the oxygen out of public discussion on everything else and nobody can discuss REAL ISSUES - LIKE ENERGY OR ARE YOU ALL HAPPY WITH YOUR POWER BILLS? IF YOU WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH SORRY IF THIS IS LONG. I first became aware of the real energy issue about 7 years ago while working on a small consulting project for a Taiwanese solar company. They wanted an Australian engineer to explain the Australian situation and what I found shocked me. When I looked around I found ITS THE SAME BASIC PROBLEM EVERYWHERE and we aren't discussing what needs to be done because culture war clowns like wont STF⋃. HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED When governments built power stations they built them with future population in mind. By the time more was needed the next power station was ready. So there was always an OVER SUPPLY of energy to drive growth. Anyone who's ever done even a basic economics class (and yes I did one) knows If supply is ahead of demand (even when its growing) the prices go down and/or stay down. That's how energy prices were reliable from 1945 until the early 2000s and IT DROVE GROWTH. Mega projects like Tennessee Valley, Britain's nuclear industry and Snowy Hydro are examples where national governments drove growth through energy investment. Then the world got the Milton Freidman inspired Reaganomics and Thatcherism that we now call neoliberalism. Part of that was privatising energy infrastructure. A privatised energy sector doesn't exist to provide national growth its there to provide profit to share holders.*Milton Freidman* made it perfectly clear. “There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” The private sector BUYS power stations, they rarely build them and the ones they build are either small or highly subsidised. For example, in Britain, Hinckley Point C took 7 years to approve and will take 10 more to construct with first power planned for 2028 at a cost of £26 Billion and they will not see actual returns on investment until at least 2045. Do you think any of the private investors are going to wait another 20+ years before they break even or do you think the British Government is funding their profits already? This is where Milton Freidman was utterly wrong. Governments don't have to care about financial returns from specific investments because their metric is GDP not profit. HERE'S THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW Nations now have a lot of very old power stations and basically no replacement strategy. These are not easy to replace because they take years to build. Don't bother me with various technologies because they *ALL HAVE ISSUES. For this there is no quick or easy fix. Nations are going to suffer horribly. It will be like Ukraine but stuff will just fail instead of a maniac blowing it up. The main hold up has been the constant culture wars that have raged for the past 25+ years. ALL OF THE SIDES involved say time and again that they "don't want that in my backyard." Irrespective of whatever "that" is there's always some culture warrior screaming about it with some absurd "whataboutism." Anytime engineers do speak we get screamed at by clowns claiming we are unqualified. 3 Weeks ago this channel hosted Michael Schellenberger going on about world domination with Davos and the WEF. Sure there is a case to say that but Michael is also another culture warrior except his preferred platform is TEDx and through it he has said some ridiculous stuff masked behind a few truths. Either these culture war shitfests STOP and people start LISTENING or one day you will flip the light switch and nothing will happen OR if it does turn on it will cost you a fortune to keep it on. You have a choice you can listen to clowns like Mary Harrington, Michael Schellenberger and Pria Pulida or you can have the lights work. EITHER WAY DON'T COMPLAIN BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD.
    1
  7031. 1
  7032. SORRY BUT I JUST HAD TO STOP THIS NONSENSE when you got to the wow wee a million tons a year. I am an engineer and I can do math and this stuff is complete BULLSHlT. In 2022 the worlds coal production was 8318 Million tons which produces over 30 Billion tons of CO2 How do we know that? Because for every atom of carbon consumes links up with 2 Oxygen atoms to produce CO2 By Atomic weights C=12, O=16 and CO2=44. 44/12 = 3.667 (3.2/3). WE DON'T NEED SYSTEMS CAPABLE OF BILLIONS (with a 'B') OF TONS As for that $100/ton cost being economical! That is utter nonsense last years 37.4 Billion tons alone would cost $3.74 trillion. WHO'S GOING TO PAY THAT? And for these DAC systems to work they need LOW EMISSION energy. HINKLEY POINT C, the nuclear power station currently being built in Britain will produce 3.2 GW (once its finished circa 2028). It was budgeted at £26 Billion and now expected to cost £33 Billion. How many of those do you think we'd need to build to power these DAC systems and make a dent in the issue? I'm Australian and right now we have a pack of clowns ranting about nuclear power. Using the costs of Hinkley Point C we'd need to spend AU$440 Billion just to replace our coal fired power stations. Since our politicians and bankers (because they are addicted to home loans) want to double our population. So we'd need to at least double that making the cost AU$880 Billion. Plus we'd need a decent big chunk again to power all the electric cars we plan to have and now we are past the AU$ Trillion mark. And then we'd have to double the capacity of the power grid which would at least double that to past the AU$2 Trillion mark. At what point do you think we can then afford to pay for any DAC systems? And before you ask one of the biggest issues facing the entire developed world is the cost of replacing all of our old power stations irrespective of how they are powered. You see the difference between Engineers and all the other science is that WE HAVE TO BE PRACTICAL. What all the non-engineers FORGET is that everything wears out eventually and has to be replaced. The simplest DAC system that costs nothing to run are TREES. Best of all they don't need to be plugged into a power station. While all of us engineers are building the next generation of power stations we need the rest of you to go plant a 1,000 trees each. THAT'S ALL OF YOU ACROSS THE PLANET which totals about 8 Trillion Trees. If we consider that a lot will die but a Trillion or 2 survive then that's a lot of CO2 sucked out of the air and captured in wood fibre. So long as we don't burn any of it or let too much of it rot and produce methane we might have a chance.
    1
  7033. 1
  7034. 1
  7035. I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s. Two things any Foreigner who lives in America for some time begins to realise. FIRST America has some really disconnected bat crap crazy people and SECOND we all have some of them in our own countries. I can guarantee you, we have Trump supporters here in OZ who would have him as our Prime Minister in a heartbeat. We have conspiracy clowns of every type. During COVID our 5G and anti-vaxxers combined and most of the stories about draconian lockdowns and forced vaccinations aren't true. They are from that crowd. The difference is that in America they are so much louder and you have so many politicians and the media willing to take advantage of it. Its rare that our main stream media gives them a microphone, while your media puts them center stage as often as they can. To America's main stream media they're just cannon fodder in the culture war. Maybe the biggest difference of all is that we have disagreements and arguments and sometimes actual physical fights, but America has a full blown civil war underway where both sides believe they have to exterminate the other side. What concerns the rest of the world is that while we might use fists and sometimes bats y'all have desert eagles, 357 magnums, AR15s and AK47s (for the poor people). January 6th shocked us but didn't surprise anyone who's lived in America. FYI - I really do love America, its people and its sports (especially college sport), but damn I hate your politics because of how toxic it is and how many of its true believers run around the world spreading it.
    1
  7036. 1
  7037. 1
  7038. 1
  7039. 1
  7040. 1
  7041. 1
  7042. 1
  7043. 1
  7044. 1
  7045. 1
  7046.  @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
  7047. 1
  7048. 1
  7049. 1
  7050. 1
  7051. 1
  7052. 1
  7053. 1
  7054. 1
  7055. 1
  7056. 1
  7057. 1
  7058. 1
  7059. 1
  7060. 1
  7061. 1
  7062. 1
  7063. 1
  7064. 1
  7065. 1
  7066. 1
  7067. 1
  7068. 1
  7069. 1
  7070. 1
  7071. 1
  7072. 1
  7073. 1
  7074. 1
  7075. 1
  7076. 1
  7077. 1
  7078. 1
  7079. 1
  7080. 1
  7081. 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
  7082. 1
  7083. 1
  7084. 1
  7085. 1
  7086. 1
  7087. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Like many engineers I am TIRED of clowns promoting garbage to the public that we then have to explain and explain and explain why its not possible or it won't work. This crap and nonsense is going on constantly, with scammer after scammer promoting the next thing and wasting everyone's time and money. Just the other day I had some ignorant clown tell me that here in Australia we ALREADY HAVE a couple of Small Modular Reactors operating. Funny thing is NONE of the companies involved in SMRs are saying anything other than they HOPE to have them available by the mid 2030s. According to this clown somehow Australia has time warped in a couple of SMRs. As an aerospace engineer I hear all sorts of nonsense from terraforming Mars (which is simply a fantasy), to Jewish or Chinese Space lasers causing grass fires to hypersonic missiles that manoeuvre and dance around the sky AND ITS ALL BULLSHIT. What Thunder00t is doing with these basic calculations of HOW MUCH IS NEEDED is what I call planetary mechanics. Along with my classmates we were introduced to this by a NASA engineer who did a guest lecture one day. He'd just finished a project for NASA on what it would take to terraform Mars. Once NASA realised just how much stuff (like air) is needed to cover a planet they gave up on the idea of EVER terraforming Mars. But 35 years later there are millions of Elon Musk fans who think they will be going to Mars to terraform it. DID you notice for this proposal the team leader is an Architect? If Architects knew how much engineers HATE THEM. Other than a few of the very best architects who know what their designs do to the people who have to make them, the vast majority of architects are PROBLEM CREATORS. The worst part of their attitude is THEY KNOW they are creating problems for other people to deal with.
    1
  7088. 1
  7089. 1
  7090. 1
  7091. 1
  7092. 1
  7093. 1
  7094. 1
  7095. 1
  7096. 1
  7097. 1
  7098. 1
  7099. 1
  7100. 1
  7101. I hate to break everyone's balls on PART of this. She's actually right that America does not have the energy grid set up for shifting everyone to electric cars and that nobody has a real DETAILED plan to get there, BUT THE REASON WHY there's no plan or progress is because of people like MTG. Remember the now infamous Exxon memo that told their people the plan was to delay all action on climate change for as long as possible? That and other factors, including narcissistic liars such as MTG, are combining into a perfect storm. Here's an explanation sorry if its longish. I'm an Australian engineer who went to college in America. We have the same problem here in Australia and the same problem is in Europe and Asia. This isn't simply an electric car or environmental issue. A few years ago I became aware of how badly Australia's energy grid was being managed. After the 1990s we just stopped building major power stations. By Major I mean those greater than 1,000 Megawatts (1 Gigawatt). Power plants like Diablo Canyon in California, which is 2256MW and Eraring in Australia, which is 2880MW. Diablo Canyon of 36 years old and Eraring is 40 years old. Most power stations are built for 25 years of life which they extend with rebuilds to 40 or more years. Think about how many of you have cars older than 25 years let alone 40. These are the big power stations that underpin our energy grids and keep modern society running. When I looked around its the same everywhere across the entire developed world. Except in China and a few rare cases we all stopped building new coal fired plants because of CO2 emissions. After Chernobyl and Fukushima everyone stopped building nuclear power plants. The problem has been masked by new wind and solar combined with more efficient appliances and lights, but we are starting to hit limits there. The problem is like we are running towards a cliff and people are too busy playing politics. All of our major power plants are now old and only getting older and less reliable. Here in Oz we are at the cliffs edge with old unreliable power stations. So there's not only a shortage of energy supply just to keep society going we don't have enough energy generation to change to electric cars. That's all before we ask where is all this Lithium to make the batteries coming from. Elon Musk's new mega-battery wont be able to make 3% of what's needed and that's by his estimates. So MTG's right that the infrastructure isn't there, BUT her fossil fuel friends ARE THE PROBLEM with getting it done. If there is one thing I'd fault David on is his oversimplification of the plan. Yes there is a general plan but NO there is NOT a detailed plan and the "devil is in the details." Its very frustrating to be an engineer when other people oversimplify what needs to be done. Things like where's all the lithium coming from for the batteries? And then how are we going to make that many batteries? Who's going to build all these new factories? David doesn't have to answer those questions but engineers do. Sorry for he longish comment.
    1
  7102. 1
  7103. 1
  7104. 1
  7105. 1
  7106. 1
  7107. 1
  7108. 1
  7109. 1
  7110. 1
  7111. 1
  7112. 1
  7113. 1
  7114. 1
  7115. 1
  7116. 1
  7117. 1
  7118. 1
  7119. 1
  7120.  @lizzettorres1111  Thanks for a sensible question. 1st thing he said that snapped my attention was a remark that Sky "maybe" didn't have the connections to Fox. That's simply wrong. I don't why he said that but Sky News Australia is a cornerstone of Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp along with Sky News UK and Fox. 2nd he made the bulk of his vid about free speech. I know Kyle's a staunch advocate of free speech even for people he disagrees with. But the YouTube and Twitter bans that were just put on Sky News Australia and one of our sitting members of Parliament Graig Kelly were and issue of public safety. It really has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with public safety. Due to other countries like America consuming massive amounts of vaccine, which I don't have a problem with because America's need have been greater than ours. I went to college at U. Illinois and if I add up the population of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin it adds to to almost the same number of people as Australia. Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have over 48,000 dead we have just over 920. So its a no brainer America needed vaccines before we did. From that we have a quite low rate of vaccination, which was fine for many months, but right now we have Delta and its almost out of control. We are in a nation wide battle of whack-a-mole. For the first time in many months we are having people die again. We had 2 die on October 28. We had 3 during the 8+ months between November to mid July. We have had 15 deaths since mid July. Delta has busted our bubble and we don't have enough of our population vaccinated. This hit the news this morning - he was 27 -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUNxzMad3ts So Kyle was very wrong when he framed the Youtube and Twitter bans as a free speech issue - its a public health issue.
    1
  7121. 1
  7122. 1
  7123. 1
  7124. 1
  7125. 1
  7126. 1
  7127. I'm also Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). I did engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and we had many discussions on the amendments. Mostly about 1st & 4th because they were topics then and rarely the 2nd because it wasn't a big deal then. Not like it is now. I now see the US Constitution as one of the great tragedies of human history. For all its brilliance (and it is brilliant), its open to abuse, which is what we see these days. I studied Orwell in high school and my friends always refuted Orwellian ideas with "It can't happen the constitution has too many inbuilt safety functions." So we never discussed the possibility of stacking SCOTUS with maniacs, because the Constitution had those safety functions. Nobody thought a person like Mitch McConnell would be so debased, unethical and immoral he'd override those safety functions to get what he wanted. By abuse I mean look at the 1st part of the 2nd Amendment which is so rarely heard. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The actual purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the security (as in safety) of the population by a WELL REGULATED militia. So how does Greg Abbott's (the Texas Governor) allowing anyone to just to buy a handgun so long as they can prove they are over 18 come under the concept of "well regulated." What the US Gun Lobby has done is flip the simple concept of "lets have security" into "f**k off I want my guns and I don't care what chaos it causes." That's abuse.
    1
  7128. 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
  7129. 1
  7130. 1
  7131. 1
  7132. 1
  7133. 1
  7134. 1
  7135. 1
  7136. 1
  7137. 1
  7138. 1
  7139. 1
  7140. 1
  7141. HEY RYAN: If you can look it up back in 2012 (I think) Jon Stewart interviewed king Abdullah of Jordan on the Daily Show. It was during one of the negotiation attempts. It was simply an amazing interview for JS to get and its worth ANYONE's time to look up. I can't do it easily because I'm in Australia. During that interview Abdullah said (words to the effect) that if they didn't solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue at that time then it would be ANOTHER generation before we'd get another chance because you'd need new generations ON both sides to say they'd had enough. BUT TO YOUR POINT about the other Middle East regimes needing the Israeli-Palestinian to stay - Abdullah basically said that but in a slightly different context. Abdullah put it in terms of dealing with Al Qaeda. Because the Israeli-Palestinian issue was an international issue it could be used as a soap box by all the little antagonists. That enabled the Middle East Regimes to simply claim that their own internal issues were in fact international issues and as such they needed American Aid helping deal with them. Abdullah said that if you solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue then you take away all those soap boxes that people preach from. In doing that you force all the Middle Eastern regimes to deal with their own people and their issues instead of calling in the Americans because it was part of the War on Terror. Abdullah didn't explicitly say we'd be in the place we are now but he implied we'd be in a bad place one day. So your assessment isn't just right. Its spot on and lines up with what the King of Jordan said over a decade ago.
    1
  7142.  @cheerdiver  Let me try and answer this bit by bit. If you have gas under pressure in a tank or pipe inside the tank its at 100% concentration. As it leaves the tank/pipe its still at 100% but at some point starts to mix with the air. At that point the concentration starts to drop from 100% and the more it mixes the lower the gas concentration gets. At some point it will drop below UEL and keep dropping as it disperses and mixes with more air. Eventually it disperses enough to be below LEL. Its one of the things you have to consider when doing EEHA (Electrical Equipment for Hazardous Areas) along with ventilation. A well ventilated area disperses quicker. Storage sheds gas bottles and poor ventilation can be rather dangerous. On the inductance and Capacitance of cables you need to go back to very basic high school science. A capacitor is 2 metal plates separated by an insulator. You can make a capacitor out of 2 sheets of tinfoil with cling wrap between them. A cable with 2 conductors isn't a very good capacitor but it does have capacitance. If you have a DC circuit that goes up 1 wire and back the other then you have 2 bits of metal with opposite charge separated by an insulator. Its similar for twisted cables. One reason why a lot of signal cables are what we call twisted pair or pairs is that the inductance caused by the twist is great for dampening out transient noise - so its almost like a natural filter. BUT for EEHA that inductance from the twist is also a potential spark generator. Remember in cars the spark in the engine is caused by putting a 12volt input into either an inductor or capacitor and then very rapidly opening and shorting that circuit. In older cars that was what the points in a distributor did. These days its with fast switching transistors. On auto ignition the places we see that most in EEHA is with dust. It has a nasty habit of collecting on things like the cooling fins of electric motors. Eventually if it gets enough it prevents the motor cooling and hot spots can form. The problem with dust is that it usually starts as a small puff. That puff then throws more dust up that can then ignite which then throws even more dust up. There's a great OSHA video on dust explosions, but note some of its case studies are quite tragic. AS TO YOUR Questioning my qualifications, you are about 1 smart remark from being told to FK-off. I worked my ass off to get my qualifications and have had years of abuse from unqualified clowns with stupidity as their only qualification. Of particular irk are the OH&S clowns who will scream about oil on the floor or a trip Hazard and then OVERRULE or DISMISS Engineering concerns to management. The same sort of clowns that tell qualified engineers at places like Boeing to install a cheaper system to help with sales and then DON'T test it properly. Before any smartass comments back about Boeing. One of my college mates is a senior instructor at a major American Airline and was assigned the task of overseeing the review of the Max-8. He couldn't give me details but what he spoke about with culture was disgraceful and terrifying. Boeing one of the greatest engineering companies in history brought to its knees by clowns. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    1
  7143. 1
  7144. HEY THUNDERFOOT MADE A MISTAKE. I work in Industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Those 2 robots you show at 37:30 have been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS NOT 15. The company I left in 2001 was the (then) Kuka and Adept agent in Australia and we knew what our competitors could do. The robot on the left of your shot is a standard 6 axis anthropomorphic arm and those have been around for decades. The robot on the right is a 4-axis "Spider Robot" (just put "4-axis spider robot into google"). I know that BEFORE the year 2000 ABB had one of those available. The thing that you are NOT highlighting in that part of the video is that the spider robot is locating the items its picking off the conveyor using vision guided robotics. Notice how all those parts are randomly arranged and the spider is arranging them in organised groups so the other robot can place them on the next conveyor. There is a camera upstream of the robot looking down on the conveyor which has an encoder on it. The vision system identifies the location and orientation of each part and with the encoder on the conveyor translates that to the Spider which can then pick it up and orientate it and put it back down in the right place so the other robot can pick up the groups of 4 parts. I know how that stuff works because I had that technology demonstrated to me by an Adept Engineer when I visited their Cincinnati Office in 1998 or 99. They weren't using a Spider robot at that time. They were using a small high speed SCARA robot. So I know for a fact that technology has been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. So SORRY Thunderboy but your 15 years is wrong its at least 25. Fyi - I actually did aerospace and if you would like I'd be happy to show you how truly stupid they are being with the Artemis program. Its worse than most people realise. The closest I have seen anyone expose the real depth of the issue is Destin (another Aerospace) who has the YT channel "Smarter Every Day." For anyone interested put "smarter every day artemis" into the YT search and the top item should be titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" posted 4 Dec 2023.
    1
  7145. 1
  7146. 1
  7147. 1
  7148. 1
  7149. 1
  7150. 1
  7151. 1
  7152. 1
  7153. 1
  7154. 1
  7155.  @jamiepaulzine4648  Yeah Russia get was funny one, because there certainly was Russian interference but nobody has ever really been able to PROVE what they were really doing. But there was an alternative interpretation that I have not seen any American show talk about. What if Comey had kept quiet on the emails and then Hilary had won? Just imagine the chaos that would have followed when the GOP found out. This concept was put forward by a Russian born American journalist/analyst Masha Gessen to the Australian program Planet America. When asked "Was Putin trying to get Trump elected?" The answer was an emphatic and blunt NO. The explanation was that Putin isn't a deep thinking political strategist he's an ex-KGB officer who deals in certainties and believes all elections are predetermined. He would have believed Hilary Clinton would win irrespective of anything else going on, because that's how elections work in Putin's Russia. Further Clinton herself as Sec. State was personally involved with slapping Russia and Putin with sanctions. So if you're Putin and the American you hate is about to be the next POTUS then what can you do? Like all KGB guys Putin favors chaos inside other countries. Look at the mess he got out of Brexit that cracked the EU and NATO. All they really did was the KGB version of divide and conquer. Use propaganda to cause chaos. Plus Putin had already seen the chaos that Wikileaks caused. So you wait until after the election and then start leaking information. Trump and the GOP would have gone off their collective rockers howling and screaming about how the Head of the FBI cheated Trump. Its totally plausible that Putin was NEVER trying to get Trump elected BUT WAS trying to setup Clinton. But this never got discussed in America because MSNBC, CNN and others were to busy screaming Russiagate!
    1
  7156. 1
  7157. 1
  7158. 1
  7159. 1
  7160. 1
  7161. 1
  7162. 1
  7163. 1
  7164. 1
  7165. ​ @TorontoSaurusEx  I agree on parts of that. Russia is one of the super rich nations in terms of resources, but you have to look at which resources they have and don't have. Australia is far richer in iron ore and Uranium but Russia is richer in Nickel, Titanium and other things while Chile is the richest in Copper and also has huge amounts of Lithium. The Cheaper energy is dependent on if you can either sell it or use it. I think the mega untapped opportunity is Russia linking its main gas reserves into China. As an engineer I know that every coal fired power station the Chinese have can be switched to Russian Gas. That would be massive for the world because it would dramatically reduce global emissions and it COULD rescue Russia from financial collapse and lower those tensions As far as "poking the bear" I'll agree that the Americans need to stop aggravating people like they do. Everyone who understands what happened knows it was the Americans who blew up Nordstream, but then the Chinese and Russians also do stupid stuff. On AUKUS I'll simply tell you to WAKE UP. The simple fact is that Western technology OVERALL is more advanced that anything the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans have. If it really broke out in the South China Sea MOST of the Chinese Navy would be gone within 48-72 hours. The American Submarines are simply that much better than anything the Chinese have and the Russians (who do have excellent subs) just don't have enough. North Korea is a joke. It has lots of soldiers, lots of guns, lots of cannons but so little food that they can barely feed their people. On the world front the Israelis scare me more than everyone else combined. They are lead by a maniac who started a war so he could avoid facing court and going to jail. The Egyptians and others warned them that Hamas was ready to do something and they either didn't listen or just let it happen. Either way that maniac got his war and now wants to spread it. That's way worse than anything else because the chances it could erupt are so much higher.
    1
  7166. ​ @RealEngineering  AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Aside form the mishap with 200 versus 2,000 there's a glaring issue with this proposal that makes this look like one of those "what if we tired this" projects where they started with a what if and then started brainstorming ideas without fact checking what they said. 1) YOU CAN'T USE Carbon fibre composites in Space because the radiation breaks down the resin matrices used. So unless they can come up with a new technology its a NO on that front. BUT THEN if they were putting it forward with a list of - here's the new technologies we'd need then I'd strongly recommend they keep funding it because such projects tend to produce things that other projects then use. 2) Robot construction on the moon is TO DATE a myth. 1st its never been done and 2nd nobody has yet worked out the maintenance issues. A couple of years ago I was sent the complete set of publications from a NASA conference on Lunar projects. It was about 200 pages and had all of 1-1/2 pages on maintenance with the claim it would all be done by robots. I have actually worked for most of the last 20 years in Australia's remote mining industry. I went there after meeting Apollo 17s Harrison Schmitt in 2002 and he directed me to look into Helium-3. yeah I know Helium-3 is and isn't a thing but what I got was a hell of a lot of experience in building and maintaining mine sites in remote harsh environments. I CAN STATE 100% that NASA has not go their heads around the maintenance issues. People forget they (in general) don't maintain their systems except for software. They launch them and they work until they don't. Do I think this is a project to keep funding? YES Do I think getting 200 instead of 2,000 is the end of the world? NO And YES I know your also an engineer. I remember your video on respirators which was arguably one of the BEST EVER technical information videos in the history of all media. It was timely, it was important considering all the clowns who were doing dumb stuff at the time and MOST IMPORTANTLY it was accurate. On behalf of the engineering profession KEEP DOING what you do and don't worry about the inconsequential mistakes - we all make them.
    1
  7167. 1
  7168. 1
  7169. 1
  7170. Aerospace Engineer here - this is easily the BEST VIDEO I have seen on the Space Shuttle in a very long time and easily one of the best videos I have ever seen on the Space Shuttle because without being verbose, over-hyped or over-geeky. Its simply explains some of the complexities used to make it work like with the way they controlled the thrust of the boosters. What I particularly like is that for some time I have been trying to tell people that the Space Shuttle was BOTH an amazing technical achievement and tragic failure. Its so easy to simply say the shuttle failed because of the 2 disasters. Yes that is true but in some ways that wasn't its biggest failure. Without ignoring or being callous to the loss of life in those disasters and that was to me and my classmates very personal. Being objective the Space Shuttles bigger failure was it stifled development of many other technologies because it consumed so much money and required so many more people that first planned to keep it working. Just so you all know. I did my degree in the late 80s Graduating in early 88. On 12 January 1986 I was in Orlando Florida with my swimming team for a training camp. A few of us stood on our motels balcony and watched the Space Shuttle Columbia take off. Despite being about 60 miles away it was still incredibly impressive to watch. Even though it must have been 100s of miles down range we could still see the trails of the boosters after they detached and even minutes later still clearly see the glow of the main engines. 16 days later my classmates, professors and I all had our futures broken when Challenger happened. It especially hit one of my aerodynamics professors as he lost a good friend in that disaster. But what happened to us paled in comparison to those directly involved at NASA and that all paled in comparison to the families involved in Challenger or Columbia (16 January 2003). So, please, don't anyone think for an instant I am ignoring that disasters. However being objective the worst outcome of the shuttle years was the denial of money and personnel to other programs. One of the main reasons we have not been back to the Moon and set up a permanent outpost is because there's literally 100s of technologies yet to be developed to a point where they can be deployed. Chief among those are life support, but there's also power and logistics. Human beings need oxygen, water and food and a means to re-process waste back into more oxygen, water and food. We actually live on a solar powered self sustaining human life support system called Mother Earth. We haven't yet (despite some amazing efforts) been able to replicate that or even just enough of it to make any permanent off-world base viable. So the Space Shuttle was as this video shows an amazing technological achievement but also a tragic failure.
    1
  7171. 1
  7172. 1
  7173. 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
  7174. 1
  7175. 1
  7176. 1
  7177. 1
  7178. AUSTRALIAN HERE: If this was overdubbed with an Australian accent I would NOT be able to tell the difference. Even with the British accent I am struggling to understand if he his talking about Britain or Australia. I'm actually an engineer who's been looking into Economics because of the interference I have seen in the engineering space and the training of skilled tradesmen from economists. AND YES I watch Gary Stevenson's channel here on YT as part of that. Gary has recently confirmed something I worked out and something economists like Steve Keen have been trying to explain. There's 2 major issues with Economics education. 1) It is very narrowly focused on market economics and includes NOTHING regarding any understanding of things like infrastructure or energy systems. Everything is taught from a market perspective rather than a functional perspective. This is why Thames Water has the current issues it has and those issues are being repeated across the entire Western Democratic world and not just in water but also energy, infrastructure, rail and worst of all education. 2) It is uniform across all of the tertiary education systems. All of the text books are printed by Harvard Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,... etc OR they are written by people who studied at or teach at Harvard Press, Oxford Press, Cambridge Press,... etc. The problem at the political level is that EVERY politician in the Western World NO MATTER if they are Left, Right or Center all studied the same economics at university or they have advisors who studied the same economics at university. This is why no matter who wins political power the overall economics doesn't change or only changes very little AND WHY there's no real solutions in sight.
    1
  7179. 1
  7180. 1
  7181. 1
  7182. 1
  7183. 1
  7184. 1
  7185. 1
  7186. 1
  7187. 1
  7188. 1
  7189. 1
  7190.  @gorey4more837  One thing I find most interesting in the US gun debate is the history of the NRA. The US NRA wasn't the first NRA it was Britain that after WW1 decided that it needed a way to train its entire male population basic rifle skills so that if war happened again the entire male population would be ready. Most of the British empire followed including Australia. Ours eventually changed its name and became a sports association as did many others. The US NRA used to be the main sports association for shooting events and held national championships, selected US representatives for the Olympics and other events, BUT most of all promoted gun safety and GUN CONTROL LAWS. It was for many years the main block to what the gun industry wanted which was to be able to sell more guns. In the early 70s the pro-gun lobby got tired of the NRA and instead of trying to get past it simply took it over and flipped its entire reason to exist on its head becoming the vile disaster that it now is. The other truly odd thing about the 2nd Amendment is that it doesn't actually guarantee individual gun ownership. I do know that among some of the founding fathers it did mean individual gun ownership but to most it wasn't about individual it was about the security of local communities. Look at the opening phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the SECURITY of a free State,...." How often does the NRA mention that part? And how often do they ever discuss what a "well regulated militia" is? Do you know that the 2nd A. is actually the 1st statute by ANY nation in history that states that the Government shall not use the military to police the population but will use a separate dedicated "militia"? Its actually one of the most profound legislative actions in the development of modern society. The reason Australia and the rest of the western world actually has police forces is because America led the way. Otherwise we would still be like it was in the Roman empire. The tragedy is that one of the greatest achievements in the development of human society has been hijacked by an incredibly selfish minority. An American who I befriended in Australia had an epiphany after living here and went back and checked what it was all about. We had some really good chats about it when he re-visited Australia.
    1
  7191. 1
  7192.  @gorey4more837  You're spot on politics is about point scoring at all cost. Imagine what basketball would turn into if the only way to score was by dunking and you allowed NFL tackling and NASCAR to be involved. Go watch the original Rollerball and you'll find out. Its actually one of the most misunderstood and underrated dystopian films ever made. Under the main story is "what happens when capitalism is taken to its most extreme." If you watch it there's a zoom meeting where John Houseman (edit: I originally had John Houston) says "the game was created to demonstrate the futility of individual effort." Its not shown in the trailer but you hear it said 2:15 -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtkvGfJbmQA At least watch the trailer the 1st minute monologue is almost prophetic about our time when he talks about "corporate society." It sounds crazy but look at how much influence Murdoch, Bezos and others have via their media ownership. Did you know that Uber just wrote the new labor law in California? On Murdoch he was born in Australia (sadly we can't deny that). He inherited the family business which was in publishing and quickly learned that trash sells better than fact. He moved the Britain where among other things he started the SKY network. SKY-News Australia is his version that exists here. So its not like simply like FOX, it is FOX-Australia. We are currently having a media inquiry (like a US Senate hearing) into media ownership and the ideologies that get promoted. Murdoch has mastered selling opinion as fact and we have numerous current and ex-politicians who are sick of it. the main protagonist in that is Kevin Rudd who was our Prime Minister at one stage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd#Petition_for_a_Royal_Commission_to_ensure_a_strong,_diverse_Australian_news_media
    1
  7193. 1
  7194. I don't know why David is complaining I have seen him do EXACTLYT THE SAME THING HERE ON HIS CHANNEL. A couple of years ago I watched the FULL INTERVIEW that David did on the Triggernometry channel with Konstantin Kisin and his co-host Francis. David afterwards did one of his "I was interviewed by...... it didn't go well" videos and it made the Triggernometry guys look like a-holes. The truth in that instance was David and his team did the clever editing and it was dishonest on David's side. The guys at Triggernometry did a response video and they had every right to be upset as they were taken out of context by David. If you want you can go back and check it out there might even be the comments I left pointing out David's hypocrisy. JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR - I do not support or watch or subscribe to Triggernometry anymore. In fact these days I'd can't stand what Konstantin Kisin promotes. He has gone right of the Radical Right deep end. Around the Time they interviewed David the Triggernometry guys were (past tense) doing some great interviews BUT THEN they started being sponsored by people like Nigel Farage. They also started doing some horrible softball interviews with right wing libertarians like Marion Tupy who's a CATO Institute goon. More recently Konstantin Kisin has been travelling around the world visiting Right Wing think tanks promoting some very unusual ideas about "our special culture." I know that for a fact because he's been here in Australia doing public talks for some of Australia's Right Wing think tanks. He's talked at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) and the Institute of Pubic Affairs (IPA) both with links to the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation in America. Some of those talks are posted here on YouTube. FYI - The IPA in particular has become highly right wing radical in recent years. Its not simply denial of reality stuff. During the trump years they were doing promotional videos defending Trump that were clearly aimed at younger Australian's and some of that was also posted here on YouTube.
    1
  7195. 1
  7196. 1
  7197. 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
  7198. 1
  7199. 1
  7200. 1
  7201. 1
  7202. HEY JUDO BOY: Engineer here, you know one of those ratbags who believe in reality!!! I just watched a whole video by you titled "Academia is BROKEN! - Harvard Fake Data Scandal Explained" And at 11:31 You mention Daniel Kahneman winning the Nobel prize in economics in 2002 and then blab on about it. Why DON'T you be HONSET and call it for what it is? There is NO SUCH THING as the Nobel Prize in Economics and NEVER WAS. There is this BULLSHlT prize that has the OFFICIAL title of "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." The Nobel family themselves have tried for decades to have their family name removed from it because they know that Alfred Nobel hated economists. This piece of crap and nonsense EVERYONE in your profession has used to PROJECT LEGITIMACY to the wider human society has brought ruin to so many lives and will continue to do so for many decades just because. I have had to start informally studying economics out of the frustration of having clowns waving economics degrees INTERFERING in things they don't understand LIKE ENERGY GRIDS. I actually do have time for some of your. People I refer to as "Rebel Economists" as in people prepared to go against the orthodoxy of (in particular) neoliberals which of we are using behavioral lingo would be best describe as a pack of greedy selfish stupid arrogant M0R0Ns who actually think they know how the modern world functions and have yet somehow manged to screw up so badly that it will take multiple generations to fix. I actually got some interesting information curtesy of Steve Keen who mentioned in an interview with a couple of British post-grads how classical and neo-classical economists don't include energy in the models. I'd guess in behavioral terms that could be described as ignorant crap. Mark Blyth pointed out a bank of England Report (Q1 2014) where they describe how money is created and what it actually is. Mark also likes to point out that despite writing that brilliant piece on money all the economist promptly forgot what it meant and proceeded to screw over the entire planet. I've sat through a Richard Wolff series on Marx, read Mark Blyth's Angrynomics, read parts of Stephanie Kelton's the Deficit Myth and have started reading Adam Smith's wealth of nations. I have also watched many of Mark Blyth's podcasts with people who have written books on various things. My conclusion is you have all made a very fundamental mistake. Everyone thinks wealth is generated through labor. Its isn't its created through WORK and as anyone who did a basic science class can tell you work is a function of USING ENERGY. You use energy to move and do various forms of work and with that generate wealth that can be measured using money that can then operate as "transferable debt" that can be stored or exchanged what others have worked for. I call this Engine Theory and its the explanation that all wealth is created NOT just through labor but anything that converts energy or fuel into to work that can be economically accounted for (measured) with money. You mentioned Ancient Egypt, one of my favorite examples. They had slaves fueled by food and they did work that generated wealth. They also had ox that pulled heavy loads like ploughs and wagons and that was work that generated wealth. They also had horses that pulled or carried light loads like chariots and people but they moved much faster than an Ox and that was work that generated wealth. They had boats with sails and they tapped the energy of the wind and carried things up and down the Nile and that was work that generated wealth. The mercantilists said wealth was created through trade (mercantile) while others said it was through the land. Then Smith and Marx argued it was through labor. Funny how none of them had energy in their models and they simply ignored that aspect industrial revolution. But then things like steam engines, tractors, harvesters and threshers are all engineering problems. Maybe this is why the economists have screwed up so badly with energy all over the developed world. Its not in their models because its an engineering problem. If you have ever wondered why engineers don't think much of economists NOW YOU KNOW. if you guys would start looking at how the world around you actually functions then maybe you would dump a whole pile of stuff in the "Too Hard Basket" because its an engineering problem. To not understand this basic principle of what work actually is, is pretty damning. To hand out a fake prize and parade your profession as if its a real science is worse.
    1
  7203. 1
  7204. 1
  7205. 1
  7206. 1
  7207. 1
  7208. 1
  7209. 1
  7210. I'm an engineer so I look at this subject through an engineer's eyes. I have done a lot of problem solving over the years and problem solving always realise on being able to assess what we know for certain versus what we suspect. What we know beyond all doubt was that Peter Daszak who was one of the Authors of the Lancet letter that initially dismissed the claims of weapons development and a lab leak had a financial interest in the lab through his company EcoHealth Alliance. He used NIH funding via EcoHealth Alliance to help fund research in Wuhan. So when he was the only Westerner allowed to inspect the Lab that investigation was NOT impartial. People have been trying to point that out for over a year. Its not a matter of right or wrong its a matter of being impartial and therefore trustworthy. Further to that there are vested interests across the entire field of biological research. Researchers have to work hard to get their grants and if it was a lab leak then that risks their funding. DW did a great report on Gain of Function (July 2021) and that's worth seeing. They showed how people had found by looking through published papers what the lab in Wuhan was doing. The good news of that is it proved there was no weapons program because weapons programs don't publish their research for all the world to see. But DW also reported how the lab in Wuhan was making variants of bat corona viruses more transferable to humans. Here's that DW report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18
    1
  7211. 1
  7212.  @davidsteed7278 I'd pretty much agree to that. Look at the boat building people New Zealand has and don't get me started on aerospace as I am an aerospace engineer by degree. Your probably right we don't take many of the very best of New Zealand but we do take a staggering number from among the better people. I actually work in industrial control systems and automation and in that I encounter a staggering number of Kiwis across our industries - engineers, sparkies, machinists,... etc. For example your dairy industry is actually better developed than ours in some ways and a lot of Kiwis are now in our dairy industry, especially in the processing area where you need food technologists. And you are quite right we have lost a staggering number of our better people to America and Europe, especially in technology areas like aerospace and computers. I did my degree in America and should never have come back. On those occasions I wanted to go back I couldn't for a variety of reasons. Your also right on the unskilled New Zealanders in Australia. Its one thing I wished as many Australians do is that we should never have allowed New Zealanders automatic unemployment benefits through the 70s, 80s & 90s. That's caused no end of issues, that still linger to this day. But overall the drain Australia has put on New Zealand has to be seen in the same light as the drain American has put on Australia. And similar (as far as I know) New Zealand is draining talent from the the pacific islands.
    1
  7213. 1
  7214. 1
  7215. 1
  7216. That's a great observation and its indicative of the era we now live in which I'd call Selective Reality. For most of human history reality has NOT been selective the one major exception being religion, BUT NOW in this time period we can select which reality we like because we not only have freedom to believe whatever we like but there's people who will supply whatever SELECTIVE facts we want to reinforce our beliefs. There's even parts to what John Mearsheimer says which are SELECTIVE. He says Putin does not want to re-create the Soviet Empire and YES I know Putin's famous quote: "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."BUT Mearsheimer is also SELECTIVELY IGNORING the fact Putin has demanded being able to write the security policies for all the nations around Russia's borders. That's 18 or so countries with a combined population of almost 280 million and they would have NO SAY in their security if Putin get's his way. It would be dictated to them by Moscow. So I would partially agree with Mearsheimer that Putin is NOT trying to re-create the Soviet Empire, but that does NOT rule out that he is trying to gain control over a massive slab of the former Soviet Empire. There are people who'd say America does similar via NATO and other treaties AND I WOULD AGREE. I'm Australian and I just had someone this weekend tell me that hidden in the depths of the AUKUS treaty is that America gets to decide or have veto control over our Uranium production and sales. I haven't found confirmation of this, but it sounds typical of Australian government behavior. In case you didn't know we not only have the largest Uranium reserves in the world but 1 of our mines (Olympic Dam) has over 30% of all the known Uranium on the planet. So giving America control or veto power over Australia's Uranium is pretty massive and the Australian people have (so far) had NO SAY in it.
    1
  7217. 1
  7218. 1
  7219. 1
  7220. 1
  7221.  @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
  7222. 1
  7223. 1
  7224. 1
  7225. 1
  7226. 1
  7227. 1
  7228. 1
  7229. 1
  7230. 1
  7231. 1
  7232. 1
  7233. 1
  7234. 1
  7235. 1
  7236. 1
  7237. 1
  7238. 1
  7239. 1
  7240. 1
  7241. Australian here: Note: This comment is a copy of another comment on this page. Never heard of or seen this guy until a few days ago and the question I have is: Where TF have the Dems been hiding him? Every time he has appeared in an interview he sounds sensible and knows WTF is going on. Do any of you realise just how much the years POTUS election has scared the crap out of us? There's 8 Billion people on the planet and 7.7 Billion of us have no say in POTUS which is fair as he's YOUR POTUS not ours, BUT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHO YOU CHOSE. And these days its a big effing deal who you chose because of a few things. NOTE: The rest of the World doesn't really need America to help fix any of these issues. Its just that without America they go from effing hard to almost effing impossible and if certain American behave they way they do then these issues become impossible. FIRST America is still 25% of the World's economy and SECOND the US Dollar is still the worlds reserve currency and almost every international transaction is done in US$ or the currency exchanges are backed by US$. 1) There's an out of control SCOTUS and that effects us. Maybe not as much as it effects you but ANY dispute anyone has with an American company and they drag it back into the US Court System like Chevron did with the Ecuadorians. Go look what Chevron did to their lawyer Steven Donziger. 2) There's an out of control Israel and that effects not just the Middle East but the entire World because of the issues with the Suez Canal and global shipping. AND YES we know certain Americans are involved in making that a disaster. 3) There's an out of control Russia AND YES we all know certain Americans are involved in making that a disaster. 4) There's the staggering wealth issue in the world that's the real cause of the refugee crisis AND YES we know there's a bunch of American companies involve din that. 5) Then there's the energy crisis AND YES WE ALL KNOW it was America who blew up the Nordstream system so that certain America companies could get into the international trade in LNG. 6) Climate change. So you guys picking a POTUS and VPOTUS with brains that actually work is pretty darn important to the other 7.7 Billion of us who get no say in it.
    1
  7242. 1
  7243. 1
  7244. 1
  7245. 1
  7246. 1
  7247. 1
  7248. 1
  7249. 1
  7250.  @SabineHossenfelder  ENGINEER HERE I have recently defended Sabine in respect of criticisms she got to her criticisms of academia. Having spent time in academia she's right to criticise them. HOWEVER when it comes to engineering she, like many others needs to SHUT UP. We need hydrogen as an energy buffer NOT because its hyper efficient or economic factors but BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE IT WORK and over the next 20-30 years WE NEED THINGS THAT WORK THAT DON'T SCREW THE PLANET UP FURTHER. And I really am trying to scream that at everyone. If you want the engineers to keep the lights on and modern society as you know it to keep functioning then all the people in the road need to SHUT UP. Unlike Sabine and many others I am qualified to design electrical systems around explosive gases like hydrogen as well as explosive dusts like wheat & sugar dust (and yes dusts can explode). Hydrogen is one of the hardest gases to work with, design around AND THEN MAINTAIN. Sabine is right in that Hydrogen for practical purposes leaks from everything, explodes easily and makes many substances brittle. What she DOES NOT KNOW is we know how to engineer around those issues. The single biggest problem with hydrogen is having enough qualified maintenance personnel. That's WHY I never thought it would be practical for things like cars, buses, jets, heating & cooking in homes. Any poor maintenance in those areas could be catastrophic. HOWEVER for those few areas like energy, hydrogen is a good option because all the technical issues have been solved and being kept in a controlled environment like a power station makes the maintenance possible. As for the ongoing claim you can't get better than 40% turnaround that's pure nonsense. The latest PEM electrolyser technologies get over 90% efficiency NOT the 80% (and lower) people like Sabine keep quoting. The current generations of gas turbines form companies like GE and Siemens with cogeneration units get over 64%. That's over 57% on the main components which are available off the shelf AND THEY WORK. As for the problems with storage and compressors those problems exist for every gas. How do you think the gas actually gets piped around the world? How do you think they liquify natural gas for exports around the world? I have worked in gas plants and they use lots of energy. If the world is going to have a lot more renewable energy then that industry needs to be able to buffer that system so if can deliver as needed. Efficiency is far less important than simply having something that WORKS.
    1
  7251. 1
  7252. 1
  7253. 1
  7254. HEY THOM Damaging America for 40 years????? What about the rest of the world or don't you think about our pain, misery and suffering. Because we all got told things like: "This expert out of Harvard says that competition will get you better services at lower prices. Now start selling off all of your state owned assets like buildings, roads and power stations. But only sell us the good ones because Milton told us 'Greed is Good' and we don't need the stuff that wont make us money." I'm Australian and you know that sweet little power grid in Texas that works so awesome that children die frozen in their beds. Yeah the one that was designed by an Economics Professor at Harvard. Well we had an Australian go to Harvard and when he came back he did the same thing to our water systems. He told us the same stuff: "The best way to distribute resources is with an unrestricted free market." He even bragged to the Germans DW network in one of their water documentaries about how great our "sophisticated" water market was. A while back there was a news item here on YT about rising energy costs. It was before the current crisis. In the middle of the discussion a guy claiming to be Romanian told us all to go f--k ourselves because other Europeans and Americans had come to Romania and got them to privatise the Romanian energy market. Do you know what the Romanians were told? "Competition will get you better services at lower prices." Just like everywhere else where massive privatisation programs were done the services went down and the prices went up because everyone also forgot that Uncle Milton also said: "The only purpose a corporation has is to deliver profits to its owners." Better services at lower prices don't fit well with Uncle Milton's ideology. So Thom, Please stop thinking that these are just American issues.
    1
  7255.  @HowardKlein1958  France has a massive advantage that few people realise and being honest I didn't know about this until recently. James Krellenstein brought this up during his interview about ENRICHMENT on Decouple Media here on YT. Just put "krellenstein enrichment" into YT search and you'll get it. Between the Uranium mine and the power station is an enrichment plant and France not only has a lot of enrichment capacity but they switched the enrichment method and got a monster bonus. They used gas diffusion and switched to gas centrifuges which uses less than 1/30th of the energy to produce the fuel. In switching over they freed up 3,000MW into the French grid from the Tricastin power station and since that 3,000MW was already paid off it came onto the French power grid at very low cost. Its was like the French suddenly gifted themselves a free power station about the same size as the Brits are building at Hinkley Point C at a cost of £32.6 Billion. The new enrichment plant cost €3 Billion so it wasn't exactly free but it was a lot cheaper than the €19 Billion that Flamanville Unit 3 has cost and that unit is only 1,600MW not 3,000MW. I went and checked what James said and its true. I found the details about it on the world-nuclear(dot)org's country profile page for France. Here's the problem other countries have - they don't have the enrichment capacity that France has. The Americans have to buy enriched fuel from the Russians and despite all the sanctions on Russia enriched fuel is NOT sanctioned. That's because 1 in 20 American homes is powered by Russian sourced nuclear fuel and no politician in America is going to turn the lights out. This is a real problem. There's NOT enough enrichment capacity in the world at the moment. This is one major question all the pro-nuclear people and especially the SMR proponents have to be asked: Where are they planning on getting their enriched uranium from?
    1
  7256.  @mrow9999  Buddy its NOT just the nuclear industry its pretty much every industry and in particular the petro-chem industry. In Sydney Australia they have mostly kept quiet on 2 major sites one of which was on the edge of the Olympic Precinct for the 2000 Games. It was a Union Carbide site that was/is so bad that its near impossible to clean up. The other was the old Phillips (electronics & chemical) site and its completely contaminated the ground water system with all sorts of nasty crap including PCBs. It used to be popular for people to just drill a well in their backyard for water for their gardens. That's now banned because of the contaminants in the wells. Sydney Harbor hailed as a beautiful tourist attraction still has a ban on all fishing for food because of PCB contamination. We don't put that in tourist brochures. I remember seeing a documentary back in the 90s about illegal waste dumping in America. They estimated that if they found 10,000 dump sites a year they still be dealing finding them for at least 20 years. Their most common thing was a company going and getting an old truck or trailer (usually stealing it) and loading it up with drums and just driving off into the countryside and parking it. By the time anyone found it there'd be no way to identify anything. There are ports on the African West coast that are jammed with rusted hulks and on the ports there's giant stacks of drums with all sorts of stuff. In some places there's open pits where they have just pumped stuff. Its happened because various companies out of North America and Europe just paid off corrupt officials to dump stuff there. Go look at the issues with E-waste and clothing being dumped in the third world at the moment. There's dozens of documentaries here on YT about that stuff. You are right the nuclear industry has done some damn awful things and if you look at incidents like the Windscale Fire and what was covered up you'd never trust that industry again. BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE TO DEAL WITH OTHER INDUSTRIES and I can't see the World giving up all their toys anytime soon.
    1
  7257. 1
  7258. ​ @Thisonegoestoeleven666  I had an offer from Yokogawa to work on Gorgon but when I had a lawyer go over the employment contract he found that they were lying to me over certain conditions. I was TUV Functional Safety Certified as well as Hazardous Area Certified and had friends work on both those projects. I worked on the Varanus Island repair and consulted on a couple of FPSOs but mainly worked in mining over the last 20 years and before that manufacturing. I am NOT against nuclear BUT (and I can't stress this enough) IT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT and for the RIGHT REASONS. There's a very sound reason for having some nuclear feeding into the large East Coast population centres and that's Grid Stability. There's a pretty good video on the YT Channel "Real Engineering" about it titled. "The Problem with Wind Energy" Up to a certain point renewables are cheap and work well but its that last part where you need something different. Its like having a racing car with the best engine, best gearbox, best tires, best aero, best everything EXCEPT it has no shock absorbers. Yes shock absorbers are a tiny fraction of a racing car but without them nothing else matters. So we need that last part of the grid to be like a shock absorber and unfortunately batteries can't do it because we can't build them big enough and we just don't have enough Lithium. An ugly fact is that the entire World reserve of Lithium is not enough to do 1/3rd of the worlds cars. Simon Michaux (who I don't agree with on a few points) makes this great observation. "Its not that the energy transition is impossible but we need a better plan." The most important thing going forward is that all the economists and other political ratbags STFU and let the engineers decide what's best.
    1
  7259. 1
  7260. 1
  7261. 1
  7262. 1
  7263. 1
  7264. 1
  7265.  @TheScotsalan  That's a really good summation of the sides. Adding into that lefties tend to care about the world while right wingers care about themselves. Where they match up is at the extremes. When the righties start going too far they eventually start scapegoating minorities to blame for their failures. On the Left it becomes scapegoating nonconformists to blame for their failures. In both cases they eventually start exterminating group they can. Its not particular to any version politics either. Once you get an entrenched establishment willing to go to any length to CONSERVE their position its gets out of control very quickly. The reason I use highlight word CONSERVE because even though a country like China is as ideologically LEFT as possible their government is fundamentally conservative. Where the Left and Right differ is the path they take to get to that point where they start scapegoating and the type of scapegoating. The right are simple to see when they go too far. They scapegoat along racial lines. The Left are harder to see because they scapegoat in all sorts of ways and on all sorts of issues. Mostly its some form or other of compliance to an unrealistic ideal. They make themselves obvious when ever they are pressed with a nuanced discussion point and just start yelling how the other person is a racist, bigot, fascist and/or psychopath. I'm actually an aerospace engineer and was trained in complex system analysis. So I come at the Left-Right political issue from a very outside perspective. I find it amazing that once you get to a certain point the radical left and radical right merge into mirrors of each other. They both end up in a place where ideology means nothing but a hash-tag. Its about gaining power and then holding onto it at any cost.
    1
  7266. 1
  7267. 1
  7268. 1
  7269. 1
  7270. 1
  7271. The lack of accountability is the biggest issue across the entire World right now. The financial and political elite being able to get away with everything is destroying our countries. And its not one political party or their big money backers its ALL OF OUR PARTIES. The only difference is how bad some are compared to others. Trump's people right now are arguably among the worst but they are certainly the loudest. If you go by the normal standards of any country then the Jan 6th organisers would have been rounded up the day after and NOT and refused bail. In most countries they would have been tried, convicted and sentenced by now and in many countries executed. In China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Iran (to name a few) they'd be dead. THIS IS NOT NEW EITHER. If you go back NONE of the executives who caused the 2008 GFC were held accountable. The DOJ prosecuted about 3,000 of the little people but none of the executives. Going further back further NONE of the people responsible for the prisoner abuse scandals in Iraq or Afghanistan were held accountable. A few of the rank and file soldiers were but none of the officers or political people. NONE of those involved in organising the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses were held accountable. I'm Australian and we've had a similar list of banking scandals, military scandals and political scandals and NOBODY AT the TOP ever gets held accountable. I was in Canada for work in late 2017 and they had a scandal over government contracts that was almost identical to ones in Australia and it was the same outcome. The lack of accountability of the worlds corporate and political elite is out of control.
    1
  7272. EVERYBODY STOP AND NOTE WHAT Kevin McCarthy actually says. I cut & past this form the transcript of the video. The punctuation is mine and there's correction of the word warrant which the YT algorithm had the word "weren't." Starting at 1:42 "Despite these serious allegations. It appears that the president's family has been offered special treatment by Biden's own Administration. Treatment that not otherwise would have received if they were not related to the President. These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption and they warrant further investigation by the House of Representatives." Think about what that actually says. 1) There's allegations NOT EVIDENCE. 2) There's appearance NOT EVIDENCE. 3) Regarding the allegations of favoritism to family members, maybe he can explain how Jared & Ivanka were given positions in the Trump Whitehouse despite having NO RELEVANT Experience for those positions. 4) Regarding the allegations of abuse of power, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored what Trump did with his "perfect call" to Ukraine during Trump's 1st Impeachment. 5) Regarding the allegations of obstruction, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored Trumps obstruction with counting votes on January 6th during Trump's 2nd Impeachment. 6) Regarding the allegations of corruption, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain why there has been NO Investigation regarding Jared Kushner's use of government resources to play various Arab states against each other to secure several hundred million dollars to bail out his family's investment in the New York office tower 666 Fifth Avenue OR How Jared Kushner was able to get $2 Billion from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund as he left the Whitehouse. OR How Donald Trump's golf courses made millions of dollars because he spent so much time at them as President that countries were forced to rent suites and villas at them to hold meetings. PLUS the US government had to pay for the rental of suites and villas and golf carts and food at those golf courses for Whitehouse Staff and Secret Service agents.
    1
  7273. 1
  7274. 1
  7275. 1
  7276. 1
  7277. 1
  7278. 1
  7279. 1
  7280. 1
  7281. 1
  7282. 1
  7283. ​ @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
  7284.  @nzajflynn  Well your history of the Neocons is so totally wrong its almost not worth answering. The "con" in Neocon is for CONSERVATIVE. They were the "New Conservatives" that cam out of Mearsheimer's "Offensive Realism" which is where they got their regime change philosophy. They might have taken his ideas out of context but that's not your fault or my fault. Yeah Clinton was huge on the NATO expansion but then he's a globalist neo-liberal and on that go look up "Mearsheimer 2019 Yale." He gave 3 lectures on the failings of the "Liberal Hegemony" and his assessment of the Liberals and their foreign policy is flawless - its perfect. I recommend those lectures to anyone and everyone who wants to understand the liberal side of American politics and why their foreign policy has been a disaster. WHAT I ALSO RECOMMEND is that people ALSO look into the OTHER SIDE of American politics, which is Mearsheimer's side - the Realists. The two sides of American politics are very similar and at times effectively identical, which Mearsheimer points out. Because of that and the labels they use its damn hard working out what they are on about. The Realist's like regime change to ANYTHING that aligns with them. They don't care so long as they can access resources. That's why they staged coups in places like Iran and Chile. The Liberals don't simply want regime change they want to rebuild nations with their version of Liberal Democracy. Go watch Mearsheimer's lectures on "Liberal Hegemony." He really does describe it perfectly and explain why they do it. He's brutal about it, but 100% right. I don't fault Mearsheimer for what he says about Liberals. I fault him because he implies his side is virtuous and wouldn't do anything as bad as what the Liberals do AND THAT'S NOT TRUE.
    1
  7285. 1
  7286. 1
  7287. 1
  7288. 1
  7289. 1
  7290. 1
  7291. 1
  7292. 1
  7293. Fine then please write to David and have him remove the Short titled "Virologist Denunks the Lab Leak Theory" That's from an interview David did with Vincent Racaniello from 3 Sept 2021. If you search "david pakman vincent racaniello" you will find the full interview as well as a short with the title " which is from that interview starting around 16:40. In that interview Vincent Racaniello makes the claim that the Chinese were NOT working on the virus that caused COVID. That statement is 100% FALSE and misleading. We knew that because people were digging up published papers by people from the Wuhan Institute detailing their work. I was sent one reference to a paper that was coauthored by Shi Zhengli the director of the Wuhan Institute and it detailed the rich resources in new viruses they were finding in bats from across Asia. It also highlighted that the work was supported by a number of international organisations including the NIH (run by Dr. Fauci). I actually think they should have been studying those viruses because there had already been SARS-1 and MERS so looking for what might come next makes a lot of sense. SO WHY LIE ABOUT IT? AND why did people like Vincent Racaniello make such emphatic claims that we knew at that time were wrong? I have no problem if David wants to go after Dr. John Campbell. I'm Australian and stopped watching him after he kept getting points about Australia WRONG. None were major issues but he kept making mistakes. I also noted that the Australians he interviewed were NOT people being presented in any other media. So I tend to suspect he is either bad at fact checking or listens to the wrong people. But David CANNOT go after one person while letting another make statements that are 100% FALSE.
    1
  7294. Australian here with a simple question: Do any of you Americans realise just how much this garbage affects the rest of the World? FIRST - Lets be clear I am not being Critical of the vast majority of Americans. I went to college in America on a sports scholarship. I love the place, the people and the culture. BUT there's a small minority of American who just can't keep their noses out of everyone else's business and its starting to PlSS US OFF. Go look at what happened with the Steven Donziger case and how an American Corporation dragged the case back into the American Federal Court System. The actual case had NOTHING to do with American law or the American judicial system, but look what they did. Right now here in Australia we have a major scandal involving PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) and how they conspired with their clients to defraud Australia out of BILLIONS of dollars in tax money. In delving into that scandal we also found other nefarious consulting activities involving EY, Deloitte and KPMG with McKinsey hiding in the shadows. THESE ARE ALL AMERICAN COMPANIES and they are interfering with our government as they are doing all over the Western World. If you go and watch John Mearsheimer's lecture at Yale on American Liberal Hegemony he gave at Yale. Its one of 4 he did at Yale 6 years ago and its easy to find here on YT. I think Mearsheimer' a turd of a human being but he's also a very intelligent turd and his assessment of American Liberal ideology and its NEED TO INTERFERE in other countries is 1,000,000% on target. As Mearsheimer puts it, its hardwired into their nature to think they have to fix ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they think or perceive others are doing wrong OR that they know better. The problem is when you combine the American Liberal need to interfere with the American court system they can run to when it falls apart makes it a nightmare for the rest of us to deal with BECAUSE the American courts will protect American Corporate interests no matter what the evidence says. We all learnt that with the Donziger case.
    1
  7295. 1
  7296. 1
  7297. 1
  7298. 1
  7299. 1
  7300. 1
  7301. 1
  7302. 1
  7303. 1
  7304. 1
  7305. 1
  7306. 1
  7307. 1
  7308. 1
  7309. 1
  7310. 1
  7311. 1
  7312. 1
  7313. 1
  7314. 1
  7315. 1
  7316. 1
  7317. 1
  7318. 1
  7319. 1
  7320. 1
  7321. 1
  7322. 1
  7323. 1
  7324. 1
  7325.  @michaelj6486  Sorry dickhead but don't because you don't know my situation which is actually similar to your wife's. I've had to remain in partial isolation, out of work waiting until I could get medical clarification. I have had multiple instances of Deep Vein Thrombosis including earlier this year. Due to circumstances I got caught out of Victoria where I am from. So it's cost me a lot of my own money to stay semi-isolated. I have only recently been cleared and got my first jab thankfully without any complications and am due for my 2nd. So I totally understand your wife's predicament and I find it totally egregious that she has NOT been treated fairly. On her treatment you and me are in 100% agreement. I am also against mandates and that is based on the EXPERT advice Dr. Michael Osterholm gave earlier this year. He's the Director of The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy located within the University of Minnesota. He's the guy Joe Rogan interviewed early on and almost everything he's said has come true. He has DECADES of experience with pandemic response. He's totally pro-vaccine and totally against mandates, because in his experience (over decades) is that they DON'T WORK. When the U. of Minnesota went to install a mandate for returning students he was the one who argued against it. His simply stated that the actual issue is there are 3 types of people when it comes to vaccines not 2. 1: The person who will get vaccinated for the simple reason they don't want to get sick. 2: The anti-vaxxer who, for some ideological reason, will never willingly take a shot. 3: The hesitant, who for some reason (medical, social or other) is not yet decided on if they will or wont get vaccinated. The first group aren't a problem and you can't do anything with the 2nd. The problem with mandates is that you risk pushing the 3rd group AWAY form getting vaccinated. Which as Dr. Osterholm pointed out has happened time and time again. He gave examples of parts of Africa. Mandates drive people away from getting vaccinated and that's a disaster for getting the vaccine rate high enough that those who cannot legitimately get vaccinated are not a problem. He did clarify that there are certain high risk environments where you do need mandates. Air travel being one because you have people packed in a plane with a very high infection risk and they are moving from one place to another. So I have had publicly available EXPERT advice on the subject of mandates for most of this year. I have no time at all for SELFISH CLOWNS and their utter garbage about conspiracies and the fact their stupidity is why governments feel the need to lockdown and mandate vaccinations. But there are always people who think the rules don't apply to them and they FK things up for everyone.
    1
  7326. 1
  7327. 1
  7328. 1
  7329. 1
  7330. 1
  7331. 1
  7332. 1
  7333. 1
  7334. 1
  7335. 1
  7336. 1
  7337. 1
  7338. 1
  7339. 1
  7340. 1
  7341. 1
  7342. 1
  7343. 1
  7344. 1
  7345. 1
  7346. 1
  7347. 1
  7348. 1
  7349. 1
  7350. 1
  7351. 1
  7352. 1
  7353. 1
  7354. 1
  7355. 1
  7356. 1
  7357. 1
  7358. 1
  7359. 1
  7360. As an aerospace engineer I love Elon for his enthusiasm and his investment. In that he has actually been a very, very good thing for space industrialization and without that we would be worse off. BUT I absolutely hate the fantasies he promotes at times. I suspect its his way of challenging people or his way of inspiring the public. Problem is those of us who know can see through it. I do remember Space Station Freedom because it was the solution to what's next when I was in college (late 80s). Then a little thing called the Challenger accident happened and our hopes crashed with it. Some things of note from that time. Apologies if the following is long and seems like lecture notes. 1: Space Station Freedom was first budgeted at $20Billion. That was TOO expensive so it was redesigned and then budgeted at $30 Bullion. That was TOO expensive and it was then redesigned for a second time and costed at $40 Billion. So that got scrapped and we got the ISS for $200 Billion. 2: The massive costs of operating the Space Shuttle and massive costs it added to the ISS are the main reason nobody has gone back to the moon in 50 years. There just wasn't any money left after the shuttle and ISS. The massive issue is with those costs is that the technologies needed for a moon bas or Mars base have never been fully funded and there's still huge amounts of work to do and most notably in life support. It wont matter if anyone goes to Mars and is dead from a lack of oxygen or carbon dioxide poisoning months before they get there. 3: After Challenger happened and people were calling to scrap NASA it was revealed that the Apollo program had returned almost $10 for every $1 spent. You see all those technological advances had finally started to filter through and pay off back in terms of sales tax and technology exports. Every body knows about Teflon, but many of the aluminum alloys we have across out industries came out of Apollo. But the biggest of all was the computer evolution from the size of houses down to shoe box size. All of Microsoft, Intel, Google, Facebook and the rest of them might not exist if the Apollo AGC wasn't built. The technology boom Apollo kicked off is still generating money to this day. 4: Kelly Johnson (yeah the guy behind the SR-71) told congress to not replace Challenger and instead spend the money on its replacement. He asked for the $3 Billion budgeted and no interference and estimated he could have an SST in 3-5 years. Boeing stepped in, Rockwell stepped in, others stepped and NASA got a 5th shuttle that also cost too much to operate. They then spent over $14 Billion on a shuttle replacement that was NEVER DELIVERED and that $14 Billion doesn't include anything spent on SLS, which still hasn't flown. Best wishes to all.
    1
  7361. 1
  7362. ​ @insaneshepherd8678  Thanks - its good to hear someone else who knows what's what. Go watch the channel Real Engineering and watch the recent video about the issue with wind farms. He does a great explanation of the issue with grid stability and that's where many people who have no idea of what it takes to make a power grid work go wrong. I never did grid level power but did interact with the power engineers on mine sites which have there own power grid. Yes a lot smaller but the principles are the same. It sounds incredibly simple what power engineers do but they have to do it with absolute assurity of grid stability. They are a sort of club that don't like talking to other much because all the rest of us do is cause them headaches. In particular all power grids have to be able to handle disturbances. I once saw a short doco on the British power grid and one of their biggest hassles happens each week night when their most popular TV program ends. Millions of Brits turn on the kettle to make a cup of tea. Normally a kettle should not affect the power grid that supports 60 million people but when you turn on a couple of million all at once it hits the grid like a sledge hammer. Modern societies have similar things every day when people wake up and start turning lots of things on and when they go home and cook diner. It causes huge surges that have to be handled and for that you need a system deigned to handle that. Wind and Solar by themselves CAN NOT DO THAT. They need a system that can. A couple of large nuclear plants would act like a giant shock absorber, but also adding in a couple of those massive gas turbine units adds massive surge capacity. Coal and nuclear plants take 1 to 2 days to het up to full power but these turbines are at full power from cold in about 23 minutes. The first 500MW from the turbine is a few minutes to spin up and a few more to sync but the 300MW from the cogen unit takes longer because it has to build up the steam.
    1
  7363. 1
  7364. 1
  7365. 1
  7366. 1
  7367. AUSTRALIAN HERE - the true pathetic character of this debate is that it could have happened in Australia in 2019 or Britain in 2019 when BOTH Australian Labor and British Labor ran idiotic campaigns that were assisted by the SAME AMERICAN CAMPAIGN CONSULTANTS that the Democrats use. I just watched a video on the channel Status Coup News titled "DNC Insider EXPOSES Greedy Consultant GRIFT, Why Trump Won" which was about those consultants. I found out in late 2019 from a British person when I asked WHY did British Labor used the same campaign strategy that Australian Labor had which was similar to Hilary's 2016 Campaign AND THEY TOLD ME that it was because the same campaign consultants were involve in all 3 campaigns. What I find utterly implausible is Destiny's attitude that they needed to dump massive slabs of their base. I urge people to go and watch the Question & Answer part following lecture Mark Blyth (Brown U.) gave at McMaster titled "Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy". Just before 1:20:00 he's asked about Elizabeth Warrens policies and he goes on to describe what just happened in America and WHY people like Destiny are so incredibly WRONG. If you really pay attention to mark Blyth you'll also find out WHY Progressives like Cenk keep losing elections despite having popular ideas and policies. And if you have read this far the losing strategy is having COMPLEX policies for everything. By the time you explain them all you've bored the audience to sleep OR WORSE confused them so much that a simple slogan like MAGA works.
    1
  7368. 1
  7369. 1
  7370. 1
  7371. 1
  7372. 1
  7373. 1
  7374. 1
  7375. 1
  7376. AUSTRALIAN HERE Outside opinion. Tucker is an obvious choice, but then there's a few others like Marjorie Greene and Kari Lake. They're all suck ups who don't care about facts. Its all an attention seeking power trip for them. Trump's main aim is simple - get elected by any means so that he can get immunity. Because no matter what he'll be immune from EVERYTHING because no matter what the GOP wont allow him to be touched no matter what he does. They proved that following January 6th. People like McConnell and others in the GOP simply DO NOT CARE. The GOP are so far gone down the rabbit hole that nothing matters except remaining in power or at least being in a position to prevent anyone else having any real power. This is what happens when you let fanatics take power. This is what America needs to rapidly wake up to, because next year you are NOT simply voting on the future of America you are voting on the future of Western civilisation as we know it. All the trade and security agreements that have brought so value to all our nations are on the line. NONE of us want another 4 years of Trump simply tearing down anything he doesn't like as he panders to the whims of dictators. I know people like Thom Hartman have been writing "What if?" pieces of late BUT WHAT do you people think happens once he rips up NATO and lets Putin have a free hand? What do you people think happens in the Middle East when Trump lets Netanyahu do what ever he wants even worse than Biden has done? What do you people think happens when he lets China have a free hand over Taiwan? YEAH WE KNOW the Trumps have stronger business ties to the Chinese worth a lot more than the Bidens ever had. We know the Chinese granted Ivanka Trump all of her trademarks while she was on a tax payer funded trade junket there. We know how hard it is to get anywhere with the Chinese on IP and Trademarks and yet Ivanka just got everything she asked for. Trump 2.0 would be a disaster way worse than anything you people realise.
    1
  7377. 1
  7378. 1
  7379. 1
  7380. 1
  7381. 1
  7382. 1
  7383. 1
  7384. 1
  7385.  @Ln-cq8zu  I'm actually an aerospace engineer and during my senior year at college we had a special guest lecturer on day. He was an alum who'd just completed a project to assess what it would take to terraform Mars. This was 1987 and despite the loss of Challenger we thought this guy was going to pep us up and spell out the future. He started with "Forget it an here's why!" He then explained to us what they'd worked out. The single biggest problem is just how much stuff you need which is staggering numbers. If you want I'll show a few things. But then even if we wanted to build inside some domes, there's the massive issue that we have NEVER been able to build a self contained self sustaining biological environment. They tried again and again with biodome and it failed again and again. There are some people working on much simpler systems where they know they have to manage things and they do show some promise. But then that leads to the next problem: Where do you the stuff you need? Where do you get the stuff to make the dome and then where do you get the air to fill it. If you want a hemispherical dome with 1km³ of volume and you do need to start with cubic kilometers if you want a reasonable colony. Because you need volume for your colony to live and grow food and do other stuff. That dome has a radius of 781.6meters and a surface area of over 3.8km². Where do you get that much material to build it? A cubic kilometer of air weighs 1.3 Million tons. YES TONS. We don't tend to think of air as having weight but it has 1.3kg/m³. And a cubic kilometer is 1,000,000,000 cubic meters. Sorry but Elon's Mars fantasy fails basic math every time.
    1
  7386. 1
  7387.  @MrLifter20  America didn't sell its soul in the civil rights era it sold its soul after it when Ronald Reagan adopted the "Greed is Good" nonsense of Milton Friedman, renamed it Reaganomics and then slowly gutted America from the inside out. Reagan then Thatcher (with Thatcherism) then others like Australia with what we called "Economic Rationalism" sold our souls to the top 1% and their profits. One of Milton Friedman's contemporaries British economist and another of the Chicago School Ronald Coase tried to get the US government to auction off the air frequencies for TV when it first emerged. It was REJECTED and REJECTED and REJECTED because they all knew it would lead to media monopolies because the people with the most money would be able to out bid and then control the new media of Television. But they gave Coase the Nobel Prize and then the world started auctioning off everything they could. I first heard about this when Mark Blyth (Rhodes Centre Podcast) interviewed Elizabeth Popp Berman about her book "Think like an economist." Its here on YouTube. Interesting when the American Economists went to Russia after the collapse of the Soviet System they convinced the Russians to auction off the state assets. In their ignorance they didn't realise the only people in Russia with any money were the KGB officers and other government rats. That's how the Russian Oligarchs got their hands on some of the worlds richest resources for pennies on the dollar. When you look at the origins of the current conflict it traces back to those auctions and who got control of what. So in a way the entire disaster that is the Russia-Ukraine war can be traced back to Reagan selling America's soul to the "Greed is Good" of Milton Friedman. I just watched an interview with Larry Wilkerson and he hinted at something I have suspected for some time that the reason America blew up the Nord Stream pipeline (and yes it was America) was to help the American companies sell liquified gas to Europe. Ships cannot compete with a pipeline. Another case of "Greed is Good."
    1
  7388. 1
  7389. 1
  7390. 1
  7391. 1
  7392. 1
  7393. 1
  7394. 1
  7395. 1
  7396. 1
  7397. 1
  7398. 1
  7399. 1
  7400. 1
  7401. Great comment and you're 100% accurate I remember that debate that's shown here. You can see the whole thing if you search YouTube for "oxford union debate woke culture has gone too far" I was amazed at how Konstantin behaved in that debate parts of which were almost deranged. I HAD (past tense) been a fan of the Triggernometary podcast he co-hosts which until a few years ago was excellent. Their claim was "interesting people and interesting conversations" and when I first started watching them that's exactly what they were. Early in the Ukraine conflict Konstantin (who's of both Russian and Ukrainian descent) was part of a BBC discussion panel and he was brilliant. He gave some of the best perspectives I have seen anyone give on that conflict. There were 2 notable changes in Konstantin's behavior since then. Triggernometry interviewed David Pakman an American Leftist commentator and David Pakman did a disgusting troll video afterwards. Normally Pakman is accurate and balanced in his commentary but that video was totally unwarranted and unreasonable. Konstantin did a reply video where he showed how upset he was and he was justifiably upset. Around the same time Triggernometry interviewed Nigel Farage and not long afterwards started doing promotions for Nigel Farage's financial consultancy. It was after that Konstatin took a giant leap to the conservative side of public discussion and a lot of it has been utterly disgusting. He toured my home country of Australia on what's best described as a white supremacist culture crusade for a radical far right think tank. So if you ever hear Konstantin say he was trolled by a Lefty then he is telling the truth, but that DOES NOT EXCUSE his psychotic right wing garbage that he's been pushing.
    1
  7402. 1
  7403. 1
  7404. 1
  7405.  @smcdonald9991  On the Westminster. First I'm an aerospace engineer and was trained in complex systems. Its one reason why I like Mark Blyth as uses similar techniques to explain economics. So don't ask for any political theory or I might drown you in complex system theory. You're partly right about our system the elected officials of our lower house are very tightly bound to the party, but that can opt out of any vote and even cross the floor, but it usually comes at a cost. There are also times when members put forward a "private members bill" which is allows freedom from party politics. There are also conscience votes where somebody will abstain or cross the floor. Our Senate is picked based on the percentages that parties get on the senate ticket. So its a place where minor parties and independents get in often. Most of the time they have no power beyond calling out party hacks when to they do the wrong thing. But every so often a group of them get what's called the balance of power. Where neither party has absolute control of the Senate. They then get immense power and the smarter ones have done well by us with that. So yes most of our politics is dominated by party politics at both state and federal level. Yes it has issues, but whose system doesn't. As to being unfair your wrong because most Australians vote for the party not the local candidate of that party. Trust me at least half our politicians would not ever get elected if they had to stand up and speak for themselves. Our politicians campaign as parties not individuals. If there is a huge downside to that its a lack of independent voices. BUT that's changing - at our last election the main independents did co-fund commercials and those were basically run as "If you don't like the main parties vote for one of us" and it was successful. Its been proven repeatedly that if you are an independent and you can build a public profile with some air time and simply put 1 or 2 good points up you can beat even the most entrenched party hack. Australian's fundamentally don't like our parties and we do like sending them messages to behave and do some stuff that helps us or we will kick you into the gutter. In fact a good way for a party to get rid of someone is NOT run a candidate in their electorate particularly if there is a good independent running. When Australians want to send a message we don't like switching from one party hack to another party hack. We do like voting for the true underdog as way to kick a poly in the teeth and independents fit that nicely. So in some ways our system is as f--ked as any other and in other ways we do get a far better chance of kicking ratbags out.
    1
  7406. 1
  7407.  @smcdonald9991  On Australia becoming a republic there's a real issue with the pro-Republicans as there are 2 factions who hate each other. So they will never combine and get the job done and then let the Australian people decide what style of POA (president of Australia) we want. The first group are basically minimalists who want nothing to change except the Governor General becomes "Australia's Representative" instead of the "Queens Representative." Its a name change and that's all. All current functions and executive powers stay as is and that is the most popular option. The other side want an elected politician and the bulk of the Australian DON'T want that at all because we see what its done to America. If it was put forward as an Irish style President it might get through. But basically that camp want a US Style POA and it simply wont happen and is even less likely after Trump. The Royals knowing that division only stifle debate screaming we'll be like America and it kills the discussion every time. The biggest thing is one group of republicans want a US style very politically active POA and the bulk of the population just doesn't. Its a case of loud minorities getting in their own way. Most likely we will become a republic when the Queen dies or abdicates. Charles himself has said himself that (other than the protectorates) the nations of the Commonwealth should become independent republics. At some point we have to grow up. That wont end the Common Wealth as there are already members who are Republics like South Africa.
    1
  7408. 1
  7409. Its actually 7.8 billion, but your point is right on the money. 2 of the major problems are food distribution and food wastage along with many others. Where climate change is going to smash the world is in food production which is at risk of collapse. I'm Australian and we are in the envious situation that we have excess food production. We have 25million people and produce food for 75 million. We have a problem coming. Our banks are addicted to home loans and they want our population to climb to 35million then 45 then 55 and maybe onto 65 million. Even at 35 million the problem is obvious if we don't increase our food production from 75 up to 85 million then 10million people elsewhere starve. At that point there will be millions of people looking at Australia with enough food to feed 40million extra people. They wont care that its dropped from 50 to 40 they will just see the excess and jump in boats. That creates the next problem which is at the 25 million we now have we are running out of water. You see our rain fall is falling on some parts and climbing in others and when it does rain its like what happened in Europe, China and India this last week. And that's our next problem. Some of our traditional farmland that's been incredibly productive for decades is now getting LESS water. So that 75 million of food we produce is already at risk. Getting that up to 85 million so we can handle the extra 10 million people the banks want coming here and taking out home loans is a problem NOBODY wants to talk about. Like other places we don't have 1 problem we have a heap of interconnected problems. California which produces 1/4 of America's food an a lot that's exported is another major food bowl at risk.
    1
  7410. 1
  7411. 1
  7412. 1
  7413. 1
  7414. 1
  7415. 1
  7416. 1
  7417. 1
  7418. 1
  7419. 1
  7420. 1
  7421. 1
  7422. 1
  7423. 1
  7424. AUSTRALAIN ENGINEER HERE: I like your channel but you have a couple of things in this video that are horrendously wrong and anyone who has spent time in any industry would be able to understand it. My degree is in aerospace but I have worked in industrial control systems and automation for 30+ years across a number of industries. I have worked on project ranging from a few $1,000 to multi-billion dollar projects where at times I have been responsible for several hundred million dollars of plant. After a small consulting job in 2016 that alerted me to Australia's energy crisis (and yes its a crisis) and the complete lack of anything resembling a plan I got interested in energy. More to the point I wanted to know why there's NO plan and 8 years later there still isn't. There's policies but policies ARE NOT plans. FIRST - The problem Australia has is common across the entire developed world. That problem is in 2 parts. One simply not recognising that we were always going to have the energy transition because of the simple fact that power stations wear out and have to be replaced. Two the dominance of economists in decision making including in things they have no understanding of like power stations. Mark Blyth the Political Economist at Brown U. says (paraphrasing) "Its hardwired into economists that they see everyone else as a problem that they have to manage." Dr. Jason Hansen is NOT an ENGINEER he's an economist and therefore part of the problem. I don't care if he's employed by Idaho National Labs or not. Here in Australia The CSIRO has made the same mistake. They hired economists to evaluate nuclear power and got the opposite answer to Jason Hansen. our main science organisation CSIRO just released a report on energy and it too is done by economists and they say the complete opposite to Jason Hansen. Economist are MANIPULATORS of data. If I didn't know better I'd say they have a special class in every Economics Syllabus titled "How to manipulate data and statistics to mean whatever you want!" SECOND - A major problem which you do partly address but not well enough is the issue of grid stability. For anyone interested the YouTube channel Real Engineering explained this in a video titled "The Problem with Wind Energy." The real value that nuclear brings is grid stability by virtue of the size of nuclear plants. Plants based on reactors like the AP1000 and EPR 2 (which are the current generation) with passive safety, are what people need to consider because they have been built and are running. THIRD - And sorry but this is where you made a huge mistake. For someone claiming to be a Science educator you let fly with a ridiculous claim on efficiency. EVERY Thermodynamic process has an efficiency. Something could have an efficiency of 0.00000001% and you can still say its efficient. Claims of efficiency are spurious and misleading unless you compare it to something else and for the record. The EPR 2 has a thermal efficiency of 36% (see Hinckley Point C on Wikipedia) The AP1000 has a thermal efficiency of 33% (see Vogtle on Wikipedia) Gas or Coal thermal plants have historically been around 35-36% but can be as high as 42-43% with high pressure boilers. I know Rio Tinto helped a Japanese plant get over 42% in the mid 2000s. But I also know some of the older coal plants (like Hazelwood) fell away to be around 20% towards the end of their lives. Gas turbines can be as high as 45% (GE claim the 9HA.02 at 44%) Combined Cycle Gas turbines can be almost 65% (GE claim the 9HA.02 in CC at >64%) I personally think that there will be an enormous amount of work done on improving efficiency in coming years especially in the area of waste heat. It does NOT matter which process we have been incredibly wasteful with all these technologies. It wont be easy but we have to be better with energy. If you look at something like an EPR 2. The thermal energy is 4,524 MWt and output is 1,630 MWe. which means there's almost 3 GW of energy going to waste. YES the temperature differential is lower but we have to find a way to tap into that. If the nuclear industry wants a future learn to tap that and the LCOE will go down a significant amount. One of the most interesting claims I have heard was from Mark Blyth the Political Economist at Brown U. who's one of the very few people from the economics area with a functioning brain. He pointed out a study that said if America simply triple glazed its windows the energy saving would help America get most of the way to its Paris requirements. All those glass towers in the big cities are staggeringly poor at thermodynamics. They either let in too much energy when its hot and act like greenhouses which requires energy to cool them OR they leak massive amounts of energy when its cold and need huge amounts to keep them warm. IF YOU WANT TO TALK BOUT THIS STUFF LET ME KNOW
    1
  7425. 1
  7426. 1
  7427. 1
  7428. 1
  7429. EVERYONE SHOULD GO AND WATCH the PBS Frontline on the 2008 GFC and the reasons why the DOJ did not prosecute the Wall Street CEOs. I'll get to why this is important. Lanny Breuer, Eric Holders (2IC) and the lead on the cleaning up after the GFC straight up admits to the camera that they couldn't do it for "economic reasons." Yes the guys who gave the world the GFC that cost you me and the rest of the planet $17 Trillion (by some estimates and over $40T on others) got off because of economic reasons. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT - Because the 2 guys in the Whitehouse - Obama and Biden were/are both lawyers. Obama went to Harvard and then was a professor at U of Chicago's Law School and he could NOT manage America's legal issues. Basically this rot in the American justice system goes back a long way and is now so cancerous it risks the entire US System and that has grave consequences for the rest of the world. I'm Australian and we are lining up to buy submarines from a country we might NOT be able to depend on because the President is either senile or too temperamental. Other than what Australia has with submarines, the single most important thing for Americans to get is that ever since Breton Woods back in 1944 the US Dollar has been the World's Reserve Currency. Fairly much all of global trade is either done in US Dollars or the money exchanges are backed by US Dollars. So if the US Dollar becomes unstable because America puts another maniac or senile old man in the Whitehouse then all of global trade is at risk. All Krystal has said is "the Democrats can do the same thing the Republicans did with Reagan and it will all be Okay!" Sorry girl but the world wasn't at war when Reagan was in office and besides that there were people doing some seriously stupid stuff during that time - like the Iran-Contra deal. SORRY - Krystal the Reagan thing didn't work. America needs a real leader in the Whitehouse. Democrat, Republican or something else IS YOUR CHOICE. Just don't forget the rest of the world has TO DEAL WITH YOUR CHOICE.
    1
  7430. 1
  7431. 1
  7432. 1
  7433. 1
  7434. 1
  7435. 1
  7436.  @individual1-floridaman491  My father was a maths science teacher. I'd love to tell your kids that the future of engineering is bright but we are at on hell of a crossroads. There was a recent comment on the ABC Drum (I think it was Colin Barnett) and what was said was "we have to stop listening to the economists and lawyers and start listening to the engineers and scientists" I found it a great comment but NOBODY has run with it. Sure both parties are spruiking up manufacturing and technology after almost 2 decades of preaching how manufacturing was a "sunset industry" because we were shifting into a "service based economy." When they announced the Australian Space Agency they held meetings in the capital cities to find out what we should be doing. The mantra was "we are hear to listen" and for every suggestion and proposal we got told "NO we aren't that kind of agency. We're here to promote space industry." I was at the meeting in Melbourne and a professor from Monash stood up at one point and pointed out that EVERY student of his had left Australia for work and then asked what this new agency would do. The answer was straight out of "Yes Minister" and giant long word salad of we don't care because we are not here to do anything other than tell everyone how fantastic we are. They put out a roadmap that actually was pretty good. Its maybe the one thing they ever did right. It was all about the future space industries Australia could benefit from. The single biggest thing identified was advanced space based water management for our agriculture sector but such systems would not be available until the mid 2030s. Considering the droughts and water issues we have my answer to that was why wait 15 years and just get on with it. So I wrote a space program based around delivering that water management. the program was named "Dyaramak" which is an Aboriginal name for the Sacred Kingfisher. In Polynesian culture its a water spirit so I figured it kind of suited. When you consider that both our agricultural sector (at over $155Billion per annum with over 300,000 jobs) and our tourism sector (at over $65Billion per annum with over 550,000 jobs) that a program with its prime mission of delivering the next generation of space based land & water management would have a justifiable business case. WRONG. I took that to both the Libs and Labour and BOTH told me to go away while one handed $7 Billion to the Airforce for a space program and the other one cheered. For $7 Billion there is no plan, no budget and will do nothing for the 850,000 Australians who require our land, forests, rivers and oceans for their jobs. I asked for $720 million over 6 years to lay the foundation that would help protect all those jobs and all the economic benefit that came with it. I'm planning to bash both parties with it again shortly just to see if I can startle them into some action.
    1
  7437. 1
  7438. 1
  7439. 1
  7440. 1
  7441. 1
  7442. 1
  7443. 1
  7444. 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
  7445. 1
  7446. 1
  7447. 1
  7448. 1
  7449. 1
  7450. AEROSPACE ENGINEER here: For professors there's 2 points and the first of those is MONEY as in how much can they drag into their department. The second is that they like to put ideas in front of students at times they ALREADY KNOW can't work and the actual lesson is in recognising it. Third they will at times give students a novel idea to investigate for their final year project. We had 2 options my year. The first was for a 4 seat light aircraft and the second (which I did) was for a novel kind of comet fly by space craft. It had a detachable shield that flew ahead of the space craft and provided a clear area free of the tails dust to fly in and observe the comment unobstructed. It was novel and innovative and would also NEVER WORK, but we got what we were supposed to get which was the experience of working on a team project. So I hope that answers part of your question. The bit I'd be far more inquisitive of is how so many got conned by the fact it was never viable for reasons people had discovered decades ago. In aerospace Robert Goddard the guy who first wrote about trains in vacuum tubes is also the father of modern rocketry. He's a legend and his work is well known. Plus there's all sorts of sci-fi where this sort of travel was shown - Logans Run and Space 1999 being 2 I know of. THIS WASN'T A NEW IDEA. And that's what quite a few college professors need to be asked: "How did you NOT see this was nonsense or WASN'T an original idea and let your students believe it was a new idea?"
    1
  7451. 1
  7452. 1
  7453. 1
  7454. 1
  7455. 1
  7456. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  7457. 1
  7458. 1
  7459. 1
  7460. 1
  7461. 1
  7462. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: I am sorry but the idea of a Space Force for any country is a lot of political BS. Its the sort of nonsense and garbage that politicians use to convince the general public that they are actually doing something. I'm Australian but did my degree in America in the late 80s when Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Program was in full swing. Almost EVERY post graduate student in the department was DARPA funded. The amount of money being spent was astronomical. In my final year I did an optional class in Space Craft Dynamics. Like all undergraduates we had to do at least 2 advanced classes. We shared those classes with the postgrads. The difference was they did term papers and I don't mean like a history or psych paper. These were full journal or conference standard technical papers and they had to do presentation as well. Most undergraduates picked Orbital Mechanics because it was only ridiculously hard level math. Each year a few undergrads (just to be different would try) Space Craft Dynamics which each year turned out to be a bad choice because it was insane level math. I remember 4 things about that class. - The professor because he had a quaker beard; and - How insanely hard it was just to follow the concepts he lectured us about; and - The DARPA funded postgrad doing rail guns; and - The DARPA funded guy doing space based laser battery targeting dynamics. I think its fair to say I am reasonably smart because you need that just to get through that degree AND that guy doing the targeting system made my feel dumb. In fact he made most of the postgrads feel dumb too. he was easily the smartest engineer I ever met. His work should have won awards except the maths guys could barely understand what he was doing. IT WOULD TAKE ME PAGES TO EXPLAIN IT and all I would do is confuse people. In the end we all realised 1 thing. NONE OF IT WAS GOING TO WORK. Rail guns needed to much power to operate in space and if you made your missile shiny then lasers weren't any good either. These days when I see some of the nonsense people are talking I just shake my head in disbelief. Its not a matter of computer chips or AI (which is another big lie) its simply a matter of basic physics and that doesn't change. Sorry but its all BS And Yes Australia has announced its own Space Force and plans of WASTING AU$7 Billion trying to repeat what we learned 35 years ago. 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂
    1
  7463. 1
  7464. 1
  7465. This is exactly the same answer I just put in another comment: On the basic principal I agree. For example in the case of Timothy McVeigh there was no doubt he did what he did. In the case of John Wayne Gacy there was no doubt. In both those case I absolutely agree that justice was done. They both showed what Americans call "depraved indifference," but in many other cases there is doubt or there is at least the appearance of improper procedure. For example: AFTER Donald Trump lost the 2020 election he ordered the execution of 3 convicted people. Irrespective of what they did or didn't do for over 130 years NO President had allowed a federal execution to take place in the period between the election and the inauguration of the next President. The view was that despite the sitting president having duties to fulfill no longer had the mandate for those sorts of decisions and they were to be left for the incoming president. At the same time Donald Trump pardoned the Blackwater 4 who were responsible for killing 17 innocent people in the Nisour Square Massacre. Those 4 were, at the time of their crime, employees of Eric Prince the brother of Betsy DeVos Donald Trumps Secretary of Education. So were those decisions by Donald Trump for justice or politics? FYI - I'm Australian and the last person executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan who was hanged for killing a guard during an attempted prison break. It was in my home state of Victoria. There were serious ballistics issues that suggested the guard was accidentally shot by another guard in a tower. The lone eyewitness to the actual shot simply lied. Decades later records were released of the cabinet discussions. These included people telling the Premier (our equivalent of a state Governor) of these serious flaws in the case. He told colleagues he didn't care as there was an election coming and looking tough of crime was always a winner. Sir Henry Bolte won that election in a landslide and one of the main bridges in Melbourne is named after him. Its now fairy well accepted that Ronald Ryan was hung for political not judicial reasons.
    1
  7466. 1
  7467. 1
  7468. 1
  7469. 1
  7470.  @johnhughes2124  Or yeah the technology for enrichment is totally understood. All of the countries with nuclear power have the capability of developing nuclear weapons. BUT (and here's the point) EVERYONE and I really do mean everyone in the nuclear industry is going to know exactly what they are doing. There's not that many enrichment plants in the world and most countries get their fuel from other countries with that capability. So if they suddenly start buying the sort of gear needed its going to be noticed just like we knew what the Iranians were doing. Its just not the sort of thing that can be done an nobody notices. That's what we got told back in 2005. Plus the actual world trade in Uranium is incredibly well documented. So everybody knows who's getting what in the way of raw energy. So if a country was to buy X tons of Yellow Cake (Uranium oxide) then we'd all know how much fuel that should produce. Say if a country has 2GW of nuclear power and they bought enough YC to power 3GW then we'd know they are holding extra. The more frightening aspect to this is spent fuel which doesn't have that much fissile material (U235) because that's what got burnt up in the reactor. The problem is what can be done with spent fuel. First its useful if you want to make a dirty bomb which is low tech but would be utterly devastating to a city. That's low tech. The really scary aspect of spent fuel is the "other stuff" in the fuel pellets like Plutonium. That's because plutonium can be used in compression bombs. They sound really simple but compression bombs require ultra-high quality explosive triggers of you don't get even compression and it simply doesn't go off. Trying to develop those triggers would also be very difficult to hide. So the reality is that no matter what anyone tries its going to take a lot longer than Peter thinks and everyone is going to know what you're up to.
    1
  7471. 1
  7472. 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
  7473. 1
  7474. Australian here: Never heard of or seen this guy until a few days ago and the question I have is: Where TF have the Dems been hiding him? Every time he has appeared in an interview he sounds sensible and knows WTF is going on. Do any of you realise just how much the years POTUS election has scared the crap out of us? There's 8 Billion people on the planet and 7.7 Billion of us have no say in POTUS which is fair as he's YOUR POTUS not ours, BUT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHO YOU CHOSE. And these days its a big effing deal who you chose because of a few things. NOTE: The rest of the World doesn't really need America to help fix any of these issues. Its just that without America they go from effing hard to almost effing impossible and if certain American behave they way they do then these issues become impossible. FIRST America is still 25% of the World's economy and SECOND the US Dollar is still the worlds reserve currency and almost every international transaction is done in US$ or the currency exchanges are backed by US$. 1) There's an out of control SCOTUS and that effects us. Maybe not as much as it effects you but ANY dispute anyone has with an American company and they drag it back into the US Court System like Chevron did with the Ecuadorians. Go look what Chevron did to their lawyer Steven Donziger. 2) There's an out of control Israel and that effects not just the Middle East but the entire World because of the issues with the Suez Canal and global shipping. AND YES we know certain Americans are involved in making that a disaster. 3) There's an out of control Russia AND YES we all know certain Americans are involved in making that a disaster. 4) There's the staggering wealth issue in the world that's the real cause of the refugee crisis AND YES we know there's a bunch of American companies involve din that. 5) Then there's the energy crisis AND YES WE ALL KNOW it was America who blew up the Nordstream system so that certain America companies could get into the international trade in LNG. 6) Climate change. So you guys picking a POTUS and VPOTUS with brains that actually work is pretty darn important to the other 7.7 Billion of us who get no say in it.
    1
  7475. 1
  7476. 1
  7477. I'm Australian but went to college in America. As an outside observer with a descent understanding of America you've hit the nail on the head. Trump has been allowed to get away with anything and everything he wants. On that I think 2 people in particular have an incredible amount of blame - Mitch McConnell and Merrick Garland. Twice McConnell could have put Trump in his place. Imagine where we'd all be if at the First Impeachment they had done HONESTLY done their. It was obvious Trump have overreached with that phone call. They should have done EXACTLY what the did with Clinton and found him GUILTY but NOT required he be thrown out of office. As part of that they should have forced Jared & Ivanka OUT of the Whitehouse and stopped Trumps endless rallies and told Trump his job was in the Whitehouse NOT trapsing around the country playing golf and riling up crowds with BS. The 2nd Impeachment McConnell should have simply said - GET OUT and STAY OUT. This where Garland utterly failed the American people. His absolute failure to do ANYTHING regarding Trump is so damn hopeless that when they make a movie about it the tile of the film should be "Hopeless!" At his core he's another of these ideologically driven clowns. Garland's an institutionalist who believes that ANY prosecution of a president is wrong. Its the same garbage they did with Nixon's Pardon. Nixon wasn't even charged with anything and yet they gave him a blanket pardon without ever explaining what he did or holding him accountable for it. The stupidity of this Institutionalist nonsense is that the STAIN Nixon left and the STAIN Trump left remain in place. At least with Clinton they slapped him down and told him "Don't do that again or get out!" McConnell basically told Trump "We aren't going to limit what you do. So have at it!" Garland basically told Trump "Don't worry because whatever you do I'm not going to ever prosecute you!" There's other too, but those 2 deserve to be publicly shamed.
    1
  7478. 1
  7479. 1
  7480. 1
  7481. 1
  7482. 1
  7483. 1
  7484. 1
  7485. 1
  7486.  @UsefulCharts  I'd just like to point out 1 small fact regarding the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are all quite well aware of the pronunciation debate over the tetragrammaton. They all accept that in ancient Israel that it was probably pronounced (phonetically) Yah-way. In fact Witnesses know quite well that the spelling Jehovah and the way you have pronounced it here its the Anglicised version of the name and that in many other languages it is spelt and pronounced differently and it has been that way for centuries. If you go to sources like the Oxford dictionary it will tell you that the spelling and pronunciation of the tetragrammaton YHWH IN ENGLISH is just as you have spelt it (Jehovah) and pronounced it in this video. I know the spelling Jehovah was used in the King James Bible published in 1611, which is just over 240 years before before Charles Taze Russell (1852 – 1916) was born. I'd expect you know the reason that nobody does know how it was pronounced in ancient times is oddly highlighted in the film Life of Brian during the stoning scene. The Jews by that time rarely used the name of God to avoid violating the 3rd commandment about using God's name in a vain or useless way. I'd expect you know that in the earliest form of written Israelite language there are no vowels. So in the oldest inscriptions we just have the 4 consonants YHWH. By the time the Israelites did use vowels they'd stopped using the name. The assumption that it was pronounced (phonetically) Yah-way is based on similarly spelled names like Yehoshua which is the older Hebrew/Yiddish version of Joshua. Its like the way Spanish people pronounce Jesus as if it was spelt Hay-zus with a 'H' and 'z'. Its like how Juan is the Spanish version of John but its pronounced as if it starts with a 'W.' I hope that helps in any of your future studies or publications.
    1
  7487. 1
  7488. 1
  7489. 1
  7490. 1
  7491. 1
  7492. 1
  7493. 1
  7494. 1
  7495. 1
  7496. 1
  7497. I clicked the like before Steve had finished the intro. Back in July 2019 Mark Blyth gave a lecture in Canada at McMaster on Global Trumpism. After the lecture there was a Q&A and he was asked about Bitcoin. You can find it here on YT the video title is "Mark Blyth - Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy" The Bitcoin question is at 1:17:52 in that video. In a subsequent interview Mark noted a Bank of England Quarterly Report from Q1 2014 that has 2 articles in it explaining WHAT MONEY IS and HOW MONEY IS GENERATED. Google "bank of england report q1 2014" and it should be the first link which will give you a 114page pdf. Its the first 2 articles in that document. I also watched a Gary Stevenson video on what money is (hear on YT) Yanis Varufakis did an interview on the David Pakman Show (hear on YT) and when quizzed about how the pro-crypto people saw the inherent issues in crypto as FEATURES instead of BUGS Yanis replied "That only shows how ignorant they are!" As Mark Blyth said Cryptos ARE NOT money because. 1) They are NOT units of account. 2) They CANNOT be used for reliable exchange of value because they are too unstable. 3) They CANNOT be used as a reliable store of value because they are too unstable. I'm an engineer and I got the 2nd and 3rd items pretty easy. That first item got me for a bit until I read the bank of England report. Money is to Value the same that Meters is to Length and Celsius is to Temperature. Its a standardised method to measure value. The idea of standardised systems like the Metric System is what makes engineering possible and with it all the stuff that makes modern society what it is. Similarly money is what makes economies possible. Prior to the almost universal acceptance of the metric system most countries had their own systems of weights and measures just like they had their own currencies. That's the important thing the Metric system exists and works because its backed by Nation States. Our currencies work because they are backed by our nation states or in the case of the Euro a block of nation states. No Crypto is backed or defined by a Nation state and as such have NONE are RELIABLE standard units of value. As Patrick Boyle reiterated what others had said, "Not all cryptos are scams. Some are also Ponzi schemes."
    1
  7498. 1
  7499. 1
  7500. 1
  7501. 1
  7502. 1
  7503. 1
  7504. 1
  7505. NO NO NO - This is where you throw this straight back at Trump, because HE'S a CONVICTED FELON! Kyle did not need to ramble on for 11+ minutes he merely need to point out Trumps flaws that are in his genes. Trump is a liar because its in his genes. Trump is a fraud because its in his genes. Trump had people killed with drone strikes and ordered the executions of 13 Americans (go look it up), so he's also a killer because its in his genes. For anyone who doesn't believe that Trump ordered the executions of 13 Americans think back to the time just after he LOST the 2020 election in December 2020. Trump ordered the executions of the next 3 Federal prisoners on death row. It made news at the time because it was the first time in over 120 years that a president had ordered the execution of a federal prisoner during a lame duck period. In part he was claiming he was because he was "tough on crime" to counter the claims he was giving pardons to friends like Roger Stone and Mike Flynn and associates of friends like the Blackwater 4 that Kyle mentioned. Recently I went and checked those 3 executions just to be sure of my facts. What I found was amazing. Since the 1976 re-introduction of the death penalty (the Gregg decision) the US Federal Government ahs only executed 16 people. The US federal government generally leaves the task to the states. Not a single person was executed under Presidents, Cart, Reagan, Bush (, Clinton, or Obama. The first to use this power was George W Bush who had 3 people executed the first of whom was Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma City bomber. The other 13 were by Trump and he only started executing people in July 2020. In the run up to the 2020 election he had 7 people executed, AFTER LOSING 3 more and then finally 3 more AFTER the January 6th riot. This is all listed on the Wikipedia page titled "List of people executed by the United States federal government"
    1
  7506. 1
  7507. 1
  7508. 1
  7509. 1
  7510. 1
  7511. 1
  7512. 1
  7513. 1
  7514. 1
  7515. 1
  7516. 1
  7517. 1
  7518. 1
  7519. 1
  7520. 1
  7521. 1
  7522. 1
  7523. 1
  7524. 1
  7525. 1
  7526. 1
  7527. 1
  7528. 1
  7529. 1
  7530.  @hb1338  Do clowns like you EVER STOP AN READ what people are saying before you start to to lecture them. FIRST - Had the FAA still been the organisation certifying aircraft for commercial passenger transportation then there WOULD NOT have been MCAS as it was used on the Max-8. There would NOT have been any decisions being made by clowns with business degrees or MBAs or economics degrees. The changes to the FAA had nothing to do with pilots or engineers, but it fits right in with neoliberal doctrine of de-regulating and downsizing all regulatory agencies. Other than the FAA those same people have been busy chopping the guts out of agencies like the FDA and EPA across the world. Most of the time it has nothing to even do with profits as a lot of those people simply believe that ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY is BAD and needs to be curtailed. SECOND - I am an aerospace engineer with a pilots license with an aerobatics endorsement. PLUS one of my frat brothers is a senior 737 instructor whose airline sent him to Boeing to help sort the Max-8 mess out and he's told me a couple of things I can't repeat. I'm also formally qualified in industrial safety systems which do the same sort of override function as MCAS did but on industrial plants. So I am very well aware of how you assess and test such systems BEFORE you deploy them and how you then field test them to make sure they are doing EXACTLY as planned. I can explain EXACTLY in detail the FMEA and CHAZOP processes that would have uncovered the MCAS issue BEFROE IT EVER FLEW. Sorry but I get piʂʂed off when ignorant stupid little clowns who don't know what they are talking about start lecturing people about things they think they have expertise in. More often than not clowns LIKE YOU who don't listen CAUSE THE NEXT ACCIDENT. So I suggest you learn how to listen to people or one day you'll be the cause of something bad and someone like me will be right in front of you AND YOU WONT LIKE WHAT HAPPENS.
    1
  7531. 1
  7532. 1
  7533. 1
  7534. 1
  7535. 1
  7536. 1
  7537. 1
  7538. 1
  7539. 1
  7540.  @colinhaney  Part of my point is that the problem we see in America right now, which are complex and don't have easy solutions for, are also present across the world. I'm Australian but went to college in America on a sports scholarship - so I wasn't just there for an exchange semester. I did engineering but a pack of my frat brothers were pre-law and they dragged me into lots of discussions about things like the Bill of Rights. I can barely believe that what's happening around Trump and the 2020 election. That's the sort of stuff we argued about NEVER being able to happen. I used to argue that thigs could change and that if you weren't careful any nation could fail. They were adamant that the US Constitution wouldn't allow anyone to do these sorts of things. They argued that the 1st Amendment would make sure that NO US Government would be able to get away with lying to the American people. "Freedom of the Press" was the granite block they built so many arguments on. But whoever considered that America's "Free Press" would someday be owned and controlled by a handful of billionaires? What really scares me right now is that we (here in Australia) have our own version of Trump. A real POS named Clive Palmer and he's using the same tactics Trump used. Tell a small fact to sound credible and then ram home a bunch of lies I am being drowned in his adds here on YT. During our last election he fleeced one of his own companies to pay for his campaign. That's illegal here, particularly when that company is not financially sound. Yet, like Trump, he has enough money and lawyers to get away with it. I've seen or heard other similar reports from around the world of billionaire influence that's out of control and how they make doing anything that helps the general population better off incredibly difficult. Their profits come first. Our lives don't matter. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️
    1
  7541. POINT 1: Gigi Foster is NOT a medical doctor and no qualifications at all to be handing out pandemic response advice to anyone. POINT 2: You at 73 are exactly the sort of person Gigi said we should let die because you're worthless old person with high medica costs and we'd be better off spending the money on other things. Go watch her interview on 60 Minutes for which other professors at UNSW criticised her for. POINT 3: Jay Bhattacharya was heavily criticised by other scientist for his STATISTICAL analysis where he claimed that 80,000 people in Santa Clara had COVID. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pandemic POINT 4: These 2 have repeatedly pointed out during this 1h11m discourse that we should not allow our society to be dominated by powerful full rich people and yet they are also representatives of a number of extremely powerful American Billionaires. The Great Barrington Declaration Jay co-authored was funded via the Brownstone Institute which is an American Libertarian Think Tank funded by Anarcho-Capitalist Jeffery Tucker. POINT 5: They lied about the data, notably about Sweden and where Australia actually sits. But that's a longer discussion and I will happily present anyone with the facts of those lies. FYI - I'm an Australian who went to University in America. The American Libertarians are the most radical of America's political ideologies. These include people like the Koch brothers one of whom ran against Ronald Reagan because he thought Reagan wasn't conservative enough. Consider that Gigi wants to put a number on what she perceives as "your value to society." That's what her "qualies" are really about. That's the same type of idea the Nazis to justify their experiments on orphans and mentally ill patients to find out what combinations of drugs killed fastest. The simplest way to describe these extreme Libertarians is to sum up their ideology in the simple sentence. "I want what I want and I don't care what it does to your life or what it costs you."
    1
  7542. 1
  7543. 1
  7544. 1
  7545. 1
  7546. 1
  7547. 1
  7548. 1
  7549. 1
  7550.  @richardvinsen2385  Simple answer - scholarship. Its now one of my life goals that if I get lucky (financially speaking) then some other kids will get to have what I got. There's one downside to the scholarship system. When you're in your late teens early 20s you just don't have the life experience to appreciate how FORTUNATE you are. I distinguish the difference between fortunate and lucky as: Anyone can be lucky over anything, but it takes appreciation of that luck to turn it into being fortunate. Like many others I was lucky to get that scholarship but remained lucky because I was too young to appreciate it. These days with an extra 35+ years of life I consider myself fortunate because I can now appreciate it. I did aerospace engineering during Reagans Star Wars era so without that scholarship there was no way for any non-American to get into that course because it was so oversubscribed at that time. It annoyed the crap out of me that I had to take these darned humanities courses because there were people who claimed it would make better people out of us engineers. I was wrong and they were right. These days I am finding those classes to be incredibly useful because that stuff helps. For example - on of and maybe the single biggest issue in the world right now is the energy crisis. Forget everything else, without energy everything collapses. Thanks to having done ECON-101 I can explain what went wrong. The energy crisis was caused 100% by economists who thought they could manage the energy systems of the world the same way they managed other things based on free market ideology. Thanks to having done classes like ECON-101 I can explain why that was never going to work because an energy supply system is fundamentally NOT like a supermarket or the stock market. In a supermarket or the stock market there's choice in abundance. You can choose this milk that milk, this meat that meat, these chips, this chips,...... etc. There's no choice in the electricity supply because there's there's only 1 energy grid your house can connect to. Yanis Varoufakis the famous Greek Economist explained that a while back and it also applies to water and wate water. Could you imagine what the cost would be to build and maintain multiple energy grids and water systems in parallel so people could have choice. So the free market model is impossible to make work with energy and water because it can't give the basic choices needed to make it work. Sorry but the free market economists caused the energy crisis, not the War in Ukraine or anything else. But try being an engineer and explaining that to an economist. You have a better chance of herding cats.
    1
  7551. 1
  7552. 1
  7553. 1
  7554. 1
  7555. 1
  7556. 1
  7557. 1
  7558. 1
  7559. 1
  7560. 1
  7561. 1
  7562. 1
  7563. 1
  7564. 1
  7565. 1
  7566.  @charlesmangum3108  Both of what solar and wind or renewable and base load. The Germans spent €1.3 Trillion on renewables and they found out a few things. 1: For every 1kW of coal that gets turned of you need around 2.2kW of wind & solar to replace it. 2: Wind is best from late afternoon until early morning which is almost the opposite of solar. So if they are balanced from an engineering perspective you can lower the 2.2kw to around 1.7kw (about 20-25%). So if a country the size of Germany could have saved about €400 Billion it would have left plenty for batteries. They expect to eventually make all that back because they now know how to engineer large renewable power infrastructure more efficiently. 3: Renewables have a low energy production by land area compared to most other forms of generation. This is one of the things I hate that Greenies ignore, because its also the main reason why we do need a form of electricity production that's high density for the land area it occupies. If that high density option is also a base load (its available 24/7/365) then its got 2 bases covered. 4: They worked out the real monetary value of bulk electricity storage. The Germans are pretty good at manufacturing quality. What many people don't realise is that their ideology is partly driven by profit. They worked out long ago that if you make something (anything) and its rejected by the buyer as faulty or poor quality then you are stuck with the bill for materials, labor and energy and CAN'T IT BACK. I'm an engineer who's worked in the auto industry and had this explained to me. Financially they are called "unrecoverable losses." With wind and solar the sun only shines so many hours each year and the wind only blows so many hour each year. ANY SECOND/HOUR/DAY of sun or wind they CAN'T SELL to the market is the equivalent of a poorly made product - its an unrecoverable loss. Everyone thinks storage is necessary for stable power supply and it is BUT its also incredibly important FINANCIALLY. 5: The single biggest factor the Germans worked out was that if your geography is suitable you can have a massive chunk of your energy coming from renewables. BUT there's a limit to how much and then it gets horribly expensive. This is also the SAME for every other energy source. If you get to narrowly focused then you eventually need a backup and its the backup that gets expensive. Its like racing cars, making a fast car is one thing but as you started chasing the final 1% its gets Formula 1 expensive. Its the same for almost any engineered system including power generation. The Germans made a massive blunder by letting the Greenies have their way when it cams to what they switched off first - their nuclear or their coal. THIS explains why I don't like Greenies. They made an emotional decision and shut off the nuclear which was working fine and produced very few GHGs. Instead (after spending €1.3 Trillion) their GHG emissions didn't fall because they had to run their dirty old coal fired units even harder. If they had have left the nuclear on then their GHG emissions would have dropped massively. The issue isn't if we will have a huge amount of our energy future coming from wind & solar. Its a matter of what the complimentary technology we have is and how much we need of it. My bet is that just as renewables will have some variety so will the complimentary. About the only thing I am certain of is that NONBODY will be (or shouldn't be) building any new coal fired power stations. If you wat a live able planet and a future the answer is NO. This is half the hassle I have as an engineer. Instead of doing what's sensible we have utter clowns like Cory Bernardi playing their biased games to their biased audience while the utter clowns on the other side keep playing their biased games to their biased audience. Because of those 2 sides being stupid we aren't making progress when we desperately need to.
    1
  7567. 1
  7568. 1
  7569. 1
  7570. 1
  7571. 1
  7572. 1
  7573. 1
  7574. 1
  7575. 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
  7576. 1
  7577. 1
  7578. 1
  7579. 1
  7580. 1
  7581. 1
  7582. 1
  7583. I'm an Australian engineer and work in our mining sector. I followed what Lynas Corp our biggest rare earth producer was doing. I was working out of Perth when they made their announcements for mining and the construction of a processing plant in Malaysia. The plant in Malaysia was built because the Malaysians subsidised it. It was built was going to cost a lot more in Australia because we have environmental laws. The local Malaysians are trying to close the plant because its so bad. When Lynas were pushing their promos for investors they described a lot of what had happened. One of the biggest and richest RE deposits in the world is the hills behind Los Angeles. But it ended up in temporary shutdown because of low market prices, which is very common in the mining industry. The Chinese bought the processing machinery from that mine and took it all too China. That's also not rare in mining. Quite often people buy mines so they can move all the hardware to another mine. There are people who specialise in dismantling mine sites and selling the stuff item by item. So the Americans let the Chinese take the hardware, because they knew full well how worn it was and that the actual reserve in California would still be there for a future time. They could easily build a new plant at that mine and get back into production. Why should they when they can let the Chinese chew through their reserves? So Peter's quite right about most of this, but he misses a few details, but then I 'm an engineer and he's not.
    1
  7584. 1
  7585. 1
  7586. 1
  7587. 1
  7588. 1
  7589. 1
  7590. 1
  7591. 1
  7592. 1
  7593. 1
  7594. 1
  7595. 1
  7596. 1
  7597. 1
  7598. 1
  7599. 1
  7600. 1
  7601. 1
  7602. 1
  7603. 1
  7604. 1
  7605. 1
  7606. 1
  7607. AUSTALIAN ENGINEER HERE: 1) This is NOT just a problem for Britain its a problem across the entire developed world including Australia. 2) This is 100% THE FAULT OF ECONOMISTS This started with American Economist Milton Freidman who's view was Governments are the problem and markets are the solution. 2 of his greatest acolytes were Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who famously said "Governments are NOT the solution. Governments are the problem." Milton Friedman also_"argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders."_ (Wikipedia) and to maximise profits. The argument that deregulated markets would deliver "cheaper energy with better services" IS ILLOGICAL How can anyone expect there to be any stable market for anything when the OBLIGATION of every CEO in that market is to maximise profits. EITHER they collude to raise prices and lower costs OR they fight it out Hunger Games style until a single victor emerges and then there's no competition and the victor can do whatever they like. I will grant to any economist that in the case of fast moving consumer goods where there are many suppliers, many product options and many options to buy those goods from then Freidman's ideology can work. The problem is that things like infrastructure, water and energy ARE NOT LIKE fast moving consumer goods. They are ESSENTIAL SERVICES to society and the costs involved in DO NOT HAVE a market solution. This is also why economists have made a mess of public education and public health care across the world in recent decades. Economists can't comprehend that there are these ESSENTIAL functions and services that need to be manged by government, NOT so the government can make money but so that the private sector can make money. Roads & bridges DO NOT need to make money they need to enable everyone else to move about and move stuff and make money. Education systems DO NOT need to make money they need to supply private industry with educated workers or with people who can make money and buy their goods and services. Hospitals DO NOT need to make money they need to get people healthy so they can go back to making money. In Britain right now is Hinkley Point C. It took 7 years to approve & design with a 10 year construction period. Even at higher energy prices it will take close to a decade to pay off and then start earning money. How does anyone ask a banker or CEO in the 50s to spend £40+ Billion knowing they wont be making a positive return until they are in there 70s? However if you ask the representative of a nation state to invest in something where over the next 80 years your nation shall grow and prosper from that investment then its a completely different matter. I have done the math of this and depending on how much the French STATE OWNED entity EDF can earn from Hinkley Point C then the French shall not only get their money back but PAY FOR at least 2, possibly 3 and if they work it well enough 4 power stations (8 x EPR 2 reactors in total). This is why Mr Macron could safely order 8 EPR 2 reactors because he know the British Economists are to stupid to do the math and it will NOT be the French people paying for those reactors it will be the British people paying for those reactors. So yeah right now the French people might be asking why are we paying for a power station in Britain. The answer is very simple: So it can pay for the next 2, 3 or 4 in France. AND before you ask. YES Australia is being just as stupid with its energy sector because like the British Economists advising the British Government our Economists advising our Government went to Oxford and Cambridge too. Except for the ones who went to Harvard and Yale.
    1
  7608. 1
  7609. Another Australian here and I am old enough to remember all the UFO sightings that we supposedly had in the 1970s following the Apollo Moon Landings. In most cases they were all debunked as aircraft or meteors. There was a famous one of what clearly looked like a classic saucer shaped object flying near the hills outside Las Angeles. Because there were Hills in the background people knew the distances. So they knew how large it was and how fast it was travelling and people went "Ah Ha" The someone did the basic image analysis. Because it was filmed on the old classic super-8 what they basically had was several 100 still images and they overlapped them. It became really obvious it was just a Cessna but it was flying at an angle to the camera where the light just came of it in a way that at the distance it was it looked like a classic 1950s flying saucer. How about all those early astronomers who looked through their telescopes and saw "canals" on Mars??? In a documentary (back in the 80s or 90s) I remember seeing a psychologist do an experiment on it once they took groups of high school arts class students and asked them to draw an object they had put at a distance beyond what most people could clearly distinguish details. The object was simply a circle on a flat surface with some random blobs inside the circle. No matter how many times they did it the majority of people would include lines connecting the blobs. There is something weird about the human visual cortex that when it can't distinguish details on a distant object it will add details in an effort to recognise what it might be. Psychologists have known about this stuff for decades.
    1
  7610. I'm Australian and the interesting thing he said about Obama killing of pathways for people to come into the party and rise through the ranks is that its also a major issue in BOTH Australia and Britain. Its more obvious in Britain than in Australia where Boris Johnson simply killed off anybody with functioning braincells that he could. That's how they ended up with Liz "Who needs a brain" Truss as Prime Minister. The only reason Rishi Sunak survived Boris's purges was his money. Here in Australia its less obvious but where it can be seen is with elected officials on the fringe of the main parties at the federal level and away from the executive people at the state level. At the federal level we have some really crap people who only got elected because they were chosen by the party hacks and were in safe seats. At the state level in almost every state other than the people immediately around the Premier (our equivalent to a Governor) the rest of the people are mostly incompetent. When I mean incompetent I really do mean INCOMPETENT. Every time some of them step in front of a microphone its an embarrassment to be an Australian. There is a couple of common factors to all 3 countries - America, Britain & Australia: 1) The insane level of influence of the media and especially the Murdoch family. 2) The insane level of influence of the super rich on government policy AIDED by the Murdoch family and lobbyists. 3) The insane level of influence on government policy and government programs by UN-ELECTED CONSULTANTS.
    1
  7611. 1
  7612. 1
  7613. 1
  7614. 1
  7615. 1
  7616. 1
  7617. 1
  7618.  @crypticscrutiny1153  You've unfortunately hit the nail on the head. What do we do? History sadly tells us that when the political elite become totally disconnected from the reality of the rest of society or just as badly DON'T CARE or even worse BOTH is NOT a NEW thing. Go and look at the list of revolutions and civil wars that the Europeans have faced. There wasn't just the French and Russian Revolutions those were just 2 of the more significant ones and have since become well known. Most of the others have simply been lost in history. Look at the American Revolution and what caused it. THIS IS A BIG IF - I have a great fear that the entire Western World is going to tear itself apart before too long IF WE DON'T put our Oligarchs back in their place. Unlike the many people I don't have any problems with people becoming Billionaires. My issue (and I think this is far more important) is HOW they got that money & wealth and HOW they are hanging onto it, BECAUSE its the PRACTICES of how they got there and the how they hang onto it that are wreaking havoc across our societies. Prof. Mark Blyth (Brown U.) said a while back that the Chinese looked at the American Billionaires and the Celebrities and when they started to see their own Billionaires and Celebrities mouthing off and handing out advice on how to rub things they (paraphrasing) went "NO farking way" and locked a few of them up. NO trials, NO cases and NO "free this" or "free that." They just said "NO. Now go spend some quiet time and learn that WE are in charge NO YOU!" The current joke goes: "If America saw what America was doing to America, then America would invade America to save America from America." What America needs is its version of the Chinese solution. You need to shove a couple of these clowns into jail BUT done the right and proper way by following the same laws that average Americans have to follow. The problem with getting it done is that BOTH the Democrats and GOP are both beholden to the Billionaire cash they live off that they simply will not do it. Go watch Jon Stewart's vid on corruption. So it wont happen while the only options are Dem or GOP and sadly RFK is so disconnected from reality I doubt he knows which day of the week it is. I hear his supporters latest joke is "Sure, RFK had brain worms, but at least he had a brain for the worms to feed off!" Trump was a change away from the standard Dem/GOP goon show but he was the WRONG person and instead made many things worse. What America actually needed and still needs is a REAL CHANGE from the standard Dem/GOP goon show that works for everyone not just a few. Trump was never going to be that and RFK will never be that. I do have a suggestion but it takes time to explain. FYI - as I was typing this and listening to another video I noticed that there are posts of a story where Ray Dalio has said that there's BETTER than a 1 in 3 chance of America having a Civil War. Go and type "ray dalio civil war" into Google. Hmmmmmmm!
    1
  7619. 1
  7620. 1
  7621. @ Engineer here: 2 great points that are not mentioned often enough. There are other problems too. 1) Most notably the actual temperature is NOT high enough. This was the problem we had in Australia with Geothermal. We have a number of hot spots various parts of Australia but the pilot plants we ran on them just never proved viable or economical. It might sound strange to non-engineers but you really want dry-steam (that has no water vapor) rather than wet steam (which still has some water vapor) so that you get the best efficiency out of the turbines. To get that you need around 600C the 400C in the mantle just isn't enough. Also in that part of the process where the turbines are you wan to use 100% pure water to avoid scaling and that means using heat exchangers between the the water going into the ground and the water being used to drive turbines and that also reduces efficiency. 2) Our biggest problem was that these hot spots were so far off grid the cost of extending the grid made any geothermal in Australia economically unviable. That might change because we are now extending our grid outwards for the solar generating systems. 3) The best places for this technology are in geologically active places like New Zealand and Iceland which already have substantial geothermal power. The other place where the raw heat is conveniently close to the surface are active volcanoes, but then who's going to risk several billion Euro, Dollars, Yen or Yuan building a power station next to an active volcano?
    1
  7622. 1
  7623.  @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
  7624. ​ @adamdavis1648  Its one from around 2 years ago so it wont be that easy to find. The report was published September 2022 and the Politico report was mid to late 2023. So Kyles vid was in the second 1/2 of 2023. If you google for it Politico doesn't come up but interestingly a few banks reported it at the time as well as a couple of Think Tanks but almost NOTHING from the media. I remember Kyle did that video because it was so rare. Krystal said nothing at the time. David Pakman and others said nothing at the time. That is the thing more than anything else that blows my mind. I think its because that report condemns BOTH Dems and GOP. Ans so you know I have checked and found we have similar stats here in Australia AND NOBODY HERE wants to discuss family wealth at all. None of our media Left or Right discuss it at all. By the same measure we have around 13 million people living in or on the verge of poverty with almost no chance to ever recover. You don't even have to do much to realise that if you get that many people re-engaged with the economy you'll get a major boost. Mark Benioff (Salesforce) said that about 3 years ago and stunned a bunch of Wall Streeters live in air. He basically said you don't need to get these people big salaries but if you can get them enough to secure housing and a means to re-engage with the economy there's a massive boost to be made. If we got a million people to just spend about $670 a year on "stuff" the GST (sales tax) would be about $100 per person. So for every million people that's $100 million in tax revenue and $570 million in ADDITIONAL economic activity. The only problem would be the availability of "stuff" to by because like so many others we shut down vast slabs of our manufacturing..
    1
  7625. 1
  7626. 1
  7627. 1
  7628. 1
  7629. 1
  7630. 1
  7631. 1
  7632. 1
  7633. 1
  7634. 1
  7635. 1
  7636. They lost it a long time ago. I'm Australian and had a scholarship for swimming to an American college. An American girl I trained with for 2 summers was cheated out of a gold at the 92 Summer Olympics where the Chinese suddenly appeared with all these Amazonian girls and only the 1 male swimmer. It reeked of the former East German program. Nobody at first could figure out what was going on because there was lots of testing but no positive tests. Then one of the Australian coaches whose swimmer finished 3rd behind 2 Chinese complained that his swimmer was tested but the Chinese weren't. FINA said "NO its just Random chance." Then people started looking at the list of those tested and found that it was mainly Australian's, American's and Brits the 3 nations that tested ALL their swimmers at their pre-Olympic trials. But they only counted for about 1/2 to 2/3 of the list. The list was scattered with swimmers from all over the world. The only suspicious thing was that NO Chinese were tested, but then a few other countries had nobody tested as well. Then one of the British coaches asked one of his swimmers to look at the list. I was at the U. of Illinois and had competed against these Brits who were at Iowa in the same conference. This British swimmer pointed out that many of these other swimmers from other countries were also attending American universities. You see in the NCAA they had begun testing EVERY athlete back in 1986/87. I know that for a fact because I was there and was tested as part of that program. What the officials did in Barcelona was pick swimmers who were Australian, American, British or were at college in America. That way they knew they wouldn't get any positive tests, it would look random and they would avoid any scandals.
    1
  7637. 1
  7638. 1
  7639. 1
  7640. 1
  7641. 1
  7642. 1
  7643. 1
  7644. 1
  7645. 1
  7646. 1
  7647. 1
  7648. 1
  7649. 1
  7650. 1
  7651. 1
  7652. 1
  7653. OH YEAH - GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  7654. 1
  7655. In simplest terms - they want to believe in a future Don't forget we live in a world with a very uncertain future. Nobody actually knows what specifically will happen with climate change but we all know it will be hard times ahead. Then add in that we all know our political leaders are owned by the billionaire class. What do you think's driving both this type of blind belief that technology will save us or what's the rise of religious fundamentalism? There are people who really think Elon is going to take them to Mars in the next few years and save them from climate change. What does that sound like? FYI - I am an engineer. I did a degree in aerospace but work in automation, robotics and control systems. See those Yellow robots around 10 minutes. Those are Fanuc's a Japanese brand that I am trained on. There is real genuine frustration in the engineering world these days. There is so much misleading PR being pumped into the soft skulls of a gullible population its almost a full time job for some people explaining that the PR is just PR and ITS NOT FACT. Think about how many amazing technologies people promised that NEVER came into fruition. Where's Mark Zuckerberg's Libra (now called Diem)? What about nuclear fusion, faster than light travel or my favorite flying cars? In particular there's a staggering amount of ignorance regarding robotics and automation. Automation rarely costs anyone their job. Usually it saves jobs by making people more productive. Nobody packs up a company and moves it to China AFTER they spend money improving their production. Robots cannot think. They do as they are programmed to do. You program them to move in certain patterns and they do that again and again and again day in, day out within a defined accuracy. They don't complain or get sick and can work in the dark 24/7. They are great for repetitive tasks and totally hopeless for abstract tasks.
    1
  7656. 1
  7657. 1
  7658. 1
  7659. 1
  7660. 1
  7661. 1
  7662. 1
  7663. 1
  7664. 1
  7665. 1
  7666. Didn't need to really watch this. I already new the answer to what's happened since the fall of the Soviet System BUT this is a good video because it fills in a lot of the historical "how did it get here" background which I hadn't heard. The version I have heard of what happened since the fall of the Soviet system goes like this. In the 1990s the Russians unfortunately listened to American Economists like Jeffery Sachs. These were the clowns who told the Russians to sell or auction off all the Soviet State assets. It was the same ideology that started with Reagan and Thatcher in the 1970s driven by the Chicago School economists lead by Milton "Greed is Good" Freidman. I have been trying to work this stuff out for a couple of years now, because it affects my country Australia like it does so many. Mark Blyth (Brown U.) hosts the Rhodes Centre Podcast where he mostly talks to people who've written books on economics, political-economy and history. A couple of them have been highly critical of people like Jeffery Sachs for what they have done around the world and then blamed the people in those nations for the disasters that happened. AND YES they have blamed the Russians for the mess they helped create. Basically they tried to neo-liberalise Russia without understanding the Russian people or if they were ready. Its similar to the stupidity of ramming democracy down the throats of people in nations with none of the institutions needed in place to manage it. The giant problem with trying to flip Russia into a capitalist free market society in such a short time was that the only Russians with any real experience in capitalist systems were the KGB officers who'd served outside Russia. So why should anyone be surprised that it was Ex-KGB people who knew what to do and when to do it and how its turned out.
    1
  7667. Australia here - from the outside they do nothing different to every other non-conservative option in politics. THEY DON'T LISTEN and THEY DON'T LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES Go and watch a video of a lecture by Mark Blyth from July 2019 at McMaster U. (in Canada) during the Q&A after the lecture he was asked about Elizabeth Warren's policies. Its insanely accurate what he says. 1) He said Trump would win again if he didn't blow up the economy. Trump didn't blow up the economy COVID did and Trump botched the response and Biden won by default. 2) He said the strategy of the Democrats putting up candidates who they thought Republicans would vote for would NOT work especially if they alienated Bernie supporters doing it. Look what happened during the Harris campaign. It started with "we are changing to a new Democrat ticket" and then the DNC said "No you are NOT" and went straight to the strategy Mark Blyth described 5 years earlier, when they waved the Cheney's at them. Then you had people like Destiny openly tell the progressives NOT TO VOTE because we don't need you. Go watch the debate between Destiny and Cenk Uygur that David Pakman hosted. EVEN AFTER THE LOSS destiny was still holding onto blaming the progressives for the loss and admitting he told them NOT TO VOTE. HERE'S MY ISSUE 1) We (like a lot of other countries) now have to deal with Trump. 2) These Dum-o-crat campaign strategists work all over the world INCLUDING Australia and our Left (the Australian Labor Party) have used them in the past AND LOST (like in 2019).
    1
  7668. 1
  7669.  @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
  7670. 1
  7671. 1
  7672. 1
  7673. 1
  7674. The even bigger problem is that governments all over the world are being just as stupid. In Australia I first heard about this project a couple of years ago (see below) in a general news story about water management issues around the world and there are a lot of water management issues around the world. The problem for Beijing is that its main water supply the Yongding River was damned upstream for irrigation and now its dry. They built a dam on the Yongding to store and provide water for Beijing. Its never held a drop of water. This is a similar to the stories about the Aral Sea, the California Aquifer, the Hoover Dam, the conflicts developing over the Nile, the issues with the Jordan and the Dead Sea, the issues with over irrigation of the Tigris and Euphrates and then there's the mega issue of depletion of ground water across many parts of the world. In Australia we have the Murray-Darling system which has been so badly mismanaged we pump water back up the darling via a pipeline (from the Murray) to make up for stupidity on the Darling. Back in the 1950s we did the Snowy Mountain scheme where we dammed the Snowy River which had the highest flow of any river in Australia and diverted it through tunnels and pipes into the Murray. We generated electricity and provided a massive amounts of water for irrigation. The Murray joins with the Darling our longest river. Those 3 rivers combined no longer flow into the ocean because we extract so much water from them. This stupidity in China is being repeated around the world. There's not many countries that aren't being stupid with their water resources. Its just some are being more stupid than others and my country is high on the list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongding_River https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/china-claims-new-project-will-revitalise-the-yongding-river/10548942
    1
  7675. 1
  7676. 1
  7677. 1
  7678. 1
  7679. 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
  7680. 1
  7681. 1
  7682. 1
  7683. 1
  7684. 1
  7685. 1
  7686. TO ALL: David and Rolling stone don't actually go as far back in this MacGregor's history as they should. If you go and watch a PBS Frontline called "Rumsfeld's War" which was about how they got the Invasion of Iraq wrong. Long before Iraq in the aftermath of Vietnam the US military took a "Never Again" approach to everything. Which begs the question then how did they get Iraq so wrong? That's what PBS looked into. As they prepared for Iraq Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others wanted it to be like Desert Storm 2.0 with extras. They wanted to get in crush and then remodel the country. That was the problem the military don't remodel they smash stuff. So the military looked at the problem and saw that the issue WASN'T defeating the Iraqi Army it was securing the country. That required lots of manpower and that didn't work with Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz. In stepped MacGregor and he gave them a battle plan they liked. Smaller force, get in, be decisive then start the nation rebuilding in America's neocon image. It was all going to be easy according to him. Just like the Russians thought a couple of weeks ago. YES EVERYONE - This is the guy who wrote the battle plan for the invasion of Iraq. This is the guy who's plan lead to 170,000 civilian deaths, 1,000s of American deaths, 1,000s more of disabled veterans and other issues. Oh and it cost the American tax payer a couple of trillion dollars. Outside of the American right wing propaganda machine this guy is one of the biggest failures in recent military history. He's a joke nobody takes seriously. If the Invasion of Ukraine is failing (from the Russian side) then its because they too have a similar battle plan to what America had in Iraq. Listen to what he said about being fast and aggressive - that's exactly what he said 20 years ago that didn't work. You can find and watch (and I urge you all do) the PBS Frontline: "Rumsfeld's War" here on YT but its not on the PBS channel its by another YouTuber.
    1
  7687. 1
  7688. 1
  7689. 1
  7690. 1
  7691. 1
  7692. 1
  7693. 1
  7694.  @pavel9652  I'm actually an American educated Australian aerospace engineer and come up against this crap all the time. Back in 2002 I met Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmitt who mentioned Helium-3 which is a potential nuclear fuel and the only place its found in industrial amounts is the moon. So I went off to work in Australian's mining sector to get experience in building and operating mines. Here's 2 of my favorites, that show just how easy it is for people to just believe things at face value when they are said by powerful people. Jeff Bezos has claimed that he wants to take things like iron production from iron ore into space where there's plenty of cheap energy and the pollution isn't a problem. One mine I worked at makes the math really simple. Tom Price produces 20 million tons a year. Iron ore ranges from around 55% to 95% actual iron content by weight. 70% is what we'd call good quality iron ore and it makes the math really easy. The Space Shuttle could lift 30 tons into orbit and 16 to the ISS BUT it could only land with 14t. So its pretty easy to see that those 20 million tons out of Tom Price would require about 1 million Space Shuttle flights to get it back down. Here's the problem. Right now Australia produces around 825 million tons a year which is less than 1/3rd of the world's production of about 3,000 million tons. Other than the insane amount of fuel it would require lifting it all into space the bigger problem is the heat generated in slowing 2,000 million tons of iron plus the mass of whatever we'd use bringing it back down. We'd literally burn the atmosphere off the planet. Better still is Elon Musk's claim that we can terraform Mars. When you do the basic calculation of how much air by weight it would take just to cover Mars with an Earth standard atmosphere 1km thick which is only a fraction of what would be needed and does not even begin to deal with how you'd keep it attached to the planet with only 1/3rd the gravity and no magnetic field to protect it from the solar wind you get an answer of about 173 Trillion tons. I'm still wondering where Elon and his band of deluded follower think they are going to get 173 Trillion tons of air or how they think there going to get it to Mars and then keep it attached to the planet.
    1
  7695. 1
  7696. 1
  7697. 1
  7698. 1
  7699. 1
  7700. 1
  7701. 1
  7702. 1
  7703. 1
  7704. 1
  7705. 1
  7706. 1
  7707. 1
  7708. 1
  7709. 1
  7710. 1
  7711. 1
  7712. 1
  7713. 1
  7714. 1
  7715. 1
  7716. 1
  7717. 1
  7718. 1
  7719. 1
  7720. 1
  7721. 1
  7722. 1
  7723. 1
  7724. 1
  7725.  @shortfattoad7317  Your almost 100% right. My parents were both high school teachers and explained this to me 40+ years ago. There's a difference between the political and economic models countries use. Because of how countries have labelled themselves this last century most people don't separate them. Socialism, capitalism and communism are economic systems and these days almost always exist in some form in every country. In the past countries defined themselves by their political system - Democracy, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Monarchy, etc. Since Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of Nations" countries started to define themselves by their economics as much as their politics. It makes it a lot easier to hide that your a psychopathic totalitarian dictator or oligarch if you label your country by its economics and paint a rosy picture. If you take an honest look at most countries they have social systems of various types, collective ownership of various types and capitalism of various types all running side by side. So unless a country really pushes a dominant economic model over the others its almost impossible to call any country socialist, communist or capitalist, but they all do as part of their narrative. Here's an odd way to consider publicly listed companies in any capitalist country. Practically anyone can buy shares in these companies. Because people are investing their capital in those companies its considered capitalism. But if you take the basic concept that communism is the collective ownership of an enterprise by a community then publicly listed companies can also be seen as a type off communism. The difference is that unlike the rest of communism people can own as many shares as they can afford and they are free to come and go as they chose. The real difference in politics and economics is how much state control and individual freedom there is.
    1
  7726. 1
  7727. 1
  7728. 1
  7729. 1
  7730. 1
  7731. 1
  7732. 1
  7733. 1
  7734. Aerospace engineer here - Physicists have every right to scream about this. This is NOTHING more than yet another PR exercise by the AI promoters to claim how they are the supreme technology of our age. I'm Australian but did my degree in America at the U. of Illinois. I was there when the first of the CRAY Supercomputers arrived. They were significant because they finally allowed engineers to run far more complex models for things like aerodynamics and that's been massive to things like air travel, car design and many other aspects of engineering which the general public take for granted these days. I knew one of the team working in the Supercomputing centre. I once asked him what fancy new languages they had developed for the CRAY-2 and CRAY-XMP they had. He told me they still used FORTAN. The real work was in the compilers which translate computer code into the machine language that runs on the CPUs. Their new task was how to make EXISTING CODE run on multiple processors and get the most out having multiple processors. Today we all know multicore processors exist (like the computer you're on right now), but there was a time when they had to work out how to make multi-core processors work and I met one of the team who made them work. So I have been around people who made significant and massive changes to our world as we know it AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS NONSENSE ABOUT AI. This is something I am 100% in agreement with Sabine on. The computer engineering people whether is AI or Quantum computing is a lot of hype. Yes its making our world better and I make my living using computers, but computers are NOT going to save humanity from its many woes. They might help but they are NOT our saviors. This is just another PR exercise.
    1
  7735. 1
  7736. 1
  7737. 1
  7738. 1
  7739. 1
  7740. 1
  7741.  @pauloferreira7543  You are absolutely right. Sorry for the long answer, but do you know the game Assassins Creed 3? The 2 protagonists Connor and Haytham are actually good examples of American Liberalism (Connor) and American Realism (Haytham). I don't know if the guy who wrote parts of the dialog was a genius or just lucked out. Connor feels its right to kill those who would deprive people the right to choose their own destiny as in he believes in freedom. Even if people are not ready to handle freedom responsibly he feels the need to fight for it - its hardwired into his ideology. He's what Mearsheimer calls a Liberal. Haytham feels people are selfish and will do what they want without regard to society, even to its destruction. He believes freedom leads to chaos and therefore society needs the guidance of a firm hand. Anyone who gets in the road of their firm hand needs to be eliminated - its hardwired into his ideology. He's what Mearsheimer calls a Realist. There's a scene where they are fighting and when Haytham gets the upper hand he says. "Even when your kind appears to triumph. Still we rise again and do you know why? Its because the order is born of the a REALIZATION. We require no creed. No indoctrination by desperate old men. All we need is that the world be as it is." The word realization is actually in capitals in the subtitles. You can see it here at 5:37:48. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdS5V2L7YbY What he says is almost straight out of the American Realist playbook. Its why the neocons of the Bush 2.0 White House could justify Invading Iraq. If you look here at Realism under the sub heading "Assumptions" it lists 4 things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) Look at the next paragraph. Its an incredibly narcissistic view of humanity. And that's the world view Haytham has and anything is justifiable that allows him to be the "firm hand" in charge. You can see this narcissistic attitude in many Republicans (McConnell, Cruz, etc) and some Democrats notably Hilary Clinton.
    1
  7742. 1
  7743. 1
  7744. 1
  7745. 1
  7746. 1
  7747. 1
  7748. 1
  7749. 1
  7750. 1
  7751. There's been a few documentaries into the ways countries execute people. Way back in the 90s there was British documentary that highlighted that 90% of all people executed by nations during the 20th century up to that time were NOT even charged with a crime let alone got a trial. They went into all they ways people are executed and how long it takes, etc, etc. Among the more amazing things was where America got its information in lethal drug mixes. The source was from a group of Nazi doctors who experimented on orphans. As part of working out what to do with the Jews these doctors were trialing methods on orphans. Being very good at book keeping they had detailed notes on what they did which were recovered by American personnel. Another documentary was done by another British journalist about 10 years ago when the subject in Britain of dealing with extremists brought up the possible reintroduction of the death penalty. After discounting what many nations do, the journalist went and looked at how animals are slaughtered. One method stood out, Carbon Dioxide. If you flood an enclosed space with CO2 it simply knocks mammals out and they don't wake up. At best there's a brief moment of euphoria before passing out. Its insanely quick. During the Lake Nyos Disaster people literally took the next step and fell down dead -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos_disaster When the Journalist met the chief American doctor in charge of executions he told him about CO2. When told it was quick, painless and at worst incurred a moment of euphoria due to oxygen starvation the American doctor replied "Its a punishment, its not meant to be nice."
    1
  7752. 1
  7753. 1
  7754. 1
  7755. 1
  7756. 1
  7757. 1
  7758. 1
  7759. 1
  7760. 1
  7761. 1
  7762. 1
  7763. 1
  7764. 1
  7765. 1
  7766. 1
  7767. 1
  7768. 1
  7769. 1
  7770. 1
  7771. 1
  7772. 1
  7773. 1
  7774.  @acmefixer1  Dealing with your stuff one part at a time. 1) Nobody knows if we will hit 4C by the end of the century, but we do know that 1.5C is the tipping point where we will need to start geoengineering. 2) Its not going to be hell on earth 4C its just going to be damn fracking hard. Don't claim unliveable when people already know how to live in the harshest of environments from both the cold and hot side. 3) There is such a thing as overcapacity in renewables and it happens all the time. Its caused by a lack of a decent storage system. I AGREE we need to develop green hydrogen ASAP. The real issue is we need a way to easily get electricity back AND DON'T say fuel cells!. If they were good enough it would have been a done deal decades ago and they don't spit out AC power they spit out DC. Going from AC to DC is easy the other way isn't as easy and it involves losses. 4) NOBODY IS GOING TO STORE Hydrogen underground. That's an idiotic fantasy from people who have no idea what they are talking about. Hydrogen from a green electrolyser system is CLEAN. If you pump it into the ground that makes it dirty as well as consuming a lot of energy. After it comes out it would need processing. Compress it store it in tanks - done. For the energy recovery we need an on demand bulk system and the best option there is hydrogen fueled gas turbines with cogeneration (steam of the hot exhaust). Rolls Royce, GE and others worked out all the gas turbine issues for hydrogen out over 25 years ago in the belief that's what aviation was going to use. Cogeneration has been widely used for decades on other gas turbine systems so nobody has to figure it out. Try being less of a drama queen. It helps nobody.
    1
  7775. Over the past year there have been some truly stupid and ignorant comments. Of late the anti-vaxers and conspiracy clowns are fighting hard over that crown. But this comment might well challenge even the stupidest and most ignorant anti-vaxer, conspiracy clown and election fraudster might surrender to this stupidity. WHEN HAS Kyle ever been racist or sexist? And IN WHAT WAY is there anything racist or sexist about this video? Plenty of people have written or spoken many negative things about Neera Tanden these last few weeks and most of them to do with her links to Hilary Clinton and the 2016 debacle. Did you ever stop and consider that Kyle and others are right and that it has nothing to do with her skin and everything to do with her record, which is dreadful. She helped Hilary Clinton lose in 2016 and that's pretty awful. Plus she's also yet another Ivy League graduate (in her case Yale) like so many others. Both Clintons (Yale) and both Obamas (Princeton & Harvard) and many other top DNC officials are all Ivy League graduates. Professor Mark Blyth (from Brown another Ivy college) pointed out recently that the DNC needs to look outside the Ivy League. Not to be left out Ted Cruz is one as well (Princeton & Harvard). Look at her career, she's a professional career political hawk and this time people said NO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neera_Tanden If you do want to raise the question of why her and not some of the other career political hawks then that is a fair question.
    1
  7776. 1
  7777. 1
  7778. 1
  7779. 1
  7780. 1
  7781. 1
  7782. 1
  7783. 1
  7784. 1
  7785. 1
  7786. 1
  7787. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  7788.  @grandwonder5858  You're 1/2 right in that there's been some insane hypocrisy but that insane hypocrisy has been going on for decades. What you and everyone else is forgetting is just how bad Chinese swimming was in the 1990s. I am an ex-swimmer and know a shite load better than you just how bad they were. I even had a friend cheated out of a gold at Barcelona. It was actually a British coach who uncovered what FINA and the IOC did to cover it all up. I can explain they if you want but its not a short story and so we are clear there were a couple of other countries also well known to have their swimmers jacked up. Most notably Hungary. But then at the Sydney Olympics the US Track and field team turned up and among their athletes there had been OVER 150 failed tests in the year before they arrived in Sydney. C.J. Hunter the then husband of the later disgraced Marion Jones actually turned up in Sydney expecting to compete despite failing several tests. Marion Jones dominated the 100m sprint in a way nobody had seen since Florence Griffith Joyner and we all knew how jacked up she was. At the time people said how could Marion Jones do it and a couple of years later we found out during the BALCO scandal. SO YES you and others are dead right. There's some incredible hypocrisy going on, but then the Chinese have an incredible history of cheating with drugs at the Olympics and especially in swimming. They have NOBODY to blame but themselves for their reputation and the doubt that comes with it.
    1
  7789. 1
  7790. 1
  7791. 1
  7792. 1
  7793. 1
  7794. 1
  7795. 1
  7796. 1
  7797. I hate to break everyone's balls on PART of this. She's actually right that America does not have the energy grid set up for shifting everyone to electric cars and that nobody has a real DETAILED plan to get there, BUT THE REASON WHY there's no plan or progress is because of people like MTG. Remember the now infamous Exxon memo that told their people the plan was to delay all action on climate change for as long as possible? That and other factors, including narcissistic liars such as MTG, are combining into a perfect storm. Here's an explanation sorry if its longish. I'm an Australian engineer who went to college in America. We have the same problem here in Australia and the same problem is in Europe and Asia. This isn't simply an electric car or environmental issue. A few years ago I became aware of how badly Australia's energy grid was being managed. After the 1990s we just stopped building major power stations. By Major I mean those greater than 1,000 Megawatts (1 Gigawatt). Power plants like Diablo Canyon in California, which is 2256MW and Eraring in Australia, which is 2880MW. Diablo Canyon of 36 years old and Eraring is 40 years old. Most power stations are built for 25 years of life which they extend with rebuilds to 40 or more years. Think about how many of you have cars older than 25 years let alone 40. These are the big power stations that underpin our energy grids and keep modern society running. When I looked around its the same everywhere across the entire developed world. Except in China and a few rare cases we all stopped building new coal fired plants because of CO2 emissions. After Chernobyl and Fukushima everyone stopped building nuclear power plants. The problem has been masked by new wind and solar combined with more efficient appliances and lights, but we are starting to hit limits there. The problem is like we are running towards a cliff and people are too busy playing politics. All of our major power plants are now old and only getting older and less reliable. Here in Oz we are at the cliffs edge with old unreliable power stations. So there's not only a shortage of energy supply just to keep society going we don't have enough energy generation to change to electric cars. That's all before we ask where is all this Lithium to make the batteries coming from. Elon Musk's new mega-battery wont be able to make 3% of what's needed and that's by his estimates. So MTG's right that the infrastructure isn't there, BUT her fossil fuel friends ARE THE PROBLEM with getting it done. If there is one thing I'd fault David on is his oversimplification of the plan. Yes there is a general plan but NO there is NOT a detailed plan and the "devil is in the details." Its very frustrating to be an engineer when other people oversimplify what needs to be done. Things like where's all the lithium coming from for the batteries? And then how are we going to make that many batteries? Who's going to build all these new factories? David doesn't have to answer those questions but engineers do. Sorry for he longish comment.
    1
  7798. ENGINEER HERE: TO EVERYONE. The reason some of us engineers are pointing out nuclear needs to be on the table and discussed is the simple fact that to get to 100% renewables causes a couple of problems to how energy grids need to operate. You might have already heard of "grid stability" and there are 2 parts to that issue. 1) You have to be able to SUPPLY ENGOUGH energy into the grid to cater for the demands. This is the more common issue people have heard about. Wind & Solar systems need ENERGY STORAGE to cater for this issue. This can be done with things like batteries, but they have limits, pumped hydro which requires suitable geography and hydrogen which so far has not been widely used. Hydrogen is one of my picks but there's too many voices on that subject confusing everyone which is extremely annoying. There are some other technologies under development but those are the 3 most often discussed. 2) FREQUENCY STABILITY - this is rarely discussed but the YT Channel "Real Engineering" does a great job of explaining it in a video titled "The Problem with Wind Energy." He explains plans in Ireland to handle this with a giant fly wheel, which might work and would be fantastic if it does. Another way to deal with this is a very large power station with a very large turbine and nuclear plants are large and have huge steam turbines driving the generator. From an ENGINEERING perspective a large nuclear plant makes a lot of sense in handling BOTH issues with GRID STABILITY. YES it can be done with Hydro (pumped and normal) and Hydrogen Turbines but both Batteries and Hydrogen Fuel Cells are good for supply but cause frequency instabilities in a large energy grids because of how the inverters they need work AND YES I do know how inverters convert DC power into AC power. If you ask why this isn't being mentioned by the pro-nuclear people. The only answer I have is that they are as stupid as stupid can be. Nuclear isn't their issue anything that's NOT wind and NOT solar is their issue. To put it mildly the pro-nuclear people are often the worst enemies of nuclear power because of how stupid they behave.
    1
  7799. 1
  7800. 1
  7801. 1
  7802. 1
  7803. 1
  7804. 1
  7805.  @piotrtrebisz6602  On all points I'd agree, but I'd give one caveat. Xi Jinping has staked his domestic popularity on Belt & Road and that includes getting Taiwan back under CCP control. Its one of those things populists trap themselves with - making a bold claim on something and then FAILING to get it. It can shatter their base so every so often they force themselves into something. The Argentine military Junta famously did it over the Falkland Islands. China has a few huge issues that will eventually start to hit it. The 1st is already here with its idiotic ghost cities locking up insane amounts of money. The 2nd is the one child policy that skewed the size of a generation that can't just be fixed easily. 3rd that one child generation is horribly skewed towards males because of the Chinese cultural tradition of having a male carry on the family name. Remember they had those 30million orphaned girls at one stage. My mother was a high school teacher with history being one of her majors. She told me over 25 years ago that the one child policy would come back to haunt China. She was very concerned that the over emphasis on males would lead to a war. Nations where the fighting men (20-30) outnumbered the available women have a history of going to war. If your the king and you have a surplus of angry frustrated men its an easy solution to attack someone. Plus - lets not forget China has been on a 20 year program of building the biggest army and navy in history. And they wind their people up with these massive military parades. That's not to say anything is inevitable but the recipe is there for a monstrous clash. Its like having a giant pile of explosives. So long as nobody throws a match its not a problem.
    1
  7806. 1
  7807. 1
  7808. 1
  7809. 1
  7810. 1
  7811. ENGINEER HERE - I just want to correct or clarify something you said regarding manufacturing. By far the more important cost in manufacturing is ENERGY not labor. My degree is in aerospace but I work in industrial control systems and with that have spent many years in manufacturing and mining. There's a great myth that was started by economists in the late 70s that Western Manufacturing was uncompetitive due to wages. Although this was true in some industries it was NEVER TRUE in many industries. Where it was true was in low skill high labor content industries like garment manufacturing but even there the cost of electricity to run the spinning, weaving and sewing machines was just as important. It was also true in the American car industry but mainly within the AMERICAN owned manufacturers (GM, Ford,...etc) and that was because of the deal made with unions for health care insurance. That insurance added about $3,000 per car. So that part is as much to do with America's insane health care system as it does with wages. People need to think about countries like Germany which has very high wages and yet they also have a very successful manufacturing industry that ahs so far never been threatened by the cost of high wages. Part of the reason for this is not so much the people but the value generated per $ from those wages. The Germans had a high focus on quality and value. There's a part of German manufacturing mentality that goes a bit like this. "Yes our product is more expensive but if you buy that cheaper product your wasting money because its not going to work as well as ours." BECAUSE America is now starting to USE and not simply burn the gas of the giant shale fields in the Dakotas then America will have LOTS of cheap energy. General Electric (I have no connections there) has a new generation of gas high efficiency gas turbines which can use that gas. YES its a fossil fuel but just releasing natural gas instead of burning it is 100x more damaging to the environment, which is why they simply burn it now and get that fantastic image of the Dakotas at night all lit up. If they are going to burn that gas anyway because its effectively a by-product of the shale oil fields then burn it in a turbine and generate cheap electricity and use that cheap electricity to power a new generation of manufacturing. IF YOU'D LIKE I would love to come on the show and discuss this, because if either Kamala or Trump plays on this in THE RIGHT WAY they could look very good. Lots of job creation.
    1
  7812. 1
  7813. 1
  7814. 1
  7815. 1
  7816. 1
  7817. 1
  7818. 1
  7819. 1
  7820.  @gnubbiersh647  Ok. I think the simplest thing is people have gone too far when they put an illogical ideology before basic reality and are willing to use violence to defend their position. What does a racist do other than put an ideology of my version of homo sapiens is better than your version of homo sapiens and I'll kill you if you disagree. What do Qanon clowns do other than put fantasies ahead of reality. Most don't get violent but Jan 6th proved some do. Over on the Left. What did the Soviet, Chinese and other communists and socialists do other than say we are all equal and if you disagree we'll kill you to prove it. Don't get me wrong I don't find communism capitalism, socialism, religion or distrust in government to be inherently evil, BUT IF you take it too far and lose grip on basic reality and then start getting violent to defend your position that cannot be logically defended then you are (at least) starting to go too far. Where the Left differ is they have more variety of ideologies than the Right. They also tend to be slower to react violently but when they to they wind the dial up to 11 and go straight to rage mode. Like they did in the French and Russian revolutions. Nobody should forget Mao killed millions with his great leap forward. "Who needs farmers they only feed people. We need factory workers they make stuff. Oh - you disagree here let me send you to the re-education camp." Nobody should ever forget the killing fields of Cambodia where a French educated clown decided to take a country backwards a couple of hundred years to an agricultural feudalist state. Pol Pot started by killing every teacher, every lawyer and anyone with an education so that nobody could ask questions like: "Is taking our nation backwards a good thing?" Jesus handed out free health care, fed the poor, gave free education and condemned the greed of the religious leaders of his day. Try asking an gun loving White Christian Nationalist who takes millions of dollars from his followers to explain that.
    1
  7821. 1
  7822. 1
  7823. 1
  7824. 1
  7825. 1
  7826. 1
  7827. 1
  7828. 1
  7829. 1
  7830. 1
  7831. 1
  7832. 1
  7833. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  7834. 1
  7835. 1
  7836. 1
  7837. 1
  7838. 1
  7839. 1
  7840. 1
  7841. 1
  7842. 1
  7843. Its amazing that here's Freddy pointing fingers about disinformation when plenty of his guests are specialists in spreading lies and disinformation. I basically unsubscribed and stopped watching Freddy's videos when he kept having on people like Michael Schellenberger and Konstantin Kisin who have BOTH become major spreaders of disinformation in recent years. What ever morals and ethics those guys had they threw away and its NOT that Freddy has them. We should always have an open mind to alternative views. My issue is when disinformation GOES UNCHALLENGED. And here's an example. In Schellenberger's famous TED talk titled "Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia" about 9 minutes in he points out the deaths in Holland of workers on a wind turbine. As an engineer who's worked in safety systems this is taken incredibly out of context and there is no need for it. That TEDx talk is full of great and informative information and I have used it a lot in pointing out things. The most important of which is that BY THEMSELVES renewables will not save the planet. What I hate is the implication by Schellenberger that the pursuit of renewables is NOT helping and that's a lie. The truth on that is that renewables like wind and solar will be a major part of saving the planet because they do less harm but they can't do it alone because you need other things to keep the energy grids stable. To use that example of workers dying on a wind turbine NOT only has NOTHING to do with the functionality of a wind turbine but avoids the actual issue with workplace safety, accidents and deaths. Its just a distraction to evoke an emotional response instead of sticking to the important aspects of the topic. But this is the sort of thing people do when pushing a narrative they'll present fact after fact and then switch to a fact out of context or just outright lies hoping nobody notices the switch. So when Freddy bemoans how the government is handling misinformation, lets put it in context and that context is Freddy spreads or helps spread misinformation.
    1
  7844.  @jocksharerock7318  I'm actually Australian but went to college in America (late 80s) and I could never get Americans even back then to see they don't actually have a political left. All through the British Commonwealth we have Labour Parties that actually started from the trade union movements. You go to Europe and they actually have Socialist and Communist Parties. I found that Americans actually have almost no understanding of left right politics. It still amazes me how little they actually know even now with the Internet. I did engineering and the closest I ever came to a class in politics was the 2 classes I did in sociology and one of those was "Society and Technology" Probably the most amazing thing these days is how little Americans can rationally discuss the US Constitution. A bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law and used to bug the crap out of me with discussions on the merits of the Bill of Rights. There's this stunning disconnect from what people think they know and what they actually know. I was stunned a while back when I found Dub-ya cancelled the funding for civics in high schools, because more than anything else that gave every American a reasonable understanding of how their country worked. In the 80s Americans were proud they were educated in how their country worked. They were proud that they knew more about how America worked than what I knew about how Australia worked. In my day our education was based a lot around History more than politics and that used to be an interesting comparison. I'd studied 4,500 years of history from the Egyptians & Sumerians onwards. My friends new about 300years of history but a buckets of US Constitution and why it was what it was. These days I see Americans who are either sad at the decline of education or are proud of their ignorance. There's too few of the first and too many of the other. The scary part of that is that the entire Western World needs America on its feet and functioning responsibly because you have next to no idea about the scope of the Chinese problem. Similar to America its NOT the Chinese people who are the problem its Chinese politics that's the problem.
    1
  7845. Actually Rick Wilson (no relation) who's one of the main grifters in the Lincoln Project made this ugly as hell assessment of Bernie Sanders a few years ago AND YES he's a 100% nasty as hell snake of a campaign maggot, but what he said needs to be heard. He said making Bernie the nominee would have guaranteed a Republican win. He said the simple fact is that the younger people who liked Bernie were the type of American's who just don't get up off the couch and vote but the older voter who has it seared into their brain that socialism is evil will crawl to the voting station dragging their oxygen bottle along the way and vote against socialism. YES ITS IRRATIONAL and they have no idea that Bernie's universal health care will be good for them. They just hear that word socialist and reason and logic mean NOTHING. Younger Americans need to get it through their thick skulls that the second 'S' in USSR was the word Socialist and the USSR represented everything that was godless and evil during the Cold War. I'm Australian but went to college in America and there's there's an insanity to older Americans where this one word sends people into a mindless freak out. They have NO IDEA what that one word means except they know its evil and godless. Until the Bernie Sanders fanbase gets that through their skulls just how much that word scares those people then they will NEVER WIN. FIND ANOTHER WORD TO USE And even better don't let the M0R0N brigade on the FAR LEF hijack it like they did with the words "woke" and "progressive"
    1
  7846.  @lauraallen661  The real problem with those "brain washed" is that we now have to start dealing with WHY? As in why were they so easy for Trump to grab and run with. Because a lot of other countries haven't done that either. The snot nosed brats in London still haven't asked why they lost Brexit. The snot nosed brats in the European Parliament haven't asked how they go smashed from 2 directions (Green populists from the left & Nationalist Populists from the right). Establishment parties are getting hammered across the world and they all refuse to answer WHY. I just watched this with Krystal & Saagar form the Hill -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98pOyHd7Rss They're odd because she's a lefty and he's a right winger. They both raged about the billionaire class whining about Gamestop. I recommend watching any of Mark Blyth on Trumpism or Angrynomics and you'll understand that Trump took advantage of a slab of America that was so disenfranchised they would have followed anybody who wasn't from the establishment. He then took their frustrations and anger and twisted it into this confused catastrophe. In that respect of weaponizing frustration he did the same as Robespierre did in France, Stalin did in Russia and Hitler did in Germany. Getting rid of Trump was a great first step. NOT getting those $2000 stimulus checks out IMMEDIATELY was a dreadful 2nd step. That should have been Biden's FIRST Executive order He should have rammed it down congress's collective throat. The welfare of the American people comes first.
    1
  7847. 1
  7848. 1
  7849. 1
  7850. 1
  7851. 1
  7852. 1
  7853. 1
  7854. 1
  7855. 1
  7856. 1
  7857. 1
  7858. 1
  7859. 1
  7860. 1
  7861. 1
  7862. 1
  7863. 1
  7864. 1
  7865. 1
  7866.  @wolfejar  FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s when Reagan was in the WH. It wasn't that hard to see then that what he was doing was going to have some very serious outcomes eventually. I did engineering but a bunch of my frat brothers were pre-law and they used to drag me into all sorts of discussions mostly the amendments. I'd studied Orwell (1984 & Animal Farm) in high school as almost every Australian does. I used to argue any country could slide into a totalitarian nightmare if it wasn't careful and it was fairly clear to me American's had a number of false beliefs. The number 1 false belief was that the US Constitution (despite being brilliant) was indestructible and it would keep America safe. What do we now know? Can the US government get around the Constitution? 2 words "Patriot Act" What have you just highlighted? A piece of legislation that was brilliant and did the job got dumped and 23 years later the consequences have landed like a sledge hammer to a skull. What did I see back in the late 80s? Reagan pulling apart the health system, the savings & loans system and other things with the idiotic stupidity that the private sector does everything better. If that concept was true then why did the Great Depression happen or any of the other stock market crashes happen. I was there in America when one of those happened. A bunch of my frat brothers lost bad. The money they had made from summer jobs was in the stock market. They went to class one day and by by the time they got home it was over. I did aerospace engineering and was there when Challenger crashed. I'd actually been in Florida and watched Columbia take of only weeks earlier. In the aftermath (when they were choosing to replace it or not) Kelly Johnson (famous for the SR71, U2,...) said "DON'T replace it. Use the $4 Billion to do something better." I got into an argument with a bunch of my frat brothers at the time. I repeated what Kelly Johnson said and they screamed back that America HAD to have 4 shuttles to counter the Soviet threat. After that was the idiocy surrounding Space Station Freedom. Yeah the reason America hasn't gone back to the moon (and a lot of other things) is because decisions were being made for the wrong reasons with no consideration of lessons learned from history combined with not considering long term effects.
    1
  7867. 1
  7868. 1
  7869. 1
  7870. 1
  7871. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  7872. 1
  7873. 1
  7874. 1
  7875. 1
  7876. 1
  7877. 1
  7878. 1
  7879. 1
  7880. 1
  7881. 1
  7882. To all you Americans who care. This was just shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Its been done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). The right wingers claim the ABC is leftist and the left wingers always claim they are pro-right. The fact is the ABC is publicly funded but under its charter its programming is independent, including its news and current affairs. SO it reports what comes across its desk. Does it get shit wrong at times? ABSOLUTELY, but its also a place where we can still get HONEST in depth investigative journalism. We can never let the ABC go just the same as America must never let PBS go. If you doubt that watch this Frontline from 16 years ago when all this idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan started. For that question of how did this all happen? Here are the answers. For anyone who's forgotten what people like Paul Wolfowitz did to make this shit storm happen. Here's what he and others said -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byu9Yhr0Q_0
    1
  7883. 1
  7884. 1
  7885. 1
  7886. 1
  7887. 1
  7888. 1
  7889. 1
  7890. 1
  7891. 1
  7892. 1
  7893. 1
  7894. 1
  7895. 1
  7896. 1
  7897. 1
  7898. ​ @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
  7899. AUSTRALIAN HERE: YES our politicians suck. They lie, they cheat and they screw us over at every chance as they had out contracts to their wealthy supporters. BUT NONE of ours are a threat to the World. If you consider some of the other scumbags in the GOP - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell,.... etc. Sure they're narcissists, but the rest of the world can deal with them because even at their very worst they're still PREDICTABLE and we can handle that. Trump isn't simply a MALIGNANT NARCISSIST but he's also a TEMPESTUOUS SOCIOPATH who lashes out at ANYONE who upsets him. I was actually in Canada for work when he tore up NAFTA in 2017. The Canadians accepted that NAFTA needed updating and re-negotiating. We all know those free trade agreements need that at times. BUT Trump just tore it up because it was done by Clinton. Then he tore up the Iran nuclear agreement because it was done by Obama. When you add into that the behavior of America's billionaires who support him and what they want it gets even worse. Do you guys not realise that it was American Billionaire Robert Mercer (owner of Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica) who was behind the Facebook campaign that influenced the Brexit Vote? YES one of yours caused that ongoing shitfest. COLLECTIVELY they're a very serious threat to ALL of America's security partners as well as ANY country that America does business with. Don't forget that America's businesses can now drag any dispute back to American courts where its rigged. Go look up the Steven Donziger case and ask the Ecuadorians about the Texaco judgments. You American's can have whoever you want as POTUS. That's 100% your choice and you have every right to tell us to FK-OFF and mind our own business, BUT UNDERSTAND the other 7.7 billion of us on the planet have to live with your choice.
    1
  7900. 1
  7901. 1
  7902. 1
  7903. 1
  7904. 1
  7905. 1
  7906. 1
  7907. 1
  7908. 1
  7909. 1
  7910. 1
  7911. 1
  7912. 1
  7913. 1
  7914. 1
  7915. 1
  7916. 1
  7917. 1
  7918. 1
  7919. 1
  7920. 1
  7921. 1
  7922. 1
  7923. 1
  7924. HEY THUNDERFOOT MADE A MISTAKE. I work in Industrial control systems, automation and robotics. Those 2 robots you show at 37:30 have been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS NOT 15. The company I left in 2001 was the (then) Kuka and Adept agent in Australia and we knew what our competitors could do. The robot on the left of your shot is a standard 6 axis anthropomorphic arm and those have been around for decades. The robot on the right is a 4-axis "Spider Robot" (just put "4-axis spider robot into google"). I know that BEFORE the year 2000 ABB had one of those available. The thing that you are NOT highlighting in that part of the video is that the spider robot is locating the items its picking off the conveyor using vision guided robotics. Notice how all those parts are randomly arranged and the spider is arranging them in organised groups so the other robot can place them on the next conveyor. There is a camera upstream of the robot looking down on the conveyor which has an encoder on it. The vision system identifies the location and orientation of each part and with the encoder on the conveyor translates that to the Spider which can then pick it up and orientate it and put it back down in the right place so the other robot can pick up the groups of 4 parts. I know how that stuff works because I had that technology demonstrated to me by an Adept Engineer when I visited their Cincinnati Office in 1998 or 99. They weren't using a Spider robot at that time. They were using a small high speed SCARA robot. So I know for a fact that technology has been available for AT LEAST 25 YEARS. So SORRY Thunderboy but your 15 years is wrong its at least 25. Fyi - I actually did aerospace and if you would like I'd be happy to show you how truly stupid they are being with the Artemis program. Its worse than most people realise. The closest I have seen anyone expose the real depth of the issue is Destin (another Aerospace) who has the YT channel "Smarter Every Day." For anyone interested put "smarter every day artemis" into the YT search and the top item should be titled "I Was SCARED To Say This To NASA... (But I said it anyway) - Smarter Every Day 293" posted 4 Dec 2023.
    1
  7925.  @EaglePicking  Sorry to burst your bubble and I have explained this many times, BUT there is no way they are going to solve the autonomous driving issue because the amount of computing required to do it at the level people would expect just does not exist and wont possibly ever. The actual task is far more complex than most people can even conceive let alone consider how it might be done. There's the issue of having to match what the human visual cortex can do and the human visual cortex is actually 2 systems NOT 1. There's the focus part and the peripheral part and its the peripheral part that amazes me because of what it does. The brilliance of Alan Turing's enigma breaking machine wasn't that it systematically searched the possibilities. It worked by eliminating what the answer could NOT be. The human peripheral vision system does something similar. ONE of its main tasks is threat analysis and it does that by clumping complex arrangements into single items it can dismiss very quickly. Consider your driving and you see a tree. Your brain does NOT register a million leaves and twigs and branches it just clumps it into a tree and if that tree is NOT a threat its dismissed very quickly. The same goes for the millions of bit that make up a house. Your brain doesn't go there's that brick, that brick, that brick........ etc. It goes building. It does the same for all sorts of other things. PLUS it doesn't have to even see a particular object previously ever have had to see Your peripheral system can do that almost 50 times a second. The amount of available data points is staggering and this system just does. On top of that it compares the previous frame tot recent frames to discern movement. People who think we will just be able to do that in silicon based electrical system that can fit in car really don't get what the task is. I can go on and on about this stuff but wont waste your or my time. Its just NOT going to happen. Maybe just maybe if we can get quantum computers working but not silicon based systems.
    1
  7926. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE I have been highly critical of Peters reporting on technology and urged him to get some decent background supplied by engineers. I don't know if he's noticed my comments or the comments of others, but this is certainly one of his better (if not the best) take on a technology he's done YET. The real problem that's going to hit the AI people is the energy. If you consider that some of the proposed server centres that are around the US$2 Billion mark they need the equivalent of a Westinghouse-Toshiba AP1000 Nuclear Reactor. That reactor gets mentioned (more than others) because its one that's already been built and has all of the approvals which are 2 things none of the SMRs or other options can say. The other 2 things we know are how long it takes to build an AP1000 and how much it costs thanks to the Vogtle Plant in Georgia and that answer is 9 years and US$18.4 Billion for each reactor. Now the advantages of an AP1000 are: 1) They are designed to last 60 years, which can probably be extended and that means that no matter what the technology becomes in future you can keep using the same site to power your server for a long time. Plus if the next generation of chips that Peter described use a lot less power then you can sell the excess power into the local grid which will help pay-off that US$18.4B. 2) The AP1000 was designed to be built in modules. This is different to the SMR concept where each module is the same and you simply keep adding modules until you have what you want. The AP1000 modules differ in that each module is a piece of an overall plant that can be built off-site and shipped to site on a barge. There's nothing new to that concept I have seen it done for mineral processing and seen modules the size of office blocks. There's a massive advantage to this in that you end up with a module construction site that keeps developing its skill and knowledge bases allowing for manufacturing improvements over time. Once you sort out the module construction and site construction issues this method allows for more efficient or cheaper or quicker construction or a combination of all 3. The disadvantages of the AP1000 are the same as every other nuclear design: 1) They still take almost a decade to build. Sorry but like every other large complex engineering machine they take the time that they take. There's just no way to get around the time required for certain things like constructing the foundations. No matter what the "nuclear island" the reactor sits on needs a foundation to sit on. that and all the other things TAKE TIME. 2) If your construction site is not close to where the barges can deliver the modules the building advantages can go away. This was an issue at Vogtle. 3) What do you do with the spent fuel. Engineers have put forward proposal after proposal on what to do with spent fuel and its like cutting off the head of a hydra. For every proposal put forward 2 new objections grow out of it. We are engineers NOT mythological Greek heroes who can kill a giant multi-headed snake. So the AI crowd are kind of trapped right now. They want to build these monstrous server farms to support the LLM Systems but they can't find spare capacity in the energy supply for it and they can't build anything fast enough and their new chips wont be ready for deployment for at least 5 years. AND YES if Peter wants to give me or another engineer a job he's free to ask.
    1
  7927. 1
  7928. 1
  7929. 1
  7930. 1
  7931. 1
  7932. 1
  7933. 1
  7934. 1
  7935. 1
  7936. 1
  7937. 1
  7938. 1
  7939. 1
  7940. 1
  7941. 1
  7942. 1
  7943. 1
  7944. 1
  7945. 1
  7946. 1
  7947. NEWS FLASH YANIS: I'm an engineer and DC power will kill a human being FASTER than AC will. The entire Edison thing was a stunt NOT a scientific experiment. FIRST - To hurt a person there must be enough VOLTAGE to make the electricity flow. The 12Volt system in cars is in general the highest DC voltage most people ever have to deal with in their lifetime. Out of a wall socket its generally 110Volt AC or 220 or 240. So the most common dangerous voltage people are ever near is AC power not DC power. This has mislead people into thinking that DC is safer than AC but above certain voltage levels DC is far more dangerous. Here's why. Because AC power oscillates (50 or 60 times a second) it makes muscles vibrate at that frequency. Its not very good for things like your heart because the violence of the vibrations creates nasty chemicals like Lactic acid at very high levels. Its why if you ever do get shocked you should go to hospital and get checked out. They'll run blood tests to monitor electrolyte levels and put you on a saline drip to flush out any nasties. NO NEED TO ASK HOW I KNOW THIS. DC on the other hand is ON. It does not make muscles vibrate they just LOCK SOLID. There are no spasms just thump and lock. So things like a human heart just STOP. If you grab a DC conductor it is quite likely the muscles in your forearm will simply lock your hand solid and so long as there's power you cannot let go. This is what makes overhead train, tram & trolley bus power lines so incredibly dangerous. They are generally around 600Volts DC. There's a particularly nasty video shown to engineers demonstrating this. A person in a India (I think) stood on top of a train carriage and grabbed the overhead conductor. Its seriously gruesome what happens next. Edison stage managed what he did. We know that now.
    1
  7948. 1
  7949. 1
  7950. 1
  7951. Derek Muller actually has a science education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Muller#Early_life_and_education So he has no excuse for not seeing through Elon's garbage. The fascination with tech billionaires is that they make average people feel "techie" if that's even a word. If you have a look at them they mainly do stuff that make technologies more accessible. Even go back in time to Henry Ford. His brilliance was making the car accessible to everyone. He's one of those accessibility stores I know about. I grew up in a town not far from where Derek Muller was born. He's from a town called Traralgon and I'm from Warragul. I actually went to college in America and did aerospace engineering at the U. of Illinois. Not as famous as some schools but in the late 80s it was pretty much the world center of supercomputing. We had this odd system called Plato. It was one of the worlds first wide area data base systems, but it was a pig to use. It was so bad most of us refused to use it. Everything was in text, no pictures, no graphics and it was so slow you would fall asleep using it. To this day I suspect we were being used as lab rats with that system. But the computers we all started using were these cute little boxes from "that fruit company" called a Macintosh. They were just great for typing up term papers. They gave us 2 rooms full of them and they were packed 24/7. You could go in there at 3am and still have to wait. So a couple of the geniuses from the supercomputing group decided they would make Plato as easy to use as an Apple. They weren't really the first to try it but they were the first to succeed. Their program was called Mosaic, their company was called NetScape and the web browser you are reading this on right now is the result of their work in making computers accessible to everyone. I don't know about others but Marc Andreessen is estimated to be worth $1.7Billion. And yes I sometimes wish I'd done computer engineering instead of aerospace.
    1
  7952. 1
  7953. 1
  7954. 1
  7955. 1
  7956. 1
  7957. 1
  7958. 1
  7959. 1
  7960. 1
  7961. 1
  7962. 1
  7963. 1
  7964. YEARS AGO BACK IN THE 1990s I remember and American psychologist explaining these sorts of mass shooters and he labelled it "Rambo Syndrome." These days some people call it "suicide by cop." I always thought the Rambo label was wrong because the movie character John Rambo never tried to commit suicide, while the people who do these sorts of shootings are trying to commit suicide. There's nothing new in this explanation as psychologists have been trying to explain it for several decades. However there are 2 other types of people who do this. 1) The mentally disturbed attention seeker. I'm Australian and Martin Bryant who murdered 35 people and injured 23 others in the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, which at the time was the worst mass shooting in the world, is an example. He has a very low IQ and is borderline mentally retarded. He's very rare in that he survived the incident and was interviewed by police and psychologists. Just recently the police interviews were released. They're chilling because they show his excitement at the attention he was getting. 2) The ex-military PTSD sufferer who has a disconnect with reality. Again we have an example of this in Australia with Julian Knight who shot 7 people dead and injured 19 more in 1987. He'd been dumped from the Army for psychological reasons after stabbing a superior. On a documentary about that massacre they showed excerpts of his walk around the scene of the killings. Its chilling just how disconnected from reality he was. On that documentary a childhood friend related how several weeks later when the fog had cleared from his brain and he realised what he'd done he curled up in a ball and cried for 3 days. Its a sad example of the military recruiting somebody they should not have recruited, then teaching him some lethal skills and then dumping him out the back door like a hand grenade with the pin pulled.
    1
  7965. 1
  7966. 1
  7967. 1
  7968. 1
  7969. 1
  7970. 1
  7971. 1
  7972. 1
  7973. 1
  7974. 1
  7975. 1
  7976. 1
  7977.  @rodneyhenchliffe754  There's no doubt on that and I certainly don't need an asshole like Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin or some second rate bullshit artist or any other clown telling me what I know better than they do. I work in electrical control systems and a while back worked with an American electrician whose background was in the US Navy as a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT OPERATOR. One day he explained his training and how they operated nuclear power plants in the USN. So I have first hand information on how the Americans operate nuclear powered vessels. He also made the case of WHY Australia needed nuclear subs and its so compelling that its not worth arguing. WHAT is worth arguing is how we do it. In 1980 at my High School speech night the old-boy who gave the main address was one of Australia's leading nuclear scientists. He made the case way back then that one day Australia would need nuclear power. I am a great fan of solar and wind but I also know they are NOT a 100% solution and we must have a secondary system to stabilize the grid. Of all the options available nuclear is the cleanest with respect to the climate. BUT I also do not want Australia using unsafe technology. Pressure Water Reactors (PWRs) are inherently unsafe and that was demonstrated beyond all doubt at Fukushima. I have actually worked in Australia's nuclear industry (on the mining side) and been through the full ANSTO nuclear induction. I started in aerospace but work in industrial control and safety systems. I have been certified with the 2nd highest rating any engineer can get in the world for functional safety and I know what's safe and what's not. Pressure water reactors are a inherently UN-SAFE while molten salt reactors (MSRs) are inherently safe because of how they basically function and operate. Better still MSRs almost entirely consume their fuel which means they produce far less waste - kilos instead of tons. Even better still Thorium MSRs do not produce plutonium as a by product and that shit is nasty. There is absolutely no point in anybody arguing for using the existing PWR nuclear power technology. No one with a brain should want it. The Australian public will never buy it especially after Fukushima. There is absolutely no point in arguing it - its idiotic. BUT if its explained properly what MSRs are and how they work and the residue that's left over and that they are inherently safe then hopefully enough people will allow us to have nuclear power and nuclear powered subs. BUT most importantly absolute pieces of arrogant crap like Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin and all the other Murdoch hacks can just STFU.
    1
  7978. 1
  7979. 1
  7980. 1
  7981. 1
  7982. 1
  7983. 1
  7984. 1
  7985. 1
  7986. 1
  7987. 1
  7988. 1
  7989. 1
  7990. 1
  7991. 1
  7992. 1
  7993. 1
  7994. 1
  7995. 1
  7996. 1
  7997. 1
  7998. 1
  7999. 1
  8000. ​ @peterhorton9063  EXACTLTY and its the one thing that conservatives around the world NEVER UNDERSTAND and if they do then they are relentlessly trying to deny it. Here in Australia right now we have a referendum on what's being called a "Voice to Parliament" for our First Nations. Its sort of based on what they did in the Scandinavian countries with the Sami people. The conservatives here are dead against it and one of their claims is that once its done it cannot be undone. The utter stupidity of that claim is its illogical. If you claim that a change to the constitution cannot be changed then how can you make the change the constitution in the first place. Its the same sort of stupidity of the American Originalists. Their claim that the EPA cannot regulate pollution unless the chemicals involved are specifically listed is idiotic. It's basically claiming that the government cannot have ANY DEPARMENT that it assigns work to without specifically detailing the work in law. Such a concept would mean its impossible for the police, fire ambulance, army, navy, air force, FDA, ATF, CIA, NSA or any other agency to do their work as assigned. Hypothetically: How does the INS decide who's illegal and who isn't unless their country of origin or racial & cultural background is SPCIFICALY listed in the legislation set down by congress? How does the CIA or NSA figure out who to spy on and how to do that spying unless congress lists it in law? How does the army, navy or air force know what to blow up unless congress lists it first in law? Conservative logic is a contradiction in terminology.
    1
  8001. 1
  8002. ​ @davidhutchinson5233  What prove Jesus existed? You would have to be insane NOT to accept he existed. You can debate the narrative and interpretations people use but not the existence. Do you know that several contemporary historians of the time like Josephus said he existed. No historian doubts the writings of Josephus or that he lived in that time period. If you want to criticise the So called Christians and their insanity fine. I AM ON YOUR SIDE. I think its pretty obvious I have NO TIME for them or their stupidity. But to argue if Jesus existed or not is just as ridiculous and is like trying to argue if the Earth is flat or round. And just in case you didn't know the reference that Josephus makes about Jesus is actually regarding one of his brothers and it highlights just how bad the narratives have been and for how long they have been in place. One of the more ridiculous parts of Catholic Dogma was that Mary is the eternal virgin. That's NOT in the Bible at all. Many critics of Christian practices point out what happened in Nazareth on one occasion. The locals and these were people who knew Jesus and his family got incensed when he tried to teach them. Its in Matthew 13:54-57. That actually point out that he's JUST the carpenters son, who's mother is Mary and that his 4 brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas and his sisters are right there. AND WE KNOW THESE ARE NOT his disciples because there's a passage where his bothers go and tell him to be with his disciples. So that whole Catholic narrative of the eternal virgin is bunk. Historically speaking Josephus agrees with the Bible, but disagrees with Christian tradition. Then there's things like Christmas and Easter which also aren't in the Bible. They're just traditions taken from other cultures. More than a few academics have written on the subject that Christianity didn't defeat paganism but subjugated it by adopting many of its practices and most of that was done by the Catholic Church way back in Roman times at its foundation. This is actually a common across all the religions. Most religious people have never taken time to read and think. Instead they sit and listen and blindly accept.
    1
  8003. 1
  8004. 1
  8005. 1
  8006. 1
  8007. 1
  8008. 1
  8009. 1
  8010. 1
  8011. 1
  8012. 1
  8013. 1
  8014. 1
  8015. 1
  8016.  @paulsultana8683  OMG are you that stupid or do you just have amnesia. For a Donald Trump wannabe Billionaire in politics we have CLIVE PALMER. For religious fundamentalist freaks like Mike Johnson we had Fred Nile and more recently Sco Mo & Co. For a maniac with a big mouth but no brain like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert we have Pauline Hanson and we keep electing her by the way. For corrupt sacks of crap all on the take we have the New South Wales government. I'd name names but there's just too many. Seriously Sydney is almost as bad as New York and Chicago for that stuff. For politicians doing insider trading we had the Joh Bjelke-Petersen government doing it decades before Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Dem & GOP goon squads. For dumbass tree hugging clowns like AOC who might care about the environment but are too stupid to get anything meaningful done we have the Australian Greens. For corrupt Lobbyists we could talk about Western Australia and Brian Burke or go Federal with Chris Pyne. For ignorant rural types that claim climate change isn't real as they watch their crops get destroyed like the GOP voters in Ohio, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska & Iowa do we have the Australian National Party For arrogant self righteous corrupt ratbags who just say stuff they know isn't true like the GOP we have the Australian Liberals who like the GOP are owned by Rupert Murdoch. For dumbass clowns who lose easily winnable elections like the Democrats (lets not forget 2016) we have Australian Labor (lets not forget 2019) who like the Democrats are NOT owned but also "PWNED" by Rupert Murdoch. For letting corrupt consultancy firms manipulate our government and even after they are caught we just let them off without even a slap on the wrist lets not forget PwC, KPMG, EY or Deloitte. Who by the way are all American companies we let come here. For letting banks get away with outright criminal behavior like the Americans did after the 2008 GFC we did the same after the Banking Royal commission. On the straight up criminal front I have 2 wonderful examples for your amnesia. 1- John Howard, a trained lawyer who ignored international law and had us join the Invasion of Iraq where we helped get over 400,000 innocent civilians killed. 2 - Sir (gotta love the knighthood) Henry Bolte who despite being told that Ronald Ryan DID NOT SHOOT and KILL warder George Hodson because the ballistics said he was shot from an elevated position AND they knew the eye witness LIED about what he saw still went and hanged Ronald Ryan anyway because (and he told people) "We have an election this year and I need to look tough on crime." So whatever the FCK you want to post in future don't ever be so damn FCKING STUPlD to claim Australians can't be just as stupid as the rest of the planet. We might not do it to the same Olympic Gold Medal Class level of stupidity that America does but damn son we have done it for decades and still keep doing it.
    1
  8017. 1
  8018. 1
  8019. 1
  8020. 1
  8021. 1
  8022. 1
  8023. I'm Australian and when he made that comment about how people outside America would see America he was 100% SPOT ON. I actually went to college in America. I love the place and the people and it saddens me to see America divided the way it is. HOWEVER his remarks on Trump being victimised are JUST TOTAL BULLSHlT AND THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS IT. At that moment he came across as just another pig headed American Baby Boomer. Trump got away with things that NO OTHER CIVILISED COUNTRY on the planet would allow and especially regarding January 6th he would have been arrested ASAP. Less civilised places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea,..... etc would have dragged him and all those people away and given them sham trials before executing them. The documents case was a slam dunk. The whole world knows that other US Service people WENT TO JAIL for accidentally mishandling classified documents. Trump deliberately held onto classified materials and then showed them to people as a way of bragging. One of those people was Australian businessman Anthony Pratt. I'd agree with him that the January 6th rioters have been hard done by. Biden bragging about how many years they got was stupid. In fact I have told a few people BIDEN should PARDON all of them BEFORE Christmas. If for nothing else it would calm America down, but it would also go a long way towards getting America back to sensibility. All that garbage could have been avoided had Mitch McConnell done an honest job AND its those old stubborn pigs in BOTH PARTIES like McConnell and Nancy Pelosi that really do scare the rest of the planet because they more than anyone else made America so dysfunctional. That whole nonsense with Diane Feinstein was utterly disgusting and the whole world saw it. Until America realises that the problem is that BOTH PARTIES are dysfunctional nothing will get fixed AND FYI Australia has the same problem with BOTH its major parties. Its just not as bad yet.
    1
  8024. 1
  8025. 1
  8026. 1
  8027. 1
  8028. 1
  8029. 1
  8030. 1
  8031. 1
  8032.  The Ghost Verm  I wouldn't be wishing for it "to pop off" and I don't think anyone should. America could easily wake up with armed militias in their streets shooting the place up. That happened in Yugoslavia back in the 90s, that place just snapped one day. No matter which side you love and which you hate in America you don't want it too erupt. There are so many guns and so much ammunition out there it can only be catastrophic. The only person on the planet who might want that is Vladimir Putin. The Chinese don't they have too much money invested in America. Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and others don't the implications are catastrophic for them too. But you are so right on the neo-liberal garbage. Have you seen any of what Brown U. Professor Mark Blyth has said on that subject. Just so you know, what he calls neo-liberalism is an economic ideology that came from the "greed is good" of Milton Freidman and was birthed as Reaganomics. On the establishment the Trumpists already rejected them back in 2016 or did you forget that Trump hammered into submission 16 of them on his way to winning the GOP nomination. 2016 was a rejection of the Ivy League - New York - Hamptons elitist establishment. Its just that it was all lead by a rogue Ivy League - New York - Hamptons elitist piece of shit doing the best con job in history. I'll be way more interested in what happens when those 74,223,744 realise just how much he f--ked them over and left them to rot as he made off will $100s of millions in their money. I don't think being in Trump Tower the day they realise how bad he screwed them would be wise.
    1
  8033. 1
  8034. Australian here with an outside perspective. Your right about that list except for James Comey and you have also left off 2 of the greatest failures in in human history in Merrick Garland and Jack Smith who did everything they could to appear to do their jobs and yet fail. On Comey I expect you are referring to his public release to to finding those emails a few weeks before the 2016 election. Let me put this forward. JUST IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED If Comey had stayed silent and THEN Hilary had won AND THEN the emails came out. Do you really think the Republicans and Trump would have just accepted the result or do you think they would have torn the Country apart? The Russian born commentator Masha Gessen was interviewed on Australian television regarding Putin's MISinformation campaign in 2016. While others put Putin as playing 4D chess Masha put forward a simpler explanation. That basically went: Putin is NOT a deep thinker and in his world elections are decided beforehand and all government agents are loyal to the person in charge. So in Putin's mind Hilary had already won and that was bad, because Putin hated Hilary as she'd personally overseen the sanctions on Russia as Secretary of State. So how could Putin hurt Hilary? So Masha's view was that Putin intended to release the emails AFTER Hilary won and cause a crisis in America that would be devastating. Its basically a version of the "If you can't destroy your enemy then find a way for your enemy destroy them selves," Who knows how accurate that assessment was. But its damn easy to see it would have been a crisis if Comey had covered up those emails and Hilary had have won and then Putin released them.
    1
  8035. 1
  8036. 1
  8037. 1
  8038. 1
  8039. NOBODY NEED TO GO AND BUY ANY BOOK. David's old professor Richard Wolff pointed out the government report that has all the data late 2022. Only a few other people have even mentioned this report since which is a SHAMEFULL INDICTMENT on the media. Just Google "congressional budget office family wealth" and it will take you straight to the September 2022 Report that shows what has happened to family wealth from 1989 to 2019. The report is free to ANYONE to download as is all the data which is in an Excel file. If you compare the 2010 data to 2007 you can see the effect of the 2008 GFC. If you then compare that to the 2019 data you can see how people have faired AFTER the GFC. Correcting for population growth and averaging the data across each group. The Top 10% Lost 11.1% of their family wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.7% UP on their 2007 wealth. The Middle 40% Lost 13.3% of their family wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% UP on their 2007 wealth. The Bottom 50% Lost 49.5% of their family wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL DOWN 21.8% on their 2007 wealth. So the Top 10% WHO CAUSED the GFC and got BAILED OUT have made huge amounts of wealth since the 2008 GFC. Its around $30 Trillion if you add in the effects of COVID. Its should be noted that Bush gave them $4 Trillion in and Obama gave them another $4 Trillion as part of the GFC Bailouts. If there's a difference at least Obama made some of them pay some of it back. Meanwhile the Middle 40% who paid for the bail out have barely broken even and their children now face increasing education costs. Meanwhile the media that's owned by the Top 10% point at the Bottom 50% who got smashed and lost 1/2 their wealth and have barley recovered 1/2 of what they lost AND BLAME THEM for causing the lack of economic recovery and wanting government services like HEALTH CARE and Student debt relief.
    1
  8040. 1
  8041. 1
  8042. 1
  8043. 1
  8044. 1
  8045. 1
  8046. 1
  8047. 1
  8048. 1
  8049. 1
  8050. 1
  8051. If you are so in favor of engineers then why are you taking the word of Gerrard Holland. He's an accountant. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS ALSO COWARD I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  8052. 1
  8053. 1
  8054. 1
  8055. 1
  8056. 1
  8057. 1
  8058. 1
  8059. 1
  8060. 1
  8061. 1
  8062. 1
  8063. 1
  8064. 1
  8065. 1
  8066. 1
  8067. 1
  8068. 1
  8069. 1
  8070. 1
  8071. 1
  8072. 1
  8073. 1
  8074. 1
  8075. 1
  8076. 1
  8077. 1
  8078. 1
  8079. 1
  8080.  @dominicfucinari1942  Yeah I have been wondering what America's future might be for a while and it might come a lot quicker than you think. Don't forget the Soviet block was there for decades without ANY HINT of collapse. Who thought it would or that Soviet Russia might break up and YET IT DID and it was quick. Sometimes empires collapse suddenly (like ancient Babylon did in 1 night) and sometimes they change (like the British Empire did into the British Commonwealth) and sometimes they break up (like Alexander's Empire which broke 4 ways after his death). I don't think America realizes how fragile it is or the rest of the world is. I'm Australian but went to college in America. Those years opened my eyes to my own country because I got to see it from the outside looking in. We might not be as fragile as a lot of places but we do have some serious weaknesses and people who want to exploit them. Go check out a guy named Clive Palmer, who's our Trumpian wanna be. There's this insane childishness that's "if I can't have it I'll smash it so no one can" mentality. Right now it might be more obvious in America because of Trump but its everywhere and sooner or later something is going to break. We'll all say "we never saw it coming" and after the instant replays go "Oh we should have taken notice of that, that, that,.... and all the other signs." Here's one subject to check out - WATER. You know the stuff we need to grow food and feed ourselves. The great southern Californian aquifer has been drained so far its now sucking in sea water and wells are starting to turn brackish. When that finally sinks in its going to be massive. There issues across the entire wheat belt and a huge waste dump in Florida that could poison the main aquifer. But then I look at Australia. The great Artesian basin that a massive part of our stock industry relies on has been under stress for decades. Our mango farmers in the far north who relied on bores to supply water for the trees kept planting and planting and the trees got bigger and bigger needing more and more water. Now there's too many trees for too little water. We used to have huge irrigated area for citrus near the juncture of Australia's longest river system, the Murray Darling. That's all dying because of upstream nut and cotton farmers are taking every last drop of water they can. In just one year a while back they STOLE (as in theft) over $2 Billion (with a B) in water. Every time I see a video on water somewhere and there's plenty. I just look around here and shake my head because in everyway Australia's headed for disaster while others are even WORSE off. As we get out after COVID we are going to face some real challenges. The biggest of which is ignorant people who don't care.
    1
  8081. 1
  8082. 1
  8083. 1
  8084. 1
  8085. I'm Australian and we've had our share of the illegal immigration issue. For us its a little different to America and a bit more like Europe in that they arrive by boat and its the boat thing that causes so many of these tragedies. FIRST OFF let me say I have no issue with anyone wanting a better life for themselves or their family. We should commend and praise any parent who wants a better life for their children. HOWEVER - I find it egregious that when tragedies like what happened off Greece this last week that people blame the easiest which in this case is the Greek navy. The Greek navy didn't overload that boat and it takes no great understanding of boats that if you overload a boat that badly then its almost guaranteed to sink. The SHORT ANSWER is we found that smuggling people into Australia is incredibly profitable and unlike drugs the punishments aren't really punishments. At $10k per person, a 100+ people on an old boat is a lot of money. At several 1000 people a week its an industry. The LONGER ANSWER is we've had similar tragedies off the coast of Australia with many people drowning. We finally started asking asking hard questions like: WHY are they always in decrepit old boats that can barely float? The Indonesian fisherman simply sold their oldest boats to the smugglers so they could BUY NEW BOATS and you don't waste a good boat on a 1-way trip. You can't blame a poor fisherman who'd like a new boat being paid enough money to get that new boat. The smuggling involved so much money that it simply allowed a generation of Indonesian fishermen to get brand new boats. Most of the time the fishermen also took extra money to crew the boats to Australia. Getting locked up became another bonus on top of that. Under Australian Law all prisoners get a daily allowance. Its not much money but to an Indonesian fisherman its more money than they make fishing. Our own laws made it even more profitable. On top of that we found many people who had settled in Australia sending millions of dollars out of the country to either pay off their debts or fund more people smuggling. Instead of these people looking after themselves and their own families they were sending money to the smugglers. Then there was the huge cost in BOTH money and time in our courts to handle it all. Most of that was paid for by the Australian taxpayer, which is why we ran out of patience. Then finally there's the even uglier side of people smuggling where people are basically sold into slavery AND we did have some of that in Australia. In the end we found that the biggest problem is the money and the only way to deal with the criminal syndicates was to cut off their money supply. That took some of the harshest laws on the planet which had us labelled in some very ugly ways. These days we have some of the most liberal minded Europeans who labelled us in very ugly terms coming to Australia to ask how we did it. Its not the people who come that we see as a problem its the criminal syndicates who make it happen. They are ruthless people with no respect for human life or dignity.
    1
  8086. 1
  8087. 1
  8088. 1
  8089. 1
  8090. 1
  8091. 1
  8092. 1
  8093. 1
  8094. 1
  8095. 1
  8096. 1
  8097. 1
  8098. 1
  8099. 1
  8100. 1
  8101. 1
  8102. 1
  8103. 1
  8104. 1
  8105. 1
  8106. 1
  8107. 1
  8108. 1
  8109. 1
  8110. 1
  8111. 1
  8112. 1
  8113. 1
  8114. 1
  8115. 1
  8116. 1
  8117. 1
  8118. 1
  8119. 1
  8120. 1
  8121. 1
  8122. 1
  8123. 1
  8124. 1
  8125. 1
  8126. 1
  8127. 1
  8128. 1
  8129. 1
  8130. AEROSPACE ENGINEER - On Kyles point about "Iron Dome and Jet fighters" taking out the Iranian drones. This is the same issue facing the Ukrainians and Russians who have been throwing drones at each other in vast numbers. The problem is logistics and its not simply about having enough stuff its also a matter of having it in the right places. This is something the British worked out during the battle of Britain. It wasn't just about having enough pilots, Spitfires and Hurricanes. It was a matter of directing them so they could intercept the German bombers. This is well shown in the film the "Battle of Britain" where they have the command centre directing the fighters into position. Similarly things like anti-aircraft guns and Stinger missiles have to be in the right place or they wont be in range of the incoming drones. They have to be close to the flight path and KNOW when the drone is getting close enough to kill. That takes either radar that can detect what's incoming AND/OR people on the ground spotting. That's another thing that came out of the Battle of Britain. The Brits had radar but just as importantly they also had 100s of spotters watching the sky to add to the information AND THEN they had the command structure to use that information. On Jet fighters. They are generally designed to shoot down other jet fighters NOT small drones and most of the drones are small compared to jet fighters. Plus there is the problem that the kamikaze drones are bombs if a fighter gets too close they are at risk of being blown up themselves. So none of this is simply straight forward and the lessons coming out of Ukraine and the Red Sea are causing many in the Western Militaries to rethink their strategies. Peter Zeihan, who Kyle & Krystal have both interviewed, has talked about this a lot recently. Zeihan points out that "a geek with a soldering iron" (his words) is now a formidable opponent.
    1
  8131. 1
  8132. 1
  8133. 1
  8134. 1
  8135. 1
  8136. 1
  8137. 1
  8138. 1
  8139. 1
  8140. 1
  8141. 1
  8142. 1
  8143. 1
  8144. 1
  8145. 1
  8146. 1
  8147. 1
  8148. 1
  8149.  @JamesTulip  Great reply. On the first point I 1/2 mostly agree because I think one of the biggest mistakes made too many times is relying on America to lead outright rather than being more collaborative at the leadership level. Often you must have a clear person leading, but even then they need support team. Too often too many of us just sit back and wait for America to do everything or at least most of it. This is a major flaw in NATO and will eventually repeat in AUKUS because it will eventually become JAUKUS, SKAUKUS or CANAUKUS or some other multi-national behemoth incapable of doing anything like NATO and the UN are now. On the second point your are 1,000,000% right. America has some incredible systemic issues. I used to warn my American friends (because I had studied Orwell) that ANY society could fall into a totalitarian state. That was what Orwell was actually warning about rather than being specifically against communism. They used to tell me that it was impossible for that to happen to America because VIA the Constitution there were the systems of Checks & Balances. Well thanks to Mitch McConnell the Senate is a disaster and thanks to the Federalist Society SCOTUS is a catastrophe and they are the 2 main parts of the Checks & Balances to keep Congress, the Whitehouse, the Military and other agencies from going too far. So, sadly the system is broken and wont get fixed because there are too many people with too much vested interest and are making mountains of money from the broken system that they helped break. On the 3rd point you are also correct and it goes to the first point of over-relying on American leadership. On the 4th point you are even more correct. Australia MUST focus on better relations with the major economies of Asia. As to the South Pacific, our FAILURES there are so bad it should be seen as a national embarrassment that will take years to fix. None of those nations should respect us until we EARN IT BACK and I can't scream that loud enough. I am going to be on the Steve Keen & Friends podcast in a few hours and might bring up a couple of these points because they are so on topic. Just note it will be at 2:00am EST.
    1
  8150.  @roughhabit9085  Go look at the YT Channel the Analysisnews hosted by Paul Jay. He has recently re-posted an interview he did with Gore Vidal in 2005. Its titled "Mini Doc: Gore Vidal's History of the National Security State" Its right in line with your quote from Mencken As to your second point on food production. Sorry but there is no evidence at all that its guaranteed that a government in charge of food production will cause mass starvation although I will agree that it has happened. One of the most notable times was Mao's "Great Leap Forward" when he pulled people off the farms and shoved them into factories. It would have worked had he given the remaining farmers tractors and mechanised sowing and reaping machinery. What you are claiming is the same sort of nonsense that Milton Friedman claimed which is that governments can't do anything right. I'll give you 4 things on that. 1) The Apollo Program not only did as intended "Get a man to the Moon and safely return him to the Earth" but also gave America such a major technological boost that the money spent was easily recovered via American industry exploiting it. FYI - I did aerospace engineering in America in the late 80s. After the Challenger accident when there were calls for NASA to be disbanded the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics commissioned a study by an economist as to the value of NASA. Due to time constraints the report focused on Apollo. They found that by 1986 Apollo had returned $9:50 for every $1:00 spent making it the most profitable investment in history at that time. Considering that the things it returned money on (industrial output) ahs NOT stopped then that $9:50 is likely to be much higher these days. 2) Here in Australia like many other countries we privatised our power industry on the promise that: "competition would provide better services at lower prices" We now like many other places pay much higher costs for electricity. 3) Private Industry constantly claims it is overregulated and taxes are too high. FIRST - deregulation hasn't helped any industry or shareholders BUT IT HAS massively helped the top 1% make around $200 Trillion since the 1970s. SECOND - deregulation hasn't helped the general population anywhere. Not only has it not delivered for the average person but many services have decline, most consumer protection has evaporated and (1 I hate) is that its lead to things like the Boeing Max-8 where they built a plane that was always going to crash. 4) Here in Australia we have spent over AU$20 Billion on consultants (PwC, KPMG,.......etc) in the last decade or so and yea that number has stunned us. Those consultants were hired by successive governments from both sides to help various government departments do their job better. You will not find many who think we got a damn thing out of that AU$20 Billion because nothing is working any better and that's because most of the consultants are ex-Government employees. Its just 1 giant ongoing scam that was started by Margret Thatcher. Its spread across the entire developed world. So yeah I get Milton Friedman's point that the government can suck, but the solutions his advocates have served up have FAILED and FAILED and FAILED.
    1
  8151. 1
  8152. 1
  8153. 1
  8154. ​ @cobra8888  EXACTLY and its ingrained into America society to such an extent that its become normalised. Look at how the GOP treat the Democrats. When we do "it" its fine. When you do "it" you are an enemy of humanity and we must destroy you. Here's an example from history. Bill Clinton got caught getting blown by Monica Lewinski. It was uncovered by SPECIAL COUNSEL Ken Star who went OUTSIDE his original scope which was to investigate the Clinton's Whitewater real estate deal. The IMPEACHED CLINTON for lying about getting blown and find him GUILTY. Meanwhile at the same time House Speaker (technically the 3rd most powerful politician on the planet) Newt Gingrich gets caught accepting $5 Million from Rupert Murdoch while having an affair with one of his staff and that doesn't even get investigated and even to this day he flips it all off as nothing. On the flip side of that: Here's an interesting fact about Jack Smith the guy trying to get Trump into court over the documents. From for the 4+ years BEFORE being assigned as Special Counsel to investigate Trump's documents case he worked for the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in the Hague prosecuting War Crimes from the Kosovo War. Now the Kosovo Specialist Chambers are NOT specifically part of the International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) but Jack Smith operated as a Chief Prosecutor in a court prosecuting people from another country. The insanity of that is that All American Service personnel are protected from being similarly prosecuted by international courts (like the ICC) when President George W. Bush signed the American Service-Members' Protection Act, (informally referred to as The Hague Invasion Act) in 2002.
    1
  8155. 1
  8156. 1
  8157. 1
  8158. 1
  8159. 1
  8160. 1
  8161. 1
  8162.  @LCREEGS  Sorry but that has to be one of the most utterly ignorant statements I have ever seen regarding a profession. Economists have UTTERLY ZERO UNDERSTANDING of systems analysis or systems engineering. Unfortunately you've said this to an aerospace engineer so let me fill you in on some details. Historically Systems Analysis came from Systems Engineering which was developed during the 1950s & 1960s as part of the American ICBM program. It became most well known in its use during the Apollo program which is why some people think it came from the Apollo program. After that it became adopted across the entire aerospace industry and after that a few specific areas of engineering adopted systems engineering. One I know of is naval engineering because these days they have very large complex systems to make work. In general aerospace engineers laugh at other engineers who talk about systems engineering and systems analysis because with few exceptions none of them have any idea what they are talking about. The main reason other engineers never learn it let alone use it is because they just don't need it. Either their systems aren't complicated enough to need it or aren't closely coupled enough to need it. You sound like an economist with the standard training all economists get. I recommend you start listening to people like Steve Keen and Mike Radziki who are trying to get economic profession to update itself on how they do their modelling. Steve has for several decades now been trying to point out the ignorance of the economic profession and he is an economist. He also hosts a podcast Steve keen & Friends, which I hope to be on shortly. Another person you should check out is the Scottish political economist Mark Blyth (Brown U.) Among other things mark hosts an irregular podcast with people who have released books called the Rhodes Center Podcast. A couple of economists he's interviewed recently have been scathing of the economics profession and how ignorant it is of what it has done.
    1
  8163. 1
  8164. 1
  8165. 1
  8166. 1
  8167. 1
  8168.  @AaronWitt  I worked on the Commissioning of Yandi Junction South East, The T155 Port Expansion for Fortescue and did a stint in operations at Tom Price. You have made a mistake. We don't export a million tons per day. We export (in recent years) between 900 and 950 Million tons a year and with 365 days in a year that's is around 2.5 million tons a day. Here's a fun thing to discuss at some point. I work in control systems but my degree is in aerospace. I actually went into our mining because back in 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and he basically told me that mining for Helium-3 on the moon was being seriously considered. So I went off for some mining experience. Along the way got a lesson in reality. Jumping forward I heard Jeff Bezos (the other billionaire space clown) say he wanted to shift heavy industry into Low Earth Orbit where there'd be unlimited power and waste is not an issue, because it just floats away. Problem and I learnt this from working in our mining industry. Iron ore is between 50% and about 95% iron depending on the grade, but mostly its around 70% which is a very convenient number. At 70% 20tons of ore has about 14t of iron in it and 14 t is what the Space Shuttle could bring down as payload. Goin up it could take 30t but landing was limited to 14t So a mine like Tom Price that produces 20 million tons a year would need 1 million space shuttle flights to take the ore up and bring the iron back. Even if we magically came up with something 100 times better than the Space Shuttle we'd still need 10,000 flights a year. And that's just the easy problem to understand. That's what an aerospace engineer got from working in the Australian mining industry - REALITY. FYI - Since you're American. I did my degree at U. of Illinois. Go Illini.
    1
  8169. 1
  8170. 1
  8171. 1
  8172. 1
  8173. 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
  8174. 1
  8175. 1
  8176. I am an engineer here's the answer to your challenge. And so we are clear I have already challenged Gerrard to a public debate and so far he's said nothing but they did delete all my comments from this page. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  8177. 1
  8178. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: You can't imagine how damn hard it now is to get people to see any sense in what is and isn't actual reality. Its truly staggering how many people want to lecture engineers about how to engineer things or tell engineers that something is real because they saw it in a movie or on the internet. Here's 3 examples of things I have seen where ADULTS have been sucked in by this sort of nonsense. I had an argument 2 days ago with a clown who was adamant that Australia already has Small Modular Reactors operating in the country at military bases. Strange thing is that ALL the companies who are promoting SMRs as a FUTURE energy solution are saying they HOPE to be in production by the mid 2030s but somehow according to the clown Australia has manged to time warp a few. Just yesterday I saw that 60 Minutes (America) has done a story on 3D printing for houses. They implied that this young Texas Entrepreneur was doing "ground breaking" and "game changing" work that could solve the housing problem and build a moon base. Its not new technology its been around for at least a decade and there are dozens of companies doing it across the world. Its also a technology that wont work in the near vacuum of the moon. BUT IT MAKES for good TV. BUT my all time suck job for bad technology in the media was the American company Theranos and its founder Elizabeth Holmes. Not only did everyone ignore she was a college drop out AND that her father had been one of the key people at Enron when it collapsed but they all forgot the film "Gattaca" with Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman where they had "Hollywood technology" that could instantly do a full genetic map of a person and tell them EVERYTHING that was genetically or medically wrong from a single drop of blood. YES Elizabeth Holmes COPIED her idea from a Hollywood film and people handed valued her at US$9 Billion.
    1
  8179. 1
  8180. 1
  8181. 1
  8182. 1
  8183. 1
  8184. 1
  8185. 1
  8186. 1
  8187. 1
  8188. 1
  8189.  @yvonneplant9434  I agree. Way back not long after Trump won 2016 Masha was on the Australian TV program "Planet America" and gave the best explanation that I saw anyone give on that whole fiasco. Masha explained that in Putin's experience elections are decided before election day. Election day is just a confirmation exercise and that's how it works in the Russian version of democracy. Way to often we think (and particularly Americans) there is one version of democracy. In Putin's brain Hilary had already won months and months beforehand. Everything else was just theatre because that how he thinks. So what was Putin doing hacking emails handing stuff to Trump's people? We all tend to forget that Hilary in her career of upsetting people had also slapped Russia (including Putin) with sanctions while she was SecState. PLUS Putin hated the fact that America had undermined and helped trash his glorious Soviet Empire. So he hated her. PLUS Soviet political strategy all through the cold war was "We are unpredictable while America is predictable." So having a lose cannon like Trump in the White House wasn't what Putin wanted. Putin wanted a predictable America he could play the classic Soviet games with. Just imagine what would have happened if Comey had kept quiet about finding the laptop with emails and then Hilary had won. Consider what Trump and the GOP would have done once the Russians started releasing proof that Comey had withheld vital information that helped Hilary win. Can you imagine how Trump and the GOP would have taken that? That's what is great about people like Masha, Julia and Konstantin Kisin. They understand Russian culture because they were all born into Russian culture. For almost 30 years we have been trying to put Russian politics into a Western Democratic Model. Its like trying to run Apple Software on a Windows PC - it doesn't work.
    1
  8190. 1
  8191. 1
  8192. 1
  8193. 1
  8194. 1
  8195. 1
  8196. 1
  8197. 1
  8198. 1
  8199. 1
  8200. 1
  8201. 1
  8202. 1
  8203. 1
  8204. 1
  8205. 1
  8206. 1
  8207. 1
  8208. 1
  8209. 1
  8210. 1
  8211. 1
  8212. CAN YOU CLOWNS WITH ECONOMICS and FINANCE backgrounds please *STOP PREACHING technological solutions to issues you don't understand and LEAVE it to the ENGINEERS.* As an engineer who has worked in manufacturing, mining, water treatment and other industries as a control system and automation engineer some of your points are valid and others are so egregiously wrong its barely containable. 1) DO NOT say that nuclear power has zero emissions. I spent 9 months on a Uranium mine doing a water treatment plant and Uranium mining is NOT a zero emission task. Its an idiotic trope perpetuated by ignorant clowns. Its just as idiotic as the clowns who say wind and solar have zero emissions. EVERYTHIGN has some form of emission. Its just some are worse than others. 2) Do NOT as so many others do claim that one technology or another is the ONLY SOLUTION. This is one of the most frustrating tropes engineers have to deal with. Its mostly perpetuated by greedy clowns out to raise money for their projects just like your sponsor MCF needs money to do their projects. Simple fact - some countries are great for wind, others solar, others hydro-electric, others are rich in fossil fuels and some have uranium reserves. Most countries have something in the way of energy they can tap into provided they have the expertise to do so and that expertise is more often than not a matter of their education system not anything else. Claiming that the investment in wind and solar was futile is the same argument that can be made for EVERY OTHER ENERGY OPTION. This is the one solution stupidity that too many people have claimed 3) Natural gas is NOT just used for energy. You even put up a slide showing all the everyday products that come from the petrochemical industry. BASF is not closing its German operations and moving to Louisiana because of labor its closing them because of raw material supply and their biggest raw materials are oil & gas. In the end this is nothing but a shit PR job for a company trying to raise capital. In that you are no different to so many of the other YouTube and other social media hype merchants.
    1
  8213. 1
  8214. 1
  8215. 1
  8216.  @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
  8217.  @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
  8218. Case 4 of Space BS: Off World Heavy Industry a Jeff Bezos favorite. Yeah good old jeff sayin he wants to move things like iron smelting off world where there's unlimited solar power and nobody has to worry about pollution. Remember the Tom Price mine a mentioned a couple of chapters back?? 20Mta (million tons per annum) is a great easy number to use because thanks to the Space Shuttle it makes the math so easy an economist could get it. Reasonable quality iron ore is about 60-65% iron content. Good quality is around 70% really high grades are above that. 70% makes the math easy because 70% of 20 is 14. The Space Shuttle could take off with a payload of 30tons, but it could only land with 14tons of payload. So it doesn't matter how many flights it takes to get the the 20Mta from a mine like Tom Price up to a processing facility in LEO (low earth orbit) its how many it takes to get the 14 Million tons back down. 14,000,000 tons divided by 14 tons per flight = 1,000,000 flights. Now sure we could have something 10 times better or even 100 times better than a space shuttle but that's irrelevant because even at 100 times better than a Space Shuttle its still 10,000 flights or about 200 flights per week and considering in 30 years the Space Shuttle only did 135 flights that's kind of difficult. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. Tom Price is 20 Mta and Australia exports over 820 Mta so Tom Price rounds to about 1/41st of Australia's output. So those 10,000 flights with the imaginary super shuttle is actually about 410,000 flights and the rest of the world almost quadruples that number. Cos trying to bring back around 2 Billion tons of iron isn't easy. BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. If you do the kinetic energy calculation of 2 Billion tons of processed iron in orbit doing 7.5 kilometers per second. Its 5.625 x 10E16 Joules or the equivalent of around 950 of the Hiroshima bomb. To Bring that back down all that Kinetic Energy has to be dissipated. That's currently done with Air Friction and its burned off as HEAT. Yeah Jeff Bezos idea to save the planet from CO2 Emissions from iron ore production is to take iron production off planet and then effectively NUKE the upper atmosphere on a daily basis. Yeah - Sorry Mr. Bezos but that's NOT going to work.
    1
  8219. ​ @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
  8220. 1
  8221. 1
  8222. 1
  8223. SIMPLE FACT: We either learn to MANAGE the World's resources properly or we are going to see modern society collapse. I'm an engineer and this is the same basic issue facing many industries. FOR TOO LONG shirt term profits came before long term viability and that is causing so many problems. In engineering we have a range of techniques we collectively call ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS (RCA for short). If you have ever watched an accident investigation documentary where they trace an accident back to its initiating causes then you've seen this. About 6 years ago after a consulting job into Australia's (my country) energy sector I became aware of some very serious issues with our future. When I looked into HOW we had got to where we are (and its even worse now) I found that it started in the 1970s when Chicago School Economics in the guise of Reaganomics and Thatcherism took over as the dominant economic ideology. If you go and listen to REBEL economists like Steve Keen you'll hear that classical and neo-classical economists don't even include ENERGY in their models. As an engineer I find that absurd because we need energy to run everything. Every modern business in the world as at least 1 (usually electricity) and usually 2 (add in gas or oil) energy bills. I would add to Steve Keen's assessment that classical and neo-classical economists ALSO ignore the function of WATER in in the worlds economy. And if you are wondering - YES Australia has both very serious ENERGY and WATER issues and because the majority of our economists have NO UNDERSTANDING of HOW either energy or water make modern societies function.
    1
  8224. 1
  8225. I remember that debate. You can see the whole thing if you search YouTube for "oxford union debate woke culture has gone too far" The person who is speaking at that debate is Konstantin Kisin and he was disgusting. Konstantin is the co-host of the Triggernometry podcast which until a few years ago was excellent. Their claim was "interesting people with interesting conversations" and when I first started watching them that's exactly what they were. Early in the Ukraine conflict Konstantin (who's of both Russian and Ukrainian descent) was part of a BBC discussion panel and he was brilliant. He gave some of the best perspectives I have seen anyone give on that conflict. There were 2 notable changes in Konstantin's behavior since then. Triggernometry interviewed David Pakman an American Leftist commentator and David Pakman did a disgusting troll video afterwards. Normally Pakman is accurate and balanced in his commentary but that video was totally unwarranted and unreasonable. Konstantin did a reply video where he showed how upset he was and he was justifiably upset. Around the same time Triggernometry interviewed Nigel Farage and not long afterwards started doing promotions for Nigel Farage's financial consultancy. It was after that Konstatin took a giant leap to the conservative side of public discussion and a lot of it has been utterly disgusting. He toured my home country of Australia on what's best described as a white supremacist culture crusade for a radical far right think tank.
    1
  8226. HEY PETER Can you please hire an engineer to help you out with this stuff so that none of us keep having to call you out on this stuff. 1) This is NOT a 5 minute 36 second issue. 2) There is going to be a massive double digit possibly triple digit $$$TRILLION build outs ANYWAY. 3) Thanks to all of the microphone hogging clowns with vested interests with big money backing NOBODY has done anything close to what they needed to do over the last 30 years. Those IDI0TS have tied everything up in endless discussions. AND my scorn for those people is aimed at BOTH SIDES. I hold the Greenie CLOWNS just as much contempt as the Fossil Fuel M0R0NS. 4) The easiest way for anyone to see the problem is to go and look at the lists of power stations for any state or nation. You can find them on Wikipedia. What you need to look at are the LARGER power stations and particularly those rated at 1,000MW or more. I call these Gigawatt-class power stations because 1GW = 1,000MW. BUT WHAT is most important is that these are BASE LOAD power stations. They supply the power that keeps everything going 24/7. You'll find that we all pretty, much stopped building them in the 1990s as we privatised all of our energy markets. THE REASON IS SIMPLE - there is no viable business case for building large scale energy plants any longer. Gone are the days when you could just slap things together BECAUSE our populations have grown and we need plants that are much larger. 1GW sized power plants were once considered huge now they are average at best. My country of Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power plants to replace because NO MATTER what they are old and wearing out. EVEN WORSE is that they were built well before our population reached 20 million and we are now 26million with plans to be well over 40million by 2050. So we not only have to DOUBLE that 22.6 GW by then as well as add more to that so that we can power all of the electric cars, trucks, vans and busses we want to use. If you take the costs of Hinkley Point C in Britain the cost to just build the power stations is over AU$1.2 Trillion but if you then add in the costs of upgrades the power grid will need that goes past AU$2 Trillion very quickly and may push it past AU$3 Trillion. Go look at your own country (or state) and check out your larger power stations and then check your population growth. What might save us a lot on costs will be the sort of POPULATION DECLINE that many countries are facing and Peter is better than me at explaining. YES PETER and FRIENDS we are in some seriously deep crap when it comes to energy and you all need to start listening to us engineers because we are the ones you are all expecting to solve this.
    1
  8227. @Dikke Snikkel Open my eyes to see what exactly? The BS parrot crap you are spewing from Newsmax and OAN. You picked the wrong person to throw ignorance at. Since I know your American which in general means you know nothing about the rest of the world, Ill explain some things. Here is the best source of COVID data -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ It comes from official government sources daily. the 4th number form the right is the Fatality rate. Its titled Deaths/1m.pop which stands for how many people die out of every million people in a state or country. All these numbers below are from that column and they do change very day as more deaths happen. The death ratings are incredibly varied across Europe just as they are across America. Europe has 1717 in San Marino and 76 in Monaco and 0 (zero) in the Faeroe Islands. America has New Jersey at 2176 while Hawaii has only 204 in Hawaii. Some parts of Europe are actually worse than America, but most are better. Belgium 1691, Italy 1242, UK 1096 & Spain 1087 are all worse than America at 1080. France at 993, Netherland 673, Austria 663, Greece 473 and Germany 415 are all better than America. Sweden famous for its "herd Immunity approach" is at 861, Except the surrounding countries of Finland 101 Norway 80 & Denmark 232 are a lot better. Belgium looks really bad but they are counting every disease related death that cannot be accounted for by other diseases. We could also consider Canada at 415 on this list they rank at 46th. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/ So on COVID your information is garbage.
    1
  8228. 1
  8229.  @gerardmackay8909  You are absolutely right Trump's howlers in 2016 would have sunk any other politician in any other country EXCEPT America. Sorry for the long explanation. When I was there during the 1987 season a guy named Gary Hart was the front runner for the Dems. it was his second run but this time he was out front and then came claims of extramarital affairs and it was over in a blink. At one point his wife mentioned words to the effect: "Yes, their marriage had been in trouble but they had worked it out. But what is more important is that Gary is the best man for the job." I can remember being quit impressed with her and how she spoke. When I mentioned that to my coach (I was on a sports scholarship) he went nuts at me in front of the entire squad, telling me I had no clue. He said (paraphrasing) "The Russians will send one of the blond floosies and suck our secrets out of a man like him." He was normally a quiet sort of guy but that set him completely off the rails. When I asked others, they said it was all due to him being part of "that generation" who grew up with the bomb. I hadn't thought about this for years until about a year ago when I could not see why people still followed him. Then I realised there's an incredibly weird thing in politics. Its like following a sports team. We will forgive our players and coaches of almost anything SO LONG AS THEY WIN. We wont care if our club hires a player with a horrible past so long as he helps us win. Trump realised that better than any other politician in recent history and maybe more than anyone in democratic politics ever has. He knew that irrespective of anything he'd ever done so long as he gave them a way to win and get what they wanted that NOBODY would care. This is sort of present in most countries but it seems to be amped up in America. So long as you give the people something that they feel is important they will not care about other things. Go look on the YT channel Secular Talk. A while back Kyle & Krystal interviewed Jesse Ventura and there's a couple of excerpts available. In one of them Jesse talks about Trump and how he won. There was a year JV could not wrestle because of injury and Vince McMahon asked him to commentate. At that time all wrestling commentators had sided with the "good guy" and not the "heel" (bad boy in wrestling terminology). JV said there had never been a "heel" in the commentary booth. He was concerned about it and then Vince McMahon told him just to stick to character and "If you say it then its true." It utterly split the wrestling fan base, but it kept that fan base ENGAGED. Think about how wrestling promotion works and then consider Trumps rallies. he just says things he knows that will hit various people right between the eyes and they will love it and NOT CARE about anything else. Just like wrestling fans they wont care if its all theatre its what they want to see and hear. Interestingly Wrestling promoters stand in the ring with the audience all around them. Normal politicians have supporters behind and the crowd in front. Trump (like a wrestling promoter) stands in the middle with the crowd all around. I highly recommend people go and look up that interview if they want to understand how Trump works. Sorry for the long answer. Tell me what you think after watching that interview with Jesse V.
    1
  8230. 1
  8231. 1
  8232. 1
  8233.  @dylanthomas12321  Please STOP believing the crap and nonsense you keep being told in the media. They are NOT engineers. MOST if not all of what they say is produced for them by special interests. Often its from think tanks who are funded by the military contractors who want the contracts to "do stuff." Its the portrayal of what these hypersonic gliders can do that annoys me as its so misleading and the only intent is to get some juicy contract. There's incredible amounts of money in weapons development contracts. things don't even need to work they just need to have the appearance they might work to get the development contracts. How do you think those "gliders' get to that height and get to those speeds? They're just a development of what's been available since the 1950s when the first ICBMs were made available. All those gliders are is an upgraded version of those systems. Its just told to the public as something new and fantastic. The first warheads from ICBMS were guided during the final stages of flight. They have manoeuvring but its nowhere near the ducking, dipping and weaving shown in the graphics. This notion of doing that at speeds above Mach 5 is simply nonsense. To glide you need air thick enough to glide and manoeuvre. If you have air you also have drag and at Mach 5 that means a lot of heat from air friction. the problems just mount and mount once you start going supersonic and particularly after Mach 2. Its difficult to explain how extraordinary the SR-71 really was without a series of lectures and it only went Mach 3.3. The Russians tried to match its speed with the Mig 25 and for it to go that sort of speed it wrecked the engines. It was something the Russians kept secret for many years. At full speed they threw the engines away afterwards and in some cases the entire aircraft. These guys want to go faster than Mach 5. Think of it this way. Just as lift and drag are functions of velocity squared (v²), the difficulties of supersonic flight are a function of the Mach number squared (M²). Mach 1 is hard Mach 2 is 4 times harder ... Mach 5 is 25 times harder and it just gets worse after that.
    1
  8234. 1
  8235. 1
  8236. 1
  8237. 1
  8238.  @Aa-ron01  Do you understand even the basics of climate change, because a lot of people don't. Its pretty simple if you heat up the planet you evaporate more water and sooner or later it will fall out of the sky. Basically it turbocharges the weather. In a nutshell the side of the earth the faces the sun is getting energy pumped into/onto it by a monstrous nuclear furnace. The other side of the planet is dumping excess energy off into space. We are still getting the same amount from the sun on one side but not dumping as much on the other as a result the entire planet has slowly heated up. When its hotter there's more evaporation. If you have more evaporation you have more clouds and eventually you have these events with huge amounts of rain and snow. It was always called climate change by the scientific community it was journalists who called it global warming because that was easier for them to type. Your remark on vegetation is half right. Vegetation doesn't absorb surface water what it does is allow it to be absorbed. The problem with soil (particularly Australian soils) is that when it dries out it switches from water absorbing to water repelling and if you dry it right out its hard to get it back to water absorbing. What vegetation does is help keep moisture in the soil. So it keeps the soil in a water absorbing state so that when it rains the water can soak into the soil. If its dried out then rain can simply run off the land into the creeks and rivers taking topsoil with it. Its one reason why our environmental scientists (not the greenie tree hugging clowns) have been telling us for a while that we have to stop simply clearing land for pasture as we have done. They've now got the evidence that keeping 20% of native trees and vegetation makes our land more productive as it helps maintain the moisture in the soil. Trying to convince people that's true is the next problem.
    1
  8239. 1
  8240. 1
  8241. 1
  8242. 1
  8243. 1
  8244. 1
  8245.  @kausthubh  There's plenty of open unforested space space. I'm Australian we have several million square kilometers for starters. North Africa has massive amounts of open space and YES I damn well know how hard that will be. But that can also be mitigated with tree selection and planting arrangements. There's some pretty amazing videos here on YouTube on re-wilding and how they are reclaiming lots of open space. One of the really important things that has come out of that is variety. If you try and to it via monoculture it will be a disaster. HERE'S the inescapable fact. We have to get 3.5 Trillion tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere and do it fast. There's a clown down the list here (idm3027) who's pulling numbers out of his butt like it will only cost $100 a ton by DAC. IF THATS TRUE and lets not forget that Douglas Chan COO Climeworks is claiming they hope to get it down from $1000/ton to $3-400/ton, then at $100/ton its still going to cost $350 TRILLION. WHERE TF DOES ANYONE THINK THEY ARE GOING TO GET THAT $350 TRILLION? Then there's the actual energy costs. In how many places would we need new power stations to drive that AND WHO'S going to pay for those power stations. Then that's that whole problem of the environmental cost of all the materials required to build all those plants. I started with a degree in aerospace but have spent 30+ years working in industrial control systems and automation. I have spent time in both manufacturing and mining and I KNOW how much energy those industries consume. Do you know there's mor energy used in making a car than it consumes in its lifetime? people forget it take energy to dig all those materials out of the ground and process it into stuff that you can makes bits out of so you can assemble those bits into a car. Its the same for most manufactured goods. In fact a great way to help save the planet is to STOP manufacturing crap products and instead manufacture everything with better quality to last longer. It would massively reduce energy consumption. The other thing is to triple glaze all those glass towers we've build over the last century. mark Blyth the political economist at Brown U. mentioned an engineering report that said if America just triple glazed all its office blocks and skyscrapers the saving in energy would help America get most of the way to meeting the Paris Accords. Architects might be good for designing aesthetically nice buildings but they don't know a damn thing about energy efficiency.
    1
  8246. 1
  8247. 1
  8248.  @benthompson8913  Go back and check the comments you're about the 3rd to 4th to point that out. Which is important. There's been way too many people making claims about what is and isn't fact. I'm Australian but went to college in America and it astounds me how bad so many people are on basic things. Which is why I find it great that people like you DO KNOW. I was there in the late 80s and back then Americans actually HAD PRIDE that they KNEW their constitution. These days however, I don't know if Americans realise how well so many other people around the world have some understanding of the US Constitution. I had a bunch of frat brothers who were pre-law and they used to drag me into all sorts of hypothetical arguments, but there are many others way better educated than I am. Because of the fall of the Soviet Empire, many countries wrote entirely new constitutions and most of those copied or did variations of the US Constitution. So there are a lot of legal experts all over the world, with excellent understanding of the US Constitution. I hope that explains why so many people from other places are confused about America these days. We all saw Jan 6th and we all went WTF. We are still trying to get our heads around that. If there is one thing I would recommend Biden do RIGHT NOW. Put CIVICS classes back into high schools. FUND state and national essay and debating competitions where the prizes are college scholarships and bonuses to teachers. Schools that produce results also get extra funding. Label it as a Patriotic duty to protect the Constitution so the GOP can't claim anything. As you probably know there is very scary bunch of self appointed fanatics called the Federalist Society. They scare me more than any other political organisation on the planet. Their control of SCOTUS has very serious effects on global politics and trade that most Americans are NOT aware off. The only way to combat their control is education. FYI - I really do want to see America back at its best. In simple terms we need America going like the LA Rams not the Jacksonville Jaguars.
    1
  8249. 1
  8250. 1
  8251. 1
  8252. 1
  8253. 1
  8254.  @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
  8255.  @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
  8256. 1
  8257. Australian Aerospace engineer here - I did my degree in American and have classmates at NASA. I truly feel for what you guys are facing. Here's something you and NASA can fight back with. I did my degree in the late 80s and when the Challenger accident happened. In the aftermath there were many people who called for NASA to be chopped up and sold off. In response the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) commissioned a report into the value of NASA. I forget who did that but it might have been Deloitte. Eventually the AIAA notified everyone with a summary. In those days the AIAA published a monthly magazine called "Aerospace America." In one of those right inside the front cover on page 1 was a letter to members from the President announcing this study. It was took difficult to analyse all of NASA so they just looked at the Apollo Program because it has finished and they could check money spent and assess it against money earned from technology spinoffs. The basic summary was the Apollo Program was FINANCIALLY the greatest investment in human history having returned in tax (yes tax) over $9 for every $1 spent. By tax they meant the taxes paid on profits earned by companies and income tax paid by employees of those companies that were using Apollo derived technologies. By that stage 100s of American companies and 1000s of American people were producing goods and services based on Apollo derived technology. You see in making it to the moon many new materials and manufacturing technologies were developed. By the late 80s things like digital computers, aluminum alloys, plastics (including Teflon) and a pile of manufacturing technologies and techniques had not only filtered out into American industry but was giving many American companies technological advantages over the rest of the world. Remember by the late 80s companies like Microsoft were emerging and a lot of the computer tech had history in the Apollo Program. Basically Apollo wasn't just a few small steps by 12 guys across the Moon. It was bunch of giant leaps forward in technologies many of which are still earning the American people lots of money. its a story few people know about. I hope you guys can find that report. I'd suggest asking the AIAA to look at issues they might still have of Aerospace America from 1986 & 87. best of luck.
    1
  8258. 1
  8259. 1
  8260. 1
  8261. 1
  8262. ​ @chriswatson1698  No it doesn't. As Peter has often pointed out urbanisation has far more to do with lowering the birth rate than anything, Following urbanisation the next biggest factor in falling birth rates is the education of women. Yeah I know it sounds incredibly patriarchal but the fact is the more educated women get the fewer children they have. Every time somebody analyses census data and shows it the feminists go nuts. Go watch the start of the film Idiocracy, its actually very close to the truth. As for Australia's housing issues its NOT so much an immigration issue but a collection of idiotic economic policies. Its like a disease that has slightly different symptoms in each patient. In Australia it shows up mainly in our housing market. In America it shows up in their health care. In Britain its currently showing up in their electricity market. Make no mistake they are all symptoms of the same disease. I'm, an engineer and a few years back started informally studying economics because I got so frustrated with interference on projects by clowns with economics degrees. I just wanted to be able to push back at their nonsense. I've watched and listened to a lot of pretty smart well credentialed people here on YT. Its how I ended up watching a lot of Peter Z. His explanations of geopolitics helps explain a lot of this stuff at the macro level, especially when you add it into what some of the economists have been saying for a while. Go watch the channel Gary's Economics here on YT. Gary Stevenson graduated from the LSE and went to work for Citibank where he was there top trader in the world for a couple of years. But he comes from a working class and could see how things were affecting people. So he went of to Oxford and did a masters. His explanations of why economics is failing are brilliant. Go watch his video titled "Why are economists always wrong?"
    1
  8263. 1
  8264. 1
  8265. 1
  8266.  @s0515033  You're right on all fronts. The single biggest problem are the billionaires who have lost grip with reality. I'm an engineer and spent most of my COVID time looking at economics, because I am always up against them and there standard "Who's going to pay for that?" or "How will you pay for that?" What I found is that most economists think they know what an economy is but actually don't. The best source of WTF is going on is a guy named Mark Blyth (Brown U.). He's a political economist not a political scientist or a straight economist. Political Economy is the study of how politics and economics interact. Instead of treating them as separate subjects to theorise about they look interact in the real world and how it works. Mark Blyth was one of the very few people who predicted both Trump and Brexit and he said it wasn't hard if you just looked at what was going on. It sounds so damn simple and practical, especially to an engineer like me. I did aerospace engineering and we are trained to consider complex systems as conglomerates of sub-systems. We are trained to always consider the effects each subsystem has on all the others so that we don't do something that screws up the whole show. Here's an intro into Angrynomics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJD5rE4omY If you can understand that we should have upgraded the economics computer after the 2008 GFC, instead of patch and you've made the first major step to understanding. Its like we are trying to play games designed for PS4/5 on a PS 3 with an Xbox handset. Its slow, incompatible, crashes constantly and the store we got it from doesn't care BECAUSE HE GOT A BONUS.
    1
  8267. 1
  8268. I'm Australian but went to college in America and I have been throwing that fact at them for a couple of years now. Here's a couple of hard facts. 1) We DO NOT need America to deal with the World's issues BUT without America problems like climate change, displaced people, wealth inequality,.... become damn hard to deal with. 2) We have no say in who America chooses to be POTUS but we have to live with the choice. 3) America is still 1/4 of the worlds economy and most of us either trade with, or have security arrangements with of BOTH and if that 1/4 goes away or makes a sudden change then it hits the rest of us. It would even hit those countries like Russia, Iran and North Korea. 4) The US Dollar is still the worlds reserve currency. No matter what the BRICS want they will not be replacing the US$ anytime soon. Almost all international trade is either done in US$ or there's US$ underpinning the currency transactions. 5) The Bank of International Settlements, which is where all of our central banks exchange and settle out all the money that's been exchanged, reported (Dec 2022) that there's now $100 Trillion in FX Swaps (Foreign Exchange Swaps) floating about the markets and most (+65%) are held by non-bank entities. A few people commented on it at the time but its basically gone untouched by the mainstream media. Normally FX Swaps are what's needed by people to do various forms of international trade and investments BUT they are also used by people to bet on the currency markets. Nobody knows exactly how much of the $100 Trillion are bets versus normal business but what is known is that if the US$ suddenly shifts then those FX Swaps go from being bets to being toxic. So whoever the American's pick needs to be VERY VERY VERY responsible for the next 2 terms. The next POTUS not only has some very difficult tasks to deal with in America but they have to DE-TUNE the effect of the US$ in the worlds economy without causing a catastrophe.
    1
  8269. 1
  8270. 1
  8271. 1
  8272. 1
  8273. 1
  8274. 1
  8275. 1
  8276. 1
  8277. 1
  8278. 1
  8279. 1
  8280. 1
  8281. 1
  8282. 1
  8283. 1
  8284. 1
  8285. 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
  8286. 1
  8287. 1
  8288. 1
  8289. 1
  8290. 1
  8291. 1
  8292. 1
  8293. 1
  8294. 1
  8295. 1
  8296. 1
  8297. 1
  8298. 1
  8299. 1
  8300. 1
  8301. 1
  8302. 1
  8303. 1
  8304. 1
  8305. 1
  8306. 1
  8307. 1
  8308. 1
  8309. 1
  8310. 1
  8311. 1
  8312. 1
  8313. 1
  8314. 1
  8315. 1
  8316. 1
  8317. 1
  8318. 1
  8319. 1
  8320. 1
  8321. 1
  8322. 1
  8323. 1
  8324. 1
  8325. 1
  8326. 1
  8327. 1
  8328. 1
  8329. 1
  8330. 1
  8331. 1
  8332. On the basic principal I agree. For example in the case of Timothy McVeigh there was no doubt he did what he did. In the case of John Wayne Gacy there was no doubt. In both those case I absolutely agree that justice was done. They both showed what Americans call "depraved indifference," but in many other cases there is doubt or there is at least the appearance of improper procedure. For example: AFTER Donald Trump lost the 2020 election he ordered the execution of 3 convicted people. Irrespective of what they did or didn't do for over 130 years NO President had allowed a federal execution to take place in the period between the election and the inauguration of the next President. The view was that despite the sitting president having duties to fulfill no longer had the mandate for those sorts of decisions and they were to be left for the incoming president. At the same time Donald Trump pardoned the Blackwater 4 who were responsible for killing 17 innocent people in the Nisour Square Massacre. Those 4 were, at the time of their crime, employees of Eric Prince the brother of Betsy DeVos Donald Trumps Secretary of Education. So were those decisions by Donald Trump for justice or politics? FYI - I'm Australian and the last person executed in Australia was Ronald Ryan who was hanged for killing a guard during an attempted prison break. It was in my home state of Victoria. There were serious ballistics issues that suggested the guard was accidentally shot by another guard in a tower. The lone eyewitness to the actual shot simply lied. Decades later records were released of the cabinet discussions. These included people telling the Premier (our equivalent of a state Governor) of these serious flaws in the case. He told colleagues he didn't care as there was an election coming and looking tough of crime was always a winner. Sir Henry Bolte won that election in a landslide and one of the main bridges in Melbourne is named after him. Its now fairy well accepted that Ronald Ryan was hung for political not judicial reasons.
    1
  8333. 1
  8334. 1
  8335. 1
  8336. I did Aerospace ay U. Illinois (graduated at the end of 87). I never did anything on the CRAYs, but we were being shown what some of the postgrads were doing with CFD modelling. I was into FEA with my professor and we just used one the departments Cybers for that. I was on the swim team and there was a post grad who'd been on the team a few years earlier who the coach still let use our locker room. I forget his name, but was working on the parallel processing compilers for the CRAYs. I remember being quite surprised to find out they were still using Fortran and he explained they did that because the math algorithms had already been proven. What he was working on was how to send different parts of the code to different processors and get the best performance. I graduated at the end of 87 and they were just bringing on the second CRAY which I think might have been a 2 or an XMP-48. I'm actually Australian and its incredibly hard to explain to people here what it was like to be at Illinois in that era. I had done a year at RMIT in Melbourne before going to Illinois. RMIT had all of 1 Cyber mainframe for the entire university. Just the Aerospace department at Illinois had 2 Cybers as well as access to the other engineering VAX main frames. One of my professors had 2 Micro Vax units under a desk in his office. A few years after getting back to Oz our main Science and Research Organisation the CSIRO got a YMP single core and thought it was the greatest thing ever. It was around the time Illinois was commissioning its second XMP-64.
    1
  8337. 1
  8338. 1
  8339. 1
  8340. 1
  8341. That's of course sensible and its what scientists have argued for some time. Because of all the ridiculous howling and screaming over COVID one thing that needed to be discussed but has NOT been discussed is the oversight of these labs. Back in 2011 there was a Dutch Researcher named Ron Fouchier who created a variation of avian flu that has been described as the deadliest virus humanity has ever encountered. Had it escaped rather than COVID we'd have already have over 64 million dead instead of 6.6 million. The problem that emerged after Ron Fouchier's work was that nobody was really aware of what he was doing. The Dutch government actually had to step in and shut him down because he wanted to tell the whole world how he did it and show how clever he was. He never considered the maniacs who would use it. If you do take a look at the whole Wuhan issue it was obvious there were issues. I DO NOT think that what they were doing was fundamentally wrong. China had faced MERS and SARS so investigating what might be next was smart. Getting other nations to help with that research was also smart. DOING THAT RESEARCH IN AN UNSAFE WAY WAS NOT SMART. An airborne virus like COVID needed to have been researched in a Level 4 lab NOT a Level 3 lab AND THAT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY EXPERTS. And 1 other thing. They redefined what was and what wasn't gain of function. Ron Fouchier's work would no longer be considered gain of function. Just like the work in Wuhan is also not considered to be gain of function. This is something else that has NOT been discussed publicly.
    1
  8342. 1
  8343. AEROSPACE ENGINEER HERE: Like many engineers I am TIRED of clowns promoting garbage to the public that we then have to explain and explain and explain why its not possible or it won't work. This crap and nonsense is going on constantly, with scammer after scammer promoting the next thing and wasting everyone's time and money. Just the other day I had some ignorant clown tell me that here in Australia we ALREADY HAVE a couple of Small Modular Reactors operating. Funny thing is NONE of the companies involved in SMRs are saying anything other than they HOPE to have them available by the mid 2030s. According to this clown somehow Australia has time warped in a couple of SMRs. As an aerospace engineer I hear all sorts of nonsense from terraforming Mars (which is simply a fantasy), to Jewish or Chinese Space lasers causing grass fires to hypersonic missiles that manoeuvre and dance around the sky AND ITS ALL BULLSHIT. What Thunder00t is doing with these basic calculations of HOW MUCH IS NEEDED is what I call planetary mechanics. Along with my classmates we were introduced to this by a NASA engineer who did a guest lecture one day. He'd just finished a project for NASA on what it would take to terraform Mars. Once NASA realised just how much stuff (like air) is needed to cover a planet they gave up on the idea of EVER terraforming Mars. But 35 years later there are millions of Elon Musk fans who think they will be going to Mars to terraform it. DID you notice for this proposal the team leader is an Architect? If Architects knew how much engineers HATE THEM. Other than a few of the very best architects who know what their designs do to the people who have to make them, the vast majority of architects are PROBLEM CREATORS. The worst part of their attitude is THEY KNOW they are creating problems for other people to deal with.
    1
  8344. 1
  8345. 1
  8346. 1
  8347. 1
  8348. 1
  8349. To America: This behavior of this SCOTUS no longer just involves America. Absolutely this is way more important to you that anyone else, but for every country that trades with America and especially any country with security arrangements with America this SCOTUS is of serious importance. If any American company gets into an issue for activities outside America they drag the case back to America. Go and look up the case with Steven Donziger and Chevron. That case had nothing to do with America or American courts. Yet it was dragged back to the American Courts where Chevron had everything in their favor. As for security who knows how far this court will go in future. Today they are making SOCIO-POLITiCAL decisions for 328 million people who did NOT vote them into office. What decisions will they make in future that might have grave security implications. The 45th President has been found (in breach of American laws) in possession of classified materials. What if this court makes some ridiculous decision regarding that? What are other countries meant to do if future Presidents just do as they please with classified materials and there's no recourse? FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America. A bunch of my friends were pre-law and we ended up discussing the constitution a lot. I can barely believe what's happening with SCOTUS. This is the sort of stuff they told me could never happen. The system of "Checks & Balances" was rock solid. I don't think anyone ever considered that a pack of billionaires along with a few insanely corrupt Senators could smash that system, but they have. SCOTUS is a massive issue but if you don't FIX THE SENATE and get rid of the cancer that's there it won't matter.
    1
  8350. 1
  8351. 1
  8352. 1
  8353. 1
  8354. 1
  8355. 1
  8356. Clearly a lot of people here have NEVER worked in the mining industry or have NO IDEA about manufacturing, but then most of these idiots spouting nonsense have NO IDEA because they have never been involved in manufacturing or been involved in mining and I'VE DONE BOTH. I used to work in the Australian automotive sector before it shut down and have since worked in the Australian mining sector in control systems and automation. 1: There's a giant difference between finding a deposit, getting it properly assessed and then being able to mine it. Circa 2006 I worked on the construction of the Ravensthorpe Nickel project. BHP spent $3.5 Billion on the project. It was laterite nickel which is a bitch to process, but it was justified by the quality of the deposit and the value of Nickel. BHP did NOT complete a full drilling test pattern and the deposit was found to be NOWHERE near as good as the PR claimed. The mine was closed after about 18months and sold for less than 1/7th ($500 Million) its. The Lesson: Don't believe the PR hype even when its from a major player. 2: You absolutely do need Nickel for batteries, just as you need copper for the electrical cabling in an EV just as you need all the other metals, glass and plastics. Go and look at your car and see how much stuff is actually in one. If you have ever been in the plants where they make all those bits that go into a car you'll quickly understand that it takes a whole range of raw materials and lots of energy to make the bits that make a car and all of that uses lots of energy. The quickest way we can reduce emissions is to reduce how much energy we consume as a society. THE AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING SECTOR is one of the largest energy consumers because it not only uses a lot of energy making the cars it uses a lot of energy getting the raw materials out of the ground and processing that into the raw feed stock to make the parts the cars are made from. The best thing we can do is NOT replace old cars with new cars but replace the drive systems in old cars with EV and Hybrid systems. It will save huge amounts of energy and resources while keeping millions of people employed. BUILDING EFFICIENCY: The other great (and inefficient) user of energy are BIG BUILDINGS. Mark Blyth the political economist from Brown U. pointed out this a couple of years ago. Some engineer worked out that just triple glazing all of America's buildings would employ 1000's and 1000's of people for well over a decade and reduce America's emissions so much that meeting the Paris goals is easy because you can then turn off a bunch of dirty old coal fired power stations. All those big giant glass boxes are designed by architects to look pretty NOT by engineers to be efficient. Not only would it creat employment but raise the asset values of all those buildings as well as reduce the power costs all the tenants have making them more profitable. I'd like to hear an economist claim that's not a good idea.
    1
  8357. 1
  8358. 1
  8359. 1
  8360. I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. I can tell you that a Canadian engineer used these same figures at a recent CIS event that was held before Gerrard did this talk. Like many engineers I am getting incredibly fed up with people like Gerrard who pull these numbers out of thin air or very dubious sources and do it to audiences they know will not question anything. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  8361. 1
  8362. 1
  8363. 1
  8364. AUSTALIAN ENGINEER HERE: Below is my overall comment but since you mentioned Maggie Thatch I thought I'd let you know. 1) This is NOT just a problem for Britain its a problem across the entire developed world including Australia. 2) This is 100% THE FAULT OF ECONOMISTS This started with American Economist Milton Freidman who's view was Governments are the problem and markets are the solution. 2 of his greatest acolytes were Margret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan who famously said "Governments are NOT the solution. Governments are the problem." Milton Friedman also_"argued that a company has no social responsibility to the public or society; its only responsibility is to its shareholders."_ (Wikipedia) and to maximise profits. The argument that deregulated markets would deliver "cheaper energy with better services" IS ILLOGICAL How can anyone expect there to be any stable market for anything when the OBLIGATION of every CEO in that market is to maximise profits. EITHER they collude to raise prices and lower costs OR they fight it out Hunger Games style until a single victor emerges and then there's no competition and the victor can do whatever they like. I will grant to any economist that in the case of fast moving consumer goods where there are many suppliers, many product options and many options to buy those goods from then Freidman's ideology can work. The problem is that things like infrastructure, water and energy ARE NOT LIKE fast moving consumer goods. They are ESSENTIAL SERVICES to society and the costs involved in DO NOT HAVE a market solution. This is also why economists have made a mess of public education and public health care across the world in recent decades. Economists can't comprehend that there are these ESSENTIAL functions and services that need to be manged by government, NOT so the government can make money but so that the private sector can make money. Roads & bridges DO NOT need to make money they need to enable everyone else to move about and move stuff and make money. Education systems DO NOT need to make money they need to supply private industry with educated workers or with people who can make money and buy their goods and services. Hospitals DO NOT need to make money they need to get people healthy so they can go back to making money. In Britain right now is Hinkley Point C. It took 7 years to approve & design with a 10 year construction period. Even at higher energy prices it will take close to a decade to pay off and then start earning money. How does anyone ask a banker or CEO in the 50s to spend £40+ Billion knowing they wont be making a positive return until they are in there 70s? However if you ask the representative of a nation state to invest in something where over the next 80 years your nation shall grow and prosper from that investment then its a completely different matter. I have done the math of this and depending on how much the French STATE OWNED entity EDF can earn from Hinkley Point C then the French shall not only get their money back but PAY FOR at least 2, possibly 3 and if they work it well enough 4 power stations (8 x EPR 2 reactors in total). This is why Mr Macron could safely order 8 EPR 2 reactors because he know the British Economists are to stupid to do the math and it will NOT be the French people paying for those reactors it will be the British people paying for those reactors. So yeah right now the French people might be asking why are we paying for a power station in Britain. The answer is very simple: So it can pay for the next 2, 3 or 4 in France. AND before you ask. YES Australia is being just as stupid with its energy sector because like the British Economists advising the British Government our Economists advising our Government went to Oxford and Cambridge too. Except for the ones who went to Harvard and Yale.
    1
  8365. 1
  8366. 1
  8367. 1
  8368. 1
  8369. 1
  8370. 1
  8371. 1
  8372. 1
  8373. 1
  8374. 1
  8375. 1
  8376. 1
  8377. 1
  8378. 1
  8379. 1
  8380. 1
  8381. 1
  8382. 1
  8383. 1
  8384. 1
  8385. 1
  8386. 1
  8387. 1
  8388. 1
  8389. 1
  8390.  @valveman12  I'm not here to argue either, but I will correct thigs that I know are wrong. And right now its simply wrong to say Trump is guilty of Treason, for the simple fact he is still legally POTUS. POTUS can't easily be guilty of treason unless he is trying to overthrow the government and he's doing nothing against the House or Senate. Plus Biden is not officially president elect until the Electoral College votes and says he is. But the rest of them and charges of sedition - that's very real as people are starting to point out. Its not an easy thing like it is in some countries and was before the American Revolution. In fact the main reason the 1st Amendment exists is because of how the British applied it. There's a perfect example of that in the film "Last of the Mohicans." Hawkeye encouraged people to defy the colonel. The colonel said I am the king's representative that's sedition and Hawkeye will hang. It was that arbitrary use that made the 1st so important and also why it was the 1st thing they wrote. There is a sort of argument that Giuliani and others might had 1st Am. protection, but it does have limits. On the other hand if you served you'd know that does not exist for Flynn even if he's ex-military he has to watch what he says. You should know the UCMJ better than me and its rules on seditious behavior. You should know that the oath to uphold and protect the constitution does not simply end when you leave the military, FYI - I'm actually Australian but went to college in America and a pack of my frat brothers were pre-law and used to love bouncing my head of the walls with hypothetical arguments because I had different perspectives. So other than America being incredibly important to Australia its also a major part of my life. I love the place I love the people, I love the culture but I hate what a small number of people are doing to a great country. Not certain where you are, I regard my self as part Illinois boy, but take care & stay safe. Other than Trump, COVID's out of control and there's still other stuff we need to deal with. The next few years will be very tough and if we don't work together we really are in deep shit.
    1
  8391. 1
  8392. To all you Americans who care. This was just shown Australia regarding Rupert Murdoch and Fox -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBqU1RzV7o Its the 1st of 2 parts and the 2nd wont be shown until next week. It includes interviews with ex-Fox presenters who detail what happened inside the Murdoch/Fox Empire with regards to Trump. Its been done by ABC Australia (our equivalent of PBS) on a program called "4 Corners" (our equivalent to PBS Frontline). You can expect the Australian Right Wingers to go completely unhinged. Murdoch's Australian operation is called "Sky News Australia" (if you didn't know). Their Equivalent to Hannity is a guy named Alan Jones, but he's just one of a group of narcissistic liars. So watch out for ANYTHING done by Sky News Australia. Murdoch has been trying for more than 20 years to get the ABC dissolved (as in completely annihilated). The right wingers claim the ABC is leftist and the left wingers always claim they are pro-right. The fact is the ABC is publicly funded but under its charter its programming is independent, including its news and current affairs. SO it reports what comes across its desk. Does it get shit wrong at times? ABSOLUTELY, but its also a place where we can still get HONEST in depth investigative journalism. We can never let the ABC go just the same as America must never let PBS go. If you doubt that watch this Frontline from 16 years ago when all this idiotic shit in Iraq and Afghanistan started. For that question of how did this all happen? Here are the answers. For anyone who's forgotten what people like Paul Wolfowitz did to make this shit storm happen. Here's what he and others said -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byu9Yhr0Q_0
    1
  8393. 1
  8394. 1
  8395. 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
  8396. 1
  8397. 1
  8398. 1
  8399. 1
  8400. 1
  8401. 1
  8402. 1
  8403. 1
  8404. 1
  8405. 1
  8406. 1
  8407. 1
  8408. 1
  8409. 1
  8410. 1
  8411. 1
  8412. 1
  8413. 1
  8414. ​ @cg.marklemuel  They are a lot closer to taking away millions of simpler jobs like call centers and customer support. Where computer based systems have always worked is on REPETITIVE tasks. What they have managed with these newer systems is to expand that range into things that are not exactly repetitive but are predictable. I mentioned in another comment how I heard that an Indian call center sacked most f its staff and replaced them with an AI. That's the sort of thing that can have dramatic effects with expansive consequences. There are some tasks that AI is particularly good at and there's reasons why. If you think about the text completion in things like search engines. The moment you type the first letter you have suddenly reduced the chances of the what the first word is. Type the second letter and that goes down even further. Complete the first word and start the second word and the number of options reduce dramatically and because of previous searches the rest of the question can be suggested. That's an ideal task for how neural nets can be trained to function and (by extension) also why a lot of customer service work is at risk. Also if you consider things like image analysis tasks like matching finger prints or facial recognition where the task is to compare images or partial images. Its what in engineering can be called a "well defined task." The image can be digitised and key features NUMERICALLY DEFINED into a pattern. Its then a matter of searching for close matches to that numerical pattern. Its a bit like how a person does one of those "Where's Waldo?" photos. Your brain might not just be looking for Waldo but some part of him like his hat. This is why AI is very good at certain tasks or types of tasks. My biggest concern is that its being now PROMOTED as the solution to everything. Think about how many times there's been an announcement of the "next game changing" technology and that's almost the last you ever hear about it. But then we get disasters like Theranos where it gets totally out of hand and people lose out huge.
    1
  8415.  @farentimonnaewens4662  Agreed there have been people who warned about all sorts of tech including AI and NOBODY listened. WAY BACK around 1990 Silicon Graphics did a demo of there then latest systems at the college I was doing post-grad. They were one of the first to use RISC based systems and their graphics CPUs (what we now call GPUs) ran at TWICE the clock speed of their main CPUs. it was serious stuff at that time. They were foundered to fill the need for data presentation coming out of the Supercomputers. In those days the CRAY SCs were just giant number crunching beasts. They needed a front end to format the data and a back end to present it AND Silicon Graphics were one of the companies that stepped into that space. They were the first ones to do all those fancy flow visualisations of wings and racing cars. I did aerospace so I got to see that stuff. At that display they showed us they had a 100% created in software short film of a girl walking out of the surf onto a perfect beautiful white sandy beach. Had we NOT been told none of us would have noticed it was a simulation. It really was that crisp. A couple of years later that same company Silicon Graphics became famous for what they did on the film Terminator 2 with the liquid metal robot. Even back then Silicon Graphics and others admitted that in future they would be able to make almost anything and the average person would NOT know the difference. What held it back for so long was how much time (both people and computing) to do even a few seconds. That 10-15 seconds of the girl on the beach (I think) took over a month because it required so much ray tracing. With this new stuff what used to take days or weeks takes minutes and hours. If you recall the film "Running Man" where they map Arnnie Swartz onto old footage with Jesse Ventura for a fight scene. That would have take months back in the 90s now its almost as fast as the film. I have heard Ric Beato (here on YT) talk about the sound equipment they have now that can make anyone into a sensational singer and fix almost any sound track. If somebody hits a wrong note they can fix it in the software. I bet you know more about that stuff than I do.
    1
  8416. 1
  8417. 1
  8418. 1
  8419. 1
  8420. 1
  8421. 1
  8422. 1
  8423. 1
  8424. 1
  8425. 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
  8426. 1
  8427. 1
  8428. 1
  8429. 1
  8430. 1
  8431. 1
  8432. 1
  8433. 1
  8434. 1
  8435. 1
  8436. 1
  8437. 1
  8438.  @limedickandrew6016  In one respect I agree with your opening remark, while another part of me wants to beat you with a bat. Hurting people who are NOT responsible for anything more than providing public safety is unacceptable. Its not just police either - across the World these past few years all sorts of people who are doing nothing more that trying help those in need have been abused and in many instances killed. I certainly don't know all of America's issues (and I'll do a second note on that), but on a basic comparison between BLM & ANTIFA versus the Trumpists. 1: BLM & ANTIFA have zero political power. The Trumpists have had their man in the White House for the last 4 years. 2: BLM came from a response to rogue members of the authorities killing black people. The Trumpists have had their man publicly call for protestors to be locked up, sacked form the NFL and many other things. 3: BLM & ANTIFA did not at nay stage storm the capitol and tear down the US flag and replace it with their own. 4 BLM & ANTIFA did not call for the overthrow of the government they called for the fair treatment of every person in America. The Trumpists demanded that the 15th Amendment rights of million of American be simply thrown out. 5: BLM & ANTIFA have demanded that all Americans be fairly treated by the courts. The Trumpists got their days in court and either forfeited or lost over 50 times, only winning once in Pennsylvania on a procedural issue that had nothing to do with voting fraud or irregularities. They even got near instant access to SCOTUS where they also go thrown out for a lack of evidence. 6: On the subject of evidence BLM has the bodies of many including Breonna Taylor and the footage of George Floyd having the life choked out of him. the Trumpists have had over 50 occasions in court to provide evidence of their claims and NOTHING of CREDIBILITY has been presented. 7: Finally both are guilty of public disturbance, property damage, assault of law enforcement officers and other crimes. That's the only thing they have in common, but in terms of mitigating circumstances they could not be more different. FYI- I do not what its like to be on the bad side of a rogue police officer. Last year I was assaulted by an off duty officer and the only reason I can read your words is good fortune. I was wearing my reading glasses or the boiling mug of soup he threw in my face (after kicking me and threating to cut my head off) would have blinded me. I had burns all over my face from my chin to the top of my head - my glasses saved my eyesight. Hours later it was police officers who came and dragged him away in hand-cuffs. When they failed to find one of his illegal weapons they listened to me, went back, searched again and found it. So yeah I personally know from a very personnel experience the difference between that majority of police officers whose intent is to make our lives safer and those few who are the opposite.
    1
  8439.  @limedickandrew6016  On the subject of Americas cancer, which is misinformation. For starters I actually went to college in America and not just on an exchange. I got a sports scholarship and finished my degree there. As part of a varsity team I travelled a lot more than most Americans. On one occasion I compared my list of states visited with my frat brothers - I won. I did engineering but a pack of those frat brothers were pre-law and they loved discussing the US Constitution with me because I had different views. I'm certain a few papers (or parts of them) got written because of things I said and questions I asked. I have lost count of the number of times since those days I have argued with other Australian's abut the US Constitution, and I never lose. I have claimed endlessly that I think the US Constitution is one of the greatest achievements in human history. But I have also pointed out that the Founding Fathers for all there efforts simply never predicted that people like Mitch McConnell would totally subvert a major function of the system - checks and balances. My frat brothers always argued that the checks & balances would protect the system, but even they missed what McConnell could or would do. So I don't say it lightly when I claim to be better informed on America than most (not all). I know I am better informed because my frat brothers made it so. As to the subject of misinformation it is NOT and American blight it infects every society. Rupert Murdoch was born bred and practiced his craft here before he took it global. Here watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s23q9DkCaVY) and you'll find out his people are so bad here even one of his kids walked out. And then to add insult we had the hysterical Tomi Lauren screeching back at us. Just the other day I saw this as it popped up in my recommendations. -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T9ubqnHilc Firstly its amazing that its a conference only weeks before COVID arrived but more importantly to this discussion it highlights just how dangerous misinformation and taking things out of context can be. At around 18:30 Dr. Michael Osetrholm is talking about the Ebola outbreak and what happened when misinformation started an violence followed. Medical people who were only there to help were getting killed, by MISINFORMED mobs. I hate the fact that the left is now attacking Dr. Fauci. I like Jimmy Dore because he will say and discuss things that others wont. But the other day I saw him attack Dr. Fauci in a way that even some of the Trumpists would baulk at. His criticisms weren't unfounded but they were totally over the top and out of proportion. I watch/listen to Dr. Michael Osterholm a lot and have done so from the earliest days. BUT EVEN HE is stumped at the moment about how COVID is behaving. This is his latest -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdqsznCHv6o Take note of what he's saying around 5 minutes in, that COVID is NOT behaving like influenza. They are only just starting to work this out. So the criticism some of the LEFT have recently thrown at Dr. Fauci has some justification but NOT the vitriol. Our knowledge of COVID is evolving . Could things have been done better in many parts of the world, absolutely, how much difference it would have made is an answer I don't conclusively have. The one thing I do know for sure is that America does have friends in the world and we do want to see America get back on its feet. Things wont be going back to what they were because the rest of us have moved on, but we do want America moving forward with us. After COVID we still have Climate Change, Wealth Disparity and other things to deal with. Simply put we (the whole world) needs America in those fights with the rest of us. Take Care & Stay Safe.
    1
  8440. 1
  8441. 1
  8442. 1
  8443. 1
  8444. 1
  8445. 1
  8446. 1
  8447. 1
  8448. 1
  8449. 1
  8450. 1
  8451. 1
  8452. 1
  8453. Sorry but the "No Choice" claim is complete garbage. Kamala is NOT the Democrats choice through a primary system which was YET AGAIN denied like it was in 2020 and 2016 by the machinations of the DNC. Kamala was PICKED by the DNC. Don't forget she FAILED in 2019 she didn't even make it to 2020 she did so bad. Instead of simply jumping onto the wagon the DNC select for you why TF don't the DNC do the right thing and put it to the actual voters. DON'T FORGET when they played these games in 2016 they helped get Trump elected and they cam too close to blowing 2020 as well. Despite all the claims and rhetoric Hilary wasn't that good of a candidate. She had short comings that the Democrats REFUSED (and many still do to this day) to admit. Despite all the claims of Biden winning the Dems failed to get control of the Senate, lost control of the House and got hammered in the state houses. Also consider that in the last 32 years the Dems have held the Whitehouse for 20years while the GOP have only had it for 12 AND YET who dominates SCOTUS and the federal judicial appointments. Tommy Tuberville held up 100s of military promotions recently. SORRY but the Dems suck at getting stuff done. You and many many others are right about 1 thing. Kamala is a better pick than Trump, but then anyone with a functioning brain and even 1 molecule of ethics or morals is better than Trump. No matter who is the next POTUS there's some damn serious issues for them to handle. 1) An out of control SCOTUS, which is 1,000 times bigger than anyone is really saying. 2) An out of control Congress with clowns like Mike Johnson who just endorsed and genuine war criminal in Netanyahu, which leads to the next point. 3) An out of control Israel which is compounded by the reality that Iran now has nukes or at least the materials for them since Trump ripped up the treaty. Sorry I am an engineer and know about that. 4) An out of control Russia. 5) The wonderful social issues of wealth inequality, health care, education costs and inflation and that leads to the next point 6) Out of control billionaires who fund all this garbage. AND FINALLY 7) Climate change.
    1
  8454. 1
  8455. 1
  8456. 1
  8457. 1
  8458. 1
  8459. 1
  8460. 1
  8461. 1
  8462. 1
  8463. 1
  8464. 1
  8465. 1
  8466. 1
  8467. 1
  8468. 1
  8469. 1
  8470. 1
  8471. 1
  8472. 1
  8473. 1
  8474. 1
  8475. Another Victorian here. I think what we are going to find out is how much price gouging was going on. As I just said in another comment I'm an engineer and we have a horrendous epidemic of government project gouging at the moment. Its been there for a while in both government and in the corporate sector, but its now totally out of control. Other than many of the infrastructure projects the Navy's submarine and ship programs are totally out of control. I've spoken to some other engineers about some of this because we've seen a fair amount of this sort of price gouging during the mining boom and some of that was pretty bad, but this stuff is totally out of control. Here's a simple example. The Navies new Arafura-class offshore patrol vessels are $300 million each and that's more than 10x what the Armidale-class boats they are replacing cost. You'd expect some increases due to inflation and that they are bigger, but 10x the cost is ridiculous. Also the new frigates are more than 3x the cost the British are paying for the same ship. There's no explanation other than we are being ripped off. I strong suspect we'll find out that these issues with external consultants has a lot to do with it. What most people don't realise is that these consultants are NOT there to provide solutions. Their obligation is to their employer and their employer's profit. I think Dan Andrews has simply said "We've had ENOUGH and are not going to be ripped off any more." I absolutely support that thought. I have seen lots of people get kicked off projects for the simple fact they got the job done or wanted to get it done instead of joining in the gouging.
    1
  8476. 1
  8477. 1
  8478. 1
  8479. 1
  8480. 1
  8481. 1
  8482. 1
  8483. 1
  8484. 1
  8485. 1
  8486. 1
  8487. 1
  8488. 1
  8489. ​ @charlesciminera5881  Yeah the only the super wealthy eve go to jail is when they rip off other super wealthy people - Theranos chick???? On America needing an actual leader the problem is that both the Dems & GOP are so tired to their big donors and doing what those donors want its impossible for a real leader to come from either. Its not like America doesn't have good leaders, its got plenty across various fields it just NONE of them are in politics. I was in America when Walter Payton was playing so I got to see true greatness. The fact he still inspires people to think about others less fortunate in society is incredible. So here's my hypothetical and sorry if its long: Imagine if Andrew Whitworth and Captain Brett Crozier ran on a ticket of "We will give the White House back to the American people. It does not belong to the Democrats or Republicans." If you go back before the great depression the President had very little to do with running the country. That was the job of congress lead by the speaker of the House. Newt Gingrich made a huge fuss that he was going to restore the power of the speaker. He went to great lengths to explain what the Presidents job was supposed to be and it wasn't running the country. So in Andrew Whitworth you have the latest WP Award winner and you saw his acceptance speech you'd want him leading a country. There's no doubt he's a guy who cares about the American people. In Brett Crozier you have a career military man who gave a massive chunk of his life to serving America and when the moment came he put his career on the line for the safety of the men and women he was entrusted to lead. Remember him leaving the ship and the crew cheering? Here's an image: Imagine Vladimir Putin (at 5'6") meeting Andrew Whitworth (at 6'7" and 330lbs) and the scene of Whitworths and wrapping around Putin's hand squeezing just enough to let Putin know. It would be worth voting for him for just that moment. Better that could run on a "We don't need policies, but 1. We will make congress do their job." They could just point out the issues and call out the committees to solve the problem. He could just do the Belichick "Do you job!" line. Plus Brett Crozier could have a ball calling out the waste in the military. Just spend 4 years cleaning the idiots and clowns out of the Pentagon. Its just an idea I thought up for: How can America do a reset without having to have a second revolution or second civil war? Because a second American revolution or civil war is monumentally bad for the entire Western World. For a lot of countries, Australia included, America is our most important trading and security partner. If you are wondering why people are so frightened of a second Trump presidency THAT'S WHY. The problem isn't just if he wins its also what happens if he loses again?
    1
  8490.  @charlesciminera5881  Obama was close to being an independent but they manged to drag him into line pretty quickly. He promised a lot but actually got very little done, even when he had a super majority. That's how much of a failure he was, for the first 2 years he should have been able to pass almost anything and the only major thing he got past was a health care plan that was basically written by Republicans. Your assessment that the Dems & GOP act like criminal gangs is pretty damn close. I've never heard anybody describe them that way but its right on how they act. That's why I think a president who runs in a very unusual way might be a fix. Otherwise its civil war and that is as big of a problem as a nuclear exchange. It would be catastrophic to world trade and security. I'd put way more of the blame on Republicans for the divide in America but the Dems have been utterly hopeless at fixing it. I saw a recent graphic of the 25 worst offenders for insider training. The top 4 were GOP but there were MORE Dems on the list. They are just as bad as the GOP. We have similar issues here in Australia. We don't have the insider trading but we have a huge issue with people making decisions and then going to work for companies that were favoured by those decisions. There are rules in place to prevent it but they are never enforced. Then we have some raging maniacs including our own Donald Trump, a real POS named Clive Palmer. Right now he's using the EXACT same strategy Trump used in 2016. Our system also makes it possible for a very small party to get incredible power under certain circumstances. Its the same problem they have in places like Israel.
    1
  8491. 1
  8492. 1
  8493. 1
  8494. 1
  8495. 1
  8496. 1
  8497. 1
  8498. 1
  8499.  @nm5310  I don't mind the longness of that comment at all. I've read through it several times and I agree with all of it. I was really surprised by the number of displaced people. Last I heard was a few years back and they put it around 60 million and growing. So I expected it to be higher but 108 million is where the world needs to STOP and start thinking. You've actually described WHY Australia came down so hard on the boat people issue. The vast majority of those arriving were unaccompanied men. It was kept quite but there were several very ugly incidents in Australia with unaccompanied men coming from cultures where women are seen as property. They simply had no idea of how Western liberal societies operate. Your final paragraph goes right to the core of why Australia reacted as it did. These people had access to enough money to pay the people smugglers. We traced some of that funding back to people already in Australia and that infuriated people. There were millions of dollars leaving the country every week and most of it wasn't helping anyone because it was ending up in the hands of a couple of Pakistani mobsters. The other thing that infuriated people was the money spent on legal claims which was funded by Australia. The concept of "NO - your claim does not meet the criteria." means NOTHING to certain people. You might know it better or explain it better but there is a certain psychology where people define themselves by the attention they get from helping people. My mother made a comment about Mother Terresa many years ago. She said (paraphrasing) "Mother Terresa is a hypocrite. She fights against government funded contraception programs because it would mean fewer orphans for her to take care of and get attention." There's a condition called "Munchausen by proxy" where people seek attention for the illness of others. I think this is something similar where certain people like the attention they get from fighting causes. I think Nigel Farage did that with Brexit. I don't think he cared about it at all except that it got him a lot of attention. We have people in Australia who define their existence on fighting certain causes to the death. I met a lawyer at a social event about 20 years ago when there were a lot of boat people arriving out of Southern China. They explained part of the problem was that they destroyed any and all documentation they had. It makes it almost impossible to identify who they are or where they are from and evaluate their claims, but that never deterred the lawyers supporting their claims and filing claim after claim after claim. We now call these people undocumented arrivals and they are still a problem. Those lawyers actually made the situation WORSE not better and it lead to the "Pacific Solution" that we get condemned for. A significant event was the Tampa Affair, and there's a Wikipedia page on it that's fairly accurate. What's not there is that Australia flipped it back on the international community to asses the 400+ claims which were done under UN supervision. Initially the UN only passed about 20 of the 400+ but over time that number increased but it cost heaps to work out who people were. An odd personal story out of that time. A friend of my father is married to a German and her family in Europe called her up and asked what sort of disgusting racist nation was she was living in. Around 2010 her family were in Australia and all they wanted to know was how did Australia mange to shut down the people smuggling. The answer is unfortunately harsh - we had to be as ruthless as the people smugglers. We simply made it a rule that unless there are exceptional circumstances if you arrive in Australia via a people smuggler we will not let you settle in Australia. It has the tragic outcome that people we should take in miss out and a lot of it stems from how the lawyers behaved that got us so frustrated that we reacted the way we did.
    1
  8500. 1
  8501.  @WhoTheLoL  The Radical Left are as consistently as bad as the far right. Its just these days the Far Right is so loud that it seems they're worse. If there is a difference between the more main stream Left and Right its. The Left tend to have good ideas and terrible execution and fail to get things done while the Right have terrible ideas but execute them well enough to get what they want. A perfect example of that was Obama Care. It started as a good idea that was so badly executed that, despite having a super majority, failed and ended up being the version written by a Right Wing Think Tank. As for the Radicals BOTH Left and Right. Before Jordan Petersen gave himself brain damage he pointed out that psychologically they know when people on the right have gone too far when they become racist BUT there was no similar clear indicator for people going too far to the Left. I think its much simpler for both. People have gone too far when they let their ideology overrule the factual evidence before their eyes to the extent where they will harm people. Its not simply denial but denial with harm for an ideological reason. The Right are far more open and much louder about doing harm than the Left these days, but have a look at the French and Russian Revolutions to see what the Left can do when they go too far. I think we're in a very dangerous situation right now because we have a lot of people showing all the signs of going TOO FAR and they are being egged on by some seriously bad people. Go and check what clown named Laurence Fox said on GB News.
    1
  8502. 1
  8503. 1
  8504. 1
  8505. 1
  8506. For anyone who doesn't know it Thunderf00t is spelt with 2 zeros not 2 'o's. There's also Common Sense Skeptic here on YT and yes its spelt with a 'k'. I'm an aerospace engineer and both are very good on their basic facts. They aren't perfect but are pretty good. That said and despite all the nonsense there are a couple of things Elon has done that are very good and do deserve recognition. These things do not excuse the dumb and stupid things he's done but if we are being fair then he's done some good things. 1) Despite having nothing to do with the original development of the Tesla, without any doubt he has dragged the car industry out of its comfort zone and taken electric cars from novelty to main stream. His claims about being a founder are idiotic but he's broken the stranglehold that the fossil fuel companies had on transportation. Sadly their is a real chance Elon could wreck all that he has achieved by not dealing with the infrastructure issues needed to support electric vehicles. 2) Despite the issues with SpaceX's Starship (and there are many many issues there) what SpaceX has achieved is quite spectacular. The last American to fly to the ISS on the Russian Soyuz cost NASA $80 million. The current Crew Dragon system launched on Falcon rockets costs $70 million for 4 people. Its certainly not the revolutionary rocket his fans claim but its certainly a step in the right direction. When you compare Crew Dragon to what Boeing have done with their Starliner alternative then it becomes even more noticeable that its a great achievement. That said the list of things Elon had gotten WRONG are extensive and you can check out Thunderf00t and CSS for details there.
    1
  8507. 1
  8508. 1
  8509. 1
  8510. 1
  8511. 1
  8512. 1
  8513. 1
  8514. 1
  8515. 1
  8516. 1
  8517. 1
  8518. 1
  8519. 1
  8520. 1
  8521. 1
  8522. 1
  8523. 1
  8524. 1
  8525. 1
  8526. 1
  8527. 1
  8528. 1
  8529. 1
  8530. 1
  8531. 1
  8532. 1
  8533. 1
  8534. 1
  8535. 1
  8536. 1
  8537. 1
  8538. 1
  8539. I think your numbers are WRONG, a bit like most of Jordan Petersons numbers. You're being too kind, I think its more like 1% style and 99% LOOK at ME. On the 99% of Scientists thing. If you take 1,000,000 (million) scientists and/or engineers (and there's a lot more than 1M on the planet) then 1% is 10,000 Scientists and engineers who don't believe in climate change. So its every easy to make a claim like: "I went to a conference where there were 1,000 Scientists and engineers and they all agreed there was no Climate Crisis." and you would be telling the truth. I am an aerospace engineer and this is why people like Jordan Peterson will NOT debate actual scientists and especially not engineers. For those unaware engineering is the profession of APPLIED MATHEMATICS. The rest of science comes up with the math and we APPLY it to real world situations. Its also why Economists hate us lie we are the spawn of Satan. Whatever models Economists have they are decades behind where engineering is. This is also where an engineer can flatten some of Jordan Petersons claims. At Oxford or Cambridge a few years back he claimed we should be listening to people like Bjorn Lomborg who was on a UN Committee that included Nobel Prize Economists. FIRST the Nobel in Economics is fake its not a real Nobel at all. It was instigated by the Swedish Central Bank and was never sanctioned by the Nobel family (see Wikipedia). SECOND William Nordhaus who won the FAKE Nobel for economics for his modelling of climate change economics has been slammed and ridiculed by BOTH the Left and Right. Evn the CATO institute has claimed he's a moron. Sorry to ramble on but Peterson, who I genuinely believe WAS ONCE a good university professor, has now lost his mind on this stuff.
    1
  8540. 1
  8541. 1
  8542. 1
  8543. 1
  8544. 1
  8545. 1
  8546. 1
  8547. 1
  8548. 1
  8549. 1
  8550. 1
  8551. 1
  8552. Sorry but NOBODY CARES. Anyway you want to look at it the Biden Presidency INCLUDING the Biden TEAM are going to go down as one of history's greatest failures. They were (in the end) so bad they could NOT beat the "They're eating cats and dogs" Orange Gorilla and his billionaire owned muppet of a VP who nobody has seen or heard from since Elon took his place. FYI - I'm Australian and like 7.7 Billion other people on the planet we don't like feeling this nervous about our futures. It was bad enough with Putin being Putin, Xi being Xi and a few others being recalcitrant clowns but at least we could rely on America to have something recognisable as functioning braincells OR at least there'd be an adult in the room when big decisions were made. Even if they were bad decisions like invading Iraq we at least knew there were adults present. Now we have this reactionary man child in charge surrounded by the worst collection of political suck-ups in history. Most of the planet doesn't know who to scream at louder the brainless clowns of the GOP or the arrogant clowns of the DNC who failed and made this happen. MAYBE the best thing we can hope for is that this clown brigade screws up so badly that America finally WAKES THE F⋃CK UP. Democracy is NOT a gift its a BURDEN that you have to carry. Oh yeah we all saw Tommy Tuberville and others claim California had to submit to their demands before any help for the fires in California was coming. That's not only evil but the sign of a broken society.
    1
  8553. 1
  8554. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  8555. 1
  8556. 1
  8557. 1
  8558. 1
  8559. 1
  8560. 1
  8561. 1
  8562. 1
  8563. 1
  8564. 1
  8565. 1
  8566. 1
  8567.  @nicholascarter9158  In terms of the planet its tiny amounts of nothing. But in terms of upsetting the natural systems its a different story. The oxygen used in iron ore smelting isn't destroyed. The oxygen still exists, but its shifted from being part of Fe2O3 (iron Oxide)or one of the other oxides to CO2. CO2 isn't a problem so long as there is enough plant life to consume it back into O2. Here's the longer story. I did my degree in aerospace and way back in 86 an alum who worked at NASA gave us a special talk one Friday. We were kinda exited because his last project was on terraforming Mars. The news wasn't good. He introduced us to what I now call "planetary mechanics" which is simply calculating how much stuff is involved. Making things like water cycles and oxygen cycles and carbon cycles work is what I call "planetary dynamics." Its sort of the difference between how many car parts and what they all weigh versus assembling all those parts into a working car. To give you an idea of the sorts of numbers involved the surface of the earth is roughly 500,000km² If you consider just the 1st kilometer of air above the surface of the Earth its pretty close to 500,000km³ in volume. In engineering there's HVAC (heating, ventilation & air conditioning) and HVAC works in meters cubed because that's practical for a house or an office block. That 1st kilometer of air in which 90% of humanity lives is roughly 500,000,000,000,000m³ that's 500 quadrillion cubic meters of air. At that's just the 1st kilometer there's at least 99 more on top of it although most of those are fairly thin. But then there' the oceans and water being more dense the weight of water is another damn big number. Bottom line is we live on a very big object with an insanely complex biological system powered by a big giant ball of plasma. Unfortunately science fiction (which I do love) has badly misrepresented science in many ways and the media have been no help either. In short we are NOT going to run out of stuff, which is good. The problem is we have upset the balance of that complex system we depend on for life. Added to that we don't understand enough of how that system works so that we can help nudge it back into balance.
    1
  8568.  @nicholascarter9158  That's a great question and I don't have an answer. The thing with refining most minerals is that they are net oxygen producing processes not oxygen consuming. Most minerals like iron are oxides and the problem is getting rid of the oxygen. The reason they want pure oxygen for a blast furnace so they are not adding impurities. The reason that metallurgical coal is 2-3times the price of thermal coal is that it has almost zero impurities. Most coal includes sulphur sulphur when it burns produces SO2 which tends to become S03 and that likes to combine with water into H2SO4 better known as sulphuric acid. That's what caused the acid rain crisis in North America that was killing off their forests. They burned cheap coal from places like Southern Illinois that had a very high sulphur content. It was fine for power stations but lousy for steel manufacturing. For that you needed that nice clean black coal from places like West Virginia and Pennsylvania. hence why there were so many steel mills in Pennsylvania. Similarly if you just pump air into a blast furnace 80% of that is Nitrogen and Nitrogen does form compounds with metals (nitrides) including iron. Its great using air if that's what you want but lousy if you want just straight steel. For many other metals they dissolve the ore with acid (or similar) into a solution. Depending on the metal they will then get it back out of solution by various methods. A common way is electrowinning which is basically electrolysis in reverse. On a place like the moon all of that goes away. If you can get any compound hot enough it will breakdown. If done in a vacuum then the gases will just boil away and leave behind the metal. On the moon there's no shortage of direct sunlight and vacuum. It might be as simple as putting ore into a crucible and focusing light on it with mirrors. Its also know with lunar regolith (moon dust) that at around 800C before it melts that it tends to release oxygen and hydrogen that then forms water. So the whole, "how you do stuff" is a bit different on the moon because of what's available. Its really no different to various places here. Why do some countries have lots of Hydro power or lots of wheat farming or lots of fishing? Its what they have.
    1
  8569. 1
  8570. 1
  8571. 1
  8572. 1
  8573. 1
  8574. 1
  8575. 1
  8576. AUSTRALIAN HERE: YES our politicians suck. They lie, they cheat and they screw us over at every chance as they had out contracts to their wealthy supporters. BUT NONE of ours are a threat to the World. If you consider some of the other scumbags in the GOP - Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mitch McConnell,.... etc. Sure they're narcissists, but the rest of the world can deal with them because even at their very worst they're still PREDICTABLE and we can handle that. Trump isn't simply a MALIGNANT NARCISSIST but he's also a TEMPESTUOUS SOCIOPATH who lashes out at ANYONE who upsets him. I was actually in Canada for work when he tore up NAFTA in 2017. The Canadians accepted that NAFTA needed updating and re-negotiating. We all know those free trade agreements need that at times. BUT Trump just tore it up because it was done by Clinton. Then he tore up the Iran nuclear agreement because it was done by Obama. When you add into that the behavior of America's billionaires who support him and what they want it gets even worse. Do you guys not realise that it was American Billionaire Robert Mercer (owner of Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica) who was behind the Facebook campaign that influenced the Brexit Vote? YES one of yours caused that ongoing shitfest. COLLECTIVELY they're a very serious threat to ALL of America's security partners as well as ANY country that America does business with. Don't forget that America's businesses can now drag any dispute back to American courts where its rigged. Go look up the Steven Donziger case and ask the Ecuadorians about the Texaco judgments. You American's can have whoever you want as POTUS. That's 100% your choice and you have every right to tell us to FK-OFF and mind our own business, BUT UNDERSTAND the other 7.7 billion of us on the planet have to live with your choice.
    1
  8577. 1
  8578. 1
  8579. 1
  8580. 1
  8581. 1
  8582. 1
  8583. 1
  8584. 1
  8585. 1
  8586. 1
  8587. 1
  8588. 1
  8589. 1
  8590. 1
  8591. 1
  8592. 1
  8593. HEY GARY - If you can please look up the report Bernie Sanders had the US Congressional Budget office did on Family Wealth (its easy to find). It covers the years 1989 to 2019 and shows all the sorts of things you have been speaking about these last 2 years about wealth. This data is unarguable as the US Budget Office by CAN'T LIE because all their reports are officially presented to US politicians and in America it would fall under their "Lying to Congress Laws". I'm Australian and have checked what I can of our data which is presented differently BUT IT TELLS the same sort of story, that the people in the top demographics are getting wealthier and wealthier while the lower demographics are going NOWHERE or BACKWARDS. What that US-CBO report in family wealth shows is shocking. When you compare the differences between 2007 and 2010 you have what people lost in the 2008 GFC. When you compare the differences between 2007 and 2019 you see how people have recovered since the 2008 GFC. The TOP 10% of America LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.7% UP on their 2007 wealth. The MIDDLE 40% of America LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% UP on their 2007 wealth. The BOTTOM 50% of America LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL DOWN 21.8% So the people who caused the GFC and got bailed out (US$4 Trillion by Bush and US$4 Trillion by Obama) have not only recovered but thrived and by current estimates are over US$30 Trillion from where they were in 2007, WHILE the people who were hit hardest by the stupidity and greed of Wall St. had still NOT RECOVERED and with the economic effects of the COVID pandemic and the money flows you describe have most likely still NOT RECOVERED. Almost nobody in America media has even reported on this report. Bernie Sanders who had it commissioned hasn't said much about it. Its evaluation on the last 30 years of economics policies is as damning as it gets. Lets not forget that countries like Britain (with Thatcherism) and Australia (with Economic Rationalism) have basically run their own versions of Neoliberal Chicago School Economics with the same sorts of results. FYI - I have asked Steve Keen who hosts Steve Keen & Friends to have you on the podcast. I think you have important things to be heard.
    1
  8594. 1
  8595. 1
  8596. 1
  8597. 1
  8598. 1
  8599. 1
  8600. 1
  8601. 1
  8602. 1
  8603.  @tonl4738  Then you'd know not to make uneducated emotionally driven conclusions like so many are doing. I read your comment and I don't have any problem with people saying they will wait and see just to be sure. BUT I have no time for the fearmongering of many and the outright misinformation of others. I checked out Dr. John Campbell early on and his credentials are fine. You don't get a PhD like he has and not have the ability read through and sort through data better than most people. I have seen some incredibly stupid and ignorant comments made in respect of this video. Here's an example - right below this is a comment that I saw and remarked on by a person using the tag "Authentic Shift" the comment is "Having worked in patient record systems, I can attest that adverse reactions are massively underreported" What country or state or hospital does that apply too? How does anyone know that, that comment has any veracity? Yet it has 530 likes, which means there are 530 idiots who didn't stop and think and yet they are willing to risk their life on comments like that. Only yesterday on another channel about the release of vaccine in Australia (where I am) people started claiming that the Pfizer MRNA vaccine was "experimental gene therapy" which is total bullshit. One person claimed it was even registered in Australia as "gene therapy" and with the challenge to check it, I DID and there is NOTHING on the TGA website or in the documentation that says anything about "gene therapy." And yet by law they would have to publish that sort of information because the doctors have to be able to fully inform their patients. After I put up the TGA website link where EVERYONE could see what was and wasn't TRUE they stopped, yelling at me. https://www.tga.gov.au/covid-19-vaccine-pfizer-australia-comirnaty-bnt162b2-mrna FYI - I haven't had any vaccine yet, because they haven't yet rolled it out for my age group (45-65). In Australia it will take about 6 months to do the entire country and I am not in any of the high priority groups.
    1
  8604. 1
  8605. 1
  8606. 1
  8607. 1
  8608. 1
  8609. 1
  8610. 1
  8611. 1
  8612. 1
  8613. 1
  8614. 1
  8615. 1
  8616. 1
  8617. 1
  8618. 1
  8619. 1
  8620. THE ANSWER IS VERY SIMPLE --> HOW DO WE, as in America's allies and trading partners TRUST YOU? I'm Australian I went to college in America on a sports scholarship and that would be the one question I would put to ANY and EVERY American official or politician. Colin Powell lied to the whole world at the UN and we followed you into a war that is still going. Obama promised he'd get us all out of it and we are still there. Trump said he would get us all out of it and we are still there. Its been recently reported that Biden has plans to send more troops. Then there is the subject of Climate change. WE KNOW that the Koch brothers have spent money funding think tanks around the world spreading misinformation using the same people who denied tobacco caused cancer and they are just one of the American billionaire class doing shit like that. Australia's security is tied to America for at least the next 30 years because we bought the F35 Lightning II. It was purposefully designed to NOT be cancelled by the US congress by having as many suppliers as possible spread out across America so that any American politician who spoke out would have to face people form their hometown who would lose their jobs. It wasn't design to fight a war it was designed to keep contracts in place. Then there is trade. I was actually in Canada for work when Trump suddenly tore up NAFTA and imposed tariffs on Canadian products. Australia has now been dragged into the trade war Trump started with China. Yes China needed to be pushed back, but Trumps efforts were bullshit and its caused others a great deal of harm. Its NOT the American people we don't trust its the American Political Establishment we don't trust. No matter who is in charge its still Wall St calling the shots on too many issues. In 2008 the whole world suffered because Wall St got caught out. In the middle of it was Goldman Sachs, doing dirty deals while their management pocketed millions in bonuses. Then Trump made Steve Mnuchin of Goldman Sachs the man in charge of the Treasury. May be that what made Ted Cruz happy considering his wife is a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs. Just recently Joe Biden hired 2 more Goldman Sachs goons along with a Blackrock and McKinsey. Its not that we can't trust the American people, its that we (like the American people) can't trust the American Billionaire class. Because we can't trust them on trade, security or the future of the planet.
    1
  8621. 1
  8622. 1
  8623. 1
  8624. 1
  8625. 1
  8626. 1
  8627. 1
  8628. 1
  8629. 1
  8630. 1
  8631. 1
  8632. 1
  8633. 1
  8634. 1
  8635. 1
  8636.  @Deebz270  There's a slight understatement "the Earth's biosphere is in early stages of shifting its state of thermoequlibrium" Before I explain why I agree and give you something to think about. There will be a next version of economics. The true effects of Climate Change wont change that, in fact it will drive it. I suggest you listen to Mark Blyth he's better at explaining the economic phases than I am. On the planet. I did my degree in aerospace (late 80s) and we once had a guest lecture from an Alum who had just finished a NASA project on the basics of terraforming Mars. He introduced us to what I now call Planetary Mechanics which is just the basic calculations on how much needs to be done. The other subject is Planetary Dynamics which is the whole how do you make the gas cycles and water cycle work. Its like comparing how many nuts and bolts you need versus how do you make a car actually work properly and not fall apart. The simplest thing I do with people is ask them to look at the surface area of the planet in question in square kilometers and then add 9 (000,000,000) zeros. You now have a very reasonable (within 1%) of the volume of air that's 1km thick covering the surface of you planet. Now that you have that number is pretty easy using a very basic formula to work out how much energy is required to raise the temperature of that volume of air from say 20℃ to 21℃ AND YES its a seriously huge number and if you consider the energy of something like the Hiroshima bomb you can easily work out how many Hiroshima's it takes to raise that much air from 20℃ to 21℃. I wont tell you that number and if you do calculate it I suggest not trying to tell too many people it either freaks them out or they think you're nuts. I use the same method to show how Elon is FOS on terraforming Mars. You do the same thing but instead calculate the MASS of earth standard air which is 1.2kg per m3. You then ask the Muskbots where Elon is going to get 173 Trillion tons of air. I actually had one of them recently say that we only need the oxygen??? So then I asked where they thought Elon would get his hands on roughly 36 Trillion tons of Oxygen. So yes you are dead right the Earth is transitioning, but what its transitioning into is a bugger of a question because there will be things in play that we don't talk about much. Water Vapor is top of that tree. Warmer planet means more water vapor in the sky. Water vapor does a couple of things. It reflects light off the planet so tends to stop it getting hotter but it also acts like a thermal blanket so once its hotter it tends to keep it hotter for a while. Then when it finally does cool it comes down as rain and snow in seriously large amounts. So we can expect these events where lots of moisture gets sucked into the sky and then eventually comes back down with a bit of a deluge effect. I'm Australian we are currently having our 9th major flood this year. We even had snow in a few places. Yeah driest country on the planet and we've been flooded 9 times in one year and been snowed on right before summer starts. Nothing to see here! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnX5wci404 Sorry for the longish reply but you're smart enough to get it.
    1
  8637. 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
  8638. 1
  8639. 1
  8640. 1
  8641. 1
  8642. 1
  8643. 1
  8644. 1
  8645. I don't know why David is complaining I have seen him do EXACTLYT THE SAME THING HERE ON HIS CHANNEL. A couple of years ago I watched the FULL INTERVIEW that David did on the Triggernometry channel with Konstantin Kisin and his co-host Francis. David afterwards did one of his "I was interviewed by...... it didn't go well" videos and it made the Triggernometry guys look like a-holes. The truth in that instance was David and his team did the clever editing and it was dishonest on David's side. The guys at Triggernometry did a response video and they had every right to be upset as they were taken out of context by David. If you want you can go back and check it out there might even be the comments I left pointing out David's hypocrisy. JUST SO WE ARE CLEAR - I do not support or watch or subscribe to Triggernometry anymore. In fact these days I'd can't stand what Konstantin Kisin promotes. He has gone right of the Radical Right deep end. Around the Time they interviewed David the Triggernometry guys were (past tense) doing some great interviews BUT THEN they started being sponsored by people like Nigel Farage. They also started doing some horrible softball interviews with right wing libertarians like Marion Tupy who's a CATO Institute goon. More recently Konstantin Kisin has been travelling around the world visiting Right Wing think tanks promoting some very unusual ideas about "our special culture." I know that for a fact because he's been here in Australia doing public talks for some of Australia's Right Wing think tanks. He's talked at the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) and the Institute of Pubic Affairs (IPA) both with links to the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation in America. Some of those talks are posted here on YouTube. FYI - The IPA in particular has become highly right wing radical in recent years. Its not simply denial of reality stuff. During the trump years they were doing promotional videos defending Trump that were clearly aimed at younger Australian's and some of that was also posted here on YouTube.
    1
  8646. 1
  8647. 1
  8648. 1
  8649. 1
  8650. 1
  8651. I am an aerospace engineer and I can explain in detail all the stuff that they have simply not bothered to think about. Its not simply Musk or his fanbots, NASA aren't exactly innocent. There's a staggering amount og science fiction PR garbage in the space industry at the moment. Back in 2002 I met Harrison Schmitt (Apollo 17) and at that time he was talking up the Helium-3 opportunity on the moon. As an Australian at that stage there was no easy way into NASA or even their programs. So an independent project with credibility was possible. At that time Australia was just starting a mining construction boom to feed the Chinese beast. It took a couple of years but I snuck my way into remote mine site construction and the analogies to setting up anything on the moon become fairly obvious after some time doing that work. 1) EVERYTHING needs to be thought ahead. When you are in the middle of the desert nothign is just down the road because the road is 1500km long. Prior to that time I worked in our manufacturing sector and 90% of everything was at worst an hour away. On a remote mine site, even if airplanes come regularly you have to consider everything is at least 3 days away. Its a giant non-stop logistical exercise that never ends. 2) Everything you take for granted in a city like water and power has to be treated very seriously. Most people never consider what happens when they flush the toilet. On a mine site that's a serious consideration along with all other waste. Most of all the food has to be trucked or flown in, then stored, then cooked, then eaten and then cleaned up. Humans eat, shit, pee and breath. Spaceship earth is great for cleaning our mess and we take that for granted. 3) Mine sites are primarily dirt and rock crushing & grinding plants. That means wear and tear on everything. I got hold of the papers for a NASA conference on the moon (well over 200 pages). The total commentary on maintenance was less than 1-1/2 pages, 1/2 of which was a diagram and all they said was we'll do it with robots. That told me that NONE OF THEM had ever spent any time on a mine site. When I see clowns talking about mining asteroids I can tell NONE OF THEM had ever spent time on a mine site. When I hear Jeff Bezos talking about taking all the iron ore processing off planet I know he's not done any of the basic math hon that.
    1
  8652. 1
  8653. 1
  8654. 1
  8655. 1
  8656. 1
  8657. 1
  8658. 1
  8659. 1
  8660. 1
  8661. 1
  8662. 1
  8663. 1
  8664. 1
  8665. 1
  8666. 1
  8667. 1
  8668. 1
  8669. 1
  8670. 1
  8671.  @LT72884  I have actually spent most of my career working in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. So I have a lot more experience working as an electrical than as an aerospace. I can tell you for a fact that there's nothing in electrical that's close to the harder aspects of aerospace. Don't get me wrong there's some seriously hard stuff in Electrical. I did 2 options in electrical as an undergrad. 1 was so easy a high school kid could pass it and the other was damn difficult. It was in semiconductors, which I thought would be interesting. It was all about the actual theory of doping and how you create semiconductors with particular properties. So it was a weird combination of physics, electrical and some bizarre math. So I know how hard their classes can be as well as working in the field. PID tuning is a snap as most systems have auto-tuners which do most of the work for you before you even start. Most of automation and electrical is actually developing the knowledge base of what components are available from which suppliers so that you can integrate components into a solution. I hate to tell you but that knowledge base only comes with time out their solving problems. What I would tell any young engineer is that to be very careful getting into large companies straight out of college. Yes there's career pathways, but you can also become indoctrinated into a lot of false beliefs. I have encountered a lot of really good young engineers who simply could not function outside of the company they first joined. In a few cases it took a lot of hard work to re-educate them.
    1
  8672. 1
  8673. 1
  8674. 1
  8675. 1
  8676. 1
  8677. 1
  8678. 1
  8679. 1
  8680. 1
  8681. 1
  8682. 1
  8683. 1
  8684. 1
  8685. 1
  8686. 1
  8687. 1
  8688. 1
  8689. 1
  8690. 1
  8691. 1
  8692. 1
  8693. 1
  8694. 1
  8695. 1
  8696. 1
  8697. 1
  8698. 1
  8699. 1
  8700. 1
  8701. 1
  8702. 1
  8703. 1
  8704. 1
  8705. 1
  8706. 1
  8707. 1
  8708. 1
  8709. AUSTRALIAN HERE with an outside perspective. That's a very interesting thought and considering how Western politics in general works totally plausible. Below this line is a copy of a comment I made on this and its sort of a warning to the Democrats NOT to get carried away with this news. _____________________________________________________________ YOU have only won a MINOR BATTLE. There's still a War to Win. I suggest you all go and review Sun Tzu's the Art of War RIGHT NOW. FIRST - The Dems now have to get back all of the Joe Forever Crowd and just as the Bernie Bros and others were kicked in the guts and hated it so will the Joe Forever crowd hate this. SO STOP GLOATING SECOND - Harris is NOT a good pick for President. She might have been a good pick for VP but you are all forgetting just how badly she campaigns. Remember that she could NOT even win her home state of California. HOWEVER if she were to stay on as Gavin Newsom's or J. B. Pritzker's VP them it would be a very smart move on her part and an almost guaranteed win. Yes - I know there's the issue of both here and Newsom being from California but that can be dealt with. She might not be a great campaigner but she'd tear JD Vance apart and that would be worth seeing. *THIRD - * The Next POTUS whoever they are has a couple of insanely hard tasks to deal with. 1) An out of control SCOTUS. This doesn't just affect America its affects anyone who has to do business with America because as Chevron showed American companies will drag their foreign issues back into US Courts where there's almost zero chance of justice. 2) An out of control Israel. This isn't just a disaster its a disaster encased in a catastrophe swamped by a tsunami. Everything that Western Democracies fought the Second World War and then the Cold War over - Freedom, Democracy, Equality of Opportunity and Basic Human Rights has been trampled over. 3) Wealth inequality. Bernie Sanders had the Congressional Budget Office update an earlier report on Family Wealth to now include the years 1989 to 2019. Its easy to find on the CBO website and you can download the data for all the graphs. There ahs been little reporting on this report but it is damning and shows that for the past 30+ years the Top 10% of the American population who did things like the GFC has done insanely well, while the Middle Class has had to fight for what they can get as the Bottom 50% have been trampled into the pavement. This is why Trump was able to tap into anger and despair and win in 2016. 4) Climate Change. A month before he won office in 1992 George HW Bush said at a campaign rally that "Global Warming was the challenge of our generation." That notion was hijacked by his chief of staff John H. Sununu (father of Chris), Nobel Prize Winner William Nordhaus and the oil lobby. After those 4 things there are other things. Sorry but Kamala isn't up to the task, but MAYBE if she stays on as the next VP she can do some great work because I think she probably understands these tasks and how hard they are.
    1
  8710. 1
  8711. 1
  8712. 1
  8713. 1
  8714. 1
  8715. 1
  8716. 1
  8717. 1
  8718. 1
  8719. 1
  8720. 1
  8721. 1
  8722. 1
  8723.  @tommyrotton9468  1 THING Trump DID DO that was good for everyone: He did NOT start a New War, even though it is fair to criticise that he also did NOT END either the Afghanistan or Iraq Wars. ANOTHER THING Trump did was shake up the dependence of western nations on international supply chains and get the trade agreements rewritten. Although smashing things was neither helpful or productive. ANOTHER THING Trump did that was good for EVERY Western Democracy was remind the entrenched political establishments that they can be thrown out on their asses when they just stop caring. 1 THING Joe Boden has NOT DONE that is BAD for everyone across the developed world is END the influence of billionaires and billionaire funded think tanks in American politics and with it world politics. ANOTHER THING Joe Boden has NOT DONE is reign in the idiotic clowns ON BOTH SIDES of American politics. He's President of America NOT and that means acting for the American people NOT just the DNC. He should have dragged Sinema and Manchin into the oval office turned off the cameras and microphones and smacked both of them with a Louisville slugger. After that he should have dragged Mitch McConnell, Rand Paul, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shoeless and told them to do their damn job or get TF out. ANOTHER THING Joe Boden has NOT DONE is end the insider trading of politicians and their families. This totally stinks. They do stuff that would put any of the rest of us in jail. Like most of the world America need leadership not geriatric clowns and NEITHER Trump or Biden are the solution. IS 3 EACH FOR BOTH OF THEM ENOUGH FOR YOUR IGNORANT BRAIN?????? Take your garbage attitude and M0R0NIC ignorance, go back to school and THIS TIME, LISTEN TO THE TEACHERS!
    1
  8724. 1
  8725. 1
  8726. 1
  8727. 1
  8728. 1
  8729. 1
  8730. 1
  8731. 1
  8732. 1
  8733. 1
  8734. 1
  8735. 1
  8736. 1
  8737. 1
  8738. 1
  8739. 1
  8740. 1
  8741. 1
  8742. I'm Australian and how do you think we feel right now about our commitment to the AUKUS Agreement when we see clowns like this running your country as we prepare to spend a few $100 Billion? SO YOU KNOW - I'm 100% in favor of AUKUS in principal with us agreeing to act together to develop the next generation of submarines. HOWEVER as we learned with the F35 program such projects when NOT managed properly end up blowing their costs out. The F35 went US$1.5 Trillion (with a 't') over budget. None of us can afford to do that again and that's exactly where we are headed with AUKUS SO YOU KNOW - I did my degree in aerospace engineering in America. It was during Ronald Regan's Star Wars era in the late 80s and I got to see first hand how people can milk projects when politicians simply throw money at a problem. In the 30+ years since I have worked in several industries and seen again and again how projects can be milked when senior management lose control. Its not just in government projects. This happens in the private sector as well. I have seen companies with good reputations (as far a business operations and making money goes) blown billions on projects and do it so stupidly that people should sent to the insane asylum or jail. BUT it is worse in government and is a major reason why EVERY Government needs to get these sorts of clowns out of politics. They are bad for everyone. When you have clowns like this its NOT just bad for your country its bad for any and every country you deal with because who can ever trust them. And so we are clear, we have them in Australia too. We have people who should never get elected but when it comes to attention seeking narcissists they find ways either through the party systems or as independents.
    1
  8743. 1
  8744. 1
  8745. 1
  8746. 1
  8747. 1
  8748. 1
  8749. 1
  8750. 1
  8751. 1
  8752. 1
  8753. 1
  8754. 1
  8755. 1
  8756.  @brettcohen2832  If you are a right wing neoliberal clown who thinks Ronald Reagan was a genius and Margret Thatcher was a goddess then I'd agree its one of the best interviews of the past decade. On the other hand IF you know a few things like where this guy has worked for the past 20 years as in The CATO Institute and you know who funds that place and what their goals are you'd realise this guy is a snake. I actually agree with about 90% of what he says. Its that other 10% that's an issue. He's one of these people who's adept at hiding 1 lie among 9 facts. He's 100% correct that the energy crisis is the result of bad government policy. He's 100% right that the Greenies have an unrealistic view of nuclear power. HOWEVER the bad government policies that have caused the energy crisis have come from people like Charles Koch and Robert Mercer funding campaigns and lobbying through places like the CATO Institute to stall and interfere in government energy policies. They have also been double funding the nuclear issue. On one side they get people like Marion to say its not so bad and then through back channels fund radical Greenies to scream yell and rant BECAUSE that prevents any sensible public discussion on the subject. Marion's also 100% right that there has been no proper planning for the energy transition, but then the billionaires funding him have prevented any sensible planning through political lobbying to protect the fossil fuel assets. Sorry mate but this guy is incredibly good at telling 9 facts to hide 1 lie.
    1
  8757. 1
  8758. 1
  8759. 1
  8760. 1
  8761. 1
  8762. 1
  8763. 1
  8764. 1
  8765. 1
  8766. 1
  8767. 1
  8768. 1
  8769. 1
  8770.  @omid_tau  Not really his department. You'd be far better off making this to the news and or political commentary channels. And if you are so concerned about innocent lives then you'd better go after EVERY other nation on the planet, because at some time or other they have all done something they'd prefer NOBODY examines closely. Right now do you think the Ukrainians haven't killed any innocent Russians? It might not be anything like what the Russians have done but its a war and ugly things happen in wars. I'm Australian and we are having to face up to some ugly parts of our past. Some more recent than we'd like to admit. We were part of the coalition forces in both Afghanistan and Iraq where numerous human rights abuses including the murder of innocents. happened. Even after the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB, as well as the water boarding and extraordinary rendition programs WERE MADE PUBLIC, we stayed beside the Americans. We are also largely silent on other nations that commit human rights abuses because of "political strategies or sensitivities." There's a country I dare NOT mention in the middle east or I might get a label placed on me that has occupied land ILLEGALLY for decades and treated the locals as sub-human. There is almost not a country, cultural group, or tribe on the planet without some very ugly parts to its history. In fact every tribal or cultural group that still exists today had to do something at some point just to survive. There are many peoples we only know about from archeology because they were wiped out by other competing tribes.
    1
  8771. 1
  8772. 1
  8773. 1
  8774. 1
  8775. 1
  8776. 1
  8777. 1
  8778. 1
  8779. 1
  8780. 1
  8781. 1
  8782. 1
  8783. 1
  8784. 1
  8785. 1
  8786. 1
  8787. 1
  8788. 1
  8789. 1
  8790. 1
  8791.  @markfish8403  The problem was never the one massive Pecan farm. The guy who did it found that America could not supply its own demand. There wasn't suitable land available in America. So he looked elsewhere. People were curious at first but as years went by it was great. He made money, paid taxes, employed people, generated export $$$ and all was great. The problem was when a lot of others wanted to do the same with other nuts when we simply don't have the water resources for that many nut trees. This is just one example of one of humanities big problems: We have too many for whom the words "NO - you can't have that" are some kind of crime. Look at this issue with these rivers. If the industry operates within the capability of the resource there isn't a problem. Look at California and the issues with all the wells drying up because there's big ag sucking the Southern Cal Aquifer dry. They don't care that it can't last. They only care about the next quarterly statement. Its one of the things I try to point out to people THESE ISSSUES ARE COMMON EVERYWHERE. If you go looking about the world its the same thing in place after place. Its like no one is considering what happens next year let alone 5 years or 10 or 20. Prof Mark Blyth (Brown U.) has coined the term Angrynomics and it has to do with with the fact there's a lot of anger in the world these days. Part of what he's saying is that we should have had a major reset to how we operate our economies AFTER the 2008 GFC just like they did after the Great Depression and like they did in the 1970s as inflation got out of control. Instead the top 1% went "FK NO" we're making too much $$$$ and the rest of you can suck it. Here's one of his comments just after Trump won in 2016 to highlight why so many turned on the establishment of the GOP and DNC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI&t=1104s Basically the US federal government could supplement every person on minimum wage by $2-5 and hour just by taxing the bonuses from Wall St. The crazy is, it would boost Wall St profits enormously because it would be pumping billions into the economy at the base. The only losers would be a few billionaires. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ Here's his basic 3minute primer on Angrynomics and a longer lecture on "How we got here." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJD5rE4omY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJoe_daP0DE
    1
  8792. 1
  8793. 1
  8794. 1
  8795. 1
  8796. 1
  8797. 1
  8798. 1
  8799. 1
  8800. 1
  8801. 1
  8802. 1
  8803. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). 2 Things stun me at the moment. First is how far America has slid of the rails and second that Australia seems determined to go down a similar path. I think every nation has always had some crazy people but these days they are using social media to gather together and reinforce each others lunacy. Last year (here in Oz) the 5G conspiracy clowns joined up with the COVID conspiracy clowns most of it being driven by a nurse (of all people) named Naomi Cook. She was stupid enough to be interviewed by a real journalist. Look at the smirk on her face here at 24:16 as she was trying to claim there was no organization between the 5G clowns and anti-vaxxers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxPWXVFopjQ These people are simply disgusting. It doesn't matter if they are Australian, American or anything else. They are disgusting liars. BUT THEN LOOK AT OUR POLITICAL LEADERS and the examples they set. Everywhere our established parties think that a majority of us still believe their garbage. I was in Canada for work a couple of years ago and at that time Canada had multiple scandals over government contracts and tax evasion as part of the Paradise Papers. Australia's had similar government contract scandals with over 1200 Australians named in the Panama Papers tax evasion scandal. Since then there's been the Pandora papers and to the best of my knowledge NOBODY has been charged ANYWHERE over any of these tax evasion scandals irrespective of business or political affiliation. WTF we are trapped between delusional politicians on on side and crazed conspiracy clowns on the other. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
    1
  8804. 1
  8805. 1
  8806. I strongly 3/4 agree. I think on the lab leak he was 100% right and way earlier than anyone else, but unfortunately he came up against an industry determined to protect its interests combined with a raft of truly idiotic claims about bio-weapons. Bret pointed out one fact that's never been refuted and made me change my mind on the whole subject. COVID suddenly appeared in Wuhan ALREADY ADAPTED to humans. I'm yet to see anyone refute that or explain it. He didn't get into silly arguments he just presented a fact. Is he dead right about big pharma and their insidious business practices. Yes and that was well known long before COVID. Over 25 years ago I saw a documentary about a Whistle blower who blew the lid on vitamin pills and how big pharma used trading between their own divisions to make insane profits. We've all seen what Purdue have did with Oxy and that should have put people in jail. On the "alternative treatments" he handled it poorly. He pushed too hard on things like Ivermectin in ways that did not help anyone. WAS HE RIGHT to push for considering alternatives and raise questions on strategy? YES, ABSOLUTLEY YES. In fast moving situations you need a dissenting voice or its too easy for the decision process to fall into a blind spot (tunnel vision) and make bad decisions. BUT (and this is my but with Bret) once an alternative has been proven ineffective MOVE ON. The Ivermectin question was answered and Bret help drag it on and on and on. By not letting go, Bret blew his own credibility right when we needed someone with his knowledge to question the vaccine strategy. Instead of doing right by everyone he was just blabbing about Ivermectin. Overall did he do good? YES, but he also made mistakes.
    1
  8807. 1
  8808. 1
  8809. There's a tragedy in this discussion and that's DESPITE Tim Pool being a walking talking turd of a human being he's also right in some ways. He's basically quoting form the standard playbooks for TV Advertising. Emma as usual is so right about how much of a disaster Tim Poole is, but as she sometimes does she lets her "men bad" and "patriarchy evil" feminism get in the road of her brain. Why do advertisers pay huge money to models who smile nice, look good and have (to quote Tim) large breasts? Why do the political advertisers and strategists use emotionally charged attack advertisements? BECAUSE IT WORKS and YES that's a cold narcissistic view of the mob psychology of the general population but don't forget that 50% of the human race has an IQ of 100 or less and they don't care about nuance or substance. They want nice concise simple answers so they can go and enjoy their time doing other stuff. This is where Lefties go wrong all the time. They think that the entire population will just sit quietly and listen to them and feel wonderful about it. There's a really great scene in the film Gladiator where Senator Gaius (Derek Jacobi) describes how Rome works. Just search YouTube with "Gladiator senator Gracchus" and he explains to the indignation of another senator that the new emperor isn't dumb at all because the new emperor knows how Rome actually works. Go watch what he says and then compare it to Trump and how people like Tim Pool speak. They know their audience and they now how to get that audience pumped up for more because they know the difference between the Roman Senate and sand of the Colosseum.
    1
  8810. 1
  8811. 1
  8812. 1
  8813. 1
  8814. 1
  8815. 1
  8816. 1
  8817. 1
  8818. @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
  8819. 1
  8820. 1
  8821. 1
  8822. 1
  8823. 1
  8824. 1
  8825. 1
  8826. 1
  8827. 1
  8828. 1
  8829. 1
  8830. 1
  8831. 1
  8832. 1
  8833. The worst part of the whole IDW was that a few of them actually are fairly intellectual, but then lost their minds over things instead of staying objective an rational. Sam Harris is a perfect example. He pushed the whole "be rational" and pushed the term "moral ambiguity" as in "there is no moral ambiguity" over what Hamas did on 7/10. BUT THEN he suddenly dropped the whole rational discussion when it came to Israel's genocidal actions in Gaza. Yeah being rational and clarifying ambiguity was fine until he had to face the reality if his own people and "the morals of genocide." Brett Weinstein along with his brother Eric was also once (past tense) a respectable intellectual but then lost his mind during COVID and his brain hasn't stop failing since. Jordan Peterson was once (past tense) a respectable college professor. I watched a couple of his class lectures a few years ago and he was an excellent teacher who engaged well with his students. BUT since his drug issue his brain has done nothing but malfunction. Ben Shaprio did Law at Harvard. You can't get into Harvard Law let alone finish without a decent brain, but he's also a narcissistic maggot. Douglas Murray is the British version of Ben Shapiro except he uses the the Eaton/Oxford upper class snot nosed "I'm superior" British thing instead of Shapiro's Harvard arrogance. There's a few others who are also fairly (or once were) smart people and there there's the clown brigade who think they are smart. Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin are both as dumb as a box of rocks EXCEPT they (and others like them) know they know what engages with their audience. HOWEVER the worst of them all will always be Bari Weiss. She was the one who wrote about and labelled them the IDW. She's since been found out as a liar and fraud who make stuff up, but like Rogan and Rubin she knows what engages with her audience.
    1
  8834. 1
  8835. 1
  8836. 1
  8837. 1
  8838. 1
  8839. 1
  8840. 1
  8841. 1
  8842. 1
  8843. 1
  8844. 1
  8845.  @Khalkara  As for the more detailed answer to your first question of how is this a perversion of capitalism. AND THIS COMMENT IS FOR EVERYONE ELSE If you were to read Adam Smith or at least read about Adam Smith the author of "Wealth of Nations" which is considered the origin of capitalist economics, then you'd know he was never about the 1% having all the wealth at the cost of the 99%. Smith was about how the other 99% also gain wealth. Its was in response to the mercantilism which was the economics that came out of the industrial revolution. But going further. Mark Blyth points out that there have been 3 major variations of capitalism over the past 150 years or so. 1) First there was the gold standard that lasted up until World War 2. 2) Then there was Keynesianism that lasted up until the 1970s. 3) Then there was neoliberalism, which is also called Reaganomics and Thatcherism. Mark has pointed out in numerous lectures and at numerous conferences how neoliberalism should have ended after the 2008 GFC and that we need a new version of capitalism. Here's the 3 minute primer on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJD5rE4omY Here's the conference talk he did in 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJoe_daP0DE And going further still into our current post GFC ERA which is a clusterFK. Albena Azmanova has described it as "Precarity Economics" in her book "Capitalism on Edge" which she's discussed with Mark Blyth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2CsqAwb5is Eric Helleiner has described the neomercantilism that has emerged in China which is a new version of the mercantilism the world was economically running before capitalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4X2qTxtwVM Yanis Varoufakis has explained what he calls "tech-feudalism" many times here's one of those times. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghx0sq_gXK4
    1
  8846. 1
  8847. 1
  8848. 1
  8849. 1
  8850. 1
  8851. 1
  8852. You are absolutely right on being closer to Christianity than a right wing MAGA evangelical, but there's also a point here where Kyle is quite wrong. That involves the difference between the social-economics versus the politics. What Kyle and the Pope are talking about here is the social-economic side NOT the political side because Jesus was NEVER into the politics which is one of the reasons he ran foul of the Jewish leaders who thought the Messiah was coming to get rid of the Romans and put them in power. Surprisingly I found out through some study NEITHER Karl Marx nor Adam Smith (the father of capitalism) were that much into politics. That came later and mostly through other people. The oddest thing is the MAGA Evangelicals are actually just like the Jewish leaders who condemned Jesus and handed him over to the Romans to be executed. First and foremost they are looking for a POLITICAL SOLUTION through political power. Secondly they rely on people NOT knowing what Jesus actually said but instead feeding them a highly filtered version. This is why your statement about feeling closer to Christianity than anything the Right Wing MAGA evangelicals represent is totally understandable. MAGA people are politically motivated towards gaining power rather than socially or economically motivated towards making the world a better place for everyone. If you get the chance I'd recommend that you go read Matthew chapters 5 to 7 which is the Sermon on the Mount and you've probably heard a lot about anyway. Most people know its where Jesus says to be nice to people and if you're good you'll be blessed. WHAT MANY DON'T KNOW is what's in chapter 7. Matthew Chapter 7 is entirely about FALSE Christians and identifying them. This is WHY religious leaders for centuries suppressed reading the Bible and purposefully kept people illiterate. If people can't read for themselves they can't reason for themselves AND the last thing political people want are people who think for themselves. If you read further you'll find that's exactly what got Jesus into trouble. He was telling people what was actually written down VERSUS what they were being told and asked them to use their brains. This is why there's the famous line "The truth will set you free." That is actually a reference (in part) of getting free from the religiously orientated political powers.
    1
  8853. 1
  8854. 1
  8855. 1
  8856. 1
  8857. 1
  8858. 1
  8859. 1
  8860. 1
  8861. 1
  8862. 1
  8863. 1
  8864. 1
  8865. 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
  8866. 1
  8867. 1
  8868. 1
  8869. 1
  8870. 1
  8871. Actually if you have seen any of the Analysis from Brexit, you'd know that Putin is actually very good at meddling without appearing to meddle. The thing they do the most is look at what's trending and amplify it and nudge it. Go have at look at this form way back in 1984. Its part of an interview with ex-KGB officer Your Bezmenov. In particular look at the line he's says about 2:45 about that they didn't need to do that much any more because America was doing the damage to itself. If you ask how we got here and Russia is f--ked and America is still here. Simple the Russians f--ked themselves way more than anything America did and America is in its current state for the same reason. Go look at history. Its rare that any empire fell to another empire it was usually the empire destroying itself. And when other empires did defeat an older empire it was because that older empire was weaker from internal issues. Rome never really fell it just tore itself in half and then slowly withered. Where Bezmenov was totally wrong was how effective the KGB system actually worked in his day. BUT then came social media and the old KGB misinformation program finally had a platform it could weaponize and they have been f--king with the west ever since. These days they don't need to do much because just as Bezmenov said we do most of the damage to ourselves. Consider that we have just spent weeks denying that the DNC interfered with the presidential election and then this comes out that basically says yes they do cheat. This could send the Trumpists into the streets with guns and they have no shortage of guns or ammunition.
    1
  8872. 1
  8873. 1
  8874. 1
  8875. 1
  8876. 1
  8877. 1
  8878. 1
  8879. 1
  8880. 1
  8881. 1
  8882. 1
  8883. 1
  8884. 1
  8885. 1
  8886. 1
  8887. 1
  8888. 1
  8889. 1
  8890. 1
  8891. 1
  8892. 1
  8893. 1
  8894. 1
  8895. 1
  8896. 1
  8897. 1
  8898. 1
  8899. 1
  8900. 1
  8901. 1
  8902. 1
  8903. 1
  8904. 1
  8905. 1
  8906. 1
  8907. 1
  8908. 1
  8909. 1
  8910. 1
  8911. 1
  8912. 1
  8913. 1
  8914. 1
  8915. 1
  8916. 1
  8917. 1
  8918. 1
  8919. 1
  8920. This is just another example of the Orwellian doublespeak that American Right Wing Libertarians are becoming well known for across the world. They will howl about cancel culture and then cancel others. They howl about regulatory restrictions and then invoke laws to restrict others. They claim relentlessly they are about freedom and liberty as they strip people of freedom and liberty AND THEY ARE EXPORTING IT. I'm Australian and watch David's Channel because its a good way hear about the underlying issues in America. Only yesterday I watched a podcast by one of our ex-Politicians John Anderson. FYI - I went to college in America and love the country and its people, but hate the politics. He interviewed Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya and American born Yale educated Australian professor (UNSW) Gigi Foster about Australia's failures handling COVID. Both have been heavily criticised for bad research and bad public commentary. Gig Foster made headlines when she said on Australian 60 Minutes that we shouldn't waste resources on the elderly because they'll die anyway. She's been recently caught lying publicly about COVID data to push her agenda/ideology. During the podcast they both made assertations that we need prevent the rich and powerful from influencing government policy. Jay Bhattacharya was heavily criticised for the bad statistics he used to claim 80,000 had COVID in Santa Clara in a study that was later found to be secretly funded by an American billionaire. He Co-Authored the Great Barrington Declaration that was funded via the billionaire funded American Libertarian think tank the Brownstone Institute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pandemic Here's that podcast if anyone wants to check. But I can tell you straight up it is littered with lies and misdirection's. Most notably they point out Australia now has a higher rate of COVID infection that America. That's true if you go by the published numbers, but then Australia is still testing and recording data while America Stopped after Trump cut funding. Remember when David reported that and how some states are no longer reporting COVID infections. This sort of statistical data manipulation is something Gigi Foster is becoming well known for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmIM6LxVoxw
    1
  8921. 1
  8922. 1
  8923. TO ALL - IRAN ABSOLUTELY HAD A WEAPONS PROGRAM. I am an engineer and we have known what they were doing for over 15 years. Back circa 2006 I was working in the Australian mining industry doing a project at the ERA Ranger Uranium Mine. Before we started we all had to go through the ANSTO (Australia's Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation) Induction. That includes a basic run down of the entire process from Uranium in the ground to spent fuel back in the ground. At the time we did that course the Iran situation was in full swing and during one Q&A part the instructor was asked what about what the Iranians were up to. FYI - I am a control system engineer and I do a lot with motor control so I understood part of this better than average. And its the specifics about the motors that gave the Iranian program away for what it actually was. Yes it was heavily damaged by the Stuxnet Virus attack which we think the Israeli's did, but that was mechanical damage that could be repaired. The motors are important because they are critical to the process that is used to purify Uranium-235. Its done using gas centrifuges and they need high speed motors called spindle motors. They're called spindle motors because they are most often used in the spindles of CNC machines. There is nothing secretive or super special because companies like Fanuc, Hermele, DMG Mori, Haas and Okuma buy them all the time. Every CNC machining center or lathe has at least 1. But Its very unusual if the Iranians buy any let alone truckloads (plural) because they don't have the industry that needs them. Its how we know the Iranians had 55,000 gas centrifuges and its that number of gas centrifuges that cannot be argued with. If it was an energy program where they don't need highly pure Uranium-235 they could have done that with less than 10,000 gas centrifuges. For the military grade fuel used in aircraft carriers and submarines you need a higher grade and that requires around 20,000 gas centrifuges. But for weapons grade Uranium-235 you need upwards of 40,000 gas centrifuges. So without any doubt a program with 55,000 gas centrifuges is a weapons program and we have known that clearly for over 15 years. The Iranians can claim whatever they like but for anybody who understands or has had even basic training in the Nuclear industry it is undeniable that the Iranians HAD a weapons program. I say had because we know the Stuxnet virus damaged it and Obama's treaty stopped it from redeveloping. Where that program is following Trump tearing up that treaty is anybody's guess. Taking out 1 guy won't make any difference either.
    1
  8924. 1
  8925. 1
  8926. 1
  8927. 1
  8928. 1
  8929. 1
  8930. Actually they were are/more obsessed with the bio-weapon angle and that's caused a shit load of confusion. The initial claims that it was a bio-weapon were totally idiotic and there has never been any evidence that it was ever a weapon. But a lot of evidence has turned up that shows the possibility of a lab leak is very real. The problem is the media and politicians have made a mess of the public discussion making it very hard to know what's fact and what's not. Dr. Michael Osterholm (the director of CIDRAP) did a great analysis of this mess and how the media has handled it in a recent podcast. This link is time stamped to that part of that podcast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYNfScnnDVU&t=2610s Note that he honestly points out the issues the CDC has had and how many incidents the CDC has had. Note how he explains that Wuhan and the Wuhan Institute of Virology might just be a coincidence because like Atlanta (home of the CDC) its a major transport hub. Go watch this from DW News that sheds a lot of light on what the Chinese were actually doing at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It DOES NOT conclude it was a lab leak, because nobody has conclusive evidence, but there is a lot of evidence that a lab leak was possible. What it also highlights is that the Lead Scientist in Wuhan Dr. Zheng-Li Shi WAS MODIFYING Bat Corona Viruses, but by the definition that she and others use it wasn't Gain of Function. The fact that the Chinese openly published their work is absolutely conclusive that it wasn't a weapon. Nobody develops weapons and the tells the world how they did it - that's simply idiotic. That would be like developing the next -gen stealth fighter and then putting the design on Facebook. What they show in that documentary is that there is division among virologists over what research is safe to do. They highlight the hyper deadly variant of H5N1 Avian flu that came out of a lab in 2011. Here's the DW documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0nuyPQzU18 Here's an example of what the Chinese published out of Wuhan. Click on the authors names and you will see where they work. You can also see that the lead scientist in Wuhan mentioned in the DW documentary is also one of the authors of this. -> https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1006698
    1
  8931. 1
  8932. 1
  8933. 1
  8934. 1
  8935. 1
  8936. 1
  8937. 1
  8938. 1
  8939. 1
  8940. 1
  8941. 1
  8942.  @Ishmachiah  Actually I'm Australian but went to college in America. and it wasn't for a 1 semester exchange. Don't try any of that revisionist shit on me. We get taught British history in Australia and as such are well informed about British political behavior. King George may not have personally abused the colonials but he sure as the sun comes up allowed his military to do whatever they liked. I studied aerospace engineering, but a bunch of my fraternity brothers were Pre-law and they loved discussing how and why the constitution was written they way it was and why the Bill of RIghts exists. The reason why the 1st Amendment is the 1st Amendment was because the British authorities used to use the sedition and treason laws for anything they liked. American colonials who disagreed with British officers risked getting hanged. Its one reason why it almost impossible to get Trump on treason or sedition. American law has a very narrow definition of Treason and the 1st Amendment makes sedition almost impossible to prosecute except for military personnel because the UCMJ precludes any 1st Amendment claim. The British did similar here in Australia, but not as bad in most ways. And before you yell at me being Australian that I do recognize the Papuan flag and am fully aware of Australia's colonial past and that we got many things wrong and some of them very seriously wrong. And don't be an ass hole on the dates when EVERY AMERICAN and half the civilized world recognizes the year 1776. July 4, 1776 was THE DATE the continental congress ratified its Declaration of Independence. Don't try and tell an American some other revisionist garbage, as I can assure you that you wont like the response.
    1
  8943. 1
  8944. 1
  8945. 1
  8946. Only if you want to teach school children how to lie convincingly in public. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  8947. 1
  8948. 1
  8949. 1
  8950. 1
  8951. 1
  8952. 1
  8953. Do you know who this guy actually is? He's one of the main proponents of "offensive realism" out of the University of Chicago the home of the neocons and neoconservative ideology. He represents THE OTHER SIDE of American political ideology - American Realism as opposed to American Liberalism. I saw one of his lectures a couple of weeks ago that he did at Yale in November 2017 and it was BRILLIANT. I have never seen anyone explain why a particular political party did or was doing what it was. For anyone who wants to know WHY Ukraine eventually happened, it was the 2nd of 3 lectures on Liberal Hegemony November 2017. BUT and this is the GIANT BUT I have with this guy. His side gave the world the Invasion of Iraq for which there was no reason other than the neo-cons (his people) wanted regime change in the middle east. That cost America over a trillion dollars and cost 4,431 American lives. That's over 1,400 more than died on 9/11. It might be more pronounced in America but there's a horrible fact about Western politics that's become pervasive. and its best summed up by "What my side does is righteous and what their side does is wrong." Its an infantile selfishness that's making a mess of the world. Its like 5 year olds fighting over a sand castle. I'm Australian and we have it here, its just not as bad as America. Trump just declared everyone who didn't vote for him "the enemy." How infantile is that. Donald Trump called over 180 million American citizens "the enemy" of America. Mearsheimer's description of the American liberals is flawless and his criticism warranted, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE if Biden was a Republican neo-con he'd be singing how righteous America's response is.
    1
  8954. 1
  8955. 1
  8956. I hate to break everyone's balls on PART of this. She's actually right that America does not have the energy grid set up for shifting everyone to electric cars and that nobody has a real DETAILED plan to get there, BUT THE REASON WHY there's no plan or progress is because of people like MTG. Remember the now infamous Exxon memo that told their people the plan was to delay all action on climate change for as long as possible? That and other factors, including narcissistic liars such as MTG, are combining into a perfect storm. Here's an explanation sorry if its longish. I'm an Australian engineer who went to college in America. We have the same problem here in Australia and the same problem is in Europe and Asia. This isn't simply an electric car or environmental issue. A few years ago I became aware of how badly Australia's energy grid was being managed. After the 1990s we just stopped building major power stations. By Major I mean those greater than 1,000 Megawatts (1 Gigawatt). Power plants like Diablo Canyon in California, which is 2256MW and Eraring in Australia, which is 2880MW. Diablo Canyon of 36 years old and Eraring is 40 years old. Most power stations are built for 25 years of life which they extend with rebuilds to 40 or more years. Think about how many of you have cars older than 25 years let alone 40. These are the big power stations that underpin our energy grids and keep modern society running. When I looked around its the same everywhere across the entire developed world. Except in China and a few rare cases we all stopped building new coal fired plants because of CO2 emissions. After Chernobyl and Fukushima everyone stopped building nuclear power plants. The problem has been masked by new wind and solar combined with more efficient appliances and lights, but we are starting to hit limits there. The problem is like we are running towards a cliff and people are too busy playing politics. All of our major power plants are now old and only getting older and less reliable. Here in Oz we are at the cliffs edge with old unreliable power stations. So there's not only a shortage of energy supply just to keep society going we don't have enough energy generation to change to electric cars. That's all before we ask where is all this Lithium to make the batteries coming from. Elon Musk's new mega-battery wont be able to make 3% of what's needed and that's by his estimates. So MTG's right that the infrastructure isn't there, BUT her fossil fuel friends ARE THE PROBLEM with getting it done. If there is one thing I'd fault David on is his oversimplification of the plan. Yes there is a general plan but NO there is NOT a detailed plan and the "devil is in the details." Its very frustrating to be an engineer when other people oversimplify what needs to be done. Things like where's all the lithium coming from for the batteries? And then how are we going to make that many batteries? Who's going to build all these new factories? David doesn't have to answer those questions but engineers do. Sorry for he longish comment.
    1
  8957. 1
  8958. 1
  8959. 1
  8960. 1
  8961. 1
  8962. 1
  8963.  @akg7873  First my comment was a general statement on the reality that EVERY tribe and cultural group ahs bad people who claim to be the protectors of that groups historical identity AND THAT STILL HOLDS. SECOND what polls are you talking about, what question did they actually ask and what information did they base the questions on? Because I find it damn hard to accept that 95% of Israelis believe that killing 15,000 children who had NOTHING to do with the attacks on October 7th (10/7) as acceptable behavior. ALSO - What were those polls BEFORE October 7th looking like? Prof. Mark Blyth from Brown U. pointed out that the targets for the 10/7 attacks included many Jews (like those at the concert) more likely to support a 2 state solution and how the 10/7 attacks have switched that view. He said he'd seen a massive switch among liberal Jewish people he knew in response to 10/7. ALSO - Are you aware of the polls among Palestinians in Gaza BEFORE October 7th. Hamas was losing support at an incredibly rapid rate. Their management of Gaza was atrocious and rife with corruption. Most of Gaza was fed up with them and had there been elections they would have been tossed out. But with the insanity of the Israeli response Hamas's support has risen. The craziest part of this is that the 2 main protagonists and instigators of this catastrophe (Hamas and Netanyahu's Zionists) were BOTH losing support among their people AND NOW have MORE support. So I find your comment to be insanely ignorant.
    1
  8964. 1
  8965. 1
  8966. 1
  8967. 1
  8968. ENGINEER HERE: Normally I would agree 100% with Thunderf00t, but there is a major problem he has missed with the whole carbon capture system and there's simply NO WAY to power it. EVERY VERSION of CARBON CAPTURE REQUIRES ENERGY and by far the single biggest issue facing society right now is energy. I first became aware of the energy issue during a small consulting job in 2016 into Australia's (my country's) future energy needs. Ignoring other things Australia has 22.6 GW of coal fired power to be replaced. Just like many other countries there is no way around this BECAUSE they are OLD and WEARING OUT and HAVE TO BE REPLACED ANYWAY. That build out also has to be double that amount because of population growth. Using Hinkley Point C which is the nuclear power station being constructed in Britain we can get the cost of what it would take Australia to replace that 22.6GW with LOW EMISSION nuclear. Its AU$440 Billion but when you add in expected population growth that doubles to AU$880 Billion. Then when you add in the extra power needed for all the electric cars we want it goes over AU$ 1 Trillion. When you add the power grid upgrades needed it costs around AU$2 TRILLION. I AM NOT AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER but I am calling you and many others out on what it actually costs to do what the job that exists will take. If its going to cost Australia AU$2 Trillion what do you think its going to cost all the other countries around the world with similar problems? Simply put the CO2 removal from the atmosphere has to be done with A LOW ENERGY SYSTEM and I am sorry but that means trees. YES I AGREE with Thunderf00t 100% that doing this with trees will take a monumental world encompassing program and that none of the tree hugging Greenies understand SHlT about what it will take, but trees don't need to be plugged into anything because they're solar powered. At a basic concept it means something like every person on the planet planting 1,000 trees and hoping that 1 in 10 make it to maturity. But those 800 Billion trees that survive to maturity should capture several Trillion tons of Carbon over the next 20-30 years and we need to be thinking about and talking on a level of Trillions of tons. Just so none of you think I'm crazy Statista has the global emissions on graph going from 1940 to 2022. It took the 44 years from 1940 to 1984 to emit 500 Million tons. It took the 21 years to 2005 to emit the second 500 Million tons (making 1 Trillion tons) It took the 15 years to 2020 for the next 500 Million tons making it 1.5 trillion tons of cumulative emissions since 1940. At the current rate of 37 Billion tons a year we'll reach 2 Trillion tons of cumulative emissions around 2033. Sorry TF (and I love your channel) but nobody's mechanical or chemical carbon capture solution is going to work if its needs energy and trees don't need to be plugged in to a power station to work. They only require muscle energy to plant them.
    1
  8969. 1
  8970. 1
  8971. 1
  8972. 1
  8973. GERRAD HOLLAND IS A COWARD I am an engineer and he deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  8974. 1
  8975. 1
  8976. 1
  8977. 1
  8978. 1
  8979. 1
  8980. 1
  8981. 1
  8982. 1
  8983. 1
  8984. 1
  8985. Australian here and I went to college in America. Your not quite right. What they voted for was CHANGE just like they did in 2016. What they have done is REJECT the Status Quo politics of the Democrats and that's NOT an American thing either. This is happening across the developed world. People are tired of the Liberal Elites and their Status Quo politics where they get what they want and the rest of us get left out. There's a Congressional Budget Office report on Family Wealth that Bernie Sanders commissioned. It shows that form 1989 to 2019 the Bottom 50% of America went NOWHERE while the Top 10% GAINED close to $60 Trillion in wealth. Here's the most basic data. Bottom 50% in 1989 were worth $1.4 Trillion and in 2019 they were worth $2.3 Trillion a gain of $0.9 Trillion Top 10% in 1989 were worth $24.3 Trillion and in 2019 they were worth $82.4 Trillion a gain of $58.1 Trillion So the Top 105 with 1/5th as many people gained over 60x what the Bottom 50% gained over those 30 years. Per person those Top 10% gained over 300x as much wealth per person in the Bottom 50% Just go and google "congressional budget office family wealth" Its the report NO Democrat or Republican wants any American to see because it lays bare just how bad BOTH have been in managing America's economy. So when Hilary said "more of the same" she asked to get rejected and she was. And when Kamala said "I'd do nothing different" she asked to be rejected and she was. Trump tapped into the "we want change" undercurrent that's been building in America for decades. AND YES we have the same issue here in Australia AND BOTH SIDES of politics here refuse to acknowledge it.
    1
  8986. 1
  8987. To both of you (and any others) this is why the rest of the world is getting more and more scared of America. I'm Australian but went to college in America (late 80s). I remember arguing with frat brothers that if America wasn't careful it could lose all that was great about it. They used to argue that the US constitution guaranteed that America could not go the way other nations had. Their 3 favorite reasons why America could never fall into the disaster that Soviet Russia was were: The 1st Amendment, The 4th Amendment and SCOTUS. If the government did something then the entire nation would find out via the free press. If the government wanted touch you then they couldn't because the 4th Amendment protected them from the "police state". Yes they used to explain the other Amendments (mostly the ones about trials). BUT MOST OF ALL they contended that SCOTUS would protect all their basic rights. My favorite argument with Trump trolls is "How do you explain that Trump signed away your 4th Amendment rights tot he NSA?" I then like to remind them the NSA is scanning all social media including their comments. I would love to catch up with all the guys again, maybe this year it finally will. Because I would love to ask them all "How come you guys said all this stuff couldn't happen and yet it has." Even the 1st Amendment is being trampled on. As an Australia we've all watched the Assange fiasco. I know that in the past that would have been laughed out of court of 1st Amendment issues. Not just for the press freedom either. The grievance issue would/could/should make it a slam dunk.
    1
  8988. 1
  8989. 1
  8990. 1
  8991. 1
  8992. 1
  8993. 1
  8994. 1
  8995. 1
  8996. 1
  8997. 1
  8998. 1
  8999. 1
  9000. 1
  9001. 1
  9002. 1
  9003. 1
  9004. AEROSPACE ENIGNEER HERE: there's a very simple logical thought process to the "Are we alone question?" It comes up with an interesting answer. 1) If you are someone who believes in God or Gods, angles, cherubs, spirits,...etc then you are a person who believes we are not alone because you believe there are these other non-human beings with variations of intelligence that we have had various interactions with. You therefore believe we are NOT ALONE. 2) If you are a person who believes in the accepted scientific explanation of evolution then considering how many planets we now know that life must exist somewhere else. It does not matter if you think the occurrence of life and the development of intelligence is common or rare the fact is you believe we are NOT ALONE. 3) You believe we are a unique accident of the universe and that this planet is the only place to have ever developed life and intelligence anywhere in the universe. To have that belief you NEITHER believe in the religious accounts of billions of people NOR the Scientific explanations of billions more. You are therefore very, very rare. The amazing thing about all 3 of these answers is that NONE of the proponents can prove or disprove their claim or the disprove the claims of the other 2. Most importantly RIGHT NOW it doesn't really matter if you believe in any of the 1000s of religions or in science BECAUSE you can't prove anything. For most of us we believe we are NOT ALONE and its only the very rarest of people who believe we are alone in the universe. The more relevant question people should isn't "Are we alone?" Because most of us for various reason believe we are NOT alone. The relevant question is "Where are they and can they help?" My answer to everyone who can process that logic and get to that question is: "If you were a superior species to humanity, which you'd have to be to build & seed planets or travel across interstellar space, and you looked at us and investigated our history and noted how we treat each other and this planet, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?"
    1
  9005. 1
  9006. 1
  9007. 1
  9008. 1
  9009. 1
  9010. 1
  9011. 1
  9012. 1
  9013. 1
  9014. Just a quick addition. I know that since 1940 we have added 1.5 Trillion tons of C02 because I have that data because its well published. And I know that at current rates 1.5 becomes 2.0 Trillion tons in about 2033-34. I am not as sure as the 2.5 to date which you said was 1.7 Trillion tons. I think there is some contention over the pre-1940 data and what the "normal level" is supposed to be. If you look at the historical CO2 graph that NOAA and others publish then it should be below 270ppm for a normal Milankovitch cycle, except there was that event about 200,000 years ago that had one cycle hit 300ppm. Irrespective getting the current 415ppm back down will take a geoengineering effort of staggering scale. The only viable way that I can see it being done is a massive worldwide re-forestation program. We have to see trees as very cheap low maintenance solar powered carbon pumps. The issue is the number we need. In ball park terms we need every person on the planet to physically plant themselves or have others plant for them 1,000 trees. Hoping that we get 1-2 in every 8 survive to adulthood then we'd have 1-2 Trillion trees each pulling 1-2 tons of Carbon from the air. Every other plane like seeding the ocean with iron to promote algae growth or seeding the upper atmosphere with SO2 has major issues in that NOBODY KNOWS what the secondary effects would be. The SO2 idea is the most off the deep end thing I have heard yet. What if it doesn't work? What if it works to well? What if they get it wrong and all that SO2 falls out of the sky as sulphuric acid AND its the same sort of questions for iron seeding the ocean. In the end it comes down to doing something we know will work and we know trees work. We just have to do it at the scale that is needed.
    1
  9015. 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
  9016. 1
  9017. 1
  9018. 1
  9019. 1
  9020. 1
  9021. 1
  9022. 1
  9023. 1
  9024. 1
  9025. 1
  9026. 1
  9027. 1
  9028. 1
  9029. 1
  9030. 1
  9031. 1
  9032. 1
  9033. 1
  9034.  @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
  9035. 1
  9036.  @scumbaggo  Yeah this is what its like these days. Western society is dominated by what I call "techno clowns." People who think because they can use a computer that they are somehow technically qualified. Some of them call themselves "futurists" others call themselves "technology educators." Whatever - they are all full of SHlT and rely on an ignorant public who don't know how ignorant they are. Here's my current head scratcher. Less than 2 weeks ago the head of Australia's Space Force (yes we now have one too because if America does then so do we) announced during the Avalon Air Show that we would be focusing on "soft kill satellite technology." I did my degree in aerospace in the late 80s in America when the whole Reagan "Star Wars" thing was going on. Many of the post grads ahead of us were DARPA funded. By around 1987/88 we had all worked out that NONE of it would ever work. We kept quiet because people were getting funding to get through their masters & PhDs. But after the collapse of the Soviets and that whole program got scrapped we could tell the truth. NOW 35 years later I am again hearing about "space lasers" and people wasting lots of money. A couple of years ago I put to the government a small (but what I thought useful) space program proposal using 1/2 the money from a particular government venture which we all knew was ridiculous. So I knew I would not be taking money from any other program. I asked for $720 million. They said NO and then gave the air force $7 Billion for "Star Wars 2.0." How do you think that makes me feel right now????
    1
  9037. 1
  9038. 1
  9039. 1
  9040. 1
  9041. 1
  9042. 1
  9043. 1
  9044. 1
  9045. 1
  9046. 1
  9047. 1
  9048. SORRY but GERRAD HOLLAND IS NOT ONLY A COWARD but his numbers are horrendously WRONG I am an engineer and Gerrard deleted my earlier challenge to a public debate. Now that we know the numbers of the Dutton-Obrien plan of $330 Billion and 38% of Australia's energy to be nuclear supplied I can explain why this plan is idiotic and people like Gerrard have NO IDEA about what they are saying. FIRST I am not against nuclear power. I am against clowns like Gerrard (who is an accountant) sucking the oxygen out of public discussion and preventing engineers from properly informing everyone to the pros and cons of nuclear energy. SECOND there are only 2 realistic options for nuclear power in Australia. 1) The French designed EPR 2 (1.6 GW) which based on Hinkley Point C cost $41-48 Billion each and take 10 years to build. 2) The American designed AP1000 (1.1 GW) which based on Vogtle cost $28.9 Billion each and take 9 years to build. For $330 Billion we can have 8 x EPR 2s or 11 x AP1000s. Irrespective of costs the alternatives all have issues none of the pro-nuclear people will address. The KEPCO who make the the South Korean APR1400 reactors was caught falsifying paper work to their own government. After Fukushima and the serious design flaws were exposed nobody wants Japanese reactors despite they can be built in 4-5 years. The latest generation of Canadian CANDU reactors have been rejected by the Canadian government despite them being the next best alternative to the EPR 2 and AP 1000. THIRD Gerrards claims that Australia's ENTIRE energy solution can be done for $420 Billion compared to $1.2 Trillion for renewables is a GIANT LIE because $420 Billion is only PART of the job. Its like comparing the cost of a new tires for a car to the cost of a whole new car. Yes I know the figures he claims came from some Engineers at a recent CIS event but they are fundamentally flawed because they are only only PART of the job. FOURTH the LNP claim they can do 38% of Australia's energy needs for $300 Billion is accurate PROVIDED you IGNORE REALITY. I've done the modelling and know where the LNP got their numbers from and yes for $330 Billion its possible to build enough reactors to replace 38% of Australia's current energy capacity. Its not the math they've used ITS THE METHOD which is totally ignorant of reality. Like: 1) It assumes Australia will need the same amount of energy 75 years from now that its using today which is crazy considering we expect the population to reach 40 million around 2050, 50 million around 2070 and 60 million around 2090. 2) It assumes we won't need any gird upgrades which is the same as assuming we wont need more power. 3) It assumes there is no cost for the fuel used and no cost for the storage of spent fuel. for the number of reactors we can get for $330 Billion we'd need around 250 tons of fuel each year and it also means we'd produce the same amount of spent fuel and that has to be dealt with. 4) WORST OF ALL It assumes there will be no costs to decommission and clean up these sites AFTER their 60 or (possible) 80 year lifetimes. I recommend that people go and look up the costs the British people paid for cleaning up Sellafield. AND THAT'S before we discuss the REAL REASON our power bills are so high. Due to all the interference engineers have had over the past 30 years from activists, Think Tankers and lobbyists like Gerrard Holland our governments have been badly advised. Instead of keeping up with the demands of modern Australia we now have a shortfall. Basic supply-demand economics says undersupply of any good or service causes prices to rise. Its been fantastic for the power companies (who bought our power stations) being able to sell electricity for double, triple or quadruple the price at no additional costs. Its why putting up wind turbines is now so profitable. They are cheap, they are quick and the infrastructure is somebody else's problem. Australia's energy problems are solvable, but until the Gerrard Holland's and other activists STFU and let the engineers explain what we need to do then I'm sorry but your power bills are going to get worse and it wont matter who you elect.
    1
  9049. 1
  9050. 1
  9051. 1
  9052. 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
  9053. 1
  9054. 1
  9055. 1
  9056. 1
  9057. 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
  9058. 1
  9059. 1
  9060. 1
  9061. 1
  9062. Yes its a shame Sam never got to interview Daniel Ellsberg as there's a massive mistake in this interview. at 28 minutes The Americans DID NOT depth charged the Russian submarines during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In an interview with theAnalysisNews (which is available here on YT) Daniel Ellsberg who was actually there at the time related what happened. The American's were actually trying to SIGNAL the Russian submarines by throwing hand grenades into the water. That wasn't working because they'd blow up before they went deep enough. So they started wrapping the hand grenades in toilet paper. They'd throw the hand grenades into the water which would then sink before the toilet paper fell away. What the American's didn't know was that this freaked out the Russian because at depth the hand grenades had a concussive effect that made the Russians feel like they were being attacked. What saved the world was the oddity that Vasily Arkhipov was on the particular submarine that thought it was under attack. Normally it only takes 2 people (the commander & political officer) to use a nuclear weapon. The submarine Arkhipov was on (the B-59) was one of 4 Foxtrot submarines sent to Cuba by the Russians. He was NOT the commander of that submarine he was the Commander the flotilla of 4 Foxtrots. On the B-59 the actual commander Valentin Savitsky. Savitsky and his political officer DID PREPARE to launch their T-5 nuclear torpedo, BUT because Arkhipov was on that submarine it also required him to agree and he didn't. He worked out the Americans were only trying to signal them. THAT'S HOW CLOSE IT WAS. Had Arkhipov been on one of the other Foxtrot submarines then Savitsky would have launched the B-59s nuclear torpedo which the Americans didn't even know they had. The Americans didn't find out for many years just how close it came. As a side note of trivia the character played by Liam Nesson (Mikhail "Misha" Polenin, E) in the film K19: The Widomaker is based on Arkhipov.
    1
  9063. 1
  9064. 1
  9065. What specifically do all these people have in common with Bernard Marcus who is 93? Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger, Barre Seid, Charles Koch and Rupert Murdoch. This was pointed out to me by a friend recently. Charles Koch is the youngest born in 1935, but their age isn't the specific thing. Its when they were born and what they went through. They were all born during the later part of the great depression and spent their childhood during World War 2. These people are NOT Baby Boomers they are War Babies. Basically anyone older than 75 was born, before during or just after World War 2. They had all their views on the world shaped by that including the threat of nuclear war. Gore Vidal wrote and spoke extensively on the "History of the National Security State" here's a short documentary on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml8XW8WVCd4 NOTE: How they used the fear of nuclear war to build their industrial complex. Those people were about contracts and making lots of money not the Russians. They new the Russians were in no place to fight another war let alone start one *AND THAT was confirmed after the Cold War. The Russians never had the capability to go beyond Eastern Europe. What the MIC proponents did was scare the generation of War Babies out of the minds and they have never gotten over it. They see the Baby Boomers as spoilt brats who were guaranteed jobs, houses and an easy retirement. They resent that the Boomers never went through what they did. They see the Xers, Millennials and Zoomers as just more generations spoilt brats incapable of running anything. NOT ALL of that generation are like these people, but those that are see themselves as the ones who rebuilt human society after WW2 and then saved us from godless communism and godless socialism. They not only see us as spoilt brats but also as people incapable of running what they believe they built.
    1
  9066. 1
  9067. 1
  9068. 1
  9069. 1
  9070. 1
  9071. 1
  9072. ​ @MrRatclima  As I have said to others its all symptomatic of neoliberal economics, but people need to realise that neoliberalism more than just economics. Its a whole set of ideas that includes political and social ideology. At its core is the elitist view that people are incompetent and they need to be managed. To do that "we (the elite) have to have the freedom from law to do what we need to do to manage the rest of you." That's where the American Libertarians get their "We need the liberty to strip you of your liberty." political ideology from. Its a weird from of Orwellian logic that comes from what we'd normally consider the political Right rather than the political Left. Its incredibly arrogant and a lot of the hard core neoliberals are insanely arrogant. Their establishments are places like Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago. Most of their economics comes straight out of Milton Freidman's "Greed is good" and "Corporation's have no other task than profit." mantras. Freidman was a professor at the University of Chicago. Neoliberals manage governments through consultancies and in that game the biggest of the consultancies is McKinsey which was started by James McKinsey another professor from the University of Chicago. They have infected the American justice system and the main player there is the lobbying think tank the Federalist Society which was started by students at Harvard, Yale and the University of Chicago. They felt their universities were the bastions of real judicial knowledge. Right now the 9 on the SCOTUS consist of 4 Harvard, 4 Yale and Notre Dame who's a known member of the Federalist Society. If you really want to understand neoliberalism better. There's a lecture series by Damon Silvers over on the UCP IIPP page here on YT. Warning there's almost 6 hours but its worth your time if you really want to know what neoliberalism is about. The first one is titled "Understanding Neoliberalism as a System of Power" and even if you only watch that one you'll understand neoliberalism better than most people.
    1
  9073.  @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
  9074. ​ @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
  9075. 1
  9076. 1
  9077. Just so people know who this guy actually is? He's one of the main proponents of "offensive realism" out of the University of Chicago the home of the neocons and neoconservative ideology. He represents THE OTHER SIDE of American political ideology - American Realism as opposed to American Liberalism. I saw one of his lectures a couple of weeks ago that he did at Yale in November 2017 and it was BRILLIANT. I have never seen anyone explain why a particular political party did or was doing what it was. For anyone who wants to know WHY Ukraine eventually happened, it was the 2nd of 3 lectures on Liberal Hegemony November 2017. BUT and this is the GIANT BUT I have with this guy. His side gave the world the Invasion of Iraq for which there was no reason other than the neo-cons (his people) wanted regime change in the middle east. That cost America over a trillion dollars and cost 4,431 American lives. That's over 1,400 more than died on 9/11. It might be more pronounced in America but there's a horrible fact about Western politics that's become pervasive. and its best summed up by "What my side does is righteous and what their side does is wrong." Its an infantile selfishness that's making a mess of the world. Its like 5 year olds fighting over a sand castle. I'm Australian and we have it here, its just not as bad as America. Trump just declared everyone who didn't vote for him "the enemy." How infantile is that. Donald Trump called over 180 million American citizens "the enemy" of America. Mearsheimer's description of the American liberals is flawless and his criticism warranted, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE if Biden was a Republican neo-con he'd be singing how righteous America's response is.
    1
  9078. 1
  9079. 1
  9080. 1
  9081. 1
  9082. 1
  9083. 1
  9084. 1
  9085. 1
  9086. 1
  9087. 1
  9088. 1
  9089. 1
  9090. 1
  9091. 1
  9092. 1
  9093. 1
  9094.  @AprilWatters  Its more complicated than that. If you go all the way back to the formation of Israel, the British who controlled Palestine at the time TRIED to set it up as 2 states. The Brits knew and told everyone that the Zionists and hard core Palestinians would NOT share anything. When the vote came on a 2 state or 1 state at the UN it was actually the Arab League who voted AGAINST the 2 state solution. That's a fact that seems to have been forgotten. It was all the other Arab nations who threw the Palestinians under the bus back in (I think) 1948. If you can try and watch the interviews Jon Stewart had with Abdullah the King of Jordan circa 2011 and there were at least 2. I remember one of them when Abdullah simply told Jon Stewart that if they didn't solve the problem then the entire middle east would remain in turmoil. Despite that it was the Arab nations who threw the Palestinians under the bus they used the plight of the Palestinians as way to stand of their soap boxes and rail against the West. Abdullah said if they solved the Palestinian issue then all of the surrounding Arab nations would have to start dealing with their own internal issues because they'd have to face the fact that their internal issues ARE THEIR FAULT not the West's. I still remember that interview over a decade later because it was so profound and simple and straight forward. Also Abdullah basically predicted that at some point we'd be exactly where we are now if the Palestinian issue was NOT solved.
    1
  9095. 1
  9096. 1
  9097. 1
  9098. 1
  9099. 1
  9100. 1
  9101.  @commonsenseskeptic  To both you and Mr. Clem the word "engineer" is NOT protected under any law anywhere the sam eas words like doctor and dentist are. I can't explain the history across the world but I can explain what happened in Australia. I started in Mech. Eng at RMIT (Melbourne Australia) in 1983. On day 1 we had the Institute of Engineers Australia talk to us about becoming student members. During that they discussed a couple of legal issues. They went all through the subject of people using the word "engineer." At some point in Australian History just before or just after WW2 several professions were offered the right to claim exclusive legal use of the word that labels their profession. I know of 3, accountants, architects and engineers. Engineers and Accountants opted out because it would take about 50 years to completely retire out all the unqualified people already calling themselves engineer or accountant. The Architects said yes and they'd deal with the unqualified. The institutes for engineers and accountants opted for post graduate certifications and we now have the legal terms "chartered accountant" and "chartered engineer." It usually requires 4 years of practice after graduation to be come eligible to get chartered. I don't know the exact process because for engineers These days anyone can draw a house or building up in CAD or on paper and submit it to planning authorities. They can do it for other people and charge money. BUT if they use the word "architect" to describe themselves in any way and they are NOT degree qualified they can get charged with fraud. For accountants and engineers there are certain specific tasks where being a "chartered accountant" or "chartered engineer" is required. In engineering the only 2 places I know it matters are for civil engineers doing structural work and electrical for power grid/distribution, and then only the civil structural where there's actual legal requirements. Civil Structural engineers get licensed, but then they are the guys who say the bridges and buildings wont collapse. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️ An odd area where I know the word "engineer" is strictly controlled is in aircraft maintenance. We call aircraft mechanics LAME (pronounced lay-mee) for Licensed Mechanical Airframe Engineer. They are NOT degree qualified. They are the aircraft equivalent of a motor mechanic. So the word engineer is not a controlled word and that's common. I know it sucks but Elon is free like any other person to declare himself an engineer. I totally effing hate it, but that's how it is. Great vid.
    1
  9102. 1
  9103. 1
  9104. 1
  9105. 1
  9106. 1
  9107. 1
  9108.  @francois-xavieresperance5007  That's fairly blunt across a whole field of issues. The pacific is almost lost as it is to China. Australia, America and others have been very slack and taken for granted all those small island states would always be in our camp. China turned up a decade ago and started funding projects as part of "belt & road." They are no so entrenched its almost impossible to get them out, because so many of those nations now OWE China for the loans (as in the debts). China now has an economic strangle hold on quite a few of them. We found that out very rudely when they all blasted off at Australia over climate change. China was a guest at that conference and it was obvious they were pulling strings to test out their influence. What's truly scary is that the West has totally ignored what China was doing. We all forget that the UN general Assembly is like the US Senate. Every country gets 1 vote irrespective of population size. So 1.4 Billion Chinamen get 1 vote while all those small Pacific nations get over a dozen with barley a million people. What I expect is that China will eventually go for economic sanctions on America and we are going to be stunned on how many nations vote with them. It will only be then will people realise what "belt & road" actually is. I've been trying to tell people for a while how scary this is. They actually learnt this from the Japanese who manipulated the international whaling commission in the same way. Plus to add into that are the immense issues China is going to face over the next 20years. First with its skewed demographics that have resulted form the 1 child policy. Second form its idiotic construction of ghost cities which has sponged up a staggering amount of cash. Third from all the wealthy Chinese who are getting their money out of China as fast as they can. Fourth that massive army they have produces no food or products to sell they are just 1 enormous sponge on resources. If you take a look at the Soviet collapse one of its major factors was the massive military it had in terms of people. Military personnel produce nothing but costs that the rest of society has to provide. Because America's military is more technology bases it doesn't have as many people as some think. Plus because of how America works its military produces a lot of economic turnover which Russia's never did and China's does not do. Plus all those foreign companies that have factories in China can now chase even cheaper labor in India and Africa.
    1
  9109. 1
  9110. 1
  9111. 1
  9112. 1
  9113. 1
  9114. 1
  9115. 1
  9116. 1
  9117. 1
  9118. 1
  9119. 1
  9120. 1
  9121. 1
  9122. 1
  9123. 1
  9124. 1
  9125. 1
  9126. 1
  9127. 1
  9128. 1
  9129. 1
  9130. 1
  9131. 1
  9132.  @thomasjr8318  What it highlights is that we have NOT BEEN TOLD EVERYTHING and until there is a fully independent investigation we wont know. The problem is there are so many vested interests that simply wont ever happen - the Chinese, the W.H.O. Big Pharma 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ Dr. Fauci could be telling 100% truth. The Nichols article doesn't say he is directly involved with or helped fund any "gain of function" research. I don't think he realizes that he's wide open to accusations and can't DISPROVE them. It doesn't matter if he's 100% innocent or 100% guilty he's stuffed. He can't prove or disprove anything. If you look at what he said today. Its all legitimate. if he didn't help try and get ready for the next "whatever" he'd be negligent. It would be like NOT doing research into computer hacking. If you don't do the hacking, you wont find the weaknesses and wont plug the gaps in the firewalls. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ So I would expect that he (in his position) would fund research (or see it get funding) and possibly do it in places where these viruses come from. BUT (and this is the crux) what else was possibly going on in that lab? What did they know and when did they know it? I suspect as I said previously that something happened in a petri dish. They didn't realize what it was UNTIL after it got lose. By the time they realized what had happened they went into damage control. Now that several million are dead its full cover-up mode. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️
    1
  9133.  @mattrogers5188  For sure it was publicly available, I am not claiming that or anything else. BUT Dr. Fauci was in front of congress only days ago unequivocally claiming there was no "gain of function" research in China being funded via the NIH. A couple of days later I see links from another person that show the NIH was funding COVID research in China. I am not saying he was wrong or lied, BUT HE HASN'T explained, in that context, what these other projects were. EVERY TIME I have posted those links I have also said the in my opinion (IMO) considering the previous outbreaks of SARS1 and MERS that China researching these viruses makes sense and that other countries being involved also makes sense . WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY THAT LINK TO THE WUHAN LAB WAS NOT PUBLICLY DISCUSSED 12-15 MONTHS AGO. If you want something truly suspicious Peter Daszak was one of the very few people the Chinese let in to investigate. That's a clear conflict of interest. Plus he is a proponent of gain of function. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ I personally think that Dr. Fauci has the worst job on the planet right now. He's been attacked and screamed at from both the left and right. Nothing he says will satisfy either, but he also hasn't explained somethings which doesn't help. David P is actually one of the very few commentators being rational right now. Just today on Rising (at the Hill) the new hosts Ryan and Emily claimed they had proof Dr. Fauci lied. They showed 2 videos. In the 1st Dr. Fauci says we didn't know at first that masks were effective outside the hospital environment. In the 2nd he says there was a shortage of masks and they wanted to reserve them for hospital staff. They claimed there is a lie in that. Yeah where? Those are not mutually exclusive statements. Do I personally think Dr. Fauci has deliberately lied? NO, but he hasn't told all that he knows at times. Is that defendable? Absolutely - considering how both sides of American politics and media behave. When everything you say gets attacked by one side or the other shutting you mouth is the only option BUT eventually you do need to explain things. What I want is a straight forward explanation of what Peter Daszak (and others) were up to with that lab in Wuhan and so far that has NOT happened. Over 3.7 million are dead, their families deserve honest answers.
    1
  9134. 1
  9135. 1
  9136. 1
  9137. 1
  9138. 1
  9139. Aerospace engineer and pilot here: You are 99% right. What they need are planes that can get up to the drones fast AND THEN match speed AND THEN be a stable gun platform. The Yak 52 is nothing like a Spitfire. One is a basic trainer the other is a thoroughbred designed to out fly other planes of the same era and type. Also the Spitfire is from the 1940s and the Yak is from the 1970s. I am actually surprised they have not done this a lot sooner but I also think they are using the wrong plane. Among the Russian planes is the newer Yak 152 which I don't think they have in Ukraine. It was designed to replace the Yak 52. But the planes I do know they have are the Russian aerobatic planes (Yak 54, Yak 55, Sukhoi SU26, 29 & 31). The reason I think the aerobatic planes would be better is they not only have better speed to get to the drones but they are also very stable. Most people assume aerobatic planes are very twitchy and some like the American Pitts Special are. But the current generations of aerobatic planes are designed to be very stable so that they score better in competition. Its like gymnastics with a plane and there's no points for ho wild manoeuvres are the points are for how clean they are just like in gymnastics. In fat the scoring is very similar to gymnastics and springboard diving. So a plane like the German Extra 330 with 4 P90 machine pistols in each wing arranged like they were in the Spitfire gives you a plane that can get up fast chase down drones and then be very stable while you shoot them down. The trick would be MATCHING the speed of the drone so you can take a clean shot at it. So you are very very close. In fact you are closer to what I think is the right answer than anyone else I have seen.
    1
  9140. 1
  9141. 1
  9142. 1
  9143. 1
  9144. 1
  9145. 1
  9146. 1
  9147. 1
  9148. 1
  9149. 1
  9150. 1
  9151. 1
  9152. 1
  9153. 1
  9154. 1
  9155. 1
  9156. 1
  9157. 1
  9158. 1
  9159. 1
  9160. 1
  9161. 1
  9162. 1
  9163. 1
  9164. 1
  9165. 1
  9166. 1
  9167. Well pointed out this is not simply a matter of definition its a matter of public confusion because of partisan politics. I'm an aerospace engineer who did post graduate research. What angers me so much with this argument is that we are NOT getting a clear picture of what the NIH was doing in Wuhan. I remember that May 11 confrontation, because it was just after the Wade Nichols article, and yes I know there's been some debunking of that article. -> https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/the-origin-of-covid-did-people-or-nature-open-pandoras-box-at-wuhan/ But following on from that article others posted links to these NIH project reports which clearly show NIH funding to Ecohealth Alliance and managed by Peter Daszak for Corona virus research in China. https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9491676 https://reporter.nih.gov/search/xQW6UJmWfUuOV01ntGvLwQ/project-details/9819304 I'm not a virologist or epidemiologist (an most of us aren't). I do know what researchers can be like. At times very fine details and definitions are incredibly important because they can be doing work that is right at the balance point between 1 definition and another. For anyone who has never done research or development that's more common than you think. I did a water treatment plant a couple of years back where we had to be EXTREMELY careful about everything we said or wrote in emails and reports because there were 2 competing companies, both with patents pending that were very, very close in what they claimed as original work. Its quite possible that how researchers define Gain of Function and where they draw the line between it and other methods might not make sense to the rest of us but makes perfect sense to them. We DO NEED is clarity from an expert in the field as to why certain research is regarded as Gain of Function and some is NOT. I don't want to hear from any more commentators or politicians about this - I WANT TO HEAR FROM AN EXPERT.
    1
  9168. 1
  9169. 1
  9170. 1
  9171. 1
  9172. Here's an argument what's more important to human history the screw or Vaucanson's metal lathe? Yeah I saw your video on Jacques de Vaucanson's incredible lathe, which is one of the most important engineering videos I have ever seen (I'm an aerospace engineer with a background in automation, robotics and control systems). It also completely refutes the ideology of Milton Freidman - the father of "greed is good." He famously claimed that greed alone drove innovation and that we needed to free up regulations to support greed and drive innovation. It was the justification and basis for his entire economic theory which became Reaganomics and Thatcherism, which has lead the world to its current financial catastrophe. As to your question on bolts & screws. You are essentially right, if its forms its own thread then its a screw, but then you have things like "set screws" which don't form their own threads and are essential to holding many things in place, like pulleys on shafts. But consider that the 2 words bolt and screw can both be used as verbs. You can "bolt things together" or "screw something down." Notably when you bolt things together you use nuts. So it might be possible to define things by purpose and if you use a nut its a bolt and if you don't its a screw. But then there are tings like shoulder bolts and if you use one in a fixture without a nut its still a shoulder bolt. After writing the above I checked Wikipedia starting with "bolt" (which include the word nut) and then got to this -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screw#Differentiation_between_bolt_and_screw Note what it says about the naming of lag bolts and coach bolts which are clearly screws but been named bolts. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ As anyone can see going down that page the word bolt and nut keep being interchanged, so the definition is anything but clear. But in the most simplest case if it uses a nut to be tightened then its a bolt.
    1
  9173. 1
  9174. 1
  9175. 1
  9176. 1
  9177. 1
  9178. 1
  9179. 1
  9180. 1
  9181. 1
  9182. 1
  9183. 1
  9184. 1
  9185. 1
  9186. 1
  9187. 1
  9188. 1
  9189. 1
  9190. 1
  9191. 1
  9192. 1
  9193. 1
  9194. 1
  9195. 1
  9196. 1
  9197. 1
  9198. 1
  9199. AUSTRALIAN HERE - I went to college in America in the late 80s on a scholarship and did aerospace engineering at the U. of Illinois. That was when the Internet was being born and the Cray supercomputers were doing amazing things. Marc Andreessen did his degree in computing at Illinois in the years just after I graduated. Andreessen along with Eric Bina and others developed the worlds first practical web browser Mosaic while there. I actually used the precursor system called Plato while there and its hard to explain how bad it was and how much a functional web browser was needed. Mosaic eventually morphed into Netscape which Microsoft bought and then morphed into MS Internet Explorer. Go and look at the Wikipedia page for the U of Illinois notable Alumni and look down the list of people who have made huge contributions to America's computer industries and other technologies. You'll see references to YouTube and Tesla in that list. So I know first hand what the value of the American State funded college systems are worth. I mention Andreessen specifically because he has been so vocal in recent years about defunding state backed college systems. I find that repulsively hypocritical because I KNOW from FIRST HAND experience what an incredible advantage in life he got from attending a state funded college. FYI - The Illini thumping Michigan was fantastic, but what would be better is that America can find a way past its current political issues because that's a benefit to the whole world.
    1
  9200. 1
  9201. 1
  9202. 1
  9203. 1
  9204. 1
  9205. 1
  9206. 1
  9207. 1
  9208.  @benzemamumba  I agree to a point that they are at least at times partisan hacks. But the question is are they doing it deliberately like the "opinion as fact" hacks at MSNBC, CNN, FOX, OAN,... etc. He's definitely failed here by trying to be a serious journalist and simplify a complex problem. I know how complex it is because one of the worlds leading experts talked about this in detail this time LAST YEAR. Dr. Michael Osterholm (who Joe Rogan interviewed right at the start of the pandemic) did a great explanation on mandates and hesitancy. Rogan's interview with him was gold, because Rogan kept his opinions out of the discussion. He asked questions and listened to the answers. Why Rogan hasn't had him back defies logic in my mind. Anyway what Dr. Osterholm described is that there are actually 3 main groups. 1) the pro-vaccine people who just get vaccinated as soon as they can. 2) the anti-vaxxers who just won't and can't be reasoned with. 3) the hesitant who can have an array of reasons and degrees of hesitancy making it a complex subject. Dr. O has decades of experience explained that mandates are meaningless to the first 2 groups. They're simple because their minds are made up, but the hesitant aren't a simple answer and mandates are an added pressure that doesn't help. Often leading to them being even more hesitant. Konstantin has put this all down to 1 simple answer of failed trust, which is just plain WRONG. Good to see someone else spotted it for the failure it is.
    1
  9209. 1
  9210. 1
  9211. ATTENTION ALL: There is a huge mistake at 28 minutes. The Americans DID NOT depth charged the Russian submarines during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In an interview with theAnalysisNews (which is available here on YT) Daniel Ellsberg who was actually there at the time related what happened. The American's were actually trying to SIGNAL the Russian submarines by throwing hand grenades into the water. That wasn't working because they'd blow up before they went deep enough. So they started wrapping the hand grenades in toilet paper. They'd throw the hand grenades into the water which would then sink before the toilet paper fell away. What the American's didn't know was that this freaked out the Russian because at depth the hand grenades had a concussive effect that made the Russians feel like they were being attacked. What saved the world was the oddity that Vasily Arkhipov was on the particular submarine that thought it was under attack. Normally it only takes 2 people (the commander & political officer) to use a nuclear weapon. The submarine Arkhipov was on (the B-59) was one of 4 Foxtrot submarines sent to Cuba by the Russians. He was NOT the commander of that submarine he was the Commander the flotilla of 4 Foxtrots. On the B-59 the actual commander Valentin Savitsky. Savitsky and his political officer DID PREPARE to launch their T-5 nuclear torpedo, BUT because Arkhipov was on that submarine it also required him to agree and he didn't. He worked out the Americans were only trying to signal them. THAT'S HOW CLOSE IT WAS. Had Arkhipov been on one of the other Foxtrot submarines then Savitsky would have launched the B-59s nuclear torpedo which the Americans didn't even know they had. The Americans didn't find out for many years just how close it came. As a side note of trivia the character played by Liam Nesson (Mikhail "Misha" Polenin, E) in the film K19: The Widomaker is based on Arkhipov.
    1
  9212. I really like Prof Wolff, because he's at the very least giving an educated alternative opinion on economics, but there are times he lets brain take it too far. To call Capitalism unstable is to ignore what the terms stable and unstable actually mean. I'm an engineer and we have to learn and understand what stable and unstable actually mean because otherwise the modern world can't exist. Power stations and the power grid wont work, your car wont work and airplanes will tear themselves apart mid-air- that kind of stuff. Sorry this is a longish explanation. This is basic high school science level. Something that is naturally stable is something that will self correct from a disturbance. An example of stable system is a ball in a bowl. If you bump the bowl and the ball moves, it will eventually settle back down to the bottom of the bowl. An unstable system will not recover from a disturbance. If you balance a broom stick on its end. Any disturbance and it will just fall over. HOWEVER if we stand the broom stick upright on our hand and move our hand to correct for disturbances you then have something not entirely stable or unstable. We call that "artificially stable," as in there is something else keeping the system in a stable state. In engineering we have many systems that are artificially stable and quite often there's a combination of stabilisers. The suspension in your car has shock absorbers that allow you to hit bumps and not have the suspension bounce around. There's also the tires and suspension geometry. A main part of it is the drivers brain which makes corrections like steering inputs. One of the incredibly important concepts of artificially stable systems is that the stabilisers have limits and if you exceed those limits the system can break or fail. If 1 of the shock absorbers fails and reduces the cars stability. If the car hits a big enough bump and shock absorbers reach their limit. IF driver's brain cannot compensate then the car crashes. Modern capitalist systems are "artificially stable." There are shock absorbers and adjustments that governments use to keep there economies stable. Part of that system are interest rates, but there's also government spending (via policies and projects), the rate at which they print new money, bond rates and the regulations they place on private industry (like banking rules). The real problem is we are now bumping into the limits that our economic stabilisers can handle.
    1
  9213. 1
  9214. 1
  9215. 1
  9216. 1
  9217. 1
  9218. 1
  9219. 1
  9220. 1
  9221. 1
  9222. 1
  9223. 1
  9224. I'm Australian but went to college in America. I did aerospace engineering but a bunch of my friends were pre-law and used to drag me into their discussions. So I got an interesting education in this minor 1 page document called the BILL OF RIGHTS which just might be one of the most profound single page documents in human history. Despite the fact it is currently being presided over by a pack of clowns let me remind all of America some of the things my classmates, fraternity brothers and others taught me about. The FIRST Amendment expressly prohibits the Government from restricting free speech and this nonsense clearly violates that. The SECOND Amendment (bless it cos it matters now) guarantees that the American population can protect itself from the Government going to far. Someone really needs to explain to Elon that some swords have 2 edges and the SECOND Amendment is one of history's greatest 2 edge swords. You guys need to realise that EVERY American has a right to arm and protect themselves 😉😉 The FOURTH Amendment which is about to become seriously big and was the one we most often discussed when I was in college because in the late 80s computer databases with everyone's information were starting to grow and there were genuine concerns over what the US Government could and could NOT get their hands on. This was largely stomped on with things like the Patriot Act. You guys really need to go and brush up on this one while you still can. The FIFTH thru EIGHTH Amendments are about making sure Americans are dealt fairly by the Justice System. You guys are gonna need this, so brush up on it and don't hold back when you need to kick back. The NINTH Amendment is gonna become your favorite or equal favorite with the FOURTH if you are willing to fight for it. This was one of the most important parts of the Roe-v-Wade decision along with the FOURTH. Go read up on it on Wikipedia because during the overturning of Roe-v-Wade and other case law the SCOTUS basically claimed the FOURTH and NINTH Amendments do not exist. The TENTH Amendment is kind a interesting because in a way it my be a way to Elon Musk and his muskrat legion to simply F⋃CK OFF ANYWAY I HOPE YOU GUYS CAN GET YOUR HEADS INTO IT and use the awesome gift your founding fathers entrusted you with to look after your nation and be wise with it and belt these clowns out of the park.
    1
  9225. 1
  9226. 1
  9227. 1
  9228. 1
  9229. 1
  9230. 1
  9231. 1
  9232. 1
  9233. 1
  9234. 1
  9235. 1
  9236. 1
  9237. 1
  9238. 1
  9239. 1
  9240. 1
  9241. 1
  9242. 1
  9243. 1
  9244. 1
  9245. 1
  9246. 1
  9247. 1
  9248. 1
  9249. 1
  9250. 1
  9251. 1
  9252. 1
  9253. 1
  9254. ​ @Leszek.Rzepecki  Someone else said exactly the same thing about Fascism and Communism being opposite sides of the same coin. If there is a subtle difference its that Fascism is more a straight up political ideology that came from the wealthy class wanting absolute control of government while communism started as a economic concept that became political. BOTH have been disasters and trying to claim one is worse is like trying to say Ebola is worse than Nerve gas. Its nonsensical. I'm an engineer and a started looking into economics a couple of years ago out of the frustration of dealing with clowns waving economics degrees interfering in projects. One thing I found was that in the past they only taught political-economy at universities. It only separated into 2 distinct fields later on. People like Mark Blyth are trying to reverse that. I can't see how they ever separated it. because you have to have both politics and economics to have a nation state. A nation might mix and switch its politics and economics but you have to have both or you're not a nation. I think this is now so poorly understood it a major factor in why the entire developed world is having lots of issues. America's problem has been exacerbated by the defunding of civics education. I'm Australian but went to college in America in the late 80s and was amazed how well all my classmates understood the constitution. I was doing engineering so didn't have much interest but they used to drag me into discussions. These days I am convinced that one of the best things Australia could do is institute an Australian version of the old American Civics education. It would make our country work so much better. For starters our politicians wouldn't be able to get away with a tiny fraction of what they do now. I think its damn simple if you DON'T want Fascism, Communism or any other sort of Authoritarianism then teach civics.
    1
  9255. 1
  9256. 1
  9257. 1
  9258. 1
  9259. 1
  9260. 1
  9261. 1
  9262. 1
  9263. 1
  9264. 1
  9265. 1
  9266. 1
  9267. 1
  9268. 1
  9269. 1
  9270. 1
  9271. 1
  9272. 1
  9273. 1
  9274. 1
  9275. 1
  9276. 1
  9277. 1
  9278. 1
  9279. 1
  9280. 1
  9281. 1
  9282. 1
  9283. 1
  9284. 1
  9285. 1
  9286. 1
  9287.  @rjkmusicmedia  The problem with the woke left starts with their hijacking of the word woke. Its not the only thing wrong with them, but right now its the most prominent thing. Until recently woke was African American street slang for "Are you awake to our actual circumstances." Prof Mark Blyth (Brown U.) has pointed out a study by the City of Boston. The average white person has a net wealth of just over $240,000 while the average black Bostonian has a net wealth (assets less debts) of $8. Yes if you gave every black person in Boston a $10 note you would more than double their wealth. Until a couple of years ago woke had nothing to do with police killings. It was about basic things like services, education, jobs, but mostly opportunity. That's what CRT was about. Why, after all these years of programs costing millions and millions are these people still in this situation? Then we all got to watch George Floyd die and it blew up into a lot more. Then far left saw an opportunity and jumped in with other issues and they hijacked the word woke to suddenly mean a lot of things. That really angers me because redefining language for political gain is one of the main things Orwell warned about. Yeah I had Orwell (AF & 1984) fed to me in high school. Hated it then but grateful for it now. After that came the rise of the Social Justice Warrior movement. Its not that they hadn't existed but suddenly they had a word and they flipped that into a narrative which is NOT TO BE QUESTIONED. That's a trait common to all political extremists both Left & Right. Again I learned that from studying Orwell. The narratives they use might be different but their responses to anyone who questions it is the same. This is why the woke left will fail and fail dramatically. People don't like being forced to believe something especially when its nonsense.
    1
  9288.  @rjkmusicmedia  The Right are a shorter story, thankfully. Its pretty similar and almost identical. Lots of poorer rural folk compared to their city cousins who show them little respect despite the fact they feed and clothe those city folk. It breeds resentment and resentment can be taken advantage of. In this case its a small group of insanely wealthy old men like Charles Koch, Barre Seid and Rupert Murdoch. They are ruthless and don't give a damn about anything except what they want. Backing them up are a successive generations of equally narcissistic scum like a certain Florida representative. PBS just re-posted a Frontline episode first aired in October 2012 about the effects of "Citizens United" (see below) They interviewed people involved including Jim Bopp the lawyer who pushed that case. The straight up denial of undisputable facts by these people is unbelievably infuriating. When shown the damage they've done, they just don't care. Facts are irrelevant. They have their ideology and just don't care. If you ask why I reacted to you the way I did. That's why. You asked for facts. I gave you simple undisputable facts and you just went "No - don't care." That's exactly what the people behind Citizens United did. Here's the PBS episode go watch it -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xxiIejOmSo It might be 10 years old but if you want America to survive you better get your head around this. Take note of the guy about 25 minutes in who was a sitting REPUBLICAN and how they attacked him. The Radical Right have spent most of the last 10-20 years exterminating mild Republicans and now they are coming for the rest of America. Their main Leftist opposition is split into 2 camps. A bunch of clowns bought and paid for by other billionaires and another bunch of delusional clowns who are so stupid they should be under supervised care. Trapped in the middle are around 200+ million Americans who are tired and confused at all the noise.
    1
  9289. 1
  9290. 1
  9291. 1
  9292. 1
  9293. 1
  9294.  @rjkmusicmedia  On the AUKUS deal. I worked with an electrician back in 2006 when the replacement sub stuff started. He was American and before coming to Australia had been in the US Navy as a nuclear power plant operator/technician on a Nimitz class. We had some very interesting conversations. That included the utter nonsense of having diesel electric subs when we had so much water to cover. I have drawn up a plan we we do a 3+2 deal with the UK and get 3 with an option of 2 more Astutes BUILT IN BRITAIN. They'd be copies of the most recent one Agincourt which has the new improved PWR-3 reactor. We get them built in the UK but the project includes and Australian workforce, paid for by us. FROM AN ENGINEERING and PROJECT MANAGMENT and ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE 1) We don't need to spend billions building infrastructure to make them. We'd still need infrastructure for maintenance but we already have most of that. 2) Britain gets to save money (which it needs) by delaying the construction of the Dreadnaught class. 3) Britain gets ~2,500 Australians paid for by Australia spending money in Britain. Its not much but better than nothing until you consider that its like importing cash. 4) Because we'd be rotating through people we'd get about 10,000 Australians trained in among other things nuclear power systems. In other words we right their cost off as a training program. 5) BAE, Rolls Royce and other British contractors win and win huge. They don't have to redesign anything. They just make more of what they already know how to make. In engineering that's ab-fab, because you have already sorted out the manufacturing bugs. PLUS those companies get some free labor to help make it even more profitable courtesy of our training program. 5) It opens up the possibility of you selling the Canadians a couple more subs as well. Its a super monster win, win, win all round. Its pretty obvious for you Brits. Its called jobs and profit. For us we save somewhere between $30 and $75 Billion and our Navy still gets what it wants. If after 3 we decide to go with the new sub that people are talking about then so what. We'll buy a couple of those instead of a couple more Astutes. Either way we end up with a fleet of 4 active and 1 reserve subs. And an Astute is at least an order of magnitude above what we have and at least 2 orders above what anyone else in the region has or will have in the next 20-30years. Other some a few greedy snots who were trying to screw everyone over with nonsense overvalued contracts, who loses?
    1
  9295.  @rjkmusicmedia  Never heard the term Wonga loans before, but I know the sort. We have Wallet Wizard here - same smell different shite. 50% in 3 years is utter BS when blue chip stocks have averaged 7-8% returns for over a century. Every time some get rich scheme blows up there's always at least 1 expert who shrugs their shoulders and reminds everyone of that basic stat. Have you watched any of Gary's stuff yet? He's not like so many others. He's explained things like why people get burned trading when they are in a market place with people like what he was at Citibank. Its amazing to hear what people in those positions do and why they make money and the rest of us get screwed. Its not simply that he has a talent for reading trends, but its the level of information he used to get. He pointed out that even at Citibank there are the people who talk to the media and are on £60K and then there are guys like him on £1 Million+ a year and they never speak to the media. Its one reason he's doing what he is doing because the system really is rigged in favor of the 1% while maybe some do well, but the rest of us get screwed. The Americans released a report last September and anyone can access it. Just search "congressional budget office family wealth" I might have mentioned it already. What it shows its the top 10% of America have not only bounced back from 2008 but on average are 21.7% better off than in 2007. The next 40% are now about 4.6% ahead. Both lost a bit over 11% in the GFC. The bottom 50% of America lost 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC and ARE STILL 21.8% BELOW their 2007 position. Plus that data is only up to 2019. So it doesn't include the pandemic. That's 165 million Americans who are worse off in 2019 than they were 12 years earlier in 2007.
    1
  9296.  @rjkmusicmedia  Couple of thing. Over time even the most blue chip of stocks only average about 7.5% paid as dividends. You need to split capital gains from actual dividends. There's way too much emphasis on capital gains these days AND its pushed by people with vested interests. On taxing the wealthy, that simply has to happen. Many of them pay almost nothing and many of there companies pay nothing. Here in Australia we have subsidised the construction of new LNG export facilities to the tune of over $10 Billion. In the last few years those companies that we subsidised have made in excess of $140 Billion and PAID NOTHING. This is where economists have utterly farked us over as a society and by society I mean the entire human race. They promoted the crap out of trickle down economics and foreign investment. Trickle down is a lie but foreign investment is a scam. At every opportunity they screamed from the rooftops how great it is. What the people screaming never said was their take. As bankers they got transfer fees as the money came in and transfer fees again as the profit went out. The economists were paid by the bankers to keep pumping the mantra. This is what people like Gary are trying to tell people. We are being taken to the cleaners. There's a rand report that say's America's top 1% made $47 Trillion, but since that report its estimated they made another 8. If America is about 25% of the worlds economy then by proportion the world's top 1% have collectively made around $200-220 Trillion in the last 40 years, while the rest of us have been squeezed for it.
    1
  9297. 1
  9298. 1
  9299. 1
  9300. 1
  9301. 1
  9302. 1
  9303. 1
  9304. 1
  9305. 1
  9306. 1
  9307. I'm Australian, I went to college in America (U. Illinois) and was working in Canada 3 years ago. About 10 years ago after a couple of medical scandals we looked at other nations and investigated America, Canada and Britain to name a few. So not only have I personnel experience with the American system Australia has done the research into other health care systems. If we add up the populations of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin its 25.2 million compared to Australia's 25.6. Yes there is massive differences in geographical size and population density. The winters are very different. BUT the medical technology, education, manufacturing capability and transportation are near identical. Australia has 909 COVID fatalities while Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin have 33,435 COVID fatalities. (sourced -> https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) In just the last 7 days (4-1 thru 10-1-2021) just Illinois with less than half the population of Australia has had 971 fatalities. Illinois is a Blue Democrat State and the Country has been run by Red Republicans so neither side can blame the other for this tragedy. I can personally testify that the people of those states are mostly decent, honest and hard working. They don't deserve this. I am currently in the city of Brisbane. We just came out of a 3 day lockdown because of 2 cases of the new British strain turned up and they don't how how 1 of those people got it. There is now mandatory mask wearing in all public places along with enforced distancing regulations until the 20th. That's just while they work out how we got 2 cases of the British Strain!!! Australia *DOESN'T have some magic Kangaroo juice or any other magic medical technology. Our leaders have their flaws and they do make mistakes. So how else can anyone explain what has happened in places like Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin other than a catastrophic failure of leadership?
    1
  9308. 1
  9309. ENGINEER HERE: You had me thinking this might be possible until you dropped the "magical AI solution" remark. I have 35+ years in industrial control systems, automation and robotics. When people start making claims about how AI will make robotics or automation better then I KNOW THEY ARE SPEAKING GARBAGE and all they are trying to do is raise money from stupid people who think AI can do anything. We have had self tuning control algorithms for Fuzzy Logic combined with PID Control loops for 25+ years. Sorry but this claim that AI has suddenly fixed the control algorithm is GARBAGE. FYI - I did my degree in aerospace at the U. of Illinois in the late 80s. In my final year they dumped on us this thing called an "Expert System" to play with. It was one of the very early systems for doing what ChatGPT does. The neural net methods it was partly based on go back to the 1930s when the first analog computers were developed that eventually morphed into things like the engine control units for fighter planes in World War 2. The pinnacle of those was the engine control unit in the Focke-Wulf Fw 190. The other truly ingenious machine of that type was the system Alan Turing developed to break the Enigma codes. it worked on a similar principle to how people solve Sudoku puzzles in that it looked for things that the answer can't be and eliminated slabs of possible answers. The reason why it took 30+ years to go from those systems to ChatGPT was being able to find a way to write the algorithms to train these AI models. For that they needed massive data sets to feed them. That was never possible until the internet grew enough to provide the volume of data needed. The problem we now have is that these systems are being trained on AVAILABLE DATA and the systems have a huge issue with discerning between data that is TRUE and data that is FALSE. Instead it looks at all available data and finds and average solution. This is why I recently had to spend a day explaining to a client why ChatGPT was wrong regarding a power quality issue. Chat GPT saw many claims about "pure sine wave inverters" and took that to mean that they actually put out a pure sine wave WHIC IS NOT TRUE. The "pure sine wave inverter" tag is just advertising jargon and NOT a technical statement. This is why I keep telling people NOT TO TRUST AI. It can't tell fact from fiction all it can say is what's mentioned most in the world.
    1
  9310. 1
  9311. 1
  9312. 1
  9313. 1
  9314. 1
  9315. 1
  9316. 1
  9317. 1
  9318. 1
  9319. 1
  9320. 1
  9321. 1
  9322. 1
  9323.  @laniefeleski7288  I'd agree with that. The GOP is way worse than the Democrats and particularly the new Trumpian GOP. BUT THEN the problem with the Democrats is they have the attitude "We aren't as bad, therefore we are good." The problem is they FAIL at leadership & governance as well and that's my point. NOBODY SHOULD ACCEPT BAD GOVERNANCE OF THEIR SOCIETY. And just claiming that one party isn't as bad does NOT equate to good governance. I actually put a hypothetical to a bunch of friends of mine a couple of years ago here in Australia. And yes we have the same problem with our establishment parties its just not as toxic. YET I have 5 fav topics - Economy, Industry, Health Care, Education and Environment. I use those 5 because I know that reasonably smart people will agree that: People want an economy that's stable and industries that provide decent careers at every level. People want to know that they will get cared for if they get sick. People want to know their children will get a decent education so they can have a good life. People want an clean environment where they can breath the air, drink the water and eat the food. So I asked these friends what would happen if a new party started and had those 5 things as their core and had clear simple answers on how all 5 could be done or at least made better? One word was common - annihilate. Either that new party would annihilate the establishment parties OR through nefarious means the establishment would annihilate that new party through the media they own or control.
    1
  9324. 1
  9325. 1
  9326. 1
  9327. 1
  9328. 1
  9329. 1
  9330. 1
  9331. 1
  9332. 1
  9333. 1
  9334. 1
  9335. 1
  9336. 1
  9337. 1
  9338. 1
  9339. 1
  9340. 1
  9341. 1
  9342. 1
  9343. 1
  9344. 1
  9345. 1
  9346. 1
  9347. 1
  9348. 1
  9349. 1
  9350. 1
  9351.  @commonsenseskeptic  I know its a year late but you haven't been totally clean with the issues of NASA, Falcon and Soyuz. *YES you are absolutely right SpaceX was late delivering Crew Dragon, and that Starship is a disaster in the making, but: You didn't put Falcon and Crew Dragon in perspective against other programs. Look at how many other projects that were put forward NONE of which delivered anything. Boeing in particular has so far TOTALLY FAILED with Starliner and Starliner is costed at millions more per launch. You did put up the costs of Shuttle but didn't mention that if even 5 of those American crews had been done using the Space Shuttle that would have cost over $2.2 Billion. I did my degree in aerospace and along with my class mates watched our dreams go up with Challenger in January 1986. I was in a minority but was further disheartened when NASA announced a replacement (Endeavour). I agreed with Kelly Johnson (lead engineer for the SR-71) who said that money needed to go to a replacement and with his background should have been listened to. IMHO I think Gwynne Shotwell and the Space X team that works on the Falcon series including Crew Dragon have done an incredible job DESPITE the presence of Elon Musk. This is even more evident when compared against Boeing's Starliner and the Ares/Constellation and SLS programs none of which have yet successfully flown. In fact it might be a good question to where they might be IF Elon Musk wasn't sapping them of resources on his fantasy clown stupidity of Starship. Yeah mate IMHO Starship will be a bigger failure than the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle was an incredible technical achievement in that they made a reusable space plane work, BUT it was a total failure in how much it cost in resources (both financial and manpower) and STARVED other programs of those resources. What's Starship doing at the moment? I know you have done vids on other parts of Musk's space programs but if you want some technical input on doing any more I'd be happy to help.
    1
  9352. 1
  9353. 1
  9354. AUSTRALIAN here with an outside observation. Apologies for the length of comment. YES - American deserved Trump (past tense) and in some ways almost every other democracy in the world (including Australia) needs (or deserves) their version of Donald Trump. For decades we have all kept electing clowns, idiots, morons, liars, cheats and all we do is complain about them. ONE of the great things about democracy is that we can change our government when it fails us, but when we all we do is decide which flavor political SHlT sandwich we'll eat for the next few years we should NOT complain about how that tastes. Donald Trump is NOT the problem, he's just a symptom of the problem. The Constitution is NOT the problem. I went to college in America in the late 80s and was surrounded by people who'd all studied the constitution in Civics class. A bunch of them were pre-law and were studying it even further. These days, (from all the conversations we had) I have no doubt the US Constitution is one of humanities finest achievements. So its NOT the problem. The problem is the American people who keep electing crap into their state and federal politics for all the wrong reasons and those people then trample all over the constitution. The American people have ALLOWED organisations like the Federalist Society to wreck the court system. The American people have ALLOWED Lobbyists and Think Tanks like the Heritage Society and CATO Institute to corrupt the political system so a handful of billionaires can do whatever they like. The American people have ALLOWED their politicians to buy and trade stocks while deciding which companies won which contracts. The American people have ALLOWED their education and health care systems to be gutted for profit. The American people have ALLOWED their infrastructure to crumble. The American people have ALLOWED their politicians to send their sons and daughters to be stationed in places of no value to die for no sensible reason. AND TO BE SURE - EVERY other democracy on the planet is doing similar things and that INCLUDES Australia. CASE 1) Australia recently caught PwC (Price Waterhouse Coopers) handing over confidential information. PwC had been hired as consultants to help the Australian government close up tax loop holes. They then on sold information to other clients to get around what they were advising the Australian government. Instead of CHARGING PwC and their clients with conspiracy to defraud the Australian people they have been let off WITHOUT ANYTHING. CASE 2) Before the PwC scandal we had a Royal Commission into our banks. For Americans its not to dissimilar to a Senate Inquiry in that its a activity where the presiding officers can subpoena people to appear and if they lie its perjury and the evidence gathered can then be used at subsequent trials. Our banks admitted to things like systematic theft from accounts with illegal fees. CEOs, CFOs, and other actually admitted to the commission that they did it. They did things that would put a normal person in jail for decades. Just like after the 2008 GFC NOBODY when America's DOJ refused to prosecute the CEOs and CFOs who caused the problem nobody here was charged and nobody went to jail and NOTHING was fixed. The problem is "We the People" have failed "Us the People" by continually electing people who lie and cheat us. America got Donald Trump because they elected him. Every other democracy got who they got because they elected them.
    1
  9355. 1
  9356. 1
  9357. 1
  9358. 1
  9359. ITS ACTUALLY WORSE THAN KYLE IS SAYING I have been trying to highlight this report for over 6 months ago when RICHARD WOLLF mentioned it. The report was published in SEPTEMBER 2022 nearly 10 months ago. Anyone can find the report just google "congressional budget office family wealth" and the actual home page for the report should come up. On that page you can not only download the report but an Excel spreadsheet with all the data in the graphs. Here's some facts from the data of the very first graph in that report which is the one shown by Kyle at 4:26. From that graph you can not only get the effect of the 2008 GFC by comparing the 2007 data to 2010 but also the recovery by comparing the 2007 data to 2019. Adjusting for population and averaging the data on a per person value: The Top 10% LOST 11.1% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 21.1% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Middle 40% LOST 13.3% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were 4.6% ABOVE their 2007 value. The Bottom 50% LOST 49.5% of their wealth in the GFC but by 2019 were STILL 21.8% BELOW their 2007 value. So after the GFC that they caused the Top 10% got around US$4 Trillion from Bush and another US$4 Trillion from Obama and have since recovered and by 2019 were US$20 Trillion ABOVE their 2007 value. Estimates have them at least US$8 Trillion above that during the COVID Pandemic. The current collective value of the Top 10% can be estimated to be above US$90 Trillion compared to an estimated collective value of US$2.5Trillion for the 165 million people who make up America's Bottom 50%. This is neoliberal economics in overdrive. FYI - I'm Australian but went to college in America on a scholarship this is my gift to you all. Apologies if its blunt, but I do love America and the American people. I do want to see America back at its best and right now America is NOT at its best. And so you know this sort of neoliberal brain virus is doing just as much damage in Australia. We are in the midst of a full blown double crisis of housing and energy and our genius economists have said things like "its just the markets adjusting."
    1
  9360. 1
  9361. 1
  9362. 1
  9363. 1
  9364. Its not a stupid concept to move away from the US$ especially considering the socio-political issues that are currently tearing America down the middle as well as America's attitude to foreign affairs BUT shifting financial control to countries that are (at times) OPENLY hostile to each other AND OPENLY execute dissidents or assassinate them as well as being so rife with CORRUPTION that its actually part of their standard practices IS NOT A SOLUTION. Lets not forget that these countries DON'T like each other that much. India has issues with Pakistan and China that often ends with bullets. Russia has issues with China despite selling them heaps of oil & gas and lets not forget that China is still pissed they lost Outer Manchuria to the Russians a century ago. Most of the middle east and former Soviet Republics prefer shooting at each other than trade. The biggest resource of BRICS is actually people. They still have young people who are the primary consumers in any developed society. Peter Zeihan points this out all the time and its why India thinks it will be a major player in future. HOWEVER - both China and Russia are in serious population decline. At least the Russians haven't wasted Trillions on those ghost cities, but then the Russians have allowed Trillions to leave and spent on boats and soccer teams. Brasil and India have massive populations but MOST of them are poor and can't afford consumer goods yet. But the biggest issue they face are the monstrous cultural issues surrounding Religion. B - Brasil is Catholic; R - Russia is Eastern Orthodox; I - India is Hindu; C - China is 1/2 godless communists and 1/2 Confucians with a smattering of Muslims in between; S - South Africa is mostly Protestant Christian (Dutch & English) who don't much like Catholics or Orthodox with the rest being African Shamanism. Yeah sure that lot will be 100% cooperative considering chunks of their population believe the others are the spore of Satan and now they are inviting in BOTH Sunni and Shia Muslims to join. Yeah I can see this working out real good. Plus and this might be a huge bug. There's billions and billions of Chinese money invested in America as well as a lot of Russian Oligarch money hidden in places like Idaho which now has a banking system like Switzerland.
    1
  9365. 1
  9366. 1
  9367. 1
  9368. 1
  9369.  @st-ex8506  Not certain where you are coming from. I spent 3-1/2 years in America going to college and getting a degree in aerospace engineering and at a top engineering school only to be repeatedly shat on by idiots in HR and who gave the world HR. I FKING HATE McKINSEY, KPMG and the rest of shit advice brigade. Who the hell do they think they are unleashing a pack of clowns who decide the fate of people's careers without any understanding of what people actually do in their job. If HR is so FKING fantastic at getting the right people in the right places for the right reasons then why are so many businesses reliant on tax evasion to make a profit instead of just being profitable? Why are so many projects in both the public and private sectors so badly managed if McKinsey, KPMG and the rest are so FKING fantastic at their job? Australia's NBN was supposed to cost $20 Billion. Now its over $52 and still counting. Snowy 2.0 was supposed to cost $4B and now is budgeted at over $12B. Chevron's Gorgon gas project went $15 Billion overbudget and Wheatstone over $3 Billion over budget. ENI Darwin still not up to design spec. Mining projects left right and centre late and over budget. And everywhere you look there are consultants handing out advice and charging crap loads for it. I can tell you from personnel experience how they totally FKD-UP our car industry where I used to worked. I've seen what they do in mining and oil & gas as well. We called them seagulls because they fly in make lots of noise, SHIT on everything and fly off leaving a mess for others to clean up.
    1
  9370. 1
  9371. 1
  9372. 1
  9373. 1
  9374. 1
  9375. 1
  9376. 1
  9377. 1
  9378. 1
  9379. 1
  9380. 1
  9381. 1
  9382. 1
  9383. 1
  9384. 1
  9385. 1
  9386. 1
  9387. 1
  9388. 1
  9389. 1
  9390. 1
  9391. 1
  9392. 1
  9393. 1
  9394. 1
  9395. 1
  9396. 1
  9397. 1
  9398. 1
  9399. 1
  9400. 1
  9401. 1
  9402. 1
  9403. Good to see there's at least 1 thread calling out the bullshite and hypocrisy of these 3 liars. And they are LIARS in big capital letters. POINT 1: Gigi Foster is NOT a medical doctor, she is an economist and no qualifications at all to be handing out pandemic response advice to anyone. POINT 2: Older people need to be advised that Gigi said we should let older people just die because "they'll die anyway." Go watch her interview on 60 Minutes for which other professors at UNSW criticised her for. POINT 3: Jay Bhattacharya was heavily criticised by other scientist for his STATISTICAL analysis where he claimed that 80,000 people in Santa Clara had COVID. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bhattacharya#COVID-19_pandemic *POINT 4: *These 2 have repeatedly pointed out during this 1h11m discourse that we should not allow our society to be dominated by powerful full rich people and yet they are also representatives of a number of extremely powerful American Billionaires. The Great Barrington Declaration Jay co-authored was funded via the Brownstone Institute which is an American Libertarian Think Tank funded by Anarcho-Capitalist Jeffery Tucker. POINT 5: They lied about the data, notably about Sweden and where Australia actually sits. But that's a longer discussion and I will happily present anyone with the facts of those lies. In simple terms go look at the data and this source is accurate. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ In simple terms if were had the same outcome as Sweden we'd have approximately 50,000 dead Australians instead of 15,000 because Sweden's fatality rate is about 3-1/3rd times what ours is. Australia looks like we have a much higher incidence of COVID because we kept testing and recording the data and America STOPPED because Donald Trump ordered testing to stop.
    1
  9404. 1
  9405. 1
  9406. 1
  9407. 1
  9408. 1
  9409. 1
  9410. 1
  9411.  @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
  9412. 1
  9413. 1
  9414. 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
  9415. 1
  9416. 1
  9417. 1
  9418. 1
  9419. 1
  9420. 1
  9421. 1
  9422. 1
  9423. 1
  9424. NEWS FLASH AMERICA The rest of the world already knew how corrupt the whole Jared & Ivanka show was. 1) No where else in the western world would they have been allowed to hold official positions. Its called nepotism and every respectable country has laws against it. The fact they were unqualified just made it more ridiculous. We all know Trump made the claim the executive branch was exempt from those laws. 2) As a government official or appointee doing personnel business while on a government paid overseas trip is considered illegal in most countries. The reason is first your being paid by or your expenses are being paid by the government for your time to do government work NOT your own. Its called corruption. Secondly if your personnel business is with a foreign government there's a clear conflict of interest. - So when Ivanka was in China on US Government business and she ALSO secured her trademarks with the Chinese - ILLEGAL, its called "using government resources for personnel gain" - So when Jared &Ivanka signed a deal with the Israeli Government for a new Trump resort in Israel when they were there for the opening of the new US Embassy in Jerusalem. ILLEGAL its called bribery or corruption. The state of Israel wanted a major nation to back up their claim Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. Trump did as they wanted and got rewarded for it by the approval of their new resort. Its called a kickback, in case you forgot. 3) When Jared used White House Resources to get information he could use to play the various Arab nations against each other to save his families real estate business that broke more laws than people could count. The entire Western world knows that was why he lost his security clearance. I'm Australian and every one of our news services (TV, Radio & Print) except of the Murdoch owned stuff reported on this stuff again and again. The Brits, Germans, Japanese,.... also reported on this stuff. These things were the worst kept secrets in US History.
    1
  9425. HEY AMERICA - Welcome to the FREE MARKET that you have preached to the whole world for decades. Thom Hartman in one of his recent video stories on Neoliberal economics pointed out that in one of his books Milton Freidman said that doctors should not be licensed. People would work out that some doctors are no good because of the dead bodies and the market would self correct because people would not go to the bad doctors. This is what happens when you allow an ideology to go unrestrained and lets be absolutely clear - Neoliberalism is an ideology. The clowns out of the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale,.... etc can dress it up as fancy as they like but it is an ideology based on some insane ideas like "Greed is good!" Another of Milton Freidman's idiotic and false claims was that "All innovation is drive by greed." He said that in an interview with Phil Donahue, that can be seen here on YouTube. I'm an engineer and the most recent super innovation boost to human society was the Apollo program. The computer you are at right now, your mobile phone, your television and many of the modern alloys found on things like cars can all be traced back to the Apollo program AND THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON FOR GREED. Prior to Apollo the 2 most important innovators in human history were Frenchman Jacques de Vaucanson with his lathe and Swede Carl Edvard Johansson with his gauge blocks. Without those 2 men the world as you know it does not exist because all of modern industry relies on what they did. If there is a 3rd great innovator who was also not driven by greed, it would probably be Nikola Tesla with his electric motors, but then his motors can't exist without Vaucanson's lathe and can't be mass produced without Johansson's gauge blocks.
    1
  9426. Trump would NEVER let her finish. There's a compliment that started with a kudos to Vivek for letting her speak. Trump would never have let her finish without interrupting and afterwards he did he'd have stomped on her and ridiculed her out of the building. Trump's a schoolyard bully and school yard bullies don't respond nicely to being intellectually beaten. Vivek probably let her say what she said because he's a smug arrogant Ivy League snot who thinks he's the smartest person in every conversation he has. She is beyond all doubt 100% RIGHT in EVERYTHING except she is also SADLY100% WRONG. There are only 2 qualifications for any and every democratically elected government official in the world. 1) That they are eligible under the electoral rules as set out by which ever constitution the election is being run under. 2) That they convince enough of those eligible to vote that you are a better option that the other people running. UNLESS the Constitution (electoral rules) the election runs under REQUIRES specific qualifications then Education and Experience HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT and NEVER HAVE. Anyone can put "us president eligibility" into Google and the first link will take you straight to the usa(dot)gov web page that simply explains that the U.S. Constitution states that the president must: - Be a natural-born citizen of the United States - Be at least 35 years old - Have been a resident of the United States for 14 years If anyone needs this explained the go look up a presentation by Prof. Mark Blyth (Brown U.) from July 2019 titled "Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy." At 1:199:55 during the Q&A he's asked about the policies of Elizabeth Warren. In about 4 minutes he explains why Obama won, Hilary lost, How Trump won 2016 and nearly won in 2020. Most importantly he explains WHY being a long winded gas bag with a pointed intellectual argument might work for a certain percentage of the population BUT FOR THE MAJORITY of any population it doesn't work. This is something the Left doesn't understand and the Right does.
    1
  9427. 1
  9428. 1
  9429. 1
  9430. 1
  9431. 1
  9432. 1
  9433. 1
  9434. 1
  9435. 1
  9436. 1
  9437. 1
  9438. 1
  9439. 1
  9440. 1
  9441. 1
  9442. 1
  9443. 1
  9444. 1
  9445. Apologies to all for the length of this. Everyone should go and watch Stephanie Kelton's lectures or read her book "The Deficit Myth" By the time you get 1/2 way through the second chapter you'll understand how full of garbage this guy is. He's preaching standard economic doctrine, which by now most people with functioning brains know there's something very wrong with. Disclaimer - I'm not one of her students. I'm an engineer on the other side of the planet in Australia. I spent a chunk of my COVID time looking into economics because I'm fed up with clowns with economics degrees interfering in projects. I just wanted to be able to push back against their crap. Right now here in Oz we are having a big discussion on skills and training. In 2005 while on a mine site in Australia I was told about a shortage of welders. I found (that with a basic welding ticket) I could get $50,000 more than what I was earning as an engineer and at that time I was on the best ever wages. Just last week I heard that in America a high school graduate who's done a basic 6 month welding course earns more in their 1st year than a college graduate does in their 1st year. How is it that I'm hearing the same story today about America I heard on an Australian mine site 17 years ago? This entire skills training and tertiary education issue is not an American problem. Its a problem across most of the Western World because we have all been following similar economic policies and so long as we keep following them we are all in trouble.
    1
  9446. Follow up with some further explanation - apologies for the length. I have heard and seen push back on the student debt as a from of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) under the claim MMT promotes "free money." Stephanie Kelton is an MMT advocate and the first time I heard her speak I thought she was bonkers and that MMT was a fairytale and nonsense because what she was said flew in the face of everything we are told about economics. Then Mark Blyth Interviewed her as part of his podcast -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfKiW0Gfn04 I've read Mark's book Angrynomics. Its a really good start on the subject of what's actually going on. Here's his intro to that -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJD5rE4omY In Stephanie's book she admits when she first heard about MMT she also thought it was bonkers, because everything about it sounds backwards. But then anyone can look at economics over the last 25+ years and think its already backwards. So looking at economics from another perspective makes sense. What MMT is actually about is explaining what money, taxes and government spending are and how they work. Its the reason why this clown from John Hopkins is so adamant about his position. He and his kind are terrified that the rest of us will see behind their economic curtain and realise its been a giant "Wizard of Oz" con. Before Kyle spoke about it, Mark Blyth pointed out the 2018 Rand Report on wages that showed how the top1% of America had made $47 Trillion between 1975 and 2018. He's talked about the long term interest rate decline and Branko Milanovic's Elephant graph of wage growth. PEOPLE KNOW THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH OUR ECONOMICS. How can our societies be so wealthy and yet we have so many people struggling. At the most basic level the MMT people are trying to change the perspective on how we look at economics. Even Warren Mosler has said he doesn't know if MMT is right but what he and many others are saying is that staying in the current economic model IS WRONG AND WE KNOW ITS WRONG. I don't agree with Kyle that all higher education should be free, because if there is no value put on it people will devalue it. That happened in the past and we don't need to repeat the past. However the cost of education needs to be such that its a worthwhile investment. The current costs of many degrees do not make it a worthwhile investment and any economist should be able to explain that, but most wont because then they'd have to admit to all the mistakes they've made.
    1
  9447. 1
  9448. 1
  9449. 1
  9450. 1
  9451. 1
  9452. 1
  9453. 1
  9454.  @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
  9455. 1
  9456. 1
  9457. 1
  9458. 1
  9459. 1
  9460. You are 100% right NOTE WHAT Kevin McCarthy actually says. I cut & past this form the transcript of the video. The punctuation is mine and there's correction of the word warrant which the YT algorithm had the word "weren't." Starting at 1:42 "Despite these serious allegations. It appears that the president's family has been offered special treatment by Biden's own Administration. Treatment that not otherwise would have received if they were not related to the President. These are allegations of abuse of power, obstruction and corruption and they warrant further investigation by the House of Representatives." Think about what that actually says. 1) There's allegations NOT EVIDENCE. 2) There's appearance NOT EVIDENCE. 3) Regarding the allegations of favoritism to family members, maybe he can explain how Jared & Ivanka were given positions in the Trump Whitehouse despite having NO RELEVANT Experience for those positions. 4) Regarding the allegations of abuse of power, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored what Trump did with his "perfect call" to Ukraine during Trump's 1st Impeachment. 5) Regarding the allegations of obstruction, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain how the GOP ignored Trumps obstruction with counting votes on January 6th during Trump's 2nd Impeachment. 6) Regarding the allegations of corruption, maybe Kevin McCarthy can explain why there has been NO Investigation regarding Jared Kushner's use of government resources to play various Arab states against each other to secure several hundred million dollars to bail out his family's investment in the New York office tower 666 Fifth Avenue OR How Jared Kushner was able to get $2 Billion from the Saudi Arabian Sovereign Wealth Fund as he left the Whitehouse. OR How Donald Trump's golf courses made millions of dollars because he spent so much time at them as President that countries were forced to rent suites and villas at them to hold meetings. PLUS the US government had to pay for the rental of suites and villas and golf carts and food at those golf courses for Whitehouse Staff and Secret Service agents.
    1
  9461. 1
  9462. 1
  9463. 1
  9464. 1
  9465. 1
  9466. 1
  9467. 1
  9468. 1
  9469. 1
  9470. 1
  9471. 1
  9472. 1
  9473. 1
  9474. 1
  9475. 1
  9476. 1
  9477. 1
  9478. 1
  9479. 1
  9480. 1
  9481. 1
  9482. 1
  9483. 1
  9484. 1
  9485. 1
  9486. 1
  9487. 1
  9488. 1
  9489. 1
  9490. 1
  9491. 1
  9492. 1
  9493. 1
  9494. 1
  9495. 1
  9496. 1
  9497. 1
  9498. 1
  9499. 1
  9500. 1
  9501. 1
  9502. 1
  9503. 1
  9504. 1
  9505. 1
  9506.  @sampainter8151  As I have said to others I went to college in America in the late 80s at a time when people still did things like Civics at high school. So I have been around long enough to know what happened with de-regulating the American Savings & Home loans industry. When it was properly regulated I think it was one of the greatest things any nation has ever done for its people. I remember seeing a documentary on the 90s S&L scandal and they went right into the history of the S&L system so that they could explain what happened when they de-regulated it. The brilliance of that system was that it not only secured the banks form bad debts it also protected the home owners from bad times. It also meant that they didn't need to pay home loan insurance every year like we do in Australia. AND SO WE ARE CLEAR him loan insurance in Australia does NOT protect the home owner it bails out the bank. If we had a similar system here people would be putting that extra money each month into their home loans instead of into the pockets of some seriously greedy people. Because Australia has had this insane housing bubble caused by some stupid policies all geared towards protecting investors we are now at risk of having so many loans fail at once that NOTHING can prevent a massive collapse. Not only will people be unable to sell the banks wont be able to sell the repossessed homes because NOBODY will have money for them except the billionaires who'll screw everyone down to pennys on the dollar. It will be a death spiral of epic proportions.
    1
  9507. 1
  9508. 1
  9509. 1
  9510. 1
  9511. 1
  9512. 1
  9513. 1
  9514. 1
  9515. 1
  9516. 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
  9517. 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
  9518. 1
  9519. 1
  9520. 1
  9521. 1
  9522. 1
  9523. 1
  9524. 1
  9525. 1
  9526. 1
  9527. I'm Australian and when he made that comment about how people outside America would see America he was 100% SPOT ON. I actually went to college in America. I love the place and the people and it saddens me to see America divided the way it is. HOWEVER his remarks on Trump being victimised are JUST TOTAL BULLSHlT AND THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS IT. At that moment he came across as just another pig headed American Baby Boomer. Trump got away with things that NO OTHER CIVILISED COUNTRY on the planet would allow and especially regarding January 6th he would have been arrested ASAP. Less civilised places like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea,..... etc would have dragged him and all those people away and given them sham trials before executing them. The documents case was a slam dunk. The whole world knows that other US Service people WENT TO JAIL for accidentally mishandling classified documents. Trump deliberately held onto classified materials and then showed them to people as a way of bragging. One of those people was Australian businessman Anthony Pratt. I'd agree with him that the January 6th rioters have been hard done by. Biden bragging about how many years they got was stupid. In fact I have told a few people BIDEN should PARDON all of them BEFORE Christmas. If for nothing else it would calm America down, but it would also go a long way towards getting America back to sensibility. All that garbage could have been avoided had Mitch McConnell done an honest job AND its those old stubborn pigs in BOTH PARTIES like McConnell and Nancy Pelosi that really do scare the rest of the planet because they more than anyone else made America so dysfunctional. That whole nonsense with Diane Feinstein was utterly disgusting and the whole world saw it. Until America realises that the problem is that BOTH PARTIES are dysfunctional nothing will get fixed AND FYI Australia has the same problem with BOTH its major parties. Its just not as bad yet.
    1
  9528. 1
  9529. 1
  9530. 1
  9531. 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
  9532. 1
  9533. 1
  9534. 1
  9535. 1
  9536. 1
  9537. 1
  9538. 1
  9539. 1
  9540. 1
  9541. 1
  9542.  @konmoe121  I wouldn't claim I am well informed but I know more than average. As I hinted at I do know there are Swiss people trying to clean up their banks, corporate laws and other things. I'd just warn that be careful that you don't come across as if you are ignoring those issues, because some of those issues can literally ignite a storm. As for Australia, we are one of the most well aware nations of our history. I was in Canada for work a couple of years ago and they too are trying to deal with their past which echoes ours. New Zealand is another country dealing with its past which is similar. The way I put it is and I include Canada and New Zealand in this. We are far from perfect and we have a long way to go, but at least we have recognized our past and are making progress towards a resolution. As for our support of America and Britain that's something a lot more complex. We are aware there's many issues there and we have gotten involved in things we should have said no too. There's a lot of Australians nervous over even tighter links to America and Britain considering the unpredictable futures of both. I actually went to college in America and can barely believe where America is at this time. I can see a real chance that America will split into several smaller federations over the next 10-20 years. I hope it doesn't happen as it will be a disaster for Western Society. Its one reason why i want to see all the secret banking systems cleaned up, because its those people who can afford those systems that are causing most of our troubles.
    1
  9543. 1
  9544. 1
  9545. 1
  9546. 1
  9547. 1
  9548. 1
  9549. 1
  9550. 1
  9551. 1
  9552. 1
  9553.  @joostdriesens3984  It wasn't so much that he was being disingenuous he was just SIIMPLY WRONG. I'd heard him say it a couple of times IN THE PAST (before COVID) but not lately. I did look but couldn't find a vid to show you. He was never implying the left were being secretly "anything" he was comparing what people know about people going too far in EITHER direction. FYI - I'm very neutral and have no time for either the radicals on the right or the left. I think it was Jonathan Haidt that said "There's a cacophony of noise where the radical left and radical right just scream at each other and the rest of us trapped in the middle are exhausted." I'm one of those in the middle who's had enough of BOTH of both the radical left and radical right and all their crappy ideologies. What JBP was saying is that there's a really clear marker for people radicalised on the right (racism) and there is NOT a similar marker on the radical left. I think he's just wrong because the marker isn't specifically racism its when people let their ideology override common sense, ethics, morality, reality or a combination of those things. I grew up in the 1970s when there were BOTH right and left wing terrorists hijacking planes and blowing stuff up each week. Does it matter if they are right or left when they hijack a plane or blow something up? NO because for the rest of us they are both people with no morals, ethics or sense of reality. BTW - I don't follow JBP much. From what I have seen these days he's clearly still suffering the after effects of his drug issue.
    1
  9554. 1
  9555. 1
  9556. 1
  9557. 1
  9558. 1
  9559. 1
  9560. 1
  9561. 1
  9562. 1
  9563. 1
  9564. Australian here and even I can answer that. Merrick Garland is an institutionalist which means he believes in protecting the institution above all else. Such people THINK or BELIEVE putting Trump in jail, just like putting Nixon in jail would weaken the institution of the President and make it less capable of doing its job no matter who sits in the Oval Office. This is not an American thing its the sort of thing nations and other entities have been doing for 100s if not 1,000s of years. This is the sort of mentality that made things like the Catholic church hide pedophile priests rather than dealing with them. This is why the military (of any nation) will hide and cover up atrocities. This is why corporate types like Mark Suckerberg has more PR people than the Washington Post has journalists AND YES somebody made that point recently. This is why the movie studios have covered up pedophiles, rapists, drug users, pregnant actresses and all sorts of other things among their people. THEY ARE ALL trying to protect the institution and its REPUTATION. The giant problem with this is that when it finally breaks down it breaks down catastrophically like it has for the Catholic Church, like it did for Harvey Weinstein, like it has done for a number of other Hollywood types and a number of sports stars and a number of professional sports teams. IT NEVER ENDS WELL. The real question America need to ask isn't if Trump should be in jail along with a bunch of people its a matter of how bad its going to hurt America when the crash finally happens.
    1
  9565. 1
  9566. 1
  9567. 1
  9568. 1
  9569. 1
  9570. 1
  9571. 1
  9572. 1
  9573. 1
  9574. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS GRADUATE HERE which is the same college Andreessen did his degree at. I graduated in aerospace engineering the year before (88) that Andreessen started there (89). What he is NOT explaining well is HOW LUCKY he was to be there at that time. When I was there the PC desk top industry was just getting started and those companies were dumping truck loads of stuff on us. My department one day got a couple of dozen AT&T desktops with UNIX operating systems. We had 2 rooms full of Apple McIntosh's with this thing call a GUI (graphic user interface) and a mouse. We did all our term papers on them. The really cool kids doing PhDs got a CRAY-2 Supercomputer to dop aerodynamic simulations on. Then they got a CRAY-XMP64 to do even bigger more complex simulations on. Then CRAY moved to Champaign because the US Government set up the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA). On top of all that there was one of the Worlds first wide area network & data base systems called Plato. It was a precursor to what you all call the Internet. Its was ghastly and horrible to use in my time. By Andreessen's time it was obvious that for wide area networks to become viable they had to become user friendly. There were several teams working on that and through GOOD LUCK Andreessen and the team he was on developed Mosaic the precursor to NetScape. You can read about this on his Wikipedia page. HERE'S THE POINT Like all the tech bro-billionaires we know about these days Andreessen is JUST LUCKY. He was in the right place at the right time and got the right breaks and his product prevailed in a competitive marketplace. Suckerberg is the same he wasn't the only person developing social media. Musk and Thiel are the same they weren't the only people working on secure internet transactions. ALL OF THEM got lucky breaks that enabled their pet project to thrive and these days NONE OF THEM respect any of the work others did that made their work possible in the first place. That's what I hate about them. They just have no respect for the rest of the STEM professions or the people who work in them.
    1
  9575. 1
  9576. 1
  9577. 1
  9578. 1
  9579. 1
  9580. 1
  9581. 1
  9582.  @theaross8562  No doubt there are people playing both sides but if you look at the main players in all of this and where the heart lands of Republicans and Democrats are you can almost break this down to Carbon versus Silicon. There aren't many people on the planet who have as good of a handle on the world its economy and particularly America as Mark Blyth the Professor at Brown U. I don't like basic Ideology of Richard Wolf but in many ways he also 1st class analyst. Both of them spoke recently on the Michael Brooks show. Part of the discussion was an analysis of America. Just after 52:45 Wolf uses West Virginia as an example of the situation. Its pretty amazing to watch a Marxist justify that those people were voting in their economic interest when the backed Trump. Just after it at about 56:10 you'll see where I get my carbon versus silicon concept. Basically at the center of the Republican economy is carbon and at the center of the Democrat economy is silicon. YES there's a lot more nuance to it with other things and people on both sides who play the wider field. But when you have the Kochs, Bushes, and others with their carbon billions on one side and the Musks, Bezos, Gates and others with their silicon billions on the other you basically have carbon versus silicon. Its where the big influential backers make the bulk of their money. Note the box Mark talks about at 59:30 its carbon inside the box and silicon outside. Note the remark about people becoming coders. That's been mentioned a few times since Biden made that claim of retraining coal miners as coders. Its total BS because anybody becoming a coder will quickly learn they are up against 1.3 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese who have between them millions and millions of coders. Look at your phone apps and where they come from. I'm an engineer and I work in control systems (the computers that run factories, power stations, mine sites,...etc.) I can tell you for a fact that the coding thing is utter bullshit. We have CAD & software tools now that do so much work for us that the need for large teams at the design phase n longer exists. Construction, commissioning and maintenance will not change much and it is utter bullshit when people claim that it will.
    1
  9583. 1
  9584. 1
  9585.  @ODoyleIYourFamilysGoingDown  Yes I saw this the other day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PL32ea0MqM I'm really impressed with what he is doing. Another one I saw was this which sounds similar but is totally different https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMLu9Dtw9yI The 2nd vid has a graph where he shows where the existing battery tech lies and where the liquid air will go. At the moment that central space has only 1 real emerging technology and that's Hydrogen distilled from water. I think where the liquid metal will fit is over the top of the Li-ion and Flow batteries. Its looks like it will have the snap type response of Li-ion but have the larger capacity of the flow battery. In Australia I think we have a huge market for local mass storage. We buy a lot of Tesla power walls but they are farq-off expensive and we need a better alternative and people are talking about "community batteries." Com-bats are where groups of people collectively buy a big battery that they can dump all their excess solar into instead of buying an individual battery for their house. Very Very early days on the Com-bat concept because their isn't a ready supplier of big batteries. Elon either supplies house size or city size when we actually need town/community size. So Sadoway's unit that he has (https://ambri.com/technology/) looks just like what a Com-bat would be. A 10ft x 10ft x 10ft battery that can support a local community or a shopping mall. My basic impression is that I think he really has something special. He's super smart, just listen to how he went about creating this. Its a matter of can he get market share or at least a foothold and keep it. History tells us that good technology doe not always win out. What they all have to realise across the entire energy sector is that we are in a major industrial transition from carbon to silicon in terms of the underpinning technology. Have a look at the US the Reps & Dems is Carbon versus Silicon. Yeah its more complicate than that but if you strip it down far enough its carbon versus silicone and by silicon. That will require a variety of energy production and storage solutions. To many of them yell and scream theirs is "the only solution" when the reality is we will need variety. I think if Sadoway is smart and targets the right markets in the right ways he will clean up.
    1
  9586. 1
  9587. 1
  9588. 1
  9589. 1
  9590. 1
  9591. 1
  9592. 1
  9593. 1
  9594. 1
  9595. 1
  9596. 1
  9597. 1
  9598. 1
  9599. 1
  9600. 1
  9601. 1
  9602. 1
  9603. 1
  9604. 1
  9605. 1
  9606. 1
  9607. 1
  9608. 1
  9609. 1
  9610. 1
  9611. 1
  9612. 1
  9613. 1
  9614. 1
  9615. 1
  9616. 1
  9617. 1
  9618. 1
  9619. 1
  9620. 1
  9621. 1
  9622. 1
  9623. 1
  9624. 1
  9625. 1
  9626. I did aerospace engineering but work in industrial control systems including safety related subsystems. You're NOT wrong, but not quite right either. People who hide pertinent information FOR ANYTHING that results in the deaths of others need to face CRIMINAL CHARGES. Murder charges versus manslaughter or other charges would be dependent on what they knew and what they hid. One of the key things we do as part of standard engineering processes are called HAZOPs (Hazard & Operability Studies). The purpose is to identify hazards and work out mitigation strategies. Once you work out a strategy (or solution) the next step is called FMEA (Failure Mode Effects Analysis). Its where we assess the components in a system or subsystem and consider the known types of failure and assess what the effects are. That comment by the Boeing Engineer that asked what happens if the AOA Sensor fails is exactly what should have been the start of an FMEA. That question should have been assigned to a person or team and there should be a readily traceable set of paperwork. For a critical safety functions or systems. Option 1 You're designing as per standards or guidelines using certified components, which is always my preferred option. Certified components become certified from FMEAs and testing. Using certified components comes with added costs but also come with all the safety information. Option 2 You are taking responsibility for everything including FMEAs, certification and anything else. Option 3 Ignore the Question. 🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️ If you consider the comment by one of the Boeing engineers (at 30:30) ASKING about "what would happen if the AOA sensor failed" that tells me NO ONE DID an FMEA on that system. Because if they had there would be a paper trail and by now someone would have found it. I can't imagine any circumstance where experienced engineers WOULD NOT have realised this system would eventually crash a plane. Its part of basic safety ideology that any failure you can reasonably describe will eventually happen. You assume the failure WILL EVENTUALLY HAPPEN and then assess what then happens. I actually wrote to Ralph Nader (who lost a relative in one of these accidents) and explained my background and qualifications. I told him what his people needed to look for in terms of design paper work and reports. THEY NEVER GOT BACK TO ME. I do hope they got the right people with the right advice.
    1
  9627. 1
  9628. ​ @MostlyPennyCat  TO YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE who have never done any engineering costing let me give you a basic lesson. First AU$ means Australian dollars and US$ means American dollars. I am an engineer with over 30 years works in industrial control systems, automation and robotics across a number of industries. My general my employers expect me to be able to justify the costs of projects and get them value for their money. So working out what various bits and pieces cost is part of my job and there's nothing special about that as EVERY engineer eventually learns how to cost projects. By cost we don't just mean what's in the catalogue but what it costs to deliver and install and maintain. This also has nothing to do with any industry or monetary amount because its the same basic process EVERYWHERE. But you always start with the basics and here's the basics. The British Navy is paying AU$1.5 Billion per Type 26 The Australian Navy is budgeting AU$5.1 Billion per Hunter-class based on the total AU$46 Billion project cost for 9 of them. So my first question is what is that extra $3.6 Billion per boat for? For perspective and in 2024 valuations An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has a cost of US$2.2 which is AU$3.3 Billion. At an export cost of US$4 Million (AU$6 million) each that AU$3.6 Billion would buy 600 Tomahawk cruise missiles. So that extra AU$3.6 Billion isn't for the American stuff. You can't simply triple the cost of ANYTHING with a few changes. We are simply being ripped off and our government is being taken for suckers. The real question is where is the money going? There's nothing new in this. I see it all the time in industry. I've worked for companies I knew were ripping the client off and been threatened with losing my job to keep quiet. The bigger the company the worse it gets. Smaller engineering companies have to deliver value because they operate in a competitive space. Larger engineering companies have almost no competitors. Look at where Boeing is now that they have no US competitors in commercial aviation since the demise of Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas in that space. They've gone from being the best aircraft manufacturer building the safest planes to the current disasters. If you want an explanation of the ways these large engineering companies rip their customer off let me know.
    1
  9629. 1
  9630. 1
  9631. 1
  9632. 1
  9633. 1
  9634. In terms of money $89 Billion is not even that big of a number anymore. Its not a small or trivial number but its not that big either. I'm Australian and the new gas plants at Ashburton, Darwin, Barrow Island and Curtis Island totaled well over $100 Billion. At the current rate of renewable energy Australia is faced with a bill up around $200 Billion for new clean energy generation. Not only do we have to replace existing plants but build new ones for an increasing population. The British spent over £200 Billion just cleaning up Sellafield and are now building a bunch of new nuclear power stations. The Germans spent a reported €1.3 Trillion (€1,300 Billion) on renewable infrastructure. So you all need to consider that number in the context of current engineering project size. What they should consider is converting some of that energy into Hydrogen and piping it across Europe. Pipe lines are actually not that expensive in relative terms and we know how to lay them. Yes it takes exergy to make, energy to make and its not that efficient to convert back into electrical energy but it has a couple of big advantages: 1: The power stations at the user end are BASE LOAD in that they can run 24/7/365 (except for maintenance. 2: If they build hydrogen fueled power stations on the existing power station sites then the grid connection is already in place saving a lot of money. 3: Hydrogen can be stored with very little (mainly leaks) loss. The only question is how much needs to be sent as Hydrogen to keep the power grids of Europe stable.
    1
  9635. 1
  9636. 1
  9637. 1
  9638. 1
  9639. 1
  9640. I half agree, because I don't see the problem are people of immense wealth ITS HOW THEY GOT THAT WEALTH and then how they hang onto it. When you look at Theil, Yarvin Andreessen, Musk, Altman they are mostly people who got lucky with timing and have no grasp that they were just lucky. Sorry if this is a longer explanation but I have an example. I actually went to U. of Illinois where Andreessen went and finished my degree in aerospace just before he went there. So I know what the state of the computer systems were when he got there. The amount of money being pumped into that place on computing by the US government via agencies like DARPA was staggering. Tons of money went into the supercomputing centre. We also had one of the main cores of a system called Plato which was was (in a way) a forerunner of the internet. It was horrible use with everything in text. YES text, with NO pictures, NO videos, just straight ASCII text. To say it sucked does not do justice to how bad it was to use. In that space lots of people were working on ways to make systems like Plato useable by non-engineers. Andreessen and a guy named Eric Bina came up with a program called Mosaic. Basically they made Plato as easy to use as an Apple McIntosh. Their company became Netscape which they sold for a ton of money (see Wikipedia). And there's the problem Andreessen was just lucky to be at the right university at the right time with HEAPS of GOVERNMENT FUNDING. If Andreessen had been one of the elite programmers he would have been working on the Cray Supercomputers not Plato. So he wasn't an elite programmer but got insanely lucky. And that's my bit with these people. Most of them are just lucky and instead of helping other people get lucky they are instead trying to crush other innovations or absorb them into their mega-corps.
    1
  9641. 1
  9642. 1
  9643. 1
  9644. 1
  9645. 1
  9646. 1
  9647. 1
  9648. 1
  9649. 1
  9650. 1
  9651. 1
  9652. 1
  9653. 1
  9654. 1
  9655. 1
  9656. 1
  9657. 1
  9658. 1
  9659. 1
  9660. 1
  9661. 1
  9662. 1
  9663. 1
  9664. 1
  9665. 1
  9666. 1
  9667. 1
  9668. 1
  9669. 1
  9670. 1
  9671.  @tammyboon6259  No probs I absolutely get your point. Go watch the Sam Harris interview on Triggernometry (here on YT) and listen for when he compares the Hunter Biden versus Trump family issues. A few people (like Dave Rubin) went bonkers over his comments. He put that into perspective. If there is something about the Cheney family its NOT LOSING perspective over what they did. Dick Cheney was center to starting 2 wars by lying to the entire planet where over a million innocent lives were lost. I saw a recent documentary on that time and a whole pack of those people should have been dragged off to the Hague and be tried for crimes against humanity. That said you are right Trump is a bigger threat. The really big threat isn't to American Democracy its what that destruction causes the world. Back in 1944 at Breton Woods 44 allied nations plotted out how they would reconstruct what had been smashed and flattened. Part of that was the US Dollar ($US) was that it would become the worlds reserve currency. Part of that is we all these nations agreed to keep some of their gold reserve in a vault in New York at the Federal Reserve. That vault in the film Die Hard 2 with all the stacks of gold actually exists. When countries do business people go into the vault and move gold bars around. Bretton Wood might be gone but that system still exists and the entire world trading system relies on it working. Even Putin needs it to work. Now that he wants people to pay for his oil & gas in Russian Rubles they have to go and buy those rubles on the currency markets. The currency markets work because the system works. Key to the system working is the stability of the US Dollar. Even when international trade is done in other currencies it still relies on the UD Dollar, because as the reserve currency its the foundation on which its all built. Right now Trump and the billionaires backing his nonsense are a threat to a system that the entire world relies on and takes for granted will keep working as it has for the last 75+ years. Imagine if all of a sudden the entire world trading system stops because people can't rely on the US Dollar. YES - Trump's not simply a threat to US Democracy he's pretty serious threat to a lot of the world.
    1
  9672. 1
  9673. 1
  9674. 1
  9675. 1
  9676. 1
  9677. 1
  9678. 1
  9679. Despite the fact Trump was a complete pig of a human being there's a couple of very important things that he did do. I was challenged by a Trumpist a while back to say just 1 thing I felt Trump got right. I gave him 3 and he then disappeared. What I find amazing is that neither Trump, any other GOP official nor any of his supporters say any of these things maybe because they are like handling kryptonite and require nuance. 1) He renegotiated NAFTA - irrespective of if he did or didn't get the best deal the fact is he did tear up an international trade treaty. Ever since these treaties started being put in place working class people got smashed, but to challenge these treaties was considered heresy by economists and the bankers and traders who made TRILLIONS off what these treaties let them get away with. Irrespective of how ugly it was when Trump tore up NAFTA the fact is he proved YOU CAN tear one up of these treaties and renegotiate it. 2) Even though he came incredibly close a couple of times Trump did not START a new war and there were people like John Bolton who pushed damn hard. AND YES its fair to say Trump didn't end either the disaster in Iraq or the disaster in Afghanistan or close the gulag in Guantanamo. But the fact is he did NOT START another war. 3) At the very least Trump did the entire democratic world a favor but its a double edged favor and it can cut both ways. Trump proved that even an advanced nation will DUMP its establishment parties when they get TOO LAZY and become more interested in pandering to their donors than making their nations and the world better. Trump's favor to us all is proving that if establishment parties FORGET who votes they will get dumped for alternatives and what we all need to learn from the Trump years is that the alternatives CAN BE WORSE if we vote in a narcissistic clown like Trump
    1
  9680. 1
  9681. 1
  9682. 1
  9683. 1
  9684. 1
  9685. 1
  9686. 1
  9687. 1
  9688. 1
  9689. 1
  9690. 1
  9691. 1
  9692. 1
  9693. 1
  9694. 1
  9695. 1
  9696. 1
  9697. 1
  9698. 1
  9699. 1
  9700. 1
  9701. 1
  9702.  @AUniqueHandleName444  LOOK at the comment that started this thread. Just because you think there is a LOT of something doesn't mean its over or under supplied. I can tell you have never doe a day in mining or manufacturing just by how you speak. Don't panic most people have no idea what it takes to make the world work. Even some of the smartest and wealthiest people can make stupid mistakes when it comes to the world's supply chains. My favorite of not understanding was Jeff Bezos saying he wants to move heavy industry off world so they can take advantage of unlimited solar power and not worry about pollution. A noble and wonderful idea and also utterly ridiculous. One of the iron ore mines I've worked at is Tom Price in Western Australia. It produces 20 mta (million tons per annum). Its a great place to consider because that the math is easy to follow. Good iron ore on average is about 70% iron by weight. So 20Mta of decent iron ore produces about 14 million tons of steel. The space shuttle is (to date) the only vehicle capable of bringing more than a few 100kgs back down and it could bring 14tons back down. 14 million divided by 14 is 1 million. So if Jeff Bezos wants to process that 20mta from Tom Price at his orbital refinery it will take 1 million space shuttle flights to bring back down the 14 million tons of steel. HERE'S THE PROBLEM Australia does around 815mta these days and China (internally at its own mines) does over 1,200 mta and the rest of the world does almost another 1,000 mta. All up world production of iron ore is just over 3,000 mta which would take around 150 million space shuttle flights to bring the steel back down. Even if we made a shuttle 10 times better that would still be 15million flights EACH YEAR. In 30 years the shuttle flew 135 times. Yeah what Jeff Bezos said sounds really good until you do the basic math. And its exactly the same for the rest of what the human race burns through each year and most people have no idea what any of it means.
    1
  9703. 1
  9704. 1
  9705. 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
  9706. 1
  9707. Aerospace Engineer here - This was actually a lot better than I thought it was going to be because of the title. I generally hate people who over-hype expressions like "will change everything" because most times its just hype. BUT what you're talking about here is consequences and that's something very few people ever consider. I have spent most of my 30+ years in industrial control systems and have seen FIRST HAND what happens when you shut down massive slabs of industry without consideration of consequences. I used to work in the supply chains of the Australian automotive industry making production cells for parts that went onto cars. Under the wonderful ideology of neoliberal economics we shut down that entire industry because they claimed "We can get cars made overseas for less money and consumers will be better off!" The question those economists never answered was - What were all those people who had spent years (in many cases decades) making car parts and assembling cars going to do next? Some of those people who lost their jobs weren't even employed in any company that made car parts or cars. they were people like the truck drivers who took raw materials to factories or the parts made in one factory to the next factory in the supply chain. They were people like me who made or serviced production machinery or the technicians, machinists, welders and electricians who made and serviced those machines or the people who supplied all the stuff we made those machines out of. Not only were those questions NOT answered, they were NOT even asked and still to this day has NEVER been answered. Fun fact that all neoliberal economists ignore - unemployed people don't buy much because they don't have the money to buy much. There's been a general decline of the retail sectors across the developed world and yet NOBODY seems to have put the fact that millions of people were laid off from high paying value adding jobs in manufacturing into less productive almost ZERO value adding service sector jobs. NOW many of those very service sector jobs are facing annihilation, because YET AGAIN the psychotically greedy and selfish maniacs we call business leaders don't care about the consequences of their decisions.
    1
  9708. I agree on your assessment of Kyle, but a half/half on Jimmy Dore. Up until a few months back Jimmy was making a fair amount of sense, but he's slipped into an endless attack everything mode of late. I think what David said just before 4:00 is right on. Jimmy's become cynically counterproductive and I think Jimmy's let his frustrations boil over. I don't think he's wrong in pointing out how Biden has fucked America with not getting the $2000 stimulus through. Mark Blyth (the prof from Brown U.) makes the point often how Harry Truman bluffed the Republicans to save the New Deal in his day. This link is from July 2020 and its time stamped to the Q&A after a lecture on Trumpism about a question on Elizabeth Warren at about 1:23:00 he talks about how Truman bluffed the Republicans and saved the New Deal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGuaoARJYU0&t=4794s What Biden should have done the day after his inauguration is simply drop an executive order for $2000k and RAMMED it down Congresses throat. Just told them straight to their faces - "F you, this if for the American people who are hurting and I'm going to help them." Cruz, Hawley, McConnell and others would have lost their minds over it. BUT all Biden had to do was remind America that Trump spent and EXTRA $80Billion on the military and nobody said squat. Biden simply could have said NO I am giving that to needy Americans so they feed their families. Jimmy's not wrong, Biden has done nothing, but he's also being very counterproductive on how he's voicing it. I think Kyle is doing a far better job and being more constructive. David, Krystal & Saagar and the others need to lift their game. Jimmy needs to take a chill pill and some very deep breaths.
    1
  9709. 1
  9710. 1
  9711. 1
  9712.  @josiplilic3384  I know who Cornel West, Richard Wolf & Zizek are. I watch Richard Wolff fairly often and have seen a few interviews with Cornell West. I haven't watched much of Zizek at all. Richard & Cornell are a little too far to the left for my liking, but I watch them because they mostly make good points. Mark Blyth is a leftist he's just not as far to the left. It takes a bit but capitalism 4.0 is nothing like capitalism 3.0 (what we call neoliberalism). Its more like something in between capitalism and socialism. I have even seen people refer to capitalist socialism. Capitalism 3.0 all stems from people like Milton Freidman, who's famous for "Greed is good" and "greed is the ONLY driver of innovation". His most famous/infamous concept was that corporations have no other obligation than to deliver profit. He claimed that corporations had NO responsibilities to the societies they operate in. It was heavily promoted by politicians like Thatcher and Reagan. 'The complete failure of capitalism 3.0 is that it resulted in a staggering transfer of wealth from the bottom 99% to the top 1% as it destroyed the growth of both the working class and middle class. I tend to call Capitalism 4.0 as "Social Capitalism" because its geared towards wealth growth for the working and middle classes. Mark Blyth talks about doing things like sovereign wealth funds but on a local (not national) level. The big problem I see with it is how do you stop the top 1% from just taking over anything and everything that the 99% try. They just have so much wealth and control so much of our lives. The really dangerous thing these days is that the anger people have can be weaponized. That's what Trump did and several others around the world. The question is what will the next populist who weaponizes the anger & frustration do with it?
    1
  9713. 1
  9714. 1
  9715. 1
  9716. 1
  9717. 1
  9718. 1
  9719. 1
  9720. 1
  9721. 1
  9722. 1
  9723. 1
  9724. 1
  9725. 1
  9726. HEY MT: Yes I got A/C but the other significant use for swash plate pumps is in hydraulic systems for the supply pump like the systems we use in manufacturing lines for shears and punches and presses. You also see these in the hydraulic systems for things like bulldozers, diggers and back hoes as well as some farm machinery. Basically anything with hydraulic rams probable has one of these. The reason we see them in hydraulics is because they are POSITIVE DISPALCEMENT pumps which makes them suited for the high pressures needed. Loved the video as always. Since you're keen on people like this how about Hero of Alexandria. In my field of control systems and automation he is not as famous as he should be, because he is credited with the invention of closed loop control. His book Automata is where we get the job title automation engineer, which after 2,000 years was STOLEN by the IT industry a few years ago. I once enquired about a job for an automation engineer at one of our universities in Australia. My question to the professor was why did he need an automation engineer for IT. It was then I found out why I was getting a lot of odd adds in my LinkedIn. The clowns in IT has STOLEN the job title "automation engineer." When I told the professor there were already engineers using that he asked how long had we been using that. I said "About 2,000 years, ever since hero of Alexandria wrote the book Automata" Yes there were many great mathematicians and thinkers in the ancient world but Hero was the great engineer who has simply been missed by many and forgotten by too many. Among his clever stuff were the first programmable machines, the first steam turbine (Aeolipile), automatic opening and closing doors (on of my favorites) and really cute he also invented the vending machine. His feed back loop was for a water clock. Water clocks usually had to vessels with 1 dripping water into the other. They didn't keep consistent time because as they drained they lost head pressure in the upper vessel. So Hero installed a 3rd storage vessel above the vessel that dripped water. Using a float valve he kept the head pressure constant and the clock kept consistent time. All of this circa 60 A.D.
    1
  9727. 1
  9728. 1
  9729. 1
  9730. 1
  9731. 1
  9732. 1
  9733. 1
  9734. 1
  9735. 1
  9736. 1
  9737. AUSTRALIAN HERE: I'm an engineer but my mother's family are mostly farmers and mum and my grandparents kept me well informed on farming issues. What is amazing in this story is the parallel to Australia's farming industry. In my home state of Victoria, which has Australia's largest dairy industry, the number of dairy farmers has fall from just over 7,400 in the early 2000s to just under 2,800 now. Those numbers are from a recent ABC Australia story. Previously I saw a report that said Australia (in total) has gone from over 20,000 dairy farmers to under 8,000. Most bizarrely is that in total Australia produces 3 times as much food as it consumes, as in there's 26 million of us and we feed another 50 million in other countries. This also includes a significant milk product export trade. About 6 years ago I did a project at a milk processing plant and saw an article in that companies news letter that said Victoria was exporting over $1 Billion a month in milk products. When I asked I found that a lot of that was in milk powders (like baby formula) and from the plant I was at frozen cream for the Japanese market. DESPITE those facts we are now importing milk products DUE TO A DROUGHT and one of the biggest issues for dairy farmers (as well as other farmers) has been the cost of water. We now have a "world class" water trading scheme created by an Australian born economist who went to Harvard (yes that Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts). Its a brilliant system where the large corporate farms and corporate vultures simply outbid the smaller farmers at the water auctions. It works so well that many of our basic foods have gone up around 30% and in some cases 50%. I like chip-n-dip and corn chips have gone from $1.60 to $2.30 in less than 2 years and that's over 43%. Also, early in this story JBS is mentioned. JBS is a Brazilian company that has been involved in a massive scandal in Brasil where they bribed people to get the loans they used to buy farming and food production assets all over the world including in BOTH Australia and America. ABC Australia's program 4 Corners (our equivalent to to PBS Frontline) did a story on this that is here on YouTube and includes comments by American officials on this problem. That video is titled "The world's biggest meat company is built on corruption and it's growing in Australia | Four Corners" and its on the channel ABC NEWS In-depth and was posted 25 Apr 2022. FYI - I went to U. Illinois on a scholarship and one of my team mates was from Iowa and he used to mention that for every Iowan there were 10 hogs. So yes I do know where Iowa is and have been there. Other than the rivalry with the Hawkeye's I had a pretty good impression of Iowa (nice and decent people) and YES everyone in Australia loved Radar O'Reilly. So I find this sad to see that Iowa families are struggling like ours are and for the same sorts of reasons.
    1
  9738. 1
  9739. 1
  9740. AUSTRALIAN HERE - we have some experience with bad fires, the loss of life, loss of property and general mayhem of lives being ripped apart. After our last major fire season in 2019 there was the same sort of political misinformation campaign and a lot of it came from the MURDOCH media. Murdoch people made so many claims about arson that we ended up spending millions on a full public enquiry that investigated more than 30 of the major fires that season. YES we had over 30 major fires that season and in the end NOT ONE fire was found to be caused by arson, but there were a couple of inconclusive causes. The vast majority of fires in Australia are from lightning strikes and power lines where there's been insufficient maintenance keeping the power lines clear of trees. Another major factor was a shortening of the time period when we could safely burn-off of the fuel loads. Just as Adams recent guest Dr. Daniel Swain explained about California we'd had several good years of rain that caused a lot of growth followed by a drought which dried it all out. So the fuel load in 2019 was very high making those fires worse than usual. The other thing that the faux-media (with few exceptions) point out is that like Australian Eucalyptus trees the California scrub brush is high in oil content. The sap in those trees is a form of oil. So they don't just burn they literally explode when the fire gets fierce enough. In 2019 we had trees blast apart and shower the surrounding area in eucalyptus oil. Another thing the faux-media fail to highlight is the effects of an unusually high hot wind event. We knew in 2019 that it was going to be a day of high winds and it doesn't matter who's in charge they can't affect the weather. All you can do is hope to be prepared well enough with water, fire trucks, water bombers and people, that you can handle the situation.
    1
  9741. 1
  9742. 1
  9743. 1
  9744. 1
  9745.  @tarant315  Let me be simple. I am getting damn farking tired of people who ARE NOT ENGINEERS TELLING ME HOW TO DO MY JOB. Its clowns like you who can't STFU and listen WHY we are in the mess we are in. I can tell you have no clue because of the flippant way you just think its that simple. Here's some facts. We can't buffer with batteries because we simply don't have enough Lithium. The World's known Lithium reserves don't have enough Lithium to do 1/3 of the cars let alone the Mega batteries. At the current lithium production rates we need around 300 years of supply in the next 10 years. All those Mega Batteries put in 5-8 years ago need all their cells replaced and we still DO NOT have a viable recycling plant ANYWHERE. We need an alternative battery technology and other than the Sadoway Battery there's nothing currently available at any viable rate. There's a lot under development but we need stuff in production NOT development. Mega batteries are loved by investors cos they pay off in around 18 months and then make a giant pile of money until the cells degrade. Renewables are loved by investors because they are fast to install and cheap to operate compared to nuclear, coal, hydro, gas turbines... etc. Plus you need 100% of the capital up front for those technologies. With wind and Solar you just need enough of a project done so you can start connecting it to the grid and start earning money to help pay for the rest. Plus because of the way the construction bandits operate Nuke, coal, hydro,..... ALWAYS COST MORE than budgeted. FINALLY THE RENEWABLE PROBLEM is NOT what most people think. Its NOT the irregularity of the power. Its NOT the base load issues. Its HOW renewables inject power onto the grid. It causes harmonics on top of the power wave and those harmonics are an issue few know about and fewer understand. Ireland has already hit this wall. My country Australia is also close to hitting that wall.
    1
  9746. 1
  9747. 1
  9748. 1
  9749. 1
  9750. 1
  9751. ​ @flothus  You are absolutely right the STRATEGY IS OFF. And worse the technical explanation of WHY those big Hydrogen Turbines are needed is incredibly important. This is about the simplest I can explain it. Most people know AC power is a sine wave. What they don't know is that every time something is switched on or off it taps that sine wave and as a result of the stuff going on that sinewave is noisy. In the past this wasn't that much of a problem because behind that sine wave were large lumps of spinning metal called turbines and they have inertia. The actual physical inertia of those turbines HELPED keep power grids stable. However these days we have lots of energy being pumped onto grids via DC-to-AC inverters. I know how these things work because its the same tech used in AC motor control which I have been doing for 30+ years. They don't put out a clean wave form just like music CDs don't put out perfect wave forms because its digital. So in recent decades we have been taking out the big turbines that help keep the grid stable and replacing them with inverter technology DOESN'T. If that sounds like it can't be too much trouble to fix the answer is NO. One simple way to help is build a couple of big nuclear plants. If you're in Europe that would be a couple of EPR 2s and with their big massive turbines, but they take 10years and cost a lot. And somewhere in the next 10 years we will all see grids having more and more issues. Ireland is first off the rank in that game and I expect here in Australia we aren't far behind. That's the main reason why I want a couple of these big hydrogen turbines. Even at only 50% hydrogen they lower emissions which makes even the greenest greenie less disappointed. Plus they can off take the excess wasted energy all wind/solar farms produce and use it. The efficiency isn't really a problem because the benefit of the turbines for grid stability is huge and actually helps the renewable industry work. Also they can help nuclear if you want to go that way in the future. No matter what the design is nuclear power works best at 100% output form the plant. They can but they aren't that good at following the daily swings in power demand that you can see on the "duck curve." So having a system with renewables, hydrogen turbines and nuclear can work because the hydrogen turbines help both the renewable and nuclear run better.
    1
  9752. 1
  9753.  @colayco  You know how I can tell you're NEITHER an engineer or a physicist??? Because you make stupid claims about the Laws of physicists without any explanation. The answers below are not just for you they're for everyone else in this thread. FIRST Batteries as we now have then CANNOT do the type of grid level power storage needed. Here in Australia we have some of the largest Mega batteries on the planet. CASE 1) The 750MWH battery on the site of the now closed Liddell Power station (2,000MW) can put out the same power as the power station for 23 minutes. That can't replace a power station except for short time duration peak demands. CASE 2) The Snowy 2.0 Pumped Storage system is designed to supply 2,000MW constant for up to 7 days. That's 336,000 MWH of storage which is almost 450 times the capacity of the unit at Liddell. That's what grid level storage looks like. It can't be something with minutes of supply it has to be something with DAYS OF SUPPLY. And that's the reality of complex energy grids. Batteries are good for short term peak demands and utterly uneconomic for long duration AND THAT'S a COMBINATION OF PHYSICS and ECONOMICS SECOND THE LITHIUM ISSUE Then there is the giant issue of Lithium. If you go and look up Lithium on Wikipedia there's a table form the US geological survey for reserves and resources. Most people do NOT understand the differences. Resources are what's ESTIMATED to exist whole reserves are what's KNOWN to exist in minable quantities. You can go to any spot on the planet and dig up a cubic meter of dirt and process it and you'll find some gold, iron, aluminium, uranium, lithium and everything else. The problem is that in most cases it is utterly unfeasible to extract those quantities AND THAT'S AN ECONOMIC ISSUE. Currently EVs need about 65kg of lithium (Tesla S needs 66kg). With known reserves of lithium we only have about 1/3rd of what's need for the 1.5 Billion cars on the planet. So there's just NOT enough Lithium to do mega batteries AND THAT'S A PHYSICAL LIMIT. THIRD THE GRID STABILITY ISSUE We use AC power to transmit energy and AC power is based on a sine curve and the problem is that every time anything is switched on or off that curve is disrupted. Most of the time the noise on the grid is harmless and goes unnoticed but sometimes you get harmonics which combine into dangerous energy spikes. Those spikes can cause all sorts of issue from simply frying electrical equipment to causing blackouts. Some cities or parts of cities and even buildings can be incredibly susceptible to harmonics and they need surge divertors and expensive filter systems. The problem with ANY TECHNOLOGY that stores energy in DC needs to put that energy onto the grid via an INVERTER and inverters are noisy and cause harmonics. I know this because its the same technology used in motor control systems. One of the main reasons harmonics were less of a problem in previous decades was the supply of energy onto the grid came from turbines spinning generators. The actual mass of the turbines had enough inertia to absorb most of the grid disturbances. Now that we are decommissioning power plants that have large turbines with systems using inverter technology that problem has gotten WORSE and THAT'S A STRIGHT ENGINEERING PROBLEM based on the PHYSICS of GENERATORS versus INVERTER SYSTEMS. THE FACT IS (not the Laws of physics) that we can't do large expansive energy grids how people think and many clowns keep claiming. We need to do certain things on those grids to overcome the shortfall in various technologies and EVERY technology has its limits. Pumped storage is great is you have the geography for it. Current Mega Batteries are brilliant if you want to make money and only have shirt term goals. But id you have other needs that can't be done with batteries or pumped storage then OTHER technologies must be considered and RIGHT NOW Hydrogen technology is not only available IT WORKS and compared to many other options it is economical.
    1
  9754. AUSTRALIAN HERE with an outside perspective. YOU have only won a MINOR BATTLE. There's still a War to Win. I suggest you all go and review Sun Tzu's the Art of War RIGHT NOW. FIRST - The Dems now have to get back all of the Joe Forever Crowd and just as the Bernie Bros and others were kicked in the guts and hated it so will the Joe Forever crowd hate this. SO STOP GLOATING SECOND - Harris is NOT a good pick for President. She might have been a good pick for VP but you are all forgetting just how badly she campaigns. Remember that she could NOT even win her home state of California. HOWEVER if she were to stay on as Gavin Newsom's or J. B. Pritzker's VP them it would be a very smart move on her part and an almost guaranteed win. Yes - I know there's the issue of both here and Newsom being from California but that can be dealt with. She might not be a great campaigner but she'd tear JD Vance apart and that would be worth seeing. *THIRD - * The Next POTUS whoever they are has a couple of insanely hard tasks to deal with. 1) An out of control SCOTUS. This doesn't just affect America its affects anyone who has to do business with America because as Chevron showed American companies will drag their foreign issues back into US Courts where there's almost zero chance of justice. 2) An out of control Israel. This isn't just a disaster its a disaster encased in a catastrophe swamped by a tsunami. Everything that Western Democracies fought the Second World War and then the Cold War over - Freedom, Democracy, Equality of Opportunity and Basic Human Rights has been trampled over. 3) Wealth inequality. Bernie Sanders had the Congressional Budget Office update an earlier report on Family Wealth to now include the years 1989 to 2019. Its easy to find on the CBO website and you can download the data for all the graphs. There ahs been little reporting on this report but it is damning and shows that for the past 30+ years the Top 10% of the American population who did things like the GFC has done insanely well, while the Middle Class has had to fight for what they can get as the Bottom 50% have been trampled into the pavement. This is why Trump was able to tap into anger and despair and win in 2016. 4) Climate Change. A month before he won office in 1992 George HW Bush said at a campaign rally that "Global Warming was the challenge of our generation." That notion was hijacked by his chief of staff John H. Sununu (father of Chris), Nobel Prize Winner William Nordhaus and the oil lobby. After those 4 things there are other things. Sorry but Kamala isn't up to the task, but MAYBE if she stays on as the next VP she can do some great work because I think she probably understands these tasks and how hard they are.
    1
  9755. 1
  9756. 1
  9757. 1
  9758. 1
  9759. 1
  9760. 1
  9761. 1
  9762. 1
  9763. 1
  9764. 1
  9765. 1