Youtube comments of Ralphie Raccoon (@Croz89).
-
8200
-
7900
-
3900
-
2200
-
2200
-
2200
-
2000
-
1000
-
835
-
803
-
616
-
615
-
605
-
578
-
575
-
490
-
443
-
433
-
396
-
366
-
349
-
346
-
313
-
298
-
289
-
271
-
246
-
I think the extensiveness of the HSR network in China is due to a lot of speculation about the future. Richer citizens who travel more often and whose time is more valuable are not going to be content with slow trains or buses (high quality sleeper services tend to cost more per passenger than the equivalent HSR journey + hotel, so the advantage is mostly lost there). So what would happen without HSR would be a massive increase in domestic air travel. China would be a lot like the US in this regard, the default option for most journeys over 4-6 hours would be a plane, with multi-day road or rail journeys mostly only for the poor (who likely won't travel as much anyway). But you can imagine with all the extra people, the sky would be filled with aircraft.
This isn't without costs, the US government subsidizes many small regional airports and even the flights that go to them, in order to prevent whole swaths of the US becoming economically isolated. But, it is certainly a lot cheaper than building 1000's of km of HSR to all medium and large cities and then having to subsidise most of the network... for now.
If environmental taxes or supply chain issues make aviation fuel much more expensive, then the nation who built all the HSR is going to be in much better shape than the one who is now facing a larger and larger proportion of their population who now cannot afford regular fast, convenient long distance travel. So it's a bet on if air travel will become more cost prohibitive in future. It might not, electric short haul and more fuel efficiency combined with bio or synthetic fuels might keep domestic air travel accessible to the masses. But if that doesn't happen, countries like China will have a major advantage.
234
-
233
-
I think China does want world domination. Now, that term sounds scary, but obviously we're not talking about holding the world to ransom with a giant laser on the moon, we're talking about having the power and influence to dominate global trade and politics, not some evil conspiracy. Back in the day, the best way you could do that was by conquest, as we saw in the days of European empires. As time moved on the world changed, and directly taking land from less developed nations was no longer acceptable, or in many cases economically the best option. So countries like the USA instead focused on trade, corporations, and cultural and political influence.
I think China sees itself as Britain expanding its empire, or the USA spreading its money and culture. And it's hard to argue they are doing anything wrong when you are speaking from a country whose wealth was built on global domination. How is it fair to deny them the opportunity to become the next Britain or USA? But on the other hand, today we perceive many of the methods that Britain and the USA used to achieve world domination were by today's standards immoral or outright criminal (and some argue many current practices of these nations still are). It's a difficult balance to prevent exploitation or so-called "neo-colonialism" from new superpowers like China without looking like we're pulling up the ladder and being massive hypocrites.
227
-
I think for those who still want an urban setting, "second tier" cities are definitely worth a look. In many parts of the world you're still going to get the majority of the things you want, parks, nice restaurants, etc. but the homes are usually a fraction of the cost of "first tier" cities. The UK, for example, is so economically unbalanced it only really has one first tier city, the big smoke itself. Second tier includes Edinburgh, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and so on (you might consider Birmingham and Manchester in an upper sub tier due to having metro areas of over 2 million people, which doesn't come close to London's 11 million). $1 million in any of these could probably net you a penthouse in one of the most prestigious residential skyscrapers, rather than a pokey flat above a shop.
There are some compromises, you won't have the famous attractions on your doorstep and particularly in the UK public transport is considerably worse than in the first tier city, not as bad as the US perhaps, where you might be lucky to find a regular bus service, but if you compare Paris to Lyon, both have underground systems with multiple lines, whereas the only true underground metro outside of London is in Glasgow, and it consists of only a rather small loop line around the city center. Though it's worth pointing out that that $1 million will get you a nice residence smack dab in the city center or pretty close to it, so you can probably walk or cycle to most places you want to go anyway, or take a short taxi or bus/tram ride, whereas in London you'd probably need to take the tube.
221
-
203
-
200
-
188
-
181
-
170
-
164
-
161
-
152
-
146
-
140
-
138
-
134
-
128
-
126
-
Extremely cold climates do seem to have a similar dampening on economic activity though. Canada and Finland both have most of their big cities in the very south, where the climate is its mildest. I think the correlation is probably less of a linear trend and more of a "Goldilocks zone" where a coldish temperate climate is the best.
And I've heard another explanation for this theory, people are more productive when they are comfortable. Workers work harder, be it in offices, factories, or outdoors, when they aren't drenched in sweat or shivering like mad. If the body has to divert energy to thermal regulation, energy for other tasks, be they physical or mental, are going to suffer. Since cold can be somewhat alleviated with the rather primitive technology of warm clothing and fireplaces compared to air conditioning, it's much easier to make workers comfortable in a cold climate than a warm one, but this does have its limits, at -50 it's very hard to stay warm even with the most insulating of clothing or hottest of bonfires.
122
-
119
-
118
-
113
-
112
-
111
-
106
-
105
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
92
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
I used to think the US long distance rail system was universally rubbish, but I've realised it works pretty well for what it's designed for, and that is not for passengers, but freight. The US moves more goods by rail than anywhere else on earth, but that's come at the cost of terrible passenger service. In places like Europe and the Far East, the rail system is built around passengers, while there is some freight it's always a lesser priority, and as such more cargo does end up going by road, or in cases where there are navigable rivers, by boat.
The ideal solution is to have space for both fast passenger services and slow freight, but that of course means essentially building two rail networks that need to be kept as separate as possible. That's expensive and difficult though.
87
-
84
-
80
-
79
-
77
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
67
-
66
-
I think while we praise the Nordic model a lot, we find it hard it replicate outside of said countries. And I think there's a number of reasons for that. Some of those are structural or economic, such as small, wealthy populations meaning you can have a high tax burden and your institutions are fairly agile because you've not got to manage tens or even hundreds of millions of citizens. But there's also cultural aspects, you need a high trust society that also shuns ostentatious displays of wealth, and I think that is very important. Countries with lower trust have to spend more money on security and enforcement, because if they ran things like the Nordics did they'd be robbed blind by grifters and fraudsters (not that there aren't such people in the Nordics, just not so many). Social shame over flaunting your wealth also discourages greed, because what's the point of hoarding money if you can't do anything with it? A lot of what rich people spend their money on, or even the amount they earn in the first place, is to impress other rich people, and if that doesn't earn you social kudos, or even does the opposite, then you don't need so much money anymore.
I just don't think you can turn the US, or even the UK or Germany into Sweden or Finland. It wouldn't work because those countries are just fundamentally too different. Whatever better model there is, if it exists, won't look like that.
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
62
-
60
-
This video remimded me of a discussion (really more of a passionate argument) I had with a marine archaeologist on one of Rare Earth's videos, talking about how the Azores basically banned treasure hunting in their waters, despite it having one of the highest concentrations of valuable shipwrecks in the world. They were passionate about how much they hated treasure hunters, because in their eyes they destroyed historical artifacts for financial gain. I did try to argue the approach the British took here, that a collaborative effort could be a win win for both sides, because marine archeology is so expensive it would help to have a sponsor, but they seemed unconvinced, I think they envisioned that it's better it sits undisturbed on the bottom alone for another century while they scrape together the funding themselves. I retorted that the reality would be that there majority of these wrecks would never be examined unless there was more funding available, and that wasn't going to happen through public funding, but they seemed convinced they'd get round to all of them eventually, before they were buried or crumbled away to nothing. How I'm not sure, but still. That seems to be the mindset of the most vocal opponents in academia.
58
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
9:40 I'd disagree that standard speed rail is all that cheaper, if you're building new lines. Typically the cost of infrastructure is an additional 5-10% at most, and the capacity bump and reduced journey times you get usually means if you're building a new long distance line, building it to high speed standards is a no-brainer.
Really, the more economic alternative for passengers is often air travel, not slow trains or buses. That might not make a lot of sense on an initial glance, but airplanes have one big advantage over trains: they only need major infrastructure at their origin and destination. All a city has to do is build an airport and that's it, now it's connected to the rest of the country and beyond. Planes are also much more flexible, if a route isn't as popular, you can move aircraft onto busier routes. There's no "tracks in the sky" to maintain whether planes fly on them or not. Even if you added a hefty carbon tax onto jet fuel, in many cases it would still be cheaper to have a once or twice a day flight than a long distance train service.
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
One answer could simply be that it does work, but it's much more expensive and the effects take decades to show. Because taken as an average, extreme poverty rates have crashed over the last half century. The vast majority of people in the developing world are significantly better off now than they were only 20-30 years ago. It's a quiet achievement that rarely gets noticed, because journalism is attracted to the events which make a country poorer, not those that make it richer, civil wars, natural disasters, extreme civil unrest. We have, quite rightly, been moving the goalposts as conditions have improved, and it's reasonable to be frustrated by the glacial progress an enormous expense of this aid. But perhaps we just have to be in it for the long haul, and not expect miraculous results overnight.
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
Certainly there's a significant economic and cultural argument in favour of beef production in some parts of the world, northern Britain and Ireland being a good example.
Here there's huge amounts of otherwise unproductive grassland, and the agricultural economy is almost exclusively livestock, cattle in the valleys and sheep on the hills. Abandoning that land would be very costly, you'd either have the government buy all the land at market price at a cost of at least 80-100 billion pounds and be saddled with millions of hectares of money draining grassland, or they can permanently subsidise farmers to basically do nothing with their land, which would be even more expensive in the long run and even more unpopular. Telling the farmers to lump it isn't politically viable, they're a very vociferous minority with the power to cause a lot of disruption.
It would also have an enormous cultural impact. Some villages and small settlements owe their entire existence to livestock farming, without it there would be little reason for anyone to live there, other than perhaps a few retirees and hotel owners. They're often a long way away from towns, so have already experienced a population drain as agriculture has become less labour intensive. This would probably be enough to be a final nail in the coffin for some of the most isolated places.
I don't have a good answer to this really, in an ideal world we could just leave the land to nature and every government would have enough income to sustain over a fifth of their land being a money sink. But farmers need to be placated and a historical agricultural culture needs to be preserved, or at least able to adapt without losing its essence.
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
@markofsaltburn That was imperialism! Britain wasn't the only player in the Empire game, other European countries, especially the French, were rivals. And this rivalry created the Industrial Revolution, to make far more efficient use of the resources the British Empire had access to.
You're can't just increase the number of players to prevent stagnation. Eventually each group doesn't have access to enough resources to do any kind of complex innovation, they're too preoccupied with just staying alive.
I'm not denying the horrible things that happen with emipres. It enables subjugation and destruction on much larger scale. But really, if we'll be honest, these are mostly atrocities committed by one nation instead of several. If we really think about it, how small can an empire be before it's not an empire? Most nations of the world did not coalesce entirely peacefully, are they not really little emipres that simply dissolved through the assimilating effects of time? So if someone says that empires are evil, should they also believe countries are evil?
To be honest you seem to be using empire as an excuse to beat the UK over Brexit more than anything else.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
Those near retirement who have paid off their mortgage are probably the least fucked, unless they planned on equity release their asset might have tanked in value, but if everyone else's houses has, they are really no worse off, since everyone still needs a home to live in. It's those at the start of paying their mortgage that are the most fucked, people probably only a few years older, or the same age, as yourself. They are now deep underwater, and quite possibly cannot afford to sell, since they would have to pay any difference between the mortgage and sale price out of pocket, and even if they can, they might have no money left to afford a deposit on a new property anyway. Plus now they are pretty much junk in the eyes of most mortgage providers, a major default risk, so they end up stuck on high variable interest rates. Both of these would have a significant impact on the economy, as millions of people cut spending to pay the mortgage and decline opportunities to improve their income because it would cost too much to move. First time homebuyers may find a market in some places where they are unable to find a home, because nobody is selling.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@hoogyoutube My personal theory about why the Dutch like cycling is so they don't get fat eating their cuisine. So much Dutch food seems to be deep fried, covered in sugar, or both!
EDIT: This was supposed to be a light hearted comment on the reputation of Dutch cuisine, not that the Dutch diet is extremely unhealthy in general. Yes, I know most of the famous foods are not eaten everyday, that the Dutch also eat a wide variety of foods from other cultures.
So I believe this reputation is reflected in diet, as to make the Dutch diet slightly less healthy than its peers? Yes I do, disagree with me on that if you must. But that's it, no more than that. I'll accept my own shortcomings in articulating that position.
This joke has been completely ruined anyway. I've learned my lesson to not be so flippant about this in the future, it's a topic that must be taken seriously. Perhaps it wasn't funny in the first place and I should be ashamed about making such a terrible joke. Fair enough, I guess.
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
I think the fundamental issue behind all of this is the power and control platforms like Nexus, Steam Workshop and similar have over the modding community. They often offer the simplest and most streamlined way to modify a game, to the point where any mods that lie outside these ecosystems are simply ignored, since players dont want to read through a readme and modify multiple game files manually in order to run a mod, and then undo those operations if they want to remove it, like in the old days. They want Vortex or Steam Workshop where they can just click a couple of buttons and it's all done for them. They want automatic updates, essentials when mod breaking updates are common, dependency management, and repository search, something which is present in some mod managers for specific games but none have the breadth and scope of Steam Workshop or Vortex. This means as much as Nexus might say that users are still free to install the mod from other sources, by excluding it from their ecosystem they are effectively giving it the kiss of death, and they know it. If we want to be free of this censorship, an open source alternative to Vortex or Workshop is needed where nobody can dictate which mods are allowed.
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
@olympia5758 I think if you combine a lot of people squeezed onto a tiny landmass with neighbours too powerful to expand into, and the first continent to develop technological advances that allowed for really long sea voyages, and I really don't think it's any surprise European countries started to take territory from far and wide in order to sustain their growth. Other parts of the world could, and did, expand by conquering their neighbours, european nations were too well matched to do that to each other sustainably, so you ended up with an endless cycle of wars, where territory would get passed between nations over and over, and short lived internal empires would rise and fall. Honestly, I do think that without colonialism, there is good chance europe would have destroyed itself through war, the growth in population and resource demand with the technology available at the time would have been unsustainable without expansion.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
@nicholaspostlethwaite9554 I think there's a balance. I'd argue houses in the UK are often too small, at an average of 100m^2, but many are little as 50m^2. And the data backs this up, we have some of the smallest homes in the developed world outside of East Asia. Bear in mind that 100m^2 is often housing entire families, not just single people. Most of the houses are quite old and are divided into at least half a dozen rooms, so each room can be really quite small. Honestly something around 150m^2 might be a good ideal for families, about the size of most detached single family homes here. Though 170-200m^2, while on the larger side, probably isn't excessive. Even an extra 30m^2 or so in the house I currently have would be useful, I could have a dining room, an office or a workshop for example.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
Some people make the mistake of thinking going to Mars is like going to the Moon. It is way, way more challenging. There are a lot of things you need to consider on a much longer Mars mission that you don't on a Moon mission. Launching it into space is the easy bit. There's radiation shielding, advanced life support, off world habitation (no mission to Mars will stay for a just a few days, astronauts will be there for months, so you'd need more than a small lander to live in). We might even need to consider things like agriculture to generate oxygen and provide food for the astronauts. In short, we would need to be halfway to a Mars colony to go to Mars, unlike the Moon where a flying visit is doable with a small self contained lander. Not that I don't think we shouldn't pursue a Mars mission, with a concerted effort from a coalition of space agencies (perhaps NASA, ESA, JAXA and perhaps CNSA can team up) and a few hundred billion in R&D, we could probably do it by 2040 or 2050. But I don't think we have any chance until at least 2035. There's just too many problems to solve first.
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Interestingly, one bad decision that seemed like a good idea at the time was the British recycling nuclear fuel that led to a huge stockpile of reactor grade plutonium at significant cost. The UK in the early days took the conservative assumption that uranium ore was not plentiful, and there would eventually be a supply crunch and prices would skyrocket. Therefore, they began to reprocess the spent fuel to extract plutonium, which they intended to use in as yet to be fully developed fast reactors. Of course, it turned out that uranium ore was pretty plentiful, and the supply crunch never came. Many countries use a once through fuel cycle and just consider spent fuel as 100% waste. Recycling, as it turns out, just isn't economic at current uranium prices. The fast reactors that the British were expecting never really got past the prototype phase, since PWR's and BWR's did the job fine and the conservative and heavily regulated nuclear industry doesn't like to fix what isn't broken, it's not like a silicon valley tech company. In the end, the UK has been trying to chip away at the stockpile with MOX fuel which can go in existing reactors, but it'll take decades to get rid of it at current rates of consumption, and it's very expensive stuff to keep around. Some think it'll be cheaper to just dispose of it rather than wait for it to be used up.
Anyway, I think the UK nuclear industry might not be completely dead yet. Rolls Royce is one of the frontrunners in the SMR field, and they've taken the rather sensible approach at seeing how big you can make an SMR while still being able to qualify as an SMR (can be assembled in a factory and shipped to the site in mostly one piece). This could be a good balance between the costs saved by factory assembly and the fixed overheads every nuclear power plant has. If the whole SMR thing takes off, Britain could be in a good position to capitalise on it.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
There is the kind of bad gatekeeping where people decide you must have certain political and ideological beliefs in order to identify with, belong to, or engage in an entire fandom or activity where politics and ideology are not mutually exclusive. For example, obviously you must support gun ownership to be a gun hobbyist, but you could still advocate for stricter gun laws and restrictions and be gun hobbyist. For unrelated issues like abortion and civil rights where there's zero connection to guns, just because you might not have the same position as the majority of gun hobbyists, doesn't mean you can't be a gun hobbyist. Of course individual clubs and groups of people are entitled to set their own political and ideological requirements within reason, you are free to associate with someone else, but what is wrong is anyone who says "you don't belong to X because you believe in Y" when Y doesn't affect your ability to engage in X.
Perhaps an example that might be more relevant here would be if a convention you attended started banning people for social media posts espousing certain political and ideological viewpoints that are nothing to do with what the convention is about. And then other conventions began to follow with those same viewpoints. While small group and clubs are one thing, when multiple conventions do it they are effectively excluding people from the fandom, saying they don't belong. Sure, these people can start their own conventions, but the barriers to implementation and loss of social contact means these people are increasingly shut off and isolated, they have been effectively exiled from the rest of the fandom, in the hope that they leave because the message is that you can't be in this fandom and have those views. With all that said, it is a gray area, since no fandom or convention wants political and ideological extremists that will likely cause trouble and endanger other fans. But it can be a slippery slope if you start gatekeeping on how people think rather than how they behave. It may seem okay to ban people with views more extreme than yours until they have pushed that barrier so far towards the middle that now your views are in the crosshairs.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@ayemorelocks I think it's very rare nowadays to find a credible historian who sees European imperialism from an explicitly positive perspective. There are a few who "fence sit" and don't try to make too many moral judgements, and of course there are plenty of modern historians who see it as an overwhelmingly negative thing for the world as a whole. That may not have been true in the past, but it's definitely the situation today.
What I think we often lack in discussions about the atrocities of imperial europe is any non european examples. We talk about slavery in the West in an almost exclusively imperial european context, the Arab slave trade is barely mentioned, and when it's brought up it's seen as a weapon for apologists. Same with colonialism. We shouldn't use non european examples to downplay europe's atrocities, but to some people it is beginning to feel like europe is being singled out.
As for scale, I think it's not particularly important from a moral perspective. Europe colonized half the world because it could, other empires never had the technology or financial ability, or simply were better off not expanding too much. It's important to talk about from a historical perspective, but when it comes to empires, I don't think bigger = worse, even if all else is equal.
I also think imperial european racial ideology is not as unique as it seems. Scientific racism is really just an attempt to rationalise what many other cultures would ascribe to religious or social customs, the idea that "barbarians" are somehow not deserving of the same rights as citizens, and therefore to justify otherwise immoral behaviour. It's not really any different, it's just because we ascribe such importance to modern science we reel in horror at the idea of it being corrupted with such blatant cultural bias.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I'd argue China doesn't have the same constraints on fossil fuels Europe does. It lacks oil and gas, but not coal, and is also much less heavily burdened with environmental regulation. Europe has some coal, but it's very unpopular to use and it's generally more expensive to extract, most countries have gone through their cheaper deposits during the last 300 years.
China has arguably been building out every kind of power station it can use, new coal power stations, massive hydroelectric dams that are the biggest in the world, lots of nuclear reactors including experiments using thorium which is far more abundant in China than uranium, and of course seas of solar panels and wind turbines.
Europe is highly resistant to new coal as mentioned previously, it's pretty much run out of new locations for hydro, nuclear is struggling with cost overruns and an ideological split between nations over its use, and dense populations coupled with strong individual rights make renewables on the scale of China very difficult to construct. Gas was usually the path of least resistance, even if it meant more economic dependency on Russia.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I think even that wall of text greatly simplifies things. In terms of North Africa, there's a fair bit of difference between the east and west, the west being much more isolated from the Middle East and while they certainly draw their ancestry and heritage to the region, they mostly do their own thing in terms of politics.
In terms of Sub-Saharan Africa, where there are some nations that got bit by the communism bug and aligned themselves with the Soviets, many others did not, and both sides often ended up fighting each other over political ideologies, between nations and within them.
The thing is, colonisation, and subsequently independence, was experienced differently by different African nations. Some were horribly exploited and brutalised, and therefore developed a deep hatred of Europe and the west, and when independence came they severed all ties with their former conquerors. Others were still exploited, but to a lesser degree, and by the time independence came, they were more willing to leave the past behind and keep relationships with Europe. They were also pragmatists, Europe still had a lot to offer them in terms of investment and experience, after all, they had been running the show for many decades and these new nations often needed a helping hand. There's a big difference between how the people of Botswana and The DRC feel about Europe.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@omegaRST Part of the issue is if we do decide to step back and leave them to duke it out themselves, we still have to deal with consequences, be it an uptick in terrorism, other world powers (*cough* Russia *cough*) trying to intervene for their own benefit, disruptions to the supply of much needed natural resources, or what is usually the most objectionable to European citizens, waves of refugees coming into Europe. It's really a no-win situation, if we intervene we cause problems, if we don't intervene we get other problems.
The Syrian conflict was a good example, at least early on, of what happens when a "leave them to fight" strategy is adopted by Europe and the US. It became pretty clear that Assad would eventually crush any rebellion, especially as Russia was helping him. The consequences of that were envisioned as more refugees and more terrorism in Europe, so after a lot of arguing a more interventionist approach was gradually adopted.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Rulerofwax24 Part of it is how much you can tolerate failure, and how often that failure is expected to occur. You don't need to design for the worst case if failure is rare and the consequences of failure are not catastrophic, in the case of the LED traffic light, having the odd intersection signal obscured by snow in a rare snowstorm is probably OK to deal with, nobody should be driving very fast anyway so defaulting to a 4 way stop is fine. In w8stral's examples, in the first case it's not particularly catastrophic but it might not be rare, if every year on specific dates hundreds of thousands of EV drivers create traffic jams due to inadequate fast charging, then that's a big problem even if everything works fine the other 360 days of the year. In their second case, it's the opposite, the failure is fairly rare (though intermittent renewable generation arguably raises the chances), but the consequences of a brownout or blackout can be really really bad, so grid reliability always comes first, whatever the cost.
In the case of using nuclear as a backup for wind and solar, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Fuel costs for nuclear are so small that it would be more cost effective, if you had to build the nuclear to completely back up the wind and solar, to forget the wind and solar entirely and run the nuclear 24/7.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@hrksknfe Yes, but pretty much nobody lives in northern Alberta, The furthest north large settlement is Edmonton, and that's the most northerly major city in Canada. Climatically, Toronto and Montréal's winters aren't really any worse than Chicago or Minneapolis. Vancouver is only a little further north than Seattle, and has only a slightly cooler climate than the UK thanks to a similar effect of ocean currents.
My point is the US has a number of large cities that deal with cold, harsh winters, just like in Canada, and much of Europe has to deal with darker winters than most of the Canadian population. And I really don't think a combination of both should do that much harm to productivity. European cities don't shut down in winter, and neither does Chicago or Minneapolis. Anchorage is mainly hampered by its isolation, not its climate.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
The issue with maglevs has partly to do with the same reasons conventional monorails didn't take off. It's not so much the technological challenges, but the extra expense of designing, operating and maintaining a fairly unique system that doesn't have the vast industrial base built up over centuries of good old steel wheels on steel rails. Speed is also an issue, the speed of a train, conventional or maglev, is often limited by track geometry, and if you can't make the track straight enough then the higher speeds maglevs can reach won't make a difference. You will save some energy because of a lack of track friction, but you've still got to deal with air resistance, which is going to be the bulk of your losses at higher speeds. You could slow down to reduce energy consumption, but then why bother with a maglev in the first place, all that extra expense to save a bit of energy you're almost certainly not going to make up for any time soon.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@FalconFour I agree, J1772 has the advantage of being very robust and stable, and requires only simple electronics to monitor. That said, CAN transceivers are cheap, ubiquitous and are considered pretty sturdy. I can't imagine the reliability is that much greater. After all, modern cars already have one for diagnostics and EMS reprogramming, and I've never heard of one failing (though I guess it must happen from time to time). Perhaps I'm missing something here, you're the expert after all :)
As for the protocol, I seemed to have gotten my terminology mixed up. I meant to say I imagine an extension to the OBD-II protocol would be sufficient for most EV charging communications (OBD-EV anyone?). The message format is already well defined and the data that would be useful to the unit could be added as PID addresses. In fact I would be very surprised if they didn't already exist on many EV's since they'd be very useful for maintenance. All that would be needed would be for manufacturers to agree on standard PID addresses for all the info the unit needs.
To me this "single wire CAN" idea seems to be a way to shove CAN capability into the existing connector, so it seems like EV manufacturers (Tesla at least) are coming round to the idea that CAN would have been a better idea in the first place, but it's too late to change the connector design.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@absalomdraconis Honestly, what I hear is infantalisation (or worse) of impoverished communities, like they're some primitive tribe who are mentally incapable of adopting modern hygiene practices, so why bother trying? I haven't adapted to their living situation, but their living situation sucks, it's making them sick. At least with traditional medicine you can introduce modern drugs alongside and as long as said medicine is a harmless placebo (sometimes it isn't, or it's wiping out some endangered species) it's OK. But with this, you can't make that practice any better, keeping faecal matter segregated and away from water sources is hygiene 101.
And again, this isn't just some western paternalism. Go ask the government of any functional country in Africa, South Asia or South America and their officials have the same attitude, because they're smart people and they listen to the science.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
One issue with middle skill jobs is they are often more volatile than high skill. They're often one of the first jobs in the crosshairs when companies want to downsize, and many are often directly or indirectly dependent on temporary contracts, be it a construction project or a large customer. Low skill jobs are so interchangeable that it's relatively easy to change employers, and hey, somebody always needs to clean the floors. High skill jobs are the opposite, they're very much not interchangeable so employers tend to hold on to those employees through thick and thin since rehiring and retraining is so expensive.
Middle skill though? If you're a manufacturer and your order books start to thin out, who is getting laid off? Not the college grads in R&D, you spent a fortune training them and they know your product inside and out. Besides, if they come up with something good they might get you out of this rut! But the welders down on the factory floor putting your widgets together, they can be furloughed or laid off for a bit, can always hire some more when work picks up again, even if it might take a while.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Then you'll have great depression II, which will cost not just money, but lives. It's why we can't really have pure capitalism. And I agree it does reward companies who are profligate and careless. This moral hazard has already been talked about on this channel, and unfortunately there is no ideal solution. Let them all fail at once, regular people suffer and even die, bail them out, no incentive to save for a rainy day, government ownership, soon the government owns nearly all the big corps, enforce better contingency, how to design it so startups aren't priced out.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bfc3057 The Ottoman empire only fell in the early 20th century, and it had been around a lot longer than the British empire.
It did cover quite a large part of the globe, most of the middle east, north Africa, southern Spain and eastern Europe at its height. The British were only able to cover such a large area due to advances in technology, particularly in maritime navigation.
The Ottomans certainly considered themselves superior. They forced Islam onto conquered areas, charging higher taxes to those who refused to convert. They also had an extensive slave trade, that while smaller than the transatlantic trade, carried on after the British made it illegal.
As for the last point, I can't say if they thought they were "civilising" non-Muslims by converting them. It hardly matters anyway.
I don't know what sort of "self-righteous hypocrisy" you speak of, it's rare to find anyone that thinks 100% positively about the empire in Britain, and even rarer to find anyone who wishes for it back. There do seem to be some who use the empire as a stick to beat brexiteers with, which I don't think is fair at all, just because they don't like the EU and wants the UK to forge its own path doesn't mean they are imperialists.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think the refugee crisis brought out the idealist in Merkel, and listening to that idealism over her more typically pragmatic approach was her biggest mistake. She overestimated the goodwill the German people would have, and her own background meant she was especially sympathetic.
To be fair, for a while it looked like it might work. Most Germans seemed very welcoming, but after a bit of a honeymoon period, the reality of letting in so many people began to hit, and the idealistic vision of Germany as a haven for refugees began to crack. I reckon there was probably a part of Merkel that knew this would probably happen, and that flinging open the doors was not a good or sustainable idea, but her idealism mean she didn't listen to that voice.
Thankfully, it's one of only a few blemishes on an otherwise very solid record, and unlike with Tony Blair, it doesn't seem like it will scar her legacy too much.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think there's a couple of issues that make Affirmative Action an easy target for students that get rejected. Firstly it's seen, fairly or not, as treating people's group identity above individual circumstances, many people think a privileged African American is more likely to be accepted than an underprivileged White or Asian applicant, which some people see as unfair. This is probably because race, gender, and other identity markers are connoted with AA far more than income or family status, which gives people the impression it is about those things and not about elevating disadvantaged applicants regardless of identity. The second is that because college admissions has become such an opaque and subjective process it's easy to speculate on all kinds of reasons why you didn't get accepted. SAT scores and GPA are harsh but transparent reasons for rejection, they are easy to accept and move on from. But these character and life experience assessments are easy to ruminate over, to question not just your intellect but your whole personality and identity, to ask yourself over and over why you weren't good enough, because in today's admissions environment, you'll likely never know.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
I can totally understand this decision from an engineering perspective. They'd rather put the pipeline in a rural area where a) It is less likely to be dug up by construction workers and b) if it does spill, fewer water supplies are contaminated. It is a numbers game, the fewer people affected, the less money they have to pay out, the easier it is to fix and the fewer lives are disrupted. That said, we don't make engineering decisions in a vacuum, social and ethical issues come into play and we have to work around that.
Saying the pipeline is completely safe is a product of the expectations of the public. No, it is not completely safe, nothing is. Building it in a way that if in accident did happen, the consequences would be minimised, is good engineering practice.
I guess the best solution would be to route it to the north of the city or just to the south, bypassing Bismarck and the reservation. Might mean a bigger bill in the end, but would be probably worth it considering the disruption the protest has already caused. I'm also surprised that the pipeline company didn't try and negotiate with the native Americans, where if the pipeline did have to cross their land concessions could be made, after all, this is what is done with any other landowner.
What's happening to the protesters is wrong and unethical, period. But there is a pipeline that's gonna get built one way or another (unless demand magically vanishes, which it won't) and that still needs to be dealt with.
3
-
+Solomon Ayalew Sadly, as was the case with the Zulus, it is much harder to gain an authoritative account of history when most or all of it was not written down. Hence we know very little of Native American or Australian Aboriginal history, and why it isn't taught all that well. What we know of the Zulus is based on carefully corroborating oral sources, and including written sources from British and Dutch colonists. There is also the fact that, whether by natural disaster or conquest, if a civilisation without written records dies, its history mostly dies with it.
Much like the game Chinese whispers, oral sources are easily distorted as they are passed down the generations, and while written sources are not infallible from distortion either, they are generally accepted to be vastly more authoritative and reliable, especially when combined together to reduce bias.
Now, that is not to say that either of your examples do not have written records (and I expect your latter example does), but it is a fact that some parts of the world, particularly parts of central and south Africa, North/South (but not central) America, and Australasia did not have writing systems until they were conquered by countries who did. So sadly, for quite a bit of the world, we will never have a good history for them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@inbb510 Yes it does, but should it have 8 million people? (more like 14 million when you consider the whole urban area, plus many commuter towns who also benefit from that investment in infrastructure). Would it be all that bad if it had, say, 2-4 million less and Birmingham and Manchester had 1-2 million more? I think it would not only benefit those second tier cities but also take a lot of the pressure off London and the south east.
As I said, it's a self fulfilling prophecy. London gets more investment, which attracts more people, which requires more investment, which attracts even more people, and the cycle continues. Meanwhile that means less money is left over for other cities, so they either grow much more slowly, stagnate or even decline. If we want to break or even just slow down that cycle, and as I've said before I think there's a lot of benefits to doing that, we much invest more in these other cities. Why don't Birmingham and Manchester have subway systems? It's not because they're too small, there are many smaller cities in Europe with underground transportation, it's because London sucks up all the money for their system.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
On the face of it, it hasn't been sceptical, the US has the most reactors in the world, even more than France. Individual states have been more or less keen on nuclear energy, California is probably the closest to Germany in terms of nuclear scepticism. What has caused the decline of nuclear in the US in recent years has arguably not been renewable energy, but cheap fracked natural gas. This has half the CO2 emissions of coal and the plants are far more dispatchable than nuclear so it plays well with renewables and solves their intermittency issue, which is what keeps renewables so cheap in the first place, if you have to add a battery it can come off more expensive than nuclear. The future really depends on what happens to storage costs and the cost of raw materials like rare earth metals. If storage gets cheaper then nuclear is unlikely to be able to compete, but if they stay stubbornly high, then as gas has to be phased out to meet emissions targets it could become more attractive again, especially if costs fall for nuclear as well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@aliengeo Assistive devices don't necessarily cure people of an ailment, the only reduce the disability that ailment causes, sometimes to such a degree that it becomes little more than an inconvenience. I think it's reasonable to assume based on current trends, that 100 years from now we will have a lot more assistive devices that cover a much wider range of disabilities, and the costs of these things will continue to shrink. As such we will approach more and more disabilities the same way we have with vision correction, something which technology can adequately compensate for. For example, very few people think it's ableist to not have all signs in massive print so nobody has to use glasses, we accept that some people will need them to read the sign. Sometimes that's baked into the law as is the case with driving. In the future we might have the same attitude to other impairments. It won't be for a long time, but a century is more than long enough.
As for conditions like autism, well that's always going to be a problem if stimulating environments are the sore point. Because many people kinda like them, so you're creating a conflict between autistic people and a lot of neurotypical people.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@xmtxx It doesn't work very well if you want to do a only one large break rather than lots of little ones, which is how a lot of people want to drive on road trips. On a 4-6 hour trip, I would generally want to stop once for food, for maybe 20-60 minutes depending on how long the drive is. In an EV that won't be enough, in order to get the range required I'd need to make 3-4 shorter stops, and even then I'd very likely still be stopping for longer because I could be driving in cold weather, or I might have to take a longer route to stay on the highway.
Besides, why don't I just wait a 2-3 years for a range that could manage that? The ICE used car market is still healthy and environmentally it's better to drive a used ICE for a while than buy a brand new EV. Why put up with any inconvenience when I can save may pennies for a little bit longer and have no inconvenience when an equally performing EV comes on the market? With battery tech the way it is
I don't hate EV's, not at all, but I'm not going to pretend the whole range argument is a non-problem, because it isn't. And I think for a lot of consumers, they look at the inconvenience and decide to wait a little longer.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Victor-kh5rh Every form of transportation exists on a spectrum of efficiency, flexibility and range. Trains have excellent efficiency, range is fairly wide, probably comparable to cars, but flexibility is poor, only really beaten out by some very niche transportation solutions. Cars have poor efficiency, similar range but high flexibility. So with trains, because they are less flexible, design and planning need to work around their shortcomings. Low density suburban and rural areas aren't really viable with trains, so you'll need to replace all those single family homes with apartment blocks and condominiums, which would make a lot of people angry and miserable. Many places would have to be abandoned entirely as the transportation infrastructure required could never be economically supported.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dougaltolan3017 Saltwater still passes through the turbine during operation (it wouldn't work if it didn't), and that will result in biofouling and corrsion, that's a guarantee. That will need more than sacrificial anodes to maintain, you'll need to partially disassemble it at port and clean/replace components from time to time. I guess you could not bother cleaning the pontoons ever, fair enough (but I wouldn't recommend it) but since you'll need to bring it in to dry dock for maintenance regularly anyway, may as well do it, reduces the risk of them leaking or breaking off. All in all compared to an offshore wind turbine this will need a lot more maintenance, or you're going to need more expensive materials.
I'm not trying to rubbish all renewable projects, and I'm frankly dissapointed but not surprised you jumped so such a conclusion. It's just every so often someone comes along claiming to have "cracked" tidal, they run a very expensive prototype for a few years and then it never goes anywhere. So forgive me if I'm rather skeptical. The sea is a very harsh environment, and offshore wind has all the sensitive parts far above the waves. This is quite different.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@richardwills-woodward You'd find something like the Manchester Metrolink in Saarbrucken or Magdeburg. Bigger cities have "pre-metro" systems where the city center sections are build to rapid transit standards either elevated or in tunnels. This would be cities like Hannover or Cologne. These are cities with metro areas often with a smaller population than Birmingham or Manchester, sometimes around Liverpool or Newcastle but are probably fairly comparable. Cities like Berlin, Hamburg and Frankfurt are bigger and I think would be considered first tier.
You talk a lot about urban rail, and I generally agree it is good in many large UK cities, though there is a lack of integration sometimes. But I don't think that replaces the advantages metro systems have, particularly getting around the more urbanised areas. They're good for those in the outlying towns and villages, as they are elsewhere, but there's still a gap for those living closer in.
I agree tunnels aren't completely necessary, but generally unless you have a lot of wide viaducts crossing the city center you will need them for a viable through service. And in the UK many big cities have termini stations rather than a central rail spine leading to a main station.
I don't agree systems like Merseyrail and Newcastle Metro are not like S-bahn systems. They have a similar frequency and stop spacing, and cross city centres in tunnels like many S-bahn systems do. Both systems act exactly as you described, branded urban rail, Newcastle Metro just uses slightly smaller and lighter vehicles.
And what I think is the most important point, it isn't just Germany we can make the comparison with, Spain and France, and even Italy sometimes also have better public transport in their second tier cities. The UK is probably not behind the world as a whole (definitely not the US or Australia) but it is behind its nearest european peers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Demopans5990 There's always been a general generational preference, younger singles and childless couples tend to be more interested in city living, privacy and personal space are less important than places to socialise. Many don't even spend that much time at home, preferring to use so-called "third places" at lot more. Families, on the other hand, tend to value space and privacy, since they are going to spend much more time at home.
In terms of politics, those on the left tend to be more amenable to communal living arrangements, they aren't so bothered about sharing spaces with others, whereas the right tend to be more individualistic and value private space, and since there is still a left/right split by age and familial status, that tends to amplify the former.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SirBlackReeds I think the property tax structure might actually make it much harder to reform zoning laws. Say you're a family in suburb X and the city wants to rezone suburb X. This means that your neighbourhood of single family homes is going to have apartment buildings and complexes sprouting up all over the place. You really don't want to live next to an apartment building, you think it would ruin your environment, and you definitely don't want to live in one of those apartments, you're not a couple in your 20's any more. So you have three options: You give in and live in misery, not a great option. You move to suburb Y which is still low density zoned. Not ideal, it would be expensive and disruptive, the kids will probably need to travel further to school, but if you could sell for a good price, especially as the land is now more valuable, you could bear the one-off costs. But because the property tax is recalculated when you move, you can no longer afford a like for like property, because you have a permanent increase in your tax outgoings. So all that's left is to fight tooth and nail to prevent the rezoning in suburb X, hence zoning reform becomes an immense struggle.
3
-
@leeleeisgay Perhaps they were so militarily dominant it never was? We really have so little evidence about their society and history that it's as good a theory as any other. They were one of the first advanced civilisations in the area, so it's reasonable to argue they were just so superior to any potential rival that nobody could touch them.
What we mostly have are buildings, physical objects, little to nothing about politics or society. Some even dispute the claim that there was never any violence or destruction, saying some evidence has been overlooked.
The simple fact of the matter is, a pacifist society cannot survive in a world of warmongers, not unless they are protected by strong natural barriers, and even then those are eventually overcome. The list of peoples that have never, ever, fought with, conquered, or been conquered by another group of people is vanishingly small.
And you rarely get the resources you need to develop and grow by asking nicely. Peoples that have been lucky or unlucky enough to have been isolated by natural barriers inevitably lead far more technologically primitive lives than the peoples that surround them. Those that take are those that win.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think we're coming off a peak of Social Justice zealotry from 2020-2021. Covid resulted in a lot of bored young people with time on their hands and combined with a general increase in unrest and the US president becoming increasingly unstable and unpredictable, tensions were running high. George Floyd was the spark that lit the fire. What a year or so ago would have certainly resulted in protests and perhaps minor riots, but perhaps only for a day or two, ignited a firestorm that swept beyond the US borders, and had corporations falling over themselves to put out "anti-racist" messaging (even getting as far a children's cartoons). But after a change in president to Bland Biden and the light at the end of the tunnel for covid now shining much more brightly, it seems to me things are beginning to calm down.
What the permanent effects to our culture will be, I'm not so sure. The social justice side managed to gain quite a few symbolic victories, statues have been removed, some in retrospect quite egregious, but several more requiring a very unflattering interpretation. Some effects seem less likely to last. Police reform will probably happen, but not to the radical extent that many desire. Cities that have experimented with "alternative" public safety models don't seem to be seeing positive results, or even end up making things worse. I can also tell you from experience in my country that reductions in police numbers can come back to bite a country decades down the line. Corporations certainly make a bigger deal of social justice than they used to, a supermarket near me had posters up for UK black history month, which used to be a pretty obscure event, understandable since black people are only 3% of the population. But once the fervor wanes, it's possible they will no longer see financial merit in doing so. I could go on about other impacts, but there's a lot and it's quite complicated and hard to predict what will stick.
Going into the future, I'm not really sure what it holds for the Social Justice movement. It could destroy itself or fracture into too many pieces, but I think more likely it will begin to decay into obscurity, slinking back into the academic fringe it used to inhabit. Or it could remain strong, remaining the "permanent radicals" that shift their views to remain in the same political position. Even if gender and racial equality was achieved tomorrow, they would find some new set of beliefs to oppose those to the right of them.
One of the clearest historical maxims we find is that political extremism tends to arise when times are bad, not when times are good. So going forward, if economic conditions improve and recovery from covid is swift, then both the far left and far right's power will probably wane. If not, then they will likely continue to be prominent in politics and society. While I think a US civil war based on these groups is pretty far fetched to near on impossible (it won't be like the first one, more like the Balkans on steroids), I could see, as a worst case, a situation similar to Italy's "years of lead", where hatred and animosity between the two groups is so strong that it breaks into organised lethal violence. If one side (let's be honest, probably the right, but I wouldn't discount the left) assassinates an opponent's figurehead or bombs one of their protests, the other side is likely to feel the only way to respond is with equal violence, so they start assassinating or bombing too.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@baronvonlimbourgh1716 A few residential batteries aren't going to solve the storage issue, they'll only put a dent in it. Industry and infrastructure have enormous energy demands, and are even less tolerant of reliability issues. Plus with the electrification of heating and transport, demand could double in many developed countries meaning any storage you install is quickly eclipsed by the increase in demand.
These are serious issues that have been reported on. The only thing I can conclude is you haven't seen much research outside of your renewable bubble because I have seen plenty of criticism. Few people are saying renewable energy has no place at all, but there are many questioning the economics and practicality of a fully renewable + storage grid, at least in the near future though also in the long term.
Research is by its very nature unpredictable. We don't precisely know how easy or hard it would be to double the efficiency of solar panels, or cut the price of nuclear energy in half. We can only speculate, fund the research, and hope for the best.
Even if there's a lot of lithium reserves out there, mining it isn't always easy, or economic. Lithium salts have to be fracked out of deep rocks in many cases, and like with natural gas this can have environmental issues.
And alternatives like nuclear aren't standing still. There's lots of research going into making nuclear energy much cheaper and easier to build. If that happens that could change the economics, renewables + storage definitely would be the more expensive option in many locations.
As for being pretty opinionated, well that's the pot calling the kettle black.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@goste4 Civil law often comes down to who has the best legal team, sometimes even criminal law does. It's not how it should be perhaps, but it's how it is. So if you have money, people and companies are far more willing to try their luck.
And again, few people want to spend their time in court. If I'm rich, I'd rather not be sued at all, I've got far better things to do than spend my time in a courtroom, or in an office or on the phone to my legal team. I've got a business to run, cocktail parties to attend, all that rich person stuff. If being rich means I have to constantly be fighting lawsuits or the threat of them, what's the point?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@KainYusanagi Water ingress is not just a problem for reinforced RAAC, because the water can get trapped in the concrete, which can cause it to swell and crack. Preventing any moisture from getting to concrete, especially in a damp climate, is really challenging, a bit of sealant is unlikely to cut it. It is still a material that has some niche applications, but it's not something that ever should have been so widespread, especially in places like the UK. What we didn't understand is just how easy water got into RAAC and the damage it caused even without reinforcement.
And I don't know what you do in your country, but we don't usually use concrete for our roads and pavements, we use aggregates and tarmac. RAAC would also be a terrible choice for roads as its compressive strength is lower than regular concentrate, it'll get flattened.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thorntonian Indeed you you are correct, there is a lot we can learn from a civilization without written records, no question about that. Forming a chronological history based on a series of events in time however, does require a lot more detail, and while it isn't impossible to get this from oral records, written ones are far better, even if they are not firsthand accounts (many are of course memoirs or historians documenting the events well after they occurred, but often within living memory). We do know quite a lot about how the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines used to live, mainly by asking those who remain, but we can't get a decent pre-colonial record of their tribes history.
In the case of the crusades, yes a single written source would be considered biased and unreliable, but we have many written sources to work with, both during and after the events, most importantly from both the crusaders and those who fought against them. By combining these sources together, you can fashion out a reasonably accurate record of events.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There's always going to be the argument about how to deal with the human consequences of radical climatic adaptations. Because in many cases there are complex secondary effects from strong interventions. Radically restricting air travel would slash income from tourism, which would decimate the economies of many countries, even developed ones like Greece. Banning animal products would result in vast tracts of grassland, perhaps owned by farmers for generations, becoming economically worthless, resulting in a small but significant percentage of the population losing everything and having no income. Many animal feeds produced from waste products and/or substandard grains and vegetables would also have no market.
Maybe these would have to be solved by massive global subsidies, resulting in a far more socialist economy or even a global government. Perhaps "nature" should take its course, and the pampas of Argentina become wilderness, and the islands of Greece return to an impoverished agrarian lifestyle (without the meat or fish, which now I think about it would make many uninhabitable, so they'd probably have to allow some of that).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Have it in big text on the safety card that the airline assumes full liability for all possesions left behind in the case of an evacuation up to some ridiculous limit, and that if passengers possessions are not returned to them within a day or so they are entitled to expense for replacement items they deem necessary for the enjoyment of their trip, including luxury items and even if they have to be shipped in overnight at significant expense. Let's be honest, incidents which result in an evacuation are rare enough that the cost to the airline isn't going to be enormous to implement such guarantees, and it's likely they already have to some extent, they just don't make it so clear to passengers. In an emergency which results in destruction of passengers possessions, the cost is going to pale in comparison to the legal settlement they'll end up paying anyway, $1000's per passenger even if everyone survived. Sure, you can say people shouldn't be so selfish, but people are people, and reassurance that the airline will bend over backwards and spare no expense to please passengers in the rare event of them losing or withholding their possessions due to an aircraft accident will probably go further than trying to scare them or shame them into doing the right thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Doazon And perhaps, to some extent, that's how it should be, a viable business with solid foundations should be able to overcome that 2-3 year hurdle, barring a stroke of bad luck. I appreciate investors sometimes miss a trick, and in some places the barrier to entry may be too high, though I think other support structures would be more appropriate there. But I think there's a danger of making the barrier too low as well, which could happen with UBI if people are encouraged to do so.
I think we can make a comparison with lottery winners, a number of them start businesses and predictably many of them fail, some after being on life support for years as those winners burn through their winnings propping them up. It would have been better for everyone, the winner and the economy/society as a whole, if that money had gone into passive investments or been donated to charity.
We have kind of fetishized entrepreneurship a bit in today's society, and I think that's leading people who shouldn't be stating a business to do so.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Probably not as much as some people think. Planes have a huge infrastructure advantage over trains, you only need an airport at either end. High speed rail needs high speed track connecting every destination to every other. That's okay if you're looking at connecting big cities only 2-3 hours away, but when you have lots of smaller destinations, especially for leisure, it's never going to be economically viable to connect all the routes that destination is served by plane. Imagine a HSR line that only has a lot of passengers at certain times of year, and the rest of the time is almost empty. It would never work. But an airport can add extra routes with minimal cost, and it doesn't matter so much if they're seasonal.
In the US in particular, while there are clusters of cities which could benefit from HSR, it's likely that they'll take more cars off the road than planes out of the sky. The "point-to-point" model would also have to be thrown into reverse, rail only works as aggressively hub and spoke, and even worse, there's currently no infrastructure to transfer luggage, so connections mean carting all your luggage off one vehicle onto another yourself. Otherwise the distances are just too great.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Aventicity Yes, including all waste that cannot be recycled.
I've heard of calls for safety regulations to be rationalised, especially in the face of now reactor technology that includes passive safety controls. As it is nuclear safety and regulation is a bureaucratic mess, so much so that construction of new reactors and research and development needs extensive licencing and paperwork, which some argue simply makes things much more expensive without actually making them safer. So perhaps that is what you've been hearing about.
As for "huge death tolls", I like to use the plane crash/car crash comparison. Someone falls off and dies from a wind turbine or roof with solar panels on fairly regular basis, that's the car crash. With nuclear, a handful of accidents have caused the deaths from just a couple of people to a few thousand, that's the plane crash. Nobody disputes planes are safer than cars, and the data backs this up. But there's still a lot more fear around plane crashes because they kill hundreds of people at once. Besides, if you want big death tolls, hydro tops the list easily.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@clangboomsteam I think we do in a social context, men hanging out with other men, typically exclusively, does seem to be seen as a bad thing by some.
But beyond that, there does seem to be this idea that if men don't express their emotions in a straightforward and obvious way, it means they are emotionally repressed, and masculinity usually gets the blame. I think that's partly why these pursuits are undervalued compared to approaches like therapy, some think men need to learn to be vulnerable and express emotions more blatantly, whereas I would argue that it's not reasonable to expect all men to be the same in this regard. I think many men just express emotions and talk about issues in a less direct and more subtle way, and that might be picked up by men similar to them, but not everyone else. There are those who see the tough and stoic image of masculinity as toxic, but I would counter that's how a lot of men want to be, and we should work with that rather than expect them to be someone else.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think where storage is going to be the most of a challenge is for very long term storage, weeks or months. This is going to be necessary for areas that have highly seasonal demand patterns, i.e. places that need a lot of heating in the winter but don't need a lot of air conditioning in the summer. If not blessed by abundant hydro like Norway or parts of Canada, places like this will need to harvest excess generation in the summer and store it for the winter, much like a hibernating animal stores food. Hydrogen is a viable option, but it's pretty much the most ineffecient energy storage method, requires lots of infrastructure and will leak out of an airtight container because the molecules are so small, nearly every material is like swiss cheese. In the end this may be where small modular nuclear can shine, providing energy and hot water on demand, the latter of which can be used for heating, eliminating most of the need for very long term storage.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
zandaroos553 Perhaps in the dense eastern US to some extent, but not out in California nearly as much. Those cities are significantly younger, and many of them didn't become significant until after the car became commonplace.
And I think too many new urbanists blame the auto industry for suburbia, people generally want open space and privacy if they can get it. Europeans generally either didn't have the space or the money to afford the big houses many in the US have, so the suburban lifestyle was never as prevalent. In the UK suburbs were built after the war too, not as low density as land wasn't as cheap, but people were generally enthusiastic to go from cramped town houses out into the suburbs where they'd have their own green space and much more generous living area. A lot of people like suburbs, not everyone does, but a lot of people do, and that's why they still exist. It's not brainwashing or some social experiment, just people with more money and opportunity moving up to what they see as a better lifestyle. Is it segregationist? Sure, not everyone could afford it, and there was exclusion along racial lines in the US. But that wasn't the fault of the suburbs themselves, African Americans just wanted the opportunity to live in them the same as any white American.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tesla is losing the battery storage market to east asian competitors, both old (Samsung, Panasonic) and new (CATL). Tesla has even started buying CATL batteries for its cars, because vertical integration can't beat economies of scale in this case. The humanoid robot is still firmly in gimmick territory, and they're still way behind Boston Dynamics and Unitree in practical mobile robotics. Personally I don't think Tesla has much of a hope of being any more than a bit player in the energy storage market, the giant battery manufacturers just have too many advantages.
As for the cars, it's hard to say. On the EV front legacy automakers are catching up along with some startups like Polestar and Rivian, and while they often can't match the feature set of Tesla, they can make up for it with superior build quality and some offer a wider range of vehicles. Charging networks do seem to be somewhere Tesla is well ahead in some markets, mainly because the competition seems to want to copy it with walled garden membership systems (seriously, just put a f'kin card reader on the thing and be done with it! Thankfully this seems to be changing) without the scale to pull it off. Self driving is the big unknown, Tesla is doing well at the moment but it's insistence on a purely visual system without use of new technologies like low cost solid state radar and lidar might mean it falls behind in future if it doesn't change its mind (which it probably will but still). EV's are still in a position where they are upmarket vehicles that are not being sold to the masses (though at the moment that seems to be all new cars!) so there's a big prize to the company that can break in to the midrange and budget market with a practical (i.e. not a tiny battery) but affordable EV. That could be Tesla, but I think it's likely that to could be someone else, maybe a legacy automaker but perhaps even one of those new Chinese companies able to reduce costs through massive economies of scale. With a new vehicle ICE ban looming in many nations and EV prices still out of reach for many, customers will need to buy something, and if the only affordable options with more than a 50 mile range are some no name Chinese marques, then that's what they'll have to get.
2
-
The problem is that once you get to very high net worth individuals, wealth becomes a rather complicated thing to measure, and the effect of a wealth cap would have a very different impact on different individuals even in they are similarly wealthy on paper. Let's for a start ignore trusts and all the other machinations these people could use to skirt a wealth cap, and assume the system is pretty watertight.
Let's consider two billionaires of similar wealth, billionaire A and billionaire B. A founded a company that made it big, really big, a company that's worth tens or even hundreds of billions and they have a large percentage or even complete ownership of said company. B started out similar to A, but is significantly older than A, and has sold most of their stake in the company they founded. Instead they have a family office or similar investment vehicle that splits their wealth into a diverse array of investments.
So a wealth cap comes along, and both A and B are over the limit. What can they do? B can sell or give away some of their shares, spread around all of their investments. There is a hit to stock prices, but it's fairly evenly spread out so the damage isn't too great. A doesn't have those shares to sell or give away, they can only raise funds by selling shares or an ownership stake in their company. This will likely lower the value of their company as selling a lot of shares often does, and could cause a vicious feedback loop that wipes billions off the stock price. It might even mean the government has to seize a majority ownership stake as that's the only way A can get under the cap, so we end up with nationalisation by stealth. Perhaps A decides it's best to avoid the hassle by constraining their company's growth, perhaps they won't invest in that new factory or hire 1000 more employees. Which is obviously not an outcome many people actually want.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I visited Naxos a couple of years ago, and the last time I'd visited was pre-crisis, a couple of years before the fall. The increase in tourism from when I last visited was substantial. This was in late September, which was usually a quieter period compared to the peak in August as the weather becomes cooler and wetter, but there were still a lot of tourists. Where there used to be housing has sprung up may new hotels, guest houses and restaurants (a bit of a shame since many locals had been displaced from the town centre into the surrounding villages). Sure, you could still find a lot of empty abandoned concrete shells outside the city, but those had been a feature even before the crisis. The demographics of the tourists had also changed. There were a lot more long distance tourists (USA, Canada, Australia/NZ, even a few Chinese and Japanese) among the Germans, Brits and Swedes that had been the staple tourist groups since air travel become affordable to the masses. As far as I can tell many of the tourism dependant island economies are recovering rapidly. I don't know it's that's reflected on the mainland though.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LA90598 Manchester has lots of new skyscrapers, and so does Birmingham, Leeds and Glasgow, but their infrastructure and size still trails London enormously. You can see this by metro area population, London has 9.5 million, Birmingham and Manchester have about 2.7 million each, and Leeds and Glasgow only has 1.9 million and 1.6 million respectively. Infrastructure is also massively superior in London, with a large network of metro lines and commuter rail with multiple cross city routes, let alone a vast bus network. The other cities have some light rail or a single tiny metro line, or in the case of Leeds, nothing but buses. A lot of the north south divide is due to the domination of London and the South East in the UK economy, while cities elsewhere in the country have been improving they still lag way behind.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I know someone who is an earthquake engineer in New Zealand who I discussed this sort of thing with, and that's not typically true. The dirty secret is that many earthquake resiliency measures, past and present, are "consumable", i.e. they can only withstand so much total shaking before they fail. After a major earthquake these measures are inspected, and combined with records of earthquakes in the area, inspectors can determine if such measures will survive another major earthquake and whether the structure is safe to be repaired, or is condemned for demolition and reconstruction (a historic structure may be worth the cost of installing or replacing resiliency measures without complete demolition, i.e. Christchurch Cathedral, but in most cases it isn't worth it and generally requires the building to be gutted for several years). So in most cases a new home, even with identical earthquake proofing measures (which is usually not the case as newer structures are generally built to stricter codes), is going to be safer than an old home because it has experienced fewer earthquakes, and so the earthquake resiliency measures have a longer "quakespan" remaining.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pedrolopes3542 Norway is nearly 100% Hydro, Iceland is 70% with 30% Geothermal thanks to its very thin crust, Finland is 20% but 30% Nuclear and a lot comes from burning sawmill waste which is practically free. Spain is the only one you mentioned with significant non-hydro renewables with 20% Wind and 10% Solar, but still has 20% Hydro and 20% Nuclear, and I suspect the difference between it and France disappears when you consider labour costs and other factors.
Your correlation is not between renewables and energy price, it's between hydroelectric power and energy price. In fact, if you look at the EU countries with the highest capacity of non-hydro renewable energy capacity like Denmark or Germany (yes Germany still burns a lot of coal but a lot less than it used to), lo and behold you have the highest energy prices. Hydroelectric is not as simple as damming a river either, you need a suitably high flow rate and hydraulic head for dam construction to be financially viable. It's also not without environmental cost, you flood many square kilometres of land above the dam and reduce the river volume below the dam, not to mention issues with fish migration.
I'm not opposing renewables, just being realistic about their capabilities. If Europe want to rely more on non-hydro renewables like wind and solar, electricity prices will rise and will stay high because they are not as cheap as they first seem. The base cost per KWh seems very attractive until you factor in spinning reserve or storage, transmission, advanced grid management and so on. Non-hydro renewables externalise a lot of their financial costs to the grid as a whole.
2
-
@pedrolopes3542 All I can say is, you have an overly simplistic view of the real costs of electrical energy. Smart grids cost extra money to build and to run. Residential solar only reduces residential consumption (for the most part) and in many polar countries only works about half the year. Batteries cost money and resources and we don't nearly have enough to manage the intermittent supply of renewables, not even remotely close. And just because a renewable energy resource is theoretically extractable does not mean it is in any way economic to do so. We could have geothermal everywhere if we spent hundreds of trillions drilling millions of very very deep holes all over the world, but clearly we'd all be bankrupt. Same for solar if we built a Dyson swarm.
China has the largest everything in the world when it comes to power generation. Coal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, everything, because it's an energy hog. So it's really not a good argument.
Call me a troll if you wish, as it seems to be your response to anyone who disagrees with you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justcommenting4981 There are a couple of problems to being underwater, and they both result in you losing a lot of money. Firstly, if you want to sell, and the price offered is less than the remaining mortgage, the mortgage provider will demand you make up the difference from your own pocket before they will allow the sale. That could be tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, money which many people simply don't have. You might be able to get a loan if your credit is good, but obviously an unsecured loan is going to have a way higher APR than your mortgage, 3-5% vs 10-20%, or worse. So you end up losing money in interest. And even if you can afford it, it could mean you have little to no money left to purchase even a shoebox, since the mortgage company has taken it all, or you have to take on a bigger mortgage with a higher interest rate because your deposit (which usually comes from the sale of your previous home) has been decimated. Secondly, if you're on a fixed deal and it comes to an end, very likely no mortgage provider will offer you anything, as underwater mortgages are a big default risk, you may have been prime before, but now you're pretty much junk. So you end up on the most expensive deal your current mortgage provider offers, again losing lots of money in interest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Personally, for actual residential streets, with lots of parked cars, cul de sacs and the like, 20mph makes total sense, there's likely to be lots of pedestrians about and the roads are short. For all other roads, I think it needs to be approached on a case by case basis. How wide is the road, are there a lot of shops nearby, is there a school nearby, etc. By all means make it 20 outside a school or a high street, but on a main road in a built up area with only a few pedestrians, 30 is fine. Making it 20 otherwise seems like they're discouraging driving by making it as slow as cycling (an experienced cyclist on flat terrain can go 20mph, so plenty of the MAMIL's will be keeping up with the cars in a 20 zone).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Honestly this is pretty mild compared to some of the stuff I hear coming out of Canada nowadays. I wouldn't go as far to say it's reasonable, some of the substitutions are terrible, nonsensical or just plain inaccurate (especially when there's plenty of good neutral terms they could have used), but I have to admit they kind of have a point with some of them, some of the terms mentioned are often archaic and in some english speaking countries, pretty offensive, which is a point you made.
Compared to the utter media circus that was the Kamloops graves (whose existence has still not been physically determined), silly "land acknowledgements" that are nothing but performative boilerplate, and tragically, the story of a teacher possibly bullied into s*icide because they dared to challenge the rhetoric of a DEI consultant at a mandatory workshop, this is a mild annoyance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@goste4 You seem like a strong idealist, you think the legal system is deeply flawed, and I do agree there are many ways it could be improved. But if we are to be practical, then these sorts of protections become a necessary evil for many.
Being rich, particularly sudden wealth, can be a burden, things can get quite complicated when you have a lot of money. That's why people exist to manage wealth through schemes like this.
You are right, it is rich people suing rich people, but with fully exposed assets, the rich who use top lawyers to abuse the legal system to profit will win, and those who acquire wealth through more honest means will lose. Unless you just hate all rich people, wouldn't you want the latter protected from the former?
And obviously wealthy people don't just go to the local civil court to sort out multi million dollar lawsuits, so your example isn't very good.
2
-
2
-
@goste4 I'll admit I was curious, I have my strong suspicions and wanted to confirm them. Honestly if you'd said you were a hardcore socialist and fuck the rich, I would have used it as an excuse to end this debate based on irreconcilable political differences. I wouldn't want to mock you for your views as much as I would disagree with them (I personally identify as an economic center to center left), but I would be arguing with a brick wall otherwise.
I don't think your argument makes that much sense. It's not like rich people can set it up so they never have any money at all, they must have some personal wealth to pay for life expenses like the rest of us, indeed if they have a trust set up they legally must receive a regular income from it, which could be garnished just like a wage. Besides, wage garnishment isn't used that much for civil compensation except for specific beneficiaries such as child support. Generally if you don't have the money you're "judgement proof" beyond your ability to pay. So for the same case, you generally can get significantly more money from a rich person than a poor person, all other things being equal.
And again, abolishing such structures will benefit many people other than other rich people. There aren't that many poor or middle people who could sue rich people and win. Why abolish something to make some rich people's lives more miserable, with little to no benefit to anyone who isn't rich?
Both rich and poor people can declare bankruptcy as well, and the consequences make it a significant deterrent for both.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The question I kept asking myself throughout the video was simple: "What's the alternative?". And in most cases, I couldn't think of anything realistic that's better than the status quo. Reservations, as was pointed out, are, in isolation, giant money sinks. People living in the reservation need compensation in order to survive, either through employment or benefits, so they don't have to farm the land. Rangers need to be paid to keep out poachers, loggers, ranchers and others. Even asking a wealthy nation to spend tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars a year keeping a huge chunk of their land pristine and undeveloped for the sake of wildlife with no income from that land is a tall order. So asking a nation like Tanzania to do that is nigh on impossible. Unless you have some multi trillion dollar UN global fund that literally just pays countries to leave that land alone, they're going to need to find a source of income. And even then, it's going to seem cruel to keep impoverished countries poor by only giving them enough to maintain their reservations. It's unreasonable to expect their tourism and trophy hunting income to be cost neutral, they've got ambitions to develop and improve their people's standard of living, of course they want to make a profit out of it.
The only thing that really surprised me is the prices for trophy hunting. I assumed the fees would be significantly higher, and do wonder if the price could be raised so fewer animals are killed while the income remains the same or is greater. Someone ought to do a study on that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Where you live also makes a difference. In places like the UK and Ireland, we have huge amounts of otherwise useless grassland, all it's good for agriculturally is growing grass or grazing livestock. We do produce a lot of beef, but it's different to something from a corn-fed feedlot in the Midwest US, and arguably more sustainable as it's mostly fed on a resource we can't use (water is also less of an issue as these grasslands tend to be in areas of high rainfall, though droughts do still occur from time to time, this year has been a problem).
There's also the issue a lot of the staple foods that are farmed like corn and wheat can vary enormously in quality. A farmer in the US told me how they grade corn. Grades 1 and 2 go for human consumption, but grade 3 and below is fed to animals or turned into biofuel. All farmers would like as much grade 1 and 2 as possible, it sells for a better price. But a bad season can produce a lot of inferior grades, which would otherwise be wasted. At least corn has the alternative of being used as a biofuel (though I think it sells for more as animal feed), a lot of crops don't have this option. In fact, there is a huge issue of wastage in arable farming, from poor quality to overproduction due to poor demand forecasting. One way to make animal agriculture more sustainable is processing more of this waste into animal feed (sugar beet pulp after the sugar has been extracted is already a popular cattle feed). Or find a way to turn more low grade plant based food into something platable (and probably highly processed).
It's a complicated issue, and I doubt those concessions alone are good enough to justify current levels of production, but it's not as cut and dry as just replacing fields of livestock with fields of lettuce or wheat.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ChineseKiwi There's a difference between new construction and life extension. Plants undergoing life extension have already paid off their original construction costs, there's not nearly as much paperwork or bureaucracy to wade through, and locals are used to a power station in their backyard, so what if it runs an extra 10 years, it's still not going anywhere!
With all that said, your comparison needs some adjustment to be fair. Let's take it out of a fairly ideal country for solar and stick it somewhere less ideal, like Northern Europe. So we'll give solar a capacity factor of 0.15 and nuclear 0.9, fairly reasonable for modern systems. So average generation of the solar array would be about 300 MW over the year, nuclear 4840 MW. So that means solar is really just under half the cost of nuclear rather than over 10 times less. Still a good saving. But then consider the space required, 2GW of solar panels takes up a lot of land if it's all in one place. Distributing it more, like with household solar, will require more inverters and grid infrastructure which would add to the cost. Finally, more polar latitudes will have more seasonal variation in output, and less sunny climates will also have to deal with the weather which will also vary output. So a storage setup that's based on a simple day/night cycle will not work, you would need a grid capable of dealing with these long term annual cycles of day and night length, as well as fairly random fluctuations due to weather. So you're going to end up with something more complex than just storing energy long enough to make it through the night. That's going to add even more cost, and as these all add up solar just becomes less and less of an obvious leader when it comes to choosing generation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@FOLIPE If it costs more or the product is considered inferior for whatever reason, whether that be taste, resilience, or ease of transport, then you will need to pay more than you normally would, in some way or another. Zebu meat is generally considered inferior to Holstein, it can actually be cheaper to import it from abroad than to buy locally produced beef in many parts of the world. So if the farmers switch to Zebu, they are going to make less money on exports, and they might not even be able to sell it for as much in local markets.
Standardisation can be very important in food processing. If you're making potato chips from a few huge factories, you ideally want all your potatoes to be the same or very similar cultivars, roughly the same size and starch concentration. Same with bread and baked goods so that covers cereals as well. If you were to use smaller more flexible factories, costs would increase and you'd have to sell at a premium.
It all comes down to cost whatever way you look at it. Unless technology can somehow make it no more expensive to use a more diverse crop (and there's absolutely no guarantee that it can) or you can make inferior cultivars a lot better, then there will always be that economic pressure to optimise unless you subsidise to change the economics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
We're not going to go back to the Edison model of the grid even with renewables. Even if we have local generation with 100% renewables (something I also seriously doubt), they will need to be strongly interconnected to allow a failure in one area to be compensated for by others. Many renewable proponents advocate something Tesla would be proud of, supranational grids of huge capacity allowing immense amounts of energy to flow from one region to another, as it allows sunny and windy areas so supply dark and windless ones. Probably the most efficient way for northern Europe to run on solar would be to import nearly all of it from more southern countries (politics and energy security nonwithstanding), such as north Africa and the Med as insolation levels are poor. And local generation is not a given with renewables either, hydro and wind tend to be in isolated areas, and rooftop solar with powerwalls only goes so far, you'd still have massive farms that act like big power stations.
The only way I can see anything like Edison's model happening is if we invent a compact, ultra reliable generator that can be installed in homes or local neighbourhoods, offices and factories, and generates no CO2. something like a Mr. Fusion perhaps.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ProfessorDaveExplains No scientist is authoritative outside their field, and you can expect some to espouse views that are wrong in that respect. The question is are their arguments reasonable within their own field? As for the transphobia, I assume you're talking about his dislike of alternative pronouns. It seems to me that it is a protest against the legal mandate in his country to use them or be charged with a hate crime. Perhaps you disagree on that front, which is fair, but this is really a matter of personal preference, not an anti scientific position.
But even if we discount Peterson, there are others. And many more that aren't famous but keep their views quiet for fear of retribution.
In the end I absolutely agree with you that controversy can shield bad actors. But I won't deny there isn't a problem with political bias and lack of political diversity within some scientific fields, and I fundamentally disagree with those who justify it by saying "science is naturally left wing". Academia is left wing through a self reinforcing feedback loop which pushes away or silences a lot of people who aren't, though of course some do hang on with a lot of determination. I'm not particularly right wing myself, I'd personally describe myself as center leaning ever so slightly left, but I'm still glad I'm in an engineering field where politics thankfully has little influence (and I hope it stays that way).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think we need to look at more than reusability alone for advancement in space travel technology, we need to look at how many times your vehicle can be reused. If a reusable booster is good for say, 10-20 launches without need to be majorly reconditioned or scrapped, that's good, but to really bring the cost down, we need vehicles that can do 100's or even 1000's of launches with minimal maintenance and servicing. You know, like a modern airplane, which often clock up 30-40,000 flights in their lifetime.
Certainly reusability is not a done and dusted technological achievement, there needs to be advancements in reliability to allow more and more reuses. Maybe rockets can achieve that, maybe we will have to look at alternatives. Who knows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Quickshot0 Rockets have sustained G-forces unlike rollercoasters or jet fighters, so a centrifuge is probably the closest, but probably not quite equivalent, a rocket has a lot more mass than most centrifuges, and aren't as reinforced!
You may be right, maybe these things turn out to be very resilient. But I think in comparison to an aircraft, a rocket has a lot more stress to deal with in general. It's just the nature of a more ballistic flight trajectory. Add in all these rapid reorientation manoeuvres to enable booster re-use, and it's likely put under even more stress.
FYI, stress is the pressure that is exerted on an area of material, and strain is how much it has deformed. Excessive deformation isn't good, but there's also cracking to consider. Likely it'll be the latter that would limit the lifespan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@daletidy. Toronto average low in Jan is only -7 (Same as Chicago), Ottawa -10 (Less than Minneapolis). Montreal is only slightly lower than Minneapolis, and Calgary and Quebec city only a little more.
And lack of sunlight, really? Montreal is at the same latitude as Stuttgart, and they get plenty of daylight even in winter, you'll get a good 8 hours of daylight, that can hardly be a major economic limitation. Plus you get up to 17 hours of daylight in summer to compensate.
There are many reasons why Canada is never going to be as prosperous as the US, and the climate does play a major role. But I really don't think it's because most Canadian cities are less dynamic because of the climate. As I've pointed out, there are large, prosperous US cities which maintain a thriving economy despite adverse weather conditions. If the city half shuts down in winter, then it's got other economic barriers to success. I don't think blaming the climate, unless you're in the middle of siberia, is a good excuse, especially today.
1
-
@BallistikKitty Buffalo, Boulder, Minneapolis, Chicago, all these US places deal with cold winters, lots of snow and ice. If they can manage a thriving economy, so can Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, and I don't really see any evidence they aren't. As for dark days in winter, there are these things called street lights, they work pretty well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you want more walkable cities, you have to get more people to accept high-density living. Some people say suburbia is a cancer, but the fact is a lot of people like to live there, they get their own back garden, they don't have to share space with so many other people, and it's generally quieter and more peaceful. Persuading people to give that up requires a cultural change and revaluation of aspiration. It's not just an issue in the US, though it is perhaps most pronounced there. Even here in the UK, we have an aversion to high rise living as either for the very rich in their penthouses atop chic modern glass skyscrapers, or the very poor in filthy concrete crime-infested monstrosities. I would personally hate it, I'm lucky in that I live in suburbia and work in the city but both are in proximity to a regular suburban rail line. Many people aren't so lucky, both home and work are distant and poorly served by P/T, so they have to commute by car.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I would disagree with the battery storage. It's not so much technology, it's technologically feasible to add enough storage, it's the cost, materials available, land, and labour needed to build enough of it. When you sit down and do the maths, the amount of energy storage required by a country like the UK, with a very large seasonal variation in solar and wind being very unpredictable, is gargantuan. It would require over 100 times the amount of energy storage we have currently, more like 150-200 times when you consider increasing demand due to electrification. Storage has gotten cheaper, but the costs haven't fallen nearly as fast as green generation, mainly because all options need a lot of raw materials, be it concrete for pumped storage or lithium/sodium for batteries. That's fine for countries where seasonal variation is small or non existent and the sun shines a lot more than it does here, but at 50 degrees north under a sky that is often overcast, it means you need at least a weeks worth of energy storage to maintain a reliable grid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SGast Automation can be difficult and expensive, but that's my point, fast food restaurants don't always adopt it because it doesn't always save money. But if your employees get more expensive, then the threshold where it does make money is approached more readily. Most fast casual restaurant work is fairly repetitive, making a pizza or burrito is the same number of steps every time pretty much. These often can be at least semi automated for a price, and that still cuts down the number of workers you need.
And when it comes to restaurants, it might be harsh to say but I think the only skilled work outside of the very high end of Sommeliers and other professional FOH roles are chefs and managers. Honestly for fast food and a lot of fast casual I would say even they aren't particularly skilled, if it doesn't require a long apprenticeship or culinary school it's not a skilled role, sorry. I never said they were easy or not exhausting, but just because a job doesn't require a lot of skills and training doesn't make it easy.
But chefs are even more screwed as they're specialised, they can only work in restaurants with the skills they have, unless they want to chase the tiny niches of personal chefs and food development.
Of course people can be retrained, but only for jobs that exist, and the most acute worker shortages in the US are these service and hospitality roles. A lot of other things they could train for don't really have these big shortages and more, and in some cases are actually shedding jobs.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SamyasaSwi From the US, well you only need to look at their obesity rate to make a judgement on that. As for Italy, they've got lots of healthy dishes that are easy to find online, pizza and pasta can be fairly balanced with the right toppings. But the Dutch? Maybe a couple of stews, fish soups, sausage and cabbage, that's really it, and they're not super prominent.
We know the Dutch don't eat bitterballen and poffertjes every day, sure, but if you take an average of all Dutch cuisine I'd argue it's going to be more deep fried, fatty and sweet than its peers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SamyasaSwi There is a certain amount of social conditioning I'll admit, in societies which tend to be more collectivist, which is most of Europe, and more importantly the generally left wing urbanites, denser living arrangements tend to work better. But that's kind of the political thorn in the side of these things, what's best for "us" is split down ideological lines. The left is going to see co-operative, diverse, highly social living arrangements as more attentive than the right, who see individualistic, family centered, private arrangements as more attractive. And who is to say who is right? People prefer different conditions, and someone who doesn't live in their ideal conditions may simply have nothing to compare it to until they experience it for themselves. A Dutch person who is relatively OK in an apartment block, but not brilliant, may move to the US and decide a detached house in the suburbs is way better and won't want to go back, and of course vice versa.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SamyasaSwi I know what you've been trying to say and I disagree with it, because it would make the Dutch exceptional to everyone else, especially in Europe.
As for macronutrient regulations, most European countries have those, including us (not really working here though are they!).
So either that's the case or your experience is not representative, and I believe the latter.
Honestly this is a lot of grief over a semi-joke, I'm beginning to think the Dutch don't have a sense of humour, but I'm also going to suggest your reaction is not representative. But hey, I took the bait and doubled down, I took you seriously in response and led you on, so I guess I'm to blame there.
1
-
@SamyasaSwi I know how these things go, I'd always be ignorant in your eyes unless I agreed with you. If I were to claim that British people were actually really healthy eaters would you believe me just because I said it? I don't think so. I'm not going to believe you just because you're Dutch, and I wouldn't expect you to believe me just because I'm British.
Honestly I think it's your completely humourless "well acktually" response that frustrated me, it took a long time for you to even concede that Dutch food does have somewhat of an unhealthy reputation, which was my original claim, then you move the goal posts to say it had zero impact on the actual diet because the Dutch eat other cuisines too, which is true about everyone but we don't claim their cuisine doesn't affect their diet at all either.
I almost feel that you reacted the way you did because I suggested the Dutch aren't a perfect culture who all eat healthy, exercise and live in ideal communities. But I don't think that can be true, you must be somewhat self critical, I've never met a leftist who doesn't have something bad to say about their own culture!
If my weakness is overconfidence, I think yours is lack of humility. I think we could have had a much better conversation if you'd been a bit more conciliatory and willing to play into the joke, something like "Yeah, Dutch cuisine doesn't have the best reputation for being healthy (which I think we've established is true) but of course we don't eat the most unhealthy stuff every day. Perhaps the bikes do help us keep a kilo or two off a year!" (A reasonably small effect, and non-commital). Perhaps that's not a position you can agree with, but I think it might be. I'd do that with claims about the British that were a bit exaggerated (except for the teeth, I'm damn sick of that stereotype because it's so common and completely untrue).
1
-
1
-
@SamyasaSwi Well then by that logic nobody can joke about any culture that is not their own or that they have studied extensively, because they don't have the knowledge and experience to do so. And they certainly can't exaggerate even a little bit, everything must be taken seriously and at face value.
Yes, I'm not Dutch, I don't have a perfect knowledge of a Dutch diet. But if the first things people see when they Google your cuisine is deep fried snacks and sugar, I don't think that's just a coincidence. If people didn't eat these things regularly I don't think they would be there. If that's not the case, then the Dutch are very exceptional or are extremely bad at documenting their own culture.
But perhaps this has all been a misunderstanding. In my original response to you, I said "kernel of truth". Perhaps you didn't understand what that meant. That means a small, not very consequential truth. I do not believe these foods completely define the Dutch diet, as much as any other countries most famous dishes do. But I think it's reasonable to believe there's a small effect. Are you going to find hard evidence for it? Probably not. I think perhaps you believe that my statement was to be taken at face value, and argued against it accordingly. And in response I did not readily indicate otherwise, which is on me.
1
-
1
-
@SamyasaSwi I do disagree with that, I think an image search does prove something, even if it's just a little. You were basically arguing that what I find on the internet about Dutch cuisine bears absolutely zero relation, absolutely none, nada, zip to the Dutch diet, even when that doesn't apply to any other culture. But I did just wonder if you thought I was excessively exaggerating my claim, but it's clear you see any relation, even the tiniest one, as objectionable and deeply incorrect.
Of course the conversation wouldn't have happened if I said you were 100% right and I was 100% wrong, but that would be dishonest of me. It would have also completely ruined the joke, but that's another matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@SamyasaSwi I don't think that's a comparable example, you don't find such a significant correlation between national dress and people's wardrobes, but you do tend to with food. Also many traditional clothing items are archaic, as fashions have become globalised, but food has hung on a lot more.
But anyway, I think we must agree to disagree on that, I'm sure you are very tired of that argument, as am I.
I do find it interesting though that I would readily admit that stereotypical British foods, the ones any half arsed Google search would find, do still contribute significantly to our diet, whereas you don't say the same for your culture. Do you think I'm wrong about my own culture or that the Dutch are different? Do be honest if you can.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The way I see it, fusion research is full of unknowns. We could have a viable design for a fusion power plant in 10 years, 30 years, 50 years, or maybe never (though I think that's unlikely). It's a field full of different ideas, different designs and different challenges, and nobody really knows what will be the one that changes the world, the "Kittyhawk" reactor that realises the dream. In some way it's exciting, but it's also regularly disheartening. It also leads some to conclude it's not worth even trying, that renewables and perhaps fission are the future, fusion is a dead end (seriously, if I had a nickel for every someone glibly talks about "the great fusion reactor in the sky" without mentioning all of the problems such an indirect and inefficient energy capture method entails). I say to that it would be like saying in the 19th century "Why bother trying to make a plane? We have ships and balloons, they do the job". I'm sure many people back then may have felt the same way about aircraft as we do about fusion, that it was an impossible dream, flight is for the birds, not for us, fusion is for the sun, not for us.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's interesting how the UK and Germany differed with post war reconstruction. Both had cities that were pretty much equally bombed to shit. But I think in the UK there was more of a diffusion of people out of the cities. Like the US, people in the UK tend to prefer low density housing over apartment blocks, and the aftermath of WW2 arguably accelerated a trend of suburbanisation. There were also the "New Town" projects which expanded small existing settlements ten or even a hundred fold into, well, new towns. Vast housing estates were built all over the country. It was very car dependant, but in a different way, more spread out, lots of individual driveways instead of vast underground garages. Of course some tower blocks were built, but the result was the same as in Germany, they attracted crime and only the poor and desperate wanted to live in them, even the worst housing estates out in the suburbs were better.
Nowadays things are a little bit different, some new towns have suffered as the UK economy has become increasingly centralised around London, those in commuting distance like Milton Keynes have benefited but others are struggling. New apartment blocks tend to be a bit better quality but are still disliked by many people, especially after Grenfell Tower. Vast identikit housing estates are still being built in suburban and rural areas, but increasing resistance from locals slow their progress. Public transport is generally poor in all but a few of the biggest cities and is generally worse for local transport than Germany (if perhaps slightly better for regional rail).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Trump probably thinks project 2025 is too puritan for his tastes. He's never been that kind of ultra-conservative, I think some of the positions he adopts are just pandering to them rather than reflecting a true belief in their cause, he's not going to adopt their manifesto wholesale.
I think a Trump presidency would result in a period of instability and unrest, likely stronger than last time, but I'm not convinced he'll be able to do much of what he wants. Trump had plenty of opportunity to make these changes last time he was in power, and some he tried, but ultimately with a few notable exceptions, he didn't get very far.
I don't think the doomsday scenario where the US turns into a Trump dictatorship is very likely, I'd say near impossible. Neither do I think a full blown civil war is really possible. But I could see a period of severe civil unrest like Italy in the 60's and 70's where there are frequent riots, and terrorist acts like bombings, assassinations and mass shootings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't think the argument here is whether the systems are inadequate, it is obvious they are not and I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't hard right who thinks otherwise. The argument is around how to fix them. You can do one of two things, improve on the system you have or throw the system away (or "smash the system" as it's often said) and start again. The former is reform, the latter is revolution. While it's silly to generalise "the movement" as coming down on one side or the other, a vocal subset are certainly advocating strongly for option B, and I think it's fair to criticise them on that because of the rosy view Americans have of revolution.
However, I can understand exactly why people who are angry, frustrated and fed up with the inevitably slow pace of reform feel so attracted to revolution. It feels easier when where you want to be feels so far away. "If only stark inequality and racism just vanished overnight" must be a strong desire in so many people, and proponents of various economic and social "-isms" will happily persuade people that this is what will happen if the average citizen threw off their metaphorical chains, ate the rich, and replaced the old system with something new and shiny. But I have to agree with UEG on this one, revolutions usually don't work, they don't bring the benefits people want, or if they do they come with dire consequences (The old saying "all communists are equal, equally impoverished" comes to mind, even though even that wasn't true as those in power enriched themselves). Reform feels like it's just too slow, and when people are dying that can easily tempt people off the path. But in the long run it does lead to more stable and meaningful change.
So for people crying for revolution, I understand your pain, but think before you leap, would this really work, because I bet it almost certainly wouldn't. You will also probably make more of an impact pushing for reform, and yes, maybe sometimes reform could be sped up a little, though again, you have to be careful you don't create more problems down the line.
1
-
1
-
I think there are a couple of political/cultural issues that make building homes difficult in europe. One is a cultural reverence of agriculture and rural life, and a constant worry over food security, this makes building on farmland, which often surrounds cities, particularly unpalatable. Nightmarish images of bucolic european countryside being concreted over in a wave of urban sprawl have haunted europeans since the 19th century. Another is the massive number of historical buildings in cities and the strong desire to preserve them, and the general idea that no european city wants to end up looking like Singapore or numerous cities in China, old buildings swept away and replaced by a forest of modern skyscrapers.
Personally I think the path of least resistance is residential conversion in urban centres. Europe does still have a lot of ugly post war office buildings nobody would miss, and converting those plots into housing would probably not raise too many objections. I appreciate the office vacancy rate isn't as high as some places in the US, but you might be able to increase supply by about 5% in many cities, which would add up over a lot of cities and are generally where these new immigrants are moving to. There's also some low value industrial areas quite close to city centres in some cities which might be suitable for housing, I know Leeds is building a lot of apartments on what used to be a railway yard. Again something very few people would miss. That might not be enough, but it would at least help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@firstlast-cs6eg Yes, I saw this one too. Most capitalist countries do have these kinds of public housing. But they are of course mostly reserved for those who cannot afford private housing. There are still issues, people often treat public housing with less respect, leading to crime and vandalism. NIMBYism is more of a social than economic phenomenon so I don't think capitalism makes that much of a difference there, though a more statist government will find it easier to overrule them. Also a lot of people just don't want to live in that kind of housing, so you can only build so much. This of course varies between cultures, east Asians are more amenable to small, urban homes than Americans or Australians, and Europeans are somewhere in the middle. As always, it's complicated. I think part of it is because a lot of young left wing people tend to prefer this kind of housing more than others, they prefer more communal space and don't actually plan on spending all that much time at home.
1
-
1
-
@firstlast-cs6eg Again, seen it. Perhaps you have more faith in a strong government than I do. I'm not completely against the government owning "natural monopolies" like water, roads and railways, as long as those are kept at arms length. In my country NIMBY'S are mainly in the countryside resisting new identikit housing estates doubling the size of small villages and clogging up local roads. And without them we would have built a lot more motorways in the 60's and 70's, so you might find you were on their side at times. Private developers can build some rather nice apartment blocks and townhomes, I understand the need for the poorest to have subsidised housing, which may be government owned, but I don't think it's a good idea to extend it to everyone, especially as it will drastically reduce home ownership. Not even the Nordics do that, the only country that really comes close is ironically that bastion of capitalism and rather authoritarian nation of Singapore, and it is a lot of giant apartment buildings. But Singapore has so many people and so little space that I sort of understand their position as exceptional.
Sometimes it's not so much that a "socialist" idea is bad on paper, but that the experience of its implementation over the decades has generally been negative.
1
-
1
-
@firstlast-cs6eg I did, but my post got deleted this time!
To summarise what I said, my first point was that we already have the first thing you said in cap societies, it's called a condominium or condo, they're very common in certain countries like the US, as a form of shared private ownership. That's about as "for the people" as you can get. Of course you still need a developer to build the thing, but that's always been the case even for public housing unless you use a state run construction company (which most countries don't for a variety of reasons).
The whole "soc has not been tried" argument I don't really buy, as whenever examples are given there's a "no true scotsman" argument to discount it. I also disagree that capi doesn't work, because so far capi countries have been fairly stable and soc and com countries have not. It's not perfect, but I'd disagree that it's not a functioning system.
I'm not against apartment blocks per se, if they are well built, attractive, appropriately located and a response to local demand for them. Hence why I think it's important for their construction not to be driven mostly by central planning. Some limited construction may be needed to alleviate local population issues (though sometimes the problem is more complex than lack of accommodation, homelessness can occur even where there is a residential surplus), but I don't think we need to house everyone in state planned and/or owned housing.
I can understand the issue NIMBYS can cause, but I also appreciate that people generally want to live in a particular environment and changing that environment often confers resistance. I also appreciate that local objections are not always baseless or selfish, they can have wider legitimate concerns, and that can include putting too many people in a place that does not have the infrastructure or environment to support them.
1
-
1
-
@firstlast-cs6eg Apologies for not replying sooner, no offence but your posts are long, verbose, and tiring to read, and I needed a break. I would not like to find another venue to debate as I would rather keep debates like this contained to a few outlets for the sake of my own sanity, but thank you for the offer.
Here's the thing, your housing proposals have been tried, in part or in full, over the past century. Communist governments have housed people in gargantuan apartment complexes in pretty much exactly the manner you're imagining, and capitalist governments have also done the same but generally only for those who could not afford anything else. And when you have governments in charge of housing masses of people without having to respond to market forces, the result is "maximum housed, minimum cost". You get carbuncles made of cheap materials and built to the minimum of standards (sometimes, sometimes the builder cuts so many corners and a gas explosion causes half the tower to collapse). And I do believe aesthetics matter. People do not take pride in a living space that is an ugly expanse of stained concrete, you get graffiti, vandalism and crime. But to a government with budgetary pressures that's one of the first things to go.
But I accept that sometimes, *sometimes*, that is the only option available. So a few of these things will inevitably be built. But the idea of expanding their construction to house more people, or everyone, just doesn't appeal to me at all, especially if they start popping up in the middle of sleepy suburbs. Call me a NIMBY if you want, but I wouldn't want to live next to anything like that, ever. Not only would it be an eyesore, but now my quiet neighbourhood is full of hundreds more people. I don't want to live next to hundreds of people, the dozen or so on my street are enough. They're nice people, and I like that they're there, but I wouldn't want more of them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While country based caps might not be the best option, it does not really solve the problem, because in the end changing those restrictions to ones based on income or education will still make it impossible or highly impractical for a lot of those people to immigrate legally. You can't give everyone in the world an attainable legal option when it comes to countries like the US, because you'd have so many people attaining it that your numbers would skyrocket. And in the end immigration, like it or not, is a numbers game. You want just enough of the right kinds of people to keep the economy healthy and keep different political factions calm. Not too few, not too many.
Every immigration policy is designed around those numbers, how many do we want to let in every year, and who should they be in terms of education and financial standing (and let's face it, ethnicity and culture also regularly play a role even among liberals). That's not going to change by abolishing country caps, it just means that the requirements on education and income will tighten in order to keep the numbers stable.
For specific corner cases where children need to take care of parents, those can probably be addressed with something like a carers visa, that ends on death of the parents. It's harsh, but it's a practical option that isn't going to be considered a back door for unqualified people to get in.
Also it's important to remember many of the migrants illegally crossing are not Mexican, they're from poorer and more unstable central american countries like Nicaragua and El Salvador. Mexico's border with Belize and Guatemala is considered fairly porous, it is argued Mexico doesn't really care too much about illegal crossings as they know the vest majority will be transiting to the US. Making it harder to cross the US border, in theory puts pressure on the Mexicans to tighten up theirs as migrants clog up Mexican services and draw the ire of locals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think in terms of future racism, it is possible there will be very few white majority countries in 100 years time, and in places like the UK or US, white people could be a minority for the first time in their history. This isn't to suggest some "great replacement" conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that white populations are having children well below replacement rate, by choice, and some other non-white populations are still having quite a lot of children. White populations are also mixing with other races much more than they did in the past. So the future could see white populations join up with mixed and some other racial groups to preserve their own cultural power, or we see more animosity between smaller groups of people where whites are just one of many battling it out, with a greatly diminished influence from what we have today. In some ways it would be interesting to see the outcome. Of course it would be nice if everyone just got along with each other, but c'mon, let's be realistic here!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dustycarrier4413 I'm not going to get into metro systems, because even in countries with nationalised railways, metro systems are usually run separately, either privately or by the city. But Japan has no tendering process, they don't have lines regularly changing hands. I'd argue that the UK is perhaps the only country where there is significant competition at all when it comes to running trains on a route, even if it is separated in time. JR group absolutely dominates intercity and regional, and has a majority share of commuter services. Nobody else really gets a realistic shot at these routes.
It's privatised and a free market in name but is essentially an oligopoly that is going nowhere, none of the JR group entities will ever lose much of their control to anyone else. JR has the most profitable routes especially outside of cities. In the UK it could be as if British Rail was split into pieces, told to make a profit and UK government sold most of their shares. Sure, the odd branch line could get a private operator, but really British Rail still runs the show just now on paper they're a private company. But to the passenger, little has noticeably changed, maybe the colour of the logo and some new ticket options. It still works and feels like one operator to them in most cases.
Even then, out of all the JR entities, only about half are totally free of government ownership, less than in the UK before COVID. So they really should be considered semi-privatised.
1
-
1
-
@pawz3016 I'm sure it isn't, but I'm not going to consider the social and cultural aspects because they will be irrelevant 100 years from now in the face of new technology. I can see where you're coming from, but I think you're worrying about the current limitations of such technology that has barely even made it out of experimental prototypes. Given 100 years of progress, we could have made vast improvements in reliability, comfort and cost with such technologies. I personally doubt you'd have the same hesitation if you were making the same decision then rather than now.
As for accessible hiking trails, they are few and far between, none are in true wilderness, and many would argue for good reason. Many people wouldn't even consider them trails, since they so heavily engineer the natural landscape and tend to be more like roads in their design. Certainly it would be much better for everyone, and for nature, if everyone could enjoy low impact trails in true wilderness.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@melissasingleton58 As I've mentioned in other comments, I don't think this is entirely possible since some aspects of society are a zero sum game, what the majority enjoys are anathema to some people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Severe autism is a great example of this, a lot of neurotypical people love stimulation, and want to live in and experience stimulating environments. If you take that stimulation away for the sake of a minority who can't cope with it, you can imagine the uproar. The only truly workable solution I believe, to be brutally honest, is segregation, if not always in space but in time. That is really what happens now, we have "autism friendly" screenings of films but these don't integrate autistic people into society, they create a parallel society which is tailored to autistic needs.
Hopefully, we will get better at accommodating the needs of those with cognitive and developmental disabilities. But I really think it will still end up being a seperate society. I think we'll see "X friendly" self contained communities pop up which have their own specific rules and designed to cater for specific needs. Public spaces may have more special timeslots outside of typical busy periods where these people can come and do activities in an environment they are comfortable in. But I think that is as far as it will go unless we're prepared to consider "fixes" to allow these people to manage mainstream society better. Because I really don't think you can change society all that much before you end up in a situation where you can't please both sides, and in that case, majority wins.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's seems to be a message that men meed to become more empathetic and caring in order to be employable in the future. Sure, some of this will be social conditioning, but for some of us we either aren't very good at it or just don't find it comfortable. Don't get me wrong, we aren't cold emotionless drones and are friendly enough to talk to, but when it comes to emotionally supporting someone, especially someone who may be very ill, we stumble and find it difficult to relate. We may fall back on trying to solve problems (like a doctor would) rather than just giving them a shoulder to cry on. I'd also say there are probably many women who also have this problem, but I'd hazard a guess that this is a more "male" thing. That's probably why we prefer to become doctors than nurses, doctors fix things, they solve problems, whereas nursing is generally more about supporting the patient through the process.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I think the investors are party to blame, for pushing Tesla's stock price to ridiculous highs. At one point, Tesla had a higher market cap than every large legacy car maker in the world combined, Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen, the lot. And yet it only made a fraction of the number of vehicles even the smallest of those manufacturers in a year. It by all means made absolutely no sense. The only way it made sense was if Tesla wasn't seen as a car company, but as a tech company that just made cars on the side, that's often the justification I would hear from the muskolites. That all the real money was to be made in the battery tech and the autonomous driving AI sometime in the future, the cars themselves didn't really matter. The stratospheric stock price probably also fostered a culture of complacency. After all, if your product has all these quality issues and yet your stock is still going to the moon, is it really that much of a problem? I think Tesla would not have been facing these problems if the stock price had reflected reality. Building poor quality vehicles in a sane market makes investors unhappy and your stock price drops. Seeing that your market cap is much smaller than legacy auto makers, as it should be for a company that produces a fraction of the vehicles and has a fraction of the profits, also shows the company how far they need to grow and how they are progressing. Tesla could have sustainably increased in market cap over the last decade or so, and with the right decisions and just a bit of luck, they could join the table with the big auto makers, producing ten times the number of vehicles a year with a realistic valuation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think Wikimedia has two problems when it comes to its donations: Lack of transparency (pretty much already addressed in the video), and the alleged political biases in selecting the "community projects" some of this money goes to.
Now I'm not saying it's necessarily bad for a nonprofit to have a political bias, but I think Wikipedia in particular has to tread carefully because of its nature as being objective and unbiased is very important for an encyclopedia. And while Wikipedia itself is generally considered to be fairly politically neutral, there have been some allegations, I think not entirely without merit, that the community projects selected tend to be ideologically left leaning, a lot of stuff around ethnic minorities, feminism and LGBTQ, all of that jazz. Again, that might be fine if Wikimedia wasn't what it is, if it was some left wing philanthropic foundation wearing its politics on its sleeve. But it needs to maintain this air of neutrality and that bias is not helping.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chaos.corner Problem with cavity wall is it's really difficult, and expensive, to do it right. You can't see inside the cavity so it's easy for bridging to happen and be missed. Also, if your house has poor insulation, you're probably not getting the best value out of your heat pump, hence the high bills. The heat pump might work, sure, but it'll be on a lot more than a well insulated house.
I really do think if you amortise the emissions of a home over the long term, several decades, there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of cheaply built post war houses in the UK that would be better off seeing a wrecking ball. We do have one of the oldest average house ages in the world after all, and not all of it is because of victorian era construction.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think there is a reasonable middle ground to all of this. The most important thing to say is, like Christianity, Islam is a religion full of different denominations and spectrums of belief. Some are fairly moderate and I do not believe these Muslims present a threat to society in any way, there are those who perhaps have slightly more conservative attitudes to women than the majority of the UK population, but again I'm not convinced they pose much of a threat either. But there are those who really do have "medieval" attitudes to women and I think more efforts should be made to screen these people out before they migrate to the UK. I dont think there's much we can do about the ones who are already legally immigrated here, except to deport them swiftly if those attitudes lead them to commit horrible crimes, deporting them without a serious criminal conviction would set a dangerous precedent. But we can increase efforts to prevent more immigrating here, we have the power to reject those with undesirable attitudes even if they have no criminal record. And yes, of course there's a few white British men who also have "medieval" attitudes to women, but we can't legally deport them, they are our problem to deal with.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Lee-fw5bd My argument hasn't changed, I'm just addressing your particular responses which may not all be relevant to my original argument.
It is true that different groups have been in conflict with each other and that internal splits did happen in the pre Reddit and social media era. But I'd disagree that the most aggressive conflict is internal, because the option to split is there. External conflict cannot be resolved in this manner, so it continues, helped by the more complete awareness of each other we have now.
As I said before, if a community has to change their content or rules to protect themselves from outsiders causing trouble, not to uphold a community consensus, then that's clearly not just "dealing with negativity", that's people from the outside harming that community. Of course everyone has to deal with the usual trolls and spammers, but if they're targeted because of their content or beliefs, that's different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Realistically, jaywalking can be replaced with obstructing traffic. If a person deliberately prevents a vehicle from driving along the street at a reasonable speed, either by blocking their path or forcing them to slow to a crawl, that should be obstruction and attract a legal consequence, I think that's totally fair. It also goes without saying the driver is exempt from any civil liability if you are injured or killed by being run over and they could not reasonably have seen you and stopped. In theory they could sue you if you damage their vehicle for being reckless, but I can imagine that's probably not going to be very palatable.
In the end, we're not going back to the "slow" streets of the 1920's, at least outside of the busiest urban streets (which could easily be designated as shared spaces or could just be pedestrianised). Cars are too fast now, it's not safe, and while it's certainly reasonable to slow down traffic on some streets it's not something that could be done for every road that pedestrians cross regularly, especially outside of the CBD.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
6 years for an undergraduate degree is honestly way too long for a full time degree, unless it's some high paying profession like medicine or law. 3-4 years should be the norm, do a full 6 if you want a masters on top of it. I think part of the problem is US universities are too general in their education, forcing students to take courses they aren't interested in, which they gain knowledge from that they never use. You're not in high school anymore, this isn't about a well-rounded general education, you've already done that. Get rid of the major/minor system and focus on a single subject, and any classes outside that discipline are optional for the curious.
As for a solution, you can have free tuition or capped fees, but the universities have a lot less freedom over their finances, only getting a fixed income per student per year, from student fees, government grants, or both. This is kind of the model you find in some European countries, though the exact implementation can be very different. It's not without problems, universities will scramble to find alternative sources of income like endowments or non-EU students (who they can often charge a lot more for), and if you restrict that, well the universities practically become beholden to the whims of the state, which brings up questions over academic freedom, since a government can theoretically starve them of income if they become too hostile.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One thing that strikes me as possibly quite outdated, is that universities, especially large universities, are still usually highly generalist. You have an administrative layer cake of faculties, schools and departments, covering a very broad variety of disciplines, from hydraulic engineering to gender studies. Yes, there are universities that tend to lean in a more STEM direction, and those who lean towards liberal arts, but even these places have significant overlap. Berkeley still does engineering, MIT still does liberal arts.
I'm aware of the tradition of having a broad education, but there's a decent counterargument that in today's world, where students, researchers and employees are pushed into increasingly specialised fields, that such an ideal, while well meaning, isn't practical or economic any more. Universities could instead specialise in a few dozen courses focused around a narrow set of fields. If students want or need a broader education, well, they can learn that online. For the field they are studying, the university can attract the best professors, and promising teaching staff who could learn from them, resulting in better personal development for staff and a better education for students. Equipment could be pooled, further reducing costs, and campuses could shrink, or be shared among several universities. There's probably quite a lot of money that could be save while providing a better education to a growing number of students.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@georgebrantley776 Well, perhaps it's part of the reason many private universities in the US are so expensive. Trying to do everything really well costs a shit ton of money, and for many lower tier universities it means doing a lot of things poorly.
That said, it's not like universities in the UK and europe don't have broad areas of discipline, but I think that's down to tradition more than anything. Though switching subjects isn't unheard of, it's almost always within a narrow field, and generally because many courses are shared between similar subjects. Someone might switch from mechanical engineering to Aerospace engineering, but not from engineering to humanities, not without starting from scratch.
It's clear that higher education is becoming too expensive and universities are becoming too inefficient, not just in the US, but especially so there. If rich students want the luxury of a highly flexible education, where they can go from robotics to social studies if they want, or do both, they're going to have to pay through the nose for it. For everyone else, a more specialised and streamlined university may be of greater benefit, with better value for money and a high quality education, at the cost of having to specialise earlier or move to a different university if they want to study something very different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The european equivalent to Six Flags is probably Merlin Entertainments, a British company who own a lot more than you might think, including in the US. They own every Legoland in the world, Legoland Discovery Center, Sea Life center, Madame Tussauds, a chain of Dungeon experiences in various european cities, and various other major attractions like the London Eye. Fun fact, they are 50% owned by Kirkbi A/S, the family investment firm of the owners of the largest toy company in the world, The Lego Group (hence all the Lego stuff). They seem to be doing OK, but I can imagine with a more diverse portfolio of attractions with a wider demographic, they are in a better position generally.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the laws of physics do make certain features very likely to co-evolve on many different worlds. Senses would be a good example, you've got EM radiation (eyes), vibration (sound), chemical detection (smell and taste), object collision detection (touch), as well as temperature, injury detection mechanisms like pain and so on. All of these things are present everywhere in the universe, so I'd expect many alien species, at least ones that move around, to evolve them. Being able to perceive some portion of the EM spectrum is clearly going to be useful in any environment which is exposed to a source of EM radiation, like a star.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
An interesting fact, the UK has the largest plutonium stockpile in the world, not because we were planning to build a lot of nuclear weapons, this stockpile is reactor grade, unenriched it can't be used to make a bomb, but because initially we expected that uranium would be a lot more scarce than it turned out to be. As such, we extracted the waste plutonium from the spent fuel in the expectation that future fast reactor designs would be able to use it, kind of like you might take diesel out of crude oil when you only have petrol engines, in the expectation that someone will eventually make an engine that can burn diesel. But of course, as we found more and more uranium reserves, nobody really was interested in fast reactors, as it was cheaper just to put the uranium through once and throw the rest away. So now the UK is stuck with 130 tonnes of a hazardous substance that can only be mixed into uranium with today's reactors, which even if greatly accelerated would take decades to get rid of this way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@doradestroyer5821 I don't think so. Russia has shown that it is fairly resilient to sanctions, it has the means to close itself off if it needs to. It's also arguably been holding back, it could be more brutal but it's trying to contain the scope of the conflict. We all know it has access to firepower it is not currently using.
Compromise could backfire, sure, but it could also allow Putin to save face. A completely humiliated Russia is more likely to be out for revenge. Saving face is something that comes into diplomacy more than you think.
There's also the issue within Ukraine itself. Russian separatism won't go away, and you can bet even if Russia retreats it will still fund the rebels in those areas. A democratic referendum, if it goes Ukraine's way, would reinforce their authority in the area and conversely delegitimise any claims Russia has.
I know lots of people want to see Russia utterly beaten and broken, the big bully to run with its tail between its legs and never bother Ukraine again. And I get it, I do, it's what most of us want, and what most of think Russia deserves. But as I said, unless there's a radical change in government or the complete dissolution of the country, I can't see that happening. So I think talk of a settlement is entirely realistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardwills-woodward Manchester and Birmingham have mainly terminus stations. There are a couple of through tracks but they don't have the capacity to take more than a small fraction of services cross city (and they don't really cross the city centre but bypass it.) You don't see many S-bahn style cross city services because of it, it's already full with intercity services. This is especially acute in Manchester where the ordsall chord is extremely underused because there just isn't enough room to run services that could use it. Of course London does too but there have been efforts like Crossrail and Thameslink to create more capacity for cross city services.
Regarding the Newcastle metro, I think it's a mistake to say S-Bahn trains need to be certain length or mass, it's a concept that is designed to adapt to cities of different size. Many smaller German cities have S-Bahns, and like in Newcastle they have smaller trains and sometimes they share tracks with intercity and regional services. Newcastle just decided to have a more distinct and separate system. It is a bit different, but it's not a completely unique system.
As for France, Spain and Italy, we can look at cities like Lyon, Turin, and Malaga. All have small but useful metro systems, in Lyon and Turin an extensive tram network complements these metro systems. It's an alternative to the "pre-metro" idea, build new metro lines for more express journeys between higher density parts of the city and keep the trams as is.
I get people hate on the UK and make it out like its entire public transportation system outside of London is in tatters, and I agree that's overblown. Regional and commuter rail systems still have some issues, but they can be good, rural coverage is better than in many european countries and reliability isn't as bad as many people think it is (at least until recently). Many of the issues are also not really our fault, we were the first and that means many lines are built to comparatively ancient standards in the rail industry.
But I have to agree with a lot of other people that UK cities outside of London do lag their european peers on urban public transport, often quite considerably. And I think that has hampered their development and growth while London has gotten monstrously large. If Birmingham and Manchester had built proper metro systems, or even just a pre-metro, in the 70's, 80's or even 90's I think they could have stolen at least a million each of London's population growth by the present day. An honestly I think that would have been way better for the country, including for London.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As with many authoritarian and corrupt governments, the ANC is threatened by a strong middle class. You can oppress the poor, ignore the rich, but the middle class is a problem, too numerous to ignore, too wealthy and informed to disenfranchise. The white middle class have been slowly leaving South Africa over the decades, partly as a response to some of the more heavy handed BEE policies, many decided they'd have a better life abroad. The black and remaining white middle class have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the ANC as their standard of living has stagnated, and may blacks have started to follow the whites to better pastures abroad. This creates an economically polarized nation, an elite class of whites who are self sufficient enough that the ANC doesn't really affect their lives, an elite class of blacks who have friends and allies in the ANC and benefit from the corruption, and a large, poor, mostly black underclass, with a shrinking middle class leaving in droves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
English does use tones, just only for paralinguistic attributes like emotion and intent (like the rising vowels at the end of a sentence to indicate a question). I think most English speakers wouldn't have a hard time pronouncing the tones used in these languages with a little practice, we just aren't listening for them in general speech because our use of them is much much less complicated and less important in conveying meaning. However as someone who has spent a while trying to perform an Alveolar trill correctly (it's not a phoneme that comes up in my accent), trying to perform phonemes you don't normally use can be really hard.
Oh, and as someone who has worked with a lot of Chinese people, the whole l and r thing is really the tip of the iceberg in terms of potential mispronunciation. I've had people from all over China, all with different proficiency in English, and it's ranged from practically fluent with a few slightly noticeable quirks, to being so incorrectly pronounced it sounds like gibberish. One notable example was from one person who was actually a pretty good speaker, but he pronounced "crack" like "quack" for example, and there were some other interesting substitutions as well.
1
-
1
-
I think the big downside to multigenerational living is not the burden put on the (adult) children, but on the parents. They will no longer have a choice about where they want to spend their retirement, they have to move to where their children want or need to live. Imagine if you wanted to spend your twilight years on a quiet beach shack on the coast, but all your children have an apartment in the city. Let's be honest, it's not the children who will need to give up their jobs and move out to care for their parents, because that would be a lose-lose in most cases, sure one or more of your kids are now able to take care of you, but the hit in income they will likely take will mean everyone is worse off. Maybe a post-COVID WFH world will mean in the future it will be easier for people to move around to take care of family, but there are going to be limits to this, and in the end ultimately the children have the power in this situation, they will have the final say about where the home is going to be. So it can work if both parents and children want to live in the same place, but otherwise one side is going to have to sacrifice their lifestyle on that front, and it's very likely to be the parents.
1
-
1
-
What it essentially does is trade a small number of points of failure with severe consequences for many more points of failure with less severe consequences. With a microgrid system you'd expect there to be more failures, after all, there's more equipment to go wrong, but each failure only effects a small area as opposed to the catastrophic cascade that can happen. So it's a trade off.
I think it's unfair to demonise centralised power distribution in this way. Big power plants tend to be more efficient, be they fossil, nuclear or renewable, and having fewer points of failure does mean a lower maintenance overhead. Centralised grids can also take steps to improve resiliency, and possibly for less than a microgrid model depending on available generation and consumption patterns. Consumer needs are also different, while the energy needed to run a few residences may be able to be generated locally, industry and infrastructure maybe another matter. That's not to say microgrids can't be superior in some places, but I wouldn't expect them to be superior everywhere, or even for a significant majority.
Also, while a lot of developing countries have seen success with microgrids, in many cases they are starting from a pretty poor and unreliable baseline. If you're getting daily blackouts from your decrepit centralised power grid, or have practically no electricity at all, even a fairly unreliable system by developed world standards is a vast improvement. The lower demand and willingness to be more flexible with consumption must also be taken into account.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andro7862 I'm not exactly sure how that would have worked. Once the CCP had total control they could do what they wanted, they could wind back any reforms they liked. Fermenting democracy may increase resistance to that, but that was kind the point I was making. In terms of citizenship, while HK don't have British citizenship, they can emigrate to the UK quite easily, much more easily than mainland Chinese. Indeed the UK is preparing for an exodus as we speak, and UK citizens tend to view HK immigrants more favourably than other immigrant groups.
I think what the UK would like the most is an independant HK within the British commonwealth. But separatism pisses off the CCP who the UK wants to remain on somewhat cordial terms with, and obviously it violates the declaration, so yeah, not really pushing for it is probably a good move. Plus at least for a while, it looked like China meet keep the status quo in HK, which while not ideal, is a decent outcome for the British. 2047 is a long way away, and there were probably hopes China as a whole might be more democratic by then anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When it comes to getting a job with truly no experience, there are a few options:
- Agency work. Some agencies will accept people with little or no experience and set you up with temp job after temp job. You won't get anything long term but it's at least some experience.
- Internships. Some industries pretty much require an internship before you get in, which handily keeps all those lower class riff raff out (unless someone takes pity on you and gives you a stipend). It sucks, but it may be an option if you can afford it (or more accurately, your parents can).
- Social networks/nepotism. Yes, it may seem scummy but everyone's doing it, and if you refuse on moral grounds you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Ask your employed friends what openings are available. You'd be surprised how much weight employee recommendations can carry, it often allows you to skip the filter and go straight to interview. Same with parents or relatives, the more senior position they're in the better.
- Apply anyway. If the requirements don't match the salary, they might not get any experienced candidates, and if you're lucky, you might be near the top of the list when they finally give up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@logon235 If we are to say the absence of european empires would be a positive thing, then we must say the absence of any empires throughout history would be a positive thing. No Romans, no Ottomans, no Chinese or Mayans. And yet many of these empires contributed greatly to advancements in science and technology.
A bunch of small tribes can only trade in simple products, advancement is slow or stagnant. You can't forge an industrial revolution when you don't have access to enough resources to even build and power a factory, let alone produce anything.
I agree, I don't think Africa would have remained primitive, because someone else would have colonised it instead. Probably the Ottomans, though internal powers are likely too, we forget the expansionist kingdoms Africa had, who were all too happy to subjugate and enslave their neighbours.
You said it yourself, you think the scientific and technological advances european empires made are bad and a pre industrial existence would be better. Ergo that makes you a primitivist.
1
-
@logon235 So if you believe that the advancements brought on by the industrial revolution and renaissance era are bad, how does that not make you a primitivist? If you don't like the label, which is fair enough, perhaps you can elaborate your position.
Without empires, small tribes are all that can exist. Empires don't have to be world spanning to be valid, they just need to dominate their local area. And if you object to the British Empire, then it is hypocritical not to object to other empires at all scales in all parts of the world, since many were just as oppressive, if not more.
As for technology, I think the evidence speaks for itself. Name a technology or discovery between pre history and the beginning of the 20th century, and I'd argue nine times out of ten it's from an empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pectenmaximus231 It's part of a broader argument I'm making that power and access to resources are vital to rapid technological and scientific progress. The IR is simply one example, I could talk about the advances in engineering during the Roman empire, or medicine, mathematics and astronomy during the Ottoman and Mughal empires.
My central argument for the IR is from an economic standpoint, industrialisation simply doesn't make sense without an excess of resources and a shortage of labour to process them. Factories need a minimum amount of material going through them to be economically viable. It's not like most of the products made in IR factories didn't already exist, they were just made artisanally in so-called "cottage industries" named because products would be made in small batches by peasants in cottages. That's why places like China, despite having plenty of natural resources, never really industrialised during the height of their imperial power (though they did make great advances in science and technology nonetheless), their population was so large that it would always be cheaper to maintain the cottage industry. Of course there are other factors to consider, particularly if you move out of the narrow area of factoryisation, but I think this economic argument is still central to the reason why the IR happened in Britain, and to some extent continental Europe, and not elsewhere in the world.
1
-
1
-
@logon235 You seem to have a fundamental belief that any technology can be conceived by any group of people in any part of the world, regardless of how advanced it is and how powerful that group is. Sure, the steam engine is one example, but there are hundreds of other inventions and discoveries that I could also use, railways, the telegraph, various medications etc. I absolutely disagree with that idea. With no empire, I argue the British would have not invented the steam engine, or indeed most of the inventions credited to the nation within that era, and neither would anyone else (unless they had an empire). So no matter how much trade went on, these advanced technologies simply would not exist.
You believe otherwise, this is my position.
And it is not whataboutism to make comparisons to other empires. I don't believe the British Empire was exceptional in anything but scale. It did a lot of the same things other empires did. It wasn't exceptionally kind, nor exceptionally cruel. I don't think it deserves to be seen as so special, in a positive or negative way.
1
-
@logon235 You see invention and innovation as inevitable, I do not. If the right conditions do not exist, inventions and discoveries will either not occur, or will not be adopted widely enough to make a difference. In the modern world it's easy to see rapid technological progress as a natural state of human civilisation, but go back only a few centuries and you'd find it is absolutely not.
As of indigenous eradication, the only exceptional thing there is, again, scale. Empires in the past were simply unable to commit such atrocities at that scale because their technology didn't allow them to (with the notable exception of the Mongols, but the consensus there is they were especially genocidal). Most of the eradication wasn't even deliberate, it was down to the higher burden of communicable diseases in european peoples, due to a much higher population density and number of domestic animals, which the immune systems of many indigenous peoples was just no match for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
From what was described it sounds like they were trying to build city housing for people who don't like living in cities. Lack of privacy, lack of green space, cramped living arrangements, noise pollution from the usual trappings of city life, these are all issues that some people don't really have a problem with, generally the younger and more extroverted, while others migrate out or stay in the suburbs where they already have private, quiet, spacious homes close to nature. I can appreciate the ideas these architects had, to bring the benefits of suburbia to the city so people who would traditionally never consider living in a city would stay there, which would solve a lot of transportation issues. Problem is, it never really worked, at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@2639theboss With MBT's, it's clear that General Dynamics is making very little profit if any on domestic sales of the Abrams, otherwise they wouldn't have such an absurd markup for export, which is about twice the price of the South Korean K2 Black Panther. Nonetheless, that is probably one vehicle that is somewhat cost competitive compared to the competition (looking at you, Leopard 2!). The F35 is monstrously expensive, but fighter aircraft are one of those things where you do generally get what you pay for. Naval vessels the US probably could make savings on outside of the really high end stuff like giant aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. South Korea could definitely knock up some similarly capable small and medium size warships for a lot less, simply because they build so many ships, both civilian and military.
It's not that the US contractors will always offer the least value for money, sometimes they will be the best choice. But sometimes they won't be, and at the moment the US military is nearly always forced to pick the domestic option even when a better foreign procurement option clearly exists. Other militaries are generally more flexible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It kind of depends on what you define as "basic". Most developed nations do at least some of these to some extent, but many would argue that is isn't enough, and many would argue it is too much (the "Sky TV, Booze and Fags" argument). Free food in the US comes as SNAP, and basic education is free in developed nations pretty much universally (and many of them to a more advanced level too).
But of course, "basic" food probably means no steak and lobster, shelter would be a dreary concrete shoebox, and education is not always high quality. What quality of food and housing should be provided at no cost? If they're pretty dire then only the desperate would settle for them and the economy may not change much, because not that much has actually changed. If it is at a level which satisfies most, then people may not be incentivised to work and earn as much (depending on their aspirational personality) so that could alter the economy, much like a large UBI.
And of course, as the quality goes up, the question of how to pay for it has to be bridged.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think we can compare RoP with another fantasy reboot, The New Legends of Monkey from Netflix. Both received backlash from diversity casting, though Monkey got it from the political left rather than the right, because as we all know diversity casting is only there to reduce the number of white people, if it's replacing an all Chinese cast then it's a bad thing. The tone and style was also quite different to the original, the reboot pulling heavily on 90's made for TV fantasy shows like Xena and Hercules, oozing with cheesy dialogue and rather fake looking sets and effects. In other words it was absolutely a divisive reboot.
But it still did fairly well, with 59% audience score on RT for the first series and 65% for the second. I think for new audiences and children who hadn't seen the original Chinese version, it was seen as a fun family-friendly retro fantasy series, much like the reboot of The Mummy did in cinema, turning a schlocky horror into an Indiana Jones style adventure franchise. RoP has not had the same reaction, as you say. It's not different enough to be complete overhaul (as such a famous fantasy series it probably never could be), and it's not similar enough to be considered a faithful spin-off to the original material. So it ends up stuck in a position where it's pleasing nobody.
Honestly at this point I wonder if doing something similar to what The Mandalorian or Andor did in Star Wars would have been better. Focus on something that's only lightly covered in the existing lore, and give themselves more of a blank canvas to do what they want. Maybe don't set it in Middle Earth at all, there are plenty of nearly undescribed lands outside it, full of people that could be nearly any shade of skin tone you want. Throw in a few characters travelling from Middle Earth, and you've got a lot of flexibility in the story you can tell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GonzoTehGreat I think it's fine to study it in isolation. How people, and countries, react to a bad situation, be it of their own making or not, is important. You've dug yourself into a hole, what's the best thing to do to get yourself out of it? Telling them they shouldn't have dug the hole in the first place isn't productive. It's like when a person who has done many bad things tries to sort things out and make things better. You can absolutely judge what they are doing in isolation from their previous actions. That doesn't mean you have to forgive them for everything else they've done, but you can argue they still tried to make things better, even if their situation made "making things better" very difficult if not impossible. and if you are arguing that they weren't trying to make things right, you need to come up with alternative which they could have chosen instead, without erasing their past actions. Saying what they did was bad because of what they did before, means they can't have done anything that wasn't bad. So all you can say is that all their actions were bad, and at that point would have been bad not matter what they did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Honestly, I can't blame NASA for not wanting to overly rely on commercial launch providers for such an important programme, even if it means using an overpriced "in house" launcher built on a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. There's a certain additional risk about handing off too much of the control of future space exploration to a single private company. With SpaceX in particular, I think there's probably a feeling that giving them too much control over the hardware will make Mr. Musk want to do things his way, and I wouldn't be too surprised if he started to take control of the programme, he's made no secret about his own personal ambitions to lead his own exploration programme. I'm sure that would make a lot of Musk fanboys very happy, but it would definitely piss off NASA, and by that point there would be little they could do about it, short of spitting their dummy out and cancelling the whole programme. There's also the additional risk that SpaceX runs into some kind of trouble, and NASA is now left high and dry with no launcher.
NASA is making a point that they want to involve multiple commercial companies in any future moon mission. That could mean in the future that launchers, transit vehicles and landers could be made by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and probably some other companies that aren't even on the radar yet. Then they have a diverse selection of companies that can provide redundancy in case one fails. But right now the only option that is close to SLS in its payload capacity is the F9H and, when it's ready, Starship. So NASA would be overly reliant on SpaceX without the SLS, and I don't think that's a risk they're willing to take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Reliable connections would make public transportation a lot more effective in many cities around the world (not just the US). Imagine two suburbs with rapid transit stations on separate lines, both heading for the CBD. Running a bus between them is one option, but there might not be a direct route and the actual demand between the suburbs is probably pretty low, so you aren't going to get a high quality service. But if you build an orbital rapid transit line to connect some of the largest radial stations together, people can go in a little, around and back out without having to go through the CBD, and it would be a lot quicker than a slow, infrequent bus route would take. But if those connections aren't reliable, then it's no good. I'm imagining in the future with more automated transit, AI could be working to minimise connection times, speeding up and slowing down services to make overall journeys much quicker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To me the diversity push was just very poorly handled, done in a way that was almost guaranteed to piss off a lot of hardcore Tolkien fans. I get the desire to introduce diversity into updated versions of existing media, and I'm generally not against it unless it would be ahistorical, I think there are many examples where it was done in a good way that was generally well received (you are always going to have a few racists!).
With Tolkien's work, you had a revered author (who sits up there with Shakespeare in the UK) with a universe that is one of the most complex and well developed in SF and Fantasy. Naturally if you go messing with anything, you need to be super careful, people are going to be upset at any change, so if you are going to make a change or add new content, you need to do your research, and build a justification that works with the existing lore. Then when you announce the change or content, you need to give your audience that context that reassures them that you do care about the existing lore and that your change or addition integrates well with it.
And I don't think Amazon did that, they released some pictures of black elves and dwarves with little to no context, and the hardcore fans assumed the worst, that Amazon didn't care about the lore at all, that to them the elves and dwarves of Middle Earth were, and have always been, races with a very wide mix of skin tones because that's more reflective of our modern human society in the west and because it's fantasy, skin tone has no functional bearing on any race whatsoever. Now that might not be true, at all, perhaps Amazon does have a decent lore that means these black elves and dwarves make complete sense being in Middle Earth, and I really hope they do because it would be a great expansion of the existing lore, but if they do they certainly haven't communicated it very well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The tourist industry in the UK is already gearing up for a boom in domestic holidays this year in anticipation that travel restrictions will still be in force for most of the world in at least the early summer, and even if they aren't many people will either choose not to fly because of the lingering COVID risk, or, as you say, will be priced out of the market. Whether this will carry into 2022 is another question. That said, many mediterranean destinations are really desperate for northern europeans to come back this year, since their economy is so tourist dependant and could continue to shrink if they don't come back soon, so we might see some subsidised flights to certain destinations.
Though I think there are signs that the airline industry maybe adapting to the new situation, so things might not be as bad as you predicted. As Wendover said in one if his recent videos, now is a time of great crisis in the airline industry, and where there is crisis, there is opportunity for new business models to come in and disrupt the market. When it comes to the long haul market, we could see some big changes, a rise in airlines with smaller aircraft doing long haul point to point services catering mostly for a leisure and diaspora market (as in, people visiting family and friends who live a long distance apart from each other). Business and first class are replaced with premium economy and additional fees for things like extra legroom or better meals. Ticket prices may still rise, but not by a huge amount, as they are balanced by slashing expenses, flying to more regional airports with lower fees, fewer staff etc etc. much like any budget airline.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@goste4 Then the solution is a minimum global tax, or preventing certain countries from hosting such arrangements, not banning the whole construct. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We don't need to abolish it to temper its more harmful qualities.
I'm not really considering the quality of your argument based on if you are a radical socialist or not, it's just a lot of your rhetoric and language matches with that political position, those who hate the rich and want to take a lot more of their money, so making it harder to be rich would help them achieve that goal. Though in this case I'd argue you'd have an even more unequal society, as the ultra rich with their teams of several million a year lawyers would be able to punch the slightly less wealthy back down. If I'll be honest, I wanted to see if you would admit to being so and proud of it, deny (perhaps even be offended by such a suggestion) and provide reasoning, or refuse to say either way. I guess you chose the latter.
For me, it's not about benefits, it's about fairness, and not having people who have earned their wealth through honest means drained of it by greedy people preying on them. Perhaps you prepared to give these people a hard time in order to make it easier to recover damages from a legitimate claim (though I'd point out limited exposure tempers any outlandish compensation claims, plaintiffs would still be able to claim something in most cases since most rich people keep some worth on their person, but not all their worth), but I don't think it's worth it. Perhaps you consider the fairness of the group more important than the individual, which I guess is fair enough, but it's not my position.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's interesting when you talk about the peak district as if it's a place seemingly quite remote when it's surrounded by several major cities (Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Derby) whose urban areas get pretty close to the border.
The argument that inner city urbanites don't visit the country all that often I don't think is nessecarily the point of the green belt any more, most of its most vociferous defendants are those that live near it and therefore make the most use of it. They don't want to live in an endless housing estate and lose their immediate access to the countryside, but at the same time have a job in the city or local area so can't just pack up and move. At the same time there are a lot of cities outside the south east still with a lot of abandoned land and low value industrial areas from post industrial decline, so I think it's reasonable to argue that these places should be redeveloped before any green belt is considered (developers do sometimes push for greenbelt because it is cheaper to build on, even if brownfield land is available and in a more convenient location).
The nature argument is often pretty weak I agree, but we can approach it from the other end with food security. The UK already has to import most of its food, so there is an argument that concreting over more prime farmland (and not all of it is prime, I know) is not a good idea. Even though the amount might not seem like a lot, there is a lot of prime farmland near cities.
Personally as someone who lives on the edge of the green belt, I would want to see as little as possible sacrificed for housing, and the bits that are carefully selected with good justifications, like existing transport infrastructure such as a railway station or a shortage of brownfield or low value industrial land in the area. I can imagine if it's a free for all we'll get a sea of Barratt boxes as far as the eye can see, with local roads completely overwhelmed with traffic since of course the deveopers won't build additional capacity. I can appreciate British planning rules can border on the ridiculous on many occasions, and I'm all for a bit more reasonable pragmatism, but I'm not willing to throw them out entirely.
Where I am I see skyscrapers going up in Manchester, and I think that might be the ultimate solution. London is too big as it is, and sightline rules make building high a challenge. The UK is way too London centric, allowing other city centres to build up and absorb more of the population seems like a good solution to me. It's a win win in my mind, London gets the pressure taken off it, other cities grow their economies, urbanites get modern dense high quality housing out of often decrepit inner city areas, and suburbanites get to keep more countryside on their doorstep.
1
-
1
-
I think the problem is, particularly with Autism but sometimes with other conditions, there's been a split into two extreme camps, what I like to call the "cure at all costs" and "_never_ cure at any cost". Autism is either treated as a debilitating disease or as a harmless divergence from the norm, whereas I think the reality is it's somewhere in the middle.
Currently there is no cure, and perhaps there will never be an effective one, but some argue that even trying to research an effective and humane cure is still morally wrong, and it should always be instead accepted as a harmless divergence, much like being LGBT, no matter what the effects. On the other side, you have those who argue that Autism is always a harmful condition, and therefore should always aim to be cured, even if the effects are manageable by the person in question.
My argument is, Autism can be both. It can be a debilitating condition, where those afflicted and their caregivers suffer (It's not uncommon for parents of severely autistic children to develop their own mental health problems or end up giving their children up). But it can also be a manageable condition, which doesn't cause suffering and which is essentially a harmless divergence. So if an effective and humane cure did come along, I wouldn't be outraged, I would recognise that for some people, it really is the best option. But for others, I would advocate for it not being forced upon them. For them, it can be a choice.
1
-
I think in a lot of businesses and institutions, bending the rules to reduce regulatory friction is a common occurrence. When performing complex or non-standard procedures, doing things by the book could take a long time, or even be technically impossible without changing the regulations or negotiating with senior management, which could take even more time. This reduces productivity, and can even make the business lose customers, as lower level employees decide it's just not worth their time and effort to deal with any project or order that isn't simple and straightforward, especially if they won't be rewarded for it, better to drop them and find an easier sale. It also generally makes a job more of a drudge and less enjoyable, as more time is spent on compliance tasks which inevitably involve a lot of form filling which nobody likes (except that one employee, because they're weird). Then there's the paranoia and fear from excessive monitoring which can make work much more stressful, having a conversation with a coworker without having to watch your words carefully is probably a welcome break for many employees.
Of course that mean internal rules aren't bad, some prevent crime while others keep workers safe. But trying to maintain 100% compliance can reduce productivity, make the business unable or unwilling to service complex customers, and make employees more miserable and likely to quit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bacteriophagebs I'm not upset, I don't care about starfield, the mod, or pronouns particularly. Installing compatible mods offline is possible with most mod managers, but that's not really solving the problem, because you'll have to keep reinstalling the mod whenever there's an update by manually checking the repository. You'll also have to manually install other mods that are dependencies, if applicable, and you'll likely have more problems with conflicts between mods.
An open source modding platform should ideally be like a package manager where you can subscribe to multiple repositories for mods and browse their lists from there. One repository might be curated and censored, but you could find another which is not, or only removes mods containing malicious code.
For individual games, many already exist, and I'm sure it's likely that there are a couple that are compatible with a few dozen popular games. But it's clear none have anything close to the breadth and dominance of the big commercial players. People, gamers included, like convergence, they like one or two mod managers that work with everything. And that desire means whoever has the control over those managers has the ability to curate, censor and gatekeep mods if they wish. That I do care about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomatao. You're looking at people in their good years. Crops don't always behave, and not everywhere is blessed with good soil and stable climate. Permaculture doesn't fix pests and diseases, it merely throws many hours of human labour at the problem, and yes, with a lot more human input per plant, it can be more effective. But that's the cost, and it still won't always work.
It's not just about food anyway, there's a lot of jobs that require a lot more labour without mechanization. Add it all up, and in a bad year, you could be running yourself ragged for very little payoff.
But that's fine, if you enjoy that lifestyle which I'm sure some people do, go ahead. I've got nothing against people going to live in a permaculture commune if they want to. But they are not going to feed the world, not even close. It's pre-mechanisation farming with a nice new name and a bit more education. An experienced subsistence farmer could probably match yields.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think its unfair to merely look at capital costs, or even generation costs of hydro compared to other energy sources. Hydro has dispactability only matched by gas turbines, but even more crucially, they can store massive amounts of energy, either by running in reverse or holding back water to release later. Building out renewable energy in Germany and Denmark would be a lot harder if Norwegian hydro wasn't available to absorb excess production and cover shortfalls.
In short, even today from an energy generation perspective there's still little that can beat hydro for reliability, dispatchability, storage cost and yes, even carbon emissions over the long term. Gas is still a fossil fuel, nuclear isn't as dispatchable and is very expensive, and battery storage is even more expensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@linerider195 I think HTHL has been held back by less mature technology, we know how to build rockets to a very advanced degree, but the hybrid engines we would expect to see on any HTHL spaceplane are still in development. I think the shuttle was too far ahead of its time to be economic, too many design compromises had to be made and it ended up more expensive to launch than a dumb lifter.
You make a fair point about launch frequency, but SpaceX has managed to create demand (yes, mainly through dogfooding the Falcon for Starlink, but still) and I don't see why we wouldn't see induced demand if there's a potential price drop. The second point about it being easier to refly would on the face of it be objectively true, it's essentially the same as an aircraft, a runway and hangar replaces a complex assembly building and launchpad. But obviously that's something that needs to be considered at design phase, again, if we end up going the same route as the shuttle with compromises, it won't work. Vehicle lifetime is also something to consider, how many times can you reuse a booster vs. a spaceplane?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maya-cc2sx I think we can use the benefit of hindsight to judge what architectural innovations were really the most useful, and I think the Romans do deserve the bulk of the credit for the innovations at that period in history. Suspension bridges had been around a long time, it's not too difficult to make a suspension rope bridge, but it's also a question of scale and load bearing, carrying a channel of water on a 50m tall viaduct is a greater feat than, say, building a bridge at that height that a few dozen people can cross at a time.
Before the Romans, you had the innovations in agriculture and urban planning that came with the Mesoamericans, and before them the Mesopotamians, plus the advances in naval technologies with earlier Mediterranean civilisations. After the fall of the roman Empire, technological dominance moved east to the Chinese and later the Indians, Persians and Ottomans before returning to Europe over 1000 years later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think there's one factor that will reinforce or weaken the dark forest hypothesis: Scarcity. If there are scarce resources vital to an advancing civilisation, then it's logical to think an alien civilisation may come and kill us to take our resources, which in turn would be the same thought those alien civilisations would have about us. However, if we find that all the resources we need are massively abundant within our solar system, and there are plenty of nearby systems that are similarly rich in resources with no competition, then it'll probably make us, and them, less wary. Why would an alien civilisation want to go to the effort to wipe us out when they have everything they need from uninhabited rocks, planets or other solar systems?
We can see this within our own world, humans had to settle pretty much everywhere easily inhabitable first before major conflicts arose outside of relatively small local skirmishes. Otherwise all an expanding tribe needs to do is spread into uninhabited lands. The same will be true for space exploration, if there's plenty of systems with no civilisations (or maybe no life at all) that can nonetheless be exploited, then it makes the risk of conflict a lot lower.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I kind of get it for China, everybody knows they're subsidising the hell out of a diverse array of industries, probably manipulating their currency and in general not playing fair when it comes to "free market" global trade (though neither is the US of course, but I think China is probably doing more, and to be fair I think a lot, but not all, of what the US does is in response to China). So tougher and more broad tariffs may be valid there. But for everywhere else, especially other developed countries, I don't get it. What threat does Canada or the EU pose to US manufacturing? Little to none. Goods are typically no cheaper, and often more expensive, to produce there than in the US. It'll just result in a tit for tat tariff war where both sides lose.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What's really a shame is there have been some pretty good adaptations of Scooby Doo in recent years, it's a series that somehow takes what should be a tired formula, and mostly successfully reinvigorates it over and over again though a few well written and usually quite subtle changes. It's precisely when there's too much meddling that you get the truly terrible adaptations, Scoob! being a somehow less egregious example than this, which got rid of the entire mystery solving plot for some silly pseudo superhero movie. Meddling is pretty much all Velma does. It meddles with the characters, the plot, the tone, the setting, just about everything has been changed, only the names of most of the characters and the vague notion that there should be a mystery to solve (though now it's gone from silly hi-jinks from people in costumes to full blown grisly murder and mutilation). It knows meddling pisses off the fanbase so it's gone out of its way to meddle with everything it can think of while not going so far as to be unrecognisable.
The idea that the producer felt like they couldn't pull off a proper Scooby-Doo adaptation has had to make rage-bait just makes them seem utterly incompetent and unsuitable for handling such a historic franchise. Because even as recently as 2019, there was another reasonably good adaptation. It wasn't perfect, but it stuck to the formula with a bit of a twist, and has generally been well received. So there's really no excuse.
1
-
In the end it was probably the slow transfer of colonial power to the state thanks to that ultimately made colonialism unprofitable. It benefited the nations who took a hands off approach a lot more. The British and the Dutch were happy to just let their corporations do pretty much whatever as long as the money kept rolling in. It took an absolutely colossal fuck up by the EIC for Britain to take formal control of India, for example, and I'd argue that was the beginning of colonialism becoming unprofitable. When Britain had to run things itself it had to start investing a lot of money and effort in keeping these colonies stable, and that probably began to tip the scales, especially as civil unrest and calls for independence grew.
I'd argue the choice of rather rapid decolonisation after WWII was largely a financial one. The empire had been a money sink for decades, but decolonisation before then would have been a massive loss of face and political suicide for any party suggesting it. WWII gave Britain a perfect excuse to begin the process, it was out of money and ravaged by war, so it needed to look after itself first. Plus the US was in a very anti-imperial mood at the time, and currying favour with them made more sense than hanging on to a dying empire. Of course, it still took a few decades to dismantle it all, and there's still a few small bits here and there, but the bulk was formally done by the 60's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thabomuso2575 The closest you probably get there are the banana wars and the Philippines, though I'd say the banana wars were still a bit of fear that land redistribution would lead to socialism, and so on. I'd argue Congo was still about communism, it's just the US has a habit of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There was a fear of a domino effect in Africa as much as in South America, especially with a few ex colonies who despised the west for obvious reasons, and were tempted to buddy up with the Soviets to spite their former masters.
I think with Afghanistan the task of achieving something like universal access to drinking water is not trivial. The US did build infrastructure, but it was a long, slow, process that would have taken many years because most of the country is either desert or mountains, and there's lot of remote villages, among other challenges. So you need something that stops the country falling apart before it is finished, and that's what the military occupation is for. If the Germany wasn't occupied, it's very possible there could have been a civil war between Nazi remnants, Nationalists, Communists and whoever else (there very nearly was in France!). If you can't keep those groups from fighting each other, and probably fighting you too, then you've got no chance of rebuilding the nation. That's pretty much what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1