Youtube comments of Peter (@peter65zzfdfh).
-
72
-
61
-
61
-
57
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
46
-
40
-
37
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The bridge pylon is needed to hold the bridge up, you can't put it further away as the engineering to make a larger span wasn't really practical in 1977 for this sort of cost (and ships weren't this big). There's 3 main spans, all as big as they could be, and ALREADY cantilevered to increase the distance between pylons.
There are in fact several dolphins (you can see them on the charts), they were simply too small to be effective, as making them larger would block shipping lanes etc.
Tug boats are incapable of stopping a ship this size that is underway at minimum steerable speed. they are designed to help it turn, or turn it around when it's already stopped in port. If there was a tug boat here we would likely be looking at an extra fatality. At my port we denied a much much smaller ship passage due to risk of collision, and rejected using tug boats as an option due to risk to the life of the tugboat pilot.
Basically the solution isn't tugboats or dolphins. It's a new bridge capable of more modern, larger spans, that themselves can support enormous islands around pylons, or a tunnel, or moving the whole port downstream of the bridge. There was no 'safe' option to use this bridge, with ships that size. But thousands of ports have that same issue. There's been 35 such incidents since the 1960s.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ghsense2626 by American free money you mean your pension is invested in Europe, as are most of the US’s biggest companies. That money is spent, if you want cents on the dollar for it, try and sell off that investment in a hurry.
The US needs Canadian and Mexican car parts to keep factories operating, it needs Chinese steel, it needs Chinese lithium. It needs Taiwanese computer chips made with Dutch machines. Some of these could be replaced (not the lithium or rare earths) but not for a decade or two. In the meantime lots of pain while the rest of the world trades among itself.
The US is the second biggest exporter after China, but most of the value the US exports is things like movies, TV, software etc, that aren’t really needs and easily replaced or cloned. The US is only wealthy because other countries have agreed to let it become so, because a strong US has benefited them 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
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@butapioka El Salvador had a crime issue, they just centralized the criminal behavior in the new president instead of gangs, and that helped a lot of people at the cost of sending a lot of potentially quite innocent people to prison and basically removing everyone's freedom. In such circumstances people will argue that safety and stability are more valuable than freedom, and people have fought forever on just how far society should be tilted towards freedom vs public safety. There are more people per capita in prison in El Salvador than any other country in the world. Ultimately this playbook has happened again and again throughout history, controlling leader comes to power promising to centralize control and fix everything, and for a time they're quite popular, but then they never give up control and progressively do less and less popular things while refusing to give up their power. Other than the crime crackdown the 'radical changes' promised in El Salvador didn't end up eventuating (he tried, on a relatively small scale and failed). He's been pretty boring and basically kept spending the same, no massive cuts, no massive spending. They've also been on the USD since 2001, so they didn't have to try and make that massive change under his watch.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There's two types, those that were lied to about the economic benefits and those that don't like migrants. The economy is in a downward spiral, and has weakened the UK's position in trade negotiations, and turns out a lot of the 'migrants' the others didn't like are actually British. Only 1/3 of eligible voters bothered to turn up and vote to leave. Probably 80% of those have changed their mind. But the one thing you're right about is yes, they other 20% are a whining noisy lot. You're more likely to see Scotland and Northern Ireland leave the UK than the UK rejoin the EU, because there's no way the EU would take the UK back, especially not on the terms they had before. Leaving has caused am increasing, permanent and irrevocable drain on the UK. And those that don't realize they were wrong will need to die off before that changes. It's the Northern voters who polls show a have most changed their minds, it's been only to the benefit of a few wealthy elites who relied on telling people (via huge donations to leave) that far from short term pain, they would get immediate prosperity, a position that started being unwound the day after the vote.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
In Australia the homicide rate is 2 people per 100,000 (per year, as at 2023). Most of it occurring in the home by someone known to the victim). In Washington DC the rate was around 40 per 100,000 population in 2023. Obviously there’s not zero violent crime in Australia, but it’s one of the safest western countries in the world. People are shocked when something violent happens, because outside domestic violence, it’s very unexpected. One incident will make the news for months or years.
The last public mass shooting was in 1996. The first ever school shooter was arrested last May (no one was killed). Even situations where you might expect a criminal, say in the drug trade, to have a weapon, they rarely carry it, given it would be a crime to just have it on them, so they tend only to dig them up to use on each other in pre planned actions.
As a non indigenous male you are very very safe, as a female, still very safe, but like most places they can still be at a higher risk of assault than men.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because tugs are unable to stop a ship this large at this speed, we'd just be looking at an extra fatality if there was a tug boat involved. Even a pre-planned transit of a smaller ship here was denied entirely due to risk of collision, and use of tugs was dismissed as too high risk to the tugboats. Ships with rudder/propellers need a certain minimum speed to be able to steer at all, it is water flow over the propeller that maintains the rudders ability to work.
Basically, the only way to stop this would be to replace the bridge with a tunnel, move the port downstream, build a NEW bridge with much much larger artificial islands etc. Yes, 6 lives is tragic, but there's much much cheaper and easier things the US doesn't to to save thousands, I don't think they'll all of a sudden replace a hundred bridges to prevent this from happening again.
Here in Australia we simply deny large ships (even much smaller than this) transit under bridges, and tugs are disallowed to escort due to risk to the tugs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Updating the design of the piers would require rebuilding a bridge, as adding sufficient sized artificial islands can't be retrofitted, they would take up too much space and be a hazard to shipping (replace taking out a bridge every 4 decades with taking out a ship several times a year). Yes, they could fix this by a new bridge or replacing it with a tunnel, but there are hundreds of bridges in the US like this, and none, not even the ones with the relatively small islands shown in this video, could actually have stopped a ship this size. There's probably 5 bridges in the world with enough protection. Ultimately, with 6 fatalities, and one bridge out, it's likely still not going to pass a cost / benefit analysis to replace all the required bridges.
Here they simply don't let large ships transit at all and just moved the entire ports to reclaimed land downstream. Rebuilding the bridges is simply not cost effective.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ballistic missiles have a maximum range of more than half way around the globe, thus the one Russia used was medium or perhaps even low range *for a ballistic missile*.
The disadvantage of a ballistic missile is in the name, it follows a ballistic path which means it’s detectable early, has a predictable path, and is thus easy to intercept. It’s the 1960’s dump truck of a missile. It uses the least amount of fuel to go the longest possible range.
ATACMS and Storm Shadow have much lower ranges, because they fly lower, which is less efficient, but they’re more manoeuvrable, harder to see coming, harder to intercept, quicker time to target etc. For non ballistic missiles they are relatively long range. But it’s a different class, it’s like comparing a container ship to a truck. The container ship is longer range yes… sure, but you can still have ‘long range’ trucks.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There's not really such a thing as 'exceeding grid capacity' on a national level. There has ALWAYS been times and locations where a specific area may end up exceeding its local capacity, usually at a peak time (when everyone is getting home from work/school usually), and there's been a lot of excessive building to avoid that. EVs are actually somewhat of an answer to the problem, as there's no reason they need to be charged at that peak time, there's no reason they need to have any negative impact to the grid at that time. If managed right they can actually reduce strain on the grid by charging from those intermittent renewables or when base load has surplus overnight, and have it available for use during peak events.
Heat pumps use much much less power than resistive electric heaters, so the overall impact of them is likely a reduction in electricity usage for heating, even if some people are switching from gas. Peak heating demand just isn't at the same time as peak electricity demand. That's more often peak cooling demand (eg, people get home from work in the middle of summer and the house is all hot). So air conditioners are the biggest culprit for grid capacity demands, not so much during the day when solar is probably around, but on very overcast hot days or just after sunset. Most of trying to address capacity is really just dealing with an hour or two of that 'peak' demand, something that tends to rely on batteries / hydro etc to get through.
If you snapped your fingers tomorrow and literally EVERYONE had an EV, then maybe they could be a problem. But in reality they are still a small % of the vehicle fleet and that's not likely to change dramatically for the better part of a decade unless you're in Norway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pl3317 this is 1960’s technology, you are correct it doesn’t slow down at the terminal phase because it’s un guided and thus inaccurate. The ones that slow down are actually hypersonic missiles, this is a ballistic missile which just happens to go at hypersonic speeds, like every single ballistic missile since the 1970’s. This is such old technology that in the 1980’s Russia and the US agreed not to make land launched versions and the US and UK only kept their sea and air launched versions.
THAAD was designed specifically to counter these type of missiles as it strikes them at the apex, when they are at the slowest, because that’s how gravity works, all of the speed from this missile is from getting very high and just falling down, very fast. You can see from the footage, it’s unguided, and with very very small warheads. This technology was designed for nuclear weapons, but it’s not very useful for non nuclear warheads as they are very expensive, inaccurate (not much of a problem with a nuclear warhead) and extremely predictable (they follow a known ballistic trajectory which can quickly be calculated after launch, a launch which can be seen on satellite. Russia had to warn the US about the launch in advance as it’s the kind of thing which may trigger a nuclear response.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 defense piers (dolphins) would not have stopped a ship this size, direct on, at this speed. There did look to be some, but not as big as other ports. Basically even for this medium sized cargo ship you'd need massive artificial islands, which may not fit and may restrict river flow/width causing other issues. When they built this bridge ships were not this big, and bad news, there's probably 3-5 bridges with the required defense against a ship this big. It's just not done, it's cheaper to build a tunnel these days.
Tugs help the ship steer at extremely low speeds. They do not 'stop' the ship when it's underway, the ship has to do that itself. A much smaller ship here (not Baltimore) last year was denied passage under a local bridge due to the risk, and when experts were asked why they couldn't use tugs their answer was basically: " Exposing a tug to the side of vessel where the safe passing distance was diminishing would not only have an expectation of push at all costs but … very quickly escalate to both dire and fatal consequences if exercised in reality "
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-03/icebreaker-nuyina-hit-hobart-tasman-bridge-in-modelling/103158228
So the tugs both wouldn't work, and would put the tug crew at major risk. You're not going to get a tugboat between a bridge and a ship a fraction of the size of this ship, even much smaller ships are much too big.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DurzoBlunts If you don't reach out for comment it shows you do not care about the truth and will print whatever salacious gossip you are sent. I could send GN faked emails claiming whatever, and he would print it without checking, and he has told us as much. As long as it's juicy enough, he does not care if it is true. You can always ignore the 'hollow statement' but if you fail to even ask, any reasonable person will sue you into non-existence when it turns out to be false, and it's disrespecting your audience. Investigative journalism requires multiple sources, you don't published based on one, easily faked source that you did not verify. GN did. They published lies. They said they didn't care. Steve is not an investigative journalist, he's a tabloid gossip column.
Anyone who associates with that, or defends that, is hugely diminished in authority. GN can't take criticism, they get legitimate criticism and they spend years defaming others as a result. They should be sued out of existence. It's a shame most people consider him to irrelevant to do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russia had taken 27% of Ukraine, they are down to around 18%, a large chunk of that they occupied before the full scale invasion. No one is 'close' to winning, everyone is losing, some land, some lives. The Taliban won a war against America (who controls Afghanistan now?) And they didn't have fighter aircraft, tanks or precision weapons... so.... Yeah, it kind of seems like invading and occupying a country for decades is outrageously expensive and not worthwhile. And that if the US couldn't even do it successfully, despite having completed 'the ground war' within weeks, while Russia is still struggling after 2 years of full scale invasion and a whole decade of occupation, I don't think Russia can do much other than prolong the inevitable defeat either, the question is how many lives will be lost before that conclusion is reached, and how will it be reached.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I haven’t ever heard of this straw man argument against solar you’re debunking. The legitimate argument is where the rate paid for energy fed back into the grid is the same or higher than the cost, eg, if you’re putting in a kw at midday when solar is plentiful but taking it back at midnight you’ve not accounted for the line losses, or the more expensive generation costs when cheap solar isn’t available.
Eg in Australia some houses are paid 2x for solar what electricity costs to buy back, encouraging them to not consume when there’s an oversupply of solar to the point the energy cost is actually negative at that point. Meanwhile they buy back that energy cheaper in peak periods when demand is high causing energy costs to spike and gas generation to have to turn on.
I’m a major solar proponent, and it’s always positive if incentives are right. But this video misses the mark. Energy costs are regulated in much of the world and poorly designed incentives absolutely and unequivocally do increase costs for other people who can’t install solar. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t install solar, it means older overly generous incentives need to be rolled back, and further incentives need to encourage self consumption instead of flooding the grid that can’t handle the excess. With regulated publicly owned utilities, for whom profit isn’t a prime concern they absolutely do cover costs by charging higher costs to those that cannot get solar in return for over-paying for solar. And yes you’re right that if they made net metering households pay what they cost they would disconnect and exacerbate the problem. Fortunately in Australia the issue is being dealt with in a way that isn’t reducing solar uptake feed in tariffs are around 8c while energy costs are around 32c. This makes solar a benefit for the grid, while still allowing installs to pay for themselves in a reasonable period. There is still periods and locations where wind and solar provide > 100% of the grid which means paying a feed in tariff is literally throwing money away for energy that you also have to pay someone to take, or start curtailing wind etc. And much of the grid has to be upgraded just to handle all the power flowing the opposite direction. Effectively using the grid as a free battery.
You might be right if the US has very low penetration it’s not yet a big issue, but in Australia it is absolutely a major issue. I’d be very surprised if it’s not an issue in California.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Europe has paid more than the US to date, and almost all the US 'spending' is going to US businesses to build 'new' equipment for the US army while the older model equipment the US would never use goes to Ukraine. And that's despite the US's strategy since the 40's of making sure Europe's military industry was suppressed, by funding their own military to absurd levels to the point no other country could compete and would just buy US equipment (and much of the EU spending also). All to the US's advantage to make others dependent on them.
The US is also not protecting Europe for Europe's sake, the biggest investor in other countries are Americans, so it's in the US interest to protect US investments. To top it off, the US military industry has taken more than 10x the paid orders from other countries since the war started as the equipment they've sent to Ukraine, it's basically a nearly 'actually free' advertisement for the US weapons.
The Pacific if it becomes a hot war requires ships and planes. Ukraine needs tanks, trucks, artillery, none of which would help in a Pacific conflict. There's no dilution in capability to defend the pacific by helping Ukraine, indeed the new spending is replacing old tanks etc that are sent to Ukraine with newer equipment better suited for a Pacific conflict.
1
-
The velocity of the air out of the gas furnace is higher, thus it needs to be hotter to not feel cold. The air out of my heat pump barely moves, it's a light puff, and because it throttles down rather than turns on/off, that light puff of warm air is way way more than enough to keep the place hot, inaudibly, vs a noisy roaring fire beast of a furnace that's clicking loudly on and off and cycling between too hot and too cold. Basically slow warm air all the time > noisy fast hot air for a brief period. I have mine set to 22ºC (71.6F.) It's inaudible, you can't tell it's running at all unless you put your hand up next to it, and the place is that constant temperature all day long. I have 'cold' elderly relatives that make me work up a sweat just sitting when I visit them, and you still can't hear or feel their heat pump working.
You can get pretty hot air out of a heat pump, they just run more efficiently at lower temperature differences, thus the short cycling of an oversized unit with too high a minimum operating range will be a) noisier and b) less efficient. Thus it's even more important not to oversize a heat pump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nelsonraines5003 None of the major ports in Australia accept ships this big that also transit bridges with Pylons in the waterway. They recently forbade the new icebreaker from being able to transit the Tasman bridge due to risk, and dismissed using tugs as an option due to risk to the tugs. And it's much much smaller. Even where an older cruise ship transits a bridge (like in Brisbane) there's no tug escort. Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Cairns none of them have bridges before the container ports. Sydney harbour lets some older (re smaller) cruise ships pass the bridge, but it has no pylons in the channel, the ship will run aground first.
A tug in this situation would have just added to the fatality count.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@A.S.D442 Somalia has less than half the Debt to GDP ratio of Argentina. Basically, they're poorer than Somalia, and Somalia's economy is tiny compared to Argentina's, so debt forgiveness is a big component of how Somalia has not suffered in the same way, because there are much much smaller amounts to forgive. Argentina owes 100x as much money as Somalia, that means there's a lot more USD in Somalia compared to the size of the economy. Also, the USD isn't the official currency of Somalia, using it unofficially allows the government to manage parts of the economy in different ways, once you give up your own currency you lose that ability. Yes, you can mis-manage that ability as in Argentina, but that mis-management was less of the actual issue than the stagnant GDP which is the relevant metric regardless of which currency you use, Somalia's GDP has doubled in 10 years. Argentina's GDP hasn't gone anywhere in that time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@termination9353 Full reverse, it was slowing, both visibly and and in tracking, and the anchor was dropped. As ships slow, they begin to turn uncontrollably. You NEED forward propulsion to steer. At the speed it hit the bridge steering, even deliberately into it, would no longer have been possible. The things the size of a skyscraper, wind is enormous, as is just propeller torque. You're spouting uniformed nonsense. Not to mention, not a single person or entity has gained anything from this. And the bridge had at least two local pilots, the captain, and a helmsman on it. Likely many others also. If it was being steered incorrectly they would have noticed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A 60,000 BTU gas furnace running 6 hours is going to produce 360,000 BTU of heat, at a cost of 180,000 BTU of energy. A 20,000 BTU heat pump running 24 hours is going to produce 480,000 BTU of heat at an input cost of energy equivalent to 80,000 to 160,000 BTU worth of input energy (depending on a number of factors including outside temperature and requested inside temperature). Heat pumps have inverters, and the smaller the change the pump is trying to make, the less energy it uses, one heat pump running 50% of the time doing the same work as another running 100% of the time will probably use about 25% more energy to do it. Bigger heat pumps can scale down their usage, so oversizing isn't the end of the world, but they have certain minimums, which will be larger for the larger unit, so while the larger unit may even be more efficient on the coldest day, on average it will be less efficient.
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 don't know it would be centered, to keep the ship travelling straight against wind and current it may have needed to be turned. As the ship lost power, it would start being unable to counter wind loading and current as rudder requires forward propulsion to keep working. So it would become ineffective and the ship would start turning. How much would that have mattered ? Don't know. It's possible they could have powered up the engines again and made it forward, but the ship looked like it was already drifting sideways before power came back, so there's very chance they would have hit with even more force, sooner, possibly sinking the ship and not giving the bridge time to be mostly cleared. Someone will run simulations based on their best knowledge of conditions on the night at some point and try all these things. But the crew didn't have much time to react, either one could be the wrong move, what they did was the safer bet, they also lost power a second time, which may have made their initial plan less effective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Back in the ~80’s my father got an issue raised for some software that wasn’t working, went on site the next day, software was working. This happened again a week later, and a third time a week after that. Turns out, it wouldn’t work on most Wednesdays in September. It was writing out the date in full. ‘Wednesday 7th September’ ok ‘Wednesday 14th September’ was 1 character too long and crashed. Fortunately on repeat three, the issue was discovered. Any other month or day of the week was shorter, so not a problem, the first one or two Wednesday’s in September were also not a problem. If it hadn’t been figured out on the third time it would have been fine for another year!
I also inherited a system from someone, um, rather lacking in knowledge, who wrote over 100 lines of code to compare two dates…. Alphabetically,character by character. I didn’t discover this ‘method’ until the two dates happened to be in different years and it stopped working….
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When glaciers retreat it releases methane. ICE Age termination is not CAUSED by the rapid release in methane, the end of the ICE age causes the methane release.
We've effectively accelerated the heating even more. Basically, we're not entering an ice age, we're exiting the age where any ice exists. We should on a cycle be entering an ice age based on a normal cycle (the orbit means we should be getting cooler), but instead we're going the other direction. Basically the warming is causing more warming. And the worst thing this time, is that the increase is much much faster, any recorded previous increase in temperature, has not been nearly this fast, giving ecology more time to adapt. 'usually over decades' is full blown misinformation. Usually the changes are over thousands of years or tens of thousands of years. Not even as fast as centuries let alone decades. The last one took 14,000 years. There's only been 4 ice ages, and they've been hundreds of millions of years apart. Pretending it's normal for things to happen in decades is wishful delusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You need to experience a decent, modern, inverter unit. They throttle down and do not need to blow air that fast, also one of the reason for larger ducts is so that the air velocity can actually be lower, so there's less of a breeze than with a gas furnace. Gas furnaces need to be warmer to avoid what you get for free with a larger heat pump vent (or a split system). Also more oversized units (as Alec points out) will have a higher minimum flow rate, thus probably lead to more colder air, vs a right sized unit that doesn't need to push as much are at a minimum, but can fill it with more heat per unit volume at the more efficient setting.
Gas here increased in price about 10x over the last 10 years. I saved a heap switching away from it. It's a white elephant here, a massive cost saving to go to heat pumps.
Also the irony in you believing if there was a dire threat we'd be moving away while noting the unstoppable impact of companies and governments pushing the responsibility onto you so they don't have to take any? Yeah, that's why we've not made major moves.
People whined about 'paid bags' at stores here for all of 2 months before 99% of people brought their own reusable bags they bought once for $1 then used for the next 5 years, and everyone else got on with it. I get it change feels hard, but it's honestly not. Hope you get better from your depression. Things are not as bad as you think, the solutions are easy and convenient, once people swore they'd never use computers, then never use mobile phones, then never use the internet, now those people are swearing off whatever else on that internet they swore they'd never use.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because modern units are designed to ramp down, they don't need to run at 100% all the time, they are very quickly at 25% and operating more efficiently, and much quieter, they use a heap less power than old units that cranked on to 100% then off, and it's much less noticeable than a start/stop, what little noise there is constant. You can get units that are basically inaudible, even ductless units, once you have a ducted system you *absolutely cannot hear them*, the noise floor is below a whisper. Cheap units are bad, good units are good.
Never seen a house with heat strips, not for 20 years here. Just simply not required.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They weren't so much overlooked, as manufacturers like Tesla built vehicles that performed better, and cost them less to make so if they sold for more got them higher profits. Something like a Prius is both boring, and overly complex to make and maintain. Yes, it's a taxi work horse around the world, so far from overlooked. But people who didn't drive that much didn't want to pay more for something like that.
Pretty sure there's hybrid trains, trucks etc. Maybe less so boats. There are EV boats. But most smaller boats are that simple and don't travel that much that a hybrid system would pay itself back. And they lack the ability, generally, to regenerate energy. Hybrid vehicles largely rely on braking to regenerate their batteries, which only really works in city traffic. They're great at boosting city mileage, but kind of useless at freeway range boosting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A trade war is lose/lose. If the US tariffs the whole world and the whole world tariffs back, the US cumulatively has to pay all the tariffs they have against the world, while other countries can freely trade with each other and only have to put tariffs on the one country.
Canada has put tariffs on things they don’t need from the US, while the US has put blanket tariffs on everything including things like car parts, and oil, that the US needs to make cars and refine oil etc to on sell to other countries.
Tariffs are, I will hurt myself so I can hurt you. Both parties lose, but if you don’t retaliate then there’s little chance of stopping someone insane enough to want self harm. Especially those too rich to feel the harm personally.
Basically the more countries put tariffs on the US in response the worse for the US. If Trump just put tariffs of China, not Mexico or vice versa, the US might not lose so badly. But China, Mexico AND Canada, no chance the US doesn’t wind up the biggest loser. Everyone loses, just not as much.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 was planned well once (fiber to the home to almost everyone) then just as all then planning was finished and money spent on it, we changed governments to one that re-planned it ‘to save money’. Dear reader, they spent more money re-planning it than the original total cost, in order to make it worse to benefit Rupert Murdoch who owned shares in the cable TV business which now has to compete with Netflix etc.
Even the shitty option was an around a 10x increase in speed for most people though. And the lucky ones (on HFC) got a 50x, and the really lucky ones connected directly to fiber or eventually those on HFC got a 500x increase in speed.
Rural areas were always shitty to serve, but they were impacted the most by the change of government. At least the ones that weren’t super remote who went from no internet to satellite internet under either plan. I think people forget how bad most places were before the NBN. Outside a few people on cable, internet sucked massively for 99.5% of the country, even in many very inner parts of big cities. And those on cable had extremely expensive and limited usage plans. My upload before the NBN was 0.15mbps, and that was 4km from central Brisbane it’s now 50mbps, and I could if I wanted to pay a fortune get 10000mbps upload. Even these most remote satellite users can now at *least*get burst up,pads of 10mbps, or 5mbps. So the worst possible NBN upload in the regions today is more than 30x what I got in the inner city before it.
1
-
1
-
@majdmerhebi4778 The new leader is a the head of a declared terrorist organization in the US, and much of the west. They’re not US backed. This assessment has been recently renewed. The only US backing has been given in the south of Syria which was to defeat ISIS no matter who they are fight (Assad or the rebels).
No one is sad to see Assad go, but it really is only ‘hope’ so far that things will work out well in Syria. I truly hope they do, and the ‘noises’ being made suggest it’s a possibility, but the Taliban made those same noises and it didn’t last. As far as the US is concerned not a huge amount has actually changed as yet, other than an increased risk of ISIS, and maybe less Russian presence.
If the rebels truly do stop being a terrorist organization, maybe, eventually the US will warm to them, but for now I think they’ll just stay right out of it beyond bombing any chemical weapons sites (though the Israelis are probably doing that), and suppressing ISIS so they don’t leak back into IRAQ.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bicker31 Most other countries can hold an entire election in less time than the US's shutdowns can be. Also supply bills are just funding things that don't have spending locked in, that is, the majority of things are funded by other legislation. If you can't pass something to rescind that spending, or the legislation didn't have an end date for the program, the spending keeps happening. You don't need the 'monarchy head-of-state', most countries which technically have one don't actually have any input from the monarchy, and the role of their local representative is basically ceremonial, and for the most part it's the mere threat of dismissal that does the heavy lifting. The other countries also put the paying for things in the bill that passes, so unless there's an end date to the program, or it's not had supporting legislation passed, funding continues. That means for most things (police, army, public service), funding will go on indefinitely, it's only new programs that don't yet have legislation or legislation that has a fixed expiry that needs supply passed. Other countries also only need 50.01% (in both houses) to pass legislation though, so cancelling programs is easier, but 4 people can't hold a country to ransom without risking their jobs for it.
1
-
@Dogmeat1950 Other countries the budget is set by the bill that passes the program, so if the program is set to last 2 years, without a replacement bill the budget ends then. But lots of things are ongoing, eg, funding police, parks, the armed services etc. Also, most other countries can hold an entire election in less time than the US's shutdowns can be. It's dysfunctional to agree to the spending but then to withhold approval to pay for it, that means everyone will add a $$$ to the amount they're planning to contract to deal with the contingency they don't get paid, on time or ever. If people want to cut spending they should pass a bill to cut the spending, not just continually ransom the entire government because of one issue only a handful of people care about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, an inner monologue is but one tool of a large toolbox, to be used or not as required. Visualization, pattern matching, calculation, intuition, ‘muscle memory’, etc etc etc. heaps of other ways of thinking. Some people don’t have one or more, but most people have most to varying degrees. Some are more or less pronounced and some people find each perhaps improve or degrade with use or lack thereof. Obviously many people can work around one of these tools being missing, but I cannot imagine not having access to all of them. I imagine if you didn’t have one, describing it to you would be impossible. Like people imagine an inner monologue is slow, because they’re comparing it to speaking, reading or writing which all happen much much slower than an inner monologue that runs at the speed of thought, and simultaneously with other methods of thinking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Yes, they'll run 100% of the time easier than they will turn off and on, it's more on/off cycles of the compressor than duty cycle of the compressor that will lead to wear. They have onboard logic that ramps down the speed they run at when not needed as to be more efficient, this also leads to longer life vs turning the whole thing on and off. Also, this is for the one coldest day of the year, if it was running at 100% flat out, all day for weeks, then it's probably undersized. But a day or two, no problem. I've run mine for weeks and weeks and weeks continuously for over a decade, it just manages its own compressor based on what's the most efficient, they have logic to keep them from doing anything silly like short cycling too hard.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This isn't actually true with modern AC units, they use less power per unit of heat/cool at lower utilization, as they have inverters and ramp down to lower settings that allow them to more efficiently exchange the heat. They also tend to have a 'minimum' they can run at based on the size of the unit. So a very small unit will 99.9% of the time actually use less power for the same result as a larger unit, assuming the outdoor exchanger is the same size (there are several breaks in indoor sizes where they share the same outdoor unit).
Because they ramp down, and are more efficient, the air temperature exiting the ducts doesn't need to be much warmer than the indoor air at all. Yes, if you have a horrifically insulated home, you might feel it needs to be, but any bare minimum modern standard home, you do not want 140 degree air, you will have a boiling hot part of the room and a freezing part of the room when what you want is the whole room being warm.
The 'resistive backup' if you watched the video is in case the entire system fails so that pipes don't freeze, not to be used on 99.8% of days. Here we don't get freezing pipes, we wouldn't need any backup. But if you're running a 'resistive backup' for only a couple of hours a year, a smaller system for most of the year will save you money as most of the time it will run in a more efficient zone. Also if you watched the video the ducts are inside, so any heat escaping them is entering the house anyway, more evenly than a furnace blasting it out the vent before shutting off a few seconds later or overheating the whole room.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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 main reason batteries aren't recycled at the moment is that so few actually reach end of life that the scale required to recycle them cheaply hasn't been there. In another 10-20 years as EVs actually start reaching end of life the materials will be worth recovering. That lithium is easier to get out of a battery than to mine again. Any new car is energy intensive to make, the quantity of steel etc in any vehicle puts the battery to shame. Even with fossil fuels for generation, they still emit less, and further away from where people breath it. But in most countries with any significant share of EVs 'most' power hasn't been from fossil fuels for many years, and many are actually struggling to find a place to dump excess renewables. (Here power is literally free between 11am and 2pm from some retailers, as they are PAID by the market to use it to lower the voltage on the line being caused by all the excess solar.) And those fossil fuel plants are providing baseload overnight, used or not. EVs are only really a problem to put power in if you MUST charge them at peak times (eg early evening).
And no one ever claimed they're carbon neutral, that's a straw man if ever I saw one. Even a train isn't carbon neutral and that has no emissions and is about as energy efficient per pax as possible in both construction and running costs. They're LESS carbon than an ICE car though, after just a few years, assuming you actually drive anywhere near average. If you just sit and look at it, then no. And if you drive very very little, not replacing your car at all is a better option than either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. To get the required span, you need a cantilevered or suspension design. This means if one section fails, all the cantilevered sections will fail. To avoid this, you need more pillars and thus may not be able to fit ships past it at all. It was also built in the 70s when ships were much smaller and tunneling technology wasn't as advanced / comparatively priced.
2. Tugs both cannot stop a ship of this size while it is underway, and it's extremely dangerous for them to try. They're for helping it steer when it's basically stopped. You can confirm that answer both with the visual evidence that even full astern the ships own propeller which has way more thrust wasn't able to stop itself. And this article from last year. Discussing refusal of another much smaller ship to navigate another bridge. " Exposing a tug to the side of vessel where the safe passing distance was diminishing would not only have an expectation of push at all costs but … very quickly escalate to both dire and fatal consequences if exercised in reality "
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-03/icebreaker-nuyina-hit-hobart-tasman-bridge-in-modelling/103158228
So basically, their options were, replace the bridge with a tunnel, move the port to the east of the bridge. Or simply stop accepting what is these days a medium sized container ship from their port. And so they got away with it for many decades, as do most ports, until they don't. And this isn't a problem with just this bridge, this is something like 99.9% of bridges over busy ports. There's probably less than 5 that have artificial islands around their piers big enough to stop (ground) a ship. There's been 35 such incidents since 1960 worldwide.
1
-
@Michael-sq5gn Brexit had such low voter turnout only around of 1/3 of eligible voters voted to leave, no one expected leave to win because it was like cutting off your own arm. The EU doesn't have a defense force, but since Brexit the UK has had to more, not less rely on other countries for defense. It's signed pacts with Italy, Sweden, Australia etc since leaving the EU. The UK always decided its own taxes, it paid some to the EU, and got MORE than that back. That 1/3 of the UK voters were enough to get it to leave, but the EU also would need to consent if the majority who now regret it tried to rejoin. They don't want the economic draw that is the failing UK. The UK has been forced to sign embarrassing trade deals now it no longer has the backing of the UK it's a third rate country. The UK has always decided their own interest rates, government, used its own currency etc. There's several EU counties that don't use the EU. I'm not even in the UK or EU and I can see from here how it helped us and made you weaker. We now have a much better (for us) trade deal with the UK than the EU, and the UK currency is much weaker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1