How has voting against worked for you? Given that you fled the country, it doesn't sound like it got the outcome you wanted.
With the data point, I'll keep voting for things I want - will let you know if that strategy works better.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 88
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 88
- Joined
- 1 yr. ago
It is impossible to argue against conspiratorial thinking.
Let's say Kamala had narrowly won the election, would 2028 be the right time to hold the Democrats accountable for real, useful, policy changes? Or would there be another Republican Boogeyman (maybe Ted Cruz again? Or Desantis?) that would absolutely need to be defeated before it would be proper - in your opinion - to ask these public servants to actually serve me?
According to many commenters here, and I assume many of the downvoters whenever a comment questions the utility of unconditional loyalty to the blue party, the US has been hovering just above an irreversible descent into a fascist dictatorship.
So let me ask you, which of the leaders you voted for reversed that decline? Because the 'vote blue no matter who' dogma has given over a decade of historically unpopular candidates who consistently lose to - again according to you - naked fascists.
The only way a political party changes is when they stop winning.
If Democrats think they will win by being Republicans who hate the gays a little bit less, then that is what they'll do. They were just shown that that isn't a winning strategy, so we'll see if the party changes tack or doubles down.
"You monster, it is your fault you gave us Trump"
I make my voting preferences known in every primary, state, and federal election. I actively volunteer for candidates I like. The party knows what will earn my vote, if they wanted it. If they make the strategic bet that getting my vote will cost them more from somewhere else, then that is on them.
"That is so entitled, how could you"
Have you ever considered that the reason both parties seem so out of touch with mainstream thought is because they have 10s of millions of people who will vote regardless of policy, thereby preventing the parties from understanding what is actually effective in getting them votes?
Elections are an information gathering mechanism.
I encourage you to seriously engage with the topic and not just read and regurgitate platitudes from popsci articles.
Solar and wind are nothing like fusion.
Educate yourself, but first maybe pause and spend a second to think that perhaps you aren't the smartest person in the room and you shouldn't begin a discussion by speaking down to someone.
When everything hard looks easy, it is a sign you don't understand it as well as you think you do.
Just some advice for you as you grow up.
Economical energy production, sure, not any energy production. There is a reason we no longer burn wood to heat public baths.
I realize the science marketing of fusion over the past 60 years has been 'unlimited free energy', but that isn't quite accurate.
Fusion (well, at least protium/deuterium) would be 'unlimited' in the sense that the fuel needed is essentially inexhaustible. Tens of thousands of years of worldwide energy demand in the top few inches of the ocean.
However that 'free' part is the killer; fusion is very expensive per unit of energy output. For one, protium/deuterium fusion is incredibly 'innefficient', most of the energy is released as high-energy neutrons which generates radioactive waste, damages the containment vessel, and has a low conversion efficiency to electricity. More exotic forms of fusion ameliorate this downside to a degree, but require rarer fuels (hurting the 'unlimited' value proposition) and require more extreme conditions to sustain, further increasing the per-unit cost of energy.
Think of it this way, a fusion plant has an embodied cost of the energy required to make all the stuff that comprises the plant, let's call that C. It also has an operating cost, in both human effort and energy input, let's call that O. Lastly it has a lifetime, let's call that L. Finally, it has an average energy output, let's call that E.
For fusion to make economical sense, the following statement must be true:
(E-O)*L - C > 0.
In other words, it isn't sufficient that the reaction returns more energy than it requires to sustainT, it must also return enough excess energy that it 'pays' for the humans to maintain the plant, maintanence for the plant, and the initial building of the plant (at a minimum). If the above statement exactly equals zero, then the plant doesn't actually given any usable energy - it only pays for itself.
This is hardly the most sophisticated analysis, I encourage you to look more into the economics of fusion if you are interested, but it gets to the heart of the matter. Fusion can be free, unlimited, and economically worthless all at the same time.
The biggest factor is diet - a large portion of ingested water comes from food.
Someone who snacks on carrots is going to need to drink a very different amount of water to stay hydrated as someone who eats jerky and crackers.
There's also obviously differences in kidney function, salt retention, even just body size. Current medical advice is to just drink when you are thirsty, which works for just about everyone.
Thermo-electrochemical cycles.
The idea is simple: the favorability of a chemical reaction is a function of temperature, some reactions are more favorable at high temperatures, some at lower. For electrochemical reactions (e.g. batteries) this means a change in voltage at different temperatures. Some reactions have higher voltages, some lower. By choosing a pair of redox reactions such that the direction of charge transfer can be reversed within a specified temperature envelope, one can create a thermal engine that directly converts heat to electrical energy without requiring a turbine.
There's lots of research on this, sometimes called the 'omnivorous' flow battery.
Completely correct. There is also a (much rather in the US) ScD degree - Doctor of science.
In the US, it is often identical to a PhD. If your institution offers it, you just check a box at the end of your program on whether you want a PhD or ScD. In Europe, an ScD is a higher degree than a PhD and requires some extra work to obtain.
I find it kind of bussin', I find it kind of cap. The dreams in which I'm dying are the ones that kinda slap.
The price differential doesn't really exist anymore, though. If they were recommending 4TB, then I'd agree (only a few 4TB 5.0 and they are quite pricey), but at 2TB you're looking at like $10 difference between something like the MP700 and the SN850X they recommend (not counting all the black Friday sales going on).
I'd be very careful relying on that site.. just flipped through some of the build and it was very strange.
E.g. they were recommending a $500 or $900 CASE at the highest tiers - not even good cases, you can get something less than half the price with better performance. They recommended a single pcie 4.0 SSD and a SPINNING HARD DRIVE for a motherboard with pcie 5.0 m2 slots. Recommending CPU coolers that are far, far in excess of requirements (a 3x140mm radiator for a 100W chip? Nonsense). Memory recommendations for AMD builds are also sus - DDR5 6000 CL30 is what those cups do best with, they were recommending DDR5600 CL32 kits for no reason.
Just strange.. makes me question the rest of their recommendations.
There were plenty of problems with the concrete policies on offer.
'most lethal military', tough on crime, secure the border.. it was ridiculous to see how far right the supposed left went in search of votes. Harris's platform looked more like Trump's from 2016 than it did Hilary's.
2020 was different from 2024. It was a very unique set of circumstances with an election in the middle of pandemic, with an incumbent who was never broadly popular, amidst utterly terrible economic conditions.
Still, Trump's base showed up, just as they did on Tuesday.
Biden had the benefit of all the unlikely voters not being able to ignore the country burning down around them, he got a lot of dissatisfied people who don't pay attention to politics to come out.
Harris didn't, she got the Dem base. People broadly dissatisfied at the state of things probably voted Trump since he isn't the incumbent.
Just how it works - voters don't have to be rational.
I really doubt double-digit millions of voters sat out because of Gaza.
Kamala's vote total is roughly in line with what would be expected looking at 2008, 2012, and 2016. The massive turnout in 2020 on the Dem side appears to be an abberation - it was unique circumstances with COVID and all that. On the Republican side, Trump ran slightly ahead of his 2020 performance, and well ahead of 2016.
It's basic electoral politics: Trump has succeeded at expanding his base of support and turning them out to vote reliably. The Democrats have not. No single issue is responsible for that.
You can blame protests or Gaza or third parties or whoever else you want - the truth remains that the Dem base from the Obama years is not large enough and not appropriately distributed to win an election against Trump's base; whatever else you think of the man, he has been very good at gaining and retaining support.
The momentum is the same, the impulse (and therefore forces) are very different. The bullet is propelled down the barrel gradually - the force is spread through the entire time it takes the bullet to travel the length of the barrel, the reaction forces are applied to the stock gradually, and spread over the area of contact between the shooter and the gun.
A bullet stopped by a vest/plate has a much larger impulse. The bullet needs to be stopped essentially immediately, rather than gradually slowed down over a length equivalent to a rifle barrel, otherwise it kills you. The force is also more concentrated, occuring over the cross-sectional area of the bullet, rather than over the entire contact surface with the rifle.
Dropping anything in orbit just means it is still in orbit.
You'd need a lot of fuel to deorbit that cube on a steep trajectory.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
2000 Bezos or about 4x the GDP of the planet.
People just need to invest and stop blaming others for being broke SMH.
Invest one penny at 3% per year, who can't afford one penny? You'll have $68 billion in just one thousand years. Poverty is a choice.
Instead of looking at the number of closed plants, one should look at the sum of emissions
That was in the link I posted. Emissions are Currently at record highs.
Slowing growth isn't enough; we need significant, sustained, reductions in the very near future, and negative emissions and sequestering carbon in the medium term.
None of that is happening at a scale that would inspire optimism.
Building out more and more renewables doesn't mean anything if emissions aren't falling - and they aren't. Since 2021, nearly 4 full years, the world has closed less than 1% of active coal power plants.
The buildout of renewables has arrived hand-in-hand with an increase in total energy usage. The energy mix has improved greatly in favor of renewables, tons of CO2 per KWh is way down, unfortunately we just use more KWh so total emissions are still rising.
Everything in the meme is a leading indicator for positive change, which is wonderful, but the actual change needs to materialize on a rather short timetable. Stories about happy first derivatives don't count for much.
Y'all are really just allergic to actual discourse.
I get it, you don't like Trump being president. Neither do I. Personally blaming me for the party gaslighting about Biden's fitness, then running Kamala on trans erasure, 'most lethal' military, a militarized border, tax cuts, etc. etc. Is counterproductive. Large parts of her platform, and this is not an exaggeration, were literally what Trump ran on in 2016.
Did you vote for Trump's policies in 2016? Why are you insisting everyone do just that in 2024?