The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it’s weakest link in terms of safety.

Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.

They will not devide us. They will not devide us and so on and so forth.

Also some application of similar tech has worked itself into industrial machines and factories over the last 10 years or so, it’s downright ubiquitous for anything that’s expensive and requires maintenance/ upkeep. Also it’s well intertwined with the ML tech we see consumer facing nowadays, the image recognition of 4+ years ago was made to recognize issues with materials, unexpected growing patterns, anomalies, as well as recognition and counting etc… before we got just point your camera and it’ll tell you what you’re looking at.

The thing is heat from the outside gets moved inside of the house using a heat pump, and to facilitate this movement you need somewhere between 1/2 and 1/4 of the energy you end up moving. E.g. a heat pump with (coefficient of performance) of 4 would move 4kW of heat into your house and use 1kW of electric energy to accomplish this. Gas by comparison moves 4kW of gas to your house and burns it there to get 4kW of heat.

So you could burn a bit more than 1kW of gas in a modern gas electric plant, turn it into electricity and use it to run a heat pump and you would end up emitting less CO2, the real world grid might skew that worse because generally you don’t end up burning coal to heat housing but you might still use it for electricity. So generally even though it might be unintuitive the more complicated and lossy way to heat your home (the heat pump powered by fossil powered electricity) , is the more effective one compared to burning the same fossil fuel directly because you use the heat pump to capture heat from the environment.

Both are abused by criminals and narcos and dictators

Everything is subsumed and used by those hungry for power, and with the means to solidify it. That doesn’t mean that the content of their claimed political thought doesn’t have meaning, or that we can never conclude anything about humanity or its ideologies from looking at history, understanding theory, analyzing culture, power …

Maybe understand why people here seem ‘extreme’ left, instead of just writing nonsensical, and obviously bad faith or confused arguments.

Because shock therapy has been done before, and the west is effectively at war with the result right now. Argentina might not be as bad but it’s easy to assume when looking at the history of the policy that it makes everything worse except for foreign and local elites.

Because they don’t have a perfectly fine business model. They get squeezed hard by both the oligarchs of music publishing UMG, Sony Warner who negotiate the price for the music. And from the other side by the tech giants google and apple who can cross service subsidize their own streaming.There exists essentially no space for them to make any profit in streaming music. So they have to go other places.

The only reason they’ll probably exist for the foreseeable future is because the rights holders are able to use Spotify to have more negotiating power against Google and apple.

Brother have you heard of both young people, and the concept of ‘having a future’, death might be inevitable, it’s still better to think about and implement things to quell the suffering, as well as to continue living with hope than to revel in the fact that we’re all dying.

Hope isn’t at the bottom of the box of Pandora without reason, it’s both, condemning us to strive and suffer, and the only way to make anything of it.

The problem is obviously a general over reliance on motorized road transport and a continuing trend towards more.

Brother US (and maybe the UK) made the propaganda and the systems of the world, they are gonna be very effective for their goals.

Have you forgotten they are a superpower or something? They are the origin of that kind of red scare propaganda, and they always aimed most of it not at the inside but at everyone else.

It’s certainly a saying here in Europe that we do what the US does ten years later (or that we do what they tell us to do) and it’s a saying because it’s core is true.

I listened to the entire and it struck a chord with me, it might be because I’m similarly petite bourgeois as the authors or something. But if you couldn’t get through it I might suggest softly that you read chapter 4 first (or only).

To me the order the book has it in makes sense, but it might be the wrong one for you. It explains the What for 3/4 and then carefully answers the Why with a short story in the last 1/4. It is essentially a manifesto with a reason to believe in it as the last part.

For me the reason it worked is because the walk through philosophy and history sufficiently grounded the authors claims toward the necessity of economic planning and rewilding and in combination with my prior beliefs made the utopia real.

The problem that unfortunately remains with this book is how we get there, but to me it seems reasonable to leave that part out for this book, not just because of the violence and messiness, but also because it seems like the much harder part to coherently write as well.

Edit: I’ve played one round of the game and it’s fun, perhaps a bit easy after knowing the content of the book.

People don’t need to be able to buy cars. The vast majority can’t anyways. So why should the second richest percent of Ethiopia be able to.

The not interested doesn’t work, the don’t recommend me videos from this channel works perfectly, and if the first video I get recommended of a channel is so repulsive to me I actually care to do something about it, the entire channel is probably bad anyways.

I’ve been playing beamNg for 4+ years and it’s been in ea the entire time since 2015, possibly the best car game you can get for 20€.

Slay the spire I’ve also owned since early access, it’s maybe the most beautiful single player card game to exist. Although it only spent 1-2 years in ea.

Don’t be the first to buy ea games I guess but if the game is already fun why not.

Video

Layers in paint is huge tbf

Not accepting Wikipedia as some reasonable baseline for truthful or commonly accepted definitions is the sort of hill I wouldn’t want to die on but sure. Especially for content that is so politically contentious Wikipedia usually settles on a reasonably holistic description where other outlets will leave out downplay or politically color certain parts of definitions, obviously this happens there too, but it’s more likely to be corrected especially on divisive Issues. I mean you can go ahead and read the discussion page related to a topic and find out why and how sections came to be.

I’m not trying to lecture you I simply think that having any discussion is impossible if there is no shared understanding. Which is why I deferred to Wikipedia simply the most common database of knowledge in the world. The articles there might show me to be ignorant, but unlike you I’ve at least read parts of them with the intent to understand the information provided. Which I do to some extent not to completely accept what is said there but just to effectively communicate with other people, because Wikipedia gets close to a common definition for anything you might be talking about.

It’s not about a completely factual definition because the topic is way to complex and nuanced to have one that isn’t at least several long books, everyone lacks understanding of the topic because it’s impossible in many ways to have a complete understanding of it. That’s why it’s a philosophical topic and not a natural science, the topic is currently completely impenetrable for the scientific method alone.

It is interesting and important to discuss precisely because it’s so hard to grasp, so multifaceted and so central to all of our lives at the same time. And as I said before if we can’t agree on baseline definitions all that potentially interesting discussion is lost on us.

I don’t even really know where to start. First is probably that you don’t get to define words on a whim and that your definition of both capitalism and socialism lacks understanding. Just read the Wikipedia entry for both and you’ll find them better defined within the first sentence of their respective entry.
And honestly I’m too tired to properly explain all the traps you fell into after that so good luck with your Libertarian socialist dream or something idk

I’m not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that’s one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.

This might be true in some sense of talking about this topic but putting economic freedom as the marker for capitalist/socialist tendencyes of a country is a strange choice. No normal person will go yeah these two social democracies are actually more capitalist, than the 5 companies that make up the US government.