• 3 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle


  • OK I’ll be serious for a second. The comment was ant-Marx. I think that the idea that capitalism would inevitably lead to a socialist revolution is not a real thing. I’m looking at all the capitalist western countries and see that there is no real need or even desire for people to overhaul the whole financial and governmental systems. Although socialists are becoming more prominent over the years especially on the internet, I believe that this is only relegated to the internet. The only thing close to socialism that we have is Bernie Sanders and he’s not really a powerful politician so others would probably not emulate him in the future.

    You can think that this is a cope or a soyjack-like post all you want, but at least I live in the real world where we’re not waiting for a fantasy revolution that would make us work in socialist utopias where everyone is a farmer in a small garden or a hair stylist or whatever the fuck people thing it’s gonna be like. I know the issues that would plague something like socialism or communism and know that capitalism solves all the problems there. Just look at the USSR in their last years and how much the US was outpacing them in terms of technology and production. The quality of life in capitalist countries was and still is leagues above any socialist or communist countries.

    I can understand when people criticize the current system we have since it’s 100% not perfect. But to just call for a socialist revolution instead of better methods of regulation and closing loops as we discover them is just stupid.

    And lastly, the post is pretty stupid on another level since the “woes of capitalism” are there because of events that mess up global trade like the pandemic or the current Houthi attacks on the red sea, when you know for a fact that any country that’s not extremely closed off and protectionist would be just as impacted.



  • spookedbyroaches@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlRelatable
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    He is 100℅ better at that job, but you’re mistaken if you think that GN has nearly as much influence in those things as LTT. Not that I’m saying that GN is not good enough, but he doesn’t fill the market that LTT does only GN’s own very technical niche.














  • The diamond industry sucks don’t get me wrong. But the real culpurists are the dumbfuck diamond buyers.

    My friend is a diamond salesperson and told me a story about one of their customers. They were looking at different pieces and the customer kept asking about the purity of the diamonds in the piece. Whenever my friend said it’s “SI,” the customer would be visibly disappointed and would ask for “VS” or “VVS” which are purer. My friend then got annoyed a bit and told the customer that purity doesn’t matter once you reach “SI” since the impurities are not really visible by the naked eye. He even showed the customer 2 pieces with one looking 10 times better than the other but has SI diamonds and the non-pretty piece has VS diamonds. He asked the customer to tell him which is which and the customer wrongly said the SI one was more pure. Even after he revealed his ruse and showed that purity doesn’t matter much, the customer kept asking for more pure pieces as if nothing happened.

    These “people” literallly are willingly being lied to, and they like it. If a diamond buyer saw a piece, told you they love it, told you they would buy it, then you told them it’s a synthetic, they would be disgusted. It’s bullshit from all sides and they deserve eachother.



  • spookedbyroaches@lemm.eetoMemes@lemmy.mlPower Sources
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    These are valid criticisms and they should be addressed. I think the main issue is that this is urgent and we can’t wait to do the amount of surveying or studying enough to guarantee a safe dumping. I’m just assuming here since no one said anything about that. But I think it’s a valid assumption since the disaster is 12 years old. If they are rushing this after let’s say 8 years of studying it, then whatever time they have left to fill up the tanks is probably not gonna be enough.

    Every single decision we make is based on “current science” since we didn’t invent a time machine just yet to look at the future. Just because science has messed up in the past, doesn’t mean we should paralyze ourselves now.

    What are these alternative treatments that the government rejected? How much more effective are they vs how much more do they cost? If treatment “A” gives us a 5% chance of a better outcome and costs 80% more, then it makes sense. If it was an 80% better outcome for 80% more cost then yeah they did mess up.


  • There’s a bit more nuance here. Fron this article, the plan is to treat the water to decontaminate it, then dilute it as much as possible because the treatment cannot remove some isotopes which could cause problems. The 30 year plan is actually a good thing since this would dilute the isotopes further making the risk minimal according to IAEA and the US. There are some independent labs that voice concerns for more data though.

    The main issue is that the tanks that are supposed to hold the contaminated cooling seawater are filling up quick, so they need to add some space. Unless there’s a better plan, it’s either that or the tanks overflow.