It’s not even a disaster, like, the port workers wouldn’t strike so long as to actually threaten the country, they live in it. It’s only a disaster if you’re trying to avoid paying them more
It’s not even a disaster, like, the port workers wouldn’t strike so long as to actually threaten the country, they live in it. It’s only a disaster if you’re trying to avoid paying them more
The last bit about the big bang isn’t really how it works to my understanding. The big bang is compared to an explosion, but its actually more like a balloon inflating, if you imagine the surface of the balloon as analogous to space. The galaxies don’t all move away from some original center to the universe, new bits of space get “added” in between every bit of space, so that every object gets farther away from every other object. If you go backwards in time far enough, every point sees itself as being the center. At least, that’s how I’ve seen it explained.
The issue with ICBM interception as I understand it is that it’s one of those cases where the economics heavily favor the attacker. An intercept missile requires a rocket just as capable the one launching the target, if not more so. But, you can’t afford letting even a few nukes get through, even one is devasting, so given that the chance of a successful intercept isn’t 100 percent (my understanding is that it’s well below 100% currently, for likely real world conditions), you need several intercept missiles for every missile your enemy has. Any countermeasures that make taking the enemy missile out harder, like deploying decoys or such, increases the needed resources on your end far more than it increases the resources used by them.
It might be viable against countries like North Korea where the difference in resources is vast enough, but against any serious opponent like Russia or China, it’s not likely to work out.
to be fair, though politicians are usually rich, we dont want a system wherein they have to be rich, or where compromising information on a high level politician gets to a hostile power just because while said politician was running they were a cheapskate about who they hired for security
It is fundamentally less efficient to run electrolysis on water to produce hydrogen, and then reverse the process again in a fuel cell to produce electricity to turn a motor, vs taking the electricity used for that electrolysis and storing it in a battery that is then taken back out to turn a motor. Granted, modern lithium battery chemistry isn’t the cleanest thing to extract and use, but it’s also not the only possible battery chemistry, just the one currently most used for vehicle batteries. It also doesn’t allow for certain benefits to BEV like home charging (I mean technically one could run a hydrogen line to one’s house, but that doesn’t seem likely). The only scenario I can think of for hydrogen cars taking off is if the needed infrastructure was built out for something else and so was readily available. I could maybe see that if hydrogen ends up getting used as the solution for decarbonized aviation fuel, but my understanding was that it (along with basically every other proposed tech for that admittedly) had some pretty serious cost drawbacks and so there’s no garuntee of it getting built out for even that application.
Hydrogen cars aren’t even something likely to catch on at this point anyway I’d think, despite Toyota’s attempts to the contrary. Battery-electric cars have improved a lot of late making the advantage in range from using an energy dense chemical fuel less apparent, and hydrogen has to deal with both lower energy efficiency and the fact that hydrogen storage is rather difficult, while the infrastructure getting built has overwhelmingly been EV charging rather than hydrogen filling stations.
It can be produced in a renewable manner even if it currently usually isn’t (though it is a net consumer of energy to create it that way, so it’s more like a sort of battery when used that way than an energy source), so if the downsides can be worked around and the economics worked out (a difficult proposition I expect given hydrogen is in a similar position and all the issues that one has) it has potential to work as a renewable vehicle fuel.
I’m not really convinced that this would change their behavior much tbh, given that corporations are already prone to sacrificing their own financial future for short term profit increases, despite existing for nothing but financial gain.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/bda1fe3b9784777fd550b776d1e89364/tumblr_inline_ow6sw7yn1j1spja7s_400.gif
(Hecc, not sure how to make that embed)
Oh I mean, yeah, anthro characters are probably older than civilization, but I meant the furry fandom as a specific subculture rather than specifically the subject it is centered around.
Furries aren’t as recent as people tend to think either I might point out, the subculture has existed in some form since like the 80s to my understanding, it’s just more popular and visible these days.
I don’t think these myths are meant to be taken completely literally, but in any case, Zeus isn’t exactly the most upstanding and consistent deity out of all mythologies.
The time of entertainment per dollar is probably a bit different too I think. Depending on the replayability of the game in question, one can buy a game and get enjoyment out of it for hundreds or in some cases over a thousand hours. Meanwhile, even if you really enjoy a movie and rewatch it like 10 different times, that’s still only like 20 hours. Movies tend to be cheaper to buy than games individually, but I suspect that buying enough movies to make up the time difference would make the movies significantly more expensive.
It’s very similar to the concept of blood libel I think, just directed at a different group than that term usually refers to. Which, given what that kind of thing historically has led to, is extremely concerning coming from such a public figure.
Realistically she’s got quite a few of those, but when given a bad but not fundamentally different from what one had before option, and a make everything far worse option, and a situation that makes trying to choose a third option an exercise in futility, the choice is a no-brainer.
Because the candidates do have those responsibilities, but have shirked them. Ideally, we’d want a better voting system, that didn’t mathematically garuntee that only two viable parties emerge, so that when the politicians refuse to use their power as they should, people who will may be chosen instead, but we don’t have that, and changing that is a long and difficult process that only gets harder if the more authoritarian types get power anyway. If you’re in a lifeboat with holes, and there are two people that have rigged things so that one of them is going to be in charge, and one wants to stop bailing out water and the other wants to scoop it back into the boat, then even though those two aren’t following their responsibilities, it doesn’t mean you should stop bailing the water out, because it has to get done by somebody or you drown. And if you have a say in which of the two is in charge, the guy that just wants to sit there uselessly is still the option you must pick, because at least they aren’t trying to undo the progress you’re making. Ideally you’d want to figure out how to undo the rigged system too, but you have to deal with the water first, lest you all drown fighting over who’s in charge.
And that’d be reasonable for you to do. However, having a network choose to remove something, or cut ties with servers in the network that don’t in an attempt to persuade them to remove that thing, isn’t exactly the same as a government ordering a thing be removed. The former doesn’t give much avenue for a malicious actor to suppress something that isn’t in their interest, because they can hardly control the collective actions of users on the network, but the latter does by creating a single point of decision making on the network’s content from the outside. Not that the motivations in wanting that video gone were bad, but there is an element of risk to making it possible for a government entity to remove something from a social network, even if the thing they want gone this time is something that really shouldn’t be there.
I used to really get exited over 3d printed buildings until coming across this argument. The most obvious thing that comes to mind afterwards to try to bring increased efficiency to house building would be structures or modules for one built in a dedicated factory to a common design, where those harder parts could be included, but prefab houses and trailer homes already do that.
They really do get a lot more reverence today than they deserve. Like, I get most historical cultures don’t stack up the best with modern moral standards applied to them, but like, based on what I understand about Sparta, if the place were somehow transplanted through history to the modern day as it’s own country, it would probably end up some sanctioned pariah state out of sheer disgust for how it treats it’s own citizenry and handles it’s foreign diplomacy.
Imagine going to jail for Trump of all people.