• 65 Posts
  • 776 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle








  • How?

    I’m in NZ, we have a whole bunch of politicians to choose from, and it always comes down to who is the least likely to fuck things up beyond repair. It is not often that an objectively good candidate, everyone has their flaws.

    In this example the question is not is Harris an objectively good candidate, but is she objectively better than Trump?

    In my opinion yes, yes she is! Trump is the worst, the way he has emboldened the far right world wide is truly terrible.


  • 3 hours a day wouldn’t be that useful. You still have to “be” somewhere 5 days a week.

    What is useful; I did this for a few years; 3 x 8hr days. Mon - Wed, normal work hours, and a 4 day weekend. No need for “public holidays” even paid time off becomes less relevant, when you can switch one week to Wed - Fri. Leaving Thur - Tue as a “normal” way to take time off, giving a 6 day weekend possible every second week.


  • High temperature superconductors.

    Specifically anything above commercial / household freezer (-18C); but if we could get to ~105C (above water boiling) it would change literally everything.

    Electric motors become more efficient over a much greater RPM range.
    Superconducting magnets become much easier to construct and run, this gives us a much better chance at fusion.
    Transmission lines themselves are pretty efficient as it is, but all of the associated switchgear at the conversion points all gets really warm, this could be virtually eliminated.
    The conductors on circuit boards, and potentially inside microchips. This reduces heat loading and thus makes all computing devices more efficient.
    The conductors in batteries; enabling these to be smaller and thus increasing battery energy density.
    Finally making super-capacitors actually viable as longer term energy storage.

    There are so many aspects of life that would be impacted by this one breakthrough, that it is probably the most important thing that will happen this century (scientifically speaking). It would be almost as revolutionary as when electricity itself became widespread.


  • Nuclear Fusion and “net zero emissions” doesn’t really make sense.

    What I think you are trying to say is that fusion is nearing the point where net energy is possible (that is getting more energy out then the amount of energy put in to create the reactions in the first place). Fusion is not practically close yet, but there are tantalizing hints that we are close.

    See this from 2022; the national ignition facility produced more energy that was impacted on the target (2MJ in 3MJ out), but this doesn’t take into account the huge inefficiencies in the laser generators to produce that 2MJ laser pulse.

    There are a bunch of fusion experiments that are hitting massive temperatures (120 - 150MK) which is starting to get into the range where practical fusion could occur, the center of the sun is approx 15MK but also has massive gravity to encourage fusion.

    So fusion is still a decade away at least, but we understand the science much more completely now. We know the problems (well a bunch of them) and it is mostly now a very difficult engineering problem rather a problem of understanding the science.






  • absGeekNZtoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalism and fascism
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    Generational shifts happen slowly and in full view. You can act accordingly, this is a process that lasts decades.

    COVID happened in months, spread like wildfire and put a huge strain on healthcare systems worldwide. No amount of money thrown at the system would have increased capacity.


  • absGeekNZtoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalism and fascism
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 days ago

    What would count as real proof, if not prices falling due to competition?

    That is the problem I was referring to in my original post, “economics is a very murky science”, I come from an engineering and physical sciences point of view. Good economic data is hard to come by, it is always contaminated with chaotic factors that cannot be controlled for. “Proof” may not be possible in economic science.

    Why would it not be true?

    Because from a logical point of view, there is no necessity to go from socialism to communism. A country could easily decide that socialism is where they wan to stay. When something is necessarily true, not only does it always happen it must happen. That is the point I was trying to make, there is nothing fundamental about socialism forcing that transition from socialism to communism.

    Again, this has nothing to do with Socialism or Communism.

    I have to disagree with you there, in a capitalist system the burden of care falls on the individual (see the American health care system), whereas in socialism and communism, that burden falls on the state. This is a key economic factor, I’m from NZ and the social healthcare system is really awesome, but as with everything we can see how it could be better.

    The system has a capacity, if you want to increase that capacity you have to have the resources to do that. If your population is not growing (stable is not enough) then your health care system is always in danger of not having enough resource. The problem is that the system always need to grow, as we get better at improving the lives of people and increasing lifespan the burden from the elderly increases. The resources used to care for the elderly are finite and use up system capacity.

    Even in a capitalist society the system has capacity limits, there is no amount of money that you can throw at it to increase your number of doctors tomorrow. You have X doctors today, this is not easily increased beyond the natural rate (X+new doctors-retiring doctors), all you can do is move the existing ones around.

    You can use this argument for a lot of major points of expenditure; education, welfare, transport etc…but healthcare is starkly different between the different economic models.


  • absGeekNZtoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalism and fascism
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    While I appreciate that Marx made a case, this is not data or evidence. It seems intuitively true, but that doesn’t really move you closer to real proof.

    Essentially, competition forces prices lower, and automation and increased production lower the price floor. Automation is pursued because it temporarily allows you to outcompete, until other firms can produce at the same price, forcing prices to match at a new floor. This continues.

    I’m not sure if you are trying to imply automation is a good or bad thing. Looking through history, the industrial revolution was bad for the workers of the time, but in the long run massively improved the living standards of everyone. Automation is a net good in my opinion. Competition is simply an accelerator, this is not really tied to the economic system being used. In capitalist or communist systems, firms that are protected from competition (by what ever means) do not innovate as fast or as effectively (see Intel as a great example of this).

    Socialism is just the precursor to Communism.

    While this can be true, it is not necessarily true.

    I don’t see what birth rates have to do with anything.

    As your population ages, the costs to care for them raise at an increasing rate. If you don’t have enough new workers to stabilize the economic base, the burden that an aging population places on the younger generation grows until it becomes untenable.


  • absGeekNZtoMemes@lemmy.mlCapitalism and fascism
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    That is an interesting argument, but where is the proof? Economics is a very murky “science” as it is, a broad statement such as “capitalism is inherently unstable” needs some healthy data backing it up.

    The same argument could be made about communism, as an economic system it doesn’t have the best track record.

    Socialism seems to have a pretty good track record. But even in socialism there are issues, especially around ensuring a steady supply of kids coming through, once population starts falling the cracks start appearing.






















Moderates