In general we are open for constructive feedback
My one big fear right now is that a mod could delete my words, and they would be lost forever.
Sometimes I write long essays here. They are ideas that I think are important and original. I write them so people will be able to read them many years into the future.
It’s important that anything deleted by a mod or an admin can be saved by the creator afterwards.
I’d argue it’s necessary that nothing can ever be fully deleted, if you want people to ever write anything important here.
That’s why historically most of the most important world-change essays were written to newspapers. Once a newspaper is published, it is available forever. It can never be expunged.
Yes that’s literally what people want. Not just a few cunts but probably a majority. More than would openly admit it.
But you have to compromise if you want to get anything done fast. Starting a legal battle with your entire new neighbourhood sounds like a recipe for failure. And in this case the compromise solution could be the optimal one.
And you should totally advertise it like this, “the problem being pushed away from them and out of sight”. It’s important to be able to understand their perspective, even if you don’t agree. Then be able to talk in the language of your audience.
BTW you don’t need to quote the whole comment. That’s more for if you want to highlight a small part of it.
I can see why people would object.
A homeless shelter just shifts a problem geographically. All the misfits who used to be dispersed, all move to this one place. They gain shelter but the neighbourhood gets all the city’s social problems, concentrated.
Maybe a compromise is possible.
Instead of just housing, build housing & workplaces & leisure & amenities all in one place. So the residents tend to congregate inside, out of sight, rather then in the street. This way also has a real chance of helping the homeless out of poverty.
These bad laws happen with elected representatives too, but worse. At least with direct democracy, laws will not be made which are against the majority’s best interest, and laws have a legitimate mandate.
For example it’s hard to imagine a direct democracy starting a war of convenience, like representative democracies frequently do and are doing right now. All the most egregious crimes of government would stop.
But the quality of all the little laws is debatable. I would argue it’s higher under DD but I can see why some people disagree.
But it’s hard to discuss very specific examples, because they are always cherry-picked.
Finally, there are several forms of DD and the Californian style is probably the least beneficial.
Most of the worlds’s society is collapsing. Much of the world is becoming uninhabitable. But only a small corner of the earth needs to remain prosperous, for the rich to keep living rich lives.
Since we’re talking politics now, the solution is direct democracy, where the electorate can compel the government to make a certain law, or take certain measures. Major changes become possible which are impossible now.
Nothing which harms the powerful vested interests will ever happen without direct democracy. Today, governments can simply decline to do things which don’t suit them, even if the electorate demands them.
Anyone who believes in any issue at all, your first priority is direct democracy. It is your new goal. Without it your protests are ignored. With it, you can directly change the world without even having to protest.
efficiency calculations are done with assumptions based on current load, usage patterns, and supergrid as prerequisites.
Could be. At least for rural areas, small scale could be more efficent.
aluminum not steel
IIRC aluminium is never used for rotating parts because of the way it fatigues. After a certain number of strain cycles it will snap.
not to keep generating more and more energy
Yes but now this is a political issue. How are you going to stand between big business’s and its thirst for AI? The usage is growing exponentially and IMO will soon be dominant and the rest of the economy becomes more efficient.
Thanks. The reason for big turbines is because they are more efficient. You use less materials for more power. So you’ll never convince an engineer of all this.
I wonder if there is a maximum size of turbine that can be built with steel, given how heavy it is. Wind might become a lot more expensive.
Which would not be a bad thing because the world needs to start converting to sea-swell power asap.
I’m still shocked. What happened was stupid.
Russia could gained control of the remaining ethnically russian regions, of important mining areas and pipeline routes. And stopped. It was the obvious winning strategy.
Then it could wait a couple of years and repeat, steadily increasing its power in the region.
Like fools, they they give in to international pressure/expectations and rolled on into west ukraine. There’s no strategic sense in it.
yes there’s few things i can think of
- centralized. One vulnerability exposes billions of devices
- closed source. cannot be audited easily. so bugs remain undiscovered and backdoors can be built in
- you can’t verify android software with a hash. so infected versions can be selectively pushed to particular people.
- monopoly. manufacturers are barred my Google from making/selling non android phones and probably lots of other contributors. all of the above could be fixed with laws, or good regulation.
Maybe it’s an age thing.
I’m sure this terminology makes sense to a lot of people, and I’m sure there’s a good reason for these new ideas. I believe they might be important and there might be an urgency for society to change to be more inclusive of a certain group of people.
But also consider mental energy it would take to keep up to date with these constantly evolving ideas and terms. I can believe it’s an effective deterrent, not only for trolls but for many reasonable people.
Yes good points.
Btw what’s a better term than “tankie”? I only learnt about this ideology recently, am ignorant of the details of it.
It’s okay IMO to have instances which are now closed, more restricted speech/ideas. There are good reasons why some people like them, and why they need to exist. But there must be other places where fee speech/free debate is possible. For example in France it recently became illegal to criticise a policeman by name, no matter what he has done. Very dangerous.
Bitcoin should have led to global currency reform, for a start. That failed. It could still lead to energy reform and other important societal progress. But regulation and other factors are killing it.