It’s the presentation of the information that really matters. Even if it’s not effective, a water based battery proof of concept is still better than nothing. Just because it isn’t practical right now doesn’t mean it isn’t noteworthy.
The issue is presenting it with the implication that it’s a ready to use product.
Did I miss that or are you saying it rhetorically? I didn’t pull the actual scientific article but this one mentioned decent performance over 800 cycles and 100 mAh/g. I’m not really up on this kind of tech but that seems pretty nifty for a new chemistry .
If you were just being rhetorical I get the frustration. There’s always gremlins hiding somewhere.
Still, I take stuff like this as indicitive that were absolutely not going to be stuck with Li ion forever.
This sounds like it’s worth the hype to me. It has about the same energy density as lithium-ion, and it uses non-toxic and abundantly available materials (unlike lithium-ion).
The cycle count is a little poor but it’s in the ballpark of lithium-ion, is likely to get better, and is much less of an issue if the batteries are non-toxic.
Also… the fact it’s non toxic could effectively reduce the weight especially for small batteries (where they’re still not safe enough despite heavy enclosures - kids literally die after swallowing coin cell lithium batteries).
I’d say worth discussing but none of these articles are ever “hype” worthy. Its really cool to know about, and should point to a brighter future, but there are always gremlins in this kind of thing. Even fuel cells, which have a deserved reputation on WAY over hyping early, helped lay the groundwork for a lot of manufacturing infrastructure and technical know how that laid the work for a lot of the battery boom we saw and continue to see.
Salt batteries are really bad, but, you know, at least they’re salt. I don’t know much about salt batteries at the expert level, but I also work on an e-chem system that is low current low density. There’s definitely applications, especially because materials and tanks are cheap, but it turns out power is stupid cheap as well.
I don’t think anyone can really predict a new “winner” right now, but it’s the biggest reason why I’m a proponent of electronification in general; we absolutely won’t be tied to Lithium forever.
Yeah I suppose thats true, I mean without a power curve the OCV isn’t all that interesting to me (and that power curve is going to be influenced by manufacturing which is probably not optimized and may or not be compatible etc etc). So like I said, neat bit of chemistry, but I do get why people get burned out on these articles.
A new diffraction-gated real-time ultra-speed mapping technology threatens to undercut cameras costing $100,000 with off-the-shelf parts.
The threatens to undercut part. Rather than talking about how it is going to make things more affordable, it talks about how it is going to ruin the exiting markets pricing. At least that is how that reads to me. Note, I am not talking about the whole article - just that one abstract, which is what is shown here and leads a completely different tone to how the article is actually worded.
Ah see thats where youre getting confused. ‘Ice’ is slang for crystal methamphetamine which doesnt melt. The moon is covered in meth. Thats why moon ‘rocks’ are so expensive
Second, we need to further modify V. natriegens so that it is capable of feeding on the byproducts it produces when it breaks down the PET. Lastly, we need to modify the V. natriegens to produce a desirable end product from the PET – such as a molecule that is a useful feedstock for the chemical industry
So it’s breaking PET down into some unspecified byproduct that it cannot currently eat or turn into anything useful.
I’m very much here for this in theory, but it also does seem like something that might boomerang back on us, like the bacteria evolve to consume not only plastic but other substances and end up destroying the oceans more than we have. We need to be cautious about unleashing our inventions on nature
We don’t need to be worried about them evolving to eat something else. We need to be worried that the bacteria spread. Rivers, lakes, and streams have tons of monitoring, anti-erosion, and safety infrastructure that involves plastics. Vinyl siding on houses is plastic. Window casements are plastic. Just imagine what housing anywhere near ocean breezes is going to go through. Or road ways. Or hospitals.
Obviously this is just in initial research phase, very far from being unleashed on nature. It would be interesting to see how this research progresses.
Industrialization and capitalism have figured largely in an intergenerational mental health crisis. But it’s so ubiquitous we think dysfunctional behavior is normal and accepable like vodka addiction in Russia.
Social media and dysfunctional smartphone behavior is yet another cope, yet another way to tolerate a stressful live forced upon us. And it’s probably less harmful than other coping methods such as drinking or domestic violence.
Pretty bad but in the early 20th century it was infamously bad.
The Soviet union illustrated how booze is also the opiate of the miserables when the economy is dire. I can’t say if alcoholism is or was less dire in the States, but both are on the same page finally that alcoholism is a problem to be reduced (despite an both states liking the taxes from the booze market.)
Yeah, I don’t use any other social media except lemmy, and in honestly thinking about replacing it’s location on my home screen with something to read that’s better for my mind.
I’m becoming increasingly skeptical of the “destroying our mental health” framework that we’ve become obsessed with as a society. “Mental health” is so all-encompassing in its breadth (It’s basically our entire subjective experience with the world) but at the same time, it’s actually quite limiting in the solutions it implies, as if there’s specific ailments or exercises or medications.
We’re miserable because our world is bad. The mental health crisis is probably better understood as all of us being sad as we collectively and simultaneously burn the world and fill it with trash, seemingly on purpose, and we’re not even having fun. The mental health framework, by converting our anger, loneliness, grief, and sadness into medicalized pathologies, stops us from understanding these feelings as valid and actionable. It leads us to seek clinical or technical fixes, like whether we should limit smart phones or whatever.
Maybe smart phones are bad for our mental health, but I think reducing our entire experience with the world into mental health is the worst thing for our mental health.
I thought you were implying that the mental health framework is an oversimplification, but then you oversimplify the issue yourself by saying that the world is bad. Neither is the truth. It may also still be worth invetigating data related to mental health issues and mobile phone usage.
No, I am saying it is overused, not oversimplified.
Oversimplification on its own is usually one of the weakest critiques of a model, because the point of any model is to simplify. For example, reducing the entirety of the sun and the Earth and everything in or on them as two point masses in an empty space is a ridiculous, almost offensive oversimplification, but it’s really useful for understanding our orbit. It’s an insufficient critique to say this model of our galaxy is oversimplified, because it obviously has utility. Often, the best theories or models are really simple. When we have really good, simple models, we often call them things like “elegant.”
Mental health, as a model, is actually extremely complex. You can spend a lifetime getting advanced degrees in that field and you’d probably barely scratch its surface. I wouldn’t dream of calling it an oversimplification. If anything, I’d say you’re more likely to find a fruitful critique going in the other direction.
“Mental health” is so all-encompassing in its breadth (It’s basically our entire subjective experience with the world) but at the same time, it’s actually quite limiting in the solutions it implies, as if there’s specific ailments or exercises or medications.
Are you saying that mental health is too limiting in terms of its solutions, because the real world is not involved? For example, I might come to a doctor saying that my child is restless. The child might be prescribed with medicine for an ADHD diagnosis, whereas the root cause is a flaky parent.
I agree with this point.
We’re miserable because our world is bad. The mental health crisis is probably better understood as all of us being sad as we collectively and simultaneously burn the world and fill it with trash, seemingly on purpose, and we’re not even having fun.
How is this not an over-simplification? People are miserable for all kinds of reasons. Of course the problem and the solution is always some combination of the world and how we interpret the world, but sometimes the problem lies more in the interpretation than in the world, right? It may have nothing or nearly nothing to do with climate change or the state of the world at large.
The mental health framework, by converting our anger, loneliness, grief, and sadness into medicalized pathologies, stops us from understanding these feelings as valid and actionable. It leads us to seek clinical or technical fixes, like whether we should limit smart phones or whatever.
Which may be valid under some circumstances, but sometimes a clinical fix as you call it might be in order. Sometimes people are just extremely unkind to themselves due to conditionings of the past, which are not relevant anymore today.
I would agree that solutions to mental health problems need to be examined in a biopsychosocial context, but whereas you say that just looking at the person and not the world is too limiting, I think just looking at the state of the world is too limiting.
How is this not an over-simplification? People are miserable for all kinds of reasons. Of course the problem and the solution is always some combination of the world and how we interpret the world, but sometimes the problem lies more in the interpretation than in the world, right? It may have nothing or nearly nothing to do with climate change or the state of the world at large
Maybe it is, but is it useful? Right now, our currently accepted model for dealing with our widespread sadness is to go to doctors. Biden administration recently announced it wants to start screening every American over a certain age for anxiety.
I propose we consider that maybe people are more sad because the world is actually getting worse in a variety of ways. Sure, it’s simple, but I think it’s a great starting point. This way of thinking won’t help us understand every single so-called mental health problem, but isn’t it a reasonable starting point, rather than screening every American for anxiety.
would agree that solutions to mental health problems need to be examined in a biopsychosocial context, but whereas you say that just looking at the person and not the world is too limiting, I think just looking at the state of the world is too limiting.
Sure. That’s fine. I even agree. Multiple models and theories can coexist and have utility, even if they’re conflicting. My main point is that we’re seemingly stuck on one. There will never be one theory that explains anything perfectly, and I think the one we’re using now is particularly harmful for the reasons that I have set out.
My main point is that we’re seemingly stuck on one.
Yeah, and my point was that you’re just shifting it from this one (mental health) to that one (the state of the world).
It seems we both acknowledge that mental health issues are complex. Sometimes you really do need to get out of a toxic relationship or find a new career path or move to another city. But nevertheless people need to learn to take responsibility for their mental health. Usually when people do that they also then see that they need to make a change in their circumstances. Even if the state of the world makes you sad, it is still up to you whether you are going to mope all day, do something about it and/or learn to live your best life regardless of that fact.
The good news is that your basic point is largely being acknowledged by the mental health community. My wife is a systems therapist and has been reporting an increased understanding, in the mental health community, of the fact that issues do not live in isolation in someone’s brain as some kind of hormonal imbalance that can be fixed with some pills. Where I am from systems therapy gets covered by basic insurance and family systems therapy even gets funded by the government. We might be a bit ahead of the curve over here, but there are a lot of signs the mental health community is maturing.
With regard to the Biden’s anxiety proposal. I don’t think it is necessarily bad to screen people for anxiety. Anxiety is really out of control since covid and that affects the happiness of a lot of people. It depends what you do with the diagnosis. If that means that people are going to be prescribed mindfulness practices, which will be covered by insurance, then it might be a good thing. Even though America is the land of Xanax, it is also home to people like Dr. Jud Brewer whose book “Unwinding Anxiety” offers a very healthy approach to anxiety. And if people learn to rid themselves from anxiety based on mindfulness practices, there is a much higher likely hood that they will do something about the state of the world then if they are going to be stuck in endless anxiety loops.
There is another point that I’d like to raise. While you point out that the state of the world is pretty bad, I’d like to point out that the average mental health of people is pretty bad too. The two go hand in hand, for sure, but they are also independent to a large part. It is amazing how few tools people have to deal with their own psychological issues. People go to therapists to deal with stuff that they could trivially deal with themselves if they were somewhat better equipped to understand their own mind. From my vantage point most people could really benefit from going into some kind of therapy, meditation retreats, journalling, gratitude practice, solo hikes, etc. but people are super reluctant to do these things. Instead, most people who have mental health issues are not using their time effectively to deal with their issues, but instead complain about the state of the world and blame everybody but themselves. And usually it is also these very same people that fuck up the world. If people can not take responsibility for their own mind, then how can they take responsibility for the world?
Yeah again we don’t really disagree very much. I think you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. I definitely don’t think I did this:
Yeah, and my point was that you’re just shifting it from this one (mental health) to that one (the state of the world).
As I said before, I don’t want to shift to any one new way, but rather to critique everything being always understood in the context of “mental health,” as per this article. The framing of this article is ridiculous, but also completely normal. I was just proposing that as a counterpoint to the prevailing narrative, not as a replacement. I think I already explained that in the follow-ups.
The good news is that your basic point is largely being acknowledged by the mental health community.
I unfortunately have extensive personal experience with the mental health community, and this has not been my experience at all, but I live in that land of Xanax, the USA, and our mental health community fucking sucks. Our psychiatric hospitals are barbaric. It is still perfectly normal to throw a psych patient into a room with nothing but a bed, a fluorescent light, and a camera, not provide them with food and water, lock the door from the outside, and leave them there for hours.
the fact that issues do not live in isolation in someone’s brain as some kind of hormonal imbalance that can be fixed with some pills.
This is awesome. The “chemical imbalance” theory of mental illness is scientifically debunked, but here in the US, it’s absolutely still taught in school and told to patients. It’s what my doctors have told me. If you tell people they have a chemical imbalance in their brain, that tells them that they have an innate medical problem, and that it must be overcome with medication. It’s almost like the drug companies come up with the theory 🙃.
Are you familiar with the book “Mad in America?” There’s also a sequel, “Anatomy of an Epidemic,” and a website. Maybe to an outsider from the US, this is just what the normal mental health community is like, but to me, discovering their work really helped me understand the barbarity of my own experiences.
Oh yeah, I live in the Netherlands and it is very different here. It seems big pharma is running the show in the US. Although I’ve heard that these kinds of things happen in the Netherlands to some extent as well, the scale of it is not comparable. We don’t have ads for medicine and doctors don’t reap rewards for writing certain kinds of prescriptions. These kinds of things just seem like insanity to me.
Omg lol those commercials are perfect. You’re making fun of them, but have you considered that that approach to healthcare maximizes GDP 🫠. Big pharma, big companies in general, really does run the show here. Send help, please.
I’d say it’s getting worse here, and more worryingly, it’s getting worse faster. My doctor friends are very clear about this: Our healthcare system has already collapsed, but you only know about it if you’re in it in some way.
Every year, my health insurance goes up in cost some ridiculous amount. This year, my partner and I had to spend some 4000 USD for our annual premium (that is in addition to what her employer is already paying for “employer provided” healthcare [itself a scam]), plus our deductible, or the total amount we have to spend before our insurance covers virtually anything, is 8000 USD. After that, there’s “co-insurance,” which I’m pretty sure didn’t exist 10 years ago and is a concept I don’t fully understand, but it’s some cost sharing arrangement with insurance companies before you finally hit your “max out of pocket.” I don’t even know what my max out of pocket is anymore.
The billing is similarly insane. Every time I interact with any healthcare system, I don’t just receive a single bill, but instead I receive a stream of confusing letters, each with differing amounts, and they trickle in for months and months.
I and many of my friends no longer pay our medical bills. I really just ignore them. When a healthcare debt collector call, I inform them that they are the most vile bottom-feeders and absolute scum of the earth, and that my payment plan is the revolution. So far, that hasn’t been a problem for me, which is only because I live in Vermont, and we do have some laws regulating healthcare debt, plus all our hospitals are not-for-profits. In much of the US, most hospitals are for-profit, and not paying your bills means you end up in a bad legal situation really quickly.
To add to all that, somehow, hospitals are perpetually low on funds, and wait times to see a new doctor are easily a year.
The situation is plainly unsustainable. We tolerate it because we are a stupid, pathetic, illiterate, and completely dominated population, terrified of each other and of change, but also too afraid to admit to ourselves that our pride at being the world’s most special country is a lie, because it’s the only thing we have left as the rest collapses around us.
Oh my god, I knew it was bad, but this sounds god aweful. Why is the US so broken in so many ways? Is it all to due with the 2 party political system? That would be my best guess for a root cause.
I’m not sure. I think the two party system is itself a symptom of a citizenry with very little political education, because ultimately we could exert power collectively if we had the consciousness to do so. There’s a small but very active leftist population in the US, but for whatever reason, we struggle to organize and break into mainstream.
The average American thinks Karl Marx is almost literally a demon from hell, socialism is when free stuff, communism is when government owns everything, and anarchism is when bombs.
Our state legislators, at least here in Vermont, and I’ve interacted with many of these, are generally landlords, and they themselves have little background or even interest in political theory. Our news rarely even covers other countries. As a result, we don’t even have the vocabulary for how things could be different.
I’m actually a dual citizen. I’m currently in Spain visiting my family, and it’s just shocking to me how much better things are here. I come about once a year, and by comparison, the US is just uncivilized. I don’t know how else to put it. It’s a huge comfort to me that I have a place with family and whee I speak the language to escape if/when things finally end in the increasingly inevitable violence that is coming.
I’d venture to say the political system is what made the citizenry. Genetically people in the US aren’t so different. My guess is that somehow your political system got fucked and that fucked the rest. I’d be interesting to know how it got to that point.
In terms of socialism, yeah I know people over there are totally brainwashed to vote against their own interest. It was just amazing to see how much people rallied against Obama when he tried to introduce some type of universal health care. “Health care for everyone? How dare you!!”. Lordy lord. People are so dumb. Not just americans though, it depends so much on the system.
Here in the Netherlands we have a surplus of PhDs. Not that we are genetically superior. We just have affordable universities and a culture that stimulates learning.
I genuinely don’t know. I used to think it all goes back to the cold war, but I don’t know anymore. I’m in my mid thirties, and the only hope I have is that the generation after us seems more radicalized by climate changes, school shootings, and so on. They’re our only hope. In my activist circles, I’m starting to meet 22 and 23 year olds, and they’re so young and already so active and politically educated. I really truly hope that’s a trend and not just a fluke.
Here are some factors that have contributed to the increasing polarization:
Historical Context: From its inception, the U.S. had deep political divisions. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were sharply divided over the creation of a strong central government in the late 18th century. Over time, issues like slavery, states’ rights, and industrialization caused significant rifts.
Two-Party System: The U.S. predominantly has a two-party system. This tends to create a binary choice for voters, which can exacerbate polarization. Over time, as parties realign and consolidate around specific issues or identities, divisions can become more pronounced.
Media Landscape Evolution: The rise of cable news in the 1980s and 1990s, and later the internet and social media, has played a role in deepening polarization. News outlets and platforms can cater to specific ideological niches, leading to echo chambers where viewers are only exposed to information that reinforces their preexisting beliefs.
Gerrymandering: The practice of redrawing electoral districts to favor one party over another can create “safe” districts where politicians are more worried about primary challenges from their own party’s extremes than about general election threats from the opposing party. This can push politicians further to the left or right.
Campaign Finance: The way campaigns are financed, especially after decisions like the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, allows for significant amounts of money to be poured into politics. This can give disproportionate influence to certain groups or individuals, potentially exacerbating polarization.
Cultural and Social Shifts: Factors such as urbanization, education, and changes in religious affiliation can contribute to political polarization. As these shifts occur, they can create a sense of cultural war or identity politics, further dividing groups along political lines.
Political Leadership: Leaders can either bridge divides or deepen them. At various times, American leaders have taken adversarial stances that have contributed to the climate of polarization.
Economic Inequalities: Growing economic disparities can exacerbate feelings of disenfranchisement and lead to increased polarization. People may feel that the “other side” doesn’t represent their interests, leading to a lack of trust in opposing parties or politicians.
Geographic Polarization: There’s an increasing trend of people living in areas that are politically homogenous. Urban areas tend to lean Democratic, while many rural areas lean Republican. This geographical sorting reinforces political beliefs and reduces exposure to opposing views.
Feedback Loop: As polarization increases, trust in the opposing party decreases, leading to a feedback loop where compromise becomes increasingly difficult.
While polarization in politics is not unique to the U.S., the combination of the aforementioned factors has made it particularly pronounced in recent decades. However, history also shows that the country has faced deep divisions before and has found ways to address or move past them. The challenge is understanding the underlying causes and working towards remedies that can foster dialogue and compromise.
Then I asked if capitalism, may have something to do with it also.
Yes, capitalism and its dynamics can certainly play a role in political polarization. Here’s how:
Economic Inequality: One of the criticisms often levied against capitalism, especially in its less-regulated forms, is that it can lead to significant economic inequality. As wealth accumulates among the top echelons of society, those left behind can feel economically and politically disenfranchised. This can lead to resentment and division, with political factions forming around pro-business interests and worker or populist interests.
Consumer Culture and Identity: Capitalism’s emphasis on consumerism can influence how people see themselves and others. As products and brands become intertwined with identity, political beliefs can also become commodities to be marketed and sold. This can further entrench people into particular ideological camps.
Media Commercialization: In a capitalist system, media outlets are often profit-driven. This can lead to sensationalism or the creation of echo chambers, where outlets cater to specific political or ideological demographics to maintain and grow their audience.
Corporate Influence in Politics: With capitalism, especially in systems where campaign finance regulations are lax, corporations and wealthy individuals can exert significant influence on political processes. This can lead to perceptions (or realities) that politicians cater to corporate interests over those of the average citizen, fueling distrust and polarization.
Globalization and Job Displacement: Capitalism’s search for efficiency and profit can lead to phenomena like outsourcing. This can result in job losses in certain sectors or regions, leading to economic anxiety. Politically, this can manifest in protectionism, anti-immigration sentiments, and a polarization between those who see globalization as an opportunity versus those who see it as a threat.
Differing Economic Philosophies: Capitalism, as an economic system, isn’t monolithic. There are varying degrees and types of capitalism (e.g., laissez-faire capitalism vs. welfare capitalism). These differences can lead to political divisions, with some advocating for more government intervention in the market and others pushing for less.
Financial Crises: Episodes like the 2008 financial crisis can exacerbate political divides. In the aftermath of such events, there are often debates about the role of regulation, corporate greed, and government bailouts, which can further polarize public opinion.
So my take is that the binary choice in politics created a major issue straight from the start. Life is too complicated to put in just two categories, but in the US you seem to manage it. And these political boundaries are very much geograhpy based too, which makes of makes it easy to cater to the polarization, which made it easy to maintain. Then you add to that a culture that favors capitalism and now you’ve got the beginnings of a dumpster fire. Voters can be treated as consumers and consumers as voters. Perhaps the age of mass media is where it really started to go wrong. Essentially you end up with news channels such as Fox news which send out a lot of propaganda for the republic party. Once you’ve got a good proportion of your population in a brainwashed state you’re in a pretty bad spot.
Perhaps. I am not an expert. It was an example of a problem where the diagnosis depends more on the social context than on the biological context.
My wife is a family systems therapist and she told me once of a case, where one group of therapist had a child diagnosed with autism and another group found that the parents were the problem and that the child was only behaving in a certain way as a reaction to the parents’ behavior. They had a meeting on the topic and after re-evaluation they decided that the child was not autistic after all.
Maybe smart phones are bad for our mental health, but I think reducing our entire experience with the world into mental health is the worst thing for our mental health.
In much the same way as individual people are blamed for CO^2^ emissions and make , it’s a type of shifting the blame from where it belongs.
The thought process behind this is: “your personal mental health being bad must be a personal failing rather than external factors, or else the system would need to be changed. And that simply would hurt profits.”
Unfortunately it is very difficult to be good parents when both parents have to stay out over 10 hrs per day to work. This is the part that is always overlooked in these news. Problem is not the smartphones. It’s modern society
Really good point tbh, and really just adds to my point, not just bad parenting through negligence, but also an unfortunate lack of presence from otherwise good parents even being possible due to both needing full time jobs.
I’m not gonna bang the 4dww drum in this thread, but reduced-day-same-pay working weeks need to happen yesterday, so many tangible improvements to society are just hanging there.
interestingengineering.com
Newest