What annoys me about this meme is that it is the same relationship that underpins all business relationships. I understand you are not happy with the state of things but showing a drawing of “capitalism” at work in nature isn’t really making the point you think you are making.
This might as well be a pic of two guys in suits trading on a stock exchange floor with the same caption. Or add this to a caption to a pic of a lion eating a baby gazelle while its mother watches from the tree line. What point are we even trying to make here??
Business relationships may be mutually beneficial to those who willingly enter them, but unlike symbiotic relationships, they’re usually detrimental to the ecosystem as a whole.
but that’s not an inherent symptom of buisness relationships but rather of the ones conducting them. symbiotic relationships are not usually harmful to their environment because they are usually specialized for that niche and can’t just move somewhere else. humans (for themost part) can and thus aren’t as immediately affected by the detrimental effects of their buisness relations (or we actively ignore those detrimental effects)
Are you talking about broker taking commission when buying and selling stock? They provide service of buying/selling and the commission is the service fee. Why is it not their labor?
Moving fake numbers representative of labor is not in itself labor. It’s extraction of labor value from someone who actually provided something useful to society.
Moving numbers or information representing anything or nothing is a service processed to the one who purchased the service - to the person or institution that wants to buy or sell stock. Why is it not labour? Do you not count sales person actions in a store as labour?
It’s an interesting argument but I think it is stretching things too far. Also isn’t a little anthrocentric to assume that our relationships are unique and different than all other living things here.
A pine tree drops needs that are so acidic few other plants can grow near it. Is it damaging the ecosystem?
Our relationship with bovines is weird right. probably the most successful large mammals on earth. Their success is completely due to being a great machine for turning grass into human food. It’s symbiotic in a lot of ways: we clear pasture and kill predators for them, but also, we eat them. Great for the cows and us, sucks for the trees and wolves.
Ants and aphids have a similar relationship. Great for the ants, and the aphids, not so much for the plants.
If you want to conflate human economics with the natural world, you would have to admit that nature is the domain of the most ruthless of capitalists. Christ, the whole point of a lot of leftist thinking is that we must “rise above” our animalistic nature.
Maybe mushrooms are still in the “build userbase” phase. Soon they will begin with the enshittification, raise the prices, put normal quality of life functions behind a paywall and add ads.
IIRC, this actually happens. When the balance is disturbed, the mushrooms go wild and destroy young sapplings. Could be I recall incorrectly and it’s actually other species. I cannot recommend The Mother Tree enough, it goes into great detail of the history of research into this
Also wrong. If you compare two otherwise identical vehicles, the one with more power will both accelerate faster and have a higher top speed, assuming it has the gearing to use that power.
Stop getting all your vehicle knowledge from old top gear episodes.
To accelerate a vehicle we need to put kinetic energy into it and Power is the measure of how fast we can do that.
From a technical capability standpoint, torque is a useless measure. With a motor of a given power you can always gear it up or down to whatever torque you need (assuming a lossless transmission system).
If we take two identical trucks with 10k lb trailers on them and one's a 800ft-lb diesel and one's a 300ft-lb gas, both with 400hp, they sould realisticly accelerate and climb a hill at the same rate. The diference is the gas engine will be screaming at 6/7/8000 rpm and guzzling gas. (This also assumes no other factors like heat cone into play, the gas may not be able to maintain as much power due to cooling system designs or other factors).
Torquey-er engines also tend to feel better from a driveability standpoint but that's not representative of capability.
What? Torque tells you what force can be applied at what distance from the center of rotation. Acceleration is a function of mass and force. Of course more torque is going to get you to accelerate faster.
79,000 rpm/88 guns = 897.7 rpm/gun, but Wikipedia has the PPSh-41 rate of fire listed as 1250 rpm, which would make this 110,000 rpm.
But, that drum magazine only has 71 rounds, so you could get 110,000 rpm for about 3 seconds (71 rounds/1250 rpm = 0.057 min = 3.4 sec) … and then what? Fly back to base so you can swap out 88 individual drum magazines? And also do maintenace on any of the guns that jammed?
It’s safer than putting 88 people in the line of fire with the same circumstances. Theres the whole it’s less accurate angle, but its safer, man power not put in line of fire could be used to reload and swap magazines.
The biggest reasons this straight sucks are: identification of friendlies/civilians from the air, not getting blown up at extremely low altitudes, how crazy spread out everything in real life combat
The spread of an explosive bomb is WAY more than a bullet. So you only bomb places you know there are no friendlies unless you’re using forward facing guns
It’s ww1 thinking. Aerial darts were fairly effective, not really damage wise but fear wise. They imagined the save idea but it doesn’t have the same effect since they aren’t that loud and visually don’t make a s much of an impact as seeing you homeboy suddenly turned into a gruesome pincushion.
Just for fun: Assuming they are firing perfectly staggered, 110,000 rpm at the top speed of 528km/h (1,833rps at 1,466m/s) gives us a dispersion of 1.25m/bullet. Not bad at all. If a person is standing in this line, there’s a 14.4% chance of being hit (18cm head diameter). If they were crouched or lying down it would be even higher, up to 100% if they were unfortunate enough to lie in the direction the plane is traveling.
Also, if the plane is traveling at 1466 m/s it will cover 4984m in 3.4s. So that’s about 1.25 bullets for every linear meter of travel (6248 rounds), but we have to account for the width of the targeted area which would depend on the spread at the distance from the muzzle (dependent on the altitude). Let’s assume it’s a strip 5km long by 10m wide for simplicity… and we’re looking at like 1 bullet for every 8 square meters… that’s going to be mostly miss. If the infantry have any cover at all it’s going to be a very futile exercise.
You’d probably be better off dropping hand grenades out of the plane than dealing with that ridiculous contraption.
Also worth noting that flying low enough to be in effective range for the mounted firearms means that the plane will be in effective range for firearms… which is not really where you want to be in a bomber giant target. I wouldn’t want to fly this mission.
This is the funniest damn wiki entry I’ve ever seen.
…different uses of the suffix, such as the merging of “Margaret Thatcher” with “-ussy” to create the portmanteau Thatchussy.[2] Other examples include clussy (clown and pussy) and grussy (Grinch and pussy).[2]: 6
If you think cleaning is picking up after yourself you haven’t actually cleaned. If I had just a tiny bit more disposable income I’d love to spend it on someone properly cleaning the apartment.
Between two full time jobs, commute, and a toddler there is not much time, much less energy, to clean beyond a quick vacuum, and wipe down of the bathroom once a week.
slrpnk.net
Hot