Eveyone needs it. Aristotle starts out his Nicomachean ethics stating that virtuous acts are first and foremost for the benefit of the virtuous person.
Platonic ethics should also really be taught widely, even more so than Aristotle’s because they’re easier to receive. Even if he has some hard to accept views such as that commiting injustice is worse than suffering it, everyone would benefit if children grew up with the notion that everyone does what they think best, and that those who do “wrong” things do so out of ignorance of what is good, rather than what we currently have where everyone knows what is objectively good, and those who don’t do it are willfully wrongdoers and you just need to punish them enough and they’ll become good.
Although you can have the best educational plans in the galaxy if the educarional system is crap. I don’t know about the rest of the world, but where I’m from all education from primary school to a master’s degree is just a bunch of information being thrown at you with 0 context and reasoning behind it, and when you’re able to reproduce that information on demand (without any context): congratz, you’re educated!
No, you literally can’t. Energy demands are only going to increase. The energy output for the land required, for a nuclear plant, is far better overall compared to the area required for wind and solar to match it.
You should look again how much can be generated with non-recycled and non-breeded uranium.
If we keep insist only proven designs can be produced, we are for in for a short lived transition that won’t last even for the normal lifetime of a reactor. If we stop insisting on proven designs, we are in for discovering some weird new failure mode here and there.
It will still probably be much safer than coal, but nuclear is either extremely limited or way more dangerous than the number indicate.
Lmao yeah man. Nuclear isn’t sustainable when you remove and ignore one of the most important aspects of it. If we account for breeder reactors we can power humanity for billions of years
The area required for enough wind and solar is still small enough to not be an issue. That nuclear needs less space per amount of energy produced does not matter
Any space saved is space for untouched environment, which is more beneficial to the planet. You’re using Chinese logic, which lead to mountains blanketed with solar panels. There will be consequences for such decisions down the road.
The space saved is so miniscule compared to theobvious benefits (way cheaper, quicker and easier construction than nuclear, no problem with long term storage of waste products) that it is an absolute no brainer. Also, it's not like windparks are on fields of asphalt.
Absolutely not. 100+ acres vs 3,000+ acres is anything but miniscule. I suggest you do a little research on the discussion you’re attempting to take part in.
See, you’re talking like 3000+ acres is a lot on the global scale, and it just isn’t. You could literally cover a few fields that grow better in indirect light, produce more from your crops, and supply the global requirements for electricity. Seriously, just 5 square miles is over 3000 acres.
The only good argument against solar or wind is matching load against production, and that one is becoming less relevant all the time.
Compared to a hundred acres? Meaning the other 2,900 acres could be preserved in some form of natural state? That absolutely is a lot when you consider the energy needs of a modern country. The fact you’re acting like that’s not a valid argument just proves how ignorant you are.
Growing crops under a solar array does not justify your inability to comprehend land size/use. Corn? Fine, that works with indirect. Soy and rice do not though. So 2 of the 3 most widely grown crops would be hindered by that plan.
So instead of destroying major crops with the ridiculous idea of building thousands of acres of solar panels, or tens of thousands of acres of wind turbines, we should focus on the much smaller impact of nuclear energy.
You keep coming back to that one single argument you seem to have with space requirements, which several people have explained to be ridiculous, and you just keep repeating it? Do you have any idea about the scale of a country vs that of a solar park?
Because that was the discussion, the amount of energy produced by nuclear vs other clean means and the amount of area dedicated for each to produce the same.
There are very few ignorantly disagreeing with this easy to prove fact, you being one of them. I do understand scale of a country, and the space required to power it via reactors saves hundreds of thousands of acres when compared to solar and wind.
Go Google the required acreage for each and educate yourself. You’re the one being ridiculous by attempting to call me out for “one single argument” and then continuing to prove you have no real concept of size and scale.
The discussion is not whether solar needs more space per energy produced, (and it does, nobody is disputing that), the discussion is if the area difference is relevant in the first place. And there have points been made why it is not, namely:
You can cover area that is not natural anyways: parking lots, rooftops, farmland that does not need strong direct sunlight
There is so much space in a country compared to that needed for solar that or just does not matter. Obviously you don't go and remove forests to put solar panels there
Plenty of space isn't arable in the first place, so what's the point of not putting solar there? Protecting the sensitive desert?
@GreyEyedGhost even gave you an actually ok argument against wind/solar, maybe try that one?
Wow, I just can’t wrap my head around how many things you can get wrong, all at one time. You do realize that not all crops are the same, right? As I said in my previous post, there are plenty of crops (including pastureland) that do better with less direct light. And there are 1 million square miles of farmland in the U.S. right now. If 2% of that was covered with solar, and nowhere else, that could supply America’s electricity needs. Of course, this ignores all the great options for solar in urban areas, such as rooftops and parking lots. I haven’t heard many people complaining that they couldn’t park their car in an uncovered parking space at the mall.
Notice that this doesn’t require any new land to be developed, so rather than the pie in the sky idea that 100 acres of nuclear equates to the realized opportunity to return or keep 2900 acres in a natural state, it means 3000 acres of solar in areas that are already developed, so we can leave that 100 acres of undeveloped land in its previous state.
There is certainly a place for nuclear, especially until we have an effective means of power storage, but at the expense of solar, one of the cheapest electricity solutions we have right now, is probably not it.
You can’t wrap your head around it because you simply don’t want to. Of course I didn’t mention every single potential crop. I mentioned the three most widely grown, around the entire world. Corn, rice, and soy. Yes, others would do well, but building above these crops would never work on large agricultural areas. Why? Because you need machinery to harvest large grow ops before they spoil. Farmers would never afford the human labor required to match. It will work great on smaller scale farms, people using upwards of 25 acres. What does that achieve power wise though by comparison? Not enough power.
Pastures are an issue for two reasons. One, grass needs direct sunlight to properly grow. Two, animal agriculture is a major cause of carbon emissions. We need less pastureland, and covering it doesn’t help. You could convert existing pastureland into a reactor site, saving existing nature from development.
You would still need to develop new land for larger arrays. Land use that could be minimized by maximizing the possible power output.
You can. With nuclear as the baseline. Infinitely (not literally) more clean than fossil fuels and way, WAY more safe even including Chornobyl in the stats.
These days, just asking the recruiter what company they are recruiting for is enough. I don’t fucking get it tbh… these recruiters will spend weeks hounding you about this crazy opportunity in LinkedIn and across three different emails and on Instagram and occasionally Snapchat, and then just ghost you the second you ask them the most obvious fucking question. “Where do you want me to apply?”
Anyone that learns what socialism really means and then thinks it is a bad thing must be selfish and self centered. There is no alternative, you either don’t get it or you believe society should continue to hold “certain people” down for the uplifting of “us”
Socialism is based on public ownership of means of production. In order to shift to socialism in foreseeable future and in the past, it requires forceful removal of private property and converting it into public, since I can not imagine that all people would do this voluntarily (and they did not do that voluntarily historically). So, yes, you require forceful state, a dictatorship. Soviets openly called that “dictatorship of the working class” when they were nationalizing means of production. That included by the way farmers who used seasonally hired labour. They fought to destroy those farms and farmers were treated as enemy to socialism. Ukrainian Holodomor that killed millions of people is a good example of such fight.
So, before blank-calling other people self-centered and selfish, maybe you should learn a bit more about socialism and its history?
I am talking about socialism as it existed in history. If you have another historical example where all the means of productions were public, you are welcome to educate me.
Holodomor was a genocide perpetuated by fascists against the working class of an unfavored nationality to benefit the favored nationality. It’s a great example of why you redfash aren’t socialists.
Quite sure this is not what happen. The Soviets were trying to build socialism via the process of collectivization. While some argue that it was also a process of suppression of Ukrainian nationalism, the collectivization was the official policy at the time in the whole USSR and it destroyed lots of farmers everywhere, and killed or sent to exile huge amount of farmers and their families. Ukraine was affected more since it was primarily agricultural with strong farmer class. But hunger and deaths from hunger were common in other agricultural regions too, just to less extend than in Ukraine. In any case, this is what the process of collectivization did, the process of building socialism. Farmers do not want to give up the means of production - hence the forced collectivization.
But my main point that calling selfish those who against socialism because they know about these historical examples is just wrong.
While I don’t particularly agree with the example you’ve given, the idea is correct. In order to have any kind of system (especially at its inception), you need to have authoritarianism of some sort, and in the modern liberal democratic countries, this authoritarianism is in the form of the law and police, who protect private property so capitalists can do their thing.
When it comes to socialism, in almost every case it was done via a military dictatorship, and it’s rather hard to tell if this was done because everyone was copying the big ‘socialist’ countries like soviet union or china, or if dictatorships are the most practical way to do so. With dictatorships there’s a substantial risk of putting someone in power who’s just an opportunist and wants all the power above all else like Stalin, or having a party that doesn’t really care to bring on communism and it turns into oligarchy.
However, it’s not all dictators - Paris Commune was a revolution that had the dictatorship of proletariat, as in the dictator was the working class, and while it failed, it definitely was on the right track, at least in my opinion. You minimize the risks of having a singular dictator, but to succeed you need to have the majority of people on board with the idea, which is a tall order especially today where any talk of socialism is met by misinformed skepticism and years of anti-communist propaganda by the liberal democracy world.
My big issue with socialism is more about the implementation. I’m not sure there is a way of enforcing socialism that isn’t antithetical to the goal of socialism- a more even distribution of power (which we quantify as wealth in a capitalist society).
In general, I don’t think there are any stable economic systems that don’t decay into feudalism when abused. At least for the economic systems we’ve come up with so far. The best one I know of is the gift economy, but that requires people to not expect something in return, because otherwise it could be reduced down to capitalism.
In short, all the economic systems so far, despite their best intentions, reinforce inequality.
It’s always about the implementation. No one I know would consciously decide that everyone should be poor or we should all pick someone to stomp on. But in older communities like Native American tribes, if you didn’t pull your weight you were left behind. “If a man doesn’t work neither shall he eat.” There are exceptions, but you and I are always going to disagree about those exceptions. How many chances does a person get? What about people who abuse the system? Whoever enforces this has an agenda, not to say capitalism doesn’t, but to assume that socialism as an implementation will be devoid of discrimination is utter nonsense.
I don’t think native tribes are the architects we should look to for modern society. Maybe there is something to learn from them but only in an anecdotal sense.
Imagine if we just leaned into their wacky right-wing conception of pro-choice and were like “yeah, our endgame is to have as many abortions as possible per capita.” Their heads would explode lol
Gotta look at it the other way to trigger them. A vasectomy is an automated instantaneous abortion. You’re so pro-abortion that you’re causing them every single time you have sex!
They believe… something. I know they hate contraceptives and in part because they can prevent conception. I don’t remember if it’s exactly in line with seeing them as equivalent to abortion. Either way it’s insane.
I do this. Random ebay junk is both better and cheaper than a raspberry pi. When I first started doing home server stuff, I had the option between an Athlon XP and a raspberry pi and the Athlon XP delivered better performance (I tried both).
I’ve done it a ton in the past, I’ll do it again in the future, but having a essentially plug and play tiny little box that sips juice and still does what I need while being silent… is rather nice
I bought a couple Raspis before they even came out, and they’re handy for certain applications, but just can’t really stand up to the task for whole home server needs.
I have a RPi1B that runs Pihole just fine, and I have a RPi4 that runs a bunch of services fine (plug in a SSD, don’t use a SD card).
But if you’re hoping to do a photo server or run a media centre… nah. Rpis are very power efficient, but for media you really need something that’s gonna suck more power.
The Raspberry Pi: When “a computer, any computer” will do. I have so many of them in service bolted to the backs of televisions or monitors as digital signage.
A cheap used office computer with a good CPU and decent RAM can far exceed the power of a Pi. That’s been my strategy. I just Frankenstein it a bit with leftover parts from my gaming computer and load it up with disks.
There’s good deals on lenovo m900s or dell optiplex that are great for this. New enough to have low idle wattage and decent performance for VMs and containers, and old enough that they’re cheap.
I get the meme, but I’m going to be pedantic: submarines are full of air at atmospheric pressure so therefore they can be crushed. Living things are full of water which is effectively incompressible so they can’t - they’ll always have the same pressure on the inside as on the outside without changing size.
This is the reason human scuba divers can go quite deep without feeling any discomfort. Humans do contain big air bubbles: their lungs. The lungs aren’t crushed because the scuba equipment automatically provides air at the same pressure as the outside water, but divers have to remember not to hold their breath as they swim up - as the water pressure decreases, having all that high pressure air in the lungs can rupture them. (Lungs withstand being squeezed much better than being stretched so that’s why free-divers can hold their breath while swimming down.)
The reason you can’t just scuba dive to the bottom of the ocean is actually because the behavior of dissolved gasses in the blood changes as the pressure increases. That’s the consequence of pressure that these animals are adapted to.
I should have phrased that differently. The lungs don’t shrink because they’re filled with high-pressure air, but shrinking wouldn’t damage them. “Crushed” implies damage and it was the wrong word to use. Lungs are soft and effectively can’t be crushed, the way that a balloon can’t be popped by deflating it.
The guy with the world record for free-diving had the air in his lungs squeezed to a twentieth of its original volume, but lungs are built for that sort of thing. Simply going from inhaling as much as you can to exhaling as much as you can reduces the volume of air in your lungs to a fifth of its original volume, a much bigger absolute change.
(He still had to practice and prepare for years, and he was probably born with an exceptional natural aptitude. Don’t try this at home!)
Your lungs can compress to equalize the pressure as you go deeper and expand as you come back up. As long as you start with ambient pressure air in your lungs you won’t have issues.
The problem is breathing against the external pressure, you need gas pressure to help expand your lungs again after you exhale. The regulator keeps the air pressure equal to the external water pressure so breathing feels the same no matter how deep you go. With an open loop system you use air faster with depth because each breath is higher pressure and gets wasted when you exhale.
It’s because when the current system is unsustainable people start to promote other ideas.
I get that you need to infantilize the position to stay so flippant but unfortunately for you it’s more childish to resort to insults when you can’t come up with any other response but still feel the need to say something.
The current system is entirely sustainable. It does need reforms, but a regulated market economy combined with strong social welfare programmes is the best economic system we've come up with so far, by a very large margin. Planned economies were attempted, they universally failed.
Lemmy is A developed by Marxist Leninist B through it’s structure and the activity pub standard it is way more appalling to Leftists than other social media platforms and C Cyberghost loves for some reason to post (mostly tankie) propaganda into this meme channel. I mean this one is a good meme many others are not
I think it’s angry people who have no idea what living under communism is like giving up on asking nicely for a socialist reforms.
Things are getting pretty bad in the US. Anger at the inequality is building. And for a few people they are angry enough to buy into the batshit idea that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” would be easier on them then the current system.
Consider educating yourself (lol, I can't even type that with a straight face, but here it is anyway, for anyone who does actually want out of this capitalism hell):
this argument is so obnoxious, like how old do you think Lenin is? Castro? Ho Chi Minh? Marx? where does this notion that communists are all young come from? There are at least 5 communists over 70 years old in my local organizing circle
memes
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.