• 0 Posts
  • 36 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle
  • The good safety of nuclear in developed countries goes hand in hand with its costly regulatory environment, the risk for catastrophic breakdown of nuclear facilities is managed not by technically proficient design but by oversight and rules, which are expensive yes , but they also need to be because the people running the plant are it’s weakest link in terms of safety.

    Now we are entering potentially decades of conflict and natural disaster and the proposition is to build energy infrastructure that is very centralized, relies on fuel that must be acquired, and is in the hands of a relatively small amount of people, especially if their societal controll/ oversight structure breaks down. It just doesn’t seem particularly reasonable to me, especially considering lead times on these things, but nice meme I guess.


  • Probably because trains are limited in both weight and volume compared to ships and also less efficient. If you have this short route and know it’ll need this amount of cargo shipped it likely makes sense.

    This single ship can carry more containers than any train could be expected to pull, likely by at least one order of magnitude.

    All in all I’d guess the advantages are roughly:

    • Reduced staff
    • reduced energy use (land based shipping is less efficient almost by default)
    • no need for infrastructure except ports (if you assume there is no train line or this shipping would move existing lines over capacity building this ship is likely cheaper or at least in line with 300km of rail)
    • simpler logistics (loading / unloading)

    Disadvantages:

    • Speed (a train would likely move at 3-5x the speed)

    I would also not expect the risk for catastrophic fires to be all that high. This ship has the batteries be containers. So once you’ve designed a container that is a large battery, you’ve already spent so much that a proper BMS including proper battery fire suppression as well as proper breakers/contractors are things you’ve built into it without even thinking about cost. The separation provided by building containers as the battery is the next line of defence if one container fails spectacularly, it also allows the batteries to be maintained on land, much cheaper than if they were part of the ship.



  • So I mostly fried the SSD by using it to write and rewrite ML checkpoints and logs, this in turn made the device read only and I somehow managed to migrate to a different SSD probably using clonezilla or something, but it messed up the bootloader so I installed refind in a new partition, configured it and voila it works. It’s scary because you need to do everything without seeing your system even half alive anywhere along the process, but it’s not actually hard, just copying data and installing/configuring a bootloader. But for a then 20year old at his more or less first job my head was on fire for the 1.5 days this took.

    By far the most difficult single thing that I’ve ever had to fix that actually had to do with the system.

    I now don’t flood my SSDs with data that is constantly rewritten.


  • Every political position mostly tries to define in which ways violence is to be used. Realising this and knowing power is already established before you were even born. Seeing violence being used against your oppressor(s) is often times the only thing we feel we can still hope for.

    Or from another perspective, is the war in Ukraine worth it for Ukraine or Russia, can you really say a war with so many deaths is preferable to being a russian subject, or an international embarrassment of the Russian state. Is the self determination of Palestinians really worth the terror and the war. We’re the PIRA justified in bombing London for their brother’s and sisters discrimination and deaths in Ireland. It’s ultimately all subjective, wether the violence of the system you fight against is bad enough you can bring yourself to fight.

    Nothing brings back anyone but as long as there are people who want to, and do turn us into their machines, we have to rely on our interpretation of that being wrong, and fight them for it.




  • Well I might look at this Rosa Luxemburg Foundation or perhaps this Heinrich Böll Foundation if I were in need to peddle some specific policy to someone that both cares and is powerful. It’s in many ways the same prisoners dilemma as with all of advertisement.

    So yes if they were all gone it’d be better for everyone but as we unfortunately live in the system we live in I’d rather have the few that might actually represent me exist beside all of the garbage. Same with the political parties they are associated with as well.


  • Yeah this whole thing a bit maximized might be neatly wrapped up in this Hegelian insight rephrased in 2014 found on the wiki

    “It is Hegel’s insight that reason itself has a history, that what counts as reason is the result of a development. This is something that Kant never imagines and that Herder only glimpses.”

    In this way if not even the greats can do it how could a modern person or a think tank but at the same time does this not imply we currently need all three of them.

    Also is the modern YouTube video essay channel sort of a think tank for terminally online people ? Maybe food for thought, maybe a joke who knows really.


  • kugel7c@feddit.detoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldTake me back
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    It would be funny if it weren’t so sad. As much as reading and understanding smith and other philosophy is important for the individual, think tanks unfortunately seem necessary in a modern context aiming to transform, often quite unreadable, as your excerpt demonstrates, philosophical learning, into applicable law/policy.

    As with everything this process is utterly captured by right wing and market fundamentalist interests. Just sort this list by Bias/Affiliation and skim some of the descriptions it’s a bit horrific, but it also might save you from reading an old school stochastic parrot with an inhumane agenda. Or if you actually find one you can agree with it might give you a reasonable first source.


  • kugel7c@feddit.detoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldTake me back
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The Adam smith institute is a right wing free market think tank with likely very questionable donors. wiki It likely doesn’t really do research but takes sources that support their preexisting believes and retells them.

    Certainly it was at least very hard to make the capitalist exploitation of the worker so all encompassing before the invention of the mechanical watch (Although there was likely a ton of housework and the general situation was garbage what with feudal lords and all that) . It then likely exploded with the industrial revolution and at least in places where the working class managed to emancipate themselves got somewhat cut back. Now especially for countries outside of the west and increasingly also the US and parts of EU it’s likely getting worse, especially with multi employment and precarious employment(gig work, semi self employment, 0h contracts, mechanical turk …).

    Generally i feel work where you or your peers get to keep the total output of your work isn’t really a problem, it’s a problem when your work gets appropriated into this terrible machine and as a result you are alienated from the work.


  • kugel7c@feddit.detoMemes@lemmy.mlNWBTCW
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    If sapolsky is to be believed we have the natural inclination to view in- and out- group as part of our brain. Everything else is learned or a coping mechanism. I guess this is why people propose lived multiculturalism especially during childhood as a solution to xenophobia.

    No matter if he can be believed or not on this fact the book is fun wiki



  • kugel7c@feddit.detoMemes@lemmy.mlGot to find a leftiest place.
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You are right but also wrong at the same time. People might be able to be antisemitic without being Nazis, but if they are in this way afraid or in rejection of ‘the other’ they’ve certainly at least been taught this kind of thinking by a fascist that tries to exploit both them and ‘the other’ for their own gain. In this way the Israeli right wing Government as well as IDF and police are thoroughly fascist just as much and in exactly the same way as Hamas are. “no blacks, no dogs, no Jews” can not be put up by a person that hasn’t been taught to reject others in this way, this rejection is the fascist lie they have internalized, and it is the reason why we call them a fascist.

    The splintering of this concept of rejection into, antisemitism racism homophobia Islamophobia patriarchy … isn’t useful when trying to reject the ideas of their suppression, it only muddies the waters. They are the same struggle against unjustified oppression, in parts of which we may be a benefactor, and in other parts we may be oppressed, this shouldn’t make their existence any more justifiable.




  • kugel7c@feddit.detoMemes@lemmy.mlbe the change.....
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Only if you see no alternative does treating them as the same actually benefit the crappier, if you realise resonably well that they are two sides of the same coin, and realise that this coin doesn’t create much good, it just exploits people. You can vote so that the less crappy ones survive as long as the really crappy ones are a threat, but also fight against the liberals as well if they are currently keeping you down.

    Sure it might be hard to imagine a socialist US but if that’s not the goal then you might be missunderstanding the meme quite frankly.


  • Not accepting Wikipedia as some reasonable baseline for truthful or commonly accepted definitions is the sort of hill I wouldn’t want to die on but sure. Especially for content that is so politically contentious Wikipedia usually settles on a reasonably holistic description where other outlets will leave out downplay or politically color certain parts of definitions, obviously this happens there too, but it’s more likely to be corrected especially on divisive Issues. I mean you can go ahead and read the discussion page related to a topic and find out why and how sections came to be.

    I’m not trying to lecture you I simply think that having any discussion is impossible if there is no shared understanding. Which is why I deferred to Wikipedia simply the most common database of knowledge in the world. The articles there might show me to be ignorant, but unlike you I’ve at least read parts of them with the intent to understand the information provided. Which I do to some extent not to completely accept what is said there but just to effectively communicate with other people, because Wikipedia gets close to a common definition for anything you might be talking about.

    It’s not about a completely factual definition because the topic is way to complex and nuanced to have one that isn’t at least several long books, everyone lacks understanding of the topic because it’s impossible in many ways to have a complete understanding of it. That’s why it’s a philosophical topic and not a natural science, the topic is currently completely impenetrable for the scientific method alone.

    It is interesting and important to discuss precisely because it’s so hard to grasp, so multifaceted and so central to all of our lives at the same time. And as I said before if we can’t agree on baseline definitions all that potentially interesting discussion is lost on us.


  • kugel7c@feddit.detoMemes@lemmy.mlListen here, kulak...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t even really know where to start. First is probably that you don’t get to define words on a whim and that your definition of both capitalism and socialism lacks understanding. Just read the Wikipedia entry for both and you’ll find them better defined within the first sentence of their respective entry.
    And honestly I’m too tired to properly explain all the traps you fell into after that so good luck with your Libertarian socialist dream or something idk


  • I’m not sure why large scale decision making has to be deferred to a single person instead of a large group. Tbh that’s one of the main problems with current large companies. Why not conduct a fucking vote, not about who should make the decision, but about what decision is made.