3 ms·

> Who, exactly, is going to pay? Well, he clearly said the government. Who else would pay? Or could pay? > if you did somehow pass a bill mandating $500/hour

by HWR_14 4y ago

> Who, exactly, is going to pay? Well, he clearly said the government. Who else would pay? Or could pay? > if you did somehow pass a bill mandating $500/hour wages, how would the flood of applicants be managed? We manage people going to work at FAANG and people becoming CEOs of Fortune 500 companies and people becoming actors and sports stars. "More people want this job than are applying" is something that most places that pay above minimum wage deal with. > Is he saying that throwing more money at the problem would solve it faster? Probably. With a lot of these problems more funding leads to faster solutions. Moreover, if you knew that solving those problems was a valid career move, the smartest people would stop aiming towards software and wall street. > How about "nuclear war over Taiwan"? This seems unlikely. Putin using nukes over losing in Ukraine seems far more possible, although if other countries retaliated is an open question. China seems really patient about Taiwan.

nradov 4y ago
Where would Putin even use nukes in Ukraine? Tactical nuclear weapons are only really useful against troop concentrations. At this stage of the war, Ukrainian forces are already dispersed and dug in. Many of them are engaged in close combat with Russian forces, so a Russian nuclear strike would end up being an "own goal" to some extent. Putin could use strategic nuclear weapons to destroy Kyiv, or other civilian population centers or infrastructure. But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals. "If I can't have it, no one can". Besides, it looks like Ukraine might be able to retake land Russia has been occupying. If he destroys one city with nukes, the "surrender or I will take out cities one by one" is a valid plan to win a war. If the alternative is losing Crimea (which he was successfully holding) I can see him taking such a step. Also, Ukraine would have fallen (and still might) without constant aid from the West. Using nukes to raise the danger level might be enough to stop the shipments of arms and intelligence.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    People in history have quite often done dangerous things that were against their interests, even as understood at the time. Czar Nicholas mobilized his troops in the run-up to WW I, which ultimately led to his and his family's executions, as well as the deaths of millions of people. Napoleon III declared war on Prussia, which led to France's loss of Alsace-Lorraine and his own capture by the enemy. So saying "he would never do it" is pretty irresponsible.
UIUC_06 4y ago
> With a lot of these problems more funding leads to faster solutions Evidence, please. Would more funding for nuclear fusion lead to faster commercial-scale electric plants? Explain how the fundamental physics problems can get solved faster. > China seems really patient about Taiwan. I'd call that "wishful thinking." Given that they just demonstrated how they can effectively blockade the island without an invasion.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > explain how the fundamental physics problems can get solved faster. That's not what I said. For engineering projects, even novel ones, funding leads to faster results. I mean, look at what you can do in WWII when you literally decided that physicists should get so many resources because the A-Bomb was that important. And if your concern is storing and transmitting energy, there are engineering ways to do that at scale. It's expensive, but doable. > Given that they just demonstrated how they can effectively blockade the island without an invasion. A multi-year blockade is pretty patient. I'm not saying China will never act. Clearly, they are slowly moving. I'm saying they'll go slow enough that it will never come to nukes.
  - UIUC_06 4y ago
    You said "With a lot of these problems." Maybe you should clarify which problems you mean. And which ones (e.g. toxic chemicals in solar array manufacturing) really are fundamental physics and not engineering.
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      Toxic chemicals are only required for photovoltaic solar generation. Focused heat solar generation (which is only possible at a large scale) both produces no toxic chemicals and is more efficient. But the answer to "which problems" is "the ones keeping us from green energy". I though that was pretty obvious.
      - UIUC_06 4y ago

by HWR_14 4y ago

nradov 4y ago

Where would Putin even use nukes in Ukraine? Tactical nuclear weapons are only really useful against troop concentrations. At this stage of the war, Ukrainian forces are already dispersed and dug in. Many of them are engaged in close combat with Russian forces, so a Russian nuclear strike would end up being an "own goal" to some extent. Putin could use strategic nuclear weapons to destroy Kyiv, or other civilian population centers or infrastructure. But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals.

HWR_14 4y ago
> But to what end? That wouldn't align with any of his war goals. "If I can't have it, no one can". Besides, it looks like Ukraine might be able to retake land Russia has been occupying. If he destroys one city with nukes, the "surrender or I will take out cities one by one" is a valid plan to win a war. If the alternative is losing Crimea (which he was successfully holding) I can see him taking such a step. Also, Ukraine would have fallen (and still might) without constant aid from the West. Using nukes to raise the danger level might be enough to stop the shipments of arms and intelligence.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  People in history have quite often done dangerous things that were against their interests, even as understood at the time. Czar Nicholas mobilized his troops in the run-up to WW I, which ultimately led to his and his family's executions, as well as the deaths of millions of people. Napoleon III declared war on Prussia, which led to France's loss of Alsace-Lorraine and his own capture by the enemy. So saying "he would never do it" is pretty irresponsible.

UIUC_06 4y ago

> With a lot of these problems more funding leads to faster solutions Evidence, please. Would more funding for nuclear fusion lead to faster commercial-scale electric plants? Explain how the fundamental physics problems can get solved faster. > China seems really patient about Taiwan. I'd call that "wishful thinking." Given that they just demonstrated how they can effectively blockade the island without an invasion.

HWR_14 4y ago
> explain how the fundamental physics problems can get solved faster. That's not what I said. For engineering projects, even novel ones, funding leads to faster results. I mean, look at what you can do in WWII when you literally decided that physicists should get so many resources because the A-Bomb was that important. And if your concern is storing and transmitting energy, there are engineering ways to do that at scale. It's expensive, but doable. > Given that they just demonstrated how they can effectively blockade the island without an invasion. A multi-year blockade is pretty patient. I'm not saying China will never act. Clearly, they are slowly moving. I'm saying they'll go slow enough that it will never come to nukes.
- UIUC_06 4y ago
  You said "With a lot of these problems." Maybe you should clarify which problems you mean. And which ones (e.g. toxic chemicals in solar array manufacturing) really are fundamental physics and not engineering.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    Toxic chemicals are only required for photovoltaic solar generation. Focused heat solar generation (which is only possible at a large scale) both produces no toxic chemicals and is more efficient. But the answer to "which problems" is "the ones keeping us from green energy". I though that was pretty obvious.
    - UIUC_06 4y ago