6 ms·

It's always available somewhere, so it is, in fact, a transport problem.

by bambax 4y ago

teddyh 4y ago
That’s just a different problem we can’t solve, either.
- lenkite 4y ago
  Just need to wait for Putin to conquer the world and build Putin Pipes.
  - kkfx 4y ago
    Did you really think that the actual crisis is due to a single man choice? Try a small game, put PR and the emotion they push aside: who need a war today? If you are honest you have to admit that the most in need of a war are UK first, USA second. UK need a war outside to avoid a civil war inside. Having essentially lost their "empire" status they are simply unable to live anymore. A war would compact people and if won give resource of the looser. USA need a war for similar reasons, mitigated by the fact that USA can actually live on it's own, even alone, "only" correcting it's crazy economy. Not easy at all, but technically possible, so practically when crisis really bite. China do not need, but like, a war. They have a hyper big food issue, they need to conquer south America to eat. To do so they need to overpower the USA. To do so they need Russia's tech and natural resources, something Russia, a China's historic enemy, do not like that much to share to such a big & powerful giant. Russia do not like a war at all. It's something that impose agreements with China, imbalanced. EU similarly do not need a war. It simply destroy EU itself due to the lack of natural resources. So the plan is? Well. USA declare it essentially in the far 2004: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%20the%20Global%20Future%202020%20Project.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%... oh, they are formally just acritical prediction from the intelligence to the politicians. But sounds really accurate. In more modern terms: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB10000/RB10014/RAND_RB10014.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/R... A bottomline: saying that UK and USA need a war means their oppressive ruling classes need it, of course NOT the people, unfortunately as most people in the world those who do need the opposite of their ruling class are the last to understand they are fighting for their own enemy that's not those on the opposite front, but those who march at their head.
    - StingyJelly 4y ago
      UK lost their "empire" status in early 20th century and seems to be able to live without it. USA is oleophillic in nature but definitely does not need war. So does nobody else. Russia may not like a war but Russia needs resources since it wants to be the only store in neighborhood, and unfortunately, Ukraine does have resources. War was not expected outcome of the initial scare tactic but here we are.
      - kkfx 4y ago
        That's is, that's what I do not understand the partisanship reaching a fanatic state to the point of completely distort reality. Yes, UK have lost the "empire" status in the 20th century BUT the Commonwealth is still there. They are still a talassocracy even if their grip on some of the most important colonies (Canada, Australia) is faded. Now they start facing a real threat to them and can't defend them in any way. China overpower Australia to a point UK can't logically even try to defend it. Russia overpower Canada to a very similar point. So far both power have no reasons to go to war, of course, but they can and UK know it very well. USA are the sole former colony very able to defend itself but is also the less keen to serve UK. However both UK and USA are failed states, their extreme capitalism put too much of their population in poverty and without immigration they simply fall on their own weight. As before they NEED a war to overthought the table and start over. And they have actually created that, it's not a secret, it's written black on white if only you read their publications from RAND to G8. They use a slightly strange vocabulary but it's clear what they state. They call themselves "the international community" or "the civilized world" but it's clear they just mean their fragmented former colonies. The same have happened in the recent past with the Korea war, as it happened their former colonies start to decide it's time to detach a bit, like SK an Japan themselves https://asiatimes.com/2022/08/japan-korea-defy-us-with-big-russian-energy-deals/ https://asiatimes.com/2022/08/japan-korea-defy-us-with-big-r... and even New Zealand https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/new-zealand-will-not-join-the-us-coalition-against-china-anytime-soon/ https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/new-zealand-will-not-join-th... Australia itself suffering the submarines scam the UK and USA essentially have imposed to them ditching modern but limited French subs to exactly nothing since for a decade at least that's what they'll get (less than nothing since they have payed compensation for the late choice) start to falter undecided witch side to take. Only high treason neoliberal government in the EU keep the USA/UK side against their own Citizens interests. Some in US and UK have already understood that their war is lost and they menace them to go nuclear in that case, see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-nuclear-button-ready-b2151614.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-nuc... and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110441/Henry-Kissinger-america-war-Russia-China.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110441/Henry-Kiss... but the rest of the world, the BRICS start to unite knowing that it's freedom or death for them. They have all tested the "freedom" neoliberal nazi means, to a point in eastern Europe many would welcome back Soviet Union... The above are NOT political or ideological positions but simply facts anyone observing with honesty no matter the personal political position can't avoid to see.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Multiple solutions are already known, some better some worse. It's politics and economics that's in the way, and even then the world is changing.
  - teddyh 4y ago
    > Multiple solutions are already known Care to link to some?
    - ben_w 4y ago
      c. 1820s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_conductor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_conductor c. 1869: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water 1897: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction Antiquity or 1835: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror 1882: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
      - teddyh 4y ago
        Are you telling me that Sweden, a country of 10 million people, which has wildly differing electricity prices within that same small country¹, could simply use copper conductors to solve this problem, but chooses not to for political reasons? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32618798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32618798
        ben_w 4y ago
        Yup. Might not even be wrong to have made this choice, I can't tell — economics (which is an important part of politics) is outside my domain.
        teddyh 4y ago
        What possible political reasons might those be?

It's always available somewhere, so it is, in fact, a transport problem.

by bambax 4y ago

It's always available somewhere, so it is, in fact, a transport problem.

teddyh 4y ago

That’s just a different problem we can’t solve, either.

lenkite 4y ago
Just need to wait for Putin to conquer the world and build Putin Pipes.
- kkfx 4y ago
  Did you really think that the actual crisis is due to a single man choice? Try a small game, put PR and the emotion they push aside: who need a war today? If you are honest you have to admit that the most in need of a war are UK first, USA second. UK need a war outside to avoid a civil war inside. Having essentially lost their "empire" status they are simply unable to live anymore. A war would compact people and if won give resource of the looser. USA need a war for similar reasons, mitigated by the fact that USA can actually live on it's own, even alone, "only" correcting it's crazy economy. Not easy at all, but technically possible, so practically when crisis really bite. China do not need, but like, a war. They have a hyper big food issue, they need to conquer south America to eat. To do so they need to overpower the USA. To do so they need Russia's tech and natural resources, something Russia, a China's historic enemy, do not like that much to share to such a big & powerful giant. Russia do not like a war at all. It's something that impose agreements with China, imbalanced. EU similarly do not need a war. It simply destroy EU itself due to the lack of natural resources. So the plan is? Well. USA declare it essentially in the far 2004: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%20the%20Global%20Future%202020%20Project.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_Mapping%... oh, they are formally just acritical prediction from the intelligence to the politicians. But sounds really accurate. In more modern terms: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB10000/RB10014/RAND_RB10014.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/R... A bottomline: saying that UK and USA need a war means their oppressive ruling classes need it, of course NOT the people, unfortunately as most people in the world those who do need the opposite of their ruling class are the last to understand they are fighting for their own enemy that's not those on the opposite front, but those who march at their head.
  - StingyJelly 4y ago
    UK lost their "empire" status in early 20th century and seems to be able to live without it. USA is oleophillic in nature but definitely does not need war. So does nobody else. Russia may not like a war but Russia needs resources since it wants to be the only store in neighborhood, and unfortunately, Ukraine does have resources. War was not expected outcome of the initial scare tactic but here we are.
    - kkfx 4y ago
      That's is, that's what I do not understand the partisanship reaching a fanatic state to the point of completely distort reality. Yes, UK have lost the "empire" status in the 20th century BUT the Commonwealth is still there. They are still a talassocracy even if their grip on some of the most important colonies (Canada, Australia) is faded. Now they start facing a real threat to them and can't defend them in any way. China overpower Australia to a point UK can't logically even try to defend it. Russia overpower Canada to a very similar point. So far both power have no reasons to go to war, of course, but they can and UK know it very well. USA are the sole former colony very able to defend itself but is also the less keen to serve UK. However both UK and USA are failed states, their extreme capitalism put too much of their population in poverty and without immigration they simply fall on their own weight. As before they NEED a war to overthought the table and start over. And they have actually created that, it's not a secret, it's written black on white if only you read their publications from RAND to G8. They use a slightly strange vocabulary but it's clear what they state. They call themselves "the international community" or "the civilized world" but it's clear they just mean their fragmented former colonies. The same have happened in the recent past with the Korea war, as it happened their former colonies start to decide it's time to detach a bit, like SK an Japan themselves https://asiatimes.com/2022/08/japan-korea-defy-us-with-big-russian-energy-deals/ https://asiatimes.com/2022/08/japan-korea-defy-us-with-big-r... and even New Zealand https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/new-zealand-will-not-join-the-us-coalition-against-china-anytime-soon/ https://thediplomat.com/2022/07/new-zealand-will-not-join-th... Australia itself suffering the submarines scam the UK and USA essentially have imposed to them ditching modern but limited French subs to exactly nothing since for a decade at least that's what they'll get (less than nothing since they have payed compensation for the late choice) start to falter undecided witch side to take. Only high treason neoliberal government in the EU keep the USA/UK side against their own Citizens interests. Some in US and UK have already understood that their war is lost and they menace them to go nuclear in that case, see https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-nuclear-button-ready-b2151614.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/liz-truss-nuc... and https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110441/Henry-Kissinger-america-war-Russia-China.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11110441/Henry-Kiss... but the rest of the world, the BRICS start to unite knowing that it's freedom or death for them. They have all tested the "freedom" neoliberal nazi means, to a point in eastern Europe many would welcome back Soviet Union... The above are NOT political or ideological positions but simply facts anyone observing with honesty no matter the personal political position can't avoid to see.
ben_w 4y ago
Multiple solutions are already known, some better some worse. It's politics and economics that's in the way, and even then the world is changing.
- teddyh 4y ago
  > Multiple solutions are already known Care to link to some?
  - ben_w 4y ago
    c. 1820s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_conductor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_conductor c. 1869: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water 1897: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction Antiquity or 1835: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror 1882: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
    - teddyh 4y ago
      Are you telling me that Sweden, a country of 10 million people, which has wildly differing electricity prices within that same small country¹, could simply use copper conductors to solve this problem, but chooses not to for political reasons? 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32618798 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32618798
      - ben_w 4y ago
        Yup. Might not even be wrong to have made this choice, I can't tell — economics (which is an important part of politics) is outside my domain.
        teddyh 4y ago
        What possible political reasons might those be?