4 ms·
The irony is that he is correct about the physics. Some people in this thread think that you can take two cars and double the kinetic energy acting on both of
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
The irony is that he is correct about the physics.
Some people in this thread think that you can take two cars and double the kinetic energy acting on both of them. If this were true, you could create infinite energy by repeatedly colliding cars.
Perhaps it isn't surprising that people who think this is true also disagree with his economics.
- dools 2y ago> The irony is that he is correct about the physics. He definitely isn’t
- s1artibartfast 2y agoHe absolutely is, which just makes it all more funny.
- dools 2y agoYep okay I retract my "confidently wrong about physics" statement, someone else explained it and I get it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631089
- quern 2y agoI agree he's correct about the physics but I disagree with his father's economics -- my thinking on economics is more in line with David's.
- dools 2y agoYes I retract my "wrong about physics" assertion, I have had it explained to me and I get it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631089 Although I still think Chicago school/libertarian economics is "confidently wrong".
- quern 2y agoEvidently, but presenting that assertion without backing it up with any kind of argument isn't very constructive. Of course I don't expect anyone to refute an entire school of thought in an HN post.