ThomPete

36 ms·

361.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Everyone can see who invited you to Clubhouse down in the bottom of the profile.
362.
by ThomPete 6y ago
They aren't resources they are material we then invent methods to turn into resources or optimize or cultivate to provide better outputs, aquafarming, restoring forests (the world have gotten 14% greener because of increased CO2) etc.
363.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Which is why the more people we have to work on the problem the better. The individuals DO factor into that but it require a framework the individuals best suited for solving these problems can work within which allow them to spend the time
364.
by ThomPete 6y ago
That is why we need to create knowledge to be able to curb these disaster to make sure we don't follow the fate of almost all other species who's gone extinct and are likely to go extinct. We are the one species that might just ha
365.
by ThomPete 6y ago
We live in a much cleaner, safer and richer world today than we did 100 years ago. Resources is something we invent and use not something we deplete. We use these resources to make the world even safer, richers, to pull more people out of p
366.
by ThomPete 6y ago
The world will always face problems and we will always be the victim of these if we don't have the knowledge to combat them. The more people we are the more we are likely to produce the wealth, knowledge and solutions for those problem
367.
by ThomPete 6y ago
we are short on knowledge not ideas. We aren't short of resources. More people make us more wealthy which gives us better chance of creating more knowledge.
368.
by ThomPete 6y ago
We need both and that require more not less people.
369.
by ThomPete 6y ago
The west also invented many of these resources. Before we found ways to turn them into resources they were useless. You are following the same line of reasoning we heard about how the earth couldnt sustain 4 billion, 5 billion, yet here we
370.
by ThomPete 6y ago
It only require one person to come up with something that transforms society completely. The more people we have to more likely some of them will do that.
371.
by ThomPete 6y ago
we have all the resources we need, what we are short on is knowledge to invent these resources. The more people we are the more likely we are to solve our problems.
372.
by ThomPete 6y ago
why is our job posting being downvoted?
373.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Blockhain.art | REMOTE or San Francisco, New York | DevOps Engineer | Full-Time | https://blockchain.art Blockchain.art is developing GENIUS Wallet, an NFT Wallet for the high-end digital art market. We are looking for an experi
374.
by ThomPete 6y ago
But if the energy density is higher wouldn't you need more material to cool down the area?
375.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Which makes it heavier no?
376.
by ThomPete 6y ago
then the question becomes how are they solving for the increased heat.
377.
by ThomPete 6y ago
This was neither an attempt of taking over the power nor was it a successful move. You are politicizing this.
378.
by ThomPete 6y ago
An attempted coup would be to actually attempt at a coup with plans on how to seize power and hold it and ensure you had enough military power to hold down the fort. To interfere with a procedure they didn't have any chance of interfer
379.
by ThomPete 6y ago
thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.
380.
by ThomPete 6y ago
"Almost all heat on Earth is solar in origin, including the majority that we don’t use." yes and it's spread out thinly which is why it doesn't kill us.Your solution is to take the least energy dense form and spend mater
381.
by ThomPete 6y ago
what exactly would i be wrong about? I am open to a persuasive argument. Dropping calculations based on speculations not even factoring everything in isnt one of them.
382.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Electricity is less than 20% of the world energy consumption. I find it fascinating that a tech focused forum like HN is so intent on taking an inferior solutions like wind and solar which literally can't provide enough heat for the ma
383.
by ThomPete 6y ago
wind and solar provides less than 1% of the worlds energy. That should provide you with a pretty good reason why your calculation is useless in this discussion.
384.
by ThomPete 6y ago
As long as you don't have a reliable way to deliver this electricity all you have done is making the energy system more complicated and expensive.
385.
by ThomPete 6y ago
As long as the powersource isn't reliable it's a problem. A problem that doesn't have any solutions in sight that are closer than something like fusion which would be the preferable solution rather than unreliables like wind
386.
by ThomPete 6y ago
No,I am suggesting that its as close as the magic solutions to wind and solars intermittency issue we hear so much about and therefore the money would be better spent creating something as powerful as fusion than something to help a inferi
387.
by ThomPete 6y ago
so will fusion. Much better to spend resources building high density energy like fusion than these Rube Goldberg machines.
388.
by ThomPete 6y ago
electricity is less than 20% of any countrys energy needs and it doesent actually mean that 97% of the electricity consumption came from wind. So misleading and politicized.
389.
by ThomPete 6y ago
It can't easily be fixed which is why it haven't yet. There is a world of difference between making something work in the lab and in a test situation and then at scale, economically, practically and in competition with extremely p
390.
by ThomPete 6y ago
Because with Nuclear you are providing true cost which includes everything from insurance to decomission. LCOE isn't a very thorough standard which you quickly realize once you dig into it. Furthermore renewables are unreliable and thu

More ›