ThomPete

61 ms·

901.
by ThomPete 7y ago
There is no way to replace a significant part of the used plastic/fossil fuel. We underappreciate how many things fossil fuel can be used for. It's not just fuel and plastic which in itself is extremely valuable. But it's als
902.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Solar is not cheaper as it requires backup energy sources such as coal, oil, nuclear etc. You can't just isolate the cost of solar or wind as they are only viable because they sit on top of a fossil or nuclear infrastructure. Solar and
903.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Thorium is potentially closer than fusion or fuel cells which means also closer than wind and solar. But yeah we are still not even close to having it ready and it might take decades. So we are going to be stuck with fossil fuels for a very
904.
by ThomPete 7y ago
As someone who is actively looking for things in this space to invest in and to determine whether it makes sense at all, I can only say that so far it doesn't look good. There are a bunch of problems with the fundamental analysis of th
905.
by ThomPete 7y ago
That claiming that left-leaning somehow is less draconian or violent seems in contradiction with left-leaning ideologies applied to reality.
906.
by ThomPete 7y ago
What else does parent mean by left leaning then?
907.
by ThomPete 7y ago
People who grew up in the soviet union might disagree with your self image.
908.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I have considered a lot of things. Percentage improvement over time means nothing when you have so far to go as wind and solar has. I am not backing anything. I am simply stating the facts which are that wind and solar will never be able to
909.
by ThomPete 7y ago
They don't advance quickly. They are less then 1% of the worlds energy usage and are only projected to be around 3-4% in 2040. They advance because of the political tailwind they have not because they are actual solutions. Again you ca
910.
by ThomPete 7y ago
There are so many positive externalities that it's not even possible for me to list all of them but let me give you a couple of examples. Our use of fossil fuels secures: Safer environments: (access to water, safer buildings, the abili
911.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Bureaucrazy is though.
912.
by ThomPete 7y ago
That's how you need to discuss this in order to get to the true cost otherwise you are making decisions based on incorrect data. Wind can't deliver enough energy it's relying on other types. So any discussion that includes wi
913.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I don't need to google around, I know the litterature and I know the difference between what can be speculated and what can be demonstrated :) So don't worry about that. Fusion is theoretically possible that doesn't mean we a
914.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Correction 3-4% in 2040! In other words not even close to being a realistic alternative.
915.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Then they wouldn't be externalities.
916.
by ThomPete 7y ago
No, it can't be used for that and the size of the batteries even for those things it can be used for is a giant issue (and thus cost) Solars capacity factor is around 20-30 or something like that. It's not even close to being a re
917.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Wind and solar produced electricity. Electricity is a subset of energy (around 20% i think) Last summer in Denmark was amazing. The best we have had in a long time, the result was that the wind didn't blow wich meant no energy. So Denm
918.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You don't see that in there, unfortunately. And of course, it makes sense to factor in backup energy as you can't actually deliver consistent energy with wind and solar alone. So the true cost of wind and solar should obviously in
919.
by ThomPete 7y ago
If you want to play that game then sure. They factor in what they should have been paid because of externalities. What should then be deducted because of the positive externalities? All the positive things that are the very reason why most
920.
by ThomPete 7y ago
This is only because for some reason when we talk about wind and solar we don't factor in the cost of coal, nuclear, gas and oil which are being used as backup. Furthermore, with wind and solar, we don't factor in things like deco
921.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Hmm maybe. I don't distinguish that hard the second I get into the qualitative so many factors (like experience) inform the quantitative work. Sometimes the qualitative goals is created because of the quantitative data. What you are sa
922.
by ThomPete 7y ago
That's what I am saying. Don't choose things that can't be tracked quantitatively. Track things quantitatively and then make qualitative decisions. At Square, we had "Make Commerce Easy". This was qualitative and th
923.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Yes, the art is always to pick the right metrics. The problem is when companies choose qualitative and thus interpretational metrics. Just stay to the simple easily trackable and quantitative ones and the make it your job to interpret them
924.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Metrics are great for optimizing your business not for deciding which one to build.
925.
by ThomPete 7y ago
This might inspire you: The problem with problems https://link.medium.com/qDH4gV224Z
926.
by ThomPete 7y ago
No sure why people are downvoting me for this. But let me just say that, when I was at Square this was common knowledge and why that wasn't the first market we looked at.
927.
by ThomPete 7y ago
CA was not facebooks making and favebooks own algorithms are far superior to CA. Crypto currencies are not going away and both Getmany and France are hurting their own entrepreneurs.
928.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Germany is notoriously anti credit cards so no surprise when it comes to them. Its a stupid move of course but my guess is that they are worried it will be successful and threaten the EURO.
929.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Wozniak
930.
by ThomPete 7y ago
GDPR is spam in its own way and its unessecary burden on smaller companies.

More ›