myrmidon

12 ms·

211.
by myrmidon 6mo ago
This argument does not work, because we are not limited by available space in total agricultural output. Just consider the Netherlands: Second largest food exporter despite the US being >200 times larger. Most of the richer countries&#x2
212.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
I honestly don't see a big problem with that. First: The same argument applies to suburban population, where autarky is even easier/cheaper than for industrial consumers: Just slap panels on the roof and a bunch of batteries into
213.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
Yes, but thats a bad extrapolation because per-capita electricity consumption was still rising then but is mostly flat/decreasing in western countries since 2000 or so, and the significant rise in reneably fraction mostly started afte
214.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
You are still arguing against a strawman. Cucumber3732842 is just saying that nameplate capacity is a systematically flawed metric when comparing renewable generation, because their capacity factor is consistently lower than for conventiona
215.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
Note: Flagging on topics like this typically occurs from user action, not moderators. These are not typical sockpuppet accounts either, but mostly established users that (conjecture) don't care about having the same non-technical deb
216.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
You can both "win" or both "lose" if your goals are not in direct conflict (rare). I'd argue that the most important thing when trying to win wars is to aim for realistic outcomes. The first gulf war was arguably a
217.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
If you can not win a war because your population is unwilling to bear the cost, then you are still unable to win (that is in fact a very typical way for a war to end). Nobody is disputing the fact that the US spends more money on arms than
218.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
What nations are you talking about? E.g. in Germany, you can buy up to 7kW of panels, screw them onto your roof, wire them up with controller and battery and feed up to 800W into local grid, no one is gonna stop you or anything (only thing
219.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
Typically, you have "dumb" panels connected to a mppt-controller/charger/inverter box which is connected to batteries and and electrical plug. This controller tunes voltage/current that is taken from the panels, opt
220.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
No this would not make more sense. Grids are not set up to move significant percentages of national consumption over longer distances, and expansion is slow, expensive and prone to nimbyism. Countries already struggle to move electrical ene
221.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
Presumably that the water bill (for tap water) was priced to cover both tap water provisioning and sewage works. But people using (free) rainwater to flush toilets ruined the pricing model, making the tap water price go up. I honestly don&#
222.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
I don't see how you realistically get airframe cost below $200k; you need basically a cropduster with a bunch of electronic equipment and weapon systems on top. That's worth 10 attack drones at least (realistically, US military wo
223.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
What does "Europe running out of oil" mean to you? Gas at the pump for >10€/l, potentially with some rationing scheme? Do you honestly think that's gonna happen? It is easy to get infected by the media narratives that
224.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
A lot of people might find the idea fun, but actually sitting around in some remote base, just waiting for the next wave of drones to come? Even if you draft those people "for free", they could be working (or raise a family) inste
225.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
I think a big difference is that asymmetry has grown a lot: The modern drone is much cheaper than any manned aircraft (while V1/V2 needed comparable or greater industrial input compared to fighter planes). If you want to scramble manne
226.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
This is a valid point: quickly depleting reserves often indicate that pricing is not sustainable. Which is bad. But non-sustainable pricing is very different from "cataclysmic collapse", and too many people expect the latter for t
227.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
I don't see the Guano industry as a straight counter-example, it even illustrates my point: If you had made predictions/scenarios in 1850 based on Guano deposits running out within a decade or two, you would have mispredicted comp
228.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
Sidenote: Whenever someone tells you that (vital) reserves of some ressource are going to run out soonish (implying drastic consequences), you should be extremely skeptical: Such predictions have an abysmal historic track record, because
229.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
If there is no threat of nuclear escalation then Russian expansionism towards central and western Europe looks much more likely to me; basically a repeat of WW2, but starting with post-war Germany being annexed (like Czechoslovakia in WW2)
230.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
Do you not think that nuclear weapons were a significant net gain for conflict avoidance (keeping the cold war cold)? Nuclear power also arguably saved lots of lives by avoiding fossil emissions/air pollution (probably significantly
231.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
The nuclear bombs were quite deadly to civilians compared to "traditional" firebombing-- Hiroshima alone had 2-3 times more victims than the extensive Tokyo firebombing campaign (200k-300k vs ~100k), despite the Tokyo area being m
232.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
I'd argue that few things are more dangerous for a country than drastically overestimating your own military assets while trying to do big stick diplomacy-- that's how you end up completely lost (WW2 France), or throwing away
233.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
But why would this ever happen? Why would the owners of land, construction material and machinery give those up for free to the average Joe? Right now, even an average citizen born in poverty can acquire wealth from his labor. That is basic
234.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
In a typical democracy you just vote the government out if it starts an unpopular war. Even if elections are far away, you can just protest on the streets at basically zero risk until the government behaves again. If you try the same in Ira
235.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
You are basically complaining that the article is not about a your preferred, different topic. Directed energy defense does not really compete with a system like GMD at all , because the range is extremely limited by comparison. The US mig
236.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
This is absolutely true, but there is a strong counterpoint: You also learn the limits of your own systems and how to operate them most effectively yourself (and better than adversaries can, too). Just to pick a recent example: Russian
237.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
I'd argue that Vietnam and Al-Qaida/Afghanistan/Iraq where much lesser "risks" than Iran, and those still left lasting scars on US society, self-image and standing.
238.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
> The idea that voters are always right would also seem to eliminate the possibility of arguing for change. Voters are responsible for current policy therefore it must be right, so how could change be good? I'd argue the exact oppos
239.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
For the record: When I posted the previous comment, prices at ramtracker were 410ish for 32GB DDR5 (which is realistic) and 380ish for 16GB DDR5 (which is not). Their price history does not reflect this at all, so I'm not trusting thei
240.
by myrmidon 7mo ago
I'm not sure what your position is. If you think that the greenhouse effect is real (CO2 contributes to warming), why would human emissions not have any effect? we currently emits tons of it per year and person for a substance only i

More ›