OpenStars @ OpenStars @startrek.website

Posts

3

Comments

2,104

Joined

2 yr. ago

Not for the direct reaction itself but I thought there was something about spraying the container down or some such... I am probably entirely BSing here:-). In any case, whenever someone figures out a method to make it practical, then we'll see whatever downsides there may be to that:-P.

One problem is that most of your solutions have been attempted before and they failed to stick - e.g. a majority of people who are alive today were present when the top marginal tax rate in the USA was 90% (I am focusing on that b/c the OP referred to MIT), and when that was true, government programs were so well & sufficiently funded that we literally went to the moon! (but how often have we been back there since? granted, there isn't much real reason to go...:-P)

e.g. people started hiding their wealth in offshore tax havens, only bringing in what they need in the short term to get by at any given moment. This relates to globalism as in how much is a wealthy person even a resident of any one country, despite them living in it 100% of the time and getting 100% of their income from it? If you open up a broom closet and maybe assign 0-1 employees to it, but file the paperwork for thus you can make anything into your "global headquarters" even for a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation - Amazon does this all the time, and moreoever keeps shifting it around to take advantage of tax incentives offered to them to move it there (for awhile).

Another way that people hide their wealth - Donald Trump is famous for this (among other things:-) - is to keep the actual financials low while still having the full quality of life experience. So he and his family may not "earn" much, yet still live in a fantabulous apartment that they value in the millions if not billions of dollars. Their cars, helicopters, private jets etc. also may not be directly "owned" by them, but rather by their corporate entity, which is subject to all the tax burdens and benefits of such - so even though he gets the exclusive use of all of his "stuff", does he truly "own" it, at least as far as tax reporting purposes go?

Even UBIs have been tried before - e.g. slaves might be given their rations regardless of output, so that their families could eat even while taking care of the next and present generation of workers rather than produce work product directly.

So it is not that nobody has ever heard of these things before, it is just that they do not "stick". e.g. Donald Trump, after taking advantage of that whole financial system, when he gets into power decides to defund the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), essentially the police who monitor for such excesses and abuses as he and others like him are exactly likely to try to get away with. (And yes, the IRS - the general taxation services & enforcement division - got its funding reduced as well, but that gets off into a whole HUGE tangent where it is not just its funding level, but direct mandates to specifically not go after the most wealthy offenders, or rather the particular style of crimes that they are able to abuse, which are more complex and can be held up in court for years and thereby take up a disproportionate amount of resources to enforce) And then on top of that, Donald Trump also lowered the wealth taxes - so both by making things legal, and also by reducing the ability to enforce certain particular styles of crimes that are illegal, he steadily moved the notch more towards “unfettered capitalism” and away from "placing restrictions on it in some form". Nothing ofc is 0% or 100%, but there is a spectrum, and we do move along somewhere on it.

So, extremely unfortunately, it is not hyperbole at all - the most narrow interpretation of it as meaning equal to precisely 0% restrictions would be, but the common interpretation is to look at the spectrum and see the direction we are moving along it towards that particular extreme end, as in "more unfettered now than it was in the past". You may actually therefore be in agreement with the person you are arguing with, but missing out on that b/c you keep talking about how to "solve" the crisis, as if the solution could be to simply pass a handful of laws and the problem would be over. However, pass those laws how - through Congress? And with the Supreme Court now having been stacked with judges that each day are revealed to be even more corrupt than we suspected in the past, ready to strike down any law that may cause their own personal quality of life to degrade i.e. they might receive fewer free rides on private jets if they displease the billionaires that they have befriended?

Well, anyway if you are speaking on purely theoretical grounds, or perhaps in Aussie land it may even be possible on practical ones, but in America we do tend to feel that we are well and truly and even royally fucked by the system, and any such "solution" seems unlikely to ever be possible to implement, for the simple fact that our overlords do not wish it. We may have come too far down this road, to the point where even the entire federal government cannot fight against them any longer, except in perhaps specific areas, but not overall, not anymore:-(. Ironically this illustrates the dangers of unfettered capitalism: I get that capitalism isn't so much "good" as it is the lesser of other competing evils (socialism being demotivating etc.), but it really is like harnessing the power of this giant behemoth beast, whereas if you let the beast take over control then you can become well and truly and royally fucked...:-(. When riding a mount, one must always remain in control, or else... well, we are about to find out I suppose.

i.e. capitalism may be good, but only if properly restrained.

Yeah but you said it was a "problem" - like I dunno, likely the excess energy start a fire or something? - whereas turning them off seems like it would reduce that to the system merely being less efficient than would otherwise be possible.

Anyway, definitely some kind of energy storage battery seems naively to me like it would be the best solution, even if used in conjunction with several forms of energy production (solar, wind, geothermal, maybe biomaterials etc.).

Sadly it does kinda look that way, but even more devastatingly sad than that is the near certainty that we are giving them far too much credit for forethought there. To think that the likes of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg has that level of strategic capabilities, rather than simply "gimme monay, now puh-lease", is rather generous. More likely they will be shocked that the leopards (themselves in this case!!?!!?!!) have eaten their faces off too, and as the move Don't Look Up perfectly illustrates, they too will be more surprised than anyone else as the world ends. But hey, at least they got theirs while the getting was good, right? :-(

i.e. Business Intelligence (acumen) is not the same thing as actual intelligence (IQ), and definitely not the same as emotional ability to empathize, with others and even one's future self (EQ?). If these people could understand something, but it is to their financial detriment to do so hence they won't, then it is no longer a matter of helping them understand (IQ), but rather of motivating them to care (EQ) and thereby actually do something about it (business).

Why couldn't the solar panels simply be turned off - is that not an easy solution to having too much intake?

Every previous adoption of technology has taken - what, 50 years? - between having the technology and being set up to make use of it. Gasoline did not immediately have car engines to put into, nor kerosine a whole city's worth of lamps set up to receive them, etc.

Though at first, if fusion could power up the existing electrical grid then it could e.g. make electrical cars more efficient in the net/overall sense, even if vehicles operating directly on fusion power themselves would take many more years. So fusion really might be different than those that came before, if we are anticipating and more ready for it than previous technical advances?

Though yeah, it will have its own challenges e.g. the radioactive wastes, so fusion would not begin to replace greener energy approaches such as solar, wind, and geothermal, only perhaps supplement them.

it’s a fundamental inefficiency that must be worked around with additional effort and resources

In the OP the use of the word "problem" rather than something like "challenge", and referring to the problem being the pricing structure (negative) makes it seem like we've switched topics slightly, but if you are just referring to the foundational inefficiency of energy distribution then yeah I agree it is definitely a challenge. However, that challenge need not be so overwhelming (even perhaps solely wrt pricing) that it negates the benefits of having that form of technology available altogether. e.g. if the power company itself, or each recipient building individually, had its own battery (if let's say those were cheap & sustainable) then that could work, without the users needing to care much. I forget which city but one example in Germany iirc pumps water up a mountain during the day, then at night or on a cloudy day that potential energy falling back down generates electricity again. So yes a "challenge" for sure but not necessarily an insurmountable one!:-)

Also, there are "problems"/"challenges" wrt use of fossil fuels as well, which have implications for climate change, and therefore even purely from a profit perspective there's government laws & subsidies and public perception that can affect it, which could push the overall net towards being beneficial to store that energy for later.

Neuralink to the... rescue?

You just mentioned a number of ways that capitalism could be "fettered" to work more for the benefit of all. But the person you responded to said "unfettered capitalism" (unless they changed it later). :-)

You gotta recharge your phone battery sometime though - and if electricity had a different cost for nighttime vs. daytime, you can bet that people would choose the day option whenever possible.

(I chose a mobile device here bc it doesn't need any "extra" battery or technology beyond what would already normally be at hand.)

"Safe" for the passengers then, but is nobody else truly around that could get hurt by the derailment?

Also, how many tied to the tracks are literally murderers who if not themselves killed in this manner, will go on to kill many more again?

Or did these people - cult members? - have themselves tied to the tracks willingly, wanting that easy death rather than slavery of the continued drudgery of existence?

I... might be overthinking this.:-P

And it's a good thing, b/c they don't have room for people who aren't Team Players... Get your feel-good dopamines now, while supplies last, or else!

Nikola Tesla was a radical anarchist then, I guess? :-P

She did her part to fly Boeing, for the sake of maximizing shareholder valuation.

How many people were inside the trolly though, and would die if it derailed?

Congrats, you just entered the running to become the next CEO of Boeing. :-|

That's... messed up. Fwiw, I am using the webpage UI - not an app - and it shows up perfectly for me. But yes, it has been enjoyable to discuss more deeply with you than is usual on a social media site - this is the power of Lemmy!:-)

We seem to have this fucked-up system where the two parties literally WANT to take turns - Republicans (until Trump came along) back themselves into a corner wrt e.g. Climate Change, then depend on hope that a Democrat will get elected and actually take care of it, then they will still "blame" them for all that "hippy stuff"; and then Democrats want to lower taxes on the wealthy so depend on hope that a Republican will get elected and make that happen.

An example is the border crisis: there are real issues there, that both side want to do something about, yet both sides are also leaning so heavily into politicking that they cannot manage to accomplish anything at all. It even/especially got so bad that they did finally manage to do something, almost, before Trump made some phone calls and shut it all down.

Just like the stock market, the appearance of things somehow matters more to them than reality. "Game theory" predicts that you simply cannot stamp out such a type of "cheating"/"gaming the system" set of behaviors - it's literally impossible, and can even work to the favor of the overall system in odd ways (like viruses infect cells, which ngl is bad for the individual cell, but as they do they can bring along genes that trigger behaviors inside of them, which exceedingly rarely but in a population rather than individual sense can save the whole damn species from an extinction-level event, especially for bacteria where the number of cells and infection events are both exceedingly large and they already exist more in a population rather than individualistic mode to begin with) - but such modelling also predicts (iirc) that when the threshold is reached that not only a few people cheat it but it BECOMES the system, then it all begins to break down.

At that point, people either need to move on to another new system that has not yet been fucked up, or else the whole thing crashes down. Either way involves a lot of pain.

For myself, I have lost faith in democracy, as it seems most people have alongside of me. That is not to say that we should ignore our responsibilities, it is just that I don't think they will counter these trends towards evil behaviors of greed and exploitation. I used to hold out great hope, but now I think that was naive, wishful thinking. But the only thing to do is move forward, and we'll see how it plays out I suppose. Maybe this is one of those things where like "it always seems darkest right before the dawn"?

On the other hand, what exactly are the actions that we (liberals) are doing to counter the effects of both globalization and automation? (links to any resources explaining that would be welcomed, though not your responsibility ofc - I will find them eventually!) We did manage to raise the minimum wage - that's excellent - but for the most part while the other side seems greedy, we seem lazy.

Case in point: abortion. While the overturning of Roe v. Wade is solely within the purview of the Supreme Court, why don't more states have more laws on the books or in the works to add protections in at the state level, as conservatives are doing on the other side of that issue? Diligence wins the day, regardless of who does it (as the phrase goes: you reap what you sow) and yeah I know about slow & steady wins the race but... are we merely slow, or are we living in a fantasy dreamland where somehow everything will magically fix itself without any effort on our parts? People are dying over there, and while we must allow others to live however they choose, why not enshrine some protections for "ourselves"? THAT much at least, is not something that can be adequately explained (imho) as "it is the Republicans fault" - wouldn't that lie solely within our own purview?

por que no los dos? I aim to please after all:-P.