Forum: Story Ideas

I read an article yesterday that claimed the super-rich (billionaires, for example) hadn't achieved their wealth through skill and intelligence - life isn't long enough for that to happen - but by the dumb luck of being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people.

That is at best half right.

1. The majority of the super-rich got that way by accident of birth. They inherited wealth.

2. Being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people might provide opportunities that others do not get, but any one who claims it doesn't take skill and intelligence to capitalize on those opportunities is either a liar or a moron.

Exceptional skill and hard work on they own can get you to, arbitrarily grabbing a number, $20M or so, and even then only if you're lucky and not screwed over by heavyweights on your way. Not bad, but not superyacht territory, definitely.

However right there somewhere (between $20M-$40M I believe) is a threshold above with you can't really lose anymore unless you're totally stupid moron and/or take insane risks falling for blatant scams or not caring about people who steal from you, with all are just ways of saying you're a stupid moron.

Now there's a few more ways to get above that threshold that not really requires that much skill but far more coincidence.

I think there's at least three or four mechanisms at play simultaneously, inheritance, opportunity/skill, and dumb luck. With criminal behavior including government nepotism and plutocracy somewhere in blending of the last two.

I know it's not really true, but it's very tempting and popular belief where I am at about, that nobody above that unknown threshold (of $20M to $100M) had come to that wealth in a fair way. However, if more of those people where Elon Musk like dreamers there was nothing to complain about. We need those, and that kind of wealth concentration for key breakthroughs. And art, by the way, art has always been territory of unfair wealth. Ballerinas used to be expected to be sex workers...

The counter examples are, say, Russian oligarchs. It's one of the most mind bending things, see, back in USSR nobody was supposed to own over $20k or about so (another random number actually, but to make the point), so it was seemingly real fair starting point. However, there were billionaire class... in less than a decade after the collapse. The centuries old "thieves in law" went to war with them and lost. Those guys are outlaws even by traditional mob standards. Sure, the rumor is, it was really a political project from top down. Well, maybe not all of it. There's some guys in there who maybe had some skill and merit to that, multiplied by a fair chance. But most of those are dead or in prison by now (for political reasons).

With criminal behavior including government nepotism

There is a reason why the Forbes list of the world's richest people explicitly excludes hereditary heads of state.

Another thing you might notice in that list, is that the top 50 is not dominated by old money.

Even with a fortune in the $ hundreds of billions it will only take a couple of generations of lazy and/or stupid heirs to destroy that fortune.

As far as criminals, particularly organized crime: stupid criminals won't stay in business long enough to get that rich. How they acquired their wealth may not meet some definition of "fair", but it certainly required skill and intelligence.

While not hard work, that sort of stock-market manipulation requires a fair amount of ingenuity.

Musk is a scam artist, but he is not an idiot.

The way he keeps shooting himself in the foot and causing share price crashes suggests otherwise.

I have a different take. It's a wonder the share price ever got so high in the first place. And no matter how smart a scam artist is, if he keeps the scam going too long, people will start to realize that it's a scam.

My take is, it basically was intended as a smallish side gig, and more political statement than anything else, that he never seriously expected to grow like that. Although the compensation scheme he chose, especially predicted by share price and expressed in shares could indicate otherwise.

But his real passion and what he originally imagined his real business and still is, is the Space X. Walking out of early days of PayPal (he was one of original coders of it) with unexpected windfall he split his 100M 80/10/10 with the 80 allowing him to build exactly three experimental rockets, risking almost everything he had on the success of that. Tesla was seeded by one of those tens. It's generally unimportant, at least by comparison.

Also, he wasn't born poor, but I believe is a guy who honestly realizes there's no real personal gain after the first million and everything else can be thrown at willd ideas with no regrets. It results in behavior somewhat comparable to a scam artist indeed, but without the underlying greed, or at least not quite that level of greed the real insatiable hoarders have.

, because the transition to electric cars is accelerating considerably.

So it might actually happen sometime next century.

Subsequent reports indicate that one passenger was in the front passenger seat, one was in the back seat. No one was in the driver's seat. Tesla's 'self-driving' feature is a driver-assist feature; it requires someone in the driver's seat. The occupants were not operating the vehicle safely, legally, or in accordance with the way the feature is to be used. With any car currently in production, driving down the road with no one in the driver's seat is a recipe for disaster. We're not there yet on self-driving cars.

A few years ago I saw a self driving beer truck (18 wheel) on the news, the 'operator' went in the back into the sleeper cab during the report. So these people may have been mislead as to the level of ability of self-driving vehicles.

It turns out that Autopilot was not turned on in the Houston crash, and the vehicle in question did not have the beta Full Self-Driving (FSD) feature installed at all.

Do you have a source for that?

https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2021/04/19/ceo-elon-musk-responds-to-deadly-tesla-crash-in-the-woodlands/

On Monday, Tesla CEO Elon Musk sent a tweet about The Woodlands crash, which said, in part, "data logs so far show autopilot was not enabled, and this car did not purchase FSD (full self-driving.) Moreover, the standard autopilot would require standard lane lines to turn on which this street did not have."

There are a bunch of cites for it. Obviously that story could change, but it seems like there's a reasonable degree of certainty as to what happened.

Also, this was hardly a normal drive where something bad happened along the way. From the same article:

A reporter for KPRC 2 spoke to the brother-in-law of one of the men in the accident, who said the owner of the car backed it down the driveway, then hopped into the backset before it drove off and crashed just a few hundred yards from where the trip started.

That does not sound in any way like a recipe for a safe trip, nor use in compliance with Autopilot's design.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/19/tesla-texas-driverless-crash/

"Our investigation has determined that one of the victims was in the front passenger seat; one was in the back seat," Mark Herman, a constable for Harris County Precinct 4, told KHOU, adding police were "100 percent certain that no one was in the driver's seat."

Even if Autopilot was on, having no one in the driver's seat is an intentional misuse of the feature.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/fatal-tesla-crash-in-texas-believed-to-be-driverless-11618766363

"Autopilot and full self-driving capability are intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment," Tesla says on its website, noting that the features don't make the vehicle autonomous.

That does not sound in any way like a recipe for a safe trip, nor use in compliance with Autopilot's design.

You know what it does sound like? An attempt at an insurance scam.

Musk

"musk
/məsk/

noun
1.
a strong-smelling reddish-brown substance which is secreted by the male musk deer for scent-marking and is an important ingredient in perfumery.
2.
a relative of the monkey flower that was formerly cultivated for its musky perfume, which has been lost in the development of modern varieties.
Definitions from Oxford Languages"

Could you imagine the screams if a government project ran to over 5 times the initial estimate?

Not really. That's kind of par for the course. Look at California's high speed rail project, or Boston's big dig.

Could you imagine the screams if a government project ran to over 5 times the initial estimate?

How about the deafening silence when a government project goes two or three times over budget then gets scrapped?

Could you imagine the screams if a government project ran to over 5 times the initial estimate?

YES, because this is a given with pretty much any government project.

@Mushroom

Could you imagine the screams if a government project ran to over 5 times the initial estimate?

YES, because this is a given with pretty much any government project.

The correct answer is No, for the reason you stated. Every government project goes over budget, and 5 times original estimate wouldn't even come close to being a record.

The California High Speed Rail project, if they ever manage to finish the first section they started with will have built 65 miles of what was supposed to be a 500 mile system for around double the original cost estimate for the entire 500 mile system.

Now do not get me wrong, the original 1980's proposal was a good one. Trains going tom LA to Las Vegas in an hour, largely using existing right of ways.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Trains going from LA to Las Vegas (269 miles by highway, so 260+ MPH) in just 1 hour, on pre-existing right of ways and tracks was/is pure fantasy.

High speed rail requires dedicated tracks.

Right of way does not mean the same rails. It means that the route is already owned, so land does not need to be purchased in order to build it.

It is the difference between trying to build an entirely new freeway, and widening one that already exists.

You are wrong. Right of ways for either railroads or highways are generally no wider than necessary for the existing roads/tracks plus a safety margin. Widen the road an you have to widen the right of way to maintain the safety margin and that means buying new land not currently owned.

Sure if there was a rail line right of way for the route you wanted from LA to Vegas that wasn't actively in use what you suggest would be possible, but if you are talking about a right of way that actively being used it doesn't save you anything.

And also why it is a law that with the exception of structures to be used to access the rail (warehouses, loading-unloading facilities), all structures must be 50 feet away from the centerline of the right of way. That gives a total buffer of 17 feet from the right of way itself (or a clear zone of 100 feet in total).

But then given that law, if you add another track to the right of way, wouldn't all those structures have to be pushed back or you'd be in violation of the law?

Also there's a rail line in my area, single track that is no more than 100 feet from private homes (not 100 feet from the lot, but 100 feet from the house, with private property and back yard facilities less than 50 feet from the tracks. And while it doesn't get a lot of traffic, it is an active line.

One of C-HSR problems is that centralized power (read electric tracks and overhead guy connections) are to be avoided due to fire hazards. This is a key difference between Japanese and the proposed system.
The current short listed contractors include a Japanese bidder for the track and systems.
https://hsr.ca.gov/2019/12/02/notice-of-shortlist-rfq-hsr19-13-track-and-systems/

What you think you know about trains is already null and void from the RFQ process forward. There will not be open electric systems utilized anywhere on the project. That alone has changed the nature of the project. Without the open electric systems there is no choice left except for on board systems or induction systems. Neither of which are suited for high speed rail systems.
Therefore, materials and infrastructure for the system has to be developed anew aka reinventing the wheel. That was a particularly troublesome spot for Hitachi which made the shortlist.
From what I get inside engineering circles, the Bombardier lead consortium is favored in this regards as they have a solution in hand.
I would suggest everyone look up the specifics for themselves before making assumptions based on outdated knowledge.

But please, show an actual reference that specifically talks about them not using electric traction anymore and going to onboard power plants.

Even diesel locomotives use electric traction for motive power. The diesel engine is just turning an on-board electric generator.

https://www.midcontinent.org/kids-page/what-makes-a-diesel-locomotive-work/

locomotives

Are "Crazy reasons", Loco is crazy (probably from Spanish) and motives are reasons for doing something.

This I am also aware of.

Then why the comment about citing a reference to where they talk about not using electric traction motors? That comment was nonsense.

But have you read the RFP-RFQ?

Yes I have. My company was subcontracted to Bombardier for this purpose. Which is how I know they have a solution in hand. Batteries are definitely involved. Quick change packs at that. It's going to be used in Europe regardless of the outcome in California.

Much would be simplified if they didn't have their heads stuck in a green cloud.

However, I still wonder how in the hell they plan on getting through the Tehachapi area.

By that, can we assume you mean the fault lines found there?

I have asked that very question for years about that very thing for those that are behind the CHSR project, and none as of yet have ever answered it. Somehow get the Rail Authority to allow passenger trains on it again? Build another one somewhere else? No answers at all.

With frequent freight traffic, the track in the loop is almost certainly too uneven for HSR traffic.

The problem of mixing freight and passenger trains is why they stopped running passenger trains through it over 40 years ago.

Mixing freight and normal passenger trains is a problem. For HSR train multiply that by around 2 orders of magnitude.

Minor inconsistencies in the tracks that would hardly be noticed by a freight or normal train could mean a guaranteed derailment for a high speed train.

The maximum speed through that is only 23 MPH. Nowhere even close to "high speed".

And what, other than some government official somewhere said so, keeps them from going faster?

I honestly think now that you are simply disputing me to dispute me

Not disputing you at all, just trying to understand the justification of the speed limit. Often with roads, speed limits are set well below what safety would require. The same phenomenon very likely also applies to rail speed limits.

And if there is sold physical reasons for such low speeds, even absent issues of track quality and contention with freight traffic, why would they even consider running HSR trains through the loop? Doesn't that defeat the point of a high speed train?

The problem of mixing freight and passenger trains is why they stopped running passenger trains through it over 40 years ago.

Mixing freight and normal passenger trains is a problem. For HSR train multiply that by around 2 orders of magnitude.

Minor inconsistencies in the tracks that would hardly be noticed by a freight or normal train could mean a guaranteed derailment for a high speed train.

Tunnel boring machines have reached such a state that a tunnel long or not would be no problem. It's more about seismic stability than anything else now.
https://www.robbinstbm.com/products/tunnel-boring-machines/

But it will not be with boring machines

Because that would be boring.

But it will not be with boring machines, that is for sure.

That was definitely a bad decision if they passed on tunnel boring. For 18 billion, they could have purchased a few machines easily and had it done within a year.

Progress in science is sometimes said to happen not by new ideas taking hold among the same people but by people defending the old paradigm dying off.

If only really few uber-rich could extend lives it would likely lead to Olympic God-king class totally disconnected from the peasants they rule over, and eventually total stagnation and decay as knowledge is lost. I partially believe it's already happened at least once.

If the benefits are available to nearly anyone in a (impossibly) fair world, the net effect should be just a slow down of history where refinement dominates revolutionary change although increased environmental awareness might trigger unpredictable effects and efforts. There's perhaps a far better world there somewhere, but the gateway to that is likely improbably narrow.

It's a scenario where it's not 1% nor 80%+ but 5%-20% availability, at least given some subsidy and cross support by interested elites and governments, where trillion corporations could in principle easily afford it for key specialists, where government could grant it for select peoples on, supposedly, merit, where uber rich could gift it around on semi-charitable self interest with is both most realistic (probably almost inevitable eventually) most dynamic and most rage inspiring by inbuilt unfairness.

Those due to inherit will have to wait a lot longer to do so.

Or do something to get rid of their predecessors.

Or do something to get rid of their predecessors.

Agreed. As I noted, increased lifespan increases the odds of suffering a fatal injury, by accident... or.

the point where say 50% of the population can afford it, the shit hits the fan, population increases,

Population increases are not a given. More likely is that people with access to the drug stop having kids.

Population increases are not a given. More likely is that people with access to the drug stop having kids.

I'd argue that population increase is a given, not due to the 'wonder drug' but due to cultural mores. Granted those taking the drug would probably have fewer kids, or at least spread them out over a far longer period. Meanwhile a number of cultures will continue to have as many children as they can manage, not afford, manage. In some cultures more children means more wealth, it certainly means a shift in cultural demographics. Adding access to the 'wonder drug' will simply increase their ability to have children.

In some cultures more children means more wealth, it certainly means a shift in cultural demographics. Adding access to the 'wonder drug' will simply increase their ability to have children.

For most of those cultures it is the poor who see children that way, and they would still not afford the drug. The wealthy have the best health and health care compared to the peasants and with impatient heirs they see it as better to keep the numbers down.

The historical reason for having many children was that most did not survive. In some places that is still so.

For most of those cultures it is the poor who see children that way, and they would still not afford the drug.

Exactly correct, thus the change in cultural demographic.

It just means tat the cultural gap between the "immortals" and "peasants" increases up to an almost physical divergence in different species and certainly philosophical differences that all but banning any transition between. With the "immortal" class actually continously shrinking into eventual extinction. That's the long way around, not quite what I'm originally after, but collapse nevertheless.

There's actually a private(ish) organization working on building a Houston-College Station-Dallas line currently. If they manage it, it'll be interesting to see how it goes.

HSR, or regular commuter rail?

ETA: Found it https://www.texascentral.com/

Unless they are being outright dishonest on their web site it's pretty thoroughly private.

From their FAQ:

FINANCE

Investors and entrepreneurs. Texas Central is an investor-funded company utilizing a market-led approach to financing, led by a group of primarily Texan investors. The Railroad will not seek grants from the US Government or the State of Texas, nor any operational subsidy once operation begins. The project will be financed with a blend of debt and equity.

And if they are being honest they are working to minimize the use of eminent domain to acquire the land they need.

It will be very interesting to see if it succeeds.

To bring this back to the bottom:

I Found The Texas rail project mentioned above. https://www.texascentral.com/

Unless they are being outright dishonest on their web site it's pretty thoroughly private.

From their FAQ:

FINANCE

Investors and entrepreneurs. Texas Central is an investor-funded company utilizing a market-led approach to financing, led by a group of primarily Texan investors. The Railroad will not seek grants from the US Government or the State of Texas, nor any operational subsidy once operation begins. The project will be financed with a blend of debt and equity.

And if they are being honest they are working to minimize the use of eminent domain to acquire the land they need.

It will be very interesting to see if it succeeds.

(though you can't hijack a train and crash it into arbitrary targets).

The point of terrorism is terror. To scare the populace. Killing a group of commuters would likely achieve that goal. Remember, trains in Europe have already been targeted.

On the other hand, HSR is itself a potential target and might need more screening than current passenger rail (though you can't hijack a train and crash it into arbitrary targets).

No, but a train, even a passenger train has a lot more mass than an airliner..With the terminus station in a major urban area, what do you think might happen if terrorists got control of a bullet train and ran it off the end of the tracks at full speed?

Silver Streak.

And even in that event, it would just crash into the terminal itself. Not that they can even drive that fast once they get into urban areas.

Silver Streak was a movie. The real train crash was in 1953, the Federal Express crashed in Boston.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Pennsylvania_Railroad_train_wreck

It hit the end of the tracks at only 35 MPH. I think it would have turned out very different if it hit the end of the tracks at 250 to 300 mph.

While there might be regulations requiring HSR trains to slow down in urban centers, what would actually force a bullet train under the control of deliberately malicious actors to slow down?

Might as well worry about that happening today with a regular train.

Freight trains haul such wonderful things to spill in an urban area as chlorine.

Wow, better tell Japan that. They have only been using them for over 60 years now.

You should check the details before mouthing off like that. The California HSR is not designed to copy Japan though they'd been better off if they had done so.
CHSR was trying to reinvent the proverbial wheel.

It would be more likely to be a gene therapy than a singular drug.

Much depends on how strictly you use the term drug.

If you insist on drug = chemical compound, then no, gene therapy would not be a drug.

On the other hand, a gene therapy retroviruses vector could be introduced as an injection or a pill and from the patient's perspective it would be indistinguishable from a drug.

It would be more likely to be a gene therapy than a singular drug.

Yes, I just didn't want to elaborate on the process as such, seeing details of that as irrelevant and potentially counterproductive. Still I specifically mentioned it unlikely to be a "single pill" but rather a treatment or complex of treatments.

Up to and including, let's say, two week long submerging in a "rebirth womb wat" while worked over by nanobots and viral gene therapy, and who knows what else, all prepared on individual parameters by army of specialists for several months prior. And then the mild rejuvenation effects or optional body modifications (if available) could still take some more months to fully manifest afterwards.

Even so, it's single point-use, done in relatively short and limited time once (per cycle, eventually), as opposed to something of much more regular daily/weekly/monthly dependency.

Either way it goes, this is not just science fiction. There is a realistic possibility it could happen. The resulting conflicts would not be pretty in the least.

I suspect any such therapy would be a closely guarded secret, but as with most secrets, it would likely leak. The source and method of the leak would likely have a bearing on how the conflict played out.

Nope, you're not full of it.

We're on the brink of a new "dark ages", except for the fact that the previous "dark ages" weren't all that dark. During that time, actual useful things were invented (clocks, printing press, eyeglasses, for example). This one will be worse.

You can easily observe how "magical thinking" has replaced logic and science among generation Z and a large number of Millennials as well.

If you wish to know how incredibly stupid people have become, visit any facebook page or internet forum which deals with real-life, physical subjects. Things that any proud graduate of the third grade would have known 25, 50, or even 100 years ago are now complete mysteries to the majority of these folks.

Quite soon there will be too few people left who have the ability to make things or grow food, or the mental capacity to learn how. And that's the point where civilization will collapse.

At the risk of straying into politics, are Americans aware of the ramifications of the carbon targets Joe Biden has committed to? For example, is the USA really going to be able to switch en masse to battery cars in the next nine years? Or has Joe left a poison pill for his successors?

It will have some adverse effects for the Americans but although I'm not tree hugger even I see the necessity of fighting pollution in general. Now the USA at long last is starting to try lowering emissions maybe together we can pressure the other big polluters (China, Russia, India,) to work at it too.

Americans aware of the ramifications of the carbon targets Joe Biden has committed to? For example, is the USA really going to be able to switch en masse to battery cars in the next nine years?

Some are some aren't.

No, we aren't even going to get close to switching the entire auto fleet to battery electric without building a shit ton of new nuclear power plants.

A battery electric car powered by a coal fired power plant is not zero emissions. And when it comes to grid scale electric generation coal is still king.

The only existing technology that would even have a chance of replacing all those coal fired power plants in the next 50 years is nuclear.

Or has Joe left a poison pill for his successors?

No poison pill. He isn't going to submit those targets to the US Senate for ratification (requires a 2/3rds) as a treaty. This means his successor will be able to abandon those targets quite easily.

Americans aware of the ramifications of the carbon targets Joe Biden has committed to? For example, is the USA really going to be able to switch en masse to battery cars in the next nine years?

Some are some aren't.

No, we aren't even going to get close to switching the entire auto fleet to battery electric without building a shit ton of new nuclear power plants.

A battery electric car powered by a coal fired power plant is not zero emissions. And when it comes to grid scale electric generation coal is still king.

The only existing technology that would even have a chance of replacing all those coal fired power plants in the next 50 years is nuclear.

Or has Joe left a poison pill for his successors?

No poison pill. He isn't going to submit those targets to the US Senate for ratification (requires a 2/3rds) as a treaty. This means his successor will be able to abandon those targets quite easily.

Americans aware of the ramifications of the carbon targets Joe Biden has committed to? For example, is the USA really going to be able to switch en masse to battery cars in the next nine years?

Some are some aren't.

No, we aren't even going to get close to switching the entire auto fleet to battery electric without building a shit ton of new nuclear power plants.

A battery electric car powered by a coal fired power plant is not zero emissions. And when it comes to grid scale electric generation coal is still king.

The only existing technology that would even have a chance of replacing all those coal fired power plants in the next 50 years is nuclear.

Or has Joe left a poison pill for his successors?

No poison pill. He isn't going to submit those targets to the US Senate for ratification (requires a 2/3rds) as a treaty. This means his successor will be able to abandon those targets quite easily.

Americans aware of the ramifications of the carbon targets Joe Biden has committed to? For example, is the USA really going to be able to switch en masse to battery cars in the next nine years?

Some are some aren't.

No, we aren't even going to get close to switching the entire auto fleet to battery electric without building a shit ton of new nuclear power plants.

A battery electric car powered by a coal fired power plant is not zero emissions. And when it comes to grid scale electric generation coal is still king.

The only existing technology that would even have a chance of replacing all those coal fired power plants in the next 50 years is nuclear.

Oh, and even if they eliminate all the bureaucratic red tape and give immunity from lawsuits, we probably wouldn't be able to build enough nuclear power plants fast enough to get even half way to Biden's emissions target.

Or has Joe left a poison pill for his successors?

No poison pill. He isn't going to submit those targets to the US Senate for ratification (requires a 2/3rds) as a treaty. This means his successor will be able to abandon those targets quite easily.

are Americans aware of the ramifications of the carbon targets Joe Biden has committed to?

For most of them, no they are not. Sadly the state of education in the US does not properly prepare it's citizens to think for themselves.

Sadly the state of education in the US does not properly prepare it's citizens to think for themselves.

There's more to it than that. There seem to be a lot of well educated people who think the administration can make it work.

It's a problem of magical/wishful thinking.

Well, it's a bit like with that railroad discussion above (with is, admittedly, part of this, as countries with functional mass public transportation systems are in a bit better spot to start with). It has to be done, eventually will be, globally, and better sooner than later.

But will be in time and within budget? Of course not. And not at all because it couldn't be, but just because there's too many opportunities for blatant stealing and even more for subtle and "fair" chances of selective personal enrichment by doing it slower than it could be done.

And frankly, even without all that crap, the technology just isn't really there yet. It's close, but at best sub-optimal and inefficient, and will have been to be remade before that decade will run out. But unfortunately, there's no more time to waste either.

And not at all because it couldn't be

The carbon targets Biden in proposing absolutely can not be met without either wholesale de-industrialization, a return to an ere before even steam power was available, or a massive build up of new nuclear power plants.

The carbon targets Biden in proposing absolutely can not be met without either wholesale de-industrialization, a return to an ere before even steam power was available, or a massive build up of new nuclear power plants.

Earth cannot provide for that many peasants, must reduce surface population, this way to the showers.

There's more to it than that.

Not really. If people were capable of critical thinking, they would understand that energy is required for work to be done. It's like the people who think meat comes from the grocery. They don't understand the source of the meat.

100% efficient batteries, with zero environmental impact each, still require energy to charge them. Yet the so called educated you speak of still bitch and moan killing off the predominant energy source first.

Killing off all the pigs and cows first is not conducive towards continued supplies of steak and bacon.

they would understand that energy is required for work to be done

A lot of them do realize that but thanks to magical/wishful thinking, they think we can get all the energy we need for a modern civilization from wind and solar power. They might as well plan on powering civilization with unicorn farts and pixie dust.

Magical/wishful thinking is far removed from critical thinking. Which leaves my original point standing as valid.

ETA; The worst part of all that is the rest of the world is watching the lunacy here scratching their collective heads in befuddlement asking themselves "what the hell are they thinking? And to think those idiots have nuclear missiles.."

Magical/wishful thinking is far removed from critical thinking.

True, but it frequently has no relationship to poor education.

but it frequently has no relationship to poor education

I'll have to disagree with that.

powering civilization with unicorn farts and pixie dust.

And also pixie farts and unicorn dust. Twice the energy that way.

A lot of them do realize that but thanks to magical/wishful thinking, they think we can get all the energy we need for a modern civilization from wind and solar power. They might as well plan on powering civilization with unicorn farts and pixie dust.

It's easily possible to get all NEEDED energy from wind, solar, and water. The problem is not in the generation of energy, it's in the crazy levels of over usage that cause it to be impossible. Todays consumption has gone way of track, largely initiated by the industries. Why produce and sell something that lasts 50 years years when you can create some crap that you can sell every 2 years?

Why produce and sell something that lasts 50 years years when you can create some crap that you can sell every 2 years?

This might be of interest, if you're not already aware.

This might be of interest, if you're not already aware.

I'm aware. Fortunately the random LED lasts a lot longer although you I have an old CFL that never goes off and it's been on for 7+ years now. Still, cheap LED lights last not as long as they could. What I was thinking about were they thousands of totally useless products spit out nowadays, wrapped in multiple layers off plastic that loose all function after unwrapping. Just because it has to travel halfway around the world. Crazy as I see it.

Judging from the few I have studied the parameters in some depth, they have funny way of making those boldly displayed "year" estimates. Basically, it mostly seems to refer to thousands of hours, as if they only expect it to shine for 1000 hours a year. With is 11.7% of the total possible time, so maybe they do have a point based of some estimates about average use cases. Moreover, some sources quite each switching off/on to take about an hour out of the expected lifetime; that alone can wreck the estate in some places, like bathrooms.

On personal experience, I have one fixture in bathroom that eats them. The exact same bulbs bought together still works in some not significantly less used places, including twin fixture the other side of the mirror, while that exact one had gone through 3 or 4 already. One could be just a bad luck, this is not. I put a different type of led in it, and now it *maybe* flickers if you watch for it, barely noticeable, but it apparently isn't stable. I have even taken the installation apart and reassembled, without finding anything obviously wrong, but maybe the problem is further upstream -- with isn't reassuring thought as it may be potential fire hazard if so.

It's easily possible to get all NEEDED energy from wind, solar, and water.

1. The greens hate hydro, so no water power for you.

2. I'd like to see you smelt steel or aluminum with nothing but wind or solar power. What, you think we don't need steel or aluminum? Then you are basically talking about taking us back to a pre-inudstrial society.

3. I would suggest you look into how much energy it takes to make solar panels and grid scale wind tubines.

1. The greens hate hydro, so no water power for you.

Who said anything about the greens? Until they get a good dose of reality most of them are worthless.

2. I'd like to see you smelt steel or aluminum with nothing but wind or solar power. What, you think we don't need steel or aluminum? Then you are basically talking about taking us back to a pre-inudstrial society.

We do need steel and aluminum but not nearly as much is produced now for all kinds of frivolous garbage. Just a wild guess but lets say 10% is for absolutely necessary products, another 10-20% for sophisticated nice to haves, and the rest is for garbage products.

3. I would suggest you look into how much energy it takes to make solar panels and grid scale wind tubines.

Yep, does require a lot of energy but at least these products give it back over time :D

Who said anything about the greens? Until they get a good dose of reality most of them are worthless.

They are the ones pushing the nonsense that we can run the modern industrial world off of just wind and solar.

We do need steel and aluminum but not nearly as much is produced now for all kinds of frivolous garbage.

That really requires solid qualification what you consider frivolous garbage.

I would guess that most of the steel that we produce goes into buildings and large vehicles like ships working ships like oil tankers and cargo ships.

see you smelt steel or aluminum with nothing but wind or solar power

Not a problem, in theory, we're just not there yet.

By the way, wind is solar power. As is all hydro, all renewable oil, peat and similar, and even almost all fossil fuels, actually, are nothing much than processed and stored solar power. Only nuclear and deep geothermal are not solar powered, and tidal (with abuses Moon's momentum); but most near-surface soil, and all water submerged, or air-air heat pumps are also nothing but solar power.

The problem isn't availability of solar power, we have enough, even just on the planet surface, magnitudes more than we could consume anytime soon. The problem is collecting efficiency, reliability and transmission, and the most acute is currently the last.

If only we could power the entire world from mega-scale solar farms in few deserts around the world... we can't currently, too long the lines, too great the loses, too unstable the politics.

Besides that, better batteries could, in theory, but unlikely will relieve that bottleneck anytime soon. Short of low-pressure room temperature supraconductor that can be produced at scale, direct solar will indeed likely remain a band-aid for the major energy consumption.

Not a problem, in theory, we're just not there yet.

Actually, that's already a done deal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace

Carbon arc furnaces aka electric arc furnaces are common these days. They and their variants are also used to process Bauxite into aluminum.

https://geology.com/minerals/bauxite.shtml

The capacitors for them are the sticking points. No direct power feed will work. It takes approximately 1.09 gigajoules to smelt a short ton of steel, so EAF's require massive capacitors to store up the charge. The capacitors don't care where the charge comes from.

Actually, that's already a done deal.

You can call it a done deal when there's an active smelter running off of only solar and/or wind power.

The capacitors for them are the sticking points. No direct power feed will work. It takes approximately 1.09 gigajoules to smelt a short ton of steel, so EAF's require massive capacitors to store up the charge. The capacitors don't care where the charge comes from.

Existing capacitors can not hold a charge indefinitely. Can they be charged fast enough from wind or solar? That is far from certain. Can a smelter operate cost effectively when it takes a year or more to charge the capacitors to smelt one short ton?

The early PCs and clones were built like tanks, and were very expensive.

Yes, but technological advancement is going so fast that there's little use in making those to last 50 years. I'm talking more about everyday usable items like kitchen stuff, furniture, etc. I've got a pair of scissors my late father bought more than 50 years ago. It's still perfect and it's used a lot, a whole lot, and is still used almost daily. Never even had to sharpen it. Try that with a pair of scissors you buy today. When you think about it there are thousands of similar examples. Quality not only saves tons of resources but also causes way less garbage. It may sound strange but especially the lower income people would benefit from better quality for maybe a little higher price since they don't have to keep replacing the same items again and again. In the long run it's much cheaper.

Blame that actually on the American consumer.

Point a person at 2 items, one that costs $100 but is guaranteed to last for 10 years and another for $25 that is guaranteed for only 2 years, they will pick the $25 item almost every single time. So manufacturers simply stopped making the better ones, nobody was buying them.

Do you honestly believe that European or Asian consumers would behave any differently?

Point a person at 2 items, one that costs $100 but is guaranteed to last for 10 years and another for $25 that is guaranteed for only 2 years, they will pick the $25 item almost every single time. So manufacturers simply stopped making the better ones, nobody was buying them.

Do you honestly believe that European or Asian consumers would behave any differently?

South Americans sure don't, it does not matter to them if it is a POS as long as it is a cheap POS.

Point a person at 2 items, one that costs $100 but is guaranteed to last for 10 years and another for $25 that is guaranteed for only 2 years, they will pick the $25 item almost every single time. So manufacturers simply stopped making the better ones, nobody was buying them.

I'm going with proven quality every time even if it is more expensive. Especially so if it's a tool.

I'm going with proven quality every time even if it is more expensive.

A two year guarantee means it will probably last 3-5 years, a ten year that it will probably last about 15 - so I'd go for the $25. The cheap one will have been designed to probably last at least the guarantee time, the 'quality' one the guarantee is set from the predicted MTTF - the 'cheap' one could well have an equivalent MTTF, but it hasn't been characterised as that's expensive and time consuming to do. If the times were average lifespans rather than guarantees, then yes, I'd go for the expensive one, if I don't expect the cheap ones to be available in 5+ years and I expect to still be using it after that time.

I bought a broken down yugo for target practice.. does that count?

Well, once the saying was "we're too poor to buy cheap."

Unfortunate that it does not work out that way for most poor people.

The Captain Sam Vimes boots theory of wealth does apply.

Did any of you in the day select a Yugo instead of a Buick or Honda?

The scary thing is that the Yugos made for export were considered by the people who made them to be much higher quality than the ones made for their domestic market.

The scary thing is that the Yugos made for export were considered by the people who made them to be much higher quality than the ones made for their domestic market.

In particular the Yugos meant for the US market.

Now how many of you own a base model Kia? Did any of you in the day select a Yugo instead of a Buick or Honda?

Features is a separate issue from quality as it is being discussed hear.

While I personally may not go for the outright cheapest, once I have the feature set set I want, there is a limit to how much I am willing to pay for the kind of quality/reliability you are talking about.

Then that is your problem, really.

I haven't found it to be a problem.

In fact, I still use a computer I built in 2007

.

I just replaced one that was over 10 years old. Mostly because I needed to upgrade from Win 7 to Win 10.

The old one wasn't anywhere near top of the line when I bought it. I had the hard drive and the video card from the old machine transplanted into the new one.

upgrade from Win 7 to Win 10.

So is it actually an upgrade?

So is it actually an upgrade?

Yes. The newer versions of Win 10 are less tablet centric*.

The main thing for me was that two pieces of software I use on a regular basis, one of them for work (the Citrix client for remote access) and the Kindle reader for PC were having trouble at win 7.

With the Citrix client, the latest update wouldn't install on Win 7.

The Kindle reader for PC hit an auto update after which it wouldn't launch of Win 7 at all.

Now, me personally, I've generally had good experiences with Amazon's Customer support. However On this issue, I got pushed all the way up to tier 3 support and the final answer was, basically: Tough, we don't support Win 7 anymore.

*Probably Thanks to Corporate America finally moving desktops and laptops to Win 10.

Couldn't get tax software for 7, boy do I miss media center ...

boy do I miss media center ...

Small HTPC with Ubuntu and put one of these https://itsfoss.com/best-linux-media-server/ on it.

That ended years ago

...but, the latest Firefox update consists of a bugfix for out-of-memory conditions under 32-bit

I didn't know Firefox was still being updated

Yes, it is. I just got a fresh update recently.

I'm not a 32 bit user. Firefox supports 64 bit.

I'm on Firefox Version 88(64bit)

And never looked back.

Over 10 years ago I dropped XP64 and Win7 for Linux and never looked back.

I thought 32 bit mode ended with Windows 7. MS removed it because people were using it to run 32 bit programmes, rather than as a testing and development aid for 64 bit versions.

It won't run 32 bit only, but even win 10 will still run a lot of old 32 bit programs.

And how the fuck would you use a 32 bit mode as a tool for testing and development of 64bit programs?

unicorn farts and pixie dust.

It has been theorised that the inhalation of pixie dust is what causes unicorns to fart. Another study concluded that pixie dust is distilled from the rainbows caused by sunlight filtered through unicorn farts.

Congratulations! You've discovered the perfect renewable energy source.

If only they actually existed...

:)

In the 80s and 90s I remember some dystopian sci-fi movies where some areas were 'decriminalized' the police did mot even go into those areas.
When I saw the documentary 'Seattle is dying' it reminded me of those, and other cities are following that trend.

Even if you were youthful and wealthy, would you ever get tired of living? Would you get tired of seeing your loved ones age and die while you remained behind?

Yes and Yes. The first one might take some time :D but the second one pretty fast.

Honestly, I do think there's a lot of regret or sadness or just plain tiredness.

It must be hard to remember all those great days.... and be reminded of all your friends who have died. It's like every time you turn around, you're reminded of yet another friend who isn't there to share the day with you.

It's great to live 100 years and see all the amazing advances, but that comes at the cost of your physical decline. Every year means you're older and weaker, lost your teeth, can't control your bladder, worry about paying the bills because you're on a fixed income.....

If you were stuck at 30 with a nice income, it wouldn't be so bad. Living at 80 or 90.... not exactly a walk in the park when even something like a short stroll in the park means you're ready for a nap.

Even if you were youthful and wealthy, would you ever get tired of living?

In Larry Niven's Grendl, Niven expresses the opinion that you will get bored of life, and take greater and greater risks until the odds catch up with you. Also, that women, who start off trying to develop grace and poise, later deliberately shed this in order to conceal their life experience (age).

Isn't that a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts? The good folks who do miss friends and families will opt out while the psychopaths won't, thus increasing the numbers of "evil people" by default.

Not saying you're wrong at all as I believe we see that happening even today in DC and the cultures that fester around academia. No reason it wouldn't continue much the same if there was an age pill thrown into the mix.