FBXL Social

sj_zero | @sj_zero@social.fbxl.net

Author of The Graysonian Ethic (Available on Amazon, pick up a dead tree copy today)

Admin of the FBXL Network including FBXL Search, FBXL Video, FBXL Social, FBXL Lotide, FBXL Translate, and FBXL Maps.

Advocate for freedom and tolerance even if you say things I do not like

Adversary of Fediblock

Accept that I'll probably say something you don't like and I'll give you the same benefit, and maybe we can find some truth about the world.

Ah... Is the Alliteration clever or stupid? Don't answer that, I sort of know the answer already...

There's an alternative to the HCFCs that destroy the ozone layer. We still have air conditioners. We still fill air conditioners with something like HCFCs. Instead of hydrochlorofluorocarbons they use hydrofluorocarbons.

By contrast there isn't really an equivalent replacement for fossil fuels. Even the things that "replace" fossil fuels use massive amounts of fossil fuels to build, so it's rare to have anything that even comes up positive after all the required energy inputs that can't easily be replaced.

If you force people to replace one coolant with another it's relatively easy. If you stop people from having heat or light or transportation or food, all of which rely heavily on fossil fuels that can't be displaced with current technology, you won't need to worry about climate change because the angry mob will make sure it isn't something you have to worry anymore. Ask the government of Sri Lanka or Kenya.

Oh, I think modernity.news is @PaulJosephWatson s site. That's the other zh thing, you gotta look at the source. I've got modernity.news on my rss feed fwiw but hadn't been there long so I can't say 100% that it's great but I added it for a reason.

Although sometimes it does report things before they're fully verified and sometimes they report things that end up being just conspiracy theories, it is trying to be a real news site.

Ngl I don't want her job.

Not gonna work, but it's worth a try.

If you want to impress Japanese bitches, say "..."

Japanese bitches loooove "..."

Come on... It's only happened every single time. Just every single time though. But I'm confident this time will be different.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7axnvInN57E

This is a really cool video of a guy who bought a 70 year old Rolls Royce engine for scrap, checked it all over, and got it running. Really cool!

Just watched a presentation about small modular reactors. One thing that thought of is that you'd get much more bang for your buck in a small community distributing heat instead of electricity. For something like a native community in the far north the electricity is often changed back to heat for homes and the like anyway. Apparently generators are only 33% efficient so instead of a 20MW electric generator you'd have something like a 60MW thermal generator, and that changes a lot.

I think you can also change the calculus in industrial plants as well. If you need to hear air or run a heat exchanger then there's no good reason to switch between them. Moreover you can store heat in a medium to help deal with changes in load so it doesn't shock the reactor.

Presumably the per btu cost of heating would go down since you're delivering more heat for less fuel and less mechanical stuff between you and the heat.

I'd probably vote against any bill that increased funding levels too. Half of GDP is more than enough thank you.

Bro I herd u liek Intel atoms so I put some Intel atoms in your i9

Any power you give the government you like will be used by the government you hate...

The other day I explained our establishment is being evil clippy, and I think that it just fits. "You look like you're trying to overrun the country with people from a totally foreign culture. Do you want me to help?" No evil clippy I just want to raise my family. "Congratulations 🎉🎉 now importing millions of foreigners per year! I sure hope you didn't need a place to rent or an entry level job!"

Goddamnit evil clippy.....

Ngl though, the kitchen scissors are probably just fine regardless of the price you pay.

The only difference between then and now is one less middle-man pretending they made a thing.

I was aware of burma shave as a brand but not what it was exactly. That's pretty interesting!

For those who are young and not versed in advertising, burma shave had signs on the highway with short messages you'd read as a series.

"Shaving brushes

You’ll soon see ’em

On a shelf

In some museum

Burma-Shave"

They were considered Americana and referenced in pop culture.

There's a song by Tom Waits called burma shave where the signs were used as if a destination marker since they were everywhere, so if you're "on your way to burma shave" you're just going down all the roads. Ironically it was written 11 years after the signs were all removed.

https://youtu.be/P_ePdqoFBeU
Whatifalthist has been hammering em out this month. One of those guys where you might not agree with everything he says, but golly says some interesting things

Recognizing Andrew Tate as a pillar of the LGBT community would be in my view one of the funnier things that could happen in 2024.

It would certainly recon textualize a lot of the things he said

Completely random.... I'm on the road and forgot to pack my razor. So I buy one locally but they don't have shaving cream (Western civilization is doomed).

I ended up pretty bummed, but I was thinking about the properties of shaving cream and wondered if I could just lather up soap and have it do a similar job.

Nothing fancy, just some lathered up bar soap, and you know what? Worked well! I wouldn't give up shaving cream, but I wouldn't panic if I didn't have it now... Probably would have worked even better with fancier soap.

(Maybe everyone other than me already knew about this, but I thought it was neat)

@sj_zero
https://archive.org/stream/HarrisonBergeron/Harrison%20Bergeron_djvu.txt

That is a good read in this regard.

You can't have equality of outcomes unless all people are exactly the same. And since you can't bring people up to the highest level, you have to push everyone down to the lowest to acheive equality of outcomes.

It occurs to me that there's a big problem with the concept of equity: that is there certain things that I don't know you can actually correct for.

As an example, the difference between the childhood of a child with two engaged caring parents and a dismissive single parent is so large as to be almost impossible to get past, even if you compensate for the difference in wealth that sometimes occurs. A caring parent has such a positive effect that it's extremely arguable you can't put a dollar value on that, but more on that in just a moment.

So let's say that you have two kids, one of them was born of a single parent crackhead who neglects them other than to abuse them, and the other was born of an intact family that is loving but is also poor so that we're correcting for wealth. The literature strongly suggests that the latter is going to be overwhelmingly better off than the former.

Once you have that fundamental inequity, the social engineers of the world would propose that you can cause it to disappear by spending more time and more government money on the child of a crackhead. Another hand, there's an archetype of the rich but neglectful father, who thinks that they can make things better by throwing money at their child. In the archtypical story, the neglected child may spend all the money, but is not improved by it. Eventually that child ends up addicted to drugs, or wrapping their Lamborghini around a hydro Pole, or otherwise just becoming a loser. And there is some truth to this archetype, typically the wealth of a wealthy individual is gone within three generations. And to be clear, sometimes this is just because the wealthy person is misusing the money and not spending it on things that are going to be helpful for the child, but I'm certain that there are plenty of situations where the Rich father is spending the money on tutoring and child care and all that other stuff that we are told is supposed to make two people from the same economic sphere who nonetheless have wildly different backgrounds equal.

So if we can take the rich, and they can't spend their way out of this problem, why exactly should the government be able to scale that up and magically make it work?

Seems to me that the answer is they can't. And according to the data, they aren't. There are places where the most money by far is spent in regions with significant problems with two parent households, and you end up with large amounts of money spent trying to teach kids to read and those kids end up illiterate.

I can't unsee it now, this idea that there's a major problem trying to government your way out of a culture problem. We have many examples from throat history of governments trying to stick their fingers into the lives of people who aren't doing the thing that the government wants them to do, and they can be well meaning, but incompetent.

That would be why around the world religion or ideology end up being so important. The government can't actually force you to love your children, but a strong ideology can give you reasons to look at the world through lens or your children are important. Confucianism is one of three powerful ideological forces in China even today, and it is the guiding reason that their society looks the way it does. The CCP might want things one way or another, but ultimately it is this secular ideology that nonetheless convinces people of how they ought to live.

Some people may point to equality between men and women as an example of where the government was able to step in and make things better. Something like equality between men and women is complicated because while it is true the government intervened to assist with that, is actually the civilization ideology of liberalism which allowed it to be successful. The government then comes in and tries to assist with the thing the civilization was already trying to do and then takes credit for it in the end. There have been similar attempts in other areas of the world, and when the Taliban recently took over Afghanistan again, the first thing sitting in the dumpster was all of the gender studies textbooks. The culture of Afghanistan simply wasn't compatible with Western liberalism.

Similarly, contrast efforts intended to reduce they used tobacco, which were largely successful to efforts intended to reduce the use of marijuana which were largely unsuccessful. In one case, the culture kind of wanted to quit smoking anyway, but in the other case the culture wanted to smoke marijuana. So when the state sees a reduction in smoking, and a large increase in pot smoking and so legalizes pot, in both cases they come around after the fact and claim that they've made a change when in reality the change was sort of forced upon them as much as society. If people wanted to keep smoking, it's highly possible that they would.

So essentially what we have here is a good example of where equality is not equity, but that really equity would be counterproductive. When two people are separated by circumstance, upbringing, genetics, or even choice (I'm one of six kids, and the one thing that is perfectly clear from that point of view is that everyone gets a choice as to what they do with their lives) trying to implement equity simply isn't going to work. All you're going to do is take money from everyone and throw it into a black hole. And if you do that, not only do you fail at equity, but you're going to end up tearing everyone else down in the effort to complete your personal project.

»