It makes me happy the idea that the libre social networks are slowly and steadily succeeding.
Gold's benefits are 3fold
1. Girls like it because it makes pretty sparklies
2. Gold doesn't corrode so it'll always be around once it's out of the ground
3. There isn't much gold and it's really hard to get.
Copper can make sparklies and can be allowed so it doesn't corrode much, but there's quite a lot of it.
Iron isn't sparkly, corrodes like crazy, and it's all over the damn place.
It makes sense, even if it isn't really a great set of reasons.
1. Girls like it because it makes pretty sparklies
2. Gold doesn't corrode so it'll always be around once it's out of the ground
3. There isn't much gold and it's really hard to get.
Copper can make sparklies and can be allowed so it doesn't corrode much, but there's quite a lot of it.
Iron isn't sparkly, corrodes like crazy, and it's all over the damn place.
It makes sense, even if it isn't really a great set of reasons.
In retrospect, the thing he had most going on for him is a voter base and a state house of representatives ready to stand behind him for the few good decisions he made.
there was this movie called Eclipse I remember seeing on one of the cable movie networks back when I was a teenager, it was terrible on multiple levels.
But OTOH the whole movie industry has gotten really bad now, so bad in the 90s might not even register on the shitty movie meter now.
But OTOH the whole movie industry has gotten really bad now, so bad in the 90s might not even register on the shitty movie meter now.
Someone recently had the gall to ask me "if the inflation rate being reported is false, then why does it accurately predict prices?"
I want to be that guy's Butler, because you know someone who would say that must have one doing all of his shopping for him, and that butler doesn't come cheap.
I want to be that guy's Butler, because you know someone who would say that must have one doing all of his shopping for him, and that butler doesn't come cheap.
No FUCKING lie detected.
They don't need to be so damn blue!
And you know what? My car comes stock with these things, so when I'm driving down the highway at night every second transport truck is flashing their lights at me as if I'm running my high beams -- I gotta sit there constantly ready to flash my lights and show just how bright my high beams can get.
They don't need to be so damn blue!
And you know what? My car comes stock with these things, so when I'm driving down the highway at night every second transport truck is flashing their lights at me as if I'm running my high beams -- I gotta sit there constantly ready to flash my lights and show just how bright my high beams can get.
It would really bother me if it wasn't the same show, because that would mean there's some manufacturer of Japanese auto armpit tickler devices out there serving media clients.
I tend to think of western European economies as capitalist, even though they do tend to have more robust welfare states. Perhaps less capitalist than they could be, but on the balance still capitalist.
I tend to agree that these businessmen won't be remembered well by this generation, but recall that Nobel, Cargenie, and Rockefeller are remembered for their philanthropy more than for their cutthroat capitalism, history has a way of changing the story in ways we don't expect.
I tend to agree that these businessmen won't be remembered well by this generation, but recall that Nobel, Cargenie, and Rockefeller are remembered for their philanthropy more than for their cutthroat capitalism, history has a way of changing the story in ways we don't expect.
Look, look here jack! We're building an economy inside out, upside down, and always twirling twirling twirling!
A lot of people think that mastodon/the fediverse and capitalism are in opposition. In my opinion, capitalism is a requirement to create mastodon and the fediverse. That's why it was produced in a capitalist country, like virtually all open source software.
The thing is, capitalism is private ownership and wealth and the means of production and freedom to trade.
Sometimes, this means that rich sociopaths do every evil thing they can to extract the maximum amount of wealth from a thing before leaving it a useless husk. There's no debating that. It surrounds us.
On the other hand, for some people that means they take their resources and use it to produce common goods like open source software, because people are more than just a series of economic requirements.
This freedom is the source of the technologies we're using to discuss this. Large companies were perfect happy making money off of corporate and government contracts for mainframes, so they didn't care much about the idea of personal computers. Individuals who saw the potential for a personal computer quit their jobs at those companies and created new companies like MOS who created the famous 6502 which in contrast to Motorola was aimed at being low cost for home users, and companies like Apple and Commodore that produced personal computers when if you asked a central planner if you could make these things and give them out then they'd say no -- we know this because that's exactly what happened.
We've also got this entire ecosystem within capitalism of people spending the resources they personally control to create common goods they want, the fediverse is a perfect example -- I've got regular users on the FBXL network sites, and they're happy to be using the sites and I'm happy to have them, and I'll never make a penny from them because that's not the point. I'm sure that the instances you're on is largely the same, people who have private control and ownership of their own things going out and using that ownership to make the world better. The programmers who write open source software even the organizations that contribute to it (and there's lots of big companies that contribute) are all contributing privately owned capital to these commons, and that's pretty awesome.
The fundamental thing here, is that they were free to own and control the capital means of production (as in the computers they used). If they had to go ask a commissar then it's likely none of these projects would have happened. Capitalism isn't the driving force behind these projects, but it's the framework that allows individual people with ideas to go out and spend resources that might otherwise be spent on something the state or the tribe wants on what an individual wants.
Right wing capitalists tend to believe that people are generally bad and need to be civilized. Left wing utopians tend to believe that people are generally good and need to be unobstructed from making them bad, and both are wrong. In each of us we have a whole library of things we could be built into our DNA. Memories of being successful by being antisocial, and memories of being successful by being prosocial. Both are built into our capacity as human beings, and so when we are free to engage in what we would engage in, we generally do both.
The thing is, capitalism is private ownership and wealth and the means of production and freedom to trade.
Sometimes, this means that rich sociopaths do every evil thing they can to extract the maximum amount of wealth from a thing before leaving it a useless husk. There's no debating that. It surrounds us.
On the other hand, for some people that means they take their resources and use it to produce common goods like open source software, because people are more than just a series of economic requirements.
This freedom is the source of the technologies we're using to discuss this. Large companies were perfect happy making money off of corporate and government contracts for mainframes, so they didn't care much about the idea of personal computers. Individuals who saw the potential for a personal computer quit their jobs at those companies and created new companies like MOS who created the famous 6502 which in contrast to Motorola was aimed at being low cost for home users, and companies like Apple and Commodore that produced personal computers when if you asked a central planner if you could make these things and give them out then they'd say no -- we know this because that's exactly what happened.
We've also got this entire ecosystem within capitalism of people spending the resources they personally control to create common goods they want, the fediverse is a perfect example -- I've got regular users on the FBXL network sites, and they're happy to be using the sites and I'm happy to have them, and I'll never make a penny from them because that's not the point. I'm sure that the instances you're on is largely the same, people who have private control and ownership of their own things going out and using that ownership to make the world better. The programmers who write open source software even the organizations that contribute to it (and there's lots of big companies that contribute) are all contributing privately owned capital to these commons, and that's pretty awesome.
The fundamental thing here, is that they were free to own and control the capital means of production (as in the computers they used). If they had to go ask a commissar then it's likely none of these projects would have happened. Capitalism isn't the driving force behind these projects, but it's the framework that allows individual people with ideas to go out and spend resources that might otherwise be spent on something the state or the tribe wants on what an individual wants.
Right wing capitalists tend to believe that people are generally bad and need to be civilized. Left wing utopians tend to believe that people are generally good and need to be unobstructed from making them bad, and both are wrong. In each of us we have a whole library of things we could be built into our DNA. Memories of being successful by being antisocial, and memories of being successful by being prosocial. Both are built into our capacity as human beings, and so when we are free to engage in what we would engage in, we generally do both.
Turns out the answer is complicated. I learned a lot in writing this answer for you, because I didn't want to just say the same thing everyone else does. I wanted to find out why the answer everyone gives is true.
The energy density of gasoline or diesel is a lot higher than for batteries. This is where the answer starts, and what most people would say.
Let's look at a pair of vehicles that are both tuned for efficiency, a Tesla Model S and a Toyota Corolla.
The Tesla Model S long range has a battery with a life of 103.9 kWh. To convert kWh to kJ, multiply the kWh value by 3600, so the energy in those batteries is 374,040 kJ
Gasoline contains 31,536kJ per litre, and the Corolla has a tank with 45 litres, so a total energy of 1,576,800 kJ. So there's a lot more energy there to begin with. One thing to be aware of is that the EV is using its energy with very high efficiency (80-100%), whereas gasoline or diesel vehicles use their energy with much lower efficiency, converting only between 20 and 40% of the potential energy into kinetic energy.
So with all that, you might think that the two cars are the exact same on grade going up since 80% of 374,000kJ is about the same as 20% of 1.576MJ -- but you'd actually be wrong!
See, a Toyota Corolla with a full fuel tank weighs about 3014lbs, and a tesla (with a full battery, not that the charge state of the battery matters ) weighs 5761lbs. Some of that weight is because the Model S is a vehicle that costs twice as much as the Corolla and so has a lot more creature comforts that cost weight, but some of it is due to the weight required for large electric motors and a large amount of it -- about 1400lbs -- is the battery. The energy it takes to move something goes up linearly with weight, so during acceleration the tesla will require almost twice as much energy to get up to speed, and just as importantly it'll take almost twice as much energy to raise the car on a hill.
And then the energy density thing becomes worse as you go. If you want to double the energy in the Model S, you'd need to add another 1400lbs of battery, but if you want to double the energy in the Corolla, you add another 45 litres of gasoline weighing about 80lbs.
This problem gets much bigger if you're not driving a small passenger car. An F150 v6 gas weighs 4564lbs and carries 87 litres of fuel, so about twice as much energy as our Toyota Corolla. An F150 Lightning weighs 6500lbs, and has a battery capacity slightly less than the Tesla we just mentioned for the standard capacity model, or slightly more (131kWh) than a tesla for the extended range model. Given everything, scaling up EVs ends up becoming less capable because you need to add so much weight to add some range.
The energy density of gasoline or diesel is a lot higher than for batteries. This is where the answer starts, and what most people would say.
Let's look at a pair of vehicles that are both tuned for efficiency, a Tesla Model S and a Toyota Corolla.
The Tesla Model S long range has a battery with a life of 103.9 kWh. To convert kWh to kJ, multiply the kWh value by 3600, so the energy in those batteries is 374,040 kJ
Gasoline contains 31,536kJ per litre, and the Corolla has a tank with 45 litres, so a total energy of 1,576,800 kJ. So there's a lot more energy there to begin with. One thing to be aware of is that the EV is using its energy with very high efficiency (80-100%), whereas gasoline or diesel vehicles use their energy with much lower efficiency, converting only between 20 and 40% of the potential energy into kinetic energy.
So with all that, you might think that the two cars are the exact same on grade going up since 80% of 374,000kJ is about the same as 20% of 1.576MJ -- but you'd actually be wrong!
See, a Toyota Corolla with a full fuel tank weighs about 3014lbs, and a tesla (with a full battery, not that the charge state of the battery matters ) weighs 5761lbs. Some of that weight is because the Model S is a vehicle that costs twice as much as the Corolla and so has a lot more creature comforts that cost weight, but some of it is due to the weight required for large electric motors and a large amount of it -- about 1400lbs -- is the battery. The energy it takes to move something goes up linearly with weight, so during acceleration the tesla will require almost twice as much energy to get up to speed, and just as importantly it'll take almost twice as much energy to raise the car on a hill.
And then the energy density thing becomes worse as you go. If you want to double the energy in the Model S, you'd need to add another 1400lbs of battery, but if you want to double the energy in the Corolla, you add another 45 litres of gasoline weighing about 80lbs.
This problem gets much bigger if you're not driving a small passenger car. An F150 v6 gas weighs 4564lbs and carries 87 litres of fuel, so about twice as much energy as our Toyota Corolla. An F150 Lightning weighs 6500lbs, and has a battery capacity slightly less than the Tesla we just mentioned for the standard capacity model, or slightly more (131kWh) than a tesla for the extended range model. Given everything, scaling up EVs ends up becoming less capable because you need to add so much weight to add some range.
The energy required goes up significantly when you're going up an incline. When you're going across level ground, the electric motors need to overcome frictional forces from the wheels and opposition from wind resistance. When you are going up an incline, you need to overcome frictional forces, opposition from wind resistance, and you need to lift the entire vehicle continuously. If you're talking about a fairly large hill, you're talking about a fairly large amount of energy. To give you an idea, imagine the opposite: if instead of going up a large Hill you were going down a large hill. In that situation, it's likely that you can not only travel down the hill without adding any additional energy, but you can charge the batteries as well because in that case instead of using power to raise the vehicle, you are getting power from the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.