While this is true they are among the worst polluters in the EU. England, Spain, France, even italy has a better CO2 balance than Germany per kWH. The amount of energy that comes from renewables is a meaningless number. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 they emit per kWH and due to their coal power plants, the number is quite bad.
https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
Just because they fully developed doesn’t mean the argument they are presenting isn’t logical. It might not be, and that might be because they aren’t fully developed, but you would never know. You must treat every argument you hear as if were generated in good faith. Saying that you can’t rely on them to understand their own shortcomings in their own logic is inconsistent with the idea of logical debate in the first place. How would one ever know the difference between someone who is not convincible vs a non convincing argument. And the idea that young people should just adhere to values is not only inconsistent with the idea that the elders are more logical, since that is merely an appeal to authority, but also won’t be an argument that a young person will listen to, since in your own words, they are irrational.
In the case of the US I think you mean Amtrak is nationalized? But that’s passenger rail. The us has a private freight rail system, which is from what I understand, is one of the best in the world.
Uuuu, While the analogy is nice, I doubt that taxes are decided upon like an engineer deciding on damping coefficients. An engineer has a specification and tries to hit that spec. I have a hard time believing that’s how taxes are set. I would like carbon taxs/credits to be decided upon that way. But if you look at the real systems it’s obvious they weren’t designed that way. Finally, you are correct that you need to be careful in choosing the metric. I think I would also question the desirability of dampinh, which it seems like the other poster was trying to say. The market being dumber is a slower response in your analogy. They want a sports car, not a rolls.
I think it depends. If the union is voluntary its not forced. But often membership isn’t voluntary. The relationship between you and your employer, however is. Many people choose not to work for defense companies for example.
Agree, the language is problematic. But unfortunately companies sometimes use the law to take away that right. Additionally, right to repair sometimes means going beyond the default state and requiring companies to go the extra mile, so that is where the langauge may also stem from.
Inflation is a really bad example of a failure of economic theory. First, just because the field might understand how to avoid inflation, doesn’t mean that is actually implemented. And secondly, until recently inflation as measured by cpi has been low to zero for the last decade. I think a sense of proportion needs to be exercised here.
This is what REALLY bugs me about Germany in general. There is a cultural belief that germans are data driven and unemotional in their decision making. That they are the wise leaders who run the EU. They do not have the populist issues like the UK with brexit or the chaos that france has. They are not like the consuming americans who vote for trump. And yet, the reality of the energy policy demonstrates that Germany is nọt immune to this kind of traps. They prefer to shut down nuclear power plants and yes install many renewables.
They didn’t actually do the math. The point is while renewables may generate 50% of energy, the other half comes from coal which must be turned on when there is no sun or wind, which is so polluting even in comparison to natural gas, that it destroys the overall mix. You can estimate coal as around 700g/kwh(just look at poland when the sun isn’t shining) which divided in half gets you pretty close to Germany’s average of 300g. Had Germany switched to natural gas, they would be much closer to the UK, which did not have an energy transition.
China really only started prospering after the creation of special economic zones, no? And today while there heavy state influence at the largest firms, the rest of the country pretty much operates in a market system, or do you disagree?
What bothers me about this right here is that at one time or another one of these was heralded as THE solution that would alleviate poverty. Why is it always food stamps, minimum wage, and ubi? I thought minimum wage would have solved/alleviated the food problem. It seems to me that there is a general failure to acknowledge the big picture. Being impoverished means lack of resources. I say pick one general solution, either ubi or negative income tax, and let the poor choose what they need. It does a real disservice to the poor to always be for every policy that is notionally meant to help them. It seems disingenuous and not very well thought out. As Eminem famously said,”these goddamn foodstamps won’t buy diapers”.
You implied that due to lack of positive right’s you had no inclination to care about the negative one. As a result I was led to believe that you didn’t understand the difference and why it may be the case that people care more about one than the other due to the core philosophical difference between them.
There are positive and negative rights. Everything you mentioned in the first sentence is a positive right while the second is a negative right. A right to healthcare implies that someone else must provide it(unless you meant that someone is actively preventing you from recieving healthcare). The right to 3d print an object does not mean someone must provide a 3D printer to you.
I meant to ask if the theory is true, it should work for any number, until marginal propensity to spend is equal amongst everyone. My point being that a theory should be general. One person could argue for 17$ while the other argues for 15$. I don’t see how one would using a general principle would decide which value is correct.
This principle would just be summed up as an inelastic good in economic terms. Market forces apply wether or not we want them too. To me it seems, this would result in us being willing to pay any price for it, which may even be the correct principle. It should however, then not be surprising when cancer treatments cost 100s of thousands.
I am sure your right about the eyes. But I would posit that most people wouldn’t know uncalibrated from calibrated anyhow. So seems like a moot point.
As to binning LEDs that works because it is constant. You can calibrate it once and done. But if you change the brightness by changing the current, it means your calibration is out of wack. Perhaps you can make a calibration at multiple current settings, but that seems inconvenient when using PWM will achieve the same thing.
It is not possible to calibrate it away without knowing what the central wavelength of the LED is. That would require a spectrometer and if you manage to build one on chip per pixel which is currently not possible/practical.
I don’t understand what you mean with the GPU. It is has no information about the exact color of the LED.
LEDs central wavelength changes with current. Some flashlight enthusiasts will not touch current regulation and prefer to use PWM because that means the color output does not change. From what I understand you can even use this effect to calibrate a diode laser to a specific wavelength(within reason).
But economically viable and subsided are mutually exclusive because when at that moment the question is not being asked wether the person consuming the good would pay the full price of the service. Economically viable does not mean an expert or technocrat gets to decide for you wether or not something it worth it. Deciding wether or not something is worth is fundamentally an individual’s decision. Of course the expert may say, “look, the cost of getting x amount of people from a to b is y times cheaper using this solution”. But that never takes into account if the people would have preferred a different mode of transport all together. For example, some may prefer the greater carrying flexibility of a car or the ride comfort of one. Of course that is not to say that automotive transport isn’t subsided and that the owners pay the full cost of ownership. The TLDR of it is that economically viable requires people to put money where their mouth is. Someone else CANNOT by definition make that decision unless you believe that some people have “correct” values and others don’t.
Just saying a bunch of places that have mass transport does not address his question if there are systems where massive subsidies aren’t involved in their creation. I do not know what the situation is in india, but in at least in europe many of the transport systems require massive subsidies. While japan in the meantime has privatized their system and runs very, the original creation was also state directed.
I think as soon as you recommend to reduce someone’s quality of life you can forget about it. I agree with a lot of the other recommendations, but telling someone to stay home sounds a lot like dismissal. However, anything where behavior can be changed without changing QoL should be done.
Let’s say americans don’t understand what their rights to speech mean. It doesn’t matter since you didn’t repudiate the fact that they may have stronger speech rights.
You are glad that you don’t have the right to bear arms. But that does not seem to me to refute that a constitution is important to prevent erosion of rights or that the US is ahead in terms of rights. Just that you personally don’t care about that right.
Finally, you state that in the U.K there is also a protection from unreasonable search. Fair enough. But is it stronger than what is in the US? Is it protected in form of a constitutional right or just a law that can be repealed at any time?
The strongest argument is that despite these apparent constitutional guarantees, it has not prevented police from infringing on these rights. I would agree. But that seems to me to be an issue of enforcement. Not having these would mean there would be no legal basis to change police behavior, only a social impetus. That may be enough but I would like to have both options.
How is hoping they fail going to improve things? Wouldn’t you rather hope they fix it and then maybe lower their prices as a way to get back customers?
I think what is very poorly communicated by the scientists writing these papers, is often that it is about investigating a “model” system, generally because its is easy to work with such system(i.e) shows interesting properties above 4k. Its less about producing stuff with graphene, and more about understanding the physics behind it. What eventually actually gets produced may actually use materials that are similar to the model system but not actually it.
Unfortunately, that is stochastic and will not be reproducible or result in yields anywhere close to acceptable to industry. There are methods to grow materials of the same class(TMDC) with CVD and the like, but apparently they don’t reach the quality of flakes that the tape method results in.
I am not sure if you are opposed to the idea of localized damage. That is the best thing you can do as then one can control it far easier. It is much easier to test for emissions from on coal plant powering all the EVs on the road for example than the other scenario of testing each ICE vehicle.
As to externalities, no one said that there shouldn’t be taxes or rules in place that make sure that the consumers of lithium don’t internalize the cost.
This just means that you are moving heat energy from one resovoir to another. The total amount of energy the system releases is the energy moved AND the energy used to move that energy. COP is calculated by dividing the amount of heat moved by the energy used to move that heat. In short no violation.
Ok, fair point from an individuals view. But considering that its known that unions are a controversial opinion, it would still seem rash to state its obviousness.