Ray20

> apartments are rent-capped > cheap social housing > free university > high paying job > very cheap all electric state-subsidized rental car offerings > affordable meat, dairy and vegetables

And here we can simply examine the tax structure and conclude that the problem isn't whether the country sucks, but whether the side you're on sucks.

After all, how can housing be affordable for ordinary workers if they have to subsidize from their own pocket free university, cheap housing, electric cars, high wages, and everything else for the privileged class?

> Maybe your country sucks?

And maybe your country sucks too. It is just North Korea is also the best country to live in (if you're Kim Jong Un).

> so the question is really about cost comparison

Yes, and I was talking specifically about the cost of this difference.

The article you linked literally talks about fuel subsidies in the UK aimed at reducing the final cost of electricity for households and its vulnerability to rising of fissile fuel prices.

In the UK. A country that was one of the first to transition to renewable energy sources and which currently has one of the most expensive electricity prices. And then, to these "subsidies", losses from "road incidents" are added as other subsidies for fossil fuels.

Sorry, this is very difficult to perceive as an argument, it is literally designed for degenerates without education, who have difficulty understanding the meaning of words put together in sentences, and who, for this reason, evaluate any text by the presence of already familiar slogans in it

> But what if it becomes "good enough", that for most intents and purposes, small models can be "good enough"

It's simple: then we'll make our intents and purposes bigger.

> Building solar panel installations in remote locations still requires linking that back to the main grid, and all the in-between infrastructure needed to transform and transmit that power

Some people actually have an idea of how electricity works and statements like these make them think that the whole renewable energy industry is one big scam.

In your opinion, what percentage of the total cost is involved in tapping into the existing grid from nearest wasteland?

You missed the most important part, in which you pay for all this (directly or indirectly).

> If models become more efficient

Then we can make them even bigger.

Regulations like these make the entire renewable energy sector seem like a crazy scam and greenwashing.

They might not have much of an impact on property values (certainly no more than the plethora of existing building regulations). But we shouldn't be surprised if as a result people vote for a candidate whose campaign promise consists of picking up a grenade launcher and blowing up windmills.

That sounds dubious. The government's actual approval rating in Russia is, what, 5 percent? I remember watching a report about how people in Russia were literally jailed for giving the "wrong" answer to a street poll.

So, I suppose if they could somehow use money and influence to determine election results, they would use it in Russia, no?

So, I think the civilizational threat from Russia is about the same as from North Korea: nearly zero.

> Why not?

This implies the creation of an infrastructure for the total surveillance of citizens, unlike age verification by physical businesses.

> new coal plants

3 cents per kwh

> more nuclear or renewable generation

20 cents per kwh

> What excuse actually is there

A sevenfold price difference is a pretty significant excuse, don't you think?

> if you can’t ignore externalities, people have strong incentives to use less

Or vote for those who promise to cancel all of this.

> It's laughable mathematical fantasy

I mean 2.5 / 3.4 = ~ 75%. A measly 75% tariffs will allow the abolition of income tax.

> Used to be that America was great because the smartest researchers in the world wanted to come here, often escaping oppressive regimes to do so, and become American citizens (e.g., Albert Einstein)

By this measure, America is now greater than ever.

Of course, it's convenient to pretend that Trump is building a racist dictatorship with a Gestapo, and that's why no one wants to move to the US. But the true is that the number of people around the world who would like to move to the US is higher than ever. Especially when the current administration is trying to purge society of foreign criminals.

> So now all the world’s best and brightest scientists will move to China

Yes, of course. It's practically the same thing. The only reason scientists go to China is because they are not allowed into the US.

Putin has nuclear weapons. What does he have to fear?

> Imperialism always prefers to deal with theocracies rather than communists.

Communist regimes are also a form of theocracy (proof can be found in the writings of any communist leader). It's just that, unlike other theocratic regimes, other countries have to deal with millions of starving refugees (because the communist faith requires banning food production or something like that, I don't know much about their religion).

> your fellow citizens to get killed by a foreign Power so that your political views can prevail

What does the assassination of DICTATORS have to do with all of this? Dictatorship is less about citizenship and more about a form of slavery. Resisting the killing of a dictator in any way, regardless of who is trying to kill him or why, is treason to a nation.

The correlation between mortality and body mass index is striking.

Should we hold the media accountable for coverage of the Trump/Epstein files because of this?

> Now we have people arguing that if they had just gotten nukes then they could have continued doing all of that.

And where are they wrong?

> First, the difference isn’t that big in the economically stronger EU countries

It's exactly that big. It's not as big for people with low qualifications, but the more highly qualified the specialist, the greater the difference.

> Second, you need to factor in cost of living, which by most accounts is lower.

But here the difference really isn't that big.

> Third, meaningful labor laws and a shared appreciation for work-life balance.

This works more against EU rather than for them. Peak tech skills aren't usually acquired through laziness around and following meaningful labor laws, even in the EU.

> while we celebrate business acumen, we don’t fetishize wealth

An excuse for poor people (who still fetishize wealth)

> I would say the German political system is much less corrupted by lobbyists compared to the United States.

I highly doubt it. I'm certainly no expert on Germany, but has Germany's bureaucratic machine spent decades destroying its own energy sector to buy energy from Russia, funding the war machine of Putin's totalitarian dictatorship?

And not just by buying these resources, but by OVERPAYING for them many times over. I just opened a chart of the prices at which Germany bought natural gas from Russia before the war with Ukraine, and it's wild, it is several times more expensive than Germany is now paying for gas delivered from the other side of the globe on tiny ships. It was a direct subsidizing of this war.

And then you look at these high-ranking (and not so high-ranking) bureaucrats who made all these decisions... And literally all of their families got richer during the time these decisions were made, by tens (and sometimes hundreds) of millions. There's zero accountability, zero media coverage, and it's all being hushed up to such an extent that I can't think of any other explanation other than EVERYONE was taking the money. We are literally talking about the level of existence of a centralized totalitarian machine for the forceful silencing of anyone who tries to talk about this topic.

So do I say the same about the CHIPS Act in the US? Probably. But the level of corruption seen in Germany – pervasive, bloody, destructive – is simply unimaginable in the US.

> Isn't there a full wafer ai chip mainframe for data centers now that blows anything needing ram out of the water?

Guess what's inside these chips and what equipment they're made on.

It may seem that these are very similar processes, but this is only if you do not take into account the bribes from Intel to specific officials and their relatives who make decisions about subsidizing Intel.

SK Hynix, Samsung, or Micron don't treat good people well enough to give them taxpayer money.

Yes, this is literally bribing farmers (extremely cheaply) so that in the event of a prolonged crop failure they will have more arable land and equipment to cultivate it and compensate for the crop failure.

> great video on Youtube from Technology Connections

I don't understand why you're trying to cite conspiracy theories propaganda that's aimed at people with double-digit IQs. His videos are filled with distortions and manipulations, and do not address the real challenges facing the energy sector.

And no, there's no mention of batteries there; it's literally a straw man fight, showing their applicability to daily solar power generation cycles while almost completely ignoring their applicability to annual cycles.

> Solar is literally, and provabley, cheaper than gas. Including the cost of batteries

This is simply not true, considering that people actually need more electricity during the few weeks of the year when solar panels produce the least. It's precisely these few weeks that make solar energy more expensive than fossil fuels.

Just take a weekly chart of the actual energy output of the panels for the year, and calculate the price relative to the worst week

I don't understand why we need to engage in conspiracy theories and pretend that humanity hasn't abandoned fossil fuels because the Jews who rule the world love oil or something (and not because it's simply cheaper).

> That's why something like 96% of investment in new energy is in solar or wind now.

That's because the pedophiles who run the world can charge me 30 cents for electricity instead of the 3 cents it would cost if it were generated by fossil fuels.

> 1) Solar is (far) cheaper than fossil fuel's now

No, that's simply not true.

It's cheaper for MOST of the year, but overall, it's more expensive. Because you can't just tell people, "Well, now, during this cold January, please don't waste electricity because our panels are producing almost nothing." You either need batteries that store energy for weeks of consumption, or backup with fossil fuels, and in any case, that makes solar panels more expensive than fossil fuels.

> Trump is somehow making it worse while also letting children starve thanks to cutting USAID.

It's very strange. In all cases of interaction with the USAID that I know about directly from those interacting with it, and not from media sources, in EVERY case it was liberal propaganda or direct anti-Trump propaganda. And none of the starving children that I know about directly from those who interacted with them, and not from the media, have ever received any food aid from.

I know, of course, that this is an anecdotal case, but I prefer to trust people with whom I am at least superficially acquainted, rather than media companies that are apparently run by pedophiles.

> 5) Why in the hell would anyone WANT the manufacturing jobs? The only reasons humans have them is that humans (in some places) are cheaper than robots.

Because the era of US hegemony is ending, and at some point you simply won't be able to live off the rest of the world. At that point, you'll either have production or you'll simply starve to death. Because food (and robots) don't fall from the sky. And if you don't produce it (and don't take it from the rest of the world through your hegemony), you'll starve and die.

> Billionaire money just idles non-productively most of the time

American workers spend as much money EACH YEAR as billionaires accumulated over generations (mostly in the form of productive capacity, not idling in the piles)

> and I have to say that I'm better off now than 10 years ago. Maybe I just made better choices?

The best choice is to rob the rest of the world and live off them? Well, congratulations on making the better choice that allows you, unlike the REST OF THE WORLD, not work for less than $2 an hour (as 90% of the Earth's population does, thanks to American hegemony).

> Round trip efficiency of hydrogen is at best 50%

In fact, even this level of efficiency may be sufficient. Solar panels are so cheap that if we had affordable, long-term energy storage options, even with such efficiency, we would have completely abandoned fossil fuels. But, unfortunately, storing hydrogen is difficult and dangerous. It is not like natural gas.

> It's not nearly as stupid as making ethanol from corn (which is an energy-negative process) but it's close.

Ethanol is produced from corn not for energy purposes, but for food security. It's like a placeholder for real corn so that if there's a crop failure for a couple of years, the low-iq idiots who think it's stupid to make ethanol from corn don't starve to death.

These systems does not imply the tools of totalitarian surveillance.

In contrast to the proposed one, which should be able to classify all content on the platform at any arbitrary moment in time according to a post-factum specified arbitrary filter. Literally a mechanism of totalitarian surveillance.

No, I'm not conflating. The point here is that for taking content down in the way they want it, the implementation of totalitarian surveillance tools is necessary.