goodSteveramos

For context on cost, SpaceX only charged NASA $3.1 billion for developing the Dragon 2 manned capsule. Boeing charged NASA $6.7 billion for Starliner and has spend at least 1.6 billion more than that so far.

Ive seen plenty of unpopular and corrupt oligarchs that were targeted by Putin but are there any well-known names of some ordinary people imprisoned for political speech in Russia?

Because the cost is probably closer to $10,000/kWh. Makes sense for a $1,000,000 supercar. Fundamentally all the new battery chemistries have serious underreported problems that make them dead-on-arrival. Either short cycle life (nanowire) or impractical manufacturing (solid state) or middling performance versus LiPo (sodium). Hopefully some of these may find niche applications where their advantages outweigh their problems but don’t expect more than a 50% improvement in density over the next 20 years.

I guess people care more about government abuse in their own countries. Also, do you know what kinds of things people get in trouble for in Russia? I suspect most social media arrests in Russia are related to Isis.

The UK laws mix language which bans calls to violence with bans on “offensive” speech. So its not about where to draw the line, its about banning criticism of immigration, which you basically cant do without offending immigrants.

Liberals correctly understand that the uk government is putting conservatives in jail whereas putin’s law will be used to put liberals in jail.

Im curious to know what those 400 people said. Do you know?

The Russian law was also passed democratically, but liberals dont like it because its going to be used against liberals whereas the “hate speech” laws are being used against conservatives. And yes the conservative party in the uk is anything but.

Imagine Tesla decided to charge you 20% of all annual income you earned by driving to work with your Tesla. Who owns your iPhone? Apple or you?

>different trade offs

Different from who? What company in the 1980’s or 1990’s did what apple is doing now?

Right, but like diet and exercise, we protect the environment for our own benefit, including our ability to visit untouched ecosystems. We dont protect nature because it is more important than humanity.

> The premise is flawed, therefore the conclusion is moot.

Yes but not in the way your dog analogy argues. The reality is that anything humans chose to do is be definition in our nature so strict environmental policy is not a limit on our behavior, it is our behavior.

> holding ourselves back a little (also called restraint) is not a bad thing

Of course, but you have to accept that our desire to preserve nature is selfish or else you end up seeing humanity as a cancer to be destroyed instead of the most advanced part of nature to be promoted.

The optimal balance between natural preservation and human expansion is the one that maximizes the sum of human economic benefit from the expansion and the human phycological benefit from natural preservation.

The irony of misanthropic environmentalism is that the psychological desire to preserve nature is our most unnatural and uniquely human instinct.

Cheaper small-battery EVs aren’t exactly replacing petrol cars either. The real future is plug-in hybrids. All the fuel savings of a short range EV and none of the range anxiety or slow mid-day refueling.

Lol because you’re citing it. A study is not a magic spell you cast to immediately win arguments. Every study makes assumptions and you have to be prepared to discuss and defend them if you cite one. Another basic question, how much energy storage does their model require, because its probably way less that would actually be required. For comparison, this study of Germany found 56 TWh of storage to be optimal assuming a hypothetical and very cheap hydrogen storage system. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac4dc8#...

What cost of storage do they use in their model in dollars per kilowatt hour?

> we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the “efficient” fossil scenario. For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter’s additional costs.

They are claiming that a 100% renewable system would be CHEAPER than a fossil fuel system. If that doesn’t stink like some grade A bullshit to you I have nothing more to add.

As far as I can tell, anti-nuclear people either have a very shallow understanding of energy and can’t really have a conversation with you using well sourced numbers or they can but know the numbers show that nuclear is the only realistic choice and either way they just respond without numbers in very short and easy to repeat (and incorrect) arguments like “storage” and “bigger grids”.

Anti-nuclear environmentalists’ first choice would be to let people freeze to death. That being politically untenable their second choice is to continue using fossil fuels as the baseload and offset it as much as possible with renewables. They think nuclear is “an excuse” to continue the “business as usual” of affordable energy. They want energy to be unavailable and expensive. They oppose human progress and economic development as itself evil, even if the environmental impact is zero. Making energy expensive is their goal, not something they reluctantly accept. All the counter productive positions and bad arguments make perfect sense when you realize that they simply have a totally different goal from you.

“Storage” doesn’t exist. The choice is between nuclear, fossil fuels, and frequent blackouts.

>when housing is built first there is a lot of demand for transit infrastructure

Not if it’s low density housing, which it will be if there is no transit.

>Increasing the density of jobs, hospitals, restaurants, homes, schools, and more is key … as density grows mass transit becomes essential

This guy has it all backwards. No developer in his right mind is going to plow billions of dollars into high density housing without existing rail access. The new subway and commuter lines have to be built first, then the high density development becomes viable around it.

> the “ideological statement” they are making is fuck your feelings

Everyone thinks his opponent’s ideology is just spite and hate while his own ideology isn’t an ideology at all and is just ‘the way things should be’. I’m not debating the merits of the ideologies at issue. That is discouraged on HN.

If they can’t be bothered to mention it in an article hyping up how much new evidence there is, I doubt it has any substance whatsoever.

I understand why Google would shut down an expensive gambit like Stadia, but cheap good-will projects like RSS and Podcasts? Why not just keep them running for PR alone? How expensive could they possibly be to run?

How much does Boeing make?

[new] eyewitness testimony that challenges the US intelligence community assessment that it’s “very unlikely” Havana Syndrome is the work of a foreign adversary.

So its still just people saying their headache was a directed energy beam with no actual evidence.

“Two major National Institutes of Health studies … found no consistent evidence of brain injury”

Correct. I think the idea of this article is to raise awareness so the local residents can pony up the cash to save the website.

Yes, but it is the privilege of the people who pioneer a new human endeavor to name things and pick its arbitrary standards and inform those choices with their beliefs. I would prefer people simply register their disagreement if the issue comes up instead of seeking out trivial historical artifacts of previous social norms.

It’s not inherently offensive, it was the ideological statement being made by those still putting it in research papers that was objected to.

I had no idea this image was pornographic. I’m surprised this decision had nothing to do with copyright and was instead ideological.