mustafa_pasi

Manufacturing a whole new vehicle with a huge ass battery that is more cost intensive to manufacturing than a comparable ICE, a vehicle that due to contemporary trends has to be a 5-ton lifted SUV, a vehicle that is going to be used by ONE person to commute to work along a fixed predetermined route, a vehicle that is going to be replaced after 3 years because this person have to have the newest four wheels on the lot to project status to attract a status obsessed mate, all that is ALSO EXTREMELY energy inefficient.

If you truly cared about energy efficiency you'd proposition the ban or severe limitation of private car usage in sufficiency dense localities. Public trams and busses, cycling, walking, and maybe even very small private vehicles would be extremely more energy efficient.

There is nothing about a 5-ton EV SUV that says energy efficiency.

I agree with this. I think there will still be niche products using liquid fuels. Like for example "explorer" or "offroader" type vehicles that require higher energy densities. And aviation of course. But commuter transportation will be using direct current or batteries.

But the two chief uses will be in industrial processes that use hydrogen directly, in chemical processes that use hydrocarbons directly, and in energy storage applications where you need to store large quantities of energy for weeks or months or years.

This is not true at all. The cost of storage scales very well for hydrogen, must better than any other alternative. Transportation is context dependent. If you can build transmission lines, then do so. But hydrogen and synthetic fuels allow you to ship energy half way around the world. It is still the second best option even in that case.

>Efficiency has a huge impact on the cost/economics

Not in the way that you think, no. For all intents and purposes, we have limitless energy. The problem was never that we don't have enough capacity, because we can scale capacity as much as we want. The only thing that is required is that energy generation (i.e. $/kWh) is cheap enough, and this seems feasible with solar and wind and maybe fission and later one fusion or other sources.

>you're comparing apples to oranges

You are the one saying, "just attach a transmission line to it" or "just put a battery in it", without thinking of all the cases where this is just not possible.

Nobody is arguing that you should start powering your toaster with hydrogen. You all are attacking a strawman, it seems.

The obsession with efficiency is disingenuous too. The two limiting factors are generation capacity and cost/economics. Efficiency by itself says nothing. In the early 1900s, gas was less efficient than electricity too, but for a whole century gasoline powered transportation was more feasible. Aviation is still only feasible with kerosene despite it being less efficient than electric propulsion.

Socialist?

Classifying people using AI is always going to lead to discrimination as long as there are differences between genders/ethnicities/socio-economic backgrounds. This is not preventable and you cannot do anything about it.

The point she is making is nonetheless correct. Nobody wants to associate themselves with Arabic/Muslim identities in today's Europe (except for those who have no choice), because of the many negative connotations.

I don't know exactly where it all went wrong, but in the post-WWII period Europe decided they were going to import millions of Muslims, some Turkish, some Arabic, a few even Iranian, and then somehow turned them into the new enemy.

Now we have carbon fibre. And asbestos is still everywhere. You just need to know where to look for it. However, in most cases it is perfectly safe unless pulverized.

You are already winning at life, but you don't realize it yet.

Higher economic growth, better higher paying jobs and more wealth to go around.

Most definitely. I would say here in Germany, the number one thing that is missing is the culture. Everyone here is extremely risk averse and pessimistic. Then of course we don't get any startups and also no startup capital.

All I'm thinking is, you Americans are really fucking lucky. Yeah OK, VCs are greedy and difficult to work with, but at least they give you a chance and literally give you startup capital in the millions to build your own thing. That is mind blowing to me and definitely what sets America apart from everywhere else.

Why would I listen to you on this topic when your demographic has a worse track record on this matter? Within my community people lead happy lifelong marriages. Why should I listen to your "wisdom" instead of theirs?

You can call me misogynistic, I don't care, but then so are all the women in my community. If we take a worldwide survey I would bet my views are more common than yours.

People who sleep around a lot are less capable of long term love. I believe that and it is backed by research on the matter as well. If you care you can read about sociosexuality.

That there is a relationship between attractivness and promiscuity amongst women is something I disagree with. But it would not make a difference either way.

Most breakups from a serious relationship do end up with the people being jaded.

Emotions are definitely notinfinite. Quite the opposite.

BTW to not mislead anyone I am an atheist and grew up as a mainstream Catholic from Germany.

Do no let society tell you that you are being judgemental because you apply basic wisdom to the situation. Of course your bond won't be as strong if she already experienced the same exact bond and maybe a stronger bond with 20 other men in the past, and then chose to break it and move on.

Your only problem is that you are just as promiscuous so you stand on thin ice when you try to demand better from her.

Shouldn't you have ample savings, a private pension and social security?

If you have to have a prompt monkey to figure out the best prompts, that defeats the whole point of having an LLM powered knowledge system.

But the US is still performing better on all metrics:

1. more innovation 2. high economic growth 3. better salaries

Whatever you are doing works.

I would not generalize to the whole of Europe. This is true of Germany, which dictates what happens in Europe. But even France is more dynamic. And if you look further North or East or South you also see more willingness to take on risk.

> At this points it looks like Germany is almost allergic to innovation.

It is ultimately the German culture that is to blame. Germans are way too conservative and risk-averse. And pessimistic to boot. You can say all you want about bureaucracy and all that ease-of-doing-business gibberish, but ultimately it is simply that Germans do not believe they can actually innovate and are too scared to take the risk. And this is true across the whole of society, from the plumbers to the board members of Siemens and Bosch.

I could write a whole book about the problems with German culture. This is really only one aspect of a much bigger issue.

That is certainly one way of seeing it. I agree that government regulation can be overbearing. OTOH, although I care about environmentalism and climate protection, I am not willing to inflict personal costs upon myself, if everyone else isn't also guaranteed to be playing along. That would just be unfair.

It doesn't have to be millions. What if profit is not a motivation? What if you just want to be the host of some good communities or a less toxic web2.0 experience?

This might be weird, but I only feel lonely when I try to improve my social life (and inevitably fail). When I sort of give up and fall back to my usual routine, I do not mind being alone. I am sort of so far away from all of THAT, that I do not even have the desire for human connection.

I think lots of posters are more concerned about their families and future children than racebait crap like this.

So basically, if you are a career power couple and decide to only have one kid ...

I don't get the appeal or raw protein. I tasted it all, raw eggs, raw fish, raw beef and it all just does not taste very good, not as good as the cooked variant.

That is my crude understanding of such behaviour, yes. Now if you want to get into the philosophical discussion of whether that is actually a lack of self-respect or not, that's not really interesting to me.

I think to some extent one's perception of whether somebody has self-respect or not is subjective, because everyone holds different values. For example some people value a lot. Then if I turn down a job with a high salary because of moral reasons, they might perceive me as having less self-respect. In this case, I value intimate relationships to a higher value and think sex should have meaning beyond, "I wanted to have fun that evening" ...

That is a definition that at first glance seems crystal clear, but then you realize it is meaningless, because everyone understands equality to mean something different.

"Feminist" is a bit like "socialist", indeed some would argue it is a continuation of the same tradition. There's too many meanings and too many variations.

My mother was a feminist and I would not say I have views that contradict hers. There are certainly flavors of feminism which are more about empowerment of women which I would find no problem with. I am admittedly more turned off by the oversexualization of today's culture (emphasizing relationships based primarily on sex), and blame all genders for this, but I do see a lot of proclaimed feminists today pushing these kinds of lifestyles, hence my comment.

No that is definitely not my view at all. Everyone should be free to do whatever they want.

I am just talking about what behaviours/views/values I find a turn-on/turn-off and what I personally seek in a partner.

I do however believe that some lifestyles are healthier than others, although maybe there is no one universal best lifestyle and it depends both on circumstances and life goals to some extent.