GreyEyedGhost @ GreyEyedGhost @lemmy.ca

Posts

1

Comments

2,321

Joined

2 yr. ago

You are correct. That was a hypothetical comment that is absurd now as the ones about not making a Dyson shell sometime in the future if civilization doesn't collapse first.

Well, given that the earth only utilizes about 1 billionth of the sun's energy, so I think we could have both with just a little effort.

So Chris Columbus gets back to Spain and says, "And the whole point of this is to build a city on the west coast that will be populated by over 12 million people," at which point he is laughed out of court.

LA would have been a ridiculous idea to the Europeans when America was first discovered, and no one would have said it was feasible at the time, yet there it is, just another achievement built on the successes of thousands of years of civilization. I don't see why a Dyson swarm or other megasteuctures would be any different.

They aren't in orbit, and they aren't in orbit around a star, so not really part of a Dyson swarm (and also technically don't add to the energy available to our civilization), but I still approve of your solar panels. You could argue that the ISS or the few solar orbit satellites we have are the start of a Dyson swarm even if they don't add to our energy pool.

Once again, misleading to the point of being intentional. A implies B is not the same as B implies A. Having UBI be guaranteed regardless of income is not the same as income being guaranteed regardless of UBI. So why do you keep insisting that it must? At this point I have to assume intent rather than ignorance.

That has no bearing on what your income from your job is. Pretending this won't have any impact on the value of jobs to both employers and workers can only be intentionally obtuse. That's like saying that raising minimum wage will have an equal impact on the hourly wage of all employees.

This assumes that people wouldn't take the same job for less pay if they were guaranteed a fixed amount that more or less made up the difference. If I work a job where I make $50,000/year, and I went to a world where I made $20,000/year UBI and $30,000/ year from my job, I could end up ahead under this scheme with the only additional cost to the economy being my possibly lowered taxes. Under this plan, raising taxes and lowering minimum wage/wage expectations means there would be at most a slight change to corporate taxes (and some jobs would have to pay more when you factor in UBI because desperation would be less of a factor for what people are willing to put up with).

So, realistically, the only cost would be whatever is required to get whoever is below the set line up to the set line, for individuals, corporations, and the government. This would also depend on people who are already making more than UBI to take a "pay cut", and for corporations to not resist paying more taxes to balance the lower payroll costs. So it's never really going to happen.

Best reason, and a legitimate reason to not listen to anything. What exactly is the point of consuming art you don't enjoy?

Well, there's nothing stopping Poilievre and his wife from selling the rental properties they own, which should help remove some conflict of interest they may have in this issue which is so important to many Canadians, and he doesn't even have to get the approval of anyone but his wife to make it happen (and that only for one of them).

So we should stop having politicians from having investments in housing, right?

Without even knowing this, I knew "intimate and embarrassing" was referring to money.

I don't know how Carney was managing his investments previously, and switching to a different fund has the same issues I raised before, but ask yourself this question. How is this more relevant for Carney than all the other politicians, and why are these demands being made of only him? I'm don't have a problem with limits on how politicians invest, but I expect the investment advantages are similar for most politicians at a given level of politics, especially for the senior politicians. So why is Poilievre banging on this drum, and not broader anti-corruption measures?

Rather than having a fire sale (selling all investments, which implies in the short term), the trustee sells and buys investments as he sees fit without consulting the owner. It's just Poilievre adding a step that seems obvious to the ignorant and harms the person he's attacking.

And yet, look in the comments and you will see people literally saying the examples you gave from the 50s aren't true AI. Granted, those aren't technical experts.

AI is kind of like Scotsmen. It's hard to find a true one, and every time you think you have, the goalposts get moved.

Now, AI is hard, both to make and to define. As for what is sometimes called AGI (artificial general intelligence), I don't think we've come close at this point.

Yes, and it doesn't actually matter. The anti-particle will then at some point hit a regular particle of the same type and release energy instead, leaving the universe with more energy which came from the black hole and the destroyed particle.

Realistically, the time for nuclear (fission) has past. If we were in the 50s or 60s, and were making a concerted effort to remove fossil fuel energy production, nuclear could have helped us do it. Now, with steadily decreasing renewable energy costs and cheaper and more effective battery storage, it's a break-even option at best, and takes a long time to implement.

Fusion has a real chance, provided we can figure it out well enough to do anything with it. It may not be economically viable, and it's hard to be certain before we actually get it working. Fusion could also be more effective for certain space missions, especially to the gas giants and farther from the sun. Realistically, anything closer than Mars does pretty well with solar.

Yeah, there's no waste from coal plants...if you don't count the damage from mining, the storage and spills of fly ash, or the carbon and radioactive material emitted into the atmosphere. Except for those, and the deaths they cause, coal could be the cleanest fuel source out there...instead of one of the most polluting.

In fact, sodium batteries seem to be taking off and the only downside they have compared to lithium batteries is energy density, which isn't a problem for grid storage.

You could run profitable businesses, yes, but would they be profitable enough?