- 21 Posts
- 145 Comments
1·4 days agoInteresting, didn’t realize they had a geothermal loop in the concrete floors. I wonder if condensation will be an issue?
18·5 days agoThat extra weight will also mean that more force is required to accelerate and change directions.
The nimbleness of a vehicle can be expressed as the ratio:
(Tire Contact Area * Tire Stickiness) / Vehicle Mass
Increasing the vehicle’s mass while making the tires harder will lead to longer breaking distances and will cause a vehicle to understeer at lower speeds.
In a world with too many humans already, can you imagine painting a drop in the birth rate as somehow a bad thing?
lol
So this big breakthrough in tire technology is . . . making them harder and reducing their grip?
There’s no reason EVs have to be heavier forever
That’s a bit of a stretch, unfortunately. The energy density of batteries is nowhere close to that of gasoline - joule for joule, gasoline weighs about 100 times less than batteries. Also, a fuel tank big enough to give its vehicle a 400 mile range will get lighter over the course of the trip, as the liquid fuel gets converted into polluting gas and exhausted into the atmosphere - batteries don’t get appreciably lighter as you discharge them.
Agree that 400 miles range with charging stations as ubiquitous as today’s gas stations would help EV adoption. I do worry about the rollout of charging stations being slowed down by competition with expensive and fragile hydrogen tech (keep the hydrogen on boats and trains pls).
plot twist, cleaning up the source of that contamination would mean a local business endures lower profit margins. the bureaucrat who’s job it was to push the Approved! button got chased away from their terminal by a guy in a rubber mask who brought a fog machine and a projector
You gotta wonder WTF the French were thinking when they decided to force people into the sweltering insomnia of 80 degrees indoors at night just for the sake of creating the appearance that climate change is the fault of the dispossessed proletariat running air conditioners to survive global heating, and pretending like the owners of the means of production aren’t actually in a position to change how the economy functions.
run on “government bad”
get elected
govern poorly
“told you so”
you mean the patriarchy?
This legit sounds like bioweapons testing on the public.
096 has breached containment
add that shit up
Not really. Its trees from a time before micro organisms evolved the ability to eat dead trees. These days, the solar energy collected by trees will get used to power the metabolisms of fungi before those trees can get buried and eventually become new coal & petroleum.
I suppose an impact from a sufficiently large asteroid could turn the entire crust of the planet into magma, sterilizing it and therefore opening the possibility that new oil might be created some day.
“existing money” that someone else took out as a loan at one point
and when the loan is paid back, and the books go positive, that’s even better than getting a free house, or whatever collateral was used. its free money for the bank, money that didn’t exist before the loan created it
The government printing money is only a tiny fraction of new currency generated. Most new money is created by private banks issuing loans to other private entities - its mostly not created by the government:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
As banks hold in reserve less than the amount of their deposit liabilities, and because the deposit liabilities are considered money in their own right (see commercial bank money), fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying base money originally created by the central bank.
For example, if banking regulators set the ‘reserve ratio’ at 1:10, and you deposit $1,000 at your bank, then your bank would be able to give out loans worth $10,000. The effect on the volume of currency that exists is the same as if the US Mint printed an additional $9,000.
One problem with that system is that big loans - i.e. new currency entering the system - take time for their full inflationary effects to be felt. The “people” who get the big loans can spend the new currency at its full value, but by doing so they put enough new currency into circulation to devalue it via inflation, so the next people who receive that money get less purchasing power from it. Its a positive feedback loop leading to system instability.
Another problem with that system is that all existing money is debt which is owed back to the bank plus interest. However, there’s not actually enough currency in existence to pay back all the loans & interest - there’s exactly enough to cover the principal - so the banks inevitably get to confiscate people’s property when they default on loans. Remember that the banks invented that money from thin air via fractional reserve lending . . . now they’ve turned that thin air into physical, tangible wealth - repossessed houses and such - at no cost or meaningful risk to them.
One of the consequences of the fractional reserve lending system is that increasing the ‘reserve ratio’ will decrease the rate of inflation. Less new loans are issued, so less new currency enters the system. The banking lobby does not want this to become common knowledge, for obvious reasons. Federal taxes can be eliminated entirely, and the mitigating influence those taxes would have on inflation can be replicated by slowing down the rate at which private banks “print money”.
The value of stocks has no direct impact on the volume of currency that exists, and printing literal paper money is only a tiny fraction of the new currency generated by the banking system. The person you replied to is correct. Most new money is created by banks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking
As banks hold in reserve less than the amount of their deposit liabilities, and because the deposit liabilities are considered money in their own right (see commercial bank money), fractional-reserve banking permits the money supply to grow beyond the amount of the underlying base money originally created by the central bank.
For example, if banking regulators set the ‘reserve ratio’ at 1:10, and you deposit $1,000 at your bank, then your bank would be able to give out loans worth $10,000. The effect on the volume of currency that exists is the same as if the US Mint printed an additional $9,000.
One of the problems with that system is that all that money is owed back to the bank + interest. However, there’s not actually enough currency in existence to pay back all the loans + interest, so the banks inevitably get to confiscate people’s property when they default on loans. Remember that the banks invented that money from thin air via fractional reserve lending - now they’ve turned that thin air into physical, tangible wealth at no cost to them.
Another problem with that system is that big loans - i.e. new currency entering the system - take time for their full inflationary effects to be felt. The “people” who get the big loans can spend the new currency at its full value, but by doing so they put enough new currency into circulation to devalue it via inflation.
One of the consequences of the fractional reserve lending system is that increasing the ‘reserve ratio’ will decrease the rate of inflation. Less new loans are issued, so less new currency enters the system. The banking lobby does not want this to become common knowledge, for obvious reasons. Federal taxes can be eliminated entirely, and the regulatory effect those taxes would have had on inflation can be substituted by taking it out of the banker’s profits by reducing the amount of new currency the banks are adding to the economy via fractional reserve lending.
10·15 days agoa thin layer of positive mass tucked inside an outer layer of negative mass
If the universe provides negative mass, maybe we could use it to build an FTL warp drive.
Maybe cleanup costs should be baked into the price of a building permit…