Dead Horse Interchange

rabidtictac wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:41 am

We went from swords to internet in a thousand years.

Don't give libertards any ideas.

rabidtictac wrote: ↑

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:41 am

I always liked the answer evolutionists give about how the universe tends towards entropy. They get asked if life doesn't disprove that theory. Their response is that life is a thin coat of paint over a single planet. It's a passing fad.

I really liked a book in Caves of Qud that was a bit about that. It's called Eta and the Earthling and it's like some master pupil Buddhist kinda book where the Earthling is a naive student that asks seemingly dumb questions to his much more advanced master Eta, who or rather whatever Eta is is left to the imagination.
Anyway, one question is about something of the likes. Eta basically states that humans don't know about the [something] door. Forgot the term and can't find it online. Basically, Eta considers the Earthling to be naive in assuming that advancements would just keep on happening because they are yet so far from the wall they will eventually hit.

It rings true if you think about stuff like batteries. We've hit a heavy plateau since Lithium Ion batteries. If you think about it, energy storage has always been difficult but a top priority for all of humanity ever since the discovery of electricity. We're not stuck for a lack of trying. You best bet that those in shitty but sunny areas like the sheiks in Arabia would absolutely love to make mad solar energy money if only we could store energy efficiently to sell as a commodity.
We try and try and yet will still can't do better than the frankly shitty energy cells we have now. Every interest and resource is there. People want it out of necessity, environmentalism, money, military use, power, vanity and so on. Yet we can't do better.
But what do most people do? They fully expect the next battery revolution to be just around the very next corner in the next few years. Huge plans are made for tech that'd use something that doesn't exist and isn't clear to exist any time soon.

We've gone from spear to internet in less than thousand years. We've also gone from no written language to no written language for over 5000 years as well. We're not used to stagnation and even much less to hitting the peak.

So you hear about the Fermi Paradox all the time. Bold statement, claiming that it's a paradox in the first place. The reasons given for why we haven't met alien life yet are often absurd as well. It's always just assumed that life that's millions of years old would just go travel the stars far and wide. Why?
Dinosaurs lived for MILLIONS of years. Fuckers didn't even invent the wheel. Hell, bush tribe niggers didn't even invent the wheel. Indians didn't either, despite them absolutely being able to as opposed to the dinosaurs. You think Indians would have skyscrapers today if we didn't go to America?
Being a sentient being doesn't mean you can build a space ship. Being theoretically able to doesn't mean you ever will because there may just not be any point to it. Assuming we'll ever do it, travel far stars, is something I'd be more than happy to bet against any day of the week for the next 1 million years at least.

Kugelfisch wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:12 am

It rings true if you think about stuff like batteries. We've hit a heavy plateau since Lithium Ion batteries. If you think about it, energy storage has always been difficult but a top priority for all of humanity ever since the discovery of electricity. We're not stuck for a lack of trying. You best bet that those in shitty but sunny areas like the sheiks in Arabia would absolutely love to make mad solar energy money if only we could store energy efficiently to sell as a commodity.
We try and try and yet will still can't do better than the frankly shitty energy cells we have now. Every interest and resource is there. People want it out of necessity, environmentalism, money, military use, power, vanity and so on. Yet we can't do better.

And according to left wing cunts solar is totally ready but the evil oil and fossil fuel corporations are stopping it. They go full tinfoil when it comes to green alternatives like that (how many times have you heard that some random plant can cure cancer but big pharma is stopping it) but no one calls them out on it in the mainstream, while when the right wing equivalent does it they are torn to shreds.

Like you said, all the oil barons in the middle east would fucking love to plant thousands of fucking solar panels in the uninhabitable desert for mad cash, a lot of shit like this is very profitable if it could happen but leftist can't into money. They'll claim some cheap thing can cure cancer but the drug companies want their expensive shit to keep making money, fuck you idiot if some random plant that costs fuck all can do so much you bet your ass they will plant a ton of it and mark that shit up like crazy.

Those barons are facing quite some difficulties. Oil is finite and we can all take a look at our favourite South American communist nation to see what happens when the oil price dumps. Venezuela was wealthy. The people weren't but the nation was. Now, they could actually grow stuff and get back up. What's a desert going to do?
If you could tap solar power and actually store it for sale whenever, they would have their legacy secured. They care about legacy. Oil won't cut it. Well, well before it's too short for cars it's going to be relatively worthless. Armies are going to reserve it for tanks and it'll get reserved for planes for the private sector. There will be plenty left when the gas stations close. You just won't have access to it.

My bet is still on hydrogen cells. If I have any talent at all, it's being right on predicting the future. Don't bank on it but I know what I'd rather invest on.

Nuclear power is the safe bet, always. We know it can work already and it produces a ton of energy. Even the waste can supposedly be used to power simple things.

>Nuclear power is the safe bet
>Nuclear power
>safe bet
>safe
You do know that the reason why we haven't switched to all nuclear despite it producing a ton of energy, as you claim, is because it's not a safe bet?
The slightest thing goes wrong with nuclear and you've not only killed tons of people, you've polluted the surrounding area for generations as well as irreparably damaging the surrounding wildlife. I shouldn't have to point this out, look at Chernobyl or look at the more recent Fukushima.
Hell, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs were 90% dud and the 10% that actually exploded was enough to kill over 100,000 people right off and then an additional 100,000 or so from after effects. The surrounding area was uninhabitable for twenty years and that's a bomb that mostly didn't even go off.

And also, it created Godzilla, we can't forget that. Fucker simply won't go away all these decades later...

Keith Chegwin wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:46 am

You do know that the reason why we haven't switched to all nuclear despite it producing a ton of energy, as you claim, is because it's not a safe bet?

Some nice false information. Chernobyl was an operational error by fucking idiots that intentionally turned off all safety systems to simulate a critical meltdown. They were a bit too successful in their simulation and found out the hard way that they can't do shit to a reactor already at peak critical with all systems turned off.
Fukushima was at a coast in a nation prone to tsunamis and earthquakes. The pollution from Fukushima is exactly because it was on the coast.

Nuclear reactors are incredibly safe and if they would be modernized, which is something that isn't done because of constant talks of shutdowns, they'd be even safer. They don't just blow up. Not a single one has blown up in history except for Chernobyl where it was pretty much done intentionally.
Waste disposal is an issue but I think that could be overcome, especially if we'd finally settle on nuclear being the future and put more resources into figuring out how to better deal with it.

Germany is set to exit nuclear energy. Wind and solar can't keep up, though, so we'll just end up buying electricity from Austria, coming from nuclear plants, of course. It's wishy washy bullshitting the population and going for shit energy sources like wind has cost this nation billions already. Nuclear would be the reasonable choice. Germany just has a massive problem currently with going with the reasonable choice in most issues.

Kugelfisch wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:13 am

Some nice false information.

Point out one thing I said that was false. When nuclear goes wrong it kills a lot of people.

Keith Chegwin wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 11, 2019 2:46 am

>Nuclear power is the safe bet
>Nuclear power
>safe bet
>safe
You do know that the reason why we haven't switched to all nuclear despite it producing a ton of energy, as you claim, is because it's not a safe bet?
The slightest thing goes wrong with nuclear and you've not only killed tons of people, you've polluted the surrounding area for generations as well as irreparably damaging the surrounding wildlife. I shouldn't have to point this out, look at Chernobyl or look at the more recent Fukushima.
Hell, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs were 90% dud and the 10% that actually exploded was enough to kill over 100,000 people right off and then an additional 100,000 or so from after effects. The surrounding area was uninhabitable for twenty years and that's a bomb that mostly didn't even go off.

green]>comparing a plant meant to produce electricity to a fucking atom bomb.[/green]

You need to go research modern atomic energy plants. I think your Britbong status is cucking you. Nuclear plants produce a shit ton of the world's energy and the ONLY reason they don't produce more is because of human fear. It's a quite understandable fear, but it's mostly mistaken. A nuclear plant is not a nuclear bomb. That's the same kind of flawed thinking as assuming you can blow up C4 by shooting at it. When a nuclear plant fails, it requires a lot of neglect and mistakes for it to even happen, or some kind of catastrophic event. Even so, nuclear plants get safer and more secure every year.