KillingTimeItself
im pretty sure our current meta of expansionism is a specific population goal as well? Does that not count as eugenics?
Does eugenics include using medical technology to save children and people that would’ve otherwise died to natural causes? How far must we go to prevent the perils of eugenics from coming upon us?
they have sent other munitions from other sources fairly deep into russia, i believe the submarine dock attack was with a storm shadow missile, and at least one drone attack, the obvious one being the kremlin bombing, as well other other sourced materials they can find. They’ve been doing it whenever accessible and possible. Oh and obviously the recent offensive into russia itself.
The obvious example is the ATACMs missile, but i believe that was post restriction.
to be clear here, i’m not saying they broke the US restrictions, i’m saying they broke the “taboo” on firing into russian territory.
directly storing electricity as a chemical battery system is likely going to be more efficient (way more optimized and generally a lot simpler) and something like thermal energy storage (really, really simple, and very, very effective, plus pretty cheap, there just isn’t much accessible tech out there at the moment, though it suffers from the same conversion problem, it’s certainly a lot simpler than hydrogen.)
ok so funny problem, storing hydrogen is currently the next nobel prize. And uh, generating it while theoretically easy, is very power hungry. (less of a problem here though tbf with cheap solar power)
Also producing power from hydrogen is more complicated than you would think. You could do a hydrogen fuel cell, or possibly burn it directly, but since hydrogen tends to sort be very spicy, it’s a little hard sometimes.
yeah, good luck with that one though. it tends to be ecologically problematic, and very, very hard to find places good for this. It has happened, but you can’t just build these things as demand desires.
This is why battery based and thermal based energy storage is taking quite the aggressive focus on research and development right now. Batteries are more of a side effect, and very easily accessible, and thermal storage is probably a lot less popular than it should be.
Generally you can do a similar thing with traditional hydro anyway, plus it produces a base level of power anyway.
how is the market liquidity like in canada? I know the housing market is in a much worse state, but from i understand, it’s the same problem. And if you want to argue for mid density housing, by all means go for it, i’m not against it. But at the end of the day if we built more housing, there would be more liquidity in the market, and people would be buying more houses.
Generally the market will push towards having some level of unmoved product, so it would make sense that there are unsold houses in a desparate market, people just aren’t willing to pay for it. If it’s too high, nobody buys anything and product simply doesn’t move, which from what i understand is roughly where canada is right now.
The US has a similar problem, but it’s mostly zoning and NIMBY types out here. Fixing zoning and incentivizing new building would really help.
i’ve seen socialism defined as anything from early USSR under lenin, to capitalism but if private ownership of capital isn’t a thing anymore.
It’s incredibly broad depending on how you want to apply it. And technically, communism is actually a subset of socialism.
Capitalism is likewise pretty broad as well, but generally the ownership of capital is traceable and has some form of root ownership. Even things like stocks still have clearly defined ownership. Loans are weird, but the ownership there is clearly defined.
Under socialism loans may not even be possible, depending on how aggressive with it you are. Unless you lent to a third party, like a separate state/country i guess.
IDK what definition you’re working with here, but there isn’t much flexibility allowing you very much room to differentiate it here. I’m really not sure how you’re going to work out of this one to be honest.
Like philosophically, socialism is theoretically simple. it’s the implementation that’s hard. The idea is pretty simple, it’s the concept that there is no singular ownership, but collective ownership. You could define this as something like “anybody who has any investment in any product/good or service has ownership” but this gets sort of confusing. If i buy product from the goods company, does that mean i now own a “share” of the goods company? If i can, does this mean buying literal shares of the company would be “negative” shares? Or is this backwards, buying product produces a negative share, while investing provides a positive share. Does this influence the “shares” of the employees of the company? Are these the same shares? Can i simply out own the shares of any employee with (literal) capital? Or is buying product not applicable in this scenario. That seems reasonable to me, so we’ll omit that.
Where does currency even come from? The government? The global trade market? Who owns that? Since the money is in my possession, and it’s doing work for me, i must own it, at least partially, but it’s also capable of doing work for others, so do other people also own a part of the capital that i hold? That would be weird so let’s simply ascribe capital as a means of temporarily holding “schizo” capital.
so now we have a socialist society, that has private capital, and relatively isolated businesses. The employees own a share of the business. We still havent determined how that’s proportioned. But we can assume they do, so we have a relatively capitalist market, as that’s generally how a market is going to work most effectively (also that would literally just be communism at that point), unless you are either god, or the worlds most powerful supercomputer that can simply predict the needs of a market at a whim. Or you just allow no flexibility in the market (surely this won’t cause problems) with companies that don’t have direct ownership, which is not dissimilar to how the silicon valley works, minus the VC funding.
So we’ve basically just created capitalism, but different. Not that this is a bad thing. It’s just, an odd problem.
At the end of the day, it’s either going to approach communism, or capitalism, there is no distinct mechanism of socialism. I generally refer to this as an “approaching zero problem” as it has no clear definition, and if you go far enough you’re just going to end up back where you started, one way or the other.
