• 0 Posts
  • 76 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 28th, 2023

help-circle



  • Well I was not even focused on the USA in my reasoning of why in Mexico it is a bad thing to extend the democratic process to the election judicial branch of government or generally every decision to the public.

    The USA has issues in their democratic elections, gerrymandering in certain states being one, the electoral college giving most or all the electoral votes to the winner and not a portion in relation to votes, propaganda being openly discussed on “entertainment” news channels. Then there is even lobbying that is allowed, politicians being able to buy and sell stock based on insider information, paid speaking events.

    And the ruling by elites will in any system be an issue, even oppression by the majority can be an issue, that is usually why you have a good constitution, that lays the foundation of how government should work, the different spheres and how it should protect the most vulnerable in society. It has mechanisms to protect against an interest group gaining power to basically twist the system to their will and finally the last resort is the democratic vote of the people to ensure accountability.

    After these mechanisms have failed there is no pretty answer on how to easily get back to a fair system. In my country South Africa, where we had a system that disenfranchised the majority of the population, I am glad that we had a bloodless coup d’etat and now we have one of the most progressive constitutions in the world, but even that wasn’t enough again from a connected small majority from almost ruling the country. Luckily in our last election, in the first time in 30 years the ruling party lost their majority and now we have a 10+ party coalition ruling majority government, and in my opinion things are going good, but we know how fragile our democracy is and try to be as engaged as citizens can be.



  • This example was exactly the issue Socrates had with democracy actually, saying that a demagogue would be elected as a president or leaders of government the majority of the time. His solution was just as vague, so let’s just say there is no perfect system yet. All have their benefits and drawbacks.

    Look it is messy, my feeling is you vote or don’t vote for a party based on their policy and track record, but after elections they have the will of the people to act, so they should then focus on the technical issues of government by being guided by their election promises, policy and the country’s constitution to ensure that minorities aren’t discriminated against for example.


  • This example was exactly the issue Socrates had with democracy actually, saying that a demagogue would be elected as a president or leaders of government the majority of the time. His solution was just as vague, so let’s just say there is no perfect system yet. All have their benefits and drawbacks.

    Look it is messy, my feeling is you vote or don’t vote for a party based on their policy and track record, but after elections they have the will of the people to act, so they should then focus on the technical issues of government by being guided by their election promises, policy and the country’s constitution to ensure that minorities aren’t discriminated against for example.


  • My opinion is, not based on Mexico, that the public is uninformed in the majority of decisions. Basically delegating power to the common person, especially technical decisions to the public will mean the most popular choice will win mostly, not the best choice. That is basically populism in a nutshell. Imagine you had to choose in this example a food policymaker, the one is the charismatic Willy Wonka that will say he wants everyone to eat sweets all the time, he wants you to eat whatever you want to eat, give you choices by subsidising all the sweets, worse he will attack Dr. Grouch, because he wants to tell you what to eat, force additional taxes on sweets to try and guide people to eat more gross vegetables, in fact basically force you, the poorest to have no choice but to eat these “healthy” foods. And unfortunately Dr. Grouch will agree, he wants you to eat "healthy food because in a couple of years you and your children will reap the benefits.



  • I think it is the crash of Tesla, its evaluation is based on being a silicon tech startup, not as an automobile company. So when the shares finally fall in line with other car manufacturers valuation, shit is going to hit the fan. And I think he knows he needs a government bailout and sanctions on foreign EVs specifically to price the competition out of the market. His entire empire is basically being propped up by the Tesla share price. He needs to go all in, it is survival mode for him right now


  • Some of us like to tinker. We really get satisfaction of having a weird niche filled and even if it comes at the cost of stability and other issues. Heck my Custom Roms used to be more up to date with security updates than phones that were older than one year.

    I could use kernels that undervolts my processor to give me better battery life. It allowed features that even 5 years ago were on the custom ROM scene still very absent from modern phones.

    But the most important part for me was learning, discovering. If I tried a new ROM I would spend hours going through certain roms settings. If there is a glitch, learn how to diagnose and try to fix it, or learn to send a logcat to the developer.

    It was like a fun hobby. I learned how to fix some of my old phones, like screen replacement, and learned how to cure uv reactive glue. So many other things and I was just a noob.

    But it gave freedom. I understand iPhone and the other high brands are easy to use, have gimmicky features and all, but dammit I have freedom to have my weird niche phone, with multiple breaking features and I loved it because it just worked.

    If Google truly did hold security as its main concern, it would have opened the play Store, yet we know now they only wish to protect their monopoly


  • I do not really use journals for my daily work. But usually I have a quarterly project I tackle and then search if someone in the industry has researched the issue or something similar. So you usually get to read the abstract or executive summary and then have the option to get access.

    My employer/company usually after I send motivational letter does pay. I also have a reoccurring yearly subscription to two professional bodies and their journals, even the one I specialise makes their research available for free and the other one usually has a month or so delay before it is free and available, usually to edit it and make it look nice.

    But professional organisations and journals also need to be funded, and like my industry (mining) really invests in them because the knowledge from them benefits them. The journals do not fully guarantee quality papers, sometimes a malicious actor slips through and is usually redacted, but usually journals live on their brand of producing quality papers that can be used by the industry to improve it overall. And for this they do need a bit of resources.

    But I also sympathize with OP because certain journals can make their barrier to entry prohibitive. If Nature Journal in this instance chooses to become a for profit entity I can see how this might stifle future progress especially for smaller players in the industry where cost margins are extremely tight and basically gives unfettered access to the giants to gain an edge.


  • South Africa, you can read up on us if you want to learn about a country that really fucked up its energy supply, but that is a different story.

    You do need a baseload, this is not something an argument of saying we do not really need a baseload can wish away, industries that run 24/7 like a smelting operation where if you cannot shutdown, or hospitals or traffic lights, there is a certain percentage of baseload that has to be generated.

    Solar and wind are amazing and I really wish to see these systems play a major role in power generation, but you say the nuclear and coal plants are very inflexible. I do not know who this guy is but Nuclear and coal can very easily ramp up their power generation, both these are basically steam engines, both nuclear and coal can very quickly heat up and generate a lot more steam that powers generators, like an car engine but more accurately a steam train that you give more power to go faster. Solar and wind cannot ramp up on their own, cannot ask the wind to blow harder or the sun to shine brighter suddenly when the system requires it, they need costly backup systems like methane peaker plants or energy storage, be it batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen electrolysis the list goes on. These things added to solar and wind plants are usually not allocated to the cost of generation, a total cost of generation including these additional backup systems are a better indicator of solar and wind systems cost.

    Now what about waste. I agree coal is messy and is causing global warming and needs to be phased out. But nuclear waste is a solved problem, it has been for decades, the spent fuel is usually stored deep underground where it will never interact with the world again. Solar on the other hand, if it costs about $20-$30 to recycle a panel but like $1-$3 to send it to a waste dumps, what do you think will happen to the solar panels. https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power Harvard business did an article about how solar recycling has really been a point of weakness, where nuclear we have set guidelines on how to environmentally and safely dispose of nuclear waste currently. I am willing to bet you the environmental impact from pollution from nuclear, including all the disasters will be negligible compared to the waste impact from solar panels and batteries currently.

    So my point is not to dismiss solar or wind, really where wind and sunshine are naturally plentiful it will be a waste not to harvest these resources, just like where geothermal resources are available it will be wasteful not to utilise it.

    But nuclear, even with its high initial capital cost and long build time, still does provide energy cheaply and will last for a lot longer than solar panels and wind turbines, nuclear can be easily and quickly ramped up or down depending on the load required.