You’re asking something that is extremely subjective, in a very combative way. You don’t seem like you have good intentions

You’re asking something that is extremely subjective, in a very combative way. You don’t seem like you have good intentions

I’m gonna save that line for starting fights.

I mean, I think not, having lived on them, and not wanting to go back.

Its about information density. The “things” we interact with, they almost never fit into an equal dimensional density across two dimensions. There is almost always more substantially more information in one dimension than the other.

A spread sheet you are interacting with is almost always either longer in one way, or wider in another. Even if it wasn’t, creating a manner in which it could be optimally viewed would make the content irrelevantly small.

We’re better off picking one of the two dimensions, committing to an orientation, and then rotating our monitor to fit that. If we do that, we’ll get more information per unit area on the screen.

We did that for decades. It was pretty miserable.

Shes a great garden cat too. Just follows you around wherever.

Its the midwest pragmatism that sells it.

I just do what he says because it sounds so practical.

A magnetron, some sheet metal and an idiot dumb enough to turn on something I wire together, and bam, you’ve got a tool for knocking drones out of the air: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6XdcWToy2c

You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like.

Look at what the little militias aka the police are using on us.

Its enough to make one want to start hording microwaves.

Rumi irl

outdoor rug in an outdoor office

New Technology connections video drops:

I’m going to go buy a kill-a-watt.

oh she a laya. she basically went from looking like a dishrag when she showed up to looking like a fine rug. See some posts I made a few years ago for the nuggets she produced.

Well I’m happy to be done with this exchange

I mean, it’s had value for others certainly, to spark thinking on the relationship between how we think about power and the role that has in how we choose to which technology to develop and how.

It also puts you on display as a vapid and worthless void, fully absent of a thought worthy of responding to, so we all benefit from knowing more in that regard.

I can now see that you are too dense to have a conversation on this matter. In the future, please, just be an obtuse buffoon earlier so I don’t have to waste my time putting together respectful, thoughtful responses for an idiot like yourself.

Them not being capable of thermal runaway is the big game changer imo. They explode, but don’t catch fire in doing so.

The arguments I’m making are fundamentally about the philosophy that underpins the assumptions that the decisions you’ve outlined above, are the right decisions to be making or even the right framework for making decisions.

Core to what I’ve been saying is that how we think about power; how we think about force: how we think about these things and the assumptions we make sets the stage for how we’ll think about technology, development, how to fight a modern war, or what a modern war would even look like.

This scene from Dr. Strangelove demonstrates the ideology clearly:

We wouldn’t want a doomsday gap would we? Look at the big board!!

Although satire, this movie highlights the basic mentality both the US and Soviet union had, which established both the soft power aspects of diplomacy, as well as the conclusions each country made around what military technologies to develop, how to develop them, and what the future of war and projection of force would look like. What we think about the world dictates how we behave in it.

Just try to see within what you are saying, the ideological assumptions you are implicitly making about war fighting, about the use of power, about projection of power, about soft versus hard power. You are treating them as immutable inevitabilities when they aren’t.

Take the scene even further; the Russian diplomat:

In the end we could not keep up with the expense of the arms race, the space race and the peace race, and at the same time our people grumbled for more nylons, and washing machines.

The current Russian federation is a perfect example of how a country (the Soviet Union) had one attitude towards war fighting, soft power, hard power, use of force, projection of power and pivoted to a completely different mentality with regards to how to do all of the above (The Russian Federation). And now, they’ve effectively beaten their age old enemy without even having to launch a missile. They’ve rendered the F35 inert, because they changed their philosophy of power, and were able to effectively capture the US government by proxy through imbeciles, nationalism, and stupid red hats.

Its also greatly telling how in the Dr. Strangelove scene, the Dr. quotes the “BLAND” corporation, which is a play of the RAND corporation; a consultant firm which has effectively dictated how the US government will develop itself militarily into the future for nigh on 60 years. My point is that the manner in which the US have developed itself militarily wasn’t selected for based on its effectiveness: its been demonstrated since Vietnam to be highly ineffective. Its only Hollywood blockbusters that keep any charade of the US military being able to accomplish its goals up. The manner in which the US military developed itself was selected for in a manner which would optimize profits for the Defense contractor industry.

The F35 is an incredible piece of technology. Like I said before, I’ve never experienced anything as loud. But it misses the moment in terms of what war fighting will look like in the future of now. Its not next gen fighter jets winning or losing in Ukraine (or that won in Afghanistan, or Iraq).

I think there is more to structure level battery support that you might consider which highlights why appliances with batteries could catch on faster.

I don’t need a permit to get an ac that has it’s own battery pack. The overhead and total investment (let’s say 500 for a basic AC and 1k for one with batteries) is far far lower.

You aren’t wrong at all with your current critisism. I’m just at saying that I think the benefits to end users are sufficiently high and the barriers low enough well see wide scale adoption of in appliance batteries fairly soon l.

A couple things, and to be clear I’m really narrowly focused on appliances/ immobile applications. I don’t think these heavier batteries are quite yet ready for things like phones, drones, scooters, EV’s.

I think specifically this battery technology addresses your issues directly.

Firstly, there are actual reasons why current battery technologies are not allowed to be used in specific indoor applications, and that is thermal runaway (effectively your third criticism). Generally, LiPO’s are not legally allowed for use in permanently installed indoor environments. The reason why is thermal runaway.

Here is a video of an idiot puncturing a lipo cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzBFCufUDq0

Here is a video of an idiot puncturing a sodium cell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ya_ls1zkA

Spot the difference? Its the fire. The only reason we don’t currently have LiPO’s acting as stores of power for current technology is that you DO NOT WANT lithium fires to happen indoors. A sodium battery will explode (see idiot A). But it will not catch fire and will not create a thermal runaway situation.

Secondarily, appliances are already heavy. Adding weight for something like a battery isn’t an issue because you don’t need to move the thing very often. The amount of additional design complexity is small, and something we’ve basically already solved in so many ways. We don’t need the portability we would need for a vehicle or cell phone.

Thirdly, I think the complexity is trivial. Complexity hasn’t stopped producers from adding what amounts to a small computer to everything from a refrigerator to a tea kettle where literally a simple switch would do.

I don’t think you need to wait any years. This is happening right now.