I’m very curious where your idea that nuclear and desalination are connected came from?
It does require more land if at first you are moving all of the saltwater to land. That too is energy intensive. It makes more sense to desalinate in the ocean then only transport pure water back.
Individuals? I’m not sure I understand the context. There are probably kits, but I’d need to understand more about your circumstances.
It is very expensive. Dasalinization plants that don’t use direct energy from the sun, are dumb and bad designs, meant to further grid dependence. You put salt water in the sun and it evaporates the water leaving the salt behind. All you have to do is capture the water vapor. No electricity required.
It’s important that the equity thing is only available to people who already have their basic needs met.
- I completely agree with your assessment. To expand on that “federated open source” application I mentioned, it only federated in the sense that it supported legacy protocols created when HIPAA first passed, similar to EDI with banking, where you have to be a member of an organization and pay dues to gain access to even the protocol specification, but more than that, it’s set up with all sorts of hoops you have to jump through just to be a member, which goes along with what you said “who you know”. It was also marketed to hospitals and doctors, as just a replacement for other systems that work exactly the same, with no regard to patients or their caregivers and guardians. Furthermore, I looked into the venture capitalist who funded this project. The capitalist websites all ranked him as the number one investor for medical startups locally. The 2nd place was a very distant second. He was a presenter at the conference and I explained my concept in the public Q&A and he said it sounded very promising. So after I looked him up and sent him materials and even wrote an essay on how my ideas could be incorporated into that project. On his website he has planks like a politician explaining the things he “cares about”. I made sure to address every single point in my essay. I even applied to an “incubator” he runs and made sure to check all the boxes for their rules. I got no response at all. Complete radio silence. Not even a “thanks, but we’re not interested”. I spent around 150-200 hours preparing all that stuff. I gave it chance. I met them where they’re at. They aren’t interested. Unless your idea furthers their current scams, forget it. This is why I actually think your statement that for now we’re stuck with IP is a bit naive. Yes revolution is necessary. It’s necessary for all the bits. These people are fucking evil ghouls that can’t be reasoned with. Revolution is the only option.
Basically what I meant. Plant lifetimes, of the best designs are 100 years plus. And if you are amortizing costs, cutting it short 30-50 years (pessimistic, 5-10 years optimistic) later with a better solution is a “bad investment”, but we are in triage mode here, and cost benefit analysis should reflect that.
Put more colloquially, building nuclear plants gets shit to shoe level, and buys us time to fix the whole mess. Even if in the end it will cost an arm and a leg.
That makes sense. Especially since one of the articles I came across said she addressed the EU lawmakers and said something along the lines of “nuclear isn’t realistic”. I have plenty of critique on grid energy itself not being realistic, but in the context of replacing plants in a grid for different kinds of plants, nuclear absolutely is a realistic solution.
- I think FOSS / automation could help with this a lot. Also, UBI. A videographer / editor might not require payment up front if they had UBI to rely on. After all they are artists too. They could take an equity stake instead, and ultimately maybe even get paid more for their efforts in the end.
- Yeah, they needed him to cut through red tape to get FDA and EU regulator approval (which they have)
- I actually worked on this specific issue for a few years. I even wrote software and tried to start up a custodian business at one point. Ironically I couldn’t market it because I ran out of funds, so then I tried to do it as a nonprofit, figuring the marketing would cost less and ultimately open source would be better. I went to a conference and tried to market my nonprofit but they only cared about the Chinese Blockchain and some “federated” open source project that actually sounded cool but turned out to be more of the same. I knew hospitals would see me as a competitor but I figured the MDs would want nothing to do with the records headache and would be attracted to the privacy benefits, the ease with handling caretakers and guardians, etc. Only 1 person out of 3000+ attendees was interested. He was a caretaker for an elderly relative, and although his relative had passed, he said he would’ve definitely used my product. I spent my entire marketing budget on that one conference and had to give up.😔
I have a somewhat different perspective. It seems you are starting with the axiom that intellectual property is a real and valid thing, and that it’s somehow desirable to exist. My axiom is the opposite, and I have at least anecdotal evidence to back that up.
I don’t really care much about MSM or propaganda because I don’t ever subject myself to it.
Another thing is blockchains are inherently centralized. Contrary to silly con valley, capitalists, and their propaganda outlets, it is neither decentralized nor p2p. The part that is non-central is trust (¹ not really though) because it is “trustless”. This goes against the very basic wiring of the social brain, which is very intertwined with trust, even subconsciously, even when people don’t actually realize it. My theory is the reason why silly con valley and capitalists like “trustless” so much, is because they are all sociopaths, and they know that they themselves can’t be trusted, nor could their competitors/peers. So to them “trustless” is very appealing.
As for what China wants with it, I know only about medical records. They are in a partnership with Oracle to build a medical records Blockchain since around 2015 or therabouts. Oracle has always been greedy for medical records, my suspicion is because Larry Ellison wants credit for curing some disease, he also wants to make money violating people’s privacy to benefit USA medical insurance companies. For China, to believe their chief scientists and executives involved in the project, is they want to socialize medical research: to easily identify study participant candidates, as well as potential patients in need of intervention.
I personally believe that an open market of records custodians is a better solution to the use case you mentioned, from the patient’s perspective, as well as for the potential medical research use cases, to ensure positive consent and maintain privacy. Central blockchains fail at these things horribly. The reason why medical records are such an issue is providers like to make themselves custodians, which suffers from the same problems as blockchains for the most part.
For artists, DLC, and such, no gatekeepers are actually necessary. Look at artists like Louis CK and his direct to consumer special. He also self-produced a movie which is out in theaters and will be available for DTC as well AFAIK. I very much disagree with the release-for-free-with-hopes-of-increased-live-performance model, however. I favor a busking style voluntary pay-what-its-worth model. People who don’t pay will never pay, and pirate quality will necessarily be poorer, therefore less desirable. It also invites the wealthy to pay a lot more. Patrons of the arts used to be a thing. The blockchain model you mentioned still requires DRM and IP, which as I mentioned, I strongly disagree with.
¹You are still trusting the algorithm, the programmers, and the auditors of the code
Lowlights from the video:
it starts with “plants don’t want to be eaten so they generate chemicals that can be harmful to you” 🤡😂 as if animals want to be eaten 🤦
It ends with “plants have non protein amino acids, which could trick their way into passing the blood brain barrier and act like prions. There’s no studies to back up this theory but…”
🤡🤡🤡🤪
It uses peltier effect, which isn’t very efficient. There are more efficient ways. Also, personal peltier coolers are really old tech. The article says Sony incorporated their cell phone heat dissipation technology, which means patents. But overall it seems like good product design with mediocre tech.
Using it outdoors probably isn’t too bad. It can remove heat faster than skin can conduct heat from the air, and faster than sweat. It can also help during all these wet bulb weather events that are increasingly common.
As far as battery usage, I can’t find anything on capacity. They say 100 minutes charge, commenters say it lasts about 2 hours on full charge. Given the size it’s probably similar to a cell phone battery. A blurry image I found looks like it says 1.5 amp charging rate. This would put energy usage at around 5 watts with a smaller than average cell phone capacity. According to physics Substack, people generate around 3 watts of heat at rest. So it is just powerful enough to cool you. Also why it says only “light exercise” in the ad copy presumably.
As for energy efficiency, it’s actually probably very environmentally sound. But it has lithium ion batteries, plastic, integrated circuits etc. So in that sense, not so great.
Also it’s best use case is for riding mass transit to work. Working from home would be so much more environmentally sound.
- @electrodynamica to
- •
- 5M
- •
This really sucks when you spent 45 minutes constructing a thorough reply.