[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Incorrect, they've never been about that.

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

Why do you hate Shanghai Disneyland so much? 😢

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

China's Hongyanhe power plant releases 4x as much radiation lol. It's fake, unscientific concern being published for geopolitical reasons. I say this as someone who otherwise agrees with most of what the Chinese government has to say.

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Fuck it, it's Wuling Hongguang Mini EV posting hours

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

NYC (and presumably Chicago - I haven't been) are the best, that's true. I've also been to Philadelphia and Boston and both had good train systems. I currently live in a medium-sized city that is 90% bus transit, and that can suffice even though it's not great. It's an exaggeration to say NYC and Chicago are the only places you can go without a car.

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not really losing to the car. The article says the train will now also be less than five hours, so the time difference is honestly not that much. There are also four trips daily which is sadly quite good nowadays in America. You can leave from St. Louis at 4:30 AM, 6:35 AM, 2:55 PM, and 5:40 PM. You can leave Chicago at 7:15 AM, 9:50 AM, 5:20 PM, and 7:10 PM. Coach costs like $25-$31, while the car trip would cost you around $68. Instead of focusing on driving for 4.5 hours, you can relax or do work for five hours. Compared to less frequent routes (Pennsylvanian 😒) you also have several options for departure and don't need to arrive at the station before the sun even rises. Someone who knows more about planes can tell me a flight would make any sense.

As someone who goes between Philly and Pittsburgh a couple times a year, if the shitty Pennsylvanian service was upgraded to be like the new Lincoln Service, I'd be really happy!

Oh, and for price that ends up $7 million per mile. Not sure how that compares.

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

China is a one-party state, lacks an independent judiciary, and exerts strict control over the media and public expression of ideas. To call it “democratic” is somewhat perverse.

You can say the same about liberal democracy.

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's really an interesting move to insult the leader of a country that you just had a meeting with in order to reverse deteriorating relations. 🤔

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Even the old designs aren't that bad all things considered. Even including all exclusion zones, nuclear probably still uses the least amount of land per TWh per year...

Note on data:

spoilerBased on real-world data, except for CSP which uses expected data of existing sites. Only electricity production and not direct use of biofuels. Dedicated biomass includes only woody biomass from willow, poplar, and spruce trees. Residue biomass refers to using a coal plant to burn extant biomass, requiring no feedstock land use but using more space than coal plants because biomass is less efficient. American nuclear power plants use more space than most countries because of less reactors per plant. Factors in nuclear exclusion zones (area divided by total historical power generation) even though partially inhabited. Includes fuel production as "indirect land use", part of "total land use". Excludes run-of-the-river hydroelectric projects. "Spacing" includes space in between wind turbines and fossil gas well pads even if empty of any infrastructure. Excludes land needed to mine materials or other upstream land use, land needed for energy transmission, and offshore area impacts and underground impacts.

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Last time that happened, the Soviet Union was formed lol

[-] iridaniotter@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago

The current crisis definitely puts human civilization at risk. Agricultural societies came into existence at roughly the current average temperature and were stable for thousands of years. Now, runaway capitalist industrialization is making a mess out of the climate and causing a mass extinction. I am confident humanity can survive, but will agricultural civilization? Last time the climate wasn't stable, we relied on hunting and gathering for food.

Personally, I think there is hope even if large-scale agriculture becomes unfeasible. Proteins, starches, etc. can be grown in bioreactors. There are also non-bioreactor solutions such as mycoproteins and indoor farms. The productivity of these methods are higher than traditional agriculture and don't rely on a stable climate. However, they will all rely on maintained supply chains and electricity production that is resilient to heat waves, droughts, floods, etc. as well as having a high enough energy return on investment.

Even my hopium has me worried. 😰

view more: ‹ prev next ›

iridaniotter

joined 2 years ago