Sure, healthy and happy chickens are nice, but if you are into industrial farming and your goal is to make money, you will make their life as miserable as necessary to extract profit. You don't care if they are barely alive as long as the health standards are met.
It's not about you being happy as an individual, it's about the company making money. If your lawyers and sales are good enough to build a captive market of miserable customers, your company can still make a ton of money and be very successful.
And this is why I do not fear unemployment or AI. There will always be work for someone who can be asked to build over complicated software and debug it.
> Or is there some inherent ugliness that comes with affordable and popular things?
I would question both of these adjectives, where I live, "affordable" is sub-400'000 USD and "popular" is a 3-bedroom terraced house.
I would use expensive and extravagant instead.
I realize that calling any type of mansion affordable seems out of touch. I was commenting on the relative expense of some of these design components. The prefix “Mc” evokes McDonald’s. The post pokes fun at a statue of a maid, because the owners could not afford to hire true maids. From the site, I assume that a McMansion is like a mansion, but made with cheaper components and without the taste and class that comes with an elite upbringing.
> From the site, I assume that a McMansion is like a mansion, but made with cheaper components and without the taste and class that comes with an elite upbringing.
General consensus on definition seems to be "very large house, not designed by an architect, cheap construction". So they are both expensive (because they're really, really big) but also, well, cheaper than something that big done properly.
On the 'elite upbringing' thing, well, ever seen photos of the interiors of Donald Trump's houses? An elite upbringing does not necessarily imply taste.
Well, if you can burn it to produce energy + spent fuel
and then put back energy in the spent fuel to make new fuel again
then you have really a battery. That's how li-ion batteries work. The issue is the efficiency: how much of the energy you used to recharge the "battery" (iron) is going to be available when you discharge (burn) it
Well, it ties into the storage issue that we see with renewable. We still need energy when there is no wind at night. Burning iron at night and regenerating during the day could be a solution.
It needs to prove that it can be competitive with the other methods (compressed air, li-ion batteries, flow batteries, molten salts, flywheels...).
> It needs to prove that it can be competitive with the other methods.
I think the one thing is that iron storage would be a potential long term form of storage, while all those other methods that you mentioned are really short term, designed primarily just to deal with the daily peaks and troughs of renewable production, but not as much the "it's been completely overcast for 3 weeks" problem. The only other form of storage I'm aware of that is also long term like that is pumped water storage, and that is obviously very geographically limited.
If using Fe why not iron batteries? Keep the redox, remove the energy from the system via eletrical current instead of low efficiency heat, boiler and steam engine combo.
Great point. Fe batteries are very new so I'm not aware of the cost/benefit or if Fe batteries still slowly discharge over time, but yeah in both cases you're just oxidizing iron, so why not take the more direct route to generate electrical current directly.
Here’s an out of the box thought. Can we wrap the globe in undersea cables or does transmission losses kill the idea? Reason being that time zones and hemispheres make the “renewable is not always on” problem go away. It’s always on somewhere, so if there was a global grid you don’t really need storage?
> it'll make the others think hard about enforcing the law against you.
We are not talking about some high-security military stuff here, it's only a chat app.
It might be a big part of your world, but I can guarantee you that if they try to pull that off nobody in any government would care.
I am pretty sure of the contrary actually: that several governments in EU have dreams of getting rid of these platform, and that they can't do it because that would be illegal.
It's kinda sad, I remember when every windows release was an event in itself, I would try to get a hold of early releases and marvel at all the changes (except the tiles of windows 8... that was a step too far).
But it's not even that I don't like windows 11... I genuinely don't care. Windows 10 works, a _lot_ of my apps are in the browser or in a browser-ish environment anyway (electron). There are no new exciting features in the desktop space? Thinking about it, I have a mac at work and I don't care about the OS updates either way. It's all incremental now.
For a while the mobile OS were exciting but it's getting boring as well.
Don't forget that it's not _just_ the pint that will be more expensive. The consumers, after paying double or triple the usual electricity/gas price this winter, and suffering from a inflation of more than 10%, will have to have enough spare cash to stomach an increase of the price of a pint.
There is absolutely no chance that the pubs will be able to have as many customers as before.
And for B) the answer is simple: they'll buy their alcohol at the shop and get drunk at home
Sure, healthy and happy chickens are nice, but if you are into industrial farming and your goal is to make money, you will make their life as miserable as necessary to extract profit. You don't care if they are barely alive as long as the health standards are met.
It's not about you being happy as an individual, it's about the company making money. If your lawyers and sales are good enough to build a captive market of miserable customers, your company can still make a ton of money and be very successful.