No, the greater tensile strength of basalt fiber versus glass fiber is due to it being partly crystallized, similarly to the greater strength of glass-ceramic vessels (i.e. which are made from a glass for easier formability, but then they are crystallized by a heat treatment) versus glass vessels.
While there are glasses much stronger than ordinary glass, there are a lot of even stronger ceramics, which are (poly-)crystalline.
Glasses have many advantages vs. other materials, e.g. easy processing for making any shapes, including fibers, no porosity, chemical resistance, optical transparency and so on, but strength is not one of them.
The glass content of the basalt fibers is useful for allowing them to be drawn into fibers, by being soft enough for this even at a temperature under the melting point of the basalt.
Generally, there are no systems that are 100% bulletproof. This applies to everything. So, the more power you have, the more likely you are to exploit the existing loops.
Who is actually affected? Those less powerful. Progressive tax system hits the middle class (actual middle class, la petite bourgeoisie, not the modern bullshit redefinition of the term) hardest, making it harder for them to make it rich and compete with actual rich people.
As the effect, rich protect inheritance by trusts and avoid taxes by not having income (plenty of tricks available with borrowing), while people like doctors, lawyers, small business owners fund the state and hit hard limits on what can they make.
Don't believe me? Check how much of the tax income comes from top brackets. You may be surprised. Pro tip: system is very skewed to the top.
If the problem is that the system is very skewed to the top, then isn't the solution to be found in addressing that skew? In closing those particular loopholes?
Shouldn't everyone pay their fair share of taxes? Warren Buffett and others seem to think that they should.
If no system is bulletproof then you're not really arguing against progressive tax, the same way "there will always be murderers" is not an argument against policing.
Yes but a very small amount and it is nothing we don't know how to manage.
> the risk that something gets out of control are extemly high
Except this is false, you are just spreading misinformation. I suggest you confront your current knowledge to different sources and listen to the arguments of the proponents of nuclear energy before you make up your mind. Don't just repeat what you have heard.
"At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be extracted much more economically from conventional fuels.… This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe." — C. G. Suits, Director of Research, General Electric, who was operating the Hanford reactors, 1951.
The C.G suits were right as long as the digging operation is not too costly (the more shallow and concentrated the better)
Fossil fuels are nothing short of a miracle because they are so energy dense, but it's a slow poison and has high addictive power.
As long as we didn't (want to) know about negative externalities (chief among them CO2 and CH4) whose cost was borne by humanity, it was ok. Dirty but everyone seemed to think it was worth it.
The advantages of nuclear is not that it would be too cheap to meter (even though that becomes true with time because most of the price is upfront investment).
- It is that you can get energy independence even if you don't have uranium because it is so energy dense that you can just stockpile it. For example France could run its plants for 2 years with its current stockpile of uranium, and it only recycles around 10% of its fuel. Compare that with its oil needs, the oil stockpile would only last 3 months, probably less.
- It is CO2 free
Bonus: Nuclear industry is required to take of its waste products (which are only waste products insofar are we are too lazy/cheap to recycle them, else they are just more fuel)
I never expected EA to get so much flak in this comment section.
Most comments read like a version of "Who do you think you are?". Apparently it is very bad to try to think rationally about how and where to give out your money
I mean if rich people want to give out their money for good and beyond are actually trying to do work of researching whether it has an impact instead of just enjoying the high-status feeling of the optics of giving to a good cause (see The Anonymous Donor episode of Curb your enthusiasm), what is it to you all ?
It feels to me like some parents wanting to plan the birth of their children and all the people around are like "Nooo, you have to let Nature decide, don't try to calculate where you are in your cycle !!! "
Apparently this is "authoritarian", "can be used to justify anything" like eugenics but also will end up "similar to communism" but also leads to "hyperindividualism ?
The only way I can explain it is no one wants to give out 1% of their money away and hate the people who make them feel guilty by doing so and saying it would be a good thing so everyone is lashing out
I think it's a case of judging a band by its fans. Enough dodgy billionaires have jumped on to create a poor image. Singer never said donating buys you a license to be evil.
I only know about SBF but SBF was a scammer. Are we surprised that scammers try to use anything that could give them a positive image in order to, you know, scam people ?
Also I don't see Elon Musk giving out his money to save non-white people's lives anytime soon
Yes it is bad. You start to think about who deserves your help.
I don't think much of Christians but I love the Salvation army. They patrol the streets picking up whoever they find and help them. Regardless of background, nationality, religion or IQ.
It goes against everything tech bros believe in.
No, the argument isn’t “help these people instead of helping those people”, it’s “help who you want to help, but make sure your money is actually spent helping rather than paying people to raise awareness”.
There are loads of charities that are basically scams that give very little to the cause they claim to support and reserve most of the money for the high salaries of their board members. The EA argument, at its core, is to do some research before you give and try to avoid these scams.
But it's not about who deserves your help, it's about where it would make the biggest difference
Don't you have other things to do than to give flak to people who helped a population at the other side of the globe not to die of malaria ?
In the meantime, Christians did not give us vaccines and antibiotics without which you might not even be alive today. Also charity has a bad track record of being more about making the donors feel superior/good about themselves than actually making a change. Maybe you'd like to read "Down and out in London and Paris".
Don't get me wrong, the Salvation Army is great and everyone who wishes to make a difference is welcome to do so.
I, myself, am not even donating to EA causes and what I have done is much closer to Salvation Army stuff (a hot soup and a place to rest) but I don't see how the Salvation Army can be weaponized by against EA, that's insane.
You've probably also heard of 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, though its abbreviated name (MDMA) is likely more familiar.
It's a huuuuuge family of substances though, particularly if you go one step more generic and start with Phenylethylamine as the backbone (amphetamine is a shortening of alpha-methyl-phenethylamine), the family includes hallucinogens like mescaline, empathogens like MDMA and its close cousins, the whole 2C family, the cathinones and their derivatives ('mephedrone' had a cultural moment 10-15 years back). And some real nasties like PMA, PMMA and bromo-Dragonfly.
I am not a AI worshiping futurist nor a (techno-)fascist for that matter. I don't think bots are that active on such a small platform but I guess by "bots" you mean people who offer pushback on your opinions (they are a "shocking" number indeed, it seems I can hardly convince more than one person to rally my positions from time to time and I still have to pretend to be nuanced !)
I also believe that "platform is skewed against X" (generally your own opinions) are utterly useless comments. You are just pretending everyone is against you so you don't have to take criticism addressed to you seriously.
Now you can enjoy the ego boost of feeling like the virtuous online warrior against a world of techno-fascists that are ganging up on you or you can reflect and try to take into account the fact that people have different viewpoints and are mostly doing their best. I eventually chose the latter and I have to say I feel less grandiose but much better overall. Join the club, we have cookies.
It is surprisingly hard to find information about it, do you have any ? From what I can guess it's a new syntax but it's the feature itself is still an extension ?
The `[[attribute]]` syntax is new, the builtin ones in C23 are `[[deprecated]]`, `[[fallthrough]]`, `[[maybe_unused]]`, `[[nodiscard]]`, `[[noreturn]]`, `[[reproducible]]`, and `[[unsequenced]]`.
In soil bacteria ? I wonder how many scientists are digging up bit of soil here and there throughout the world in order to find out bacterial treasures like that
I read your first sentence and I thought "Yes, just like painting" and then you hit me with:
Painting is a good example
While I agree with your point, I believe this post is just psychological pep talk aimed at people like me (and probably the author) who dance around in endless preparation/postponing because they can't bring themselves to do the ting. It's generally an emotional issue: You are afraid of messing it up or of the consequences of the thing etc.
I wish I didn't but I need that kind of pep talk in my life
