Picture taken from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfhDuOHMp0A
doesn't seem to federate to discuss.tchncs.de yet?
Audit all supply chain companies.
In fact i would love it if big companies have to make their finances transparent.
Strong comic.
This, again, raises the question: Do we want to get higher wages? The obvious answer might seem "yes". But i argue it's not that obvious.
People should be able to live without being forced to work. When your only income is from wages, that effectively forces you to work. I think we should strive for a society where basic needs are fulfilled even without jobs.
That, in turn, raises the question of how to achieve this? What are the technical, legal, economic formulations for this? I have been considering of raising a wealth tax, but not on individuals, but on companies instead. The reason for this is mostly that it might be surprisingly difficult to assess the net wealth of individuals. Consider person A holds some shares in company B. When you're trying to tax person A, you're now faced with the difficult task of figuring out what the shares of company B are worth. That's not always trivial to do, as not all companies are publicly traded. However, what if instead of charging $100 in taxes for $1000 worth in shares, the taxes are due in company shares directly? I.e. person A would have to give so-and-so many shares (10% of their possession) to the community. Through this mechanism, the "means of production" would literally become communal property. An interesting possibility.
“point in this direction and fire the engines” becomes a pain because, say you’re constantly rolling, and you need to change the direction your long axis points. What thrusters do you fire in what combination to steer the ship? Or do you stop the roll, maneuver/use your telescope/dock/whatever, then start rolling again? So now you’ve got to deal with gravity starting and stopping variously throughout the journey.
according to the hohmann transfer orbit
you only do one burst at the beginning of the journey, then drift for 6 months before entering the atmosphere of the target planet to slow down.
So there's 6 months where you don't need to fire any engine. My plan is to first do the acceleration burn, then install solar panels on the outside of the ship (attach them via some kind of cord and cable) they fly outward due to centrifugal force so they get constant sun exposure, and then put the ship into rotation. So you don't need to do any work on the outside anymore, until you're shortly before landing, then you stop rotation, get in the solar panels, enter the atmosphere, do landing burn, and land.
yeah 200 mbar of oxygen should be fine, also 0.3g if we're gonna land on mars eventually we might as well get used to the gravity level.
lol you're right actually :p
this one because the other cigarette is lit and no wild animal would voluntarily inhale those gross toxic fumes
How did bookwriting monasteries sustain themselves in the medieval ages?
I think that newspapers should be surprisingly similar to that.
like no. i never cared but also i'm not a normal person
people have different tastes. it's routine that i find the women most attractive that others find most unattractive, and vice versa.
They're getting downvoted because there's a lot of esoterical people demanding that we learn stuff either for the joy of it (which many are not at all having btw) or because it "purifies character" or sth.
Practical applications are felt like an impurity to that.
Sun Tzu begins his book by explaining that ideally, one wouldn't wage war, but seek peaceful resolutions instead.
I did make the simple sketches containing only rectangles and text myself and used some icons from the internet.
The tech tree diagram (3rd image) shows in what order technology should meaningfully be developed. You need electricity to excavate water (which you can get from hydrated minerals) which is an important resource that you can use to generate oxygen through electrolysis, grow plants/algae in greenhouses, and produce methane and plastics from hydrogen (also from electrolysis of water) and carbon dioxide.
The greenhouses on this photo grow algae, which are bacteria that do photosynthesis and produce biomass, which is very protein-rich and calorie-rich btw. The advantage of using algae instead of cereals (like wheat or maize) is that algae take very little space, so a flat and non-bulky greenhouse can work, which facilitates construction. For a balanced diet, i recommend adding vegetables and spices which might be grown inside the ship under LED lamps.
This article is a bit longer so it's divided in 3 parts:
- rant about current status
- historical overview
- new ideas from me
What do the terms "politically left" and "politically right" even mean? To many, they're a way of group-think; To give a name to people who see the world differently than oneself and to create a target of hate and opposition.
Politicians have tried to turn these terms into an "empty signified" (link), i.e. a word without inherent meaning. Such "empty signified"s are ways of talking without actually saying anything. Politicians and also managers of companies like to use it all the time, because these speeches often look good to a passer-by without having to come up with an actual policy decision or meaningful arguments. They avoid headaches for the listeners and are at the same time something that people can get behind emotionally, i.e. to many people, identifying as "politically left" is an emotionally important term, even in the absence of any meaningful definition.
In many cases, "politically left" is defined as "anybody who opposes the political right" and the political right, in turn, is defined as "anybody who wants to kill people based on their color of skin". According to my own field research, people who fit this definition of "politically right" are about as rare as six-legged unicorns on a rainy day in the desert. In other words, they practically don't exist, and even when they do, they're engineered examples that are artificially constructed to make attractive newspaper headlines to keep the people at each other's throats.
In this article, i want to forget everything about these stupid definitions and come up with new, natural, meaningful definitions.
I will first clarify the historical origins of the term "right" and later "left".
The term "(politically) right" seems to go back to the Romans who already had the word "dextera" to refer both to the right hand of the body and also to a "just, righteous" way of life. (Link)
It is noteworthy that the often-heard explanation that these terms go back to the french revolution is just false. According to that myth, it was about who sat on the left-hand or right-hand side of the president of the assembly hall. Surely these terms were used there, but they were not the origin, merely their modern re-interpretation. The terms themselves are much much older than that.
The term "(politically) left" goes back to Latin as well, as the word "sinister" could refer to both the left hand of the body but also to a wicked, sinful character. (Link)
Now, what might a meaningful, natural interpretation of these words mean?
Let's use biology to start from something natural:
schematic drawing of organs in the human body (safe for work)
As you can see, the liver is on the right-hand side (of the human; you look at that human from the front so everything's mirrored). The liver is one of the hardest-working metabolic organs of the body, which means it does a lot of processes and transformations to convert input substances into output substances.
I think it is meaningful to compare that to labor in human society. Notice the similarity of words. This is evident when you speak the two words "liver" and "labor" out aloud often enough; It's even more evident in german where the liver is called "Leber".
While labor transforms some input products into output products in some capitalist factory, the liver does the same in the human body. So there is a natural analogy there.
I propose to define the political "right" as a group or movement that dictates that people should work, in other words that we should be a work-based society. Typical proponents of that group are capitalist stakeholders who want to see their stock valuations go up; As companies are typically listed higher when they produce more output, a company will have a natural incentive to make the people in it work harder. That could mean doing more work per hour or working longer hours.
On the other hand, i propose to define the political "left" as work-less, in other terms, as people who think that our lifes shouldn't be dictated by constant laboring, and that we should be able to live even when we're not being productive elements of society. In other words, people who think that it's not the point of living to be constantly hustling, but who enjoy their leisure, their time off. And who think that working hours should be reduced, and that work should be paced at a more relaxed, comfortable rhythm.
full-on professionalism
edit: due to popular demand (see the votes and some comments) i've taken down the post.
the original post is visible here
view more: next ›
no i meant more in the sense of: instead of the company not being allowed to profit, they can profit but 50% of the profit goes into the communal balance.
it would be easier to implement that because all you have to do is to order that 50% of the company shares go towards the city/municipality.