“Hey, I’ve seen this one before!”

“What do you mean? It’s brand new!”

It’s both lack of competition and the end of Moores law. We’ve effectively reached the end of silicon gate sizes and the tooling complexity required to keep shrinking process nodes and increase transistor density is increasing exponentially, so semiconducters no longer get cheaper… and it’s starting to push these cutting edge nodes outside of economic viability for consumer products. I’m sure TSMC is taking a very healthy profit cut for sure but the absolute magic they have to work to have 2nm work at all is beginning to be too much.

It’s because knock-on effects of government policies take around 4-6 years to fully materialize. Republicans fully understand this and also understand that the average American dumb fuck has a political long term memory of 3 months at best. They can fuck everything up in a term or two, pass the buck to the incoming Democrat, and then blame the Democrat for everything they completely broke. Just look at the final massive deregulation that Bush pushed leading to the 2008 crash that Obama had to deal with - which they could then conveniently blame on Obama himself!

I didn’t write that article though.

Right on schedule! Just as predictable as a broken record player.

Idk man. I usually read the articles I post and make sure to understand them before I go spamming. And I don’t post intentionally false and misleading articles to communities with the somewhat transparent optics of trying to stir up shit. If you aren’t understanding what your posting, you are at best unintentionally damaging honest discourse… but I think we both know your “playing dumb” act is a farce.

Have a good weekend.

Yeah that study is probably “true” but very myopic. I believe I commented on this the last time it was posted.

Sure, total co2/ch4 emissions is likely higher. Liquefying and transporting LNG isn’t energy free, while coal is typically burned closer to where it’s mined. I get that’s probably the tact they’re trying to take, fossil fuel still bad and don’t let LNG get too greenwashed.

HOWEVER. The study and article seems to intentionally completely ignore all the secondary emissions of coal. Tallying “emissions” for a picture of true environmental impact is way way way more than just X tons of co2. Burned coal creates a massive amount of atmospheric ash and particulate that is chock full of heavy metals, literal radioactivity, and sulfur/nox that generates acid rain. The tailings from mining and the fly ash from burning is also incredibly toxic and destroys all groundwater for miles and miles around it. It’s just one huge bad flaming lump of cancer that sanitizes entire ecosystems and reduces life expectancy by multiple decades in places where it is heavily used.

Natural gas generates none of this, with the exception of fracking groundwater problems (which, is admittedly a problem, but still way less concentrated than the previously mentioned). A fuel stock of >95% CH4 with the remainder made up of water and longer chain hydrocarbons emits nothing but CO2 and water vapor. Also, combined cycle gas power plants have some of the highest end to end thermal efficiencies of any power plant ever built, which is another huge plus over coal.

So no, it’s not perfect, and its still “bad”. but it is doing a fucking bang good job of not giving people cancer and getting a dirty 18th century energy source out of our modern society where it does not belong.

If you dig deep enough you’ll find some blatant racist shit in one of the conservative comms too, unless it got nuked by a mod. I don’t really care enough to go digging for it either.

Edit: oh here it is

(This is blatantly false, nothing in the law states this, it was doctored up by racists to drive immigrant hate)

Do a search and they’ve posted like 10 other articles to the conservative comm as well.

And also prempting Mr Monk as I know what he’ll say: “I only post the articles!!!1!11!”. Sure buddy. Sure.

Never, but it’s nice to actually have him say it out loud.

So that’s why he wouldn’t answer it during the debate

That’s what I always do. There are smaller creators that I support via donations or patreon but I never pay directly for the content itself.

you can’t tell me what to do!

It’s their se domain I saw it on, but most of their older domains also display this

http://z-library.se/

Loss of lift is Western propaganda. Greatest Russian planes never crash, they only land unexpectedly!

Actually I think it was right n

He can do whatever he wants as long as a stolen House and Senate via election fraud rubberstamps anything he wants and the courts are stacked too. That’s it, curtains and exit stage left on US freedom.

If all other things stay the same and SA starts punishing OPEC with production bumps, then yes 50 to 60/bbl is possible in the current balanced market. But these geopolitical risks are unpredictable and military action removing more production than SA could offset with it’s spare capacity would quickly drive it back to 100/bbl.

SA wants OPEC members to believe the 50/bbl threat because OPEC/OPEC+ as a whole have done nothing but overproduce and ignore quotas for years and years, bolstering their own profits while SA tries to take up the slack by cutting. SA is sick and tired of being taken advantage of by their “friends” in the cartel (truely a Leopards Eating Faces moment). Opec members will be more likely to comply with quota demands if there is an imminent market crash.

The US would want members to believe the 100/bbl war premium threat as that will keep reserves high and production on the market, as sellers will want to take immediate advantage of a spot market price spike, which in itself dulls the ultimate effect of said spike and prevents physical shortages that would be severely damaging to the US/OECD countries.

Frankly the entire thing is a giant “¯\_(ツ)_/¯” so make sure your gas tank stays full and we’ll wait and see.

control housing costs *maximize profit for corporate real estate investors

Fixed the whitewashed title.

TAX THE CHURCHES

Ya weight is how I’d do it, it’ll probably be the most accurate. Realistically you don’t need to be accurate at all but with something that doesn’t cut cleanly like a gummy might, just weigh it

I bet it can. These drones are a new war-of-volumes.
Even if you only have a 1 in 10, hell even a 1 in 20 connection rate of launched drone to hitting designated target. If each drone costs $300 to build and arm using commodity parts, but one hit can take out a high value T90M worth $4.5mil, that battlefield ROI is insanely high.

I know right? They don’t come cheap from the Rainbow Factory, those ponies drive a hard bargain.