Jump to content

tastywheat

Atomican
  • Content count

    1,842
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

tastywheat last won the day on April 25 2017

tastywheat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

438 Overlord

About tastywheat

  • Rank
    Primarch
  1. tastywheat

    The Buffett Rule

    We're talking past each other. Objectively, all of our observations suggest that entropy in the observable universe is increasing. From the Wikipedia article you linked: Max Planck wrote that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition. That was written in 1897, before quantum physics, radio telescopes, relativity, or the Hubble telescope were things. There are other quotes in the 'Controversies' section that argue about semantics, mostly regarding how entropy is defined and measured, but nearly all modern physicists agree that time is asymmetrical, and the arrow of time dictates that future states will have higher entropy. A popular theory doesn't imply that it's right, but it does imply that it's something you should probably seriously consider given that Physicists spend their entire professional careers working on these sorts of phenomena. There is no technological solution to this. If the laws of thermodynamics hold true, it follows that there is an upper bound for economic growth. The logic is clear if you use common or mathematical definitions for infinite, and have a decent understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.
  2. tastywheat

    The Buffett Rule

    Again, 1 significant figure means the precision is ±50%. There is effectively zero chance that it'd be accurate to 1 year. We might not know the exact time frame, but there's nothing we're able to measure that contradicts the idea of declining entropy. Heat death implies that all matter in the universe loses all of its kinetic energy, which ends all natural processes. The end of electromagnetism. No more light, heat, or moving electrons/photons to power computers. No activation energy to form new chemical bonds. The end of biology. Every radioactive isotope depleted into stable forms. A dark universe frozen in time. You can redirect energy, but you can't create or destroy it, so as stated previously, you'd need to believe in perpetual motion/free energy to believe that we'd be able to find a technical solution. The concept was first laid out in a 1967 Astrophysics paper by Zoline entitled The Heat Death of the Universe. Page calculated it to be 10100 years in 1976 based implications of Hawking radiation. Terasawa and Sato were the first to calculate a timeframe based on empirical observations in the 1985 paper Nucleosynthesis in the Low-Entropy and Lepton-Degenerate Universe, which refined the figure to 10103 years. Obviously it's on the fringe of new knowledge, and could well turn out to be wrong, but it's peer reviewed science - not just conjecture. It's the most likely outcome current science is able to describe.
  3. tastywheat

    The Buffett Rule

    See, this is the sort of post that makes this place a shitty place for discussion. Instead of talking about negative mass, Alcubierre drives, and the potential impact this will have on economic growth, you focus ad hominems and semantics. Countable infinities are treated as numbers for the purposes of arithmetic in Physics, though they're not considered to be a Real number. Since you asked whether 10103 was a countable infinity, I mistakenly assumed you were interested in an answer.
  4. tastywheat

    The Buffett Rule

    Infinity is literally defined as a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number. If you can define it with a real number, by definition it can't be infinity (countable or uncountable), since you could simply add 1 to that number to make it bigger. Some infinities are greater than others, but they're all bigger than 10103. 10103=10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (a one with 103 zeros after it) The precision of the estimate is built into the number if you understand scientific notation. It's only got one significant figure, meaning it could be out by up to 50%. We have very strong evidence that we're not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but we rely on estimates for the exact figure because we're limited to data from the observable universe.
  5. tastywheat

    War is brewing in Asia

    Again, you're either misunderstanding, or misrepresenting my argument. I'm not denying that the US provided aid to the Russians, or that their help didn't influence the outcome of the war. All-out-war is a team effort, and withdrawing any component of it, from US supplies to Polish resistance, could have changed the outcome. What I'm actually arguing is that the Soviets killed 3 out of every 4 Nazi soldiers that died during the war, and this had a greater influence on the outcome in Europe than the US sacrifices. The Nazis might have won without US involvement, but it is pretty much certain that they would have taken over the West if Hitler hadn't betrayed Stalin, and invaded Russia in 1941. That you can't seem to acknowledge this, and suggest it was due to weapons and supplies given to them by the US and UK, to me is revisionist bullshit motivated by faulty ideology. The majority (70+%) of the weapons the Soviets used were built by the Soviets in Russia. Their tanks by the end of the conflict were far superior to anything we were building, and were critical to our eventual victory. They deserve credit for their sacrifices just as much as our ANZACs do.
  6. tastywheat

    War is brewing in Asia

    So we both agree that revisionist bullshit is bad, particularly when it's motivated by political and ideological agendas. Show me the evidence that 'a lot' of the Russian weapons and supplies were given to them by the US and UK. Edit: Again, by saying the Russians were more influential than the US in defeating the Nazis, I'm not suggesting that the US deserves no credit. I'm suggesting that they only deserve credit for things they actually achieved, and the Russians equally deserve credit for things they actually achieved.
  7. tastywheat

    The Buffett Rule

    A countable infinity by definition can't be equal to 10103. The argument I think you should be making is that we could experience economic growth for 10103 years, regardless of whether we're able to harvest an infinite amount of matter. After 10103 however, we're very much fucked, which places an absolute hard limit on potential economic growth. Practically, however, our economic growth is going to be limited for the foreseeable future by us being constrained to our solar system. We've just discovered that matter with negative mass can exist, which means the Alcubierre drive might actually be feasible, but we've got a long way to go before becoming a space faring civilisation, and we're well on our way to triggering a Great Filter event.
  8. tastywheat

    War is brewing in Asia

    Basically, I didn't bother reading your crap. I just answered your first question. Do a little bit of your own research, you'll find books and other resources on Jewish Russian affinity for America. So aside from ideological arguments, here's a whole bunch of ideological arguments that had little direct influence on you or your daughter making it to Australia? The poll was used specifically to demonstrate the change of public opinion over the years. Whether people who had just lived through German occupation were any more informed than their ancestors is actually irrelevant to the point. I doubt anyone could answer your second question accurately. You're also misrepresenting my argument. Suggesting that the Russians were more influential than the US in defeating the Nazis is not the same thing as saying the US played no role.
  9. tastywheat

    War is brewing in Asia

    Reagan (Republican) - Iran-Contra affair (Selling arms to Iran in violation of arms embargo to support dictators in central America) Clinton (Democrats) - Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory (destroyed a factory critical to the region for providing medicine based on faulty evidence, vetoed UN investigation, maintained trade embargo's that lead to thousands dying preventable deaths) Bush (Republican) - Abu Ghraib (Torture of unarmed captives) Obama (Democrat) - Expansion of Drone strikes outside of war zones (extrajudicial killing of 380+ civilians) If you polarise everything into left vs right, instead of looking at the evidence available, you're actively deluding yourself. The conflict certainly would have lasted longer, but I don't think you're basing these claims on evidence. You're repeating a narrative that you haven't actually put much critical thought into.
  10. tastywheat

    War is brewing in Asia

    It's a factual argument. The Russians killed or captured 2.1 million of the 3.9 million Nazi soldiers who died in WW2. Sources disagree on the exact total (varying by around 10%), but the ratio of Western to Eastern Front deaths remains roughly the same. This came at the expense of 9 Million Russian soldiers, more than any other country involved in World War II: The US certainly played an important role, but it's a modern misconception that they won the war in Europe. It seems to have been perpetuated by propaganda against the Soviets during the cold war, and glamorisation of American influence through entertainment media. The impact of this propaganda can be seen in things like opinion polls taken in France directly after the war compared to modern times: Don't take my word for it. I encourage you to look through the information available for yourself. Look at the data for material provided, soldiers provided, soldiers lost, and soldiers killed. Read some of the biographies of soldiers and influential leaders of the time. You can't rely on 'common sense' to form objective opinions. To form an opinion that isn't bullshit, you have to base it off the facts available.
  11. tastywheat

    The Buffett Rule

    We don't, but based on current evidence and projections, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium. It follows that unless you're a believer in free energy/perpetual motion, in approximately 10103 years there will be no energy left to harvest more matter.
  12. tastywheat

    War is brewing in Asia

    Aside from ideological arguments, how exactly has Team America benefited you as a Russian Jew, and your Australian born daughter, living in Australia? The Hoover era immigration restrictions in the 1920s were arguably antisemitic. Roosevelt declined to accept Jewish refugees during the Evian Conference of 1938. America played a relatively small role compared to other Allies in defeating Nazi Germany in Europe, objectively much less so than the Russians who were responsible for ~75% of Nazi casualties. You're not Israeli, or living in Israel, so their support and interventions in the Middle East have no direct influence on you and your daughter. The Cold War contributed to shitty leadership in the USSR, and resulted in widespread suffering due to resource reallocation to the war effort. Arguably, the Iron Curtain eventually fell because of how incompetent the leaders were, and faulty communist ideology, rather than any direct physical intervention from Team America. Your parents didn't seek asylum in America, if I recall correctly they came to Australia via Italy (likely benefiting from the 1951 Refugee Convention and its provision for unlawful immigration). So it seems the biggest impact Team America has had on you was defending Australia from the Japanese invasion, which has very little to do with you being a Russian Jew. Maybe if you were Israeli, Taiwanese, or South Korean, it'd more than an ideological argument. As it stands, I think you have more to thank from the ANZACs than Team America's decades of objectively shitty foreign policy.
  13. tastywheat

    War is brewing in Asia

    Trump reneges on American agreement to pay for the THAAD system: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/world/608770/seoul-rejects-trump-demand-won-t-pay-for-missile-system/story Not exactly unexpected, but still a dick move given Trump's personal involvement in antagonising NK.
  14. tastywheat

    how crap is this government ?

    I carried out a trial for the DPaW using drones to map ant super colonies on Christmas Island. The problem species are Yellow Crazy Ants, which they think came from Indonesia or Malaysia either during or shortly after the first World War (Christmas Island was a strategically significant source of Phosphate). For a long time, they didn't have a significant impact on the island. Rats and cats were doing most of the environmental damage (ignoring the Phosphate mines of course). In their natural environment, they're strongly territorial with each colony fighting for it's share of forrest floor, which is what kept them in check. In the 90s, something changed. Suddenly, different colonies started to cooperate, and form super colonies. This gave the super colonies a significant advantage, and soon the whole island was infested super colonies, massively increasing the total population of ants. They're now having a significant impact on the red crabs through competition for resources, blinding sprays of acetic acid, and feeding on young crabs. They farm such huge numbers of invasive species of aphids for their sugar rich poop, that they're causing deforestation, which is leading to other invasive weed species expanding. The project involved carrying out multi-spectral surveys on the forrest canopy (RGB, NIR, LWIR), and then correlating vegetation stress to super colony locations and densities. It was reasonably successful, and there was an intention to go back and use drones to release bio-control agents (Malaysian wasps to control aphids), but unfortunately the government cut DPaW funding, and the project was cancelled.
  15. They're now also offering up to $10,000 USD for passengers who volunteer to give up their seats. I'm guessing a bunch of boffins calculated the cost of litigation, brand damage, and reducing overbooking, and worked out that it's still cheaper to compensate passengers $10k when they've fucked up. Whether it's ever actually offered or not will be the test that distinguishes this from bullshit brand repair, or consistent (for lack of a better word) corporate ethics.
×