Father, husband, graduate student. Interested in mechatronics and discussing the future of civilization.
Joined 15w ago.
Seen 12h ago.
I hate how in the US we have to buy medical "insurance". Insurance makes sense for things likes cars and houses, not humans. Cars don't have chronic problems or syndromes. Cars don't have preexisting conditions (you normally get a factory warranty). If a car is beyond repair, you eventually get a new one and move on. I think making something as complex as healthcare fit the shape of insurance is dehumanizing.
My hobby: finding words that fit to arbitrary rules for no reason. Examples: words that contain all five major vowels (evacuation), long words that have only one vowel multiple times (stronghold), words in which the singular form ends in S (species). I like to do that in Portuguese and English... I don't know, it's just fun.
People say that capitalism has failed us, but capitalism's goal was never to please us in the first place. We failed to give capitalism the right cost function to optimize for. I think a good way to steer the optimization is to introduce penalties for undesirable behavior. That is, taxes! In the US we tax income, property, and profit. Unsurprisingly, the wealthy have found ways to hide all of those. We should tax wealth directly and carbon, sugar, empty apartments, etc
Feeling super happy. I just found a reference that says _exactly_ what I want to claim in a paper: electric motors are getting better thanks to multiphysics simulation. Thank you IEEE! spectrum.ieee.org/...
Today a colleague told me about a potential unintended consequence of the gradual adoption of electric cars. By the point a significant number of drivers stop buying gas, the economies of scale that we have in place right now will no longer apply, and price will rise. The problem is mostly wealthy people will own electric cars, and mostly poor people will be stuck with old combustion engines and unaffordable fuel.
Brazil now has a $200 bill. The latest Brazilian money, the Real, was introduced in 1994. So far, the largest bill was $100. In 26 years, an inflation of about 2.7% per year would have caused the currency to lose half of its value. The actual annual inflation rate has been at least twice that. So, in practical terms, a $200 bill makes sense... but I still don't like it.
two thoughts on existential crises. 1. I should feel lucky that I have the luxury of going down existential rabbit holes, contemplating my own existance and purpose; I don't have to worry much about food or shelter. It would be great if everyone could have that privilege. 2. Existential crises are extremely counterproductive given any sort of material goal. Want to go to Mars? Sitting there and contemplating your existence will not take you there.
Related to subreply.com/trohs...
if you leave your fridge open, your kitchen will actually get warmer because the compressor would be running non-stop. The refrigeration system is just moving energy (heat) from inside the fridge to the outside. That's why AC units must have a portion outside, so heat can be moved out of the house.
As an engineer you quickly learn to appreciate how any dynamic system is just a series of energy connections. For example: any driver knows what the brake pedal does; a technician understands how it works, with the caliper pressing the pads against the disc; an engineer, however, understands that deceleration is nothing but a conversion of energy: from kinetic to heat. The car will lose velocity by the same rate as the brakes heat up. Power simply has to go somewhere.
I like the idea of exoskeletons for rehabilitation (e.g. make paraplegic people walk again) but I dislike human enhancement stuff. Why use an exoskeleton to lift 1000 lbs? Just use a remote controlled robot, or a fork lift! Want to run at 60 mph? Use a car! Just imagine if something goes wrong with the control system or the freaking battery connector fails while the user is lifting 1000 lbs above their head.
it annoys me that I can at least pretend to intuitively understand springs and dampers (friction) but I don't get why inertia exists. Sure, it's a fundamental law, Newton's 2nd, D'Alembert's principle, varies kinetic energy, etc. No idea why the universe decided to work in that manner. If masses warp space, why does it take force to accelerate mass but not to keep it going?
My native language, Portuguese, has a cool feature that English doesn't have. The word "ai" pronounced ah-ee means "there where you are". It pretty much can only be used in conversation. I like it because, unlike "there", it is completely unambiguous. Another cool feature: days of the week are just numbers. Monday is 2nd, Tuesday is 3rd, ... Friday is 6th.
Op-amps (and by extension in-amps) are amazing devices. Recently, when debugging an analog circuit, I noticed that the output of a buffer was measuring half Vdd with the input floating. However, when I tried to measure the voltage at the input I could only read zero. The cool part is the output of the op-amp would also swing to ground when I was reading the input. It turns out the generic op-amp has higher input impedance than my multimeter, which pulled down the input.
I really doubt we will have people on the moon by 2024, as is the current plan. And that's if they don't end up canceling the Artemis program due to coronavirus related budget cuts.
Doubt it as well. If canceled it will probably be for political reasons depending on the next election results... Then the mission architecture itself is pretty bloated w/the orbital gateway, sinking further billions (SLS delta-V not able to reach the Moon, just the station in its orbit). And I'm not sure Moon direct missions will be done initially, you have to justify the use of the SLS/gateway. The good part is the international co-op. 2024 is a tight time frame indeed...
Guy is crazy, so I believe him: Elon Musk(2019): "Well, this is gonna sound pretty crazy, but I think we could land on the moon in less than two years. Certainly with an uncrewed vehicle I believe we could land on the moon in two years. So then maybe within a year or two of that we could be sending crew. I would say four years at the outside."..."If it were to take longer to convince NASA and the authorities that we can do it versus just doing it, then we might just do it."
I am very much in favor of UBI and I am confident it will be adopted in the future. My one fear is it will not be implemented with a strong wealth tax system in place. UBI would still work, but would have the unintended consequence of separating even further the capital owners from the renters / consumers. If we don't like how much influence the 1% have in politics today, imagine if they were 1000x wealthier. Under those optics, UBI is a poweful anti-revolution tool.
This is a question that a colleague asked me a couple years ago, and it just keeps coming back to me. If one becomes informed about the damage that our meat consumption is causing on the planet, does it become immoral for one to consume meat? Say, if you watch a couple documentaries on Netflix and continue consuming meat, does that make you a bad person? I don't really have an answer. I think about it every time I eat a burger.
Once you know you're doing harm, I do think it's your responsibility to try to do less harm. But I don't think it requires an instant 180 change. Doing better is better than doing nothing.
I find it hard to be a vegetarian, but someone pointed out to me that being N% of a vegetarian is about N% as good as being a vegetarian. In other words, if you can forgo meat for even one day or meal, that's better than not.
I still have to be convinced by one of those documentaries. Every time I watch one, I do some fact checking after, and I always find something pointing out that the documentary is not scientifically correct, is opinionated, is using wrong numbers, has an agenda...
The moralistic tone that this debate has taken I think had the positive effect of making a bunch of people vegan/vegetarian very quickly, but the (larger?) negative effect of paralyzing everyone unable to make that leap. I think the right way to look at this is that you now have some new information about the 'true' cost of per unit of meat you eat. It's up to you each time you consume to see if that consumption is worth the cost to you.
I put meat eaters in the same category with smokers, I do enjoy a ciggy every now and then.
I know what the meat industry does. It ain't good, but it's all about making that bottom dollar. I do my best to pick out meat and produce that is organic. Ethically produced pork & beef is beautiful! Fuck chickens, though. Actually being around big livestock farms/auctions and seeing the way they live in pens, eating and shitting on themselves is horrible. Stress does not make good food. Know your meat!
Driving a car, flying on a plane, buying products that are shipped on boats overseas - all of these are destructive to the environment. Should you stop driving a car? Does it make you a bad person if you fly on a plane? Maybe. Alternately, some people see it as a challenge to do better - electric cars, more efficient planes, in this case... 3D printed or Lab grown meat. Maybe, it's not black and white.
Instead of just using eating choice cuts, try eating nose to tail. Also, treat meat like it used to be treated--a luxury. Our ability to get meat any time without having to hunt it has screwed up a lot.
No, we still need those proteins
I don't think it makes you immoral. I just nowadays don't understand *why* anyone eats meat. Once upon a time it made sense - it was tastier, there wasn't much vegetarian food that was any good and we had little/no evidence about the env or health damage. Nowadays? It's *really* easy to be a vegetarian, it's incredibly tasty food *AND* you're doing so, so much good for pretty much everything: environment, your health, animal wellbeing, your weight, etc.
Eating meat isn't immoral. We damage the planet in countless ways, humanity is a burden on the planet. If your goal is planet preservation over all, the only real answer is extinction of humans.
Maybe splitting the big industrial production livestocks into smaller local ones and the promotion/support of it could be part of the solution. Idk. Also, the pesticides/chemicals massively used in agricultural production should be pointed out and it's just as bad. So I'm just trying to eat local as much as possible, meat and vegetables. Not going to stop eating good meat (I don't tell people they are bad based on what they eat). I might test a veggie burger out of curiosity.
Given that some amount of meat is healthier than none, you'd probanly be fine reducing your consumption by an order of magnitude. What I'd argue would be immoral is continuing to eat meat while eschewing genetically modified vat meat when that becomes available. It's hard to say whether or not cutting consumption now will bring that to market any sooner.
It all comes down to consent for me and that there is no humane way to kill a sentient being that does not want to die. The animal's life is their own and who am I to be the oppressor and mandate my wants over their needs?