Let's get this board moving.
/cyb/ - Cyberpunk Fiction and Fact
Cyberpunk is the idea that technology will condemn us to a future of totalitarian nightmares here you can discuss recent events and how technology has been used to facilitate greater control by the elites, or works of fiction
632 replies | 280 files | 87 UUIDs | Page 5
532 replies and 258 files omitted.
>>3111
Tesla never really found proof for the electric universe theory either though.
It would be really cool if it were true though. The idea of supplying free energy to anyone in the world without cables by harnessing the theoretically abundant energy of universe was Tesla's dream.
Einstein was certainly a fraud in some aspects, but his fraud came more from stealing other scientist's breakthroughs and publishing them in his own name without credit.
Thing about theory of relativity is that it's hard to prove because we as human beings are like 2D cartoons trying to interpret the composition of the 3D pencil that drew us. Time is an intangible force in the universe as far as we can tell and we have few ways of comprehending or testing how it actually works.
Tesla never really found proof for the electric universe theory either though.
It would be really cool if it were true though. The idea of supplying free energy to anyone in the world without cables by harnessing the theoretically abundant energy of universe was Tesla's dream.
Einstein was certainly a fraud in some aspects, but his fraud came more from stealing other scientist's breakthroughs and publishing them in his own name without credit.
Thing about theory of relativity is that it's hard to prove because we as human beings are like 2D cartoons trying to interpret the composition of the 3D pencil that drew us. Time is an intangible force in the universe as far as we can tell and we have few ways of comprehending or testing how it actually works.
>>3113
>we as human beings are like 2D cartoons trying to interpret the composition of the 3D pencil that drew us.
That's profound and thought provoking while at the same time gives Einstein's theory a credit that cannot be proven.
>we as human beings are like 2D cartoons trying to interpret the composition of the 3D pencil that drew us.
That's profound and thought provoking while at the same time gives Einstein's theory a credit that cannot be proven.
>>3119
Well, not with the technology we have now. They'll keep trying until they can confirm or deny it.
I think they're building another collider to test supernova tier particle physics to try and find some evidence for it.
Tbh, research out of the previous colliders has been pretty substantial, so I think it's actually cool to. It's at least better than sending money to niggers and Israel.
Well, not with the technology we have now. They'll keep trying until they can confirm or deny it.
I think they're building another collider to test supernova tier particle physics to try and find some evidence for it.
Tbh, research out of the previous colliders has been pretty substantial, so I think it's actually cool to. It's at least better than sending money to niggers and Israel.
>>3120
>Well, not with the technology we have now.
That's wishful thinking. Also (we) don't have anything, the collider operation is a closed project without transparency or accountability, sorta a black hole washing taxpayer's money.
>Well, not with the technology we have now.
That's wishful thinking. Also (we) don't have anything, the collider operation is a closed project without transparency or accountability, sorta a black hole washing taxpayer's money.
>>3121
>closed project without transparency or accountability
No it's not. There's institutions from some 80+ countries involved, they give tours of it all the time, and all it's findings are public domain.
They just made a new discovery about antimatter (I'll make a thread for that, if anyone cares).
>closed project without transparency or accountability
No it's not. There's institutions from some 80+ countries involved, they give tours of it all the time, and all it's findings are public domain.
They just made a new discovery about antimatter (I'll make a thread for that, if anyone cares).
>>3122
>There's institutions from some 80+ countries involved
Observers to cheer it up.
>they give tours of it all the time
Just trust us.
>and all it's findings are public domain
Garbage about subtatomic debris backed by theoretical math unable to pass a lab's scrutiny.
>a new discovery about antimatter
If the hoaxers can provide a sample to test in a laboratory surely wil get some attention. /s
>There's institutions from some 80+ countries involved
Observers to cheer it up.
>they give tours of it all the time
Just trust us.
>and all it's findings are public domain
Garbage about subtatomic debris backed by theoretical math unable to pass a lab's scrutiny.
>a new discovery about antimatter
If the hoaxers can provide a sample to test in a laboratory surely wil get some attention. /s
>>3121
>sorta a black hole washing taxpayer's money.
A drop in the bucket compared to what we send to welfare niggers, African shitholes and Israel every year. Most of it isn't even taxpayer funded at all, but fundraised by university research grants.
>>3123
>Just trust us.
What does transparency mean to you? What degree of accountability would you want?
>Garbage about subtatomic debris backed by theoretical math unable to pass a lab's scrutiny.
It's literally a laboratory to scrutinize theories.
If you have refutations to the readings from the lab, do share them.
>provide a sample to test in a laboratory
They already did that. That's how they make positrons. Look it up.
>sorta a black hole washing taxpayer's money.
A drop in the bucket compared to what we send to welfare niggers, African shitholes and Israel every year. Most of it isn't even taxpayer funded at all, but fundraised by university research grants.
>>3123
>Just trust us.
What does transparency mean to you? What degree of accountability would you want?
>Garbage about subtatomic debris backed by theoretical math unable to pass a lab's scrutiny.
It's literally a laboratory to scrutinize theories.
If you have refutations to the readings from the lab, do share them.
>provide a sample to test in a laboratory
They already did that. That's how they make positrons. Look it up.
>>3124
>provide a sample to test in a laboratory
>They already did that.
Source? Name of the laboratory and employees in charge?
>provide a sample to test in a laboratory
>They already did that.
Source? Name of the laboratory and employees in charge?
>>3125
>Name of the laboratory and employees in charge?
Jülich IKP-KFA, Erlangen-Nuernberg University, GSI Darmstadt and Genoa University, led by Walter Oelert, using the CERN1 LEAR.
>Name of the laboratory and employees in charge?
Jülich IKP-KFA, Erlangen-Nuernberg University, GSI Darmstadt and Genoa University, led by Walter Oelert, using the CERN1 LEAR.
>>3126
Gotta link? Also don't tell me is an internal CERN's laboratory with CERN's employees because we will be again at square one: Just Trust Us.
Gotta link? Also don't tell me is an internal CERN's laboratory with CERN's employees because we will be again at square one: Just Trust Us.
>>3127
He's not a CERN employee, he's a professor from the aforementioned university. Also, the CERN is a machine, not an employer.
He's not a CERN employee, he's a professor from the aforementioned university. Also, the CERN is a machine, not an employer.
>>3128
>Also, the CERN is a machine, not an employer.
CERN is a bureaucracy administrating a humongous amount of money under the guise of reasearch.
>Also, the CERN is a machine, not an employer.
CERN is a bureaucracy administrating a humongous amount of money under the guise of reasearch.
>>3129
>administrating a humongous amount of money under the guise of reasearch
It's really a tiny amount of money compared to other useless crap the government (s) spend on. If it was made to consolidate money, it isn't doing a very good job.
>administrating a humongous amount of money under the guise of reasearch
It's really a tiny amount of money compared to other useless crap the government (s) spend on. If it was made to consolidate money, it isn't doing a very good job.
>>3127
>Just Trust Us
What else would it take to earn your trust? I don't know what it is that you want. They got some readings that one of their nine antiprotons finally collided with a negatron after shooting them through a jet of xenon gas 33 billion times a second. Are you saying that the readings were false? All the inner workings of the machine are public domain: it's ultimately just a series of very strong magnets.
If you'd like to discuss it in detail, please make a thread about it. It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics, but I'm quite interested in the topic if you have any info to add about how a positron should behave under those circumstances.
>Just Trust Us
What else would it take to earn your trust? I don't know what it is that you want. They got some readings that one of their nine antiprotons finally collided with a negatron after shooting them through a jet of xenon gas 33 billion times a second. Are you saying that the readings were false? All the inner workings of the machine are public domain: it's ultimately just a series of very strong magnets.
If you'd like to discuss it in detail, please make a thread about it. It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics, but I'm quite interested in the topic if you have any info to add about how a positron should behave under those circumstances.
>>3131
>CERN's budget
According to (((them))) the 2023 budget is 1230.38 Million CHF = 1439.54 million U$D
>CERN's budget
According to (((them))) the 2023 budget is 1230.38 Million CHF = 1439.54 million U$D
>>3132
>It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics
Reminder that "atomic" physics is just and merely a "theory".
>It's too late at night for me to debate the intricacies of particle physics
Reminder that "atomic" physics is just and merely a "theory".
1704257837.gif (1.2 MB, 483x481, f71f72ebe9c47b937f9f0167ff641f04.gif)
>>3139
>Are you telling me that that is untrue?
I'm telling you, and according to academia, that there is not conclusive proof of that. That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is real. Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
>Are you telling me that that is untrue?
I'm telling you, and according to academia, that there is not conclusive proof of that. That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is real. Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
>>3140
Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real. Atomic theory is called a theory because most scientific concepts are called theories. The theory has changed over time as it has been revealed that atoms are not indivisible as we once thought.
>Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
That's just how science works
So do you or do you not believe in atomic theory?
Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real. Atomic theory is called a theory because most scientific concepts are called theories. The theory has changed over time as it has been revealed that atoms are not indivisible as we once thought.
>Then they play safe by claiming is actually a "model" for interpretation of the matter.
That's just how science works
So do you or do you not believe in atomic theory?
>>3141
>Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real.
Sure, I'm aware of lab's testing pointing at that, but to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
>Actually, there's quite a bit of proof that atoms are real.
Sure, I'm aware of lab's testing pointing at that, but to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
>>3140
>That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is r
Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true. It's accepted as fact by most scientists that atoms are real.
There is no president of science or other person with the authority to decide what or when models are facts instead of theories, that's why models are called theories indefinitely.
>That's the reason no professor or scientist will put his career on the line claiming the "Atomic Theory" is r
Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true. It's accepted as fact by most scientists that atoms are real.
There is no president of science or other person with the authority to decide what or when models are facts instead of theories, that's why models are called theories indefinitely.
>>3143
>Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true.
Of course, the same than paleontologists claiming that Evolution is real. After all they have to follow the establishment's narrative to make their careers. That said, not one will risk their monetary incoming when challenged and will play safe.
>Every professor or scientist you meet will tell you that atomic theory is true.
Of course, the same than paleontologists claiming that Evolution is real. After all they have to follow the establishment's narrative to make their careers. That said, not one will risk their monetary incoming when challenged and will play safe.
>>3142
>to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
That's why they're smashing them together with extremely strong magnets and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter.
>to claim that atoms are in this way ot that way is an interpolation.
That's why they're smashing them together with extremely strong magnets and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter.
>>3147
>and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter
Ah, that the key sentence. Energy signals in the form of x-rays and gamma longitude which is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris" to trick the uneducated normies.
>and try to make sense of the energy signals they give off thereafter
Ah, that the key sentence. Energy signals in the form of x-rays and gamma longitude which is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris" to trick the uneducated normies.
>>3148
>but they publish it as "debris"
I go further. Those charlatans publish pictures of pseudo particles, because they claim are actual subatomic particles, and ask for more money. In reality what the pictures show are "traces" of radiation impacting whatever their are using as a sensor to register the event. To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch.
>but they publish it as "debris"
I go further. Those charlatans publish pictures of pseudo particles, because they claim are actual subatomic particles, and ask for more money. In reality what the pictures show are "traces" of radiation impacting whatever their are using as a sensor to register the event. To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch.
Anonymous
No.3151
>>3149
>Have you ever tried talking to new reporters?
No need, I know physics and I may assisted to some lab. I'm know what I'm talking about. Do not fall for the narrative of what is our reality.
>Have you ever tried talking to new reporters?
No need, I know physics and I may assisted to some lab. I'm know what I'm talking about. Do not fall for the narrative of what is our reality.
>>3148
>is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris"
Radiation and debris are arguably the same thing. Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves. I like to think of them as music notes in a song. Electrons and Photons are simultaneously particles and waves, but you can also think of them as a cloud.
And the type of radiation is also really indicative of what the particles did after dissipating, because as matter is converted into energy the amount of energy released can determine what happened.
Also could be promising for engineering discoveries, such as advanced fusion reactors.
>to trick the uneducated normies.
Most normies don't actually care if a neutron split in two pieces is given a name. None of them even seemed to care that an anti-hydrogen atom was recently created. Only nerds like me bother to read this stuff.
>>3150
The pictures are just visual aids because they're impossible to conceptualize anyway. Particles that act like waves or fields of energy don't look like beads; they don't look like anything at all in fact.
>To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch
That's a fair point. A lot of the particles they're to creating are so unnatural and unstable that they dissipate instantly, and the only proof of their existence is that they produced the correct expected type of waves based on the math.
>is actually radiation but they publish it as "debris"
Radiation and debris are arguably the same thing. Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves. I like to think of them as music notes in a song. Electrons and Photons are simultaneously particles and waves, but you can also think of them as a cloud.
And the type of radiation is also really indicative of what the particles did after dissipating, because as matter is converted into energy the amount of energy released can determine what happened.
Also could be promising for engineering discoveries, such as advanced fusion reactors.
>to trick the uneducated normies.
Most normies don't actually care if a neutron split in two pieces is given a name. None of them even seemed to care that an anti-hydrogen atom was recently created. Only nerds like me bother to read this stuff.
>>3150
The pictures are just visual aids because they're impossible to conceptualize anyway. Particles that act like waves or fields of energy don't look like beads; they don't look like anything at all in fact.
>To claim those are particles is a looooooooooooong stretch
That's a fair point. A lot of the particles they're to creating are so unnatural and unstable that they dissipate instantly, and the only proof of their existence is that they produced the correct expected type of waves based on the math.
>>3152
>Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves
You are confusing matter with its manifestation of optic light, also called photons.
>Atoms and their components aren't objects; they're more like knots of energy or EM waves
You are confusing matter with its manifestation of optic light, also called photons.
>>3156
>Once you get into subatomic particles
Well, it is the field of charlatans claiming to be discovering the holy new thing, they may know something about to tinker with matter, but the interpretation of what they are dealing with has, and according to them, a great latitude.
>Once you get into subatomic particles
Well, it is the field of charlatans claiming to be discovering the holy new thing, they may know something about to tinker with matter, but the interpretation of what they are dealing with has, and according to them, a great latitude.
Anonymous
No.3159
>>3149
>So a drop in the ocean
My point exactly. It's barely taking in any money considering the scale of the project and the number of actors involved. If it disappeared tomorrow your taxes would not change one cent.
>So a drop in the ocean
My point exactly. It's barely taking in any money considering the scale of the project and the number of actors involved. If it disappeared tomorrow your taxes would not change one cent.
>>3160
>fascinating
I agree, but take into account that most of their "ideas" are based in "Theoretical Physics" which is also based on "Theoretical Math", which is based on math tricks such as multi-dimensional matrices with not correlation with the physical world.
>fascinating
I agree, but take into account that most of their "ideas" are based in "Theoretical Physics" which is also based on "Theoretical Math", which is based on math tricks such as multi-dimensional matrices with not correlation with the physical world.
>>3161
>not correlation with the physical world
Oh sure, nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant. No point in researching those
>not correlation with the physical world
Oh sure, nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant. No point in researching those
>>3162
>nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant
Name an actual one functioning. The theory sounds great but its implementation is science fiction.
>nuclear fusion reactors are totally irrelevant
Name an actual one functioning. The theory sounds great but its implementation is science fiction.
>>3167
>It's already generated plasma fields.
I'm not arguing that as it can be done in a home lab.
What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city. I mean its characteristics to be economically viable and not a simple project for burning money.
Allow me to clarify; all these "marvelous" devices are propped as the new tech, the vanguard, the future, however the KEY for all of them to be practical is the power relation input/output. Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output. Can that be possible? As the current technology is developed, I very much doubt it.
>It's already generated plasma fields.
I'm not arguing that as it can be done in a home lab.
What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city. I mean its characteristics to be economically viable and not a simple project for burning money.
Allow me to clarify; all these "marvelous" devices are propped as the new tech, the vanguard, the future, however the KEY for all of them to be practical is the power relation input/output. Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output. Can that be possible? As the current technology is developed, I very much doubt it.
>>3168
>What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city.
Just last year it created a net positive yield, which is a huge deal because it means that given some time to optimize it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
Which is why researching the science behind it is important.
>What I'm arguing is its capability to be used a mass energy supply for a city.
Just last year it created a net positive yield, which is a huge deal because it means that given some time to optimize it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
Which is why researching the science behind it is important.
>>3168
Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology, I fail to see how a city can't be.
Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology, I fail to see how a city can't be.
>>3170
>Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology
That is totally different tech. Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam, which spins a turbine, which spins a electric generator. No much science is involved in that.
>>3168
>because it means that given some time to optimize
Okay, you rest on faith. I'm don't want to be a contrarian, but to my knowledge, the fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
>Seeing as submarines and aircraft carriers run entirely on nuclear technology
That is totally different tech. Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam, which spins a turbine, which spins a electric generator. No much science is involved in that.
>>3168
>because it means that given some time to optimize
Okay, you rest on faith. I'm don't want to be a contrarian, but to my knowledge, the fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
>>3168
>Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output.
It's like a bastardized chemical exothermic reaction.
Getting the two components to bond ejects a high energy neutron (proton and election bonded tightly), the conditions is tons of heat, movement and those two isotopes.
>>3171
>Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam,
One of the fusion reactors shunts the hot high energy neutron to coolent aka basically water and you know what would happen next.
Other types attempt other things.
>Then the input of power/energy MUST be lower than the output.
It's like a bastardized chemical exothermic reaction.
Getting the two components to bond ejects a high energy neutron (proton and election bonded tightly), the conditions is tons of heat, movement and those two isotopes.
>>3171
>Current nuclear energy is so simple as to heat a boiler to generate steam,
One of the fusion reactors shunts the hot high energy neutron to coolent aka basically water and you know what would happen next.
Other types attempt other things.
>>3169
>it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
To give you a taste of the holy grail those scientists and the oligarchs funding them are after:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
>it could generate enormous amounts of energy with no waste and barely any fuel.
To give you a taste of the holy grail those scientists and the oligarchs funding them are after:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Anonymous
No.3176
>>3171
>fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
That's only one generation.
>fusion technology is at least 50 years away for commercial deployment.
That's only one generation.
>>3175
>lots of other stuff
Yeah, isotope galore ready to be chemically reprocessed for mainly nuclear medicine.
>lots of other stuff
Yeah, isotope galore ready to be chemically reprocessed for mainly nuclear medicine.
>>3177
Also technology adapting to an indulgent surplus of available energy. Electric water desalination could make agriculture easier. Electric mills could synthesize steel and other polymers for cheap. Much faster internet, etc.
Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Also technology adapting to an indulgent surplus of available energy. Electric water desalination could make agriculture easier. Electric mills could synthesize steel and other polymers for cheap. Much faster internet, etc.
Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
>>3178
>Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Sorry anon but I believe you are drunk in jewish lies,
Technologies are NOT in humanity hands, but jewish hands. Do you really believe jews will make available such benefits for a negligible price as you fantasize it? Really?
>Imagine life when electricity costs for most mundane things becomes negligible.
Sorry anon but I believe you are drunk in jewish lies,
Technologies are NOT in humanity hands, but jewish hands. Do you really believe jews will make available such benefits for a negligible price as you fantasize it? Really?
>>3179
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
I believe they'll do what's profitable. There is a lot of money to be made in this tech.
Jews already own all of the oil rigs and mineral mines and still sell them for energy. If nuclear energy becomes profitable they'll use it too.
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
I believe they'll do what's profitable. There is a lot of money to be made in this tech.
Jews already own all of the oil rigs and mineral mines and still sell them for energy. If nuclear energy becomes profitable they'll use it too.
Anonymous
No.3182
>>3180
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
Perhaps, but only to the point of deploying it as a contracted goyim. To be an employee doesn't give the right to own the (((company)))'s tools.
>implying I'm not involved in the implementation of this infrastructure
Perhaps, but only to the point of deploying it as a contracted goyim. To be an employee doesn't give the right to own the (((company)))'s tools.
>>3181
>Solution: remove Jews.
At this point a fantasy. There are millions on the jew's payroll and most of them are more than willing to kill for a steady flow of shekels.
>Solution: remove Jews.
At this point a fantasy. There are millions on the jew's payroll and most of them are more than willing to kill for a steady flow of shekels.
>>3183
What a cowardly cop-out. Just surrendering to the Jews like a cuck because the battle is up hill.
What a cowardly cop-out. Just surrendering to the Jews like a cuck because the battle is up hill.
Anonymous
No.3191
>>3190
It is what it is. Make an assessment and act according to it. Remember, your own neighbors will be the first to point at you.
It is what it is. Make an assessment and act according to it. Remember, your own neighbors will be the first to point at you.
>>3192
Whatever you say faggot.
I'm the meantime, I'll be doing my job as usual. Maybe some corporate kikes benefit from it, but that won't stop me from pursuit of artifice.
Whatever you say faggot.
I'm the meantime, I'll be doing my job as usual. Maybe some corporate kikes benefit from it, but that won't stop me from pursuit of artifice.
>>3171
Spinning turbines is how you make power moron. All power technology is based on that. Burn coal and it heats water, spins turbine. Windmill directly turns a turbine. Water dams pour water through a turbine. Nuclear power is heating water and turns a turbine. The fuck do you mean it is different?
Spinning turbines is how you make power moron. All power technology is based on that. Burn coal and it heats water, spins turbine. Windmill directly turns a turbine. Water dams pour water through a turbine. Nuclear power is heating water and turns a turbine. The fuck do you mean it is different?
>>3195
>The fuck do you mean it is different?
>illiterate in tech drops his oppinion
Fusion vs Fission ring a bell?
Read the thread again, nigger.
>The fuck do you mean it is different?
>illiterate in tech drops his oppinion
Fusion vs Fission ring a bell?
Read the thread again, nigger.
Anonymous
No.3197
>>3196
Nuclear Fusion still produces heat that can fuel a turbine; the mechanics behind the generator is still just boiling water.
Nuclear Fusion still produces heat that can fuel a turbine; the mechanics behind the generator is still just boiling water.
>>3196
How about you read my post again, double nigger? I said they are the same through turbine electrical generation. You respond with one splits atoms and one combines. Fucking hell you are hopelessly stupid. If a fission reactor can power a sub or aircraft carrier, a fusion one can too, and same goes for a city. Power is power. You get power for one device, it can scale to multiple across a power grid. That is how we have coal that powered a train now powering cities, retard.
How about you read my post again, double nigger? I said they are the same through turbine electrical generation. You respond with one splits atoms and one combines. Fucking hell you are hopelessly stupid. If a fission reactor can power a sub or aircraft carrier, a fusion one can too, and same goes for a city. Power is power. You get power for one device, it can scale to multiple across a power grid. That is how we have coal that powered a train now powering cities, retard.
Anonymous
No.3200
>>3199
Scale is normally a problem, but with the power available with nuclear technology, scale isn't really the issue. Cost is. Coal was hard to scale from operating a single engine to operating enough turbines to make sure the power doesn't drop over thousands of homes. Nuclear is far more reliable at scale, but you need all of this tech to make it work. Furthermore, there are better materials that would generate hundreds of times more energy than current material, but because the tech for what we have is already made, no one wants to upgrade and relearn the process.
Scale is normally a problem, but with the power available with nuclear technology, scale isn't really the issue. Cost is. Coal was hard to scale from operating a single engine to operating enough turbines to make sure the power doesn't drop over thousands of homes. Nuclear is far more reliable at scale, but you need all of this tech to make it work. Furthermore, there are better materials that would generate hundreds of times more energy than current material, but because the tech for what we have is already made, no one wants to upgrade and relearn the process.
Anonymous
No.3202
Anonymous
No.3205
1704664971.mp4 (2.6 MB, Resolution:640x366 Length:00:00:37, html5mediaembed-8o7Dl837Bscl-1.mp4) [play once] [loop]
Anonymous
No.3210
1705157734.mp4 (3.3 MB, Resolution:618x1100 Length:00:00:25, Wideningcandiedcrafty_00a22d_11234877.mp4) [play once] [loop]
Anonymous
No.3224
Anonymous
No.3250
A study in Australia found out bad parenting means children don't develop language as well.
Same study blames technology for bad parenting.
Because the parents aren't speaking to children and aren't using new adult words the child gets handicapped and speaks much less than those of a similar age.
This is how another pillar the collapse occurrs, shear neglect as the tried and true means of knowledge transfer crumbles even more.
Setting a kid down infront of a tablet isn't enough.
Because of the exhausting of time (labor, distractions, ect.) deliberately choosing to have quality time is increasingly important and difficult.
I wonder what happens when massive waves of unsocialized people do their thing.
Same study blames technology for bad parenting.
Because the parents aren't speaking to children and aren't using new adult words the child gets handicapped and speaks much less than those of a similar age.
This is how another pillar the collapse occurrs, shear neglect as the tried and true means of knowledge transfer crumbles even more.
Setting a kid down infront of a tablet isn't enough.
Because of the exhausting of time (labor, distractions, ect.) deliberately choosing to have quality time is increasingly important and difficult.
I wonder what happens when massive waves of unsocialized people do their thing.
He says our HP printer when he really means their HP printer.
Anonymous
No.3267
>>3264
HP sucks, new DYMO thermal printers suck now also because they added the same DRM stuff printers use, if you don't use DYMO brand labels it won't print
HP sucks, new DYMO thermal printers suck now also because they added the same DRM stuff printers use, if you don't use DYMO brand labels it won't print
Anonymous
No.3550
I'm swinging by to try to learn some more about some e-ink e-readers.
I hear that on a hardware level, the amazon kindle ones are pretty great, but that they trap you in an ecosystem that restricts you while force-feeding you advertisement and mandating that you sign up and make accounts.
I just want a way to read epubs comfortably and be able to see the cover art and the chapter art of stories that have them. There's a backlog of stuff from the books threads, fimfiction, and tons of greentexts that I want to read, but I keep skipping around on the computer and would like to sit on a bench in a park or go for a walk innawoods and get some quality time with some words.
I kinda understand how to use Calibre, but only occasionally use it to open an epub file. I do not have an organized and managed library.
I hear that on a hardware level, the amazon kindle ones are pretty great, but that they trap you in an ecosystem that restricts you while force-feeding you advertisement and mandating that you sign up and make accounts.
I just want a way to read epubs comfortably and be able to see the cover art and the chapter art of stories that have them. There's a backlog of stuff from the books threads, fimfiction, and tons of greentexts that I want to read, but I keep skipping around on the computer and would like to sit on a bench in a park or go for a walk innawoods and get some quality time with some words.
I kinda understand how to use Calibre, but only occasionally use it to open an epub file. I do not have an organized and managed library.
532 replies and 258 files omitted.
[View All] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-200] [201-300] [301-400] [401-500] [501-600] [601-632] [Next]
632 replies | 280 files | 87 UUIDs | Page 5
[Add to Thread Watcher]