• 0 Posts
  • 1.41K Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 22nd, 2023

help-circle

  • IMO as long as states like Iran aren’t getting access to nuclear bombs, it’s all kinda fair game at the end of the day. It puts everyone on the same level playing field.

    It’d be like going to war against a nation with guns, using swords. You’re not going to win, simple as that.

    The problem naturally, is that unstable nation states are a unique threat to the global population. As long as they don’t have access to nuclear bombs, generally, things should only get more geopolitically stable because the cost of humanity suffering would otherwise outweigh every possible benefit (primarily economic collapse and hardship)

    quick edit: most people would argue against this because nukes are big and scary. Most things are, i’m an objective realist and a political nihilist so things like “nukes are big and scary” isn’t really a significant consideration for me at the end of the day. And besides, the government could just black van me if they really wanted to. It’s not like i’m a significant target.

    also, there are arguments to be made surrounding this for fission based nuclear energy, which is kind of nice.











  • the size doesnt matter for aerodynamics, generally, but it matters for physics.

    Drag is a square or cube scaling, i forget which, so at higher speeds it increases disproportionately.

    A larger object has more air to move out of the way, which means more drag. It’s more capable of moving that air with it’s increased volume. But then you also start running into volume to surface area scaling issues. Elephants are really slow for a reason, and it’s the same reason small animals are comparatively fast.









  • if the implied point of this post is to demonstrate that hurricanes have gotten worse over time due to climate change, yes this is objectively wrong, even if the underlying data is true.

    Just because you have the correct solution, doesn’t mean you calculated it correctly.

    To give an example here, let’s say i have a set of 99 numbers, 1-99 and lets say i add one more number, 100, but oops i accidentally add two more zeroes so now it’s actually 10,000

    If i take an average of the extremes (not perfectly analogous here but i’m demonstrating a simple point) of 1, and 10,000 then the average is going to be 5,000 roughly. However most of those data points are going to live within 1-99 so this is an extremely incorrect “demonstration” of the effect here.

    The primary problem here being that we don’t really know what the direct effects of climate change are going to be, just that we know what it will probably do, and if this is the first significant event of this category, we’re about to find out why fat fingering the 0 twice is going to be really unfortunate.

    Now if the point is that “hurricane bigger than other hurricane lol” sure, but that’s a stupid point to make. Again my original example of joplin vs el reno tornados. It’s entirely arbitrary for no reason. It’d be like if i stopped you on the side of the road, picked up two rocks, and went “these sure are rocks aren’t they?”