If you live in the right neighborhood where they installed fiber lines for residential connection already. Most I get is coax internet fwiw although fiber is available in certain parts. I asked my telecom about fiber they said it would cost like a couple thousand running the line to me.
this also always gets forgotten when high speed rail comes up. Air travel makes a LOT of sense for the way the US population is distributed. Rail makes more sense when you want to have stops along the way, but in the US, there's a lot of nothing between distantly located cities.
Even in places where it makes all the sense in the world, we don't have quality rail. It's more expensive and slower to take the train than to drive from Boston to NYC, and that's a perfect length of trip for rail. The whole North East Corridor seems to run ancient track, and the "High Speed" Acela service doesn't even count as such in locales with modern HS services.
If it was just the matter of replacing track in the existing right-of-way they would have done that. Unfortunately, much of the NEC right-of-way between NY and Boston -- particularly in Connecticut -- is too curvy. Bulldozing a new, straighter right of way across CT is not politicaly feasible -- it would most likely require massive amounts of property seizure by eminent domain that nobody has the stomach for. If there were real breakthroughs in low cost tunnel boring machines there might be a way but it's not going to happen at or above ground.
The old rich folks in CT who don't want the NEC alignment don't care if it's in a tunnel (folks still came out to oppose the new alignment near Old Lyme even when the proposal changed to allow for a tunnel so they didn't have to see or hear the thing).
If there was true HS service on the NEC between Boston and NYC you'd easily get a far larger share of the BOS-NYC pax trips made. Estimates are about 15MM trips/yr with rail being about a third of that. Is getting an extra 5 million car trips off the road worth inconveniencing some of the most affluent communities in the US?
BOS NYC, driven is about 2 micromorts, the drive is about 140kg CO2. So, napkin math, if half the people traveling by car and plane switched to train, you save 5 lives per year and 500,000 tons of CO2 emission. That's a (shittily calculated, admittedly) estimate of the cost of inaction.
Specific corridors in the US are quite populous and quite ready for modern infrastructure. We just aren't in the mood to pay anything for it, unless it's more highway lane-miles.
The east coast and west coast states between them, however, have over half of the US's population and are mostly relatively dense. Transcontinental passenger service might be a little pointless, but clearly there is room for good-quality high speed lines. SF to Seattle, say, would be doable non-stop in about four hours on top-quality conventional (ie ~320km/h) rail. Less with high-speed maglev and other exotics, but now that China seems to have largely lost interest, I'm not sure if anyone is seriously pursuing those.
One attempt to do that (in CA) picked a not-great corridor, and hasn't done much in a decade. It's really turned people off it, even if there are much better places to try.
Power draw probably? Looking at the specs, StarLink draws 75-100W on average. PoE++ is rated up to 71.3W. The StarLink Mini specs say 25W-40W, so I guess it could use PoE++.
I more or less quit alcohol when cannabis was legalized in Canada.
It’s a better recreational drug by pretty much every metric.
It only takes a few tens of milligrams of THC to get the desired effect vs 50+ grams of ethanol in an evening (that gets metabolized into carcinogenic acetaldehyde).
While we don’t fully know the safety profile of cannabis it’s obviously far safer than booze, especially when consumed with a dry herb vaporizer.
No hangover. I can wake up at 6am 7 days a week and work out.
A small amount allows me to instantly shed all work related stress at the end of a busy day/week and get in touch with my body, a process that without cannabis usually takes a few hours.
It makes sex better and boosts libido, unlike alcohol which can easily ruin a sexy evening if you have too much.
I can grow my own, providing a fun hobby.
It doesn’t cause any gastrointestinal issues, but in fact calms your gut. The opposite of alcohol.
It’s just better (for me) in every possible way. It enhances my life greatly.
You sound like me. I took the same path including the dry herb approach. It eliminates the vast majority of the health downside, and meanwhile your new addiction has some genuinely productive side effects if you find the right strand etc. Compared to alcohol which slowly kills you and causes horrible decision making.
I run out of productive energy around 2-3pm and the herb brings me right back! It virtually doubled my productive hour range. Its better not to take anything but as far as baby steps go this switch was a massive win.
Seems more likely the old mines in the area are causing the contamination with BMAA and that it is being consumed in shellfish. BMAA contamination is often associated with old flooded mine shafts, and there are several in the area where these people are getting sick, most of them upstream.
Not sure why you're assuming this has anything to do with climate change. What could be the link there?
I do wish that "climate change" was not lumped into every environmental concern. For example, if painting one of the blades black on a windmill means the birds don't fly into it and die, then let's do it! Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem.
> Connecting it to a larger climate battle in order to win that war ("See wind power doesn't have that downside anymore, so more wind power to fight climate change") only gets in the way of solving the immediate problem.
Personally I feel that splitting up interests that are inherently to do with climate change and ecology into individual issues is detrimental. However, you're probably right that capitalism is inefficient and utterly ineffective at large scale projects, and that splitting everything into isolated issues that cannot be seen to lead to anything bigger is a more "efficient" way to solve the general problem under capitalism, sure.
Mines contamination has no relation at all with climate change. Birds death due to impact with windmills have nothing to do with climate change.
It's lumping those things up that is artificial. And if you add noise to your goal, don't be surprised when people start to question if your actions actually lead to your stated goals or if you have a hidden agenda... because you do have a hidden agenda. It's hidden because of bad communication, but people can't tell the difference.
The guy you're talking to views the world through a lens of 'capitalism vs [utopian vision]', capitalism being everything wrong with status-quo economics. Don't waste your time suggesting practicalities.
I'd point out that the mechanism you're proposing is itself an anthropogenic change in the environment. We've altered more than just the atmosphere of this planet. Their overall point, "we've effed this planet, and I believe that's caused this specific problem," would still hold, whether or not they were sufficiently precise with their language.
The ways we've "effed" the planet are so numerous and interconnected that it makes sense, at least to me, to lump them together into an umbrella term everyone is familiar with. There is no clean separation between our mining practices and what has happened to the water and what has happened to the atmosphere - they are intimately related.
The HPV vaccine is given to boys and girls for free in Australia, and they’re on their way to eradicating cervical and other cancers associated with HPV. Vaccines are compulsory to receive child care and family tax benefits.
The HPV vaccine is available for free to all Americans with medical insurance regulated under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). That's the vast majority.
Y'know, Obamacare mandated coverage of alcoholism and drug addiction in all plans: That is, no one can opt out of paying for other people's problems even when they are caused by a completely optional activity.
I am all for a reforming health care markets and getting third party payers out of the system. Until then ...
That is quite wise and a necessary and basic consideration for a society to get to public healthcare. It will always cost you if you introduce it, but you eliminate severe financial risks in case it hits you. If that is your own doing or not is of secondary importance.
Ahh yes…truly spoken like someone who has never dealt with obesity and weight issues.
For what it’s worth folks, it’s not cheap, it’s not easy, but it is about choice and it will be a battle of will every day of someone’s life. Pretty sure I can speak from experience here— I have spent the last four years taking off 170lbs through diet and exercise.
You don't know what I am. Any fat person who has lost weight will tell you it was simple once they overcome putting the fork down and got used to hunger pains until their stomach gets small enough.
But sure, let's just inject ourselves with experimental drugs instead of working out because it's easier. (it's not, you will die anyway)
Food is cheap, that's the problem, even healthy food is cheap, not the whole food shit, but the boring stuff.
Cook your own food, eat only once or twice until your stomach is small, you get used to it.
Getting a shot is not going to help any fat fuck fight covid.
I am a fat person who has lost weight. Lots and lots of weight—170lbs over 4 years. 460+ to currently 290. So let’s just say I know for a fact that the phrase: “any fat person will tell you it was simple” is complete BS. This fat person would never ever say that. So your comment is false just by my example. I know quite a few people with similar stories to my own. I know for a fact they wouldn’t make that comment either, simply because when folks who have lost large amounts talk about their weight loss journey, we talk specifically about how difficult it is.
But you are right, I don’t know what you are, but I can deduce a few things from your comments with enough certainty that given the opportunity to bet on it, I would. I am certain that you were never obese and never lost a significant amount of weight because you have zero perspective on how easy or hard it is just from the statement you made. Also, the term “fat fuck” you used also gives you away. You see, every fat person I know who has lost significant weight doesn’t make comments like that, because it’s pretty damned offensive. Like nearly n-word offensive to overweight people. See, we tend to be hyper sympathetic to people struggling to lose weight…because we know how truly hard it is—-both being obese and losing weight too.
Additionally, I suspect that you are probably pretty young (also because of the “fat fuck” comment). I suspect likely a teenager and certainly young enough that someone else buys and prepares the food you eat, probably a parent. No one who buys food 2021 would characterize healthy food as “cheap”. It ain’t.
Thank you for your opinion and advice, and I hope should you ever gain weight and need to lose it, I hope it works for you as easily as you claim it to me.
I always thought that Bitcoin is an interesting and novel technology, and risky speculative asset.
I’ve also always thought that most of the crypto ecosystem is fraudulent schemes designed to separate people from their dollars, and that this unforgiving nature and lack of institutional and state control will likely preclude mass adoption as an actual currency.
So no, not much has changed, though the second point has gotten much, much worse.
This is spot on with my belief. Cool tech, but for the most part, all I see Crypto being used for is scams. Meme coins, pump and dump, token offerings only to cash out.
I haven't seen anything that actually makes Crypto worth the mining.
Agreed. The only clearly justified use cases I’ve seen are illegal or unsanctioned activity.
The only things Bitcoin and Monero really excel at is avoiding sanctions, buying drugs on the dark web, ransomware, and as an alternative if your entire country goes to shit (e.g Venezuela).
I think for this reason crypto will always be around in some form, but I doubt it will ever be mainstream.
Central Bank Issued crypto currencies will almost certainly be a thing though.
If someone were to gain some kind of advantage that could prevent a retaliatory nuclear strike, then I could see it. Otherwise I highly doubt it. World War 2 offensives were made possible by the advances in mechanized and aerial warfare.
Interestingly enough the US has been retrofitting their nuclear arsenal with better targeting systems, making it much more effective. The Russians don't like this, which is why you hear talk of hypersonic missiles, autonomous submersibles carrying nuclear warheads, etc.
Perhaps some kind of neutron-based weapon could be developed to counteract large numbers of incoming ICBMs in the upper atmosphere, or to destroy an enemy nuclear arsenal in place. There we concepts like this, and the US even built some for defense against ICBMs (The W66 warhead).
