Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P
Posts
1
Comments
81
Joined
5 mo. ago

  • You said "thousands of tons"

    Thousands of tons on a single vessel. The reason we have such huge container ships is that while the surface area and subsequent water resistance gets squared, the volume growth is cubic.

    This means the larger the vessel, the more energy efficient it is at delivering anything from point A to point B. This is exactly how shipping has become the most efficient way to deliver goods.

    If you want to deliver the same amount of cargo by many smaller ships, you'll need way, waaaaaay more energy to do so. This is incredibly inefficient, and ships of the past were of that scale exclusively due to structural limitations. Hence, shipping costs were incredibly high, leading to only the most expensive items being transported.

    Now, rowboats cannot technically be wide, because otherwise you won't be able to seat enough rowers to drive the ship. And they cannot technically be too long, or else, being narrow, they will be turned over or broken in a storm. So, they are forced to be small.

    Oil

    I answered you right there - you can use electricity generated through renewables instead of heavy human labor. Sodium ion batteries for smaller missions (like ports in Asia), green hydrogen for longer hauls (like China-US), and nuclear for particularly long hauls through complicated areas (like the Northern Sea Route).

    Strawman argument

    I re-read your comment again. You claim we're all wage slaves anyway and it's better to row a cargo ship until people in power decide to rather throw us into war. You also mentioned that it's either rowboats or ecological collapse. Did I get it right, or did you mean something else entirely?

    What's your basis for what you're saying?

    Studies on the issues of modern agriculture and recent developments in renewable energy tech. We do have safe ways to grow food, indeed, but they require much higher level of investment and do not pay off very well, while renewables are already cheaper than their traditional counterparts, naturally leading to massive rollout. We just need to keep going with this.

    You think sailing is a 9-to-5?

    Obviously not as in "9 hours a day, 5 day a week job". It's more of a cultural reference to the current work time conditions. If there are too many workers and too little job, maybe the best course of action is reducing work time and redistributing gains made through automation?

    This way people won't need to do useless jobs like rowing a boat in the era of electric propulsion, and will have more time for themselves.

    Bad faith

    By no means. I was genuinely engaged with the conversation, but it just so happens that the point of your argument completely misses me. There are obviously better ways to do what you propose, and I fail to see the merits of going back to rowing as means of ship propulsion.

    Rowboats cannot be big, hence they fail to reap physical benefits that come with larger ship sizes, which alone makes them so incredibly inefficient; they require intense manual labor and overblown crew, raising costs and reducing useful load, and they offer a very grim picture of the future full of pointless jobs instead of worker liberation.

    So...why rowing, of all things?

  • I'm absolutely positive they've done exactly that.

    Never on a historical scale we moved so much cargo. Long-range ships were primarily used to move something extremely valuable, such as spices and gold - and now we have ships hauling everything because it's so much more efficient than anything else.

    Our owners have never been so far from needing more of us

    And so the solution is, instead of reducing work week and expanding social programs, to crank people up in dangerous conditions and make them do one of the hardest and most avoidable jobs known to humanity?

    I didn't say "use bad methods to grow food and fuel the crew with that."

    Fair, but it follows. Nowadays, in the age of cheap solar and new, eco-friendly power storage options, it is much, much easier and cheaper to add an electric engine than to maintain a fleet of wage-slaves fed by agricultural surplus.

    Your kind of "solution" is both economically inefficient and inhumane, and doesn't seem to get out of the box of "9-to-5 to everyone by all means". So, don't rush to accuse me of shortsightedness.

  • I'm pretty sure rowboats are absolutely not viable for moving thousands of tons of cargo. Also, they existed because there was a huge supply of slave labor.

    That's not to mention the larger crew doing hard manual labor would require much more food, which is a sort of fuel in itself, one that is not commonly produced in an environmentally sustainable way.

    Electric motor seems to be the superior option all-round (except for energy density in storage, where diesel still reigns supreme by a large margin)

  • Nice, though I wonder about reliability of this thing, as well as capital costs. In any case, an auxiliary motor is a must, and good thing they have that too.

  • Wild that some of the instruments are so historically new that we have the videos of creators showcasing them

  • As one of like the 100 people who knew of theremin, I'm impressed!

  • I'd say a noncommercial, maybe UN-backed index that is widely recognized would help.

    Also, journal format is extremely outdated. We need to reform the way we store scientific data, and create an international standard.

  • For all I know, Nostr is a kind of social network with distributed identity.

    The problem with publishing elsewhere is not that it's hard or can't give you reach.

    It's the scientific metrics dictating your readership, job prospects and essentially your entire scientific career. Not only your ratings are affected, but also ones of your institution, so you have to play by the rules to have a job.

    For your publication to count, it needs to be published in journals listed in certain international indexes such as Scopus and Web of Science. These indexes are, in turn, corporate-owned (by Elsevier and Clarivate, respectively) and the respective boards are free to reject (and certainly will reject) your independent publishing source.

  • As a scientist, we desperately need it. Corporate ownership of publishing platforms is driving science down extremely badly, while exploiting all parties besides themselves.

    Many folks at our institution, including myself, simply cannot afford to publish high-rank open-access articles, and with paid articles, our reach will be minimized, especially now that Sci-Hub does not automatically scrape articles after 2021.

    The latter also strikes the other way, as many recent articles are simply unavailable if your institution is not shilling millions to subscribe to all possible publishers. So often a seemingly great article addressing exactly the specific part required is behind a paywall by the unavailable publisher.

    Finally, plenty of older articles are lost to time and cannot be found because the hosting platforms have gone down and pirates didn't step in timely.

    All in all, fuck publishers and let's go fix that shit ASAP. Science is absolutely destroyed by greed nowadays.

  • Terminal is the only thing that is pretty much universal in all distributions. It is too essential to lose relevance. Besides, even when giving advice to new users, you can either list settings for each specific DE and possibly distribution, or you can just give a terminal command.

  • Said software must not be resource-intensive, or else you'll have to do GPU passthrough, which not only adds a heap of complexity, but also requires a dedicated GPU.

    Also, I think it's much easier to teach dual boot (just install Linux, most installers will do the rest automagically) than proper VM setups.

    Still, for experienced users, Windows VM is a brilliant option.

  • Dual boot should be default suggestion for everyone trying Linux out. No pressure, just try it.

  • There will always be newbie-oriented distros as well as ones for experienced/professional users. It's alright if the former will go towards simplification, as long as we have plenty more keeping the tinkering spirit.

    Besides, each and every distro has a powerful tool that can help you do everything: the terminal. No one limits you there, and unlike in Windows, terminal is heavily and commonly used.

  • I know how it works, my problem is that server software is meant to run constantly in the background, and needs to be managed in a specific way, and I specifically don't want this to happen.

    I know I can put self-hosted server behind a VPN, but it's an entirely different use case.

  • The rise of self-hosted option comes from the distrust of the Big Tech and the desire to avoid a single point of failure.

    Sure, commercial solutions are better hardened, but they are also more likely to be attacked in the first place. And nothing is there to protect you from the prying eyes of those who host it for you, which is a valid threat as well.

    Still, one thing better, privacy-wise, than having your own server is to not rely on any servers to begin with.

  • Aside from all controversy around snaps and stuff, which newbies don't have to get into, there's GNOME coming as default.

    Desktop environments essentially define how the new user treats the system and Linux as a whole. And I believe GNOME is a terrible starting point, at least for those coming from Windows.

    It follows entirely different logic, is very different visually, and overall, adds a lot of extra confusion.

    IMO, for a smooth transition, you'd rather offer something based on KDE or at least Cinnamon. Kubuntu will do fine, but it has to be mentioned specifically. Mint will be nice. And then as they explore, they'll find what fits them best.

  • Quite some people do, so it's great such options exist.

    My own gripe is with self-hosted apps that don't need a server to begin with.

    Why do I have to run a server to manage my bookmarks? Write down recipes? Control available stock? Manage finances?

    All that can be done via local-first apps that may then have some backup functionality (or have files in one place so I could sync them). Adding a server layer only adds complexity and forces me to keep it on or toggle every time, affecting performance and battery life.

  • For what in partricular?

  • Legen - dary!

  • True, though I don't expect for many people to do complicated debugs on the go.

    FSF audience is special, though :D