

I have come up with the idea to classify people’s position on work. Who wants to work and thinks that work is a good thing for humans, is politically right, and who doesn’t want to work is politically left. This is more natural than the definition involving the french revolution because for one, it refers to more natural concepts (work instead of Ancien Régime) and also because the liver organ (who does lots of work - metabolism) is on the right-hand side of the human body.
You can’t say bad things about the government in China.
This might sound like an absurd restriction of free speech, but consider that it’s also considered highly illegal in germany to ask for the abolishment of democracy. Many far-right groups do this, and the Verfassungsschutz (basically a kind of special police force) keeps a close eye on them because of that, calls them “verfassungsgefährdend” (going against the constitution). Monarchies like england had similar laws around 1900, where you could say everything except talk badly about the monarchy in power. That was known as the “english liberalism” because in many other countries, you could say even less. China does the same today, just that instead of the german constitution or the english monarchy it’s the Communist Party.

to phase them out any day now
tbf lots of progress has already been made:

And i’m definitely a fan of not every small country having them. imagine how much harm they could do.
classical elements refers to mechanical properties (solid, liquid, gaseous), it does not refer to chemical elements.


“everyone i don’t agree with is a bot”


slightly more equal
all animals are equal but some are more equal than others (/s)


with the revenues to be used to fight the impact of climate change and help Switzerland meet its ambitions to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Maybe the people wanted to have actual social services provided to them instead of climate action.


deleted by creator


building a pipe all the way to space would mean the pipe would have to sustain its own weight, which is the same problem as a space elevator. that doesn’t work either because there’s no material on earth strong enough to support its own weight over that distance.


gas generators based on internal combustion
they heat air, afaik. hot gas expands -> mechanical movement moves magnets -> electromagnetism -> electric power.


fun fact: chloroplasts generate an electric potential across the cell membrane during photosynthesis. essentially, they have membrane proteins in their chloroplast membranes that push electrons from one side of the membrane to the other side whenever a photon hits the protein. It’s essentially a natural photovoltaic cell.
That electric potential is then used to create ATP in nature, while we just directly extract the electrical power through cables.


you forgot the electrochemical battery


that’s why IMHO it’s more important to classify the core coupling mechanism (e.g. photoelectric effect, electromagnetic effect) instead of classifying the total energy in -> energy out types.


and we found it very early on
just FYI, the electrochemical battery was invented in 1800, while electromechanical generator was invented in around 1866.


There’s only 3 major ways to transform different forms of energy into electricity, which are:
there’s a whole lot more, such as thermoelectric generator and piezoelectricity but these are the three significant ones.
note that i distinguish these categories by their core essence, such as whether they’re using changes in magnetic flux (like a mechanical generator) or transferring 1 photon on each electron (like solar panels), instead of looking at what source type of energy they transform.
because there’s many ways to transform e.g. light energy into electricity. you could also heat water with the sunlight and then drive a steam engine with it. but that’s not what i care about. i care about the fundamental connection between different types of energy, and how they can be directly transformed to one another.


“Be a little bit reasonable and understand that sometimes some people can’t live your puritanical, cultish indulgence of either always walking or biking,” she said, arguing Furnas’ plans will hurt seniors and people with reduced mobility.
but that is 100% true. biking for a senior with 60+ years old can be life threatening. If they fall (and they do because they have a reduced sense of balance), they go to hospital, and laying in bed for 2 weeks leads to severe muscle dystrophy which often can hardly be restored.


That New York Post article is a hate-filled piece of garbage.

For example, it hates against these “polarizing rat-riddled street dining shacks” (quote is from the article).
I can guarantee you, i live in Vienna, we have these things all over the place. There’s at least 5 of them on my way from where i live to university. There’s never been any problems with them. In fact, they’re delicious and typically much cheaper than sit-in restaurants. That’s probably because they don’t have to pay for expensive rooms. That makes the food much cheaper, it’s typically around 5€ for a kebab (basically a sandwich) compared to 12€ for anything you get at a sit-in restaurant. I have gone to these street dining shacks every day for years and never had problems.
insert femboys can be exchanged for goods and services meme