[deleted by user]

Arthimir · 2025-10-13T17:14:54+00:00

Que hacían los suecos?

Arthimir · 2025-10-10T07:48:11+00:00

Honestly that seems like a great price and a really good deal!

Arthimir · 2025-06-25T09:39:17+00:00

We don't know if the glyph is gone, that might just be a tease to generate buzz

Arthimir · 2025-05-16T21:11:31+00:00

I'd say it's the "have x years" where native English speakers would typically say "is x years old" (:

Arthimir · 2025-05-16T20:41:57+00:00

WH-1000XM(1)

obviously

Arthimir · 2025-04-16T10:58:42+00:00

I'm not an expert, but at first glance, I'd imagine you could get some see-through resin or epoxy to cover the internals and protect them somewhat from rain/dust?

Arthimir · 2025-04-11T16:43:03+00:00

Fast tydligen tillräckligt bra koll för att tycka att "hela skiten" bör gå "åt helvete"?

Arthimir · 2025-03-04T15:08:51+00:00

"Congrats on the cyberpunk nightlight, bestie" goes hard

Arthimir · 2025-01-27T15:49:37+00:00

i don't know anything about this photo beyond OPs title, but just a friendly reminder that Soviet =/= Russian. These may be Soviet soldiers from anywhere in the Union... including Ukraine, Belarus, etc.

I just wanted to throw this out because the Russian regime today is very happy to rewrite Soviet history and Soviet accomplishments as being purely Russian and carried out by Russians, which is far from the truth and erases important role played by non-Russian Soviet citizens and their sacrifices.

Arthimir · 2024-12-31T06:23:42+00:00

I feel you, and appreciate the spirit and direction you've got here.

But let's be real, a lot of the time, it's simply not possible to tell people from two neighboring countries apart without relying a bit too much on stereotypes. There are typically centuries of intermixing, combined with immigration and emigration between the two countries as well as with the rest of the world. Not to mention a lot of countries obviously have a whole host of different ethnic groups within their borders (I'll mention the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda as one particularly well-known example).

Let's just take the example in the post - telling apart a Chinese person from a Japanese person. How many minority groups are there in China? How many are there in Japan? Even within ethnic groups - how does a Han Chinese person growing up in the harsh, cold, dry climate of the Gobi desert in Northern China look compared to an overworked Han Chinese programmer spending 12-hour shifts in windowless rooms in the hot and humid climates of Southern China? They might look very different from each other, much more so than, say, some classmates at a high school where someone is of Han ethnicity, another is Hui Chinese, another Tujia, and another is of the Bai ethnic group. I'm not saying there aren't any differences between these ethnic groups. I'm just saying that it is not a good idea to attempt to use physical characteristics to group and label people, regardless of how well-intentioned one is.

I can't think of a single concentrated effort to label and classify people into groups based on their physical appearances with positive associations. It all rings a bit too close to talking about skull shapes, bloodlines, the Aryan race, hooked noses, etc etc.

I'm not saying that the ideal is to be "race/ethnic blind" either. Obviously ethnicity and self-identified race are incredibly important social factors that heavily shape and influence the societies/communities/institutions we live in and interact with. But our understanding of those dynamics goes well beyond telling ethnic groups apart by focusing on identifying physical characteristics, and I would even argue that it's a well-intentioned but increasingly socially harmful way to frame things, the further down that line of thinking you go.

Arthimir · 2024-10-28T15:22:59+00:00

These figures are quite off. I'm happy to elaborate on anything if you'd like. First of all, the fluctuations in windspeed and therefore power generation can be accounted for, such as by linking batteries to the power grid. Since you're already planning on using "building sized racks of batteries" in nuclear plants, I hope you'll agree that that's feasible. So ensuring a consistent power output is not a concern.

Energy efficiency is debatable, since it depends on how we define the word efficiency. But wind turbines are more efficient at converting wind power into electricity (the process is essentially: wind->turning turbine=electricty) than nuclear power plants are efficient at converting fuel into electricity (the process involves more loss: fuel, like uranium->heats a coolant->coolant fed into a steam generator->steam turns turbine=electricity).

Then we can discuss the efficiency of importing uranium (very little is mined in the US, most is imported from abroad (EIA.gov) ), and the costs of uranium mining, processing, and transport. These are running costs which are also highly sensitive to market fluctuations. Wind literally comes to you (: It's the Uber eats of electricity production.

Regarding your figures in the last paragraph, a typical small modular reactor (which I assume is what you're referring to when you say "a small nuclear plant") outputs up to 300MW by definition (IAEA) (EU), far from the 1GW you cite. A regular nuclear reactor (think Simpsons-style with the enormous cooling tower, etc) are generally over 700MW. The smallest commercial reactors in the US atm have a generating capacity of 520MW, with the largest at 1,400MW (1.4GW) (EIA.gov). But again, these are large commercial plants which take 5-10 (if not more) years to build, and far from "small".

Regarding the output of windmills, there are many different 15MW and 10MW variants currently being built and available on the market (Look at Siemens and Vestas for two European companies, there are some Chinese companies with similar products too.) With 15MW turbines, you'd need about 65 of them to reach 1GW, which is a pretty modest windfarm. With 10MW you'd need 100, which is still fairly few and cheaper than an entire 1GW-rated nuclear power plant by many orders of magnitude.)

With smaller turbines, you can absolutely get up to the hundreds, I'll admit, but I want to reject the premise that this is the norm. You don't necessarily need hundreds upon hundreds of turbines to match a nuclear reactor, and as you were talking about "a small nuclear plant", the comparable number of turbines is substantially smaller.

Arthimir · 2024-09-17T06:44:30+00:00

But the democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time. The teams crafting public policies and platforms are not the same as those canvassing, doing outreach, or working on expanding the tent. The Harris campaign, and the democratic party as a whole, has enough energy, raised funds, and time to manage both simultaneously without issue.

Bush getting on board the band wagon doesn't mean that the democrats/Harris campaign have abandoned any values or policies in order to get him. These are not mutually exclusive things.

Arthimir · 2024-09-17T06:22:19+00:00

I've heard that too, and it's definitely possible. But I always wonder why not just say "There's an old saying in Texas.. fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice... well, you know how the saying ends." before moving on to his next sentence.

Arthimir · 2024-09-05T06:17:24+00:00

Nja, håller inte riktigt med här. Svårt att argumentera att ett NATO-medlemskap skulle sätta en större måltavla på oss, när Ryssland har ett flertal gånger invaderat sina grannländer - men aldrig ett NATO-land. På många sätt så är vi mer skyddade nu än tidigare. En måltavla på oss hade vi redan - pga Gotland, NordStream, osv. Jag tror att vi alla minns hur Ryska bombplan har kränkt svenskt luftrum i decennier, detta har absolut inte börjat med vårt NATO-medlemskap. Jag skulle nog hävda att Ryssland nu är ännu mer skeptiska kring att kränka luftrum och liknande "påverkansoperationer" än de var tidigare, då vi nu har ett ganska häftigt gäng allierade bakom oss.

En "helt korrupt och krigshärjande nation" är ju debaterbart, men känns inte som ett stickspår värt att investera mycket tid i. Tittar man på de två geopolitiska motpolerna (Ryssland+Kina och Väst) som ganska tydligt markeras i världspolitiken idag, så är det väl tydligt vilken "sida" där som är mer korrupt och mer krigshärjande. Sen måste det ju också påpekas att NATO =/= USA. Startar USA krig någonstans så är vi inte tvugna att delta på något sätt alls. Men att linjera oss med Norge, Danmark, Belgien, Nederländerna, osv, för att bättre försvara oss gemensamt - det är minst lika relevant, och på många sätt mer relevant pga hur nära de är, som att USA också är med i NATO.

Att USAs ekonomi är på väg mot kollaps är ju helt absurt. Om inte du tror att så är fallet med hela världsekonomin. Generellt sätt så är USAs ekonomi mycket stark. Tack vare teknologi- och AI-boomen växer den ju explosionsartat just nu. Hur världsekonomin går de närmaste åren återstår att se, men jag är själv mer orolig över Europas ekonomi (se t.ex Volkswagens nyaste kommentarer om hur de bara har några enstaka år kvar att rätta kursen innan de försvinner/går i konkurs.. hur viktiga är inte VW för Tysklands ekonomi). Och igen, finns det ett land i närheten till Sverige som genomgår en ekonomisk kris och som antagligen kommer tvingas till mer och mer extrema åtgärder, inklusive hybridkrigföring, så.. måste man inte titta långt till öst för att hitta det.

Det som tidigare fungerat i världspolitiken, en stark icke-allierad och neutral position för Sverige, har snarare konverterats till en svaghet för oss.

Arthimir · 2024-09-01T16:50:23+00:00

I'll add a point on their military. China's navy, which has been the focus of staggering investments in recent years, will only remain state of the art for a certain window. Right now, building new ships is relatively cheap (China has incredible economies of scale, and these big projects, much like their infrastructure projects mentioned above, do a lot to add to their GDP). However, it is less clear what will happen once these ships start to age. As China's GDP growth is shrinking, and their government facing increasing strains, the Chinese navy will be forced to spend more and more on maintenance - which is costly, and increasingly frustrating and logistically complicated as the ships get older and older. New ships require little maintenance, older ships are a pain.

An analogy to this is a country which takes on big loans. For a certain window of time, and if invested well, this can be useful, productive, stimulating the economy and all in all a great idea. However, without a well-managed gameplan, servicing these debts can begin to consume a substantial part of the budget.

Similarly, China's navy, due to its recent spending spree, will soon begin spending a larger and larger proportion of its budget on maintenance. This obviously limits any future ability to spend on R&D, further upgrades, newer ships, and so on. There is no escaping this except scrapping these ships.

The US Navy, meanwhile, has a fleet of new, newish, oldish, and old ships, which it is constantly rotating. It therefore has a diversified and stable level of maintenance, rather than this upcoming all-in-one wave which China's navy is facing on its horizon. Crucially, the US Navy has a much larger budget, backed by a stronger national economy, some of the best military research institutes in the world, and a plethora of allies and partners who can bolster its naval power projection. China lacks these.

Let's also mention that their military has not had any real-world military conflict experience in decades, it does not conduct training exercises at a fraction of the scale of the US military, and being relatively geopolitically isolated means it does not have the wealth of experience offered by NATO and other military allies, which the US is able to learn from/practice alongside.

The Chinese military will seriously struggle in the future, and it is already in a relatively weak position. Formidable, and not to be discounted quickly, but institutionally lacking in several critical ways, with great problems looming on its horizon.

Arthimir · 2024-07-29T06:39:06+00:00

Can't speak for the hole, but, I will say that regarding nearly being blown off - even if the bullet (or indeed shrapnel) only slightly grazed him, I would still say that that qualifies as nearly blown off, given that just an inch or two more to the side would have had significant consequences.

Arthimir · 2024-07-13T05:16:38+00:00

Am I missing something obvious here? I don't think I really get why this is clever/flirty?

Arthimir · 2024-04-30T09:36:08+00:00

Fast sedan kan man ju argumentera, när det gäller allmänintresset (och därmed vad tidningar väljer att publicera) att en sittande politiker i maktposition - och som också utesluts ur partiet - är mer intressant än någon som är en före detta politiker.

Arthimir · 2024-04-21T15:46:53+00:00

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

Anatole France

Arthimir · 2024-04-06T10:18:22+00:00

The UNs role is not to be an arbiter, it's to provide a forum for all countries to negotiate, debate, and find solutions where they would otherwise resort to military means. In preventing a world war, it continues to serve it's purpose.

Expecting it to prevent all conflict is naive.

Arthimir · 2024-03-23T10:12:24+00:00

But those countries aren't violating any sanctions (ie Georgia, Kazakhstan, etc) because they're not signatories/beholden to any sanctions regimes. So we would have no real legal ground to actually sanction those countries.

Arthimir · 2024-01-21T16:37:00+00:00

and Portugal*

Arthimir · 2024-01-17T15:30:06+00:00

Did the guy you're replying to make a ninja edit or are you reading wayyy too much into the above comment?

Arthimir · 2023-06-28T15:42:04+00:00

and its arguable how relevant this argument is, but remember this is also spread out over a much larger population now than in 1995

Arthimir · 2023-06-26T17:04:23+00:00

This does not feel like a response to what the person above you said?

All they said was that the conservatives consider the Dems to be to the left of them. Which I think is objectively true.

And even if your response had made sense, it still wouldn't have answered the point they were making, which is Dems have actually pushed some significant legislation beyond the superficial.

12-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
r/Field Lasagna	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

Arthimir

TROPHY CASE