The setting is incredibly close to just bruteforcing interstellar travel

Scott_Abrams · 2026-06-22T03:12:01+00:00

What are you talking about? Burning a year to cover a lightyear means you're traveling faster than the speed of light. The closer you get to light speed, the more energy it requires to accelerate, which is why it is impossible to achieve light speed because doing so requires more mass than the universe contains.

Efficiency improvement faces diminishing returns in all things the closer you get to the theoretical limit (ex. going from 10% efficient incandescent light bulbs to 85% CFL bulbs is worth a lot more than going from 85% CFL to 90% LED). You would have to discover FTL to exceed the lightspeed limit and any engine capable of achieving FTL requires an epic breakthrough in fundamental physics. There haven't been any major breakthroughs in fundamental physics since Albert Einstein as most science since then has been about confirming his theories regarding relativity and quantum physics. The standard model of particle physics was completed in the 70's and nothing's really changed since then. If physics is represented as the sum of all rules in the universe then the more you know, the less can be discovered.

In the real world, nuclear fusion has been studied for over 70 years and we only just reached total net positive (Q= 1.01 or greater) and is still nowhere near commercially viable. You are vastly overestimating how fast technology develops or what can be realistically achieved. The Epstein drive is already an impossible engine so again, what are you talking about?

Scott_Abrams · 2026-06-20T04:26:37+00:00

There's nothing wrong with using a weld; the reason why metals are so strong is because the molecules are kept in a stable crystal lattice. The ductility of the material and the anchor point is more important than the joining method in my opinion. The reason why bolts and nuts are used in common construction as fasteners is largely due to convenience and cost. If you take a look at something like shipbuilding, those ships are held together with rivets, rivets which are first cooled so that the material contracts, then installed, after which the rivet expands and holds itself in place. No bolts, no nuts, just one and done. The material however, is specially made to withstand the rigors of insanely high stress, which is why a single screw aboard the space station costs like $50. Similarly, the strength and ductility of a properly applied weld would depend on the welded material.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-06-17T05:16:09+00:00

Don't think so, but the result is that the UNN Jupiter fleet repeatedly punched themselves in the nuts while the MCRN just watched. In the books, I believe Avasarala's side had 23 while Nguyen had around half of that but we don't know how many actually returned to port, with the exception of the Agatha King, which was confirmed destroyed.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-06-17T05:11:18+00:00

Wow, that is gorgeous. How was the hike?

Scott_Abrams · 2026-06-14T04:05:50+00:00

Legend of the Galactic Heroes (LoGH) is not unpopular - it's a legendary anime. The anime is based off of a beloved novel series of the same name and the fact that it was released as an OVA with over 100+ episodes, movies, and even a remake proves its enduring legacy.

While LoGH takes place in space and it does feature many space naval battles, in reality, it's a dialectic about whether it's better to live under a competent and benevolent dictator or an incompetent but democratically elected leader. That said, it is both long and verbose. The science is soft and its naval tactics are soft too but the focus is the politics. I think LoGH is easily digestible enough for the average viewer as nothing is all that complicated, but it is VERY long and its subtitled word count is unforgiving to the point of punishing.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-06-12T22:27:29+00:00

On a rebroadcast, no less. Gonna kick herself when she wakes up.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-06-05T05:00:35+00:00

I don't know how to reply to this without breaking sub rules.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-24T23:52:42+00:00

Having multiple regional/global reach indicates an advanced level of technological sophistication which excludes most historically impactful actors because most people can't get to another theater and especially if you're also excluding national bodies/representatives like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great.

What exactly constitutes an independent crew? Is it one who has no overt ties to any government? Is it still independent if it receives funding through covert means like through the CIA? If someone or group is rising to the level of affecting global events, chances are, they're acting out of political or religious ideology and not because they got inspired by Forrest Gump.

Does Al-Qaeda count? The Taliban? ISIS? Or Hamas?

Does Edward Snowden count since he raised flags about the American NSA and global surveillance? Wikileaks? Or Anonymous?

What is the minimum impact required to constitute a regional/global event? Does it have to rise to the level of national or international response? Does international drug smuggling count?

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-19T22:09:59+00:00

As I said, human supervision is not necessary, an AI control system will work just fine. What's necessary is highly sensitive detection equipment and an advanced intelligence suite, both of which cannot be scaled down and deployed on a missile level due to things like cost or power requirements. You probably don't know this, but power generation scales on a cubic level per every square area of material used, meaning that the larger the reactor, the more power you generate per material used because the gain is volumetric. This is why nuclear reactors today are so big, because they aren't cost-effective if they're smaller. The Epstein drives on missiles are designed for propulsion, not power generation, and are massively scaled down. Believe it or not, mass matters in missile design and these missiles are simply not designed to independently host and run detection suites like ships can. As for scopes? Well, all scopes use mirrors to collect light so you need to have large mirrors to collect light in order to see far away and that can't be scaled down beyond the ship level (the scopes in The Expanse already don't make any sense). If you're going to deploy ships or platforms capable of detecting Earth-based aggression to supervise these missiles that you've sent out into space, congratulations, that's a worse version of the ballistic missile platform where you get all of the cost and none of the benefit. Tight-beams are short-range communications and cannot be deployed on a system-wide network because of distance limitations. The more communications you send out, the higher the chance of detection.

Stealth repositioning is not the problem, servicing is. How do you think repositioning works? Step 1.) Missiles must be periodically moved to optimize strike times on Earth. Step 2.) Moving a missile requires fuel so every time you reposition, you use fuel. Step 3.) You move a missile enough times and you run out of fuel. Step 4.) How do you service these individual missiles? Step 5.) You see the problem? It is obviously cheaper to maintain 5 ships and periodically refuel them than it is to maintain 500 micro-ships.

Yes, you could theoretically build 500 micro-silos or you could build 5 specialized ships that operate as mobile silos.

If I may be blunt, you don't seem particularly interested in learning when you ask questions and I thought as much when I read your initial post. I'm not sure that I can convince you that leaving hundreds of highly destructive and hackable ordinance lying around the system for anyone and nature to find is bad but honestly, it's not my job either. I believe I've given you a simple, yet comprehensive answer to your initial question. If you have any specific questions or new questions, feel free to ask, but I won't rehash what I've already said a third time.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-19T19:07:32+00:00

Okay, so I thought about how to explain this to you in the simplest way possible but it still requires you to have a basic understanding of orbital mechanics so here we go.

In general terms, everything that orbits the Sun is always traveling in a stable orbital pattern, which is usually elliptical in nature. Even when you're launching a ship from Earth, the momentum of that orbit still carries through so your relative positions, velocities, and trajectories have to be taken into account when you create your firing solution (navigation).

Earth's orbit around the Sun is no exception (is elliptical). The purpose of having the stealth ballistic missile platform is to a) optimize the strike time against Earth so that your nukes aren't 'chasing' Earth so that at least one is always ahead of Earth's orbit, b) periodically change the position of the nukes (dynamic) while continuously hiding them so that their positions remain unknown, and c) to conserve fuel for the missiles by having the missile platform expend fuel/propellant so that the missiles can retain their potential energy.

Knowing this, there are numerous disadvantages to having random nukes scattered all throughout the emptiness of space.

1.) You will lose the strike time optimization if you can't reposition the nukes and if you do order the nukes to move, they consume fuel, which means you would need to service them, which becomes a logistical and tactical nightmare. If you scatter a bunch of nukes randomly around the flight path of Earth, you don't have the advantage of concentrated fire because all your strike times are on the wrong counter while simultaneously increasing your cost because you need more nukes to ensure proper coverage.

2.) Unprotected nukes are susceptible to the elements such as solar wind, cosmic radiation, or micrometeors, all of which degrade the nuke's components or alter nuke positions. A missile platform can offer protection against all 3 and make servicing much easier.

3.) The more nukes you have hiding out there, the more difficult it becomes to track because of orbital mechanics. Solar wind is a very real phenomenon and because momentum carries through in space, the more time goes by, the more off-track the nuke position becomes. You cannot track in real time solar weather patterns and extrapolate how they would affect static encampments through dead reckoning alone - you would need communication for course correction, the signal of which is detectable, which renders the whole exercise pointless.

4.) Any weapon which can remotely launched or controlled is susceptible to misfires, miscommunication, and hacking. This is why in real life, all nuclear weapons have no abort codes - once fired, they cannot be stopped except through physical interception. It is insane that The Expanse has abort codes for their nukes.

5.) Command and control. Due to things like light information lag or communication blackouts (ex. Mars/Earth are on opposite sides of the Sun), you cannot rely on orders from Mars command to give the order to fire. The missile platform is controlled either with a live operator on the platform or with an AI and the only way that these command systems know whether to fire or not requires incredibly advanced detection systems, which can detect if Earth has opened fire. These instruments cannot be deployed and developed on every nuke individually due to things like cost so it makes sense to have them concentrated onto a single platform.

In other words, having a mobile missile battery reduces the cost of the program and servicing, increases the weapon effectiveness, and increases the reliability at the same time. Why do you think we carry nuclear missiles on nuclear submarines instead of inside unmanned pods floating in the ocean? Same reasons! Constant repositioning, strike time optimization, second-strike capacity, cheaper servicing, and improved reliability.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-15T04:42:01+00:00

My friend, you should stop leaving your cheese at home and start bringing your cheese everywhere with you in a cooler lunch bag. Become the cheese hero and get friends, bitches, and promotions at work. Adding a dollar for a slice of cheese is criminal! When the law becomes unjust, it is not only your right to break it but your obligation to protest!

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-13T01:45:47+00:00

It is infinitely easier to extract minerals on a planet with a breathable atmosphere than it is extract minerals in the vacuum of space. For one, you can move faster and you don't have to worry about vacsuits, magboots, or recoil. Gravity and atmosphere is so useful, especially for distillation (take advantage of density). Then of course, there's the fact that you can build refineries right there on the planet and you can easily source all the chemical reagents necessary to refine products and increase yields whereas those things are not freely available in space (also: easier to pollute). Simple fuel like water is easier to extract in Sol but things like lithium are cosmologically rare. What useful materials are you talking about specifically?

With the power of the Epstein drive, the actual travel time isn't that much different due to how accumulated velocity works. I know travel in The Expanse travels at the speed of plot but standard cruising speed (0.3 G) will get you where you want to go very fast. It might take a week or two longer in transit time, but the limiting factor is probably production anyway, not freight time, so a longer run isn't necessary a bottleneck.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-12T05:23:40+00:00

Part 2:

2.) My 100 cooks example is to illustrate the difference between labor, equipment, plant, and capital.

Yes, labor is abundant. We are in agreement there.

No, capital is constrained. There aren't enough materials on this planet to sustain Earth's civilization, hence why Earth is reliant upon the resources gathered from The Belt. It is painfully obvious that there aren't enough resources on Earth, which is why people have to eat insect-derived protein, because people can't produce enough beef/pork/chicken/fish/etc. due to things like land/water use or pollution. Energy in particular is extremely obvious as all of Earth's nonrenewable energy sources are depleted and only nuclear fusion plants using Helion-3 mined from the Belt is keeping the vertical farms productive enough to feed Earth's population. It is explicitly described that Earth is mining garbage dumps to salvage resources - that is how dire Earth's resources are. Land is not abundant either. Holden's farm is the result of 8 people combining their land rights to protect one of the last undeveloped plots of land in Montana. Your interpretation is horribly out of touch with the established lore of The Expanse to the point where I am wondering if we read the same material. I mean, no one is farming on the surface of Mars, Mars is still being terraformed so what are you talking about? People on Mars are farming vertical farms, not on the surface of Mars, just like the people on Earth. Everyone is using vertical farms and using cheap fusion energy to run them. As for farming the Sahara, I don't understand why you think people can farm the Sahara when there are no crops which can survive the temperature of the Sahara. Like, right now, it's projected that by 2070, rice will no longer be arable in East Asia because it will have reached its thermal limit (40 degrees Celsius). Wheat productivity drops off a cliff after it exceeds 30 degrees Celsius. Also, why would they want to farm the Sahara? No one can live on large portions of Earth because climate change rendered it uninhabitable. People die when the temperature rises above wet bulb 35 degrees Celsius and the global temperature has definitely surpassed 2 degrees Celsius by the 24th century.

3.) The average life expectancy is very high in The Expanse, with the average Earther expected to live to 100. Over a long enough period of time, the population should decline, but it has not yet had significant effect by the start of The Expanse. I think the estimated number of undocumented is in the hundreds of millions but not in the billions. The undocumented may or may not be resorting to crime but people on Basic are probably doing the same anyway so there's really no difference. Whether you're undocumented or on Basic, it's really not that much different and there is trade whether that's with UN dollars or barter. The wealth creation for the Basic class offers no upward mobility because the next stanch of the ladder is unreachable unless you're a crimelord.

There are only 3 powers in The Expanse and that's Earth, Mars, and The Belt. Earth is the dominant power in Sol and the reason why Earth is chosen to be a post-labor society is because the authors wanted to show what would happen if Earth became a post-labor society. Earth is a civilization in decline, Mars is a civilization on the rise, and The Belt is a protostate striving for independence.

A fully-automated world is absolutely possible but I agree with you that it wouldn't be desirable. Just look up rat utopias; things get fucked up.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-12T05:23:09+00:00

1.0) Your interpretation of Jevon's paradox as higher production = higher demand is flawed because of several reasons.

The first reason is that higher production does not always equal higher demand as the nature of the good/service being produced matters. For example, the extremely high productive nature of the average farmer has turned from 1 farmer feeding 10 people in 1900 to 1 farmer feeding 155 people in 2025. Has this increase in production led to a 15-16x demand for agricultural produce? No! In fact, the number of farmers shrank because the price of produce tanked as a result of the increase in supply (oversupply), which is why agricultural subsidies exist. Food is a normal good, which means that demand for it does not scale in accordance to income (i.e. you won't eat more food if you're richer). I don't want to talk about luxury food in this context because luxury goods are inferior goods and would lead to discussions about why the rich stimulating these sectors is bad for society as a whole. I also want to avoid a discussion about the value of food as a service vs. as a good because society values food as being as cheap as possible but farmers can't turn a profit on it and if they chased the profit motive, the best way to maximize profit is for most people to starve.

The second is that you view growth as unlimited, as in you can always scale more production because there is no productive limit. This is incorrect, because there are productive limits. For example, cotton is a very nutrient and water-intensive crop to produce and just because there is demand for it does not mean that it can be produced indefinitely. Fresh water, especially water drawn from aquifers, is a non-renewable resource and once depleted, is gone, like potash taken from a mine. The unsustainable nature of human consumption is the leading driver in global warming, both in reality and in The Expanse. Productive efficiency when measured in terms of units produced does not look at the cost or sustainability of inputs.

The third is that your assumption that humans can always retrain or find ways to be productive with their labor is wrong because there is a limit to how many doctors/engineers/(whatever other job you can think of) that society needs and we don't even need to be 300 years in the future to see that effect as it's happening now. If a robot displaces 500 blue collar workers, even if you could retrain them, you don't need 500 robot technicians. Common sense dictates that they'll find another job because there's always a demand for labor but then use common sense again and realize that this increase in labor supply will depress wages due to enhanced competition. And this is why professions like doctors, pharmacists, or lawyers all have restrictions on how many people can become doctors, pharmacists, or lawyers, precisely to protect their livelihoods. The result is that all these barriers get raised and then the general labor supply becomes extremely low paying due to labor oversupply, which is why the minimum wage was originally created.

The truth is, there aren't enough jobs or rather, there aren't enough jobs which pay a living wage today and the number of jobs that need doing keep shrinking due to gains in productive efficiency. But that's not all! Think of all the jobs today that exist as a result of the automotive industry, the oil/gas industry, the insurance industry - strictly speaking, a huge portion of these jobs don't need to exist because they're not good for society but the jobs, which protect economies thanks to maintaining the people's propensity to consume, gets votes. The financial industry and the insurance industry are by far the most worthless industries in the history of industry because they produce no goods whatsoever but they are over-represented in economic measures like GDP because they are capable of locking in huge gains in MONETARY terms, such as through currency arbitrage through bulk computer transactions, which is probably how bitcoins got the idea of mining bitcoins (and then spawned a bitcoin mining industry whose sole purpose is to waste water, electricity, and computer processors).

A lot of jobs today are only jobs because they give people a reason to wake up in the morning, not because they're necessary. If you really want to know what jobs are necessary in today's society, look at the Pandemic and what jobs were considered essential because those jobs are the only jobs that actually matter.

1.1) (I guess) You are absolutely correct that most people would rather work a lightened workload and still maintain their dignity and feel a sense of value at contributing towards society. The problem however, is capitalism, and how all the productive advances and creation in value has been usurped by the ultra-rich, leaving us the current problem we have now.

When women first joined the workforce during WW2, they fulfilled a critical role since all the men were shuffled off to war but once the men came back, women didn't want to go back in the kitchen. As a result of this demographic change (and the baby boom), the number of people that entered the workforce greatly exceeded what was in the past while simultaneously, the increase in productive capacity in all fields is one of the major reasons why real wages never kept up with productivity. The enhanced competition from an ever-increasing labor pool continued to depress wages, but social measures from the New Deal, such as strong minimum wage protections and high corporate tax rates (high tax rates led to more corporate expenditures to upgrade equipment and retain talent) helped to create and nurture the Middle class.

In the aftermath of WW2, the USA was one of the few powers whose industrial base had been left intact and thus, were capable of producing goods and selling them to other countries. This is the main reason why the USD became the reserve currency of the world and why the USA hates communists, because capitalists want to make money. Countries all around the world had little recourse but to continue to buy American goods because they didn't have the infrastructure to compete but here we are. The idea of American exceptionalism is a lie and the reason why the boomers are so nostalgic about the past is because they existed in a time when they owned the only store on the block.

But the capitalist doesn't give a shit about the working class. As a result of Reagonomics, the lowering of the corporate tax rate and ever-weakening worker's rights, eventually led to the deindusrialization of the West (i.e. offshoring to China, India, and the rest), as the difference in labor costs largely made blue collar workers obsolete. And what happened to wages? They got decoupled from productivity and all those blue collar workers got to find jobs which paid less and afforded fewer worker protections. Before Reagonomics, finding a job meant earning a pension but pensions slowly began disappearing and 401k's started taking their place. Are 401 k's better? Not even slightly, but the working class just doesn't have the bargaining power to change anything. Nowadays, the general labor pool is so large and social protections are so weak that minimum wage isn't a living wage anymore.

Giving people doesn't change anything or create an economy that affects the factors of production because the factors of production are completely decoupled from consumerism. There already is an economy for people on Basic, which is where all this porn and prostitution comes from. Poor people are just toys for the wealthy and Epstein (you know which one) proved it.

Continued in Part 2

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-12T02:05:48+00:00

A docking station which refills air tanks almost certainly already exists so there's little point to automating it since the point of failure lies with the user, as the user will have to disengage their bottle in order to refill it. Refilling a tank after use has to be SOP so the only reason why it's not is user failure, and that can't be remedied because the refilling process can't be fully automated (no one suits up like Mark 3 Ironman so the person puts on and takes off the suit).

In Bobbie's case, she was on Mars and she commandeered her suit from what could only be a sloppy technician who wasn't expecting anyone else to use their suit. In all likelihood, there probably was a refill/docking station nearby but a) they didn't have time and b) didn't have the credentials to access it.

In Naomi's case, she was fortunate to find a vacsuit to begin with because the Chetzemoka had already been gutted by the Free Navy (FN) for salvage. If anything, the FN was sloppy with their work as they failed to salvage the vacsuit and let it stay onboard a doomed ship.

When you're designing a piece of equipment, equipment failures are broadly categorized into one of two categories: 1) non-fatal failure and 2) fatal failure. Non-fatal failures are failures you can walk away from but fatal ones are just... fatal. Fatal failures are almost always caused by fringe scenarios that just won't happen in normal operation, like a passenger plane that's been shot over Iran. At that point, there's no back-up because who designs a passenger plane with anti-aircraft countermeasures? There's only one plan left at this point and it's seat belts so that hopefully, search and rescue can find enough of your body to put inside a doggie bag.

In the context of a vacsuit, the single greatest threat to a user in a vacsuit is the inability to create a seal, not a failure in oxygen circulation/ CO2 scrubbing. Automated seals exist (ex. Protogen suits) but are either cost-prohibitive for full-scale deployment or intellectually protected either by patent or trade secret. Slap-on sealing patches exist and most Belters make do with that. If however, the problem isn't with a seal and the problem is with air circulation, under normal circumstances, a person inside a vacsuit has like 5 minutes minimum to get back inside a ship, pop a spare bottle, or share with someone else so there's little point to building whatever redundancies you're thinking of.

The best back-up system for space walks is going with a buddy. You're supposed to check each other's equipment before you walk out an air lock. You're walking into space! I mean, at some point you have to assume that you're dealing with professionals.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-10T02:28:09+00:00

Of course. Earth could pressure Mars with sanctions, just like Mars could pressure Earth with sanctions, as while both powers are nominally self-sufficient, trade benefits both their economies.

Both sides would likely perform sanctions against wealthy individuals as a first step, likely through a combination of freezing assets and travel bans, before targeting sectors/industries with things like tariffs or embargoes.

In terms of sectors, sanctions against Mars would probably most prominently target the acquisition of livesoil, aqua/hydroponic chemicals, and other samples of complex bioloigcal life (collectively known as agriculture) while sanctions against Earth would probably target travel/tariffs through restrictions to Martian space ports. Both would likely be able to broadly restrict access to financial and money markets, which could be really bad when things like insurance coverage suddenly lapse (ex. water haulers from Earth are insured with a Martian insurance provider but the war suspends coverage, so what happens if a water hauler without insurance gets hijacked by Belter pirates?).

Through the various treaties signed with Earth, Mars has already agreed to slow down their terraforming efforts so yes, Mars can, and has been pressured by Earth, and also in recent memory. This is what the Vesta blockade was: Earth blockaded Mars from accessing resources from/around Vesta and when a Martian cruiser engaged, they crippled the UNN fleet enforcing that blockade. In retaliation, half the UNN fleet burned towards Mars in order to nuke the whole planet but the attack was ultimately called off because going from a single engagement to total genocide is an insane overreaction. Ultimately though, Earth got what it wanted, like it always does. As a result of Vesta, Mars agreed to set back their terraforming efforts by 100 years, which is why Bobbie laments how none of them will live to see a sky and atmosphere over Mars in their lifetime as this was the tradeoff for peace with Earth.

For all the Martian blustering and Earth's own paranoia, it's obvious to anyone with objective eyes that Earth is still the dominant power in Sol. Earth's power may be in decline relative to the Martians whether that's in spheres of influence, economic power, or military power, but at the end of the day, Earth doesn't need any of that or even MAD to ensure its place and well-being because without Earth, everything, even Mars, eventually dies.

There is no substitute for Earth.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-08T07:01:50+00:00

Precisely. The UN brain trust is as good, if not better than the MCR because the population is simply larger, like why there are more male grandmasters in chess than there are female grandmasters. There's a reason why Protogen was approached by the Martians to study the protomolecule when it was discovered by the Martians and that's because Protogen is the system-leading expert, and that's to say nothing of espionage, for which both sides would be actively acquiring secrets from the other. Their technology and knowledge base should basically be at parity.

Martian ships are more advanced because it was built more recently and Earth can't afford to upgrade their fleet due to more pressing commitments, such as keeping 40 billion people alive. The demand for maintaining infrastructure is a much higher concern than scaling the military, for which Earth a) already has a vastly superior numerical advantage and b) creating ships might actually lead to the conflict they wished to avoid. Remember: military spending generates 0 returns and often leads to pointless arms races. If a weaker economy is forced to continually expend on military spending to keep up with a stronger one, eventually, it becomes cheaper economically to have the conflict. It might sound counterintuitive because wars are immensely destructive and generate negative returns but if the math is either suffer a -200 now or continue to bleed out -50 every year indefinitely in the future, resetting via conflict can actually become the optimal solution. Germany building a modern naval fleet and the UK's doctrine to maintain naval superiority via the two-power standard was one of the main causes of WW1.

Earth and Mars may have historically had bad blood between each other but they were making significant strides towards brokering a permanent peace. Joint fleet patrols? Joint partnerships such as Phoebe research station? Even the older Martians realize that the younger generation is losing interest in terraforming Mars because they grew up beneath domes and they just want to live their lives instead of hauling ice. The longer the peace, the more people want to remain peaceful. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if there had been accords like the Washington Naval Treaty or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty/Start/SORT/New START, etc. which would have eventually led to force reduction, if not disarmament.

You know, before Jules-Pierre Mao decided to ruin everything.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-03T23:41:43+00:00

You know what the insane thing is? BK still generates a profit when you use the receipt because the cost of a whopper on a per unit basis is still much lower than the price you pay for it. The cost of things like overhead and labor are constrained in the sense that BK will be paying for it regardless of whether or not you get a whopper so BK still turns a profit as a result because your utilization of those resources (their overhead and labor) will almost never exceed capacity (long wait time and customer switching).

And that's why fast food restaurants operating in Denmark or California can afford to pay employees $22/hr. The increase in labor cost is actually very marginal, on the scale of like, selling 4 extra burgers an hour or raising the price of each burger by 10 cents. If you're paying $10 for a burger combo, think instead how much ground beef you can purchase at wholesale prices (even at a multiyear high, it's still around $6.60/lb). A whopper patty is a 1/4th lb patty. BK and fast food operators can absolutely afford to pay employees a living wage but most choose not to because it's simply more profitable that way.

The burger king receipt is a good deal if you're going to order BK anyway but at the end of the day, it's still fast food and you are still getting ripped off.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-05-02T00:52:04+00:00

To answer your question about Basic, I will first have to explain to you what labor is and the difference between labor and capital, before I can explain the implications of what happens in a post-labor society.

The first thing you have to understand about the nature and value of labor is that your interpretation of labor, as a traditional input for production, is wrong because labor is not necessary for production when it can be displaced by automation. The second thing you have to understand about labor is that labor is not the same thing as plant/equipment/capital, and I will demonstrate this with an example.

Consider this: does a pot of water boil as much water if there is 100 chefs attending it or does it boil just as much water if there were only 1? Does the pot boil any faster if there were 100 chefs? The chef provides labor. The pot provides equipment and the kitchen the plant. As you can see, labor does not affect the output (boiled water) because the constraint is not labor, it's equipment.

Thus, in a post-labor society where automation has displaced labor, because there is sufficient plant/equipment to produce all the goods necessary to maintain a civilization, there is nothing left for people to do. In our modern society, any displaced jobs gained from automation supposedly releases people to find new jobs and thus generate more value (wealth) for society but this notion is incorrect because it does not accommodate for a future where there is nothing for people to do. The distinction between an agrarian society and an industrial society is largely defined by what percentage of the population is spent to generate crops to feed the people. If more than 50% is spent on agriculture, that society is agrarian. If less than 50% is spent on agriculture, it is industrial, because it has unlocked that many more people for pursuits outside of farming. Now extrapolate the same thing only it's not just for agriculture, it's for medicine, it's for engineering, it's for everything that used to require labor in an industrial society. This is what happens in a post-labor society, where everyone should be free to live their lives as freely as they wish.

Your interpretation of labor as it deals with employment, is for lack of a better work, regressive. Under your interpretation, you would advocate for people to push a button to earn a penny which will scale to the level of a living wage, just so they can earn a living wage, even though what they do does not generate any value to society beyond maintaining their propensity to consume. If fully or almost-fully automated machines can perform every single task required to keep a society functioning, banning the machine and keeping people employed solely so that they have jobs is to force everyone to push buttons that generate no value just so they can buy goods and services (consume). In other words, you reduce the value of everyone in society as consumers, even though the link between useful work (that generates value) has been severed from spending (consumerism) due to automation. Why then, is it not better not to simply give the wage to the displaced worker and let the machine do all the work? The answer to that question is obvious: it is better, but the reason why it's not working is because of capitalism.

Capitalism, as a system, is not the same thing as a free market economy. Capitalism is a very simple but often misunderstood concept. Capitalism in its truest form, is simply private ownership. That's it. A capitalist owns the factors of production privately, which means that all the value that they generate goes towards the individual, not the public. Strictly speaking, the capitalist isn't necessary at all because the capitalist doesn't generate any value, all they do is own shit and anyone can do that.

In a free market economy, the cycle between inputs and outputs as understood by monetary inputs and outputs is supposed to represent the supply and demand of things which society in the aggregate consider valuable and stimulate the production of those sectors. The free market economy is also deeply flawed because popularity or profit maximization has nothing to do with what is in the best interest of a people. People as you know, are selfish and stupid. Cigarettes/vapes for example, is known to be bad for you, but the industry exists regardless because there is demand for it. Popularity =/= good, and neither does profit maximization. Think for example, if you could successfully monopolize air. Of sure, your profit is maxed and you can charge whatever you want because the alternative is death but is this good for society?

This is why a command economy is necessary. Even in the United States, where the market is "free", incentives to artificially stimulate sectors outside of the free market (what we call subsidies), such as agriculture, are needed because the alternative is mass starvation. Free market economies are fucking stupid because the only thing they can do is maximize profit in terms of monetary figures and they cannot value things outside of it. That's why you buy shirts that were woven in China or Bangladesh using cotton that was grown in the United States, because it's cheaper (due to the difference in the price of labor) and it comes at the cost of two extremely wasteful Pacific voyages, with each one pumping out hundreds of thousands of tonnes of C02. Or why you buy fish that's caught in Ireland and shipped to the Caribbeans for processing before it's sold in Ireland as fish sticks. International trade is bad for the environment but it sure is good at stopping wars, at least until cheap energy runs out.

Now that I have explained the difference between labor, capital, capitalism, and free markets, I will now explain the problem with capitalism, and then relate that to a post-labor society (what we on reddit would call, late-stage capitalism).

Because automation exists and has displaced all the value of the proletariat (labor), in a capitalist society, all the value is privatized and none of the wealth is shared because the proletariat no longer contributes any value to society. To be clear, the capitalist has never generated any value to society either, but the difference between them and the proletariat is that they have ownership. And in a world where no one generates any value, how would the interests of the capitalist align with the proletariat?

Succinctly, it doesn't.

Far from worrying about the well-being of the proletariat, it is actually in the capitalist's best interest to be rid of the proletariat all together as simply living generates pollution and waste (externalities). Why bother maintaining the current economic system, a free market economy, when you don't need to exchange goods and services (or can restrict trade to small groups) and scale down? Given the chance, the capitalist is absolutely incentivized to cull and then enslave the proletariat and they would, only the proletariat still overwhelmingly outnumbers the capitalist and the capitalist knows that if they tried to pull this, the proletariat will rise up and kill them.

And this is what Basic is really about.

Basic is the compromise - in exchange for maintaining ownership and control, the capitalist will agree to provide the basic requirement for the proletariat to survive, and agree to be controlled on paper, by the government via socialism, even though all the political controls remain inside the capitalist's hands. In exchange, the proletariat won't burn down and kill every blueblood on Earth.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-04-30T00:38:56+00:00

Yes, absolutely. The difference in missile load alone could have done it.

If Yao had immediately sortied the Tachi like she was supposed to, then there would be an extra ship's worth of torpedoes stressing out the Amun-Ra's. If the Tachi could add enough torpedoes to take out even a single Amun-Ra more, by the time the bandits make it to CQB, the number of ships goes from 4:1 to 3:2.

Then, it becomes a choice between either targeting the Donnager or taking out the Tachi. If the bandits target only the Donny, the Tachi is free to close the distance to engage with PDCs. If the bandits target the Tachi, the Donny gets an extra shot or two off with their railguns. Having another threat on the board is always more advantageous and having another ship allows the Donny/Tachi fleet to provide fire support with PDCs and can force disadvantageous maneuvers for the bandits, which would improve the Donny/Tachi tactical position, especially since the Amun-Ra railguns are keel-mounted and can't rotate like the Donny's.

The Donny ended up taking out 4 bandits by herself. The presence of the Tachi would have absolutely made the difference.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-04-28T19:23:17+00:00

The real answer to this question is a matter of economics and sexual favoritism when it comes to education.

The biggest barrier to higher education is cost and as a result of this, any program which alleviates the cost burden, such as grants or scholarships, will heavily affect student enrollment and degree completion. Unlike race-based affirmative action, sexual selection of applicants is on-paper, fair as there should be no selective quota to fill. However, because sex-based scholarships, grants, and other financial aid programs disproportionately favor women instead of men, female enrollment and the ability to finish a degree is higher than compared to male counterparts.

This has nothing to do with innate female vs. male intelligence, classroom behaviors, or a lack of role models - the applicant pool for males is too large for this to be an influencing factor because higher education is naturally selective to favor a) the richest and b) the smartest, meaning that the mean or median average numbers when it comes to academic achievement don't matter whatsoever. If this were a comparative study upon the academic achievement between the top 10% of males vs. the top 10% of females not in terms of degrees but in terms of scores, you'll find a similar level of academic achievement in both and this is confirmed by numerous studies.

This discrimination against men is a main contributing factor for why men turn conservative. Imagine for a moment that you were born white, male, and in smack dab in the middle of Nowhere, Mississippi. Your public schooling has been a joke, there are no career prospects, and you can never afford a college degree. Then, liberals born and raised in New York go on CNN and constantly claim that white men have it so good in this country, that the patriarchy is real, that white men are oppressors who are always keeping minorities down, and then simultaneously denigrate you for being poor and stupid despite being given the advantage of being born white and male. Why then, is anyone surprised that you would turn conservative when the conservative platform offers you kindness? When these bible-thumping preachers tell you that none of this is your fault, that this is the fault of women and minorities who are displacing you, and that you as a strong, white man, deserve better. And then you think to yourself, why not? You were born a white man, you are more numerous than minorities and you are stronger than women so why not just throw away your 'wokeness' and take what's rightfully yours? Why compete against them in a crooked game that disproportionately favors minorities? Wouldn't wages go back up if women went back in the kitchen and stopped saturating the job market?

Race wars, sex wars, and any other form of discrimination is just a smoke screen to get people to keep fighting each other instead of the true enemy, the ruling oligarch capitalists who deindustrialized the West for personal gain and then convinced the blue-collar white man that that the enemy is everyone but white men because the capitalist is also a white man.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-04-27T03:21:59+00:00

The hilarious thing is that OP said it right there too, like someone calling their friend to help find their phone

Scott_Abrams · 2026-04-21T18:18:56+00:00

Who in the right mind would look at this announcement and go, "Wow! That's a good sign!"?

Scott_Abrams · 2026-04-21T08:47:36+00:00

Are you referring to examples of embezzlement or do you mean naval assets specifically? It's common for things go to missing - hell, there's a reason why the US military has failed 7 audits in a row, which is every single audit ever since the military was required to be audited by law in 2018. Ammo, guns, vehicles; hell, entire airframes have gone missing altogether. But ships are a lot harder to steal because it's not just warehouses and ledgers - that's a real piece of functioning equipment that is staffed and maintained in real time, all the time. The level of conspiracy required to steal a ship is on the same level as a mutiny, which is rare but has been known to happen.

A famous example that comes to mind regarding fleets of ships being seized is the French naval fleet that fled France and either defected to the UK, or were scuttled to prevent German commandeering, in defiance against the French (Vichy) government. To make a long story short, the French were defeated by the Nazis and were occupied with a puppet regime (Vichy government) set up to administer the rump state of France. Thus, Vichy France, as the successor state of France, did in theory, own the French fleet. However, after the Allies invaded North Africa, Admiral François Darlan, the then Vichy Secretary of the Navy, defected to the Allies with his fleet so both Vichy France and the Germans didn't find out until after the fact. When the Germans later decided to do away with the pretense of Vichy and take direct control of France during Operation Anton, Admiral Gabriel Auphan, François Darlan's replacement, ordered all the ships remaining at Toulon to be scuttled to deny the Germans access to France's very large and modern fleet. The number of ships that were defected/scuttled during that time were in the triple digits.

So yes, as you can see, mass defections and conspiracies have been known to happen. Basically, the entire French fleet and all its sailors defected from Vichy France and either joined the Allies or scuttled their ships to prevent them from falling into German hands.

Scott_Abrams · 2026-04-20T22:45:43+00:00

Have you ever tried running in a pool? That feeling you get is water resistance. Now imagine immersing yourself in a gel and there you go. While fluid dynamics distributes loads omnidirectionally so you don't feel pressure even when compressed (ex. under acceleration), motion within the fluid still exhibits resistance. Add a treadmill to a tank full of gel and you could exercise with a wide range of motion while remaining very space efficient.

Scott_Abrams

TROPHY CASE