RunawayFixer @ RunawayFixer @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

389

Joined

2 yr. ago

The wildlife is just left alone, I wouldn't call it safe from radiation, they still have a higher incidence of mutations than animals outside the contaminated zones. It's just that some radiation and no humans, happens to be better for wildlife than no radiation and lots of humans.

I would ask the window system producers for contractors near you, try: https://www.schueco.com/nl/particulieren/raamsystemen And/or https://www.reynaers.nl/

Hey, thanks for sticking up for me. Noone else seems to dare go against the bandwagon.

Personally I don't get people, I provide sources and am open to alternate viewpoints, but most people just want to blindly believe whatever last video they watched unfortunately.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, but curtains work for energy savings. If you are open to changing your mind, here's an explanation: https://www.thermal-engineering.org/thermal-curtains-material-home-energy-saving/

You always want glass coatings on outside window glass, no matter the climate. Depending on where you live, you want different coatings obviously, but coatings are essential in modern glass panes.

And since you seem to be entirely unaware of what already exists in the construction industry, here's another article with a bit more explanation: https://en.aaglas.nl/producten/warmtewerend-glas. A low zta will stop a good portion of the summer sun, while a high lta will still allow through a lot of light from low angles (including from the weak winter sun). Select glass that has a high lta/zta factor and you have glass that is good both in winter and in summer in northern Europe. The Netherlands is at lattitude of about 52°, while most Canadians live a few degrees south of that, so these same solutions would work there as well.

I'm afraid to admit that I have not, will do it this evening but until then I will remain ignorant.

Edit: Just skimmed through it because I couldn't wait and the video did not change my opinion at all.

The presenter seems to be unaware that there exist glasses which reflect different amounts of light depending on the angle. Up north, where he lives, the angle of the sun is much lower in winter than in summer. There exists glass that is designed for that.

A large awning to create extra seasonal living space outside, sure, those are still great. Small window awnings like ik the thumbnail picture, definitely not, those are a waste of time and money.

I was also disappointed by how dismissive the presenter was of scientifically based findings that did not align with his feelings. Curtains work great.

These things are technologically obsolete imo. The same result can be achieved with glass coatings, without requiring the extra work to install/maintain or replace these appendages.

These awnings work against losing heat to the night sky, the same effect of which can be achieved with anti emissive coatings that reflect heat radiation back inside.

The awnings also work against the sun when it's high in the sky, for which there are now anti solar coatings which will reflect more light from certain angles.

Nostalgia is nice, but the modern solution is easier + cheaper to install and maintain.

A tldr image: https://www.agc-glass.eu/sites/default/files/styles/max_1300x1300/public/2024-05/diagram-coatings%20leaflet.JPG?itok=s97bN-aV

Longer promotional article: https://www.agc-glass.eu/en/sustainability/glass-sustainable-architecture/energy-saving-glass

Not really, 2k is enough to have a result with a pretty low error %. Some example numbers: https://www.surveymonkey.com/curiosity/how-many-people-do-i-need-to-take-my-survey/

That is for "1 population" though, I don't know if the divided USA public opinion still counts as 1 population. I'm not a polling scientist, I just know that you don't need a massive amount of data points to draw statistically sound conclusions. Try tossing a coin and see how fast it stabilizes towards 50/50, that one really surprised me the first time I did it.

The statewide efficiency gap is when you look at wasted votes across all districts of that state, it is not applicable to any single district. It is not correct to state that aoc was elected despite a state efficiency gap, because that gap is not applicable to the single district that she was elected in.

I'm not with the tankies, but I do think you have a misunderstanding of how gerrymandering works, so I wanted to try explaining it.

Part of gerrymandering is packing:
The committee packs as many voters of the party they want to discriminate against, in as few districts as possible. This creates a lot of wasted votes in those packed (now safe) districts, which will benefit the other party in other more contested districts. So yes, the gerrymandering benefits the republican party when looking at ALL districts, but democrats within the packed districts have very safe general elections.

AOC is elected in one of those safe packed districts, so in that way she "benefitted" from the gerrymandering. I'm not going to hold that against her though, she didn't make the map and the fpp voting system isn't her fault either.

This picture shows it best imo: in one of the disproportiate examples there's a majority of blue voters, but thanks to 2 packed blue districts, there are more yellow representatives. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#/media/File%3ADifferingApportionment.svg

And the most damning part of all imo: "the owners and the scientists familiar with the effects of radium carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves. Chemists at the plant used lead screens, tongs, and masks.".

The plant owners definitely knew that they were killing people, there should have been murder charges imo.

Blinkers should be blinking before you turn the wheel. I once drove as a passenger with a driver who only started blinking after he started his manoeuvres and those 40T trucks were hammering their horns for a good reason. Scary as hell experience, would not recommend.

Currently this post sits at 5 down votes, so it's not just that some people are unable to learn from the past, it's people who are unwilling to learn from the past.

If you're presented with evidence that what you want to do, will not work and will have negative consequences and you still want it to go ahead, then I have to ask: Why?

Why insist on doing something again which has failed in the past and which will undoubtedly fail again in the future? What is this meant to accomplish?

Simplified: Energy is stored as heat in matter (the jostling of atoms and molecules) and there are many more water molecules under the bridge than there are molecules/atoms in the bridge. So both the water and the metal heat up during the day and cool down at night, but since there is much more water, the water has a much more stable temperature. In short: Larger volumes of atoms have larger heat capacities.

If the water under the bridge was stagnant and a shallow puddle, then it's temperature would vary much more throughout the day as well, but it would still warm up less than metal or soil, since a body of water loses some of it's heat through evaporation.

This is also why coastal climate is a thing: the huge mass of water in the ocean makes it so that coastal areas are warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.

Some people are unable to learn from the past. And the last time this happened isn't even that long ago.

In 2012 then candidate president Hollande did a surprise announcement of a 75% tax on earners of 1m+. And it was such a surprise that even the fiscal expert on his team was surprised.

Before Hollande was even elected, rich people started responding by changing their domicile to outside France, often also actually (part time) emigrating.

After getting elected Hollande then tasked his government with implementing such a tax. And that whole lengthy process was a political disaster, ending with the implementation of a heavily watered down temporary tax.

The chronology: https://www.lesechos.fr/2015/01/chronologie-de-la-taxe-a-75-sur-les-tres-hauts-revenus-avant-disparition-197994

After implementation the tax failed to bring in the projected money, because well, people react to what they perceive as overtaxation + the overall economy wasn't doing so great due to this and other policies of Hollande: https://taxfoundation.org/blog/france-s-75-percent-tax-rate-offers-lesson-revenue-estimating/

Half an article with a graph of the effect on wages, the rest is behind a paywall: https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2019/06/28/quand-la-taxe-a-75-a-ete-supprimee-le-nombre-de-contribuables-declarant-plus-de-1-million-d-euros-par-an-a-augmente_5482849_3232.html

In 2017 Hollande was the most unpopular french president in history and he did not run for reelection. Not solely because of this tax, but it certainly didn't help.

And that was 75%. So a 90% tax on the rich is just incredibly dumb populism.

I'm absolutely certain that it wasn't ads that put a firm like TomTom on a downward slope. This was actually the first time that I've heard someone proclaim that ads are the reason.

If your business is to sell maps + navigation devices for money and then the times change and now nearly everyone already owns a smartphone with built in gps + some car manufacturers provide sat nav as a default + another company is giving access to a map away for free, well then your business is in trouble.

I've never even heard of ads in TomTom or Garmin, since I stopped using a dedicated sat nav once I had a smartphone, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was one of the things they tried to stay afloat after smartphones became ubiquitous.

"but also provided psychological protection by shading the face from close scrutiny. "

To me it feels like this was made up by some spoiled twat, who couldn't stand that people that they thought were socially inferior, wouldn't show the expected obeisance by removing their hat in front of their "betters".

Thanks for the name. I skimmed through it and tbh, I'm not seeing why no additional context/doubt could be provided. They might have internal guidelines to not do so, but the charter itself does not seem to stop journalists from providing additional context outside of official statements/reports. It seems to me that this sentence was a choice by the editor/journalist.

I just searched for some keywords, "fact" landed me on the paragraph that seemed most applicable: "duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming". The other paragraphs I found, that could have been applicable, were about being impartial when UK politics were involved.

They weren't dodging, it's a thing and it should be the first result if you bothered to look it up: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter

Do you have a reference for that law? I'm interested in seeing how it's worded.

USA aid is very important to Ukraine, but even without it they would continue fighting. Ukraine has been without USA material aid for months already in the past, when the republican party was blocking it. And as it turned out, Ukraine sustained higher casualties and had less offensive power than with USA aid, but they were never close to folding.

Ukrainians + their supporting neighbours are very motivated to not be occupied by Russia, so they're not going to just give up if Putin's stooges come to power in the USA.