Your comment is the best and most realistic one on this thread.
There's so many people on this website sitting behind Chinese made computers spitting bullshit on "well if we could just get those container ships to pull some solar panels to then grow corn onboard and create a micro climate and process ethanol for said ship, then this whole process would be negligible and carbon neutral and not matter." Give me a fucking break. The world economy is based on exploitation and consumption. There is no "carbon neutral" consumption. There is no getting rich on a USA 1800s type agrarian low human footprint economy.
Like your correct comment indicates, the fact is the global economy is logistically insanely complex, politically complex, and mostly exists for pure consumption and waste. The Greta's are making "moral" arguments and brain washing the first world in order to ship production of "dirty" industries to china, LATAM, and Russia. They are wall streets biggest lobbyists!
I have 20 years experience actually making things. I have seen the UAW in Detroit, I’ve worked in education and tech… I’ve seen how the sausage is made, so it is infuriating when HN-types, or progressives, or anyone really start on about “well, what we need to do is” if they have never actually made a thing in their lives… well; I guess I value the “I’m just talking to talk” flag… and what an amazing coincide “the solution” is to tax me more! Everytime, what are the odds!? :)
I know fuck all, but maybe what you know is to do things a certain way.
I'm guessing you could have worked at any car manufacturer 15 years ago and would have said electrical cars are a fantasy. Yet someone came along and disrupted your entire world.
Electric cars aren’t ready for anything but around town. Which they are great at. I’m looking at 2030 model plans - and spoiler alert - they’re gas and diesel. Although I can tell you particulate filters are coming for pertol, that is the next big change, but other than that until you change physics or make drastically better batteries, gas cars aren’t going anywhere
Just because the morons in your home country are buying shit mobiles to drive 1 km a day to and from work (or whatever stupid units you use) is not an indicator for the world at large. 2030 is gas and diesel cars! Just like how 80% of our power is still going to be hydrocarbons in 2030. Read all the fantasy you want; physics and thermodynamics do not change. If the world does not split atoms in a large scale we will burn coal or natural gas.
My comments along with SV's comments is how ignorant most people are to how things are made and done, because the majority of the folks on sites like this type code for a living and argue things for arguments sake, and don't actually make real, tangible things.
More gas than coal over here, but we’re close to 50% renewable energy and growing fast. I use an exclusively solar/wind provider, and with a set of solar panels I could easily generate enough power for 10.000km/year charging at home. You might need to revise some of your concepts.
Just to keep things real and your eye on the ball, there's a caveat (well, several) to the statistic you've quoted and linked.
That's "close to" 50% renewables in some regions toward replacing current electricity generation.
If all vehicles stopped using petrol | diesal tomorrow and automagically becam electric the demand for electricity would increase dramatically and renewable contributions as a percentage would dwindle.
It's good work so far but there's still a long way to go, much to do, and a few billion tonnes of mining to churn through just to provide resources for your goal.
Ricardobeat is sipping the kool aid. First, just because an energy source has a name plate capacity of x does not mean it generates x. Typically, wind and solar generate 10% of their nameplate value (while fossil fuels generate 100%)! Also, there has to be a baseline power source on the grid (which is fossils fuels, using gas from Russia in your part of the world)!
After reading Thomas Piketty's theories on "Capital in the 21st Century," a lot of these issues have really come to light.
Capital grows about 2-4% each year in real terms, while the economy (labor) in general grows 1-2%. i.e. if you own stuff (shares of companies, property (real or intangible), land, etc. etc.) your worth grow twice that of a working person. Compounded over 60 years (time after WW2), capital has grown ~100% more than labor. There is real generational wealth in America & the rest of the OECD world, and this wealth is growing at absurd rates. I'm not to lobby or claim that I have a solution or that wealth should be distributed. All I'm saying is there is a giant monkey in the room. And this isn't just and Elon or Bezos or Ivy League elite problem. There are even small $1-$10M blue collar businesses that no one could possibly start today even if you had the skills & knowledge with how money it would take to buy equipment, have a shop space / real estate, cash burn in the first few years, etc.
I do think it is worrisome that businesses and its capital are largely going private. Public companies have much more scrutiny with the SEC, big labor, and has more checks & balances. It's also a vehicle for normal folks to invest money into a retirement plan; you can throw tens of thousands of dollars and actually own parts of major companies.
I also think the economy of scale for PE is very worrisome. Many folks here have talked about Vet clinics, medical clinics, etc. When PE gets together, they can buy buy buy and bleed bleed bleed money until the competition is out, and then they can jack up prices to make the difference up.
A solution to this situation could be to force structured businesses with a certain base of revenues and employees to freely allow their employees to invest in the company and sell those shares in a public secondary market. Most countries have already complex accountacy regulations and public registries even for smaller businesses.
structured business could mean any business where work and departments are specialised (HR,administration, C-suite, sales, production) and the business has a book value or terminal value of discounted cashflows. Contrary if the founders and "early" employees "wear many hats" and are the difference of daily success or bankruptcy you dont have a structured business. Realistically most company above 50+ employess feel the necessity to structure themselves.
I'm really glad TB exists and is still developed. I try it once a year every year because I use Firefox, and TB is cross platform.
Honestly, I can't say it fits my needs more than Mac mail.app or the web client when on a windows computer (mailbox.org). I guess what I'm saying is that I have never used Outlook so I've never needed an open source replacement for it.
Experimental is a very broad category. On one hand we have $250k Rv-10s that are immaculate and built well from kits that thousands have used to shitty canard garage designed birds.
I will say, the crackpots are largely getting pushed out of experimental and the folks who love flying and want to see it succeed on a budget are stepping in. I'm not an experimental bro, but I am tempted with the crazy costs of mundane parts for 60 year old planes.
Insurance is not a legal requirement. Some individual airports will make you have a "on the ground policy" (couple hundred dollars a year) to cover movement and other people's property.
You can get liability only insurance, or full hull coverage (I.e. you crash you get a check). Your premium is based on your flight experience and your age (some insurance companies won't underwrite if over 70, some won't underwrite if they think your experience is low for the type of aircraft). I have a $150k hull value plane, and liability for me is $540 a year, and hull coverage is $3500. I do liability only.
Mechanics typically buy whatever insurance they feel they need to be "safe." My mechanic doesn't have insurance, but he also says "hell no" to a ton of folks because working on a flight school plane isn't worth the headaches and putting your name on it, since statistics say they will most likely crash.
Everything the faa does boils down to limiting liability, and liability is asses occupying seats in aircraft. Want to fly without a medical? Great, you can do basic med but can't fly over 6 people. You want to import a foreign war bird? Awesome, you're going to have to register that restricted and or experimental and you can't do aerial tours or turn a profit. You own a vintage aircraft and are the owner / operator? You legally can fabricate your own parts if you follow certain guidelines.
I hate to burst the "hope" and optimism bubble, but we won't be seeing flying cars or anything crazy from the MOSAIC rules. While I think there will be a lot of positives that come from it, the faa more or less is laying out a set of rules and guidelines for new aircraft and tightening up definitions. LSA was a major failure, and the Feds are realizing that they can actually limit liability and increase safety by making a set of standards and guidelines for small aircraft.
Also, I don't see any "emerging markets" coming out of GA. Flying is expensive, takes a lot of time, and is hard. Real wages also haven't risen since the 80s, and the younger folks have other interests.
I principally wrote geophysics software with some time spent in the hangers tag teaming with real mechanics while working for an Australian survey company that was ultimately sold to Fugro.
At time of sale we hade 14 airframes, mostly fixed wing aircraft, some helicopters, all modified for survey work (stinger tail booms, looped EM field detectors, under slung drones, etc) and a perfect 20+ year air saftey record which Fugro didn't maintain - they had two aircraft down and some loss of life within a few years of aquisition.
Many of the planes were older high wing twin engine types (Shrikes, etc) - my personal favorite that was bought and modified in my time there was a NZ Cresco 750 designed for crop dusting
We surveyed all of Fiji, most of Mali, NorWest India | Pakistan during the Pokhran-II | Chagai-I test exchanges, along with a great deal of other work about the globe.
> I hate to burst the "hope" and optimism bubble, but we won't be seeing flying cars or anything crazy from the MOSAIC rule
You can already buy a paramotor and learn how to fly it for roughly the price of a new Tesla. I can't imagine getting any closer to "flying cars" than that
I saw your comment when I was scrolling through and I wholeheartedly agree.
Our system does put a price on "well you have to earn your keep and you have to sit here all day."
I'm not sure how or if it could be done, but there is definitely enough wiggle room and waste in our current system that we could have people start doing more useful things with their time.
Probably not their car. The single biggest liability you assume driving around is other peoples health, the second biggest is your health. the price of a car is often a minor concern in comparison.
I'll stick to the favorite job that's "in my career" to keep with the theme I sense OP is wanting.
I did a lot of manual / hard labor in middle, high school, and college, and studied engineering.
My favorite job was about 6 years out of college where I got to combine all those. I was doing contract applied research for the private sector. Along with engineering systems and designing experiments, I was also machining, turning wrenches, taking samples, etc.
I find myself most happy when I'm running around / working with my hands at least 3 days a week and doing office / design work the other 2 (on average).
There's so many people on this website sitting behind Chinese made computers spitting bullshit on "well if we could just get those container ships to pull some solar panels to then grow corn onboard and create a micro climate and process ethanol for said ship, then this whole process would be negligible and carbon neutral and not matter." Give me a fucking break. The world economy is based on exploitation and consumption. There is no "carbon neutral" consumption. There is no getting rich on a USA 1800s type agrarian low human footprint economy.
Like your correct comment indicates, the fact is the global economy is logistically insanely complex, politically complex, and mostly exists for pure consumption and waste. The Greta's are making "moral" arguments and brain washing the first world in order to ship production of "dirty" industries to china, LATAM, and Russia. They are wall streets biggest lobbyists!