I'm more impressed by the eerie beauty of it than the technical achievement, even if the code was orders of magnitude larger it would still be wonderful.
Hey, glad you like this as well. Fun fact, i had a COVOX version which even sounded better, but didnt work sometimes ... so i handed in the "slightly worse" version xD
I've always wondered if it was perhaps the inspiration for the novel Neuromancer (2 AI's in different continents plotting to combine with each other to form a global super-intelligence)
The majority of demand for fossil fuels is for energy. Switching to alternative sources for energy is not “demand destruction” unless you zoom in your analysis so much that you’re missing the forest for the trees.
You cannot just switch an entire country's energy source on a finger snap nor do we have a viable alternative for making nitrogen based fertilizer. East Asia, which is heavily dependent on Middle East gas, is already bracing for energy shortages. What is likely to happen next is a fertilizer shortage in some poorer countries which will then lead to food shortages and social unrest.
The switch to renewables isn’t expected to happen on a finger snap.
And if we no longer need the majority of fossil fuels for oil, we will have more of our own ample local fossil fuels to allocate to production of things that still require them like your afore mentioned fertilizer or lubricants.
I assume your understanding of "demand destruction" is mixing concepts.
GP said switching to alternative sources isn't demand destruction when it IS technically and relatively.
The parent's point: until you get those renewables online (decade long process now with permitting), prices will go up. You'll have people using less energy (in general) and less O&G -- both are quintessential demand destruction.
For nitrogen fertilizer (ammonia), there's already demand destruction with people cutting back due to price shocks. That's less food and ag.
Using less of any resource because it’s been blocked doesn’t mean the demand is destroyed. The demand can remain perfectly the same or even go up.
My point was that the OP was myopically focusing on fossil fuel do demand when the real demand that would lead to switching to renewables is the demand for energy.
I suggest revisiting the definition [0]. IMHO, your understanding is at odds and I suspect you're intending to say people will replace with energy from elsewhere (which still qualifies as demand destruction).
Alright I guess this is a preexisting term but it seems as poorly named as the academic definition of racism when it comes to using existing English words in highly specific contexts.
Recursing back up to the original level then I’d say who cares if demand for oil specifically goes down? We still get energy from renewables and there will still be an oil industry working at a reduced capacity for the products that are oil derived like fertilizers.
Honestly I’d be more worried about niche resources that are a minor side effect of fossil fuel extraction like helium that might skyrocket in price if the extraction was being done only to acquire.
> I’d say who cares if demand for oil specifically goes down?
"How" it happens is the nuance.
The point above was that people would get priced out (not by choice), lowering (read: destroying) demand. They experience lower quality of life, can't afford fertilizer for crops, lack capital to build reliable renewables, lose jobs, etc.
I've learned enough from this thread to give me pause and the impetus for research, for anyone finding this thread later, I am not as confident in my original reply as I was after this thread.
You are assuming that a battery is full at 4.2V and empty at 0V. In practice a Lithium Ion battery is empty at 3V. You are also assuming the relationship between capacity and voltage is linear - it is not.
This is arguably the reason why the Overton window has shifted towards the rejection of human slavery over the last century or so, with the growth of fossil fuel use.
Human slavery will thus likely swing back into fashion again in the future as oil, coal and natural gas run out.
I doubt scarcity has had anything to do with wars for the last 100 years, maybe even longer. It has always been about ideologies, fanaticism, and lording it over one another. Even when men lived in smaller tribes during periods of abundance, they still went around killing each other for false glory, ideology, and expansion. No economic solution can solve the problem of war and human nature.
Even if men ever colonize Mars and the wider galaxy, and resources were abundant, I doubt it would take long for wars to break out there, whether for a specific reason or none at all.
I doubt it very much that either Russian war on Ukraine or the US attacking Iran happened due do scarcity of resources.
Old folks in power want their page in history books.
It's the only thing he knows. Declare victory, never admit losing anything, ever.
"Dobias later said that young Trump “always had to be number one, in everything. He was a conniver, even then. A real pain in the ass. He would do
anything to win” (D’Antonio, Never Enough, 43)."
They're referencing Trump's constant insistence that we won or are currently winning. He never, ever admits defeat or concedes any ground, everything is a victory, nothing is a loss. Trump also famously said (paraphrasing) "We're gonna win so much, we'll be tired of winning".
https://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=53871
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36BPql6Nl_U
I'm more impressed by the eerie beauty of it than the technical achievement, even if the code was orders of magnitude larger it would still be wonderful.
reply