Something is wrong here. Likely the exact category in which things are compared. 1.17 kilograms, 200 W and world’s lightest… I’ve seen 2000 W drone motors that weigh less than 1 kilogram and aren’t called the world’s lightest, because one can go lighter.

It looks like a neat motor, though. For a very limited power level. But they didn’t even tell the efficiency…

I think the 38% number is definitely wrong, maybe even wrong by one order of magnitude.

I tried fact-checking and came up with this:

https://providencemag.com/2018/04/what-a-country-immigrants-serve-us-military-well

Few Americans realize that 65,000 immigrants serve in the US military today. That number includes some 18,700 troops who hold green cards (in other words, legal permanent residents who are not yet naturalized citizens). According to the Pentagon, about 5,000 such residents enlist each year.

Since the total number of the US armed forces is around 1.3 million, it follows that 38% is definitely wrong and the correct number of immigrants is likely around 5%.

I think the 38% number originates from service member naturalization stats or service member family stats and has been mis-interpreted. Can’t tell for sure, didn’t hire a spy to find out. :)

P.S. Edit: found a secondary source with similar data:

https://www.usafis.org/can-i-join-the-us-military-as-a-green-card-holder/

Approximately 8,000 Green Card holders join the US military each year and around 35,000 are currently serving on active duty.

Since green card holders aren’t the only variety of immigrant, the number 65 000 seems plausible.

My estimate is that this will result on 410 lawsuits filed per day. :o

I think it’s not a smart move to have 150 000 lawsuits per year over the same question - it’s much preferable to have 1 lawsuit for a whole class of people - defending the rights of everyone in the same situation - and some extra lawsuits for those who want to present a unique take on the matter.

Regardless of whether an opinion is for or against something, the recommended subject matter of this community is definitely not smart cities, but off-grid living.

smart cities

There must be a better community for that. A city, especially a smart city, would not be considered off grid.

I am not a member there, but I would take a look at “c/urbanism”. It is about cities.

Moderator of community, not admin of instance.

Exotic, rare, not representative of everyday things.

Here’s a reasonably representative photo.

As much as I’ve understood, yes - heat pumps have difficulty with reaching high temperatures.

No. Also, I apologize for being a bit rude, but what would you gain from having a video of a home wind generator working? There’s probably thousands of such videos on the Internet.

They use resistive heating, so they can only charge it dirt cheap when there is surplus solar or wind.

The question is too vague to answer well, but I have run a high autonomy household for 10 years, so it’s possible. Solar with battery storage, small wind generator to supplement things during storms. Heating uses wood.

Latitude 59, so I get an electrical energy crisis every winter, but on most winters, I don’t have to start a gasoline generator or bring electricity over with my e-car.

If you’re on a lower latitude, it becomes simpler, if you only have enough surface for solar panels.

It’s a pretty neat system:

• can be set up anywhere
• can supply high grade heat (process heat, not mere space heating heat)

However, heat stores are subject to scaling laws which don’t favour sand on the large scale, at least unless it’s underground (and then you have to keep groundwater out to avoid vaporizing it). Large thermal stores benefit from storing heat in water, and placing the water deep underground, so the boiling point rises. If local rock has low thermal conductivity, even better.

For comparison Helsinki (.fi) has a 10 GWh underground thermal store. Where I live, Tallinn (.ee) will soon get a 1 GWh surface thermal store. And Vantaa (.fi) will soon complete a whopping 90 GWh thermal store that’s located 100 m underground, so their water will boil at 140 C instead of the usual 100 C. Boiling points up to 300 C are attainable in practise, then the curve starts leveling out.

It was meant to be humorous framing, given the impossibility of making humans from magma or the iron core. :)

Which ethnicity’s population are we going to reduce?

I honestly believe that “we” aren’t going to do jack s**t. It’s a process which is nearly unsteerable. People are going to live longer and longer, and use resources that would otherwise be used by children they might have had. Society is going to be burdened by caring for the old, and this is going to reduce chances of caring for the young.

In nearly every developed country, population growth is slowing or population has already started decreasing. Only in the least developed regions (some areas of Africa) does the opposite still apply, but UN predictions (made by competent people) suggest the process just reaches there later.

So, every ethnicity’s population is going to be reduced. Every ethnicity can also consider if their numbers are adequate, too high or too low. If a nation feels threatened by disappearing from the maps, they can try to reorganize their society. Random ideas: a few laws that give parents various health and social security guarantees regardless of their employment status, especially in case they’re single parents, then maybe create a few dating sites that actually try to help their users find people they like, etc…

There is plenty of resources to support humanity.

I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we’d need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.

I think we shouldn’t use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans. Our species has experienced a massive population explosion and is at peak numbers.

Usually this kind of events are followed by a hurtful population crash. It seems considerably better if growth ends due to a (subconscious?) decision to stop expanding, rather than a war for remaining resources.

The founder of the Antinatalism International, Anugraha Kumar Sharma, argues that “there is absolutely no hope whatsoever in this world.”

Well, that’s hard to argue against. I might disagree, but I cannot artificially give him any hope, even if he wants some.

For some, the progressive embrace of antinatalism might just be a reaction to the pronatalism espoused by the Right. Because Vice President J. D. Vance wants you to have more children, the only natural reply is that we ought to have none.

Not for me. They can want all they want, but to consider children, I imagine I would need to find a society relatively free of strife, a society with lower risk. I would need to feel somewhat secure in my own future, because you have to raise children for a hefty amount of time. Most importanly, I’d have to find someone who’d like to do this together.

Some creatures respond to environmental stress by breeding earlier and faster, and trying to do that more desperately. I cannot find such a response in my own “code”. I respond to environmental stress by saving resources to overcome hardship, and focusing effort to defeat the source of hardship. If that means a decline in population by 1.7 people, so be it.

I think that in the modern times, more people have started thinking this way. Having children is expensive and can effectively put you below the poverty line, and stop you from pursuing goals, whatever they are.

I’m not even anti-natalist. I’m just not interested in reproduction - precisely because I still have a future that I might influence for the better - but not if I waste my resources on reproduction.

Also, I think a scarcity of humans might actually cause society to value humans more. In the Middle Ages, when the plague reduced populations, serfs were able to obtain better conditions and break the pattern of slavery in many lands. Feudal lords struggled because their vast empty lands could not be managed by their dwindling crew - someone could till a field or hunt game without paying taxes or asking for permission out there. Of course, this pattern might not apply in modern times, however.

the global democratic left has been incapable of developing an economic agenda that looks beyond the next election cycle.

Not sure if I can agree. Over here, the agenda looks pretty clear. Achieve progressive taxation. Achieve higher taxation of capital than labour. Achieve lower taxation of worker-owned companies. Achieve universal health insurance. Beyond the economic, achieve a governing system not disproportionately influenced by the wealthy. Preferably, achieve all this without violence.

(and reaching those goals is prevented by the disproportionate propaganda capability of the economic right, mostly financed by the wealthy)

Good to hear. :)

They have, but this does not look like a fiber optic scenario.

Guesses: either:

• autonomous navigation by terrain and compass (assuming that satnav systems are denied), or
• one swarm member using a ridiculously good (satellite?) radio to supply other swarm members with guidance from Ukraine, or
• guidance via Russian mobile phone networks.

Missile silos are sadly, ridiculously hardened. You may have to hit a single door with 10+ drones to get through.

Aircraft are perfect targets, since an aircraft must be light and cannot be hidden underground too easily.

Also, missile silos aren’t being used to attack Ukraine. Knocking one out would have no effect on the safety of people in Ukraine. Aircraft however, are used daily / weekly. Tangible benefit is immediate - less air raids, less missiles fired, less glide bombs dropped.

It would also be sweet if a shortage of radar planes occurred - Russia not knowing what’s happening in its airspace would allow Ukrainian long-range drones to reach where they must.