TreadOnMe [none/use name]

  • 0 Posts
  • 710 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2020

help-circle




  • They usually don’t make the same mistake twice, I will give them that, but I have seen younger mechanical engineers do some pretty silly shit.

    I was specifically talking about tanks and stuff like that, not like a standard bracket material selection. Most piping and tanks and stuff is either a team of mechanical and chemical or purely chemical, sometimes with a process or controls engineer thrown in depending on how much money is floating around.

    That said, my father tells me all of that stuff used to fall within mechanical engineering, with chemical engineering really being limited to Petro, pharma and agriculture.



  • Respectfully, even most geology falls into the realms of the theoretical. We have theories of how a sandstone gorge is formed, but no one has been doing the measurements for long enough to know for sure. We have simply created a model that fits the observed phenomena available to us and have created theoretical abstractions based on that model. Now, mind you, these models tend to be extremely accurate, but that doesn’t mean something could change in the future or be different in the past. We are just working from our currently available data.

    Otherwise, theoretical physics relies on a creation of predictions that could be mathematically true, based on inferred extrapolation of the current, contradictory, models but ultimately haven’t actually been able to square enough circles in the field of experimental physics to be widely taken as whole scientific.

    For example, there are aspects of string theory, such as long distance quantum pairing, that have been shown to be true experimentally, however, overall experimental data does not demonstrate to a statistically significant degree that the actual reason for this phenomena is because the universe works through a string theory model, there are too many other things that fit other, contradictory theoretical models.



  • If you are an actual leftist (of any particular stripe) who reads theory and isn’t just LARPing some fictional revolutionary vision in your head, then what you are against are ‘unjustified’ hierarchies.

    Hierarchies that are created through trial and error of revolutionary attempts are justified hierarchies. Hierarchies based on whose daddy owned what business, are not justified. Hierarchies based on people being chosen by a group to centralize and coordinate activity, and having more privileges associated with their increased responsibilities is a justified hierarchy. Giving people more power arbitrarily, through no consultation with the community, and then allowing them to use that power to avoid responsibility, is an unjustified hierarchy.











  • Correct.

    The domestic policy aspect of this trade, particularly for cocaine, is mostly speculation on my part, cobbled together from both historical accounts, anecdotal evidence, and personal experience.

    However, my personal hypothesis is that a byproduct of the cocaine trade being illegal domestically is that it technically serves the same purpose as Jeffrey Epstein did, binding together members of an elite class through shared usage and performance of, what would outside of that class, be an illegal activity. Kind of like how people used to smoke weed to prove they were cool, before everyone and their mother got high all the time.

    Cocaine usage is rampant among the financial and governmental class, and being ghouls, they have the best and most pure shit. Having a hit of flour with some cocaine in it is completely different than having the shit near raw. Basically isn’t even worth it in the Midwest anymore, especially with some fiend’s insistence of cutting with fent. But it also speaks to a tightening of access and usage. There used to be enough cocaine around for crack (differently processed cocaine) to be epidemic, but that shit is not nearly as common, to my understanding.

    Point is, the systemic policies and policy objectives are the issue, not anything from the production side.


  • The “cartels” (in reality extremely loosely related production and smuggling operations) are pretty much entirely a product of a combination of U.S. foreign and domestic policies, that serve to control money and drug flows within the Americas, providing the U.S. with convenient scapegoats to destabilize trust in governments that don’t exactly toe the U.S. line by providing them with guns and money, while also allowing the U.S. to simultaneously tar states that try to exert control over these actors through their own means as ‘narco-states’.

    Unless these policies, both acknowledged and secretive, are dealt with, there is very little chance that any product brought to domestic market will have a real impact. Policies will simply be changed to continue these foreign and domestic policy objectives.

    It’s not as though coca is extremely difficult to grow in these tropical regions. It is an artificial scarcity problem already.