What are you talking about? The asshole works as a die. Extrusion is about deforming the object, it doesn't have to change its general "shape". If there is plastic deformation, which there is as stated(unless you hold it in unhealthily long), then it counts. You extrude a cylinder with a big cross section to one with a smaller cross section.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 131
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 131
- Joined
- 2 yr. ago
I'm not mad, I'm just trying to express how little this accomplishes besides pr. Maybe you've forgotten how he was the first to ban Palestinian flags and protests, deeming them as terrorist.
I never realized that this process is basically a biological cold extrusion.
That'll show them!! Netanyahu is shaking rn. Honestly fuck Macron
Ayn Rand's fountainhead, by a fat mile. I was young and didn't know better
What in the world do you mean "you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?". What does expect mean??? I don't expect anything, I'm stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable...have you heard about climate change or...? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don't need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.
I never said it's a US problem, and I didn't make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It's a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it's a worldwide problem.
You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That's a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people's needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it's a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don't get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I've said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.
It's almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it's basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.
So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don't know about.
This is a very interesting thing to point out, but I believe you are not realising how intrinsically tied the generations of women unpaid work is to the economic system.
"mainstream economic theory is obsessed with the productivity of waged labour while skipping right over the unpaid work that makes it all possible, as feminist economists have made clear for decades. That work is known by many names: unpaid caring work, the reproductive economy, the love economy, the second economy."
"the household provision of care is essential for human well-being, and productivity in the paid economy depends directly upon [the core economy]. It matters because when – in the name of austerity and public-sector savings – governments cut budgets for children’s daycare centres, community services, parental leave and youth clubs, the need for care-giving doesn’t disappear: it just gets pushed back into the home. The pressure, particularly on women’s time, can force them out of work and increase social stress and vulnerability. That undermines both well-being and women’s empowerment, with multiple knock-on effects for society and the economy alike."
Doughnut economics - Kate Raworth
Capitalism thrived and keeps thriving in concentrating capital because it is able to get away with not accounting for the value it extracts. This is true for this example of unpaid labour as well as for natural resources extraction, ecosystem damage etc(we are beginning to realize this with carbon tax). That's the cornerstone of the system function, not just a side effect. The unpaid labour may be starting to be dealt with in the West, but this just means it is aggressively outsourced in third world countries. Without these so-called economic externalities there is no profit (or extremely little of it).
I'd like to see any scientific study that reassures at least a little that this won't have terrible ramifications for ecosystems and the food chain.
We know too little, we are shortsighted and we have a bad record of intervening with nature.
Yes it's obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody's arguing that. What I'm talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.
No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It's not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that's just one of the problems. It's the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).
It's also that Google could have been taxed more(I'm sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.
So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn't replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that...cool
You do realize what instant you are in right?
On one hand I think it's very positive that everyone starts using decentralised platforms that don't run on profit, that work for their users and not their shareholders, but on the other hand having a space mostly without conservatives is great.
I'm not saying you have to know all the politics of the region. But I believe it's really important to realize that what we are witnessing isn't the consequence of one or two bad governments but a structural problem of the colonial Israeli state. Its foundation is one of prejudice against the native populations, land and property theft, mass expulsions, violence, repression and population control.
It can never be otherwise, because that would require them to return the stolen homes and land to their rightful owners(meaning that millions of refugees who have been waiting since nakba could return), give equal rights to natives and as a consequence give up on the Jewish state. Then you'd end up with a state with a pretty big majority of native Arabs and Jews mixed with equal rights, so essentially a Palestine. That's why Israel can never be anything but a neocolonial, apartheid, genocidal state.
That assumes previous Israeli governments weren't terrorist. Remember Ben gurion was considered a left winger/socialist. This entire neocolonial entity/regime is terrorist and Netanyahu is just one symptom/product of it.
Nah buddy, we always have been and always will advocate for abolition of this idiotic bipartisanship.
You just happen to notice it only when you are begging us to vote for these genocidal neoliberal freaks.
It's almost as if oligopolies can manipulate prices regardless of availability
I understand it is very unfortunate that I answered your ridiculous, non sensical statements and sentence by sentence at that. I've honestly never seen arguments making so little sense by a democrat and I've argued with a lot. Also the gaslighting goes craaazy once again. But it's literally impossible to answer to what I say, what you said is just undefendable - from the fact that Harris is now 100% with Zionists, but she will magically stand up when all the lobbies will pressure her to take decisions for them and people will have no say, to how she can do nothing to stop this or express strong disagreement as vice president, or to how you ignore anything she's ever said, having the exact same rhetoric as Biden, Blinken etc, backing the genocidal maniacs.
So now you resort to the most common argument about Trump, saying that everything I said can be applied to him, which is really funny. It's as if I ever said he will be any better. There's a serious lack of meaningful arguments here. See, ignoring the strawman, the problem with this lesser evil argument, is that there is always a red line beyond which both parties are indistinguishable(think if you had to choose between Hitler and Hitler that handed out a hundred bucks per month as allowance). Both parties cause so much pain, suffering and harm to the world, not just the middle east, and they are so far away from anything I and a lot of people would find even remotely satisfactory, that it's ridiculous to vote for them. Both are moving to the exact opposite direction to my ideals and aggressively so. Their differences are literally miniscule.
There is necessarily a point where the lesser evil doesn't hold, for everyone. Our difference is that you are not at that point yet. Your ideals and criteria are different and frankly you don't care about the Palestinians that much supporting a genocide perpetrator, you don't care enough to vote third party or not vote.
Cause she is a Zionist, genocide perpetrator and that's a given(Biden is even bragging multiple times about how no one has helped Israel as much as his cabinet ever - and he's right), nobody denies that besides people like you who are tasked with convincing the left wing to vote for your stupid party.
It's sad and disgusting to me to have to explain myself on how the democrats go against my and the people's interests and I can't continue discussing this with you. I'm obviously talking through you, you don't come for arguments, you come to make me vote for your abomination of a party. You know what they say, you can't make someone understand something, when it's in their direct interest to not understand it. Have a nice day
Some other country would be in their place. (Almost) Every country given the chance commits atrocities. Sometimes I wonder what the world would be without countries.