1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fascinating, really, how people choosing what to buy depending on brand name, and not on real properties and whats inside.

You’ve just described the wet dream of every marketing team on the planet. People care about the name and not the contents, and while most of us with a brain in our head mock them for this, there’s far too many of them with disposable income that do this compared to informed shoppers. They don’t care if it’s made by slave labour, child labour or make from depleted uranium and will give “her” testicular cancer, it has popular brand name on it so I need it to make my friends and people I’ll never meet jealous!

It’s a sickness, this society….

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you’re referring to something on Wikipedia it’s been long known that it’s a compromised source. Shit they never allowed you to use that shithole as a resource when I was in high school and nothing in my life has happened to make me change stances on that. They want to cleanse and scrub the “main” internet and have everything be the way they want. Nothing new there either. Best bet is to look for good sources on the dark net and personally archive stuff you don’t want to lose. It’s a dull kick in the balls to go back to a website you saved a link to only to find it’s gone.

by pkvi
1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

This. I also think he was trying to get them to spell the name out in hopes of them realizing, and not making a dick joke.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

A shill is like a tranny. They think they’re passing, blending in, undetectable. In reality it’s, again, just like a tranny, easy to tell and almost impossible to take seriously.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

A very interesting take, and one I hadn’t heard of before. Thanks!

4
Dualkalibur 4 points ago +9 / -5

YAY. While I’d rather it not need to come to something so heavy handed, they have their own place to meet and discuss on this website without taking time away from other conspiracies that have merit and require discussion. Next I’d love to see a containment spot for all the Christian posters to get driven into.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

Isn’t the Nazi swastika sitting on its point, not flat? The symbol has been used in other cultures over time as a good luck symbol.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

A bit late, but while I was working oil rigs here in Canada my income tax from federal and provincial deductions worked out to 31%. Plus I had CPP and EI deductions too so i was paying 31-33% of my income to their black hole of waste. Maybe Americans get a lower rate, would have to get an American oil rig worker to weigh in on how much he got robbed off his cheques.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, works been crazy lately. Enough to make a guy start looking at new jobs and I didn’t wanna do much online and take anything out on someone who doesn’t deserve it. The current model we have has earth rotating around the sun while also flying (for lack of better terms in simple form) “forward” with the sun as the whole galaxy is also moving through space. Kinda like a gyroscope spinning on different axis, we’re under multiple forces and moving in multiple directions simultaneously. This presents a large headache for doing accurate math, not that it’s impossible, it’s just complicated. Back to your proposed drone in an isolated column thought experiment. Should we take the air movement issue away, place it inside a column with no outside air movement getting in, and have a drone that flys perfectly level, we should indeed have a drone that hits the side of the column after a period of time goes by. If it doesn’t, well then we need to figure out why. Did we miss a variable? Is a calculation wrong? Thought experiments are great but then we get to what worked in theory doesn’t work in real life when all factors are at play. As for the atmosphere dissipating into the vacuum of space, I believe we are losing bits of it all the time, with some being replaced by bits of star dust and meteorites etc coming into the atmosphere as we move through space. Space isn’t as empty and clear as people think there’s lot of dust and crap up there. I give credence to the globe model as it works for transportation(shipping and air travel), fits up with the shadows seen on the moon, and the logic that in a 3D environment everything is sucked down to the center of the greatest mass as all objects are pulled together gets gravity to work everywhere on the globe pretty much the same(areas with slightly less strong gravitational pull being the exception.) The flat earth models honestly seem so silly with their need for a firmament or an ice wall. We know meteors and meteorites are real things. People on the internet love to say space is fake and gay but if it’s all fake and there’s a firmament how’d that big rock land in the middle of a field? I don’t think volcanos are throwing them everywhere and I don’t think it’s a psyop where they’re dropping them out of the planes doing Chem trails. And ice wall around the entire world also sounds ridiculous on its face. All it takes for the oceans to drain is one break in it anywhere? Any mad billionaire could send a submarine to drill a hole in it and drain the oceans and laugh as the world burns? Where’s the water going to go? How is the firmament not broken either? You can’t leave anything outside without it getting sun bleached, damaged and cracked or broken after enough time. The christ-cuck NPC’s on here seem to love the idea that we live in a 6000 year old snow globe made by Daddy Sky Wizard but anyone who starts to look at their claims finds more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese that wandered onto the set of a blind gangbang. I’m sure you’ve seen the picture showing up close and on the surface of a basketball with things set to our size and perspective it shows the basketball being flat. We’re so close to the surface of an absolutely massive ball of rock compared to our size that we can’t see enough details to see the full picture.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

We have to make a few assumptions here and there’s a good chance we’re wrong. Assuming the drone gets no input to keep it straight up, well you may be able to prove that. Turning the controller off and letting the drone sit there flying on its own for example. But to assume no wind at all? Even in a calm situation you’ll find there’s actually air movement. Figuring out how the clouds should move is complicated due to the size of the planet and the sheer number of variables involved. Complex weather systems are well, complex and not only would I most likely not do it justice trying to simplify it, we’ll be here quite a while setting up the particulars of the variables that change very rapidly. Amount of sunlight , reflection off water, absorbing and reflection of heat from the sun on black tilled farmland, upper air currents, hell that’s just a short list that doesn’t even scrape the surface of how many factors are at play. So with your permission, I’ll leave the clouds movement for now? We’ll stick with the drone. Yes, I agree with you that the circumference of the orbit of the drone is larger than the circumference of the earth at ground level. While the drone is hovering 2 miles up, it’s still being pushed upon by the rotating atmosphere. Until you leave the atmosphere you’re still being pushed by it. This is a hard example to nail down details on as the higher you go up the lower the air pressure but you started off with X kinetic energy at ground level and have moved into a lower air pressure which will have less resistance to your drone relative to the air resistance at ground level. The air isn’t like still water in a swimming pool, it’s a turbulent gas mixture that’s quite hard to visualize moving the way it actually does and describing it is harder. Remember the movie twister where they put all those little sensors into the tornado to map it and show it on the computer screen? If you could do something like that with the earths atmosphere and show it to someone you could describe the events going on. The upper atmosphere can already be moving at higher speeds relative to you at ground level and without measurements of both the ground air speed and the speed at the drone height, the answer ends up being “we it could be _____”. Do you have any experiments showing a drone was set to fly up , do only vertical force and no lateral correction and flew there for an hour and then landed hundreds of miles away to present?

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

A bit late, but in regards to you “earth rotating so fast” question, one day is 24 hours. The earth rotates once in that time. If we wanna be precise it’s actually like 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds and that’s why we do the leap year shit. Spinning once a day is like 0.0007 RPM, a very small and hard to perceive amount. Rotational speed at the equator is 27.7 KM per minute, and all objects on the earth have the same kinetic energy , including the at atmosphere. To put it another way, if you’re in a train going 100 mph and you jump up, you aren’t instantly slammed into the rear of the train car and killed, you too are going 100 mph even though you’re able to sip your drink and munch on some chips. A drone flying straight up is still in the atmosphere travelling east-west and with Newton’s third law taken into account, since no outside force is acting on the drone to slow it down it goes the same direction it was originally heading aided by the atmosphere it’s in.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

No OP but I’ll weigh in. Should they be the ONLY test? No. Do they have a use as a quick metric of one’s intelligence at a social level that can expressed via communication? Yes. While we don’t judge a fish by how well it climbs a tree or judge dogs for how quick they dig train tunnels through mountains, when it comes to human intelligence you can often watch someone and tell fairly quickly if they’re smart, smart in their own way, or just plain fucking stupid.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, if you own enough property, wood and cutting down trees. Burn the wood to boil water, water drives steam turbine, turbine spins a generator. All of which need spare parts and maintenance but with a few careful purchases it can be done. You can also have things like a rocket mass heater in your house and use the wood for it as well as the electricity. Not everyone has the lane and trees to do it this way but it’s an option.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

Gas takes extraction and logistics to move around, and after having a gas furnace and thinking I’d be warm when the power went out, no dice. Without power to drive the fan, the pilot light sits on and does fuck all. While it was nice and warm when it worked it’s coupled to electricity and just an added bill and something else to maintain in the end.

And 10-15 year lifespan is no different than early solar panel adopters. And at least my nuclear material from the reactor would be recycled unlike most of the solar arrays and windmill blades.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

Indeed there’s a huge cost now but there’s been no incentive for competition to bring the costs down. Wide scale adoption and multiple companies producing equipment would bring the cost down to end consumers. Cars were once a toy for the rich, now it’s a normal everyday item. We CAN produce small neighbourhood power generators and farm sized ones, right now it’s expensive but we could change that. You can’t put a hydro electric dam just anywhere. You can’t stick a windmill just anywhere for it to be cost effective or even to make it work most of the time. You can’t put a massive solar array and battery system just anywhere if you don’t have the room for it. But a power reactor scaled down to the size of a garden shed is possible. Less material so a critical fuck up doesn’t nuke the area just fucks over YOUR generator is possible. The powers that be don’t want us to be independent and self sustaining, they want all the control. Even if you and I sat down and made a profitable business plan to make and sell garden shed nuke generators we’d face unbelievable opposition so they keep all the control. It’s sad but it’s the world we’re used to.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

The fuel source could be mass produced like many other things and be made user serviceable if need be. Having multiple reactors in a neighborhood creates redundancy. If everyone has a car you can bum a ride to work when yours breaks. If everyone has to take the bus, no one’s getting to work if the bus breaks. I don’t like being on a shared resource with others if I can have a dedicated system for my family that I can maintain. Sometimes the cost is worth it.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

Windmill yes but as you said wind dependant. I have trees on my property and water from the well and dugout. In a desperate situation I can take the multiple spare alternators off my fleet of cars and hook them to a simple windmill or build a steam generator that’s word burning to produce electricity as well as secondary heating. Super cheap plentiful fuel, just a lot of work on my end but doable. Nuclear fuel could be available and cheap if it wasn’t for idiots and hippies (whops tautology!) being anti nuclear since the 70’s. Theyd rather have a battery powered car same as their cell phone charger by a nimby coal plant.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

Home off the grid solar is a solution if you can afford the setup, batteries and replacement costs. I’d rather pay to set up a small nuclear generator and pay for technicians to come service it once every 5 years while society lasts and take care of it myself after it crumbles. Multi day snow storms are a thing and solar don’t do shit under 3 feet of snow. Once the batteries run out you better have a fireplace in your castle, but I’d much rather have a fireplace AND my own small power generator station. Like everyone owning car instead of taking a bus, it’s more parts and upkeep but everyone has far more redundancy and can keep power going in extreme condtions that break power lines and poles.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly, they pushed the ice age bullshit until they couldn’t. I’ve looked back, global cooling then global warming then just climate change because they couldn’t hit defined metrics. It’s always been a scam. We got cheated out of awesome muscle cars in the 80’s due to the fake oil shortage and now they’re pushing electric as the better than sliced bread save the planet omgbbqwtf11!!1 when there’s not enough lithium available to change every car over much less replace them in 10 years. They’ll always find a new scam but we still need ways to propel ourselves to the future.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wasn’t trying to say we’re running out of coal anytime soon. Merely that it, unlike oil, is finite and once it’s gone it’s gone. I’d hate for future generations to be starved of a potential super resource because we simply burned it instead of using better alternatives. Sure, nuclear requires concrete and steel and expensive procedures to begin and continue operation but we get so much out of it it’s worth it. Plus some good blue collar jobs.

2
Dualkalibur 2 points ago +2 / -0

Indeed we can make charcoal but charcoal isn’t coal. Switching to a wood based heat system IS doable, with proper forest management and logging, but coal itself it finite. It was generated millions of years ago before bacteria that breaks down and rots the tree down evolved. Trees died and fell and got compacted and nothing broke them down and the pressure and maybe some heat(I wasn’t there at the time, lol) changed the ancient cellulose strands from the wood we know and love into coal. I’d much rather see nuclear be used in the near future and save coal for later on. Maybe we invent a process that makes it a super battery, maybe we find a combination that results in a super fuel. We won’t be able to do that if we simply burn it all when there’s better options.

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +3 / -2

Coal is dirty as shit. Not only from mining it, but since it contains trace amounts of thorium and uranium, those get released into the air from burning it. Unless you’re going to refine the coal into a clean fuel, or make some giant water bong style filters for the smoke stacks, coal is worse than nuclear and also a finite resource. Once coal is all gone it’s gone, no more gets made unless we wipe out the world and it starts over from scratch. In which case we’re still like 300-450 million years away from having new coal.

3
Dualkalibur 3 points ago +3 / -0

Help us Vlad, you’re our only hope!

1
Dualkalibur 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only if you believe the bible. Human ego and hubris makes people want to think the creator of the universe and reality is just like them. There’s no logical reason for an entity that can manipulate energy to be anything like a human. Only wishful thinking would lead to that conclusion.

0
Dualkalibur 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yeah mock the French who’ve been in more wars around the world than America and without who’s help you’d still be a British colony. Don’t mind André-Marie Ampère, you don’t need solenoids and it’s not like the standard measurement of the ampere is named after him or nothing. Just how fucked in the head ARE you? But then you rank Aesops fables highly on your reading list than history and science books showing the entire process so it’s honestly not surprising.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›