Various interesting stuff

https://9gag.com/gag/aA3VK4o

How do we know that's not just glass?

Dragatus wrote:

How do we know that's not just glass?

Aren't you just too sceptical?

Nah, I read into it. It works, albeit is really expesive and ugly. Too thick for window frames.

I for one welcome our new solar panel overlords

Could be refined.

Also, https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aMZrbO6_460svvp9.webm

I feel a little skeptical because it sounds too good to be true, but if it legit can reduce emissions:

Nice that it runs on renewable energy. But I see a problem with providing enough for this.

We are not funding this because of the oil lobby...

Kara is rightfully skeptical because it is too good to be true. Or at least the image they present is.

First point is that they're recycling CO2, not energy. You generally can't recycle energy that's been used to do work and in the rare case that you can it requires undoing the work. That's basic thermodynamics.

Second point is that you need to use energy to turn CO2 and H20 into fuel. In the ideal case with no losses you'd have to use as much energy as will be released later when the fuel gets burned in the car. But in practice it's probably more. Essentially you store energy in the fuel so that you can use it in a car.

They most likely use electricity in some way to do make the fuel, so the big question is where does the electricity come from. If it's solar or geothermal that's fine and the whole thing is a benefit for carbon emissions. But if you get the electricity from a thermal power station then you just end up burning coal instead of oil to power your car.

That makes the whole thing similar to electric cars, but there's one significant difference. Every time you burn things to produce energy which you then use to do work you will inevitably have loses. Your best case scenario is the theoretical Carnot heat engine (link), but in practice efficiency will be lower. In the case of electric cars you burn coal once to get electricity and then you use all of the electricity to power the car. With this you burn coal to produce electricity, use the electricity to produce fuel, and burn the fuel to power the car. Since you burn twice you lose energy twice too.

According to the figures I found internal combustion engines have an efficiency in the range from 25% to 50%. So a car burning this fuel would require between two and four times as much coal to be burned for electricity compared to an electric car. And that's on the assumption that the process of capturing CO2 from the atmosphere only requires as much energy as will be stored in the fuel, which is highly unlikely. So yeah.

The bottom line is that this may very well be a fine technology, but you have to be careful from where you get the power to run such a facility. If you're burning coal you'll do more harm than good and it would be better to just keep burning oil.

Thank you.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13042/eu-internet-censorship

They specifically stated the source of power was renewable energy, but I am sceptical if it would be sustainable in upscaling to industrial level. So I am concerned about efficiency too.

Well, Jad, Europe is bent on commiting suicide, Has been for at least 40 years. It is bound to suceed. The job at hand is to disentangle Vysherad from it when there is still time.
The main problem with all this hate speech legislation is that it makes resistance to islamist groups impossible. To defend yourself, you need to be aware of a threat first. It is in effect disarming native societies.
I only wonder if our rulers are simply that blind due to theit ideology, or is there an agenda behind it.

Of course it's on purpose.

Jad.3 wrote:

Of course it's on purpose.

Suicidal one, then. The elites may be right that Islam and Muslims are the right tool to eradicate the remains of Christianity they so hate from Europe. But to think they will be able to subdue the Muslim immigrants? Almost as realistic as the dreams of Ochrana of controlling Bolsheviks.

I wouldn't go as far as say the eratication of christianity is the goal, per se.

I see it as:

- Extreme white and western guilt in both policy makers and voters
- Politicians not wanting to be called nazis and fascists due to stopping immigration, for their own political gain
- Left-wing parties seeking more votes and betting (correctly) that most immigrants would vote for them.

The last one is definitely correct. Don't sell them short though - if everyone here is a nigger, they don't have to worry about re-election ever again - no?

ThePhilosopher wrote:

I wouldn't go as far as say the eratication of christianity is the goal, per se.

I see it as:

- Extreme white and western guilt in both policy makers and voters
- Politicians not wanting to be called nazis and fascists due to stopping immigration, for their own political gain
- Left-wing parties seeking more votes and betting (correctly) that most immigrants would vote for them.

Well.

-Not applicable in the ex People's Democratic countries
-Nobody cares really, half of our political class is of Jewish ancestry. Go try calling them Nazis, have nice state funded vacation
-that is only valid until there are true islamistic parties. Which is already stirring in the UK, I am not relly sure about France or Germany. So far it is the city council level, but as my sandy friends put it, you gotta start somewhere.

https://www.theinvestigative.com/people-are-posting-examples-of-the-media-manipulating-the-truth-photos/

Hardly news for an Eastern Block citizen, our media were doing it for 70 years. Fascinatingly, there are still some pople who believe them at face value.

Just this weekend there was an article on the Czech web about pre war sudette nazis crying into the cameras how the evil Czechs hurt them. Goebbels knew his job.

Hehehe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jx_bJgIFhI