KillingTimeItself

it’s technically like four different reasons.

The big one is weight per foot of current carrying capacity. this reduces the amount of transmission towers you need, reducing the amount of labor, and raw materials. the aluminum itself is cheaper, but that’s a secondary effect. Since it’s not as heavy per unit, you can make the runs much cheaper. And since you can make them cheaper, you can carry more current by simply making them bigger, or adding more of them.

compounding effects are something funky.

i literally cannot help myself.

Define “validity” in philosophy and again explain how a philosophy can be considered valid if a person doesn’t understand fallacies or good faith argumentation?

from a philosophical sense, there is no ultimate truth. There are things that might so universally consistent that they could be considered to be a form of an ultimate truth.

validity can be defined philosophically, as can anything. It can also be defined outside of philosophy. But the concept of truth isn’t an innate philosophical concept.

philosophy is essentially just a means to an end. It’s a structure that allows you to get from point A, to any externally defined point, in some structured and consistent manner.

likewise, a fallacy is not an innately philosophical concept, it’s a linguistic and rhetorical failure in ascribing properties to any given thing. They’re mutually exclusive concepts, one can exist without the other.

Why is it beneficial to limit how much one knows about fallacies? Just because it’s a lot to learn?

i didn’t say we should limit it, i just said it’s probably not relevant enough to the majority of the public to warrant teaching everyone about them fully.

The math is generally the same? Lol no. I have completed Vector calculus and you aren’t right. The fallacies aren’t the same either or else we wouldn’t define them differently.

obviously, if you take fluid dynamics, and quantum mechanics, they aren’t the same field, and they don’t work the same way. This is like being confused when you throw a rock, and it behaves differently to when you drop a rock. Though i didn’t pedantically expound upon my point so this is technically my fault.

Technically dragonflies innately do calculus to catch their prey. The basic concepts of calculus are pretty understandable even for kids, however the mathematical operations are beyond them. Similarly, ypu can explain fallacies to people even if they don’t understand all the nuances of Kant.

so do humans, you ever think about how complex bipedal motion is? You ever seen a bird? They do all kinds of weird shit.

Likewise, we teach kids name calling is wrong. We are telling them at a young age that ad hominem attacks aren’t the way to argue. They do not need previous information to understand this.

to be clear, we’re not teaching them that you shouldn’t name call in the midst of a disagreement or argument. We’re telling them that name calling people is not polite. ad hom in a debate is also just, not polite. However since debate formality is a thing, we call that being bad faith. Also they do need previous information to understand this, you need to know what name calling is. Generally you also need language, but that’s a pre req to this whole thing.

I think we actually agree a bit. Whether the fallacies are explicitly labeled as such isn’t so important, what’s important is that people understand the formula and system of it and how they contribute to nonsense. That typically means they will have to define and understand terms to make sure they know what the fallacy explicitly is.

yes absolutely, and like i said i think teaching the basic tenants of fallacious thinking would be productive. Something that gives you a primer into the concepts would be largely beneficial.

With math, we naturally do math already. The math we teach kids is actually a language helping them describe these systems. Rec the book “Where Mathematics Comes From”

mathematics is technically an abstraction of the laws of the universe. If you want to go further, it’s a sterilized version reduced to its barest components that allows us to productively abstract it to the point where we can utilize it to our advantage.

yeah, idk i think that’s generally productive stuff, especially with younger children, but i think when it comes to philosophy specifically, you should really just wait until senior year or so, and then just dive deep, and don’t stop at any point. Once you’ve reached that age your brain has developed a relatively significant amount to the point where it can start to conceptualize these things properly.

It’s probably even better in college, but even just doing a psych/phil 101 in senior year of highschool would i think be vastly productive to the average person as they get older.

hmm, seems like it’s not a done deal explicitly

https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit

fascinating. I guess that’s just a citizenship trolling thing.

yeah, this is a pretty common issue with CCA cabling, normally this is why people go for things like OFC wire instead, it also carries a little bit more current which is nice.

probably, but then i can ingest less micro plastics. Which is probably good.

to my knowledge, the only place they use aluminum as a conductor is in overhead external transmission lines, because you can wrap them around a steel or fiberglass/carbon fiber core (due to the skin effect this incurs minimal losses) while increasing strength and reducing weight (with the composites at least)

the secondary reason is because you can just use more aluminum, since it’s not nearly as dense as copper, and also allows you to string farther, since again, not nearly as dense.

most aluminum wiring is actually cladded in copper, it’s called CCA for what should be fairly obvious reasons.

Also i believe the oxide coating of aluminum isn’t conductive? The bare material itself is, but once it oxidizes it’s probably not a good conductor, this is why we use shit like gold plated contacts. Copper also oxidizes as well, but it’s not nearly as bad.

the “liquidators” served about 2 minutes of time doing cleanup service at chernobyl. This was how they mitigated a lot of the radiation risk, the people that suffered the most were the people in nearest proximity, reactor personnel for example.

because putting people in those buildings is sketchy, and the serve almost zero static concern, especially with modern survey robots and technology that allows us to very easily analyze this stuff without having to set foot near it.

the output performance won’t get better, but the consumption performance will continue to improve, the generalization of models will continue to improve.

It’s not going to be a replacement for google, but it will do a damn good job at efficiently recognizing an individual soda can from a picture damnit!

didn’t this happen like 4 years ago?

that would be a fun setup, self disabling LMAO

what happens if we reform it tho

nope, but they did that during the second world war. Gotta love rationing.

the military was shit on by a random farming country in the eastern european region, with literal fucking tractors.

they’re also know for randomly arresting people for political reasons.

be careful, they’re going to say this about democrats now, it’s literally the only thing they do.

ideally it should, we saw something similar after kamala harris took over biden.

damn holy shit, big if true.

obviously a lot of them are engaged, but the US is famously bad at actually voting, so this might make a significant difference in who votes.