Well, Taiwan and Singapore are able to be competitive in the world market, despite being very small and lacking major resource advantages or big militaries. They do this by developing very sophisticated expertise and pressing the few very particular advantages they have.
I may have to yield this point to you as a demonstrated authority on not understanding plasma.
Very hot flames can contain enough ions / free electrons to be considered a plasma but a wood campfire the likes of which cavemen built, which is what we are discussing here, do not achieve such temperatures. If cavemen wielded acetylene torches then they might have more experience with plasma.
If you were thinking something simple like “fire is plasma” that is reductive, and the cases where flame is plasma are not the everyday kind. Hence, when I said “a campfire is not plasma” I was being pretty specific. Your reply that ”fire is a low temperature plasma,” as an unqualified blanket statement, is wrong. Go read on it. It’s interesting.
Could you try doing the same with the 90%? if life’s essentials are so easily paid for I am wondering what you think the rest is going to?
Are you saying that 10% of an economy is vital goods and the other 90% is not? Not that I have any numbers on this but 10% seems low to me.
We also did not build turbines then.
Also, a campfire is not plasma, so you probably shouldn’t be building any turbines either.
Removed by mod
Marijuana 1 is Cortana’s cooler younger sister.
“Free trade” means letting everyone do what they’re best at and then exchange the goods they produce. This is so that everybody is focused on what works best in their country, everything is done as well and as cheaply as possible. However this makes no guarantee about any one country’s ability, at the end of the day, to stand alone without dependencies on others for vital goods. In fact if anything it works against that.
I don’t know why Trump talks about globalism as some Democrat thing. It’s his own party that has been driving for free trade since forever.
Finally we can begin to chip away at BlackBerry’s dominance.
don’t think they’re mature. I think they’re just monopolized to the point where they don’t need to innovate at all.
That’s exactly what I meant by “network effects and lock in.” You don’t achieve this without your business maturing, though I am not sure what you think of when you hear that word.
any company that gets this big now has the purchasing power to eliminate competition further cornering the talent pool and the tech market
This is what’s been going on for years already. Google used to hire people they didn’t even know what to do with simply because they could and would hinder comoetition. It’s hell trying to hire as a tier 2 company or small startup only to see everyone get offers for 3x from Google or Meta.
Their clear anti-staff sentiments now signal that this mad rush to acquire talent probably won’t continue as it’s been.
If demand from huge companies like Google and Meta slackens, that could lead to smaller companies offering less, but there’s a huge gap between the two right now. We’re taking about Meta outbidding by 2x going forward instead of 3x.
Not sure how to see this as anything but negative.
I’m getting that. And most people on here just think everything around tech is negative, negative, negative. Most who think this are on the outside looking in. I’ve been on the inside for 20 years, competing for hires with the likes of Meta and Google, and I think there might be at least one bright spot in their insane hiring slackening a bit.
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.
Tech companies used to think that they were only limited by their ability to hire talented people. They went crazy competing for talent. That has changed. Obviously they no longer consider talent to be vital. Their businesses are more mature now and have network effects and lock-in. It’s kind of inevitable that tech companies would eventually reach that point. But I think it’s only true for the largest companies. Big tech souring on its employees is probably great news for a huge galaxy of small and midsize companies who’ve had no hope of attracting top talent for many years now. It really was impossible to compete with the pay, perks, and developer experience at a place like Meta. And that’s too bad because there are software business opportunities everywhere, still. Maybe this will be a good thing in the long run.
Nothing to apologize for - thank you for elaborating.
You are confusing me with other person. Read the names.
It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.
If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
So it’s less of vibrating and more about smashing around into things?
This is easier to envision with a gas: like a chamber of balks all ricocheting like mad. It’s harder to envision for a solid. But I guess a molecule will be up smack against its neighbors, getting repelled, not so much bounding freely?
It even says in the article 40 watts. I’m not going to say this affects literally nothing, but it is not a significant enough amount of power to meaningfully affect the locomotion of a car. It might make more sense in much more scaled up helicopters and planes where fuel economy is a far bigger problem. But thermoelectric has never been a very potent method.
Also, you’ve got some nerve calling someone a fool for not assuming we will retrofit every motor on earth with this technology. There are a lot of things that would be nice to retrofit the entire installed base of the world with. But that is an enormous barrier that only…. fools ignore.
Taiwan absolutely found a niche. Its manufacturing capability is what makes it a strategic ally for the US.
Singapore’s niche is more like several niches from financial services to precision manufacturing and medical research. But it all runs on their skilled workforce. Not “politics.”
A niche will be based on whatever you have. If you have nothing but cheap labor, that’s not great, but it is something. To sell that labor to wealthy foreign corporations isn’t just getting dominated by them, it’s how China has raised millions out of poverty.
Being poor and undeveloped is a shitty hand to try to play, but that doesn’t change the game. Use what you have. Find what you’re best at.