Contact me on matrix chat: @nikaaa:tchncs.de

  • 8 Posts
  • 618 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: January 12th, 2024

help-circle










  • Just to give you some numbers:

    World population 10k years ago (prehistoric times) was said to be around 10 million, then it increased 30x to 300 million by 1000 AD (medieval age) and then it increased 30x again during the modern age.

    About that last increase during the modern age: a 3x increase in food production is due to the use in fertilizer (Haber-Bosch-process) and a 10x increase in food production is simply due to more land area being used for farming. Which was possible because a lot of deforestation projects, wood was cut down and wheat planted, and draining of swamps and such. Also modern agriculture to america.

    So it’s not just innovation (new fertilizer) but also quantitative scaling (more land areas used)


  • Perennial crops are also ridiculously underused in overall food supply chains. They are more difficult to monetize in existing commodity forms because their overall system value is not captured numerically.

    I think it probably has something to do with this:

    (Source for the drawing: my ass)

    As plants reach maturity, there’s less additional biomass accumulated year after year. At least that’s how i imagine it, based on animal growth. Like for cattle that’s true. They grow and after 6 months i think they already have like 50% of the weight of a grown-up animal? And if you let them grow for 10 years, they would only have twice the weight than after 6 months but you pay 20x the cost to keep them alive so it doesn’t pay off at all (20x the cost for 2x the yield means only 10% of efficiency). That’s why they’re slaughtered early. I suspect a similar reason applies to plants and why they are eaten early.


    Edit: i looked up the numbers for cow and calf (child cow) weights (here and here):

    • At birth: 30 kg
    • After 2 months: 100 kg
    • After 6 months: 200 kg
    • After 12 months: 400 kg
    • Mature: 600 kg


  • Why would we want our infrastructure to be the most polluting expensive version (with shit latency BTW so you can’t selfhost), in control of basically one asshole billionaire who will gleefully censor whatever he feels like, after a critical mass of dependency has been reached?

    Stop lying to yourself and others that this was “the most efficient outcome”.

    NASA has tried to build their own rockets for i think 30(?) years. Like the space shuttle. The ship was expensive. Reusability never delivered on its promise to make things cheaper, instead it made them more complicated and more expensive when NASA tried. that was the public sector, it was attempted. Then SpaceX came and somehow managed to build rockets that were both reusable and cheaper than non-reusable rockets.

    So yes, that’s not an ideological adherence to capitalism or anything, just plain data, that SpaceX is simply more efficient than NASA was able to be. With building rockets i mean.



  • Eh, i’m not so sure. I just did a quick doodle.

    My opinion is that when a collision happens, it’s probably very unlikely for a single fragment to actually stay on a stable orbit around Earth. Chances are high that it gains a lot of energy and the orbit is significantly distorted. Now, if an orbit is already very close to Earth, that means that any distortion will make it not fit tightly around Earth anymore, instead will make it go elliptic and therefore on trajectory of collision with Earth. The only way a fragment would not do that is if it’s accelerated perfectly sideways, in which case it would continue to circle around Earth for 10 years before deorbiting due to atmospheric friction. So, the cascading is a bit limited.