In case you don't know, they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW. I was wondering if ppl liked or hated it? I like it personally since it's not a dodge like "new world economy"
You're all true until allocating scarce resources. These days economy is how to make scarce something that isn't in order to profit from it. See copyrights and patents. In our society a replicator would be the property of a company and you would need to pay it to be allowed to use it.
The government in 1700 didn't have as strong of a grasp on the military as it does now. And the police kind of didn't exist in this time. The biggest inventions of the 20th century are mass surveillance, repression, and propaganda. An armed force being able to go from one side of the country to the other in a few hours is also a strength for government stability.
Russia has launched an offensive into the Kharkiv region, and it has created a lot of alarmist news reports. In reality it is difficult to see what Russia's plan is, and it is not self-evident that it is a smart use of resources. In this video I discuss whether we might be seeing a return to the fragmented command structures...
I would like for Russia to fail miserably, but HERE I'm afraid it's not as stupid as it could. Ukraine is notoriously low on ammunitions, so extending the active front line can deplete those supplies faster. I would expect Russia to try to deplete those supplies in order to force the front line where a shortage appears first. And they need to do it before the supplies come from the US, which is already starting to come. So it's basically a window of opportunity.
If they concentrated on one place only, the Ukrainian supplies would last much longer.
I expect the massive Russian offensive to slow down in June once the US supply lines are established again.
But maybe I'm wrong. If Russia continues to push hard like this through June and after, I'll be wrong. Unless they try to really push through western supplies themselves. That would be insane but possible I guess.
A lot of lies of wrong stuff here. The environment for example is much more damaged by renewables, because you need truckloads of space to build the wind or solar farm. China demonstrate how hydro can be damaging too. And it usually ignores the need for energy storage. Both solar and batteries need high quantities of minerals, so that's not better than anything else here. Nuclear is arguably a lot better because of the energy density of the mined material.
Ecologists these days seem like a cult that would rather see the world burn in coal and oil than to see even one nuclear power plant built. And this based on ignorance, fear and lies. It's sad.
Was it a good thing that SNW explicitly said the Federation is socialist?
In case you don't know, they explicitly use the term socialist to describe the Federation economy in SNW. I was wondering if ppl liked or hated it? I like it personally since it's not a dodge like "new world economy"
Those guys back in 1700s probably had nothing left to lose
Russia's Kharkiv offensive – what is the plan? ( www.youtube.com )
Russia has launched an offensive into the Kharkiv region, and it has created a lot of alarmist news reports. In reality it is difficult to see what Russia's plan is, and it is not self-evident that it is a smart use of resources. In this video I discuss whether we might be seeing a return to the fragmented command structures...
Demand for uranium for reactors seen jumping 28% by 2030 ( www.reuters.com )
Nuclear capacity is expected to rise by 14% by 2030 and surge by 76% to 686 GWe by 2040, the report said...