unFou

back in the day, TVs were a bit less portable...

I wonder if your example is a different kind of trade. When we trade time in a leisure situation, we're trading something more immediate and tangible. Whereas the transactional nature of the grandparent comment is more describing something more distanced.

An example of this that was told to me is imagine you're going to dinner with the in-laws (or maybe your best friend's parents). What would their reaction be if you took out your wallet and offered to pay them cash for the meal? As opposed to offering to e.g. bring a bottle of wine or helping to set the table?

Offering to pay might be the "transactional" trade meant by the grandparent. While offering to contribute [food | labour | goodwill] is more of the trading time in a leisure situation.

Not sure that there aren't alternate pathways from "I'll take what I want" and "I'll trade you specifically this for that".

I remember reading on acoup that in agrarian societies, often they relied on favours and communal sharing in times of bounty. So say if I butchered a hog today, all my neighbours might get some. Not in exchange for something directly, but in the expectation that when I fall on hard times or they get a windfall, they'll do the same for me.

There's probably some potential for freeloading here, but these sorts of communities are likely often right on the edge of survival. If someone develops a reputation for being miserly, that might well result in them starving (or freezing) because they're rejected by their neighbours. So there's an incentive to at least appear generous and pay your fair share.

This touched a chord. For me it's a combination of both music and dance.

It's amazing to feel emotions I'd normally not want to express in everyday life and just let them flow out. Rage, jealousy, lust. The music is such a great trigger to tap into these primal feelings, and then expressing them through movement just feels incredible. It feels real and amazingly cathartic, but the transience of the experience leaves no consequences.

I guess that's why there's the saying dance like nobody's watching. Because for many people, that expression of feeling strips us down and leaves our feelings exposed and vulnerable .

Or a very long tail...

Interestingly enough, a quick google search shows US farms contribute 136 billion, or about 0.6% of GDP. So, more like 1 farmer to 19 investors?

I've only read one of Jordan Peterson's books - 12 Rules of Life.

Haven't reread recently, but it was interesting at the time, and sort of helpful for keeping me motivated to get myself out of a bit of a rut. What parts of his writing did you find to be indicative of abandoning intelligent debate?

Not sure what you mean by sexism.

But there are differences in the sexes with regards to the process of conceiving and rearing a child. And it seems to me that a big part of our social constructs that were developed to deal with those differences can be reduced to "the man doing something expensive and hard to fake". Which isn't really that different from "the man proving she matters to him by buying something".

I'm curious how to be intolerant of an idea while being tolerant of people?

Because practically, aren't ideas tied to people? I don't think you can have an idea survive without people keeping it alive. So how do you express intolerance for "bad" ideas without letting that expression bleed into an intolerance for the people propagating the "bad" idea?

That might be the point. Few people are going to bother spending resources to fix a problem that doesn't exist. And by the time such a problem arises on Earth (inhospitable living conditions due to e.g. supervolcano), we might not have the resources to fix it. Whereas terraforming Mars creates the incentives to develop solutions while we have abundant resources, which means that we have a fix ready and waiting if something catastrophic happens on earth.

Sure, so that partly explains why electricity costs so much more in Germany than France. But for a lay person (ie me), I can't help but compare the carbon emissions and air quality between the two countries, and attribute the difference to fossil-fuel vs nuclear power plants?

Also, I always assumed the lower renewable costs have come from economies of scale due mainly to China exploding it's energy production (which renewables makes a decent chunk of)

I'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear.

If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.

How it was explained to me is that the markets don't always reflect the economy because the negative outcomes have already been priced in. So, if the markets were expecting a downturn in the economy of -20%, but the economy actually went down -15%, then the market might go up, even though the economy is still doing worse.

Another possible explanation is that we're currently print a lot of money without producing much stuff. So, inflation should be happening, right? But people can't really consume any goods or services. And so it's the prices of investments that gets inflated. (this explanation is a bit more iffy to me though than the first)

What do you mean by producing twice as much in Summer to meet demand in Winter? Because much of our energy consumption is immediate, and can't be easily stored (e.g. heating, cooking, browsing the internet etc).

Have you made simulations or calculations to this effect? (or alternately, point me to the analysis of those who have). I'm not sure hand-waving it away as it'll wash out on average should be a valid response to something as critical to modern life as the power grid.

Some questions that might be interesting: What is the current downtime of electricity. What would be the desired goal for the new mixed / renewable grid? Given existing patterns of wind and solar generation, how much storage needs to be installed to reach this goal? How much would this storage be expected to cost at today's prices, and then with projected future savings from scaling (this could be used as a higher bound)?

The reason "running out" might be a valid concern is that the power grid is currently reasonably robust. Turbines are massive, with a great deal of inertia, meaning that even if something drastic were to happen, they can often cope with spikes in load long enough for extra production to ramp up. Wind and solar less so. Batteries presumably would be pretty great for ramping up, assuming we get enough of them on the grid. But then the economics needs to take into account the price of not just the renewables, but also generation.