One weekend Russia attacks Russia, next weekend Twitter attacks Twitter.
Readit Newsquote commented on Twitter Is DDOSing Itself sfba.social/@sysop408/110... · Posted by u/ZacnyLos
quote commented on Why are lithium prices collapsing? internationalbanker.com/b... · Posted by u/xbmcuser
> I have not seen any necessary gambling in my years in manufacturing.
You need to manufacture a widget and it must cost no more than $5. You have a few inputs to your widget, some made with steel and some with plastic. If steel and plastic prices increase, your inputs cost more than $5 and you’re making a loss on every widget you sell.
So you go to the futures market and take a bet that the input prices will increase. If you’re right, you win $, which makes your widget manufacturing profitable and you’re still in business. If prices fall you lose the bet, your profits are lower. But hey, at least you’re still in business.
A responsible, well run manufacturing business benefits from the existence of such a market because it allows them to de-risk.
I’d assume that hedging buy prices or long term buy contracts are not the same as gambling.
quote commented on Why are lithium prices collapsing? internationalbanker.com/b... · Posted by u/xbmcuser
What is the issue with a dark pool, for example? They are generally not designed for price discovery anyway.
But wouldn’t it be better if the volume at least is shown on open exchanges?
quote commented on Why are lithium prices collapsing? internationalbanker.com/b... · Posted by u/xbmcuser
You just listed a bunch scary sounding financial buzz words, but I doubt that a thorough analysis of them would support your conclusion.
In fact, many have the opposite effect and result in more efficient price discovery. Take naked shorting for example. Without shorting, it would be far more difficult for an equity research firm to be incentivized to look into fraudulent stocks, as was widespread with Chinese companies a few years ago. Without their efforts, stock prices would have remained inflated for longer.
Isn’t that argument somewhat strange or dishonest? To paraphrase you: I‘d rather have naked shorting and the associated manipulation and problems with it than better price discovery for stockholders.
In your example, the stockholder isn’t protected either, only an equity firm derives profit from this information. In a more ideal world the stockholders themselves would do this due diligence, which is something that already happens.
Also there’s differences between shorting and naked shorting. I could well imagine allowing fully hedged shorting and outlawing naked shorting. Especially considering the issue of fail to deliver, that’s just absurd with our technology.
quote commented on You Try Constricting Your Prey and Breathing at the Same Time theatlantic.com/science/a... · Posted by u/fortran77
And here I was, reading the headline and thinking this would be an article about the EU, sanctions and Russian gas.
It’s probably not a “do all the things” solution, because (1) we won’t do those things; (2) trying to do those things will lead to undesirably high levels of government regulation of private behavior. The authoritarian infrastructure will be built, but it will fail because it will be diverted to ends other than addressing climate change.
You can already see this happening with the Green New Deal and Global Climate Strikes. The Green New Deal has turned into a jobs program. (Which is deeply ironic, because the Soviet Union was immensely energy inefficient and polluting, as a result of populist measures such as subsidized energy. Increasing middle class prosperity is inherently incompatible with reducing carbon output.) The Green New Deal, together with the climate strikes have become vehicles for socialist ideology. For example, despite experts broadly agreeing that we need things like carbon taxes, the Global Climate Strike platform categorically rejects market mechanisms to address climate change.
Carbon capture and cheap nuclear power can solve climate change, and we can do it without world government. (To many people, that second part is a downside, I think, which is why technological solutions to climate change get less emphasis than political solutions.)
So let's pick this apart:
- "The authoritarian infrastructure will be built"
I'd argue it already has been built, by Google, NSA et al. Also, I fail to see why these "high levels of government regulation" would be bad, since we've tried the alternative and it obviously doesn't work..
- "The Green New Deal has turned into a jobs program."
I'm no american, but has this been put into law already?
- "the Soviet Union was immensely energy inefficient and polluting"
I do hear that from time to time but no one can provide any sources for this claim. Can you? Not planning on protecting the ol' USSR, but still seems insincere to just throw this around without attribution.
- "Increasing middle class prosperity is inherently incompatible with reducing carbon output."
That's a pretty flat statement. Why would this be so?
- "the Global Climate Strike platform categorically rejects market mechanisms to address climate change."
We tried this, it hasn't worked (so far). Why should we continue with this measure instead of other approaches?
- "Carbon capture and cheap nuclear power"
both of which do not exist. See my comment about LCOE and the link below for cheap nuclear power. With regards to carbon capture, we have some pilot plants but this technology (or rather mix of technologies) is nowhere near ready for the massive scale of deployment we'd need already. That's why the focus is on political solutions imo.
> Nuclear is currently one of the most expensive forms of energy.
You'd better get yourself familiar with facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_inve...
If talking about costs, wouldn't LCOE be a better indicator? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
quote commented on Some progress on CO2 sequestration technologies fastcompany.com/90356326/... · Posted by u/jseliger
Optimistic perhaps, but maybe not impossible ;)
I've done some further googling and found some studies on the topic, though on-land: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0... and some more from a presentation https://www.feem.it/m/events_pages/20167111127315Zeng_presen...
Though the question still remains how securely the CO2 would be stored under the ocean. Maybe with a large enough layer of rock on top it would suffice.. I suppose it's high time we started field trials on all these approaches.
My own back-of-napkin calc says that we'd need to cut about .1 to .2 % of tropical rainforests per year and remove them from the carbon cycle, not sure if that's right.
Oops, my calculation was way off (missed a kilo-prefix somewhere), we'd need to cut and store about the entire rainforest per year. So, this is obviously not possible as an all-around solution but might help with some Gigatonnes..
quote commented on Rice University researchers propose a way to boost solar efficiency polyarch.co/rice-universi... · Posted by u/shry4ns
ive always wondered why leaves all generally evolved to be green instead of black. wouldnt black be more efficient?
Because other wavelengths were probably already taken. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Earth_hypothesis
(Black is not a wavelength but rather the absence of visible light, e. g. it has all been absorbed)
quote commented on Some progress on CO2 sequestration technologies fastcompany.com/90356326/... · Posted by u/jseliger
I don't have a source, just some napkin math. I don't know what the timescale is for plant decay in the deep ocean. Perhaps my 'it works' is optimistic.
Optimistic perhaps, but maybe not impossible ;)
I've done some further googling and found some studies on the topic, though on-land: https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0... and some more from a presentation https://www.feem.it/m/events_pages/20167111127315Zeng_presen...
Though the question still remains how securely the CO2 would be stored under the ocean. Maybe with a large enough layer of rock on top it would suffice.. I suppose it's high time we started field trials on all these approaches.
My own back-of-napkin calc says that we'd need to cut about .1 to .2 % of tropical rainforests per year and remove them from the carbon cycle, not sure if that's right.