@Ooops@kbin.social cover

Ooops

@Ooops@kbin.social

@ooops2278:matrix.org

Trying to centralize my fediverse use with kbin but still with (rarely used) accounts on:

Lemmy: @Ooops &
Mastodon: @Ooops

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

Ooops ,

Nee, Ablenkung: Es ist egal, wenn die Leute noch hundert mal klar für das Verbrenner-Aus abstimmen. Am Ende haben sie dann nämlich gar nicht gemerkt, wie ein weiteres Propaganda-Märchen (es gibt gar kein Verbrenner-Aus!) Teil des öffentlich Diskurses geworden ist. Und Konservative können noch über Jahre hinweg mit Forderungen Stimmung machen, die längst erfüllt sind.

Ooops , (edited )

Talking about 'Gotland' and a 'maritime shadow war' might provide some clues to what might happen to Russian ships trying to attack that island. cough

Just the the usual Russian posturing bullshit...

Ooops ,

And I mean, of course they do... that's the definition of "conservative"

That was the definition a long time ago. Nowadays it's not about resisting progress or conserving anything. They actually fight hard now for progression... into the wrong direction.

Ooops ,

One of the flattest and lowest countries in the world voting to help rising sea levels among other things because right-wing populists cried "blame the evil foreigners" as usual.

If humanity should die out, we at least know it was justified...

Ooops ,

There are a lot of "forests" that are actually stupid monoculture wood farms. So even alleged forest protection can be purely about the money...

Ooops ,

I doesn't need to convert CO2 when it helps to produce less CO2 in the first place.

Ooops ,

I don't know. But maybe it should be word of the week, month, year or decade given that the concept seems to not have been stressed enough in education and people constantly miss the issues created by monocultures, wether it's soil damage, higher need for fertilizers, susceptibility to diseases or parasites (reqiring again more chemicals) or the simple fact that plants for monocultures are rarely chosen based on perfect climatic conditions (so even more at risk with changing climate). Ffs... regarding trees in particular the ones planted are often just picked for their straight trunks, so the wood is easier to sell later...

Ooops ,

When an absolute majority of black Americans can't even tell what is done to combat climate change while people outside the US only reading a few very general international reports about the US can, they have a far bigger problem than what can be solved with addressing the topic differently on the campaign trail...

Ooops ,

"Recently there has been a concerted effort to make a kind of a vibe shift about how we talk about climate."

Yet no concerted effort can beat the money poured into desinformation, propaganda and also defeatism by the people making a fortune by destroying our planet. If we don't address that any talk about "changing how we speak about climate change" is just another diversion. Have we really not learned anything from the ecological footprint fairy tale?

Europe's Spending Billions on Green Hydrogen. It's a Risky Gamble ( www.bloomberg.com )

To be clear: we're going to use renewable hydrogen for some things, such as fertilizer manufacturing — there isn't any other way to do them sustainably. There are applications for which it's one of the most expensive choices, such as home heating, and a whole host of industrial processes and aviation sitting in between.

Ooops ,

The opposite is true. There is no alternative to carbon neutrality and hydrogen will be needed in huge amounts to decarbonize certain sectors in industry and transport.

The problem are the insane amounts of story tellers that either pretend it will not work at all or that it's some magic solution so people can keep burning just another kind of gas without having to change anything. And both actually tell the same story: give up and stick with fossil fuels because it makes us rich.

Ooops , (edited )

In most countries we are NOT at the point to able to spend excess electricity.

That's wrong. There are enough countries that already have problems getting rid of excess electricity several hours a day in most of the summer half. And this will increase constantly over the next years. Oh... and we are actually paying for that electricity to be discarded already. Which is exactly why the slow buildup of power-to-gas as well as short-term storage needs to start now. Or do you believe the increase in excess electricity will just go on for a decade without a way to use it and then we snap our fingers an the power-to-gas production and infrastucture magically appears out of nowwhere?

Gas & oil companies do not care what you put into your cars, machines

Of course they care. They already know that 10 years from now no ICE-based car will be produced anymore. And they are panicking enough to spend a lot of money on bullshit propaganda to revert legislation that bans co2-emitting cars in the near-future. and if that doesn't work we they hope to confuse enough people to cling to their oil and gas longer than is good for them (and their wallets).

Bonus: All planned ‘green hydrogen’ facilities worldwide until 2035 will cover about 10% of Germany’s demand

Speakling of bullshit... that's eFuels, not hydrogen. And what you call "demand" are the numbers if we follow some insane "it will not work and is all a scam"-fairy tale (or the "oh, you don't need to change anything. Just stick with your combution engine"-alternmative), do nothing and then suddenly need gasoline for millions of cars. Which will not happen. There is no future for combustion engines. Producers have stopped development years ago. The latest generation of car engines burning gasoline to be build is already on our streets today.

So of course eFuels are not a solution. Because it's a scam to foul people into clinging to a technological dead-end and so people can tell those fairy tales about how our energy transition will fail and we should really just give up. In reality eFuels are a niche topic exclusively for long-range ship and air traffic at best and for a few specific industries (like chemical production nowadays using natural gas as a raw material instead of energy).

Seriously... how often will people parrot the same bullshit again and again? It's always the same moronic arguments simplifying facts ad absurdum and then repeating them again and again knowing that explaininmg why it's wrong will take much more time:

But batteries do not work because we can't build that much for storage!!!! And now I need to explain people that long-term storage and short-term storage are two completely separate things and how they actually work. Also how solar and wind are actually complementary and the amount of short-term storage needed is so much smaller... not even half a day to get a stable day/night cycle but even less (~3 hours to shift production peak -mid day- to demand peak -early evening).

But lithium!!!!!! No, grid storage is not a hand-held that needs maximised energy-density. Quite the opposite actually with lithium-ion batteries being exceptionally bad for big fixed installations because of their heat issues. Cheap and thermally stable are the main requirements for grid storage. No one cares if that warehouse-sized installation is 20% bigger and 40% heavier... (Speaking of different requirements: lithium batteries are used for some of that storage today... used lithium batteries to be specific, because those cheap batteries bought slightly over their recycling value because they too used up to run a car anymore fits the specifications well already...)

But there is no long-term storage!!!!! Yes, there is. Countries nowadays already store enough gas to bridge several months if necessary. We can do the same with hydrogen.

But hydrogen is so inefficient and will be far too expensive!!! No... burning it isn't more inefficient that burning natural gas. Producing it isn't more inefficient that producing natural gas either if you start including the actual production costs and transport (often over vast distances) today. And regarding the price. The EU just had the first auctions for member's first national green hydrogen production projects just last week... and before any scaling and with our electricity production just starting to generate overproduction in limited time frames the auctioned costs are already on par with natural gas.

And I could go on like this for hours. The whole "argument" of how the planned energy transition will not work is basically a giant Gish gallop... only with the exact same chain of non-issues brought up again and again simply hoping that the majority will fall for it because the actual facts are more complex to explain and can not be brought down to just two sentences filled with buzzwords.

More and faster: Electricity from clean sources reaches 30% of global total ( apnews.com )

Scientists say emissions from burning fuels like coal must ramp steeply down to protect Earth’s climate, yet there was an increase in electricity made from burning fossil fuels. China, India, Vietnam and Mexico were responsible for nearly all of the rise....

Ooops ,

That's an interesting concept but the base assuptions are fundamentally wrong, because this is not how the electricity market or the grid work.

There is no classical supply and demand here. There has to always be the amount produced as is used up. More supply than demand and the grid breaks down, more demand than supply and the same happens.

When you add cheaper renewable electricity to an existing system, there is no effect of higher supply reducing the price thus creating more demand like in a classical market. The opposite is true. The base price is usually linked to the most expensive producer via some merit order system (because there must always be enough capacity to fullfill the demand in real time), so the price stays the same. And on top of the produced electricity we now also need to pay some producers to stop production. That cost is also added via some grid fee. So burning fossil fuels is indeed the worst thing to make money here. Instead you can get a lot of money with producing renewable energy on one hand (as you get a high prize for cheap production), or by not producing fossil fuel energy (basically getting paid for not shutting down you power plant in case it's needed while not actually burning fuels most of the time).

Which in the end means you are indeed replacing fossil fuels with renewables. Prices will only drop once you build so much renewables and short term storage to completely eliminate the need for fossil fuel power plants to be kept for the rare moment you need them. So there is no effect of lower prices artificially creating higher demand.

Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results for humanity, poll of hundreds of scientists finds | Planet is headed for at least 2.5C of heating with disastrous results ( www.theguardian.com )

I'll note that 2.5°C of warming by 2100 is a significant improvement over the trajectory we were on a decade ago, even if still far from where we need to be

Ooops ,

Nope... Spreading that bullshit as a fact is part of the problem.

The economy isn't the problem. We can adapt in a lot of ways that helps the climate while also having working economies.

The actual problem is that the people with money want exactly the kind of economy that makes them money for decades. So they will block any changes to keep everything as it is.

Ooops ,

Sure... we can totally invent a hundred different solutions soon™ that mean we can just keep burning fossil fuels like we really, really want to.

Okay... they will actually never work and we will irreversibly damage our planet. But that's okay, because the people telling you those fairy tales will have made a lot of money by then. And that's also worth something, isn't it?

Ooops ,

Shit. I hadn't even considered making solar less viable as a side effect, too...

Ooops ,

What is that bullshit title?

He is not getting anything wrong. He's lying. Clearly, openly and intentionally.

Ooops ,

Also should they win it's probably not the prison labor that will change but the constitution sigh

Ooops ,

He is accidently right. There should not be a narrative in the first place.

But people eat up Israel and Hamas propaganda like crazy.

And what gets lost is an actually nuanced discussion where people can criticise Israel's actions without questioning if the country has a right to exist and defend itself in the frist place and being grouped with antisemites amplifying the same message but for the completely wrong reasons. And where people can criticise Hamas without instantly being in the same camp with those supporting genocidal actions against Palestinian civilians.

Thanks to social media this has instead devolved into a brain-dead team sport only build on narratives. With facts and common sense being lost and one side pushing narratives helping the other to do the same, when there is no actual right side, only degrees of wrong.

Ooops ,

Actually we give corn to animals you can then later eat. If we actually start eating what we instead inefficently feed into animal farming, we could feed twice as many people as exist and still have left overs for creating fuels.

Ooops ,

No matter how often people lie and lie and lie again to tell funny tales about Olaf Scholz blocking Taurus, it will not become true.

Olaf Scholz is an idiot but that doesn't mean that your fairy tales will become reality.

What he actually has said time and time again is that Germany can't send Taurus to Ukraine without direct involvement of the Bundeswehr.

The same was said by the Ministry of Defense, the Bundeswehr, the producers. That statement was also supported by the leaked discussion of Bunderwehr leaders (you all commented and discussed this, so I assume at least someone actually listened to the recording), and then again in even more detail by a press leak from a government commitee (that even resulted in an investigation for betrayal of state secrets...).

Germany just cannot send Taurus to Ukraine because the systems to programm those missiles are rare and very centralized, so it's impossible to just give them away like some laptop... And direct involvement of German military would violate the constitution.

So people can either continue fighting their own made-up straw-man for another year and argue how this time scared Olaf will surely, finally get to his senses... or they can accept reality and stop arguing against their own pretend-argument when the actual real reason is all technical, explained multiple times and will not change.

Ooops ,

15 year old proprietary systems from the time when the missile was developed probably... Military systems are rarely known for being up-to-date and flexible as the exact opposite (strict definitions and stability) is a requirement.

Ooops ,

The main union for its plants there has a seat on the company’s board.

Which is basically mandatory in Germany as a company's works council has co-determination rights by law and usually votes some of their own to join the board (union membership not required but often the default).

Ooops ,

Why is Germany not delivering Taurus?

Government: Because we can't.

Media: NOOO!!!! That must be a lie! The totally real reason is <insert random fairy tale>!

Bundeswehr: No, we can't. Neither do we have enough of them, nor would we be able to provide Ukraine with the means to actually use them properly.

Media: NOOO! That must be a lie because we already told you the real reason is...

Leaked military discussion about the options to provide Taurus: Confirming exactly what was said before. That they can't provide Taurus without direct involvement of the German army.

Media: Let's ignore that part and focus on the fact that they confirmed UK personal in Ukraine, so we can keep telling our fairy tale.

Press leak (now even triggering an investigation for betrayal of state secrets): Again confirming what was said for more than 9 months now. That Germany cannot provide Taurus, because hardware for programming is only available in limited amounts with the Bundeswehr and can't be given away.

Media: Why is Scholz so afraid of Russia to still block Taurus?

Seriously... how much longer are we supposed to watch that rediculous propaganda stage play? Talking about beating a dead horse isn't even applicable here anymore as that poor cadaver was reduced to mush long ago.

Ooops ,

I would've assumed it's the same as the english text of the other visible edge...

Ooops ,

Corn Ethanol is solar-powered, as all the CO2 was absorbed from the air as the corn grew thanks to photosynthesis

Nope, that's bullshit. Biomass is only co2-neutral if it grows on its own and is used up on the spot.

There’s also Hydrogen -> Syngas -> Kerosene, a process of electrification to Hydrogen + CO2 -> Fuel.

So while I pay an amount X for electricity to load a battery you are wiliing to pay 5 times as much for eFuels just to support your strange political views? That's in some way commendable...

So you gotta keep your mind open to all the possibilities that science can provide, including chemistry.

Even an open mind can't cheat thermodynamics

Ooops ,

Go figure out a better path of electrification of the large 737 airplanes.

Why would I when we were talkiong about cars? Sure, you will need some synthetic fuel for air travel. But if you want to pay the same sums to power your car, when you could do it for a fraction of that cost that's still stupid.

H2 and ICE are made of far simpler, and more efficient, materials.

No, you can actually build batteries from very simple materials that are far more efficient that fuel production and then burning it (both times with a huge loss). Just because the world focussed on lithium-ion batteries in the last decades (because of small portable devices where energy density was key) and thus used what was already widely available for cars in the beginning, rare materials for car batteries are not actually a requirement.

You’ll need substantial numbers of batteries to power the world at night as well (IE: an impossible number as no battery technology can handle daytime-charge vs nighttime usage of the USA).

That also a big nope. In reality solar and wind can power the world through the day, wind can power the world through the night. The only storage needed for a day/night cycle is a small fraction fo the prodcution. Just enough to shift parts of the production peaks at the afternoon and in the middle of the night ~5 hours forward to the consumption peaks in the evening and early morning.

And don't let me even start with how cheap you can produce massive batteries if you don't care for energy density at all because no one gives a fuck if the warehouse-sized installation for your town or city district is 20% bigger and a few tons heavier. Quite the opposite actually... Li-ion batteries nowadays are incredible bad for such a task. We accept their bad thermal properties in our smartphones and laptops, in cars it's already a drawback that prompted the development of other materials that are already serial produced. For fixed storage they would basically be a unneccessary fire hazard.

The real advantages to H2 are multiple fold

The real drawback of H2 availability. You lose energy to produce it. You lose more energy when you consume it. You will never see cheap H2 as the production is just too inefficient, so there will only be demand in sectors that simply cannot be electrified (air transport, some industries) as well as in chemical production as a raw material and for long-term seasonal storage.

Again... if you want to compete with high-energy demanding industries for the gas to power your car, that's your decision. Everyone else will use batteries for less than a ¼ of the cost. If your ICE is worth it for you, go for it. But don't pretend that the world will collectively decide to use a mode of transportation needing 4-5 times as much energy just for laughs and giggles.

Ooops ,

Even if this would be true and nothing coming out of Russia ever is nowadays... 2000? So realistically not even 1000 in a fighting position? How would Russia even care?

Putin dismisses peace talks 'just because (Ukraine) is running out of ammunition' ( kyivindependent.com )

Many critics of Western support for Ukraine have claimed that providing arms to Kyiv "unnecessarily prolongs the war," alleging that peace would come faster if the weapons stopped flowing. Ukrainian officials have dismissed this idea, arguing that such a step would only hasten Russian occupation of the country.

Ooops ,

"Putin said that Moscow is ready to negotiate only 'based on the reality on the ground.'"

They forgot to mention the little detail here that Putin is not talking about actual reality but his alternative reality. One that starts with fiction like "Ukraine doesn't exist as a country and is a part of Russia".

Why is basic context so hard for media nowadays?

Ooops ,

Nobody ever said that.

But there will be no NATO troops in the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. And this is a NATO stance from the beginning. Because -surprise- NATO is a defence alliance and Ukraine is not in NATO. Because NATO will -surprise again- not participate in an active war without being attacked. And a lot of their members -you might have gussed it: surprise- wouldn't even be allowed to declare war on Russia without a proper reason by law and/or constitution. If Macron wants to do that, fine. You can do it all on your own, and of course you can't invoke article 5 later then as joining a war is definitely not "being attacked"...

Oh, wait. None of those surprises are actual ones. This is all well known but happily ignored by morons and propagandists.

Ooops ,

But they are really ready to fight for global warming!

Ooops ,

To translate this from Airbus marketing to English: "Hey, Dassault. We are still pondering options to scrap FCAS and look for other partners, so you better give us some more shares of our common development and production."

And I say this as a German usually criticising the exact same bullshit tactics from Dassault...

Ooops ,

Oh, no. The country with low quality control and technical inferior artillery in need of masses of ammunition to even hit something, is producing more shells.

Let's panic! Or just ignore this bullshit as it's non-news. I think I'll pick the second option.

Ooops ,

This is exactly how they won the eastern front against Germany in ww2

Actually no. Without massive help from allies neither would they have been able to sustain their losses in material nor would they have kept there logistical chain running without half a million lend-lease trucks and jeeps.

Without both they would have moved mostly by foot. Spamming artillery, move a few hundred meters at best, rinse and repeat. And they would have moved at simliar speeds as in Ukraine now... never actually coming close to Germany before the war ended or starving on the way.

They can produce and use 5 times as many shells. It's still not sustainable. Quite the contrary actually as that use of mass artillery worsens the actual bottle neck. Artillery barrels are wear parts... and they can't even come close to the prodcution numbers needed. Or are we anticipating meat waves with 152mm shells in their hands now?

Ooops ,

And the moment you give us your time machine that will be relevant in a discussion about 2024's production capacities.

America is driving Germany’s deindustrialisation ( unherd.com )

The cat is out of the bag. After months of denial, it is now conventional wisdom that Germany — and Europe more generally — faces deindustrialisation due to the end of cheap Russian piped gas. “Germany’s Days as an Industrial Superpower Are Coming to an End,” reads a headline on Bloomberg....

Ooops ,

Sure... so much common wisdom about Germany. Including their immidiate collaps any day now for the last 20+ years. Or the 5%+ economy loss should they not get Russian gas (after all those people who froze to death of course).

In reality those massive losses -coming out of covid, still having supply chain issues and with not even a fraction of the stimulus money other countries spend to counteract on top of no more gas- are now what? +/-0? And with some more obsolete techs slowly sourcing out parts for cost reasons while new technologies open up shop there at the same time.

The only actual risk for Germany (and a lot of other countries) is that people start to believe the bullshit, the outrage farming and doom scrolling trash and all the usual propaganda they are flodded with on a daily basis.

Ooops ,

Talking about the need to understand how political decisions are made, to then never actually touch the subject, ignore the reality of massive lobbying for fossil fuels and project everything onto inequalities on the local level is... strange at best, more realistically straight out desinformation to divert from issues.

Ooops ,

But then you would need another excuse in ~2 decades but having build not enough expensive nuclear power, still struggling to get the ones in production finished and still burning fossil fuels...

And we all know that destroying the planet for profits is the actual goal here.

The exact same people spending huge sums on deying climate change for decades are now paying for "it's all too late and we are doomed anyway, so why try to do anything" and "nuclear power, especially future designs far from actually being production ready, will safe us" messaging.

Ooops ,

A not-that-serious test if a film meets the absolutely most basic criteria regarding female roles in the story.

Are there at least two women (in newer versions also: do they have a name)? Do they talk to each other instead of only to men? Do they talk about anything but a man?

Ooops ,

"it would signal that the Biden administration is as serious and unwavering in its desire to provoke and wage large-scale war with China"

Sure... because -as we all know- giving countries threatened the tools to defend themselves is the real aggression.

Welcome to the average tankie's upside-down world...

Ooops ,

Don't confuse people whose whole narrative is build on some conspiracy of media suppression with facts.

I guess skipping the term "Lügenpresse" to avoid the obvious link was deemed enough progress to keep that same 100 years old tactic alive...

Ooops ,

But that's not the point.

Countries always could do that. Instead countries not procuring ammunition anyway want to have common EU money also used outside the EU, too. In some cases for no other reason but to avoid investing in a neighbours industry that could be seen as competiton, with "it's faster just being an excuse" as those producers are begging for orders for years.

Ooops ,

"We will randomly attack and kill civilians until you do what we demand" went by another name for quite some time...

But hey... we all know that things like terrorism, war crimes or genocide are suddenly okay once you agree with the cause. So keep being a proud cheerleader for terrorism.

Ooops ,

No, I'm referring to reality, not your alternate mirror-universe version.

The one where militants attacking civilians don't become innocent civilians because you like their terror.

Ooops ,

I pick the reality of civilian transport ships actually attacked over Houthi propaganda.

Pavel: Czechia can deliver 800,000 shells to Ukraine if allied financing secured ( kyivindependent.com )

"We have identified at this point half a million rounds of 155 mm caliber and another 300,000 rounds of 122 mm caliber, which we will be able to deliver within weeks if we quickly find funding for that activity," Czech President Petr Pavel said at the Munich Security Conference.

Ooops ,

Yeah, right. Why are they waiting for more than two years now to order any shells while European producers are begging and begging? To now suddenly lobby for buying shells outside "for Ukraine".

Oh, yeah. Because EU neighbours producing anything is seen as competition. And they also don't pay enough on the side to get the order. So let's give money to Asia instead.

Those corrupt idiots working on undermining EU security can go fuck themselves.

Ooops ,

This won’t be new production, not if they can deliver within weeks.

That's the point. Countries refused to order from European producers for years, then push for buying outside "for Ukraine" -because they really need ammunition- now.

Could they have ordered ammunition two years ago? Yes! One year ago? Of course! What about last month? Sure! But they didn't. Countries intentionally ignored the issue and waited until they can justify buying outside of Europe by the urgent demand.

This right here will be the downfall of Europe: countries actively avoiding European production if its not done by themselves but by neighbours that might be industrial competition some day.

Ooops ,

Yes, several thousand shells every week is indeed a game changer if you compare it to no ammunition at all because the rest of Europe is lazily sitting on their asses doing nothing while bickering how Germany needs to do more.

Ooops ,

You do realize that the source is referenced in the linked report and that it's just repeating what is in the latest (16th February), usually weekly update of a list publically available for ~20 months now, don't you?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •