Technology Connections - You are being misled about renewable energy technology.
-
Amazing video by Technology Connections. It's a long one, but don't miss his 30 minute angry rant at the end.
I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don't agree with this approach because of something I learned today.
He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.
Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?
Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.
-
it still needs to be explained carefully though
like to a child you still have to explain how to read a clock or how to tie their shoes even though it's common sense. and you have to be patient while explaining it.
I didn't write "common sense" to imply it doesn't need to be explained.
I wrote it to mean that once explained, it clearly is impossible to refute because it's common sense.
My comment was not adversarial.
-
Amazing video by Technology Connections. It's a long one, but don't miss his 30 minute angry rant at the end.
That rant at the end really sums up my feelings as a Midwestern leftist. Hell the whole thing does honestly. But you treat people right, you make prudent decisions, and you treat labor with dignity and respect.
I also really respect him for accepting when something that had been obvious to him (the value proposition of solar and electrification) turned out to have not been obvious to others so he cut the snark and explained his reasoning. It's an admirable display of character. But also, yeah it had been obvious to me as well.
Probably not my favorite video of his, but definitely rhe one I respect the most
-
It's capitalism, power is wealth by definition. These are compatible concepts.
By perceived value i mean speculation.
They use the aesthetics of capitalism to intellectualize and explain why we should not question their supremacy.
In reality, capitalism does not in any way justify monopolization of natural resources, or the large-scale destruction of the environment.
Capitalism is the ideology of thr petit-bourgeoisie, not the actual bourgeoisie. They are just social-darwinists.
-
I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don't agree with this approach because of something I learned today.
He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.
Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?
Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.
You're right, we shouldn't electrify and should keep using fossil fuels.
-
For what it's worth, ALL technology connections videos have manually added English closed captions, not auto generated gibberish.
It's some of the best captioning work I've ever seen. He actually takes the time to sync them to the auto/video, prevents spoiling jokes/punchlines, and adds an Easter egg at the end of most episodes (usually describing the smooth jazz outro).You might actually have decent luck using the subtitle translation feature built into YouTube, since it (machine) translates the actual words Alec is saying.
And he's spoken about doing it in part to ensure accessibility for the deaf, which I appreciate immensely as someone who grew up watching time delayed black box captions on whatever my mom was watching
-
Oh fuck they broke Alec shit's bad
Went from "ehh, its a long video. I'll watch it tomorrow" to "holy fuck..."
-
They use the aesthetics of capitalism to intellectualize and explain why we should not question their supremacy.
In reality, capitalism does not in any way justify monopolization of natural resources, or the large-scale destruction of the environment.
Capitalism is the ideology of thr petit-bourgeoisie, not the actual bourgeoisie. They are just social-darwinists.
I do not understand what this adds to the concept of capitalism other than introducing the term "social darwinism".
There is no difference between "the aesthetics" of capitalism and its actualization, and neither base a capitalist's actions in regard to benefitting society beyond "the market". Capitalism is simply the current method of accruing power for someone to push their personal ideology on others. It just happens that the most effective method to exploit capitalism is to reject any sense of empathy or consideration for anything external or internal, especially flesh and blood humans because they are the only real threat to your power.
-
I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don't agree with this approach because of something I learned today.
He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.
Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?
Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.
Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn't earmarked for the federal government and the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy.
-
I do not understand what this adds to the concept of capitalism other than introducing the term "social darwinism".
There is no difference between "the aesthetics" of capitalism and its actualization, and neither base a capitalist's actions in regard to benefitting society beyond "the market". Capitalism is simply the current method of accruing power for someone to push their personal ideology on others. It just happens that the most effective method to exploit capitalism is to reject any sense of empathy or consideration for anything external or internal, especially flesh and blood humans because they are the only real threat to your power.
-
Amazing video by Technology Connections. It's a long one, but don't miss his 30 minute angry rant at the end.
Just when I thought I couldn't like him more, he goes and drops this gigabased rant.
TC for U.S president honestly
-
Fairly uncommon, sadly
-
Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn't earmarked for the federal government and the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil consumption of the US economy.
Cuz the US strategic oil reserve isn’t earmarked for the federal government
According to a factcheck site it looks like the U.S. Oil Reserve Created for Supply Disruptions, Not Strictly Military Use. So maybe your statement is wrong? Otherwise could you share the source you got this from?
the share of the military energy usage in the federal energy usage is entirely meaningless tot the oil
consumption of the US economyI don't understand what you are saying, could you please explain and/or share a relevant link? Btw maybe I should clarify that by talking about "consumption" I was not talking in economic terms, just in the sense of "utilizing".
-
they'd probably be more wealthy from their heavy investments in renewable energy, which is more profitable than fossil fuels btw
it's the same story as weed legalization, it only happens after the current established powers have given themselves enough time to secure the new playing field.
-
I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don't agree with this approach because of something I learned today.
He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.
Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?
Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.
Because this video isn't about the US military, and all you're doing is bean soup leftism.
-
He hasn't done any videos on computers, AFAIK. His channel covers a wide range of topics, from washing machines, car blinkers, heaters, refrigerators, to christmas lights. You can see his backlog here.
AND HEAT PUMPS!!!!
-
I didn't write "common sense" to imply it doesn't need to be explained.
I wrote it to mean that once explained, it clearly is impossible to refute because it's common sense.
My comment was not adversarial.
Nor was theirs.
Both are very neutral and can be interpreted as dissent or assent if you read the right tone into them.
-
Went from "ehh, its a long video. I'll watch it tomorrow" to "holy fuck..."
I actually stopped watching it at the hour mark because I had to make dinner but then I let it play while I worked and holy shit! This dude for president!
-
I have watched only a few minutes of this vid so far, as well as the timestamps and I must admit I don't agree with this approach because of something I learned today.
He says around 2 m something like: the strategic US reserve of oil even tho the number of barrels sounds huge, they could sustain the US only a month of our current use. From the context my understanding is that he implies that this is due to casual, everyday-people consumption.
Well, it looks like the Department of Defense is the U.S. government’s largest fossil fuel consumer, accounting for between 77% and 80% of all federal government energy consumption since 2001. So why is this huge percentage missing from this long analysis?
Anyways, if he talks about the US military petroleum consumption, please let me know. Or if I got something wrong with this new info I got about the US military, let me know too.
You should rewatch the video, because you totally have missed his main point
-
For tech people: You can host Invidious locally... No google, no ads, no popups.
