search results matching tag: exponential growth

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds

    Videos (6)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (32)   

Why GM Says Its Ultium Batteries Will Lead To EV Dominance

spawnflagger says...

I think Tesla does some innovative stuff - like using the worlds largest metallic moulds (built by some Italian company if I recall, which make those exclusively for Tesla). But ultimately Elon is a "hype man", and most of his promises have fallen flat (check out Thunderf00t's youtube channel - he debunks many scammy startups as well as Elon's claims, using high school chemistry and physics).

I do applaud Tesla for opening additional factories in Germany and China so quickly, but exponential growth (for any EV maker) is impossible - there's simply not enough easy-to-mine lithium in the world. (Maybe Elon is planning to mine some asteroids instead of going to Mars? who knows)

The GM battery tech isn't exciting or sexy, but it is a means to building a more affordable EV. Ford is already shipping F-150 Lightning (assuming its not affected by the same contactor recall as the Mach-E). Rivian has been (slowly) shipping trucks.
Where's the CyberTruck? I bet even the electric Silverado will start shipping before the CyberTruck.

Haitian Prime Minister resigns amid fuel price protests

ChaosEngine says...

I'd love to be wrong.

But even with less demand for gas and diesel for ground transport, we'll still need petrochemicals for air transport and plastic production (neither of which are going away any time soon).
Ultimately, they are a finite resource and even ignoring the effects of climate change we are going to run out eventually (especially if there's continued exponential growth).

The only good news is that IF we can produce enough EVs and enough renewable electricity to run them, that cost won't hurt most people (at least not in transport terms).

But even then, it will (optimistically) be a decade or two before EVs outnumber ICEs.

So yeah, IMO, fuel is going to go up.

C-note said:

I hope you are wrong. A few countries have announce goals for increasing the percentage of electric cars on their roads. The reduction in sales for gas and diesel cars should lead to less demand... maybe...

Dear Future Generations: Sorry

Mordhaus says...

Why is there so much nuclear waste? Because we have so many people living in artificial environments that require tons of power.

Why is the Colorado river becoming almost drained and getting worse each year? Because of climate change, yes, but primarily because we have millions of people living in desert regions and agricultural crops like almonds that require laughable tons of water. Most of those almonds are turned into flour and milk products because people refuse to eat other food, or can't because they should be dead due to allergies.

Why are we overfishing and using such harmful methods as trawling? Because we have too many people that want a specific kind of food or can't afford a different type of food.

Could we switch everyone to insect proteins or other radical foods like spirulina? Yes, if you want riots. The technology doesn't exist that can make sustainable foods taste the same and people would go apeshit.

So to sum up, yes, we could feed people without damaging the environment, if you could get people to agree to it. Think of trying to force vegans to chomp on insects. As far as habitats, not so much. We don't have the room for the sheer numbers of people without either doing away with food producing land, destroying existing ecosystems like the rainforest, or putting them in artificially sustained areas like large cities or hot/cold desert terrain.

Nature used to take care of these situations via epidemics or natural selection. We have adapted to the point where we can beat most epidemics (although soon we will be hit with something bad if we look at the super bacteria we are creating) and we protect the people who should be dead against their own stupidity.

Climate change isn't going to kill this planet first, the sheer population rise will wipe it out much sooner than that. By 2030 it is estimated we will have 8+ billion people, by 2050 close to 10 billion. Exponential growth is going to suck this planet dry as a bone. The day is coming when we will HAVE to start supplementing food with non-standard food types and soon after that we will wipe out most of the living food items on this planet like a horde of locusts.

diego said:

actually, its not at all like that. the planet has food and land in surplus for everyone, but there is huge waste. Some of it is the price of technology and the modern life style, some of it is avoidable, reckless waste, but its not only a matter of "if there were only less people". That wouldnt make trawling the ocean any less destructive, or nuclear waste any less toxic. The planet is going to survive no matter what, the question is in what form, reducing the number of people on the planet only changes the time it takes to ruin the planet if the people that remain are going to continue irresponsibly consuming and contaminating as before.

The Best (and Worst) Ways to Shuffle Cards

MilkmanDan says...

I disagree with the insinuation that that is intuitive...

I think to answer @Zawash 's concerns, the seven riffle shuffles is probably close to the "sweet spot" because even a card on the very bottom or very top will likely move at least 1-2 places away from those extreme positions (top or bottom) in a single shuffle. Then, on the second shuffle, it is likely to move even further -- the probable "distance moved" is even higher and goes up rapidly away from the extreme edges. By the time that you've riffle shuffled 7 times, it should easily have shifted far enough away from either extreme end to be sufficiently "random".

Sorta like the old elementary school math question of would you rather have a million dollars NOW, or one penny today and then double that amount each day for the next month. We tend to underestimate the value of option 2 (over $5 million after 30 days, $10m+ for 31) because our brains are much better at grasping/predicting geometric growth than exponential growth.

That doesn't have anything to do with "inability to perform a proper riffle shuffle", just a very human tendency to underestimate exponential changes over a few iterations.

yellowc said:

The maths is 7-11 riffle shuffles result in a random deck. Your inability to perform a proper ripple shuffle doesn't change the maths.

The Witcher 3 The Wild Hunt cinematic intro video

A10anis says...

CGI? Getting better and better, almost exponential growth. Story lines? Same ol, same ol. Answer? I have no idea nor, it seems, do the developers. Boring, repetitious, plagiarised, reconstituted story lines.

Colonel Sanders Explains Our Dire Overpopulation Problem

shveddy says...

@RedSky - You aren't reading what I'm saying.

I'm talking about finding an equilibrium in which humanity can thrive economically, socially and environmentally.

I'm only saying that things like environmental damage, fracking, certain food production techniques, the current flavor of resource wars, and the fact that a massive proportion of our current population really can't feed itself are all evidence that the effort required to sustain current and future population levels doesn't fit my definition of finding balance.

The only point of no return I'm talking about is that at some point it will be essentially impossible to get to that place of balance that I favor. It's a nebulous concept for sure, but I do think it is relatively imminent and at the very least that we are heading in the wrong direction - especially in light of the notion proposed by this video where exponential growth can give you a false sense of security right up until just before you hit it.

I actually agree with you and think that earth could sustain an arbitrarily large population of say 20 billion or even more.

But we'd have to spend more of our time and efforts competing (sometimes violently) for the resources, we'd have to shape ever larger proportions of the natural world to our own narrow needs, we'd have to put up with a much less pleasant environment, and since it will be challenging enough to just get the resources to feed and clothe your own people, there is a really good chance that unfathomable (billions) quantities of human beings will be marginalized by this system and spend most of their time suffering.

Again, a far cry rom my definition of equilibrium.

As for your notion that vague global threats don't cause change, for starters I'm not sure that's true - there are significant popular environmental movements around the world and also some threshold of self interest can be breached. For example if you look at negotiations over things like the Kyoto protocols you will see that developing nations who are much more susceptible to environmental changes like shifting climates and rising sea levels are significantly more likely to sign on. It's no coincidence that Bangladesh and a few other island nations were the only countries to ratify the thing.

But there are also educational and social strategies that can have a huge effect. I think that you'd get a lot of mileage from just increasing women's rights around the world.

RedSky said:

@shveddy

I don't buy his overstretched ticking time bomb analogy or the idea of a point of no return. Countless people have predicted peak oil, global resource wars and the like for decades with none of significance eventuating.

Colonel Sanders Explains Our Dire Overpopulation Problem

shveddy says...

I don't think anyone's advocating forced population control here.

I only think that people are advocating that a greater emphasis on family planning be incorporated into your prescription for everyone to "control his own activities and teach his neighbor the virtues of his infinitely sustainable choices."

Doing this too fast would be demographic suicide for a lot of complicated reasons, I don't think anyone is denying that, but a very significant organic reduction over the course of a few centuries would be beneficial for humanity and could be reasonably attained. It's certainly less far-fetched than mass colonization of Mars or Venus in the same timeframe.

And that's an important distinction here. We aren't really concerned about the environment here. We're concerned about what's best for us.

The environment is going to shrug us off and incorporate all our plastic, CO2, and evidence of narrowing biodiversity into a few more strata and continue doing its thing. It has survived mass extinctions before.

It's ridiculous to think that we can even destroy the environment. Our population size and its destructive effects would be reduced to insignificance long before we hit a point of no return and the biosphere's existence is even slightly threatened.

We should be framing the argument in terms of how to achieve an environmental equilibrium in which humanity can live in a comfortable and humane manner.

I think we're a lot closer to a point of no return with regards to achieving that goal.

For my money I'd say that exponential population growth isn't pointing us in that direction, and living - as I do - in a rapidly modernizing "second world" country tells me that bringing all eight billion of us to affluence too quickly poses its own significant dangers.

Let's not forget that this videos two main points are that we are demonstrably in a period of exponential growth, and that exponential growth from the limited perspective of the inside can be deceptive. Points of no return that seem far away are in fact very close.

Sniper007 said:

@gorillaman

If a global population of less than 1 billion is desirable in your eyes, then do you desire the death or sterilization of 6/7th's of the people you know? Or perhaps you desire the death or sterilization of 7/7th's of the people you DON'T know?

You're not a scientist!

Jinx says...

If your system is based on this notion of exponential growth then it seems like a no brainer that you HAVE to invest in science and discovery or else how on earth are you going to keep up.

Man Changes Bike Tire in Less Than a Minute

Tojja says...

Yeah, he used a CO2 canister-based pump. Very handy for quick changes, but you need to be careful to do as he do and aim upwards when inflating (downward facing = greater chance of freezing inner tube - from experience). Note: Depending on temperatures and canister size (12g, 16g etc), CO2 canisters often only get you back up to 80-90PSI, which may or may not be enough for your setup


This was a great (and impressive) display. As someone who has changed HUNDREDS of flatties, my ramblings, FWIW:
- The tyre/rim combo can often mean removal (and reseating) of the tyre is a PITA, due to slightly small ID tyre bead and slightly oversize RIM OD. Inevitably this requires n+1 tyre levers, with n being the number you have in your pocket (tip: wheel quick releases make good emergency tyre levers at a pinch)
- 30 seconds spent identifying/removing source of puncture (glass/wire/thorn) saves many minutes of rework when you get another puncture a minute later from the bastard wire strand you didnt look hard enough for
- always carry a patch kit (or 1-2 of the self-adhesive sticky instant patches). Two punctures on one ride is rare but it happens and being stranded out of cell coverage then trying to peel off bar tape to seal a puncture is a way to ruin a good ride
- Replace old tyres. There is an exponential growth curve that describes the relationship between tyre age to incidence of punctures. Old tyres are the single most effective way to spend lots of time on the side of the road yelling

Overpopulation is a myth: Food, there's lots of it

messenger says...

All the video says is that there's currently enough food. It suggests that fears of running out of land soon are unfounded.

It takes no position whatsoever on environmental destruction, which is the reason that overpopulation is a problem. With exponential growth, technology eventually won't be able to keep up, and environmental disaster will follow, eventually.

This smells of a whitewash as they don't even address the environmental issue. My guess is that this group is a reaction to something like Steady State Economy activism that has been gaining traction in the last few years, and which is antithetical to modern capitalism which relies on the assumption of a continuously growing consumer base.

I bet if you follow this group's money, you end up with a group of very rich men who stand to lose millions or billions of dollars if we turn away from the current winner-takes-all model and move towards a more forward-thinking cooperative economic model.

Overpopulation is a myth: Food, there's lots of it

Taint says...

Shineyblurry, let's imagine for a moment that you're 100% correct and that overpopulation is a myth. It fits nicely with the bible telling us to be fruitful and multiply, so let's throw caution to the wind, avoid the use any contraception and reproduce as vigorously as possible.

You must see that there will be a limit.

If planned, deliberate population control isn't addressed it's very simple math to reason out the end result of exponential growth.

Once you can admit that the problem is inevitable, then it's really just a question of how far you want to push ahead our reaction to do something about it.

How near to the point of no return, how close to catastrophe, for the entire human species, are you willing to get?


Oh, and as far as this video specifically, it seems irresponsible to say that overpopulation isn't really an issue as long as we simply sort out all of the problems of capitalism, diplomacy, and how humans interact with one another on every level.

Great Adam Carolla Rant On OWS

alcom says...

Wow, AC is so bitter. It seems that he's oblivious to the scale of inequity and its exponential growth in recent years. If he would really examine the balance of equality in the "good old days," he would realize that it was much more equitable.

Goods used to be American made and today's globalization has seen manufacturing almost disappear and replaced by outsourcing and child labour. From a purely business standpoint, this makes sense. There is no law against foreign investment, so it's not economical to be patriotic.

And here we are today, with the balance so skewed that it makes sense to pay a few hundred million to buy a senator, republican or a judge. A few years down the road, you'll be paid back by sidestepping that environmental restriction or class-action lawsuit or anything else that might hurt your business.

And if you're an investment banker or bis securities trader, you provide very little to society other than a higher tax rate that you can comfortably afford. But even then, you can weasel your way out of most of that with creative deductions and perfectly legal loopholes. Remember what Warren Buffet said about his cleaning lady? Do you think he was talking out of his ass?

Visualizing How A Population Grows To 7 Billion

hpqp says...

Very nicely done. Seeing how the world's population more than doubled in the last fifty years is always a horrifying sight for me. Every year the UN cranks out a report saying that there are more and more poor, starving people in the world, as well as a report showing the exponential growth of aid spending, seemingly without effect. Why? Because some people *stares intently at Christians and other conservative d-bags* refuse to let sex education, prophylactics and contraception/abortion be included in the aid package. Nothing's better for religious business than misery, ignorance and fear in flocks and flocks of people.

/rant from someone who's been there

Rockstar's L.A. Noire - Animation and Facial Tech Trailer

MilkmanDan says...

Hmm, the face motion-cap tech looks great. License it to George Lucas, and retire.

The game itself, on the other hand -- I'm not convinced. It looks sort of like the gaming equivalent of "choose your own adventure" books. Go through a series of static, completely scripted scenes, make one brief decision and you're off to another. Sure you can have a lot of real, actual game between the scripted exchanges, and you can have multiple versions of the scripted bits to account for previous decisions, but eventually that exponential growth of outcomes will catch up with you unless you limit the differences; ie. make the few decisions that you actually make and most of your gameplay outcomes not even matter.

Of course, I'm basing that off of a brief video that is meant to highlight the face motion-cap tech rather than the story, so maybe I'd change my tune upon seeing more.

What is money?

yellowc says...

I saw this when it was originally posted and I watched it again now as a refresher.

It's pretty scary how people have known that this system is so amazingly bad and was bound to collapse for so long and yet nothing has ever changed (judging by the massive debt taken to pay off the collapse, I guess it's not changing anytime soon).

Makes you wonder what power government really has? Every time someone thinks about making change in power, they just say some candid quote and hope someone in the future is inspired? For all the very informed people quoted, it seems no one has made any significant change. (I didn't really research these people's accomplishments but it seems evident by the state of the world today).

That's what scares me most, it will take the power of the people and people are so very very slow at producing change. The one thing that really hits home for me is the quote mentioning how incapable the average person is of understanding exponential growth. I've encountered this a lot and when I say things like "but it's exponential growth!" and I get blank stares as if the word exponential didn't register.

I actually remember trying to make people watch these videos before and I could convince very few to sit through the 48mins, I remember being afraid even and telling the dinner table, "the economy is going to BURST! THE DEBT MONSTER IS COMING! NOOOOOOOOOOO!"...probably should of phrased it better.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon