KillingTimeItself

there are two big arguments for a denser layout, notably you move your hands less, which means you can type faster, statistically speaking. It makes it easier. Generally you see typing speed track roughly with this over time.

And since you move your hands less, it’s ergonomically better for typing, so you get less strain, you have better ergonomics in general, you can type longer, and even faster since there is less strain.

Different layouts optimize for different things, some optimize for efficient roll combinations, some optimize for switching between hands as optimally as possible. Some don’t really do any of that (qwerty) which also have a significant impact on typing.

that’s only true if you’re a trump supporter, it’s absolutely true if you’re not. There are most definitely concerns to be had, as there always are, but globalism is fundamentally good for the economy. There is no world in which this isn’t true, so you should push towards globalism, even if there is some risk, because it will likely stabilize relations significantly.

obviously not, and that’s mostly going to be military contracts more than anything. Regardless, this doesn’t change the economics here, if you can buy it from the hydrogen empire cheaper, and your business isn’t the US military, then it doesnt fucking matter. Just buy it from them.

you think i was saying they would manufacture hydrogen from natural gas?

ok.

oil and resource industries are pretty well known for being energy intensive no?

last i checked industry is the primary energy consumer. Sure there’s less people in alaska, but it was just an example i picked, and the market economics would still be applicable there. If it’s cheaper to buy hydrogen, than it is to produce locally sourced power, that’s going to be what happens.

yeah thats pretty much the TL;DR here. It’s complicated since oil is complicated and there isn’t really a “insert oil” oil to talk about, there are a lot of variations of it, and a lot of ways to refine it, and a lot of different resultant products from it as well.

The fact that the modern petro industry even works is kind of insane.

ah yes, wait until you find out about the qwerty keyboard. Or better yet, the fucking ABCDE layout for some godforsaken reason.

all freight traffic is a pretty significant dent, i think the net total for all of transport is something like 15-20% of total emissions, so.

actually, it’s already happening, why do you think LNG is such a massive export from the US right now?

yeah, free market economies baby, making everything more efficient!

the problem with tar sands is a fundamental energy conversion issue. It’s really hard to refine because you don’t get nearly as much energy out as you put in, compared to something like fracking.

It may become reasonable in the future with really cheap renewable energy and higher oil prices for example, but as of right now, it’s economically unviable.

bc local supplies would generally be sufficient for industrial, non-fuel uses

this is assuming that its not just cheaper to import that needed oil? This is always going to be a fundamental problem, though maybe we already happen to produce plastic with native oil idk.

there absolutely is? What if i can buy hydrogen at 1$ per ton, from the hydrogen production empire, meanwhile in the manufacturing empire hydrogen is produced at 2$ per ton. Economically, it would make sense to buy that hydrogen from the hydrogen production empire.

It’s not going to be as significant as a trade as something like coal and LNG obviously, but the market IS going to do this in some capacity. And it’s a beneficial thing for everybody.

arguably, compressing natural gas into LNG is fucking stupid, but apparently the market rates work out, so it’s economically viable. And here we are compressing a gas into a liquid just to ship it over the ocean lol.

market economies are just funny.

you really think this is going to stop the globalism aspect from happening? If you can ship something, and get better market rates on it, you’re going to do it. Economics follows the cheapest route, not the most efficient.

It also just makes sense if you think about it. Places like alaska are going to struggle to generate green energy compared to another place like, texas for example. If you can ship in green hydrogen much cheaper than you can locally produce energy, why wouldn’t you? It’s a reasonable solution to the problem of supply and demand scaling.

it’s also to do with prices. There is a certain amount of this that is true, but the primary reason is oil prices.

to be perfectly clear, this probably wouldn’t help much, since we would likely just move to shipping something like hydrogen across the ocean anyway…

you’re telling me the website currently going through antisemitism allegations is not a very good website?

What an odd thing to happen.

And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet.

to be clear, i wasn’t the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.

i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. “operational altitude” for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that’s irrelevant here, we’re talking about the ground.

well yeah, you can’t just try, you need to actually do it.

Stupid title, grammatically at least.