Super interesting! But I feel like there is a bit of a conclusion missing for me.
So 1500 Photons hit the receiver per bit send, but this is obviously way to few to keep processing the signal and it will just be drowned out by noise? Where do we go from here? Does voyager repeat its signal gazillions of times so we can average out the noise on our end? Where can I find more information on what is done with these few photons?
Wow, this the most incorrect statement I have read all week.
I am from this area, and Saxony before the GDR was of the most prosperous regions of Germany. If you are not convinced by the pomposity the former kingdom amassed in treasures and architecture, you can check the historical GDP per capita figures of the region [1].
Saxony historically was the number one state in terms of economic power behind the city states.
But the economic and political horrors that the socialist dictatorship brought, combined with the plundering done by Russia, completely turned this upside down. It is quite amazing how a few decades of bad leadership can bring a region to its knees.
It is true, however, that a lot of potential is still left in Saxony, and by many measures (like quality of schooling) it is still one of Germany's best.
I remember the guy behind VoltSim posting his project on reddit some months ago, claiming he wrote the circuit simulation under the hood from scratch by himself.
When he was called out that all his components used the same values and variable names as falstad [1], implying he just ported falstad's circuit sim to android, he deleted his post.
Looks like he still has his app on the app store and is still not honoring the open source license and not giving proper credit to falstad's circuit simulation.
And now he even put many components behind paid "extension packs" and wants to make money from falstad's work.
You can't just snap your finger and say "we go 100% renewables now!".
Germany is probably one of the country that commits the strongest to transitioning to renewables right now, and we started that process in 2011 and expect to reach 100% renewables between 2035 and 2040 the earliest. In the meantime, you HAVE to use another source.
That is 30 years for which you have decide to etiher use fossil fuels or nuclear. So do you wan't to dump CO2 into the air for 30 years and further advance climate change, plus kill millions due to air pollution? Or do you want to accumulate nuclear waste for 30 years, but have way fewer deaths and you don't worsen climate change further?
It is not a nice choice, but it is a choice that has to be made. And Germany decided to choose fossil fuels instead of nuclear.
I don't think there is a moral debate about developing autonomous military drones in China.
These self-restrictions based on morality regarding the development of military drones is really something only some western nations do. Other countries, if they reach the capabilites to develop them, they just do.
I understand that, but really you have the option of either going all-in on nuclear and potentially making patches of several km² uninhabitable, or going all-in on fossil fuels and making gigantic regions of the earth uninhabitable due to climate change.
It is a choice between a very local problem or a global one. There is no free lunch.
For Fukushima for example, the deaths from evacuation ARE included in the death toll (the total number is estimated to be 2,314).
You have a detailed article about the data here [1].
But I am open to change my mind. Can you give a source that compares the mortality rate of energy sources and that, in your opinion, better accounts for all deaths? What is the highest mortality rate for nuclear someone has every estimated?
It is stuff like people religiously dissmising you when you tell them that nuclear is nearly the safest power source in terms of deaths per TWh [1].
They don't base their opinion regarding safety on data, they base it on the feeling that they get from seeing large disasters and not seeing the countless deaths caused in silence, and they refuse to update their view even in the face of contradicting data.
You make it seem like todays internet monopolies exist because of all the platform there are, they are the most well-designed ones, and they would simply be replaced if a better product came along.
I disagree with that, youtube for example is not the prevalent video platform today because it is better than its competitors. Youtube today is absolutely terrible.
But it does not get replaced, because it is the established platform, and using a competitor is suicide because your content will never get any traction.
So we are stuck with a horribly monopolized web, where the established websites can become very shitty, but you have to stay on them because everyone else is.
https://youtu.be/zfaK4Hz0Na8
It actually made me appreciate how impressive and serious this discipline is, despite all the funky-looking gear.