I'm not sure that's true. Operating in a radioactive environment makes every single task so much harder. When Russia can barely afford the time to teach its recruits how to shoot, how could they possibly spare the time to teach them how to manage radioactive contamination?
If by "the same thing" you mean that Ukraine has requested the assistance of its allies to avoid being being coerced by Russia, then yes the same thing is happening. Why exactly would that be bad?
American consultants were instrumental in organizing the massive selloff of state assets, and quite a few of them turned around and used their knowledge of the system they created to become quite rich. Andrei Shleifer said as much in an interview on the topic, though I can't find it now.
edit: it seems like someone else posted the same link while I was looking for the interview.
It has everything to do with Ukraine. The low gas storage levels were engineered to create additional leverage over European countries during the upcoming invasion.
"The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that 50 percent of the deficit in European storages was due to the depletion of Gazprom-owned storages, despite the fact that Gazprom only owned 10 percent of European storages. This rapid draining of storages left European gas storage dangerously low at the height of winter, increased market panic, and further inflated gas prices."
Tyson once said on twitter “An airplane whose engine fails is a glider. A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick.” Now it's not at all obvious why that's not true. But that's why it's important to be humble about what you do and don't know.
> I cannot name a single "expert" who has attempted to calm people at all.
That's odd, because here are some excerpts from President Biden's remarks on covid [1].
"THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, my fellow Americans. I want to talk to you about where we are in the battle against COVID-19, the progress we’ve made, and the work we have left to do.
And it starts with understanding this: Even as the Delta variant 19 [sic] has — COVID-19 — has been hitting this country hard, we have the tools to combat the virus, if we can come together as a country and use those tools.
If we raise our vaccination rate, protect ourselves and others with masking and expanded testing, and identify people who are infected, we can and we will turn the tide on COVID-19.
...
So, let me speak to you directly. Let me speak to you directly to help ease some of your worries.
...
We know that if schools follow the science and implement the safety measures — like testing, masking, adequate ventilation systems that we provided the money for, social distancing, and vaccinations — then children can be safe from COVID-19 in schools."
And here are some from a recent press briefing [2] by the COVID response team:
"MR. ZIENTS: Good afternoon. Thanks for joining us. In a moment, I’ll turn to Drs. Walensky, Fauci, and Murthy.
I’ll start by discussing the progress we’re making on testing, vaccination, and boosters — three critical parts of the President’s six-point plan to accelerate our path out of the pandemic.
First, testing: In the past few months, testing has increased, particularly at-home testing — a convenient option that came to market earlier this year.
To meet this increased demand, the President’s plan ramps up both the availability of tests and access to free testing. In just a matter of weeks, we’ve made significant progress on both fronts.
...
I’ll close with this: We’ve made tremendous progress over the past eight months, and we are executing well against the President’s six-point plan. We’re on the right track, but we need everyone to do their part."
The experts are saying "stay strong and we'll get through this". Meanwhile you are talking about how wearing a piece of cloth on your face is "human rights crushing crap" like we're one step away from the death camps. How is that calming anyone down? And who exactly do you mean when you say "them" anyway? It's a really worrying sign when "they" are always doing all these nefarious things just to frighten and control people. Do you know many in your life who acts that way? If not, why do you imagine that "they" are any different from the people you know? Where do you think "they" live? What do "they" want to do when "they" get home from work today? Do you think "they" read to their children before "they" tuck them in at night?
> population group x seems to be the source of this wealth
Here's a fun thought experiment - if Jeff Bezos (actually Andy Jassy nowadays, but that just proves my point further) suddenly vanished, how many orders would fail to be delivered tomorrow as a result? Literally none. Now suppose everybody else working at Amazon disappeared instead. What happens? The company ceases to meaningfully exist. So who really created that wealth?
I don't think there's any chance moving most of that machinery on short notice, what with the incredibly small tolerances and clean-room conditions required in that industry. Here [1] is one EUV source. It's the size of a shipping container. The power source is "so large that it has to be placed on a separate floor". And that's just one tiny (but essential) piece of the puzzle. You would have to somehow bundle it up totally airtight, get it to the port, and safely across the ocean through an enemy blockade. Possibly while troops are landing at the beaches, and planes are bombing you.
The personnel seem a bit more possible, though I'm sure China would not be interested in its most economically productive "citizens" fleeing, so it probably wouldn't allow them through a naval blockade either.
I failed high school algebra largely because I lost my glasses and was just trying to imagine in my head what the teacher was talking about. The adults in my life knew I had a prescription, and had the money to pay for them and yet nobody did anything. The bystander effect is truly bizarre.
I completely agree on your first point. I was going for a bit of understatement, but to be clear, doing any of that is firmly on the other side of many revolutionary breakthroughs in our understanding of biology. But that being said, the standard for success isn't to have an immune system that can protect a complete animal for its entire life. The standard is to put up a nonzero amount of resistance to the reactor getting colonized by opportunistic bacteria (yeast etc), and not attack the one specific cell type that you care about. It's about pushing the requirement for sterility down from 100% to 'only' 99.99%.
Agreed. Skimming Humbird's analysis, he mentions concentrations of catabolites as a significant limit on cell density, and points out that their removal is usually the job of the kidneys. To me that immediately raised the question of how to design an artificial kidney-like structure that can also live in solution. Similarly, the cleanroom conditions are very difficult to sustain, but what if we could engineer a replacement for the immune system to police the reactors?
Both of those are of course complete science fiction currently, but they're not "thermodynamically impossible" like he seems to suggest. They're 'just' conditioned on a significantly deeper understanding of biochemistry and genetic engineering than we currently have.
Given the current state of the technology and the implications of meat for global warming, I suspect that meat might just become more expensive until it stops being eaten entirely. And when the technology exists to produce it artificially, there won't be a market for it anymore. Speaking as someone who eats meat regularly, it's mostly a matter of conditioning. I don't think I would have independently invented the idea of killing and consuming an animal if other's hadn't taught it to me.
Having your children abducted and held for ransom. People wanting to kill you because they think you put microchips in their bodies through a vaccine. Not knowing if people you meet are just trying to extract money or publicity from you.
So if the hate brigades were being launched by a group with a long track record of bad-faith and abusive behavior, you don't think that should inform your decision making?