#of for example the technology of the 60s

[just-a-repa]

Some modern au shenanigans

Character description part 1 here

This is the moment Rael knew he is dead meat, little shit won't keep his mouth closed in front of their parents for sure

Rael definitely buys himself makeup with his pocket money (or uses Jo's) and when he and Qui-Gon are alone in the house he just experiements with it

I also totally forgot to do something for halloween night, but happy (late) halloween guys :D

[haunting-hole]

One detail I've always really liked in dunmeshi's worldbuilding is the difference in life expectancies among races. I don't mean the different rates at which they age but specifically how long they live from the point of view of their own group. For example, dwarfs are directly stated to age 2.5x slower than a tall-man, but where tall-men's life expectancy is only about 60, for a dwarf it would be about 200 (equivalent to 80).

At first this stood out as odd to me but it makes sense when you look up the average lifespan for every race. In general, the short-lived races all have a smaller age of maturity to life expectancy ratio than all the long-lived ones.

I really love this discrepancy because the implication here is that long-lived races not only have longer lifespans due to aging slower, but they also just live longer generally due to a better quality of life, as they have taken the most fertile and livable lands to themselves, resulting in less conflicts over resources and faster technological developments.

Ultimately how long you live isn't just a fantastical element of the setting, but a political one as well.

[phoenixyfriend]

Ko-fi prompt from @liberwolf:

Could you explain Tariff's , like who pays them and what they do to a country?

Well, I can definitely guess where this question is coming from.

Honestly, I was pretty excited to get this prompt, because it's one I can answer and was part of my studies focus in college. International business was my thing, and the issues of comparative advantage (along with Power Purchasing Parity) were one of the things I liked to explore.

-----------------

At their simplest, tariffs are an import tax. The United States has had tariffs as low as 5%, and at other times as high as 44% on most goods, such as during the Civil War. The purpose of a tariff is in two parts: generating revenue for the government, and protectionism.

Let's first explore how a tariff works. If you want to be confused, then you need to have never taken an economics class, and look at this graph:

(src)

So let's undo that confusion.

The simplest examples are raw or basic materials such as steel, cotton, or wine.

First, without tariffs:

Let us say that Country A and Country B both produce steel, and it is of similar quality, and in both cases cost $100 per unit. Transportation from one country to the other is $50/unit, so you can either buy domestically for $100, or internationally for $150. So you buy domestically.

Now, Country B discovers a new place to mine iron very easily, and so their cost for steel drops to $60/unit due to increased ease of access. Country A can either purchase domestically for $100, or internationally for $110 (incl. shipping), which is much more even. Still, it is more cost-effective to purchase domestically, and so Country A isn't worried.

Transportation technology is improved, dropping the shipping costs to $30/unit. A person from Country A can buy: Domestic: $100 International: $60+$30 = $90 Purchasing steel from Country B is now cheaper than purchasing it from Country A, regardless of where you live.

Citizens in Country A, in order to reduce costs for domestic construction, begin to purchase their steel from Country B. As a result, money flows from Country A to B, and the domestic steel industry in Country A begins to feel the strain as demand dwindles.

In this scenario, with no tariffs, Country A begins to rely on B for their steel, which causes a loss of jobs (steelworkers, miners), loss of infrastructure (closing of mines and factories), and an outflow of funds to another country. As a result, Country A sees itself as losing money to B, while also growing increasingly reliant on their trading partner for the crucial good that is steel. If something happens to drive up the price of B's steel again, like political upheaval or a natural disaster, it will be difficult to quickly ramp up the production of steel in Country A's domestic facilities again.

What if a tariff is introduced early?

Alternately, the dropping of complete costs for purchase of steel from Country B could be counteracted with tariffs. Let's say we do a 25% tariff on that steel. This tariff is placed on the value of the steel, not the end cost, so:

$60 + (0.25 x $60) + $30 = $105/unit

Suddenly, with the implementation of a 25% tariff on steel from Country B, the domestic market is once again competitive. People can still buy from Country B if they would like, but Country A is less worried about the potential impacts to the domestic market.

The above example is done in regards to a mature market that has not yet begun to dwindle. The infrastructure and labor is still present, and is being preemptively protected against possible loss of industry to purchasing abroad.

What happens if the tariff is not implemented until after the market has dwindled?

Let's say that the domestic market was not protected by the tariff until several decades on. Country A's domestic production, in response to increased purchasing from abroad, has dwindled to one third of what it was before the change in pricing incentivized purchase from B. Prices have, for the sake of keeping this example simple, remained at $100(A) and $60(B) in that time. However, transportation has likely become better, so transportation is down to $20, meaning that total cost for steel from B is $80, accelerating the turn from domestic steel to international.

So, what happens if you suddenly implement a tariff on international steel? Shall we say, 40%?

$60 + (0.4 x 60) + 20 = $104

It's more expensive to order from abroad! Wow! Let's purchase domestically instead, because these prices add up!

But the production is only a third of what it used to be, and domestic mines and factories for refining the iron into steel can't keep up. They're scaling, sure, but that takes time. Because demand is suddenly triple of the supply, the cost skyrockets, and so steel in Country A is now $150/unit! The price will hopefully come down eventually, as factories and mines get back in gear, but will the people setting prices let that happen?

So industries that have begun to rely on international steel, which had come to $80/unit prior to the tariff, are facing the sudden impact of a cost increase of at least $25/unit (B with tariff) or the demand-driven price increase of domestic (nearly double the pre-tariff cost of steel from B), which is an increase of at least 30% what they were paying prior to the tariff.

There are possible other aspects here, such as government subsidies to buoy the domestic steel industry until it catches back up, or possibly Country B eating some of the costs so that people still buy from them (selling for $50 instead of $60 to mitigate some of the price hike, and maintain a loyal customer base), but that's not a direct impact of the tariff.

Who pays for tariffs?

Ultimately, this is a tax on a product (as opposed to a tax on profits or capital themselves, which has other effects), which means the majority of the cost is passed on directly to the consume.

As I said, we could see the producers in Country B cut their costs a little bit to maintain a loyal customer base, but depending on their trade relationships with other countries, they are just as likely to stop trading with Country A altogether in order to focus on more profitable markets.

So why do we not put tariffs on everything?

Well... for that, we get into the question of production efficiency, or in this case, comparative advantage.

Let's say we have two small, neighboring countries, C and D, that have negligible transportation costs and similar industries. Both have extensive farmland, and both have a history of growing grapes for wine, and goats for wool. Country C is a little further north than D, so it has more rocky grasses that are good for goats, while D has more fertile plains that are good for growing grapes.

Let's say that they have an equal workforce of 500,000 of people. I'm going to say that 10,000 people working full time for a year is 1 unit of labor. So, Country C and Country D have between the 100 units of labor, and 50 each.

The cost of 1 unit of wool = the cost of 1 unit of wine

Country C, having better land for goats, can produce 4 units of wool for every unit of labor, and 2 units of wine for every unit of labor.

Meanwhile, Country D, having better land for grapes, can produce 2 units of wool per unit of labor, and 4 units of wine per unit of labor.

If they each devote exactly half their workforce to each product, then:

Country C: 100 units of wool, 50 units of wine Country D: 50 units of wool, 100 units of wine

Totaling 150 units of each product.

However, if each devotes all of their workforce to the product they're better at...

Country C: 200 units of wool, no wine Country D: no wool, 200 units of wine

and when they trade with each other, they each end up with 100 units of each product, which is a doubling of what their less-efficient labor would have resulted in!

The real world is obviously much more complicated, but in this example, we can see the pros of outsourcing some of your production to another country to focus on your own specialties.

Extreme examples of this IRL are countries where most of the economy rests on one product, such as middle-eastern petro-states that are now struggling to diversify their economies in order to not get left behind in the transition to green energy, or Taiwan's role as the world's primary producer of semiconductors being its 'silicon shield' against China.

Comparative advantage can be used well, such as our Unnamed Countries (that are definitely not the classic example of England and Portugal, with goats instead of sheep) up in the example. With each economy focusing on its specialty, there is a greater yield of both products, meaning a greater bounty for both countries.

However, should something happen to Country C up there, like an earthquake that kills half the goats, they are suddenly left with barely enough wool to clothe themselves, and nothing for Country D, which now has a surplus of wine and no wool.

So you do have to keep some domestic industry, because Bad Things Can Happen. And if we want to avoid the steel example of a collapse in the given industry, tariffs might be needed.

Are export tariffs a thing?

Yes, but they are much rarer, and can largely be defined as "oh my god, everyone please stop getting rid of this really important resource by selling it to foreigners for a big buck, we are depleting this crucial resource."

So what's the big confusion right now?

Donald Trump has, on a number of occasions, talked about 'making China pay' tariffs on the goods they import into the US. This has led to a belief that is not entirely unreasonable, that China would be the side paying the tariffs.

The view this statement engenders is that a tariff is a bit like paying a rental fee for a seller's table at an event: the producer or merchant pays the host (or landlord or what have you) a fee to sell their product on the premises. This could be a farmer's market, a renaissance faire, a comic book convention, whatever. If you want to sell at the event, you have to pay a fee to get a space to set up your table.

In the eyes of the people who listened to Trump, the tariff is that fee. China is paying the United States for access to the market.

And, technically, that's not entirely wrong. China is thus paying to enter the US market. It's just the money to pay that fee needs to come from somewhere, and like most taxes on goods, that fee comes from the consumer.

So... what now?

Well, a lot of smaller US companies that rely on cheap goods made in China are buying up non-perishables while they can, before the tariffs hit. Long-term, manufacturers in the US that rely on parts and tools manufactured in China are going to feel the squeeze once that frontloaded stock is depleted.

Some companies are large enough to take the hit on their own end, still selling at cheap rates to the consumer, because they can offset those costs with other parts of their empire... at least until smaller competitors are driven out of business, at which point they can start jacking up their prices since there are no options left. You may look at that and think, "huh, isn't that the modus operandi for Walmart and Amazon already?" and yes. It is. We are very much anticipating a 'rich get richer, poor go out of business' situation with these tariffs.

The tariffs will also impact larger companies, including non-US ones like Zara (Spanish) and H&M (Swedish), if they have a huge reliance on Chinese production to supply their huge market in the United States.

If you're interested in the repercussions that people expect from these proposed tariffs on Chinese goods, I'd suggest listening to or watching the November 8th, 2024 episode of Morning Brew Daily (I linked to YouTube, but it's also available on Spotify, Nebula, the Morning Brew website, and other podcast platforms).

[reasonsforhope]

ETA: Article here (can't believe I forgot this rip)

A new study finds you can reduce the amount of microplastics you drink simply by boiling your water.

Scientists are just beginning to understand the health risks associated with microplastic exposure.

Nano- and microplastics are bits of plastic as tiny as one-thousandth of a millimeter in diameter.

Boiling and filtering your tap water may dramatically lower the amount of microplastics you drink, according to new research.

Recent studies have found that nano- and microplastics (NMPs), which are bits of plastic as tiny as one-thousandth of a millimeter in diameter, have been found in a host of products and even in tap water.

A new study, published February 28 in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, found that boiling mineral-rich water for just five minutes can reduce the amount of NMP you’re exposed to by up to 90%.

Scientists are just beginning to understand the health risks associated with microplastic exposureTrusted Source, but growing evidenceTrusted Source suggests the plastics can accumulate in the body and trigger oxidative stress, inflammation, insulin resistance, and liver issues.

Certain advanced water filtration systems can capture and help remove some NMPs from tap water. But researchers wanted to figure out other options to remove microplastics, especially since in poorer countries cheaper, more accessible solutions for clean water are needed.

Boiling water may be a safe, simple solution that can effectively decontaminate household tap water, the new findings suggest.

“Boiling water before drinking is a great example of an ancient cultural practice that can help reduce an environmental exposure,” Dr. Luz Claudio, PhD, a professor of environmental medicine and public health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told Healthline.

Claudio was not involved in the study.

How boiling water can help remove microplastics

The researchers found simply boiling water is the first step to removing NMPs from tap water.

The researchers collected multiple samples of tap water from Guangzhou, China and contaminated the samples with varying levels of NMPs.

Each sample was boiled for five minutes then left to cool for 10 minutes.

Boiling hard water that’s rich with minerals — such as calcium or magnesium — creates a chalk-like residue known as limescale, or calcium carbonate (CaCO3), which can trap the plastics.

That solid, chalky residue then had to be separated and removed from the water with a standard coffee filter or stainless steel filter, thereby removing NMPs.

The team found that the impact was greatest in harder water: In samples that had 300 milligrams of CaCO3, for example, nearly 90% of NMPs were removed.

In softer water samples with less than 60 mg of CaCO3, roughly 25% of NMPs were removed.

“What’s important to note here is that the effectiveness of trapping these micro/nano plastics in these mineral solids is tied to how hard the water is – the harder the water, the more solids are formed, the more microplastics are trapped,” Dr. Anja Brandon, PhD, the associate director of U.S. plastics policy at Ocean Conservancy and an environmental engineer, told Healthline.

Brandon was not involved in the study...

How to limit your exposure to microplastics 

Anyone who wishes to boil their water should do so in a glass or stainless steel pot.

After boiling the water for about five minutes, let it cool, and do not stir it, Claudio says.

The microplastics need to bind to the calcium and fall to the bottom of the pot so they can filtered or scooped out."

-via Healthline, February 28, 2024

[probablyasocialecologist]

Meta has engaged in a “systemic and global” censorship of pro-Palestinian content since the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza war on 7 October, according to a new report from Human Rights Watch (HRW). In a scathing 51-page report, the organization documented and reviewed more than a thousand reported instances of Meta removing content and suspending or permanently banning accounts on Facebook and Instagram. The company exhibited “six key patterns of undue censorship” of content in support of Palestine and Palestinians, including the taking down of posts, stories and comments; disabling accounts; restricting users’ ability to interact with others’ posts; and “shadow banning”, where the visibility and reach of a person’s material is significantly reduced, according to HRW. Examples it cites include content originating from more than 60 countries, mostly in English, and all in “peaceful support of Palestine, expressed in diverse ways”. Even HRW’s own posts seeking examples of online censorship were flagged as spam, the report said. “Censorship of content related to Palestine on Instagram and Facebook is systemic and global [and] Meta’s inconsistent enforcement of its own policies led to the erroneous removal of content about Palestine,” the group said in the report, citing “erroneous implementation, overreliance on automated tools to moderate content, and undue government influence over content removals” as the roots of the problem.

[...]

Users of Meta’s products have documented what they say is technological bias in favor of pro-Israel content and against pro-Palestinian posts. Instagram’s translation software replaced “Palestinian” followed by the Arabic phrase “Praise be to Allah” to “Palestinian terrorists” in English. WhatsApp’s AI, when asked to generate images of Palestinian boys and girls, created cartoon children with guns, whereas its images Israeli children did not include firearms.

[giantkillerjack]

You shouldn't get a wheelchair, walker, cane, shower chair, or any kind of assistive technology mobility aid because then you might become dependent on them. Just like how you also shouldn't get glasses if you have bad eyesight because then you might become dependent on those.

For instance, if you end up stuck using corrective eyewear, you could actually lose your ability to tell what things are even when they are extremely blurry! You need to get used to having migraines from seeing unclearly because if you wear glasses all the time, you are basically giving up!! You don't need to see things coming at you from far away! You just need to get good at dodging, and if you can't, then you have no one to blame but yourself!!

For example, I read a really heart-worming article recently about a girl who was stuck using glasses - just absolutely, tragically trapped in her eyewear from dawn to dusk, even though she was good and never ever complained; and I heard she trained herself to discern the blurry faces of her loved ones with 60% accuracy! - she was even able to walk down the aisle at her wedding WITHOUT forcing the discomfort of seeing a woman in glasses on all her guests!!

Sure, she had to give her vows with a splitting headache, and she couldn't see her husband's expression when he said "I do," but overall, SO inspi-ration-al!!! So up-lifting!!

(She didn't even have to use a seeing eye cane, which would have been the worst-case scenario, obviously, because she worked hard to make sure she looked LESS disabled, not MORE disabled!!! Everyone knows blind people exist solely to be a cautionary tale to sighted people!!)

Also, did you know some people get glasses when they only need them a little bit?? How selfish of them! Sure, there's not a shortage, and an increase in demand would result in overall increased accessibility to glasses--but emotionally it's like taking glasses away from someone who needs them more! After all, if everyone who needed glasses got them, then...... um...... more people would have glasses! Which is probably bad!!!!

I also had a friend who was trapped in glasses who saved up all her money for laser eye surgery, and I don't know why everyone doesn't just do that! Sure, some doctors say some people don't "qualify" and it "won't help" those people, but that's why you can't give up!! You don't want to be one of those people!

After all, what's the worst thing that could happen with an unnecessary laser surgery to the face that comes with crippling debt??? It's worth the risk to gain your FREEDOM back, and I'm so proud of my friend!!

Tragically, she did die later that year while driving Uber and squinting at street signs, but at least now I know my friend is finally free from the shackles of her terrible eyesight. #ripAshley #rippedAshley #justripit 😌😌😌❤😇😇😇

And that's why you shouldn't get used to using a mobility aid!! Because, like glasses, they are inherently embarrassing to be seen with; and - like glasses - it is more noble to suffer silently than to depend on unnatural technologies that force you to rely on them; AND - just like glasses - by abstaining from using them, you DEFINITELY benefit SO many people in tangible life-changing ways!!! (Besides, everyone else will be so much more comfortable if you just look normal! 😊)

I hope you learned something today. 💖

[doyoulikethissong-poll]

Ada Jones and Billy Murray - Come Josephine in My Flying Machine 1911

"Come Josephine In My Flying Machine" is a song with music by Fred Fisher and lyrics by Alfred Bryan. First published in 1910, the composition was originally recorded by Blanche Ring and was, for a time, her signature song. Ada Jones and Billy Murray recorded a duet in November 1910, which was released the following year.

The song was allegedly based upon Josephine Sarah Magner (April 22, 1883 – July 15, 1966), who was perhaps the first woman parachutist in America with her initial jump in 1905. She was married to early aviation pioneer Leslie Burt Haddock, made hundreds of jumps, and assisted Haddock in the building of the first US Army dirigible (Signal Corps Dirigible Number 1) designed by her uncle Thomas Scott Baldwin.

The song tells of a young man bringing his girlfriend along on a flight on his personal airplane. Written in the early days of aviation, it expresses the technological optimism of the era. For example, the song mentions the couple feeling they could "hit the Moon", a feat which was eventually accomplished less than 60 years after the release of the standard. Fragments of the song are sung by both characters Jack and Rose in the 1997 film Titanic.

"Come Josephine In My Flying Machine" received a total of 43,7% yes votes.

[uyuforu]

Astro Observations: Lunar Return Chart VII

It's that time of the month! The Lunar Return Chart Series continue with another observation ^^

All pictures were found on Pinterest

Other posts you could like:

જ⁀➴ Lunar Return Chart IV

જ⁀➴ Lunar Return Chart V

જ⁀➴ Lunar Return Chart VI

READINGS BOOKING OPEN

email adress: tarotjunoboda@gmail.com

Soft To You presentation and Q&A ᡣ𐭩 rules ᡣ𐭩 private readings reviews

astrology menu ᡣ𐭩 tarot menu ᡣ𐭩 special astrology & tarot readings

support the creator: paypal ⟡ buy me a coffee (tip) ⟡ tipeee

╰┈➤ Get your own Solar Return Chart, from 30€ to 60€ ⋆౨ৎ˚⟡˖ ࣪

⊹₊⟡⋆ 4H Ruler in 12H is an indicator of moving.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 4H Ruler in 4H is an indicator of traveling in your country, or around your country.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Uranus conjunct Moon 12H can indicate feeling down but very suddenly, your moon switch during the month and you can feel sad often without knowing why.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Moon 12H usually indicates feeling sad or down this month. I was also feeling anxious and I overthink quite a lot this month.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Every time I have Uranus 12H I feel more tired and I need more sleep.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Saturn 10H is indeed an indicator of having some obstacles or difficulties in your career. But it doesn't mean necessarily that it's because your career isn't doing well. Ruler will say why you have those difficulties.

For Example, I had this placement last month, but had a lot of clients. But it was hard mentally to finish the readings, and my 10H Ruler was Uranus 12H. I was tired and never felt like working.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Moon conjunct Uranus 12H can also indicate having weird dreams with weird significations.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 5H Stellium usually means you'll be more into fashion, beauty tips, skincare, and make up this month.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Venus 5H, I bought more clothes this month, and I found a lot of good items in thrift shops.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 1H Ruler in 5H, I cut my hair and my hair are very healthy now and they look incredible.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Sun 10H Sun or Rulling 10H can mean you'll get more success and recognition this year, can be in your career or just in other parts for your life. Check where Ruler is in.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Stellium in 2H can mean gaining more money this month than last month for example.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Leo 10H & Ruler is in 12H can mean getting unwanted attention. You could get more attention and it's not something you really wanted. You can also get more popular and it can feel exhausting mentally.

╰┈➤ Get your own Solar Return Chart, from 30€ to 60€ ⋆౨ৎ˚⟡˖ ࣪

⊹₊⟡⋆ Jupiter 1H can be an indicator of taking a little weight, or you could feel thicker.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 2H Ruler in 12H, I wanted to save money. I was also more into manifesting money.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Mars 2H, I was more worried and anxious because of money.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 3H Ruler in 12H, very funny thing but this was the month I switched my instagram account into private mode for the first time since I had it.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 4H Ruler in 5H means you'll have some good time and good laugh with family this month.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Someone told me this already when I asked if they had this placement before, but 7H Ruler in 1H can mean a lot of people will be into you and interested in dating you.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Venus & Juno 5H will mean something similar.

⊹₊⟡⋆ My new LRC just started and I have 8H Ruler in 2H, Ruled by Venus, and I have such huge fashion fever!

⊹₊⟡⋆ I have Scorpio Rising in this new LRC and it's the same as my SRC, and I have tons of same placements as my SRC, I think this month will be very significant for me.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Chiron 8H can also be an indicator of being sick.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 12H Stelliums can usually translates into depression. You could not want to do a single thing but stay in bed and sleep.

⊹₊⟡⋆ Scorpio Rising could mean you'll change something in your life this month, and it can be transforming something that will play a major role in your life over the next few months.

⊹₊⟡⋆ 2H Ruler in 3H can mean buying new technology, like a phone for example.

Thank you for reading!

support the creator: paypal ⟡ buy me a coffee (tip) ⟡ tipeee

back to index ; ask ; request ; rules

[merpmonde]

60 Years of the Tokaido Shinkansen!

On 1 October 1964, a railway line like no other opened. Connecting Tôkyô and Ôsaka, paralleling an existing main line, the Tôkaidô New Trunk Line had minimal curves, lots of bridges, zero level crossings. Striking white and blue electric multiple units, with noses shaped like bullets some would say, started zooming between the two cities as at the unheard-of speed of 210 km/h.

This was the start of the Shinkansen, inaugurating the age of high-speed rail.

The trains, with noses actually inspired by the aircraft of the time, originally didn't have a name, they were just "Shinkansen trains", as they couldn't mingle with other types anyway due to the difference in gauge between the Shinkansen (standard gauge, 1435 mm between rails) and the rest of the network (3'6" gauge, or 1067 mm between rails). The class would officially become the "0 Series" when new trains appeared in the 1980s, first the very similar 200 Series for the second new line, the Tôhoku Shinkansen, then the jet-age 100 Series. Yes, the 200 came first, as it was decided that trains heading North-East from Tôkyô would be given even first numbers, and trains heading West would have odd first numbers (0 is even, but never mind).

Hence the next new type to appear on the Tôkaidô Shinkansen was the 300 Series (second from left), designed by the privatised JR Tôkai to overcome some shortcomings of the line. Indeed, the curves on the Tôkaidô were still too pronounced to allow speeds to be increased, while all other new lines had been built ready for 300 km/h operations. But a revolution in train design allowed speeds to be raised from 220 km/h in the 80s to 285 km/h today, with lightweight construction (on the 300), active suspension (introduced on the 700 Series, left) and slight tilting (standard on the current N700 types).

Examples of five generations of train used on the Tôkaidô Shinkansen are preserved at JR Tôkai's museum, the SCMaglev & Railway Park, in Nagoya, with the N700 prototype lead car outdoors. It's striking to see how far high-speed train technology has come in Japan in 60 years. The network itself covers the country almost end-to-end, with a nearly continuous line from Kyûshû to Hokkaidô along the Pacific coast (no through trains at Tôkyô), and four branch lines inland and to the North coast, one of which recently got extended.

東海道新幹線、お誕生日おめでおう！

[twinliches]

I haven't heared the door knobs and fascism thing before, can you elaborate?

gladly! i was referencing one of the aphorisms by Theodor W. Adorno, Do Not Knock, one of my favourite philosophical texts, certainly top 5.

I would summarise it for you, but it's quite a short text and i am not embarrassing myself by trying to summarise Adorno, so I have transcribed it for you under the cut:

60. Do Not Knock

Technology is making gestures precise and brutal, and with them men. It expels from movements all hesitation, deliberation, civility. It subjects them to the implacable, as it were ahistorical demands of objects, Thus the ability is lost, for example, to close a door quietly and discreetly, yet firmly. Those of cars and refrigerators have to be slammed, others have the tendency to snap shut by themselves, imposing on those entering the bad manners of not looking behind them, not shielding the interior of the house which receives them. The new human type cannot be properly understood without awareness of what the is continuously exposed to from the world of things about him, even in his most secret innervations.

What does it mean for the subject that there are no more casements windows to open, but only sliding frames to shove, not gentle latches but turnable handles, no forecourt, no doorstep before the street, no wall around the garden? And which diver is not tempted, merely but the power of his engine, to wipe out the vermin of the street pedestrians, children and cyclists? The movements machines demand of their users already have the violent, hard-hitting, unresting jerkiness of Fascist maltreatment.

Not least to blame for the withering of experience is the fact that things, under the law of pure functionality, assume a form that limits contact with them to mere operation, and tolerates no surplus, either in freedom of conduct or in autonomy of things, which would survive as the core of experience, because it is not consumed by the moment of action.

[mysticstronomy]

ARE WE ALONE IN THE UNIVERSE??

Blog#436

Saturday, September 14th, 2024.

Welcome back,

Are humans unique and alone in the vast universe? This question--summed up in the famous Drake equation--has for a half-century been one of the most intractable and uncertain in science.

But a new paper shows that the recent discoveries of exoplanets combined with a broader approach to the question makes it possible to assign a new empirically valid probability to whether any other advanced technological civilizations have ever existed.

And it shows that unless the odds of advanced life evolving on a habitable planet are astonishingly low, then human kind is not the universe’s first technological, or advanced, civilization.

The paper, published in Astrobiology, also shows for the first time just what “pessimism” or “optimism” mean when it comes to estimating the likelihood of advanced extraterrestrial life.

“The question of whether advanced civilizations exist elsewhere in the universe has always been vexed with three large uncertainties in the Drake equation,” said Adam Frank, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Rochester and co-author of the paper.

“We’ve known for a long time approximately how many stars exist. We didn’t know how many of those stars had planets that could potentially harbor life, how often life might evolve and lead to intelligent beings, and how long any civilizations might last before becoming extinct.”

“Of course, we have no idea how likely it is that an intelligent technological species will evolve on a given habitable planet,” says Frank. But using our method we can tell exactly how low that probability would have to be for us to be the ONLY civilization the Universe has produced. We call that the pessimism line. If the actual probability is greater than the pessimism line, then a technological species and civilization has likely happened before.”

Using this approach, Frank and Sullivan calculate how unlikely advanced life must be if there has never been another example among the universe’s ten billion trillion stars, or even among our own Milky Way galaxy’s hundred billion.

The result? By applying the new exoplanet data to the universe’s 2 x 10 to the 22nd power stars, Frank and Sullivan find that human civilization is likely to be unique in the cosmos only if the odds of a civilization developing on a habitable planet are less than about one in 10 billion trillion, or one part in 10 to the 22nd power.

“One in 10 billion trillion is incredibly small,” says Frank. “To me, this implies that other intelligent, technology producing species very likely have evolved before us. Think of it this way. Before our result you’d be considered a pessimist if you imagined the probability of evolving a civilization on a habitable planet were, say, one in a trillion. But even that guess, one chance in a trillion, implies that what has happened here on Earth with humanity has in fact happened about a 10 billion other times over cosmic history!”

For smaller volumes the numbers are less extreme. For example, another technological species likely has evolved on a habitable planet in our own Milky Way galaxy if the odds against it evolving on any one habitable planet are better than one chance in 60 billion.

But if those numbers seem to give ammunition to the “optimists” about the existence of alien civilizations, Sullivan points out that the full Drake equation—which calculates the odds that other civilizations are around today—may give solace to the pessimists.

“Thanks to NASA's Kepler satellite and other searches, we now know that roughly one-fifth of stars have planets in “habitable zones,” where temperatures could support life as we know it. So one of the three big uncertainties has now been constrained.”

Frank said that the third big question--how long civilizations might survive--is still completely unknown. “The fact that humans have had rudimentary technology for roughly ten thousand years doesn’t really tell us if other societies would last that long or perhaps much longer,” he explained.

But Frank and his coauthor, Woodruff Sullivan of the astronomy department and astrobiology program at the University of Washington, found they could eliminate that term altogether by simply expanding the question.

“Rather than asking how many civilizations may exist now, we ask ‘Are we the only technological species that has ever arisen?" said Sullivan. “This shifted focus eliminates the uncertainty of the civilization lifetime question and allows us to address what we call the ��cosmic archaeological question’—how often in the history of the universe has life evolved to an advanced state?”

That still leaves huge uncertainties in calculating the probability for advanced life to evolve on habitable planets. It's here that Frank and Sullivan flip the question around. Rather than guessing at the odds of advanced life developing, they calculate the odds against it occurring in order for humanity to be the only advanced civilization in the entire history of the observable universe. With that, Frank and Sullivan then calculated the line between a Universe where humanity has been the sole experiment in civilization and one where others have come before us.

Originally published on https://science.nasa.gov

COMING UP!!

(Wednesday, September 18th, 2024)

"IS IT POSSIBLE TO STOP TIME??"

[howtofightwrite]

I've got a world-building/combat question. I have these two warring nations in my setting, both medieval-ish tech levels. One of them figures out how to make magical flying craft that are basically WWI airplanes. The other country invents dragon riders in response. Since then, they've been at war for ~60 years. I'm trying to figure out how the heck an air force would alter medieval combat strategies. If you've any suggestions, I'd appreciate it

The first, and biggest world building problem is that magic is part of your overall tech level. Ironically, Diskworld is an excellent example of how magical technology can basically function as an alternate path for social and technical development, though, honestly, a lot of high-magic settings tend to have tech leakage from magic.

One of the more common examples that comes to mind are “magical radios.” Either it's an enchanted device that allows person to person communication, or it's direct telepathic communication, but whatever it is, it serves a fundamentally similar role to a handheld radio, or (depending on how it works) a phone. The thing is, it's functionally a magical replacement, and it would affect society in much the same way those technologies have.

This is a long way to say, if your magical combat technology has WWI-grade planes, there is a very real possibility that a lot of your warfare is also going to be at a similar magi-tech level, if not more advanced. Having written that, I'm reminded of The Red Star comic series; though, that has a heavy Soviet aesthetic, and is not-at-all medieval.

Again, it doesn't really matter if you have fully-automatic firearms, or if you have a bolt thrower that conjures and propels crystals at hyper-sonic speeds into your foes. If they have a similar rate of fire, and similar accuracy, the meaningful change is texture. Your characters might see tiny crystal fragments shattered on the floor, or embedded into walls, instead of bullet holes. There may be no smell, or conjuring the crystals might leave a different odor. A handheld lightning projector might leave scorch marks, and a scent of ozone, for instance.

Magic might also factor into armor and defenses. If you can use a magical ward to dispel conjured objects, that might be extremely useful for fortifying specific targets against incoming conjured attacks, but it would likely be wholly ineffective against the lightning projector, or some other kind of directed energy beam weapon.

“Inventing,” dragon riding as a response to someone else making a magical airship, does strike me as an odd cause-and-effect. If dragon riding was that easy, it would seem likely that someone would have militarized them long before that point. Inventing flying objects that could function as a hard counter to dragons feels a little more natural. Or, magical, AA installations. Though, this is something that could probably be finessed, if you're really committed to the setup. It's also worth remembering that air superiority is an extremely potent advantage, even if you're not sure what to do with it, meaning that if one side suddenly had fliers, and the other side couldn't come up with a counter in short order, they'd be picked apart, and the war wouldn't have this 60 year timescale.

If it seems like I went to ranged weapons very quickly, there's a simple reason. You can't joust from a plane. Your options are to either propel objects at people, or drop things on them from above. Dragons also (usually) have the option to breathe fire on them. Now, firearms did exist in the late medieval era. So, that's not that far out of range. I'm less sure of the invention of bombs. At least, of the variety you could deliver to your enemy on the battlefield. Though, it occurs to me, you could probably use a catapult or trebuchet to deliver an explosive payload, if the explosives were stable enough to survive launch, but sensitive enough to detonate on impact. (Of course, if you have some kind of magically primed explosive, that stays stable until it is ejected from the catapult, and then explodes on impact, that would work.)

Looping back to the timescale again, this would require some pretty potent defensive capabilities. A dragon, with the ability to breathe fire, and the capacity for strategic thinking, could easily starve out an entire kingdom, simply by making a habit of torching all the cropland it could find. It doesn't, particularly matter if it gets all the food, so long as it torches a meaningful percentage of the available crops. When you have farmers going hungry, you're going to see food production dipping, exacerbating the problem. When you have soldiers going hungry, they're not going to be able to fight as effectively. When you have the peasantry going hungry, you're going to see civil unrest, and probably rebellions coming for their lord's head. You can't wage a war against a hostile nation under those circumstances. (In fact, there were multiple peasant revolts during the Hundred Years War, which basically stalled out France's ability to fight. England also suffered multiple peasant uprisings at roughly the same time. Though, those were motivated by taxation, which ends in a similar place.)

A related concept that's somewhat hinted above, is that wars are expensive, and both France and England found themselves facing uprisings because of taxation needed to support the ongoing war. (The irony being that both nations encountered this at roughly the same point in history. Roughly 40 years into the war.) A war that's been going for 60 years will likely have ravaged the economies of the involved nations. This isn't necessarily something that your characters would be aware of, unless you expand the context to show non-wartime economies.

The simplest explanation for why this happens is that any money you spend prosecuting the war are products that you never see returning value from. The money itself doesn't leave the economy, but the natural resources, and labor required, are expended non-productively (from the perspective of economic growth.) So, if you have a peacetime merchant, they're moving money around, but they're paying for their goods, and then those goods are going to consumers, who may also be contributing to economic activity with those goods (this even applies for food, you can think of that as a necessary component to any productive activity.) If you're a wartime merchant, selling weapons to the military, you are contributing to economic activity when you buy the weapons, but when they're sold to the crown, that's no longer productive. Those weapons leave the economy and never return. Worse, any soldiers who are permanently wounded, or killed, are also removed from the economy. Over time, this can destroy the most prosperous of nations. (To be clear, this is more advanced economic analysis than anyone in the middle ages would have had. So, the idea that wars are expensive was understood, but the exact reasons it slowed the economy were not.) And, this kind of thinking is another form of technological advancement. Ideas for understanding complex systems have become more intricate and detailed over time. While it's not the concept of, “invention,” that you might be used to, it is a similar form of progress.

So, how would this look in your world? There's a lot of potential consequences, most of which are not contradictory.

An impoverished lower-class is very likely. Whether that includes wounded veterans or not is a little more up in the air, though after 60 years, military pensioners, and those who suffered life-altering injuries on the battlefield are likely to be a common sight, either on the street or in the poverty line. (Especially if the crown is willing to enforce drafts and conscription.) At this point, that might be a very real possibility.

A struggling aristocracy is also likely, with former major power players who've declined into poverty. This might take the form of borderline abandoned estates that have been taken over by the crown or squatters. (Probably not both at the same time.)

Serious inflation is likely (and could be why formerly stable guild members, merchants, and even some of the aristocracy might now find themselves struggling.) I realize this point isn't something most really think of when you're trying to write a fantasy world, but it's worth considering. More likely this will be seen in food prices having increased over time. So the major symptoms you'd likely see would be decaying structures that no one has the resources to maintain, rising food prices, and generalized poverty. Even in a fairly magically advanced setting, a lot of these things would, likely, still happen. Of course, if the dragons have been used to destroy the agricultural base, things would be even worse in that nation. To be clear, food and taxation riots are not off the table there.

This is sort of a non-sequitur, but if you have a setting with classic transmutation (lead, or other base metals, into gold), you would actually see inflation with every batch of transmuted gold hitting the market. It's sort of an amusing note on the fantasy of being able to produce as much money as you want, but ultimately, it's actually harmful from a macroeconomic perspective. (Basically, the same reason counterfeiting is a problem.) Though, it is a possible hook for criminal groups in one of those nations, producing counterfeit gold via transmutation.

There's also a real world example from 2020, where a jewelry company had fabricated “fake,” gold bars as collateral to secure loans. In total, they claimed to have 83 tons of gold used to obtain loans worth over 2.8 billion dollars, from 14 different creditors. Except, when they defaulted on those loans, and were forced to hand over the gold, it was discovered that these were in fact gold plated copper bars.

I realize the question was about the flying forces specifically, but so long as that advantage is dealt with quickly, and neither side is able to monopolize air superiority, that's not going to change nearly as much as having that level of magical advancement would on its own, and of course, the general consequences of having a war that's been going on for long enough that multiple generations have died on the battlefield. That's going to a bigger effect on your world as a whole.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

[kirain]

Question. How do you handle the age differences and life spans of your tavs/romances in bg3?

Are you asking if I've made my Tavs age-equal to the romances I've picked for them? If so, then I've actually been very careful about that. Lore-wise, I can't stand the thought of my character dying hundreds of years sooner or living hundreds of years longer than their partner. So I adhered to D&D 5E lore. If you're interested, I've explained most of the lifespans below.

Serena, my canon character, is human and romanced Gale. In D&D, the average lifespan of a human is 120 years, but since she and Gale are both wizards, they could potentially live for thousands of years. It all depends on the magic they wield. Elminster, for example, is nearly 1,300 years old. Otherwise, they'll age alongside each other as equals.

Saska is a Seldarine drow. On average they last between 400-750 years, depending on if they survive and leave the Underdark. Saska has indeed left the Underdark, works as a bard, and romanced Karlach. Tieflings typically live to 150; however, Karlach has the potential to live longer since her body has been so drastically altered. Upon finding a permanent upgrade for her engine, it's possible she could live just as long as a drow, if not longer, as she's been touched by infernal technology.

Ez'ria is a githyanki fighter/storm sorcerer. This one was easy, since she romanced Lae'zel. With any luck, they'll both live to a nice, healthy 120 years old; the average lifespan of a gith.

Eilonwy is my redeemed Dark Urge half-elf. On average they last about 180 years. This one's a bit more complicated because I partnered her with Astarion, who's a pure high elf and a vampire. High elves live to an average of 750 years, and vampires/spawn are of course immortal. But I've given this a lot of thought. Eilonwy, for example, is a druid, and because of their connection to nature/magic, their aging slows to 10% of what they would normally age. This means Eilonwy has the potential to reach 1,800. I should also mention that there are cures to vampirism in D&D 5E, so I like to think they find one at some point during their travels.

Bakara is a tiefling sorcerer of the draconic bloodline. Another semi-easy one, since I partnered her with Wyll. As I mentioned before, tieflings typically live to 150, whereas humans live to 120. I headcanon that my tiefling was already 50 when she met Wyll; who, according to Larian, is 24 during the events of BG3. To clarify, tieflings are considered young adults by the age of 20 and full adults when they reach the age of 60. So despite being 50, she's mentally around the same age as Wyll.

Thalias is a high half-elf Selûnite cleric. Possibly the easiest one, since he romanced Shadowheart, who is also a high half-elf who becomes a Selûnite cleric (at least in my game). With Selûne's blessing, they could live however long she desires, but on average they'll both live to be 180.

I also made an adorable little deep gnome named Mira to sweep Barcus off his feet. I shall wait patiently for Larian or a clever modder to make him romancable. The average lifespan for gnomes is 350 years.

Halsin is a bit more complicated, since he's a pure wood elf and a druid. This means he could conceivably live to be 7,500 years old, which is wild. I do plan on doing a playthrough where I romance him, and when I do I'll be making a mysterious wood elf named Arawen, a warlock who made a pact with an ancient archfey. So in addition to living to 750; as per the average lifespan of her race, as long as her pact remains in tact, she will live as long as her patron allows.

[reasonsforhope]

Scientists have developed a new solar-powered system to convert saltwater into fresh drinking water which they say could help reduce dangerous the risk of waterborne diseases like cholera.

Via tests in rural communities, they showed that the process is more than 20% cheaper than traditional methods and can be deployed in rural locations around the globe.

Building on existing processes that convert saline groundwater to freshwater, the researchers from King’s College London, in collaboration with MIT and the Helmholtz Institute for Renewable Energy Systems, created a new system that produced consistent levels of water using solar power, and reported it in a paper published recently in Nature Water.

It works through a process called electrodialysis which separates the salt using a set of specialized membranes that channel salt ions into a stream of brine, leaving the water fresh and drinkable. By flexibly adjusting the voltage and the rate at which salt water flowed through the system, the researchers developed a system that adjusts to variable sunshine while not compromising on the amount of fresh drinking water produced.

Using data first gathered in the village of Chelleru near Hyderabad in India, and then recreating these conditions of the village in New Mexico, the team successfully converted up to 10 cubic meters, or several bathtubs worth of fresh drinking water. This was enough for 3,000 people a day with the process continuing to run regardless of variable solar power caused by cloud coverage and rain.

[Note: Not sure what metric they're using to calculate daily water needs here. Presumably this is drinking water only.]

Dr. Wei He from the Department of Engineering at King’s College London believes the new technology could bring massive benefits to rural communities, not only increasing the supply of drinking water but also bringing health benefits.

“By offering a cheap, eco-friendly alternative that can be operated off the grid, our technology enables communities to tap into alternative water sources (such as deep aquifers or saline water) to address water scarcity and contamination in traditional water supplies,” said He.

“This technology can expand water sources available to communities beyond traditional ones and by providing water from uncontaminated saline sources, may help combat water scarcity or unexpected emergencies when conventional water supplies are disrupted, for example like the recent cholera outbreaks in Zambia.”

In the global rural population, 1.6 billion people face water scarcity, many of whom are reliant on stressed reserves of groundwater lying beneath the Earth’s surface.

However, worldwide 56% of groundwater is saline and unsuitable for consumption. This issue is particularly prevalent in India, where 60% of the land harbors undrinkable saline water. Consequently, there is a pressing need for efficient desalination methods to create fresh drinking water cheaply, and at scale.

Traditional desalination technology has relied either on costly batteries in off-grid systems or a grid system to supply the energy necessary to remove salt from the water. In developing countries’ rural areas, however, grid infrastructure can be unreliable and is largely reliant on fossil fuels...

“By removing the need for a grid system entirely and cutting reliance on battery tech by 92%, our system can provide reliable access to safe drinking water, entirely emission-free, onsite, and at a discount of roughly 22% to the people who need it compared to traditional methods,” He said.

The system also has the potential to be used outside of developing areas, particularly in agriculture where climate change is leading to unstable reserves of fresh water for irrigation.

The team plans to scale up the availability of the technology across India through collaboration with local partners. Beyond this, a team from MIT also plans to create a start-up to commercialize and fund the technology.

“While the US and UK have more stable, diversified grids than most countries, they still rely on fossil fuels. By removing fossil fuels from the equation for energy-hungry sectors like agriculture, we can help accelerate the transition to Net Zero,” He said.

-via Good News Network, April 2, 2024

[morallysuperiorlips]

How I Come Up With Compelling and Fun Characters!

Back at you again with another TedTalk.

Coming up with well-rounded characters is my favorite part of the writing process. I like to come up with convoluted plots, so ofc convoluted characters have to follow. While I am someone who is VERY guilty of injecting my own traits/experiences into my characters (because I like to live vicariously through them or use them to cope don't @ me), I try to do that once I've established them as their own people. Because then they just end up being other versions of me, and we don't want that trust me

The adage I like to live by is "when the character feels real to you, they'll feel real to the reader," so I try to go out of my way to know as much as I can about them before I start to put them down on paper.

I know full names, birthdays (down to the hour), exact heights, blood types, favorite colors, foods, etc. and I try to know most of the surface-level things. I'll try to delve a little deeper but I do like to let my characters breathe when I'm writing them because sometimes they do things that make me stare into the camera like I'm on the Office and I want to give them the room to do so because that's like 60% of the process (in my humblest of opinions as a self-taught/ professional hybrid)

When I first started writing my novel, I could tell you off the top of my head that my protagonist, Odette Harmonie Cinq-Mars, was born in the little fictional town of Pendulum Province, France on December 14th, 1997 at 8:16pm, her blood type is AB+, she's 5'0, she's left-handed, and her favorite color is royal purple. I could also tell you she has anger issues, is hyper-observant, is a classically trained singer and dancer, and is kind of cold as a person. That last trait ended up writing most of itself out as she developed, but it's how she started, and I never got much deeper than that until I wrote her.

But, rewinding a little bit, I like to come up with ideas for my characters from tropes and stereotypes. My truest formula for coming up with characters is:

Trope/Archetype

- Some tropey traits

+ Traits you might not normally see in that trope/archetype

+ As many details as possible

+ Putting them in random situations that come to mind and watching them figure it out (even if it might be unrelated to the plot)

+ A little bit of yourself (always optional)

For example:

My "tropiest" character's name is Noel Masse; he was heavily based on the archetype of the peacocky gay theater kid who kinda has a hoe streak. Before you come for my neck, hear me out.

What are traits of this trope I could erase (or heavily modify) for him? From my experience theater kids get kinda cliquey--not all, but some--Noel has his friends, but he's the type who wants to be friends with everyone. He doesn't like to judge unless people give him a reason to. Theater kids might have their heads in the clouds all the time, and Noel airs on the side of keeping himself grounded when he needs to.

What are some odd traits I could add to him? What can I expand on? Noel has severe indecision--he's a theater kid who doesn't know if he wants to be theater kid. He has dedicated his life to being a musical theater star, but he has a calling in mystery solving, coding, and all things tech. This indecision often cripples him, and even seeps into his love life, which leads to some promiscuity~

What are the little details I know about Noel? Noel Coretyn Masse is a natural born witch, born in a little (fictional) city in France called Athamera on September 9th, 1997 at 12:11am. He is 6'0, 175 pounds, blood type O-, ENFP-T, right-handed, his favorite color is royal blue, and he has a gifted vocal octave range (3.8), and is very good at most forms of dance.

What scenarios have I put him in that helped him build? This was actually how I decided he was good with technology and all things coding, hacking, computers, etc. I figured out he was good at this stuff when I needed a character to hack something later on in the story and I threw him into the mix just to see what would happen and it stuck IMMEDIATELY. So, this category can also help build category 2 for sure.

Bits of me? His dedication to the arts and his desire for a large friend group hope I didn't just roast myself lol

DISCLAIMER: I want to make a note for anyone who thinks that this is overkill: yes, it probably is. But, I also want to note that I have been told time and time again that my characterization in my stories is my strongest point. So, clearly I'm doing SOMETHING right here.

I also want to note that this is NOT the "correct" way of coming up with characters. In fact, I don't think there is a "correct" way (as is with most things artistic and creative). This is just MY way of doing things. If you have a way that you come up with characters that works for you, I'd love to hear about it!

[seat-safety-switch]

It's a new age of motoring. The old world of inefficient, gas-burning, polluting vehicles is over, and now is the time for zingy cough drops that do 0-60 in four seconds and have a bunch of annoying dinging sounds that you can't figure out how to turn off. If you're the kind of person who rides on an elevator and thinks "this could use more JavaScript," the world is your oyster.

Of course, no matter how many touchscreens, gewgaws, doodads, and fart noises you throw at an electric car, someone still has to build the car. You could go to a boring, old-technology company that worries about things like "bolts that fit," or you could take a gamble. You could step into the future and invest in a Switch Motors platform for your next electric car.

Switch Motors is the only small, unproven brand you need to risk millions of dollars and the livelihood of your employees on. We know about making a reliable car, because we know everything about how to make an unreliable car. And like Thomas Edison said before he was deluged by telemarketers: goddammit, why doesn't this thing work? Here's an example of our focus. Switch Motors cars are guaranteed to have at least four wheels, or we'll provide you with a pro-rated discount.

Don't care about the "car" part of electric cars? We've got you covered, with several platforms based entirely on classic Malaise Era American cars. Customers will love the straight chrome bumpers, which are easy to bang back into shape when they have a little whoopsy-doo at highway speeds while trying to quit their Zoom call. And our powertrains are proven – they come from high-end Chinese electric forklifts that we source from only the finest AliExpress vendors. No Wish.com for you, oh no: we're premium all the way.

Paint? Friend, paint slows you down. Besides, it looks way cooler when the arcs the motors kick off are shooting across the skin of the car like a Jacob's ladder. Keeps carjackers away, too. And pigeons. And anyone with a pacemaker. Maybe we can do something to improve that last part, I've got some Toyota water pumps around here somewhere. Switch Health Solutions sounds pretty good.