No.17236 KONTRA
I went to the library today. It was very hot. I brought a fan made of fragrant wood with me I got from the Chinese embassy a few years ago. I accidentally sat at a table that was "Reserved for researchers" but I was too embarrassed to get up. I think it actually motivated me to study a bit harder.
Did a complete vocab review and looked through some of the grammar points again. I seem to know like 90% of this shit instinctively at this point.
No.17239
Euroernsts, what parliamentary force will you vote for today?
No.17240
>>17239I already did. Voted for the PARTEI. Had they not been available, I would have voted AfD probably because accelerationism is based.
No.17241
>>17240Die Partei for EU 'reports'. Or left party for "better" EU government. Both change nothing about the EU and what it is. So the reporting function is interesting and a good voting option.
No.17242 KONTRA
>>17239As a conflicted, 20-something individual, my only choice is putting the cross next to the Nazi party while touching my copy of the little red book in my pocket in the voting booth.
No.17243
>>17242WIR SIND DIE JUNGE GARDE
DES ORBANTARIATS!
No.17244 KONTRA
My only wish is to be able to be a more liberal Christian democrat with a straight face who partakes in the democratic public sphere in the European sense of the word.
No.17245
>>17244You will never get the imageboard experience out of your head and body for this to happen.
No.17246
I thought brekkie is a brainrot term that surfaced in social media but it apparently has been in use since 1904.
No.17247
>>17246Why did you think that? It sounds like a proper english term, like telly, tenner, fanny, quid.
No.17248
>>17247Because I consume a lot of American English media.
No.17249
>>17244And I want to be the progressive pseudorevolutionary social democrat, and somewhere out there, there's a fella like him that wants to be an Orbanite. A society of political envy.
No.17250
>>17248I'm afraid I don't quite follow mate
No.17251 KONTRA
I voted on four popular initiatives today. Two relative to the increased assurance cost, one about stopping the state for to strong vaccine incentive and a final about stopping production of renewable energy to pollute the landscape (the Green Party haven’t pronounced themselves on this votation which I find shameful).
No.17252
>>17251I wish we had popular initiatives too ;_;
No.17253
>>17251Renewable Energy is a Green Line for greenvoting idiots. Renewable Energy means poverty and de-industrializiation, wbich can be seen in Gaymany, the most proudly idiotic holier-than-thou country in the entire world. Enviro-Greens leftshits want this, because they are stone-age communists. But they want power more, so they can't openly come out in favor for ugly windmills and pv farms that run the landscape and make people and Even farm animals sick.
If you want to do a good deed, harm a green politician or a greenvoter.
If citizens could be held liable for the damages they cause by voting for a certain party, there wouldn't be any greenvoters left!
(Hopeless...) No.17254
>>17252This. We could re-intriduce the death penalty and finally do away with all the ahmeds and dishes and murats and mamadous and mbekes. Send all of them back, we don't want them here and have no need for them! Germany is the country of Germans, not the country of black men and head-scarve owls!
No.17255
>>17253>Renewable Energy means poverty and de-industrializiationWhy do the US, Chinese and German industries compete over competing in this market like it is the big next deal, though? Do these world-leading economies all want to become poor on purpose?
No.17256 KONTRA
>>17255>lobbying does not exist and it's totally impossible for people to exist that make life worse for everyone just to enrich themselves>and even if they existed, they would certainly not exist in economy and political circlesNot sure if trolling or just retardedly naive
No.17257
>>17255America and China don't abandon nuclear power because it's not "green enough". And they don't stop using fossil fuels either. For them wind turbines and solar plants are experiments, R&D, and not actual energy strategy.
No.17258 KONTRA
>>17256You say it like lobbying makes for less profit. But lobbying is for making more profits and profits are good because that means wealth for the country.
>>17257So they have gigantic industry efforts just to sell nobody these products that are used in a 'new' energy strategy? Sounds like a good plan that all the world's leading economies are going for. They are so stupid, that is why they are the leading economies of this planet.
No.17259
>>17258> They are so stupid, that is why they are the leading economies of this planet.Even the strongest countries make mistakes. America spent not billions, but trillions in Afghanistan for nothing. And China ruined its demography with "1 family - 1 kid" program.
Previous big thing was nanotechnology, and it turned out to be nothingburger. This is fine, technology is a way of trials an errors, but hopefully no one closed chemical plants because "nanotechnology will make them obsolete any time soon".
No.17260 KONTRA
>>17258Lobbying makes for more profits for the few people that are the lobby. Capitalists don't care about countries, they only care about themselves. Anyone who is a "cosmopolitan" and not filthy rich is an idiot.
RE: US and China going green - they are the world's leading economies solely on account of their sheer size. And the US could have never achieved its status had Europe not been reduced to rubble a few decades ago, and China not had not everyone else put their business there. While Europe was rebuilding, China killed a fair share of its own population.
But then again, you seem like the kind of person they invented greenwashing for
>US and China have more renewables because they're bigger and generally have more>Ernst thinks they are now going greenAnd I am still not sure if you're just trolling and larping as some kind of teenage Sörgel who doesn't know any history from before covid or if you are not larping and are exactly that. Any case, this shall not derail into political bullshit because that's exactly what we don't want on here, so stfu everyone and talk about your day.
I grilled and drank beer and had a very nice day overall.
No.17262 KONTRA
>>17259I'm under the impression that you think I think this renewable energy industries these economies are going for will make for a "clean" planet. I simply said it is very likely that some significant amount of money is to be made if all leading economies feel like they need to be at it. Is the hype around nanotechnology comparable to the green transition? Is this green transition comparable to other decisions a state made? How so? I don't see it.
>>17260>non-relevant contentWho cares why they happened to become these leading economies? What is relevant as of now in this is that they ARE the leading economies right now and they put a lot of money into renewable energy industries which means they all three expect for their economies to get a good share in this market. Somebody has to buy and use this shit otherwise they won't produce this. Somebody is going "green". What you don't seem to understand is that I don't care how actually "green" it is. I simply question your claim that this move creates poverty and de-industrialization. It - as of now - is the contrary. It fosters industries. And as Omsk noted, these industries are still powered by oil, coal, and atomic energy.
No.17266
>>17263You post these graphs and don’t see that there’s no problem at all? With renewables and nuclear humanity will be fine. Germany excluded of course.
No.17267
>>17262> I simply said it is very likely that some significant amount of money is to be made if all leading economies feel like they need to be at it10 years they felt need to be at nanotechnology. And 100 years ago all leading countries felt need to built dreadnoughts. Both turned out to be complete waste of resources. Significant amount of money were made, but by people who sat on government contracts. Well, if you have company producing solar panels, renewables can be beneficial for you.
> Is this green transition comparable to other decisions a state made? How so? I don't see it. And I don't see how it's not comparable. If China can fuck up its demography, why can't it waste just a few billions on experimental investments?
>>17265And this is how a new meme was born. Ebin
No.17268
> niche internet community
this one always has been a forum lurker of games he actively played. one forum had first an "art" thread in off-topic, afterwards a dedicated art tab. lurked that niche way longer than playin dem game. guild wars; my guild even had a bronze cape once :3
No.17269
Saw pic related ad today. A lot of States run sporadic national tourism campaigns. Always struck me as odd. Growing up, my family never vacationed. Am familiar with the concept, but only for specific major destinations. New York City. Grand Canyon. Chicago. Why don't they just say Chicago? If someone is going to visit Illinois, that's probably where they're going.
Additional info: This is a great album.
Sufjan Stevens - Illinois (Complete Album)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6wT_6uEiRk No.17270 KONTRA
>>16668>>17265Unrelated to the discussion, you fucking subhuman imbecile. The diagrams in
>>17263 are very related. Can you grasp how this is different? (You obviously can't, or you would have spared us your pseudo-smart post.)
I had written a post explaining to dumbasses like you the graphs in
>>17263, because I knew that exactly you would (once more, by the way) pretend to be even dumber than you are. The board wouldn't let me post it, it was too long. Since it is not my job to give you an education, I decided against typing it out a second time.
And please stop pretending you have any idea of mathematics, because you clearly don't.
You are scum, vermin, a subhuman, and you deserve to be killed in any number of slow and painful ways.
(Hopeless...) No.17271
>>17267Yes, investments can fail to deliver and governments can make mistakes. How is nanotechnology comparable to the energy transition, though? Besides being technology, what other factors make it comparable? For example the amount of investments. How experimental are they in comparison? I know that nanotechnology was a hype but how big were industry investments back then? Or was it more of a government institute race?
>>17270With my last braincell I found out that the EROI values are debated and not set in stone like the law of gravity. I think I even remember that methodological issues are debated. You are right about me not having much knowledge in physics and mathematics but if something is hotly debated and politically charged (your posts are as well) then I'm sceptical about your sourcesless charts being terminal truth.
No.17273
>>17271Those charts are not terminal truths, but they are also far from baseless. EROI is admittedly hard to measure.
However, the debate is not about renewables having the EROI of a good oil-field of the mid 20th-century, but whether they have sufficient EROI to sustain a civilization that can sustain renewable energy production. Unless someone comes up with very good buffer technologies, they very likely do not.
No.17274 KONTRA
>>17273>they very likely do notThat might be, from what I gathered some people pointing out the EROI and that it won't be enough advocate for a different economic operation of humanity overall
COMMUNISM!. With that in mind, this can still be a big industry with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide in the long term, not eliminating it, though. Or it becomes the base of a new economy that needs it and does not need the energy we need today but less because of that new economic operativity. I simply pointed out that this is a likely candidate for further industrialization and thus against poverty as of now.
No.17275 KONTRA
>>17274There isn't enough enthalpy in the entire universe for communism.
No.17276 KONTRA
>>17275> The abolishment of productive property and almost universal wage labor is impossible according to a physical concept.Not sure how the ancients did it then. A mystery like the pyramides I suppose.
No.17277
>>17276>A mystery like the pyramides I suppose.Fun fact: The pyramids were built with wage labor and slaves. Under a monarchy.
No.17278 KONTRA
Reviewed some grammar points and some literary history for the exams.
I went to vote. I had a fan and the little red book in my pocket. I went alone because my parents got it over with in the morning. Voting was uneventful otherwise. I enjoyed the sun on my walk.
I skipped lunch because it's so warm again, that my appetite feels suppressed.
We bought a new toaster. It's the same as the old one, but a new iteration of the design. "All toasters toast toast".
It doesn't burn the bread because the ejector works.
Wasted the night baking and watching the Xbox and PC games shows on discord. I've never seen a show like this before and most of the time it was dreadfully tiresome, but friends made it bearable. Saw like three games that looked interesting. It was an endless running gag that I didn't like anything because I couldn't run it or afford it.
Followed the elections afterwards. The guy I was rooting for in Budapest (the Jewish technocrat who wanted an anti-hobo police force) lost to the incumbent dipshit retard by like 300 votes so it's literally over. Budapest is finished.
But I had a satisfied laugh at how Momentum got fucked and didn't get a single EU seat.
So yeah. Time to go back to not caring about this shit at all.
Gonna try to go to the library today. I decided to wake myself up early instead of sleeping in. Pull myself up by the bootstraps. Hoping torture/struggle can make things right.
No.17280 KONTRA
>>17279
I wanted to write something similar, but you did it better than I could ever have.
No.17281
>>17277Since those slaves belonged to state instead of private owners, actually it was socialism. Just like slaves building Belomorkanal under pharaoh Stalinhotep I.
>>17280 deleted a post to fix a type No.17283 KONTRA
>>17277Ancient Egypt was not a capitalist society even if they paid people to build the pyramids.
I'm still waiting for proof about that physical concept being in contradiction with "communism".
No.17284
>>17283>I'm still waiting for proof about that physical concept being in contradiction with "communism".Why would anyone need to proof anyting? You are making that claim. And equating pharaonic monarchy with communism lmao.
No.17285 KONTRA
>>17283>a physical conceptIncreasing the amount of energy available to an economic system that historically failed due to systematic misallocation of resources will only lead to greater misallocation of energy expenditure. (As exemplified by the government-mandated expansion of renewable energy sources.)
No.17286 KONTRA
>>17284>And equating pharaonic monarchy with communism lmao.Not really I just referred to state of none-capitalism and wondered how they did it.
>>17285So the production of luxury yachts is well well-expended energy? Capitalist growth implies having an energy need that far exceeds what is possible to harvest on planet earth. Not sure how that is intelligent energy budgeting.
No.17290 KONTRA
>>17286Got to view it the other way round: the soviet union sat on huge oil- and gas-reserves, but did not built super-yachts, because it could not afford them. The country was a piss-poor agrarian backwater, due to its infeciencies.
No.17294 KONTRA
>>17290>the soviet union sat on huge oil- and gas-reserves, but did not built super-yachts, because it could not afford themOk, and?
I'm pretty glad somebody did not feel the need to construct an unnecessary luxury item for an elitist circle just to make money by doing so. Again: how is that intelligent energy budgeting? It's been a waste of energy. All that energy was used to fulfill the desire of an elitist circle. Yoyu could have used that energy to produce something which many more people could have used and deem necessary or beneficial. Certainly the best resource allocation there is: using energy to ultimately make money - and it helps the people!
No.17295
>>17290> a piss-poor agrarian backwaterUSSR had pretty developed science and industry. However, they were serving military industrial complex and not consumer economy, so quality of life was low.
The discussion about socialism vs capitalism is stupid, because big busyness has to follow state's will anyway. Don't you think that Rheinmetal, Gasprom or Google are independent entities? And small busyness is ruled indirectly, though regulations, fiscal and monetary policies. You could switch from mixed to fully planned economy and have local bakery micromanaged from Gosplan, but it will only make things worse.
No.17307 KONTRA
>>17295>because big busyness has to follow state's will anywayCan you elaborate on how you see the relationship between the state and private companies in capitalism?
No.17316
>>17307Roughly like between farmer and fauna on his farm. He doesn't mind control his cattle, but he makes frames to keep it in stall, provides environment for it to grow and prosper and rips benefits from them such as milk and fur.
For big cattle such as horses farmer also cares enough to make strategic decisions, such as to mate this mare with that stallion. For smaller animals he doesn't make individual decisions and treats them groupwise (butcher 10% of chickens).