Friends and family will either listen to a point before saying they can’t handle it

Well, that’s good to hear. Hopefully it helps, and I’d also suggest that it means they do care, at least a bit.

Maybe they do need to give you more time to vent, it’s hard to say without being there. In general, we on the internet don’t know you and can’t have enough information to help you the way a therapist can.

The fact that oxygen may have shot up to modern levels really early on for a bit fascinates me in particular.

This is either bait, or you need to get the police involved for the kids and find somewhere safer/saner to live yourself.

If your water splitters are running, you should really just use the electricity they’re on to generate heat. Fire is especially dangerous in enclosed spaces.

Also for load balancing you could constantly be splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, then react them back into water when you need a large amount of energy at once as an alternative to electrical batteries which degrades less over time, if heat is all you want at least.

Some kind of combustion with oxidiser built in might always have an application. Chemical rocket boosters maybe? (Hydrogen specifically can also be turned back into electricity with like 80% efficiency in a fuel cell, FYI, although it’s sooo hard to store)

I suppose there might be The Martian-esque edge cases as well, where more complex, controlled chemical reactions are temporarily impractical, but like in the book and movie that’s highly unsustainable and you’ll die if you’re stuck doing it for long.

You said turbines specifically. Parsons invented those around the turn of the 20th century.

Before that, it was the chugga-chugga kind of steam engine. They’re a lot simpler to design and machine, and don’t require the really high RPMs to operate, but then again can break in many different ways a turbine can’t.

Wow, that’s amazing. I’m guessing the then very-limited suffrage had to do with it. It would have been just white landowning males at the time, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_problems_in_loop_theory_and_quasigroup_theory

And I’m pretty sure a bunch of other pages related to loops and quasigroups. I don’t still have them open, though.

I mean, that’s 20th century, or (IIRC) just before depending on the level of tech maturity you require. The 19th century ran on pistons.

Burning random stuff for heat requires cheap, abundant oxygen, though.

Well, if that counts, addition also remains very popular.

I mean, if all the good secret information is going over fax and everyone knows it, sure, people will hack it. Blackhats are in it for the money, not to work with the newest technology. Most of what they do is already mind-numbing grinding.

The main security there is just the security of whatever phone line it’s going over. And that’s assuming you never dial a wrong number…

Please don’t tell me you buy that “they can’t be hacked”. It’s pretty much on the same tier as email.

I’m curious how 1840 came up.

Thanks! (Although, the policing by consent thing sounds like propaganda. Everyone and their dog claims the will of the people)

Ah. It wasn’t clear your “nobody” excluded them.

I think there are people out there who are privileged enough, that they fully don’t realise the police aren’t just on TV or theoretical. All states must actively maintain a monopoly on violence.

<3

It’s not clear what goalpost you mean, exactly. Any consequentialism being bad, or pure consequentialism?

I was pretty careful not to set a goalpost of any kind on pure consequentialism, if you go back and double check, exactly because it has well-known problems.

Go bootlick a billionaire if you want to but don’t come here try to convince anyone that they are in any way good people

Don’t flatter them with the evil genius shit either. That’s how they want to be seen.

The fact I know what deontology means should suggest that I’ve heard of the trolley problem.

Also, leg[al] isn’t moral!

Correct. But, you’d have to figure out an alternative system of rules that he broke. And it may very well capture people you like as well. Most people would have no problem killing a technical standard for a very large sum of money.

I can’t say it’s impossible to do reasonably, but I can’t say it is possible either. Most people just acknowledge that sometimes the ends justify the means.

People also say he’s putting microchips in the COVID vaccines, so pardon me if I’m skeptical about all that. It appears to be a philanthropic project. Maybe not the best possible one, but one nonetheless.

good should be done for the improvement of humanity and bad people should be held accountable for their crimes.

Wouldn’t the “holding accountable” itself involve some bad actions?

Hey, it’s a pretty popular ethical philosophy. Generally, people like to leave caveats, but fully rejecting all consequentialism is similarly uncommon.

If you’re going to be a pure deontologist, you have to pick out single actions he’s done that went against your chosen rules. One hurdle there is that most of his activities were legal in their time or place. Another is that seeking personal profit is almost universal and often commended.