Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 314 posts

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#241

Post by Hikikomori »

timschmidt wrote: post #237
defrost wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is indeed the testimony of Steven C. Quay, one of "the lab leak people" that are asserted by GP to be probably wrong. Very few people would claim that there is no testimony for the lab leak claim, it's simply that relatively few domain scientists support that claim. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_C._Quay * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

> relatively few domain scientists support that claim I spent a decade at a national Science and Technology Research Center responsible for a twelfth of NSF's research budget. We studied biology at all scales and the algorithms it uses to solve difficult problems. I've looked for holes in Quay's testimony and didn't find any big ones. Most of his claims seem to be independently verified. One thing I can say from my d…

What kind of expertise should you possess to be able to comment on a lab theory?

Even if lab leak is true, what is the proposal, that we do not study viruses at all?

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#242

Post by solumunus »

somenameforme wrote: post #240
solumunus wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's nowhere near the same thing. This was supposed to be an imperialist land grab by Russia. This war did not emerge organically. Russia had a goal, to seize Ukraine - easily and quickly. Russia have failed at that goal. Failing is not winning. Not only have they failed to secure their objective, the attempt to do so has cost several orders of magnitude more than intended. The land they do control is of low value. A…

Would you say that Austria-Hungary choosing to outright invade Serbia because the assassin was a Bosnian Serb who might have had some backing from the government, was reasonable? Or was that a land grab? And when when Russia joins Serbia was it solely an action of obligation or because they thought they might be able to get a piece of Austria-Hungary? And similarly when Germany jumps in seeing they can now shift the…

Ukraine were no where near joining NATO at the time, although as it turns out - if they were their motivation would have been entirely valid. Russia didn’t want Ukraine to join NATO because it would prevent them from annexing Ukraine, that’s simple logic.

> within 48 hours they were engaged in negotiations with Ukraine that involved 0 land concessions

So you think the plan was to invade Ukraine to scare them into a hand shake that they wouldn’t join NATO? I really don’t want to insult you but…

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#244

Post by foco_tubi »

nradov wrote: post #139
traceroute66 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really think there's that many people willing to work between 18-25 and 54+? And willing to work long hours at the minimum-wage rates required for US-based manufacturing .... P.S. 18-25 and 54+ ... its actually 16–25 and 54+ I don't think you'll find many 16–18 year olds biting your arm off for a job in manufacturing either...

US average manufacturing average wage is $36/hr, which is far more than minimum wage. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES3000000003

The average does not represent the entry level wage, which is closer to minimum wage in some states. Why would you risk losing an appendage in a factory machine if you can fold t-shirts for the same pay?

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#245

Post by lazide »

neilwilson wrote: post #233
Deukhoofd wrote: post #22

It's probably not a bad idea. Steel is one of the things that an industrialized country needs to produce to protect its own sovereignty. Letting it shut down and just hope you'll always be able to import enough steel from other countries is a bad long-term strategy. You'd be left unable to fend for yourself.

Having said that if you have no source of iron ore and no self sufficient energy production you’re stuffed anyway. The UK ran out of both a fair while ago

Notably, things like that is why they had their colonies.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#246

Post by lazide »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #214
Deukhoofd wrote: post #22

It's probably not a bad idea. Steel is one of the things that an industrialized country needs to produce to protect its own sovereignty. Letting it shut down and just hope you'll always be able to import enough steel from other countries is a bad long-term strategy. You'd be left unable to fend for yourself.

I was told by economists that the invisible hand would solve this!

Sometimes a pimp slap is what is needed, but no one ever signs up for one voluntarily.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#247

Post by lazide »

XorNot wrote: post #90
0x3f wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farming subsidies are one of the most criticized parts of the EU. My comment isn't in support of it. But even so, subsidy is quite different from compulsory purchase. The question is: why is steel special. Not in a no-action-vs-some-action way, but why so aggressive? Ironically I think it's the same for both steel and farmers: they provide votes.

Because like, every basic war machine is made from it? Like how is this a question? There's been two world wars and access to or stockpiling of steel has been a critical strategic factor in both. Most consumable military assets are made from steel, for example and it underpins most machine tools and factory components as well.

Also all non-flying forms of transport.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#248

Post by fsuts »

GJim wrote: post #212
afavour wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. A ton of casualties and further international isolation aren’t really worth the middling gains Russia could negotiate for peace today. Which is probably one of the reasons they still haven’t, sunk cost fallacy and all that.

> If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. This. Russia is suffering over 400 casualties for every square km (1036 per square mile!) of territory captured in Donetsk, screwing their own economy and turning themselves into a pariah. Russia certainly isn't winning. https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian...

Ukraine taking on rounds after rounds of multi billion euro loans also isn’t winning…

They need a peace deal but external parties don’t want Ukraine to do this. The same ones lending the money

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#249

Post by lazide »

benj111 wrote: post #210
AngryData wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farming subsidies are the only way to prevent famine, the granary system sort of works, but regularly resulted in shortages and famines throughout every empire in history. Even not accounting for longer term climate trends, yield due to weather can vary up to 30% in a year, so it only makes sense to pay for a bit of over production so in the event of a couple bad years your food output is merely break even, and not 7…

Isn't the point of rationing to prevent the loaf going to $20.

Usually no one tolerates rationing until it’s already at $20 a loaf.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#250

Post by fsuts »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #231
morkalork wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steel on its own is inert and useless, you need to retain the entire downstream manufacturing ecosystem that consumes it. Like cars for example, producing steel but letting all your vehicle manufacturers sell off to foreign owners just so you can import BYDs doesn't do you any good.

The UK car industry had been doing quite well until Brexit.

Uk based but foreign owned UK car industry…
Post reply on HN