301–310 of 311 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but there is always the second half of “adapt or die” to consider
Yes, that's how evolution works. Those with a survival advantage succeed. Mother Nature doesn't hand out consolation prizes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the sense of "we'll bring Democracy to your country", yes. ;-)
Please do bring democracy to my country of birth, yes. And I mean it. Right now it pretty much is held occupied by brute force. 90% of population would welcome ANY change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Roughly what how much volume would 15m tons of pegmatite take up? I have no intuitive sense of scale with these things.
Rocks tend to be 5-10x denser than water, so assume 2 million cube meters. That is just 2 square kilometers 1 meter high, so not mountains or so. As a comparison, for a large iron mine they dig up many billions of tons of rock, and that is for very cheap iron, so you wouldn't need a very large operation to dig this up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're already building a pilot facility to do so: https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/kaust-spinout-wil... Lithium can be a lot more prevalent in some waters, they are already competitive commercial mining operations from briny lake beds. Utah's Salt Lake for example is 21ppm and is mined at $2/kg
But that is lakes, not seas. Lakes are extremely small compared to the seas so doesn't hold that much lithium so you can't really scale that up. To get the amount you talked about we would need to start pumping water from the depths of the seas, since most of it is there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the rate of change of demand is decreasing. Decreasing rate of change is the definition slowing down. Although I agree that most people probably misinterpret the phrase as you say. (It seems other replies have had that interpretation.)
Increasing less fast is not the definition of slowing down, it's the definition of increase increasing less fast.
Increasing position less fast is the definition of slowing down, as I said. Increasing speed less fast is, of course, not the definition of slowing down, it's decelerating; we agree on this.
But you are equating demand to "speed" (rate-of-change of position), and I am equating demand to "position" (not a rate-of-change). If demand is analogous to speed, then what is is measuring the rate-of-change of?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the rate of change of demand is decreasing. Decreasing rate of change is the definition slowing down. Although I agree that most people probably misinterpret the phrase as you say. (It seems other replies have had that interpretation.)
If you reduce acceleration, your speed is still increasing if you still have positive acceleration. This is still speeding up, not slowing down.
Acceleration decreased such that it is negative. Negative acceleration is "slowing down."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reduce acceleration, your speed is still increasing if you still have positive acceleration. This is still speeding up, not slowing down.
If rate-of-change of demand is acceleration, that means demand itself is speed and is measuring a rate-of-change. What is demand measuring the rate of change of? Acceleration decreased such that it is negative. Negative acceleration is "slowing down."
Ok, let’s substitute that into the original comment, instead of:
> demand has slowed down recently
we get:
> speed has slowed down recently
Nothing to do with the rate of change of speed, just speed itself. In other words:
In terms of _speed_, this would indicate that _speed_ was once higher and is now lower.
Let’s translate that same sentence back substituting speed with demand:
In terms of _demand_, this would indicate that _demand_ was once higher and is now lower.
That statement cannot be true as 2023 demand was the highest ever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If rate-of-change of demand is acceleration, that means demand itself is speed and is measuring a rate-of-change. What is demand measuring the rate of change of? Acceleration decreased such that it is negative. Negative acceleration is "slowing down."
> demand itself is speed Ok, let’s substitute that into the original comment, instead of: > demand has slowed down recently we get: > speed has slowed down recently Nothing to do with the rate of change of speed, just speed itself. In other words: In terms of _speed_, this would indicate that _speed_ was once higher and is now lower. Let’s translate that same sentence back substituting speed with demand: In terms of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> demand itself is speed Ok, let’s substitute that into the original comment, instead of: > demand has slowed down recently we get: > speed has slowed down recently Nothing to do with the rate of change of speed, just speed itself. In other words: In terms of _speed_, this would indicate that _speed_ was once higher and is now lower. Let’s translate that same sentence back substituting speed with demand: In terms of…
I think you misread my comment. Demand is not analogous to speed, it's analogous to position. I was asking how you were relating demand to speed, in your comment. It may be easier if you start using "rate-of-change of demand" instead of speed.
Where it could be different is in places like power generation. You might talk about peak demand in Watts, and daily demand in watt-hours.