Understand the world we live in?

[humus]

. Fortunately, Superman and his extraordinary powers will save the planet.

Poor boy, like that's what I expected, to be superman.

Poor guy, I already am!
The only information you give me is that the old folks have enjoyed it, don't care, and that this is not the right place to discuss all of this.
Here it is folded.

[Janic]

humus »08/12/21, 18:45
Janic wrote:

. Fortunately, Superman and his extraordinary powers will save the planet.

Poor boy, like that's what I expected, to be superman.

Is that so? There are loads of other comic book saviors, you just have to choose!

Poor guy, I already am!

you can see it right away

The only information you give me is that the old folks have enjoyed it, don't care, and that this is not the right place to discuss all of this.

poor guy, I don't give out information that cannot be seen and verified around you. Open your eyes!

Here it is folded.

and shoo, you slip away again. like ABCile, your role model!

[Obamot]

In fact I do not understand what you hear not missing model? [b] Anyone who doesn't review all the fundamentals

Well, it is a sustainable model that you are looking for.
Here too everything is said, no need to beat around the bush sustainable at all levels and it's won.

is the capitalism that demands growth sustainable?
No !
So bye bye the current debt-based banking system, which requires growth to function properly, otherwise there are bubbles that swell, swell.

Then we can discuss all the measures to be sustainable, but if no one agrees that "sustainable" is the only one, not the best, but the only solution, one is wasting time.

It's better ! But still in too much of a hurry. Even insulting. Janic has more benevolence and wisdom than you realize. To be virtuous, we must also respect each other. And live in peace together. This is sustainable!

For the rest, well, we must necessarily review the current fundamentals, since they are the ones leading us into the wall.
Not every sustainable model is suitable. If we always buy the production from farmers for peanuts with a presumed “sustainable” model, to resell it X100 it is not a virtuous model ... It is not ideal
If producing thermodynamic solar electricity at low cost and (almost) forever, makes it possible to resolve the end of the fossil fuel, but at the same time it allows to continue the race for competitiveness since it maintains the energy availability for to do so is not a virtuous model either ...
And depending on what you say, nuclear power with new plant technologies (less, little or almost no contaminating) could be considered as “sustainable” but similarly, they would not solve the basic problem.

[Obamot]

PS: a virtuous and sustainable model can be compared to an audiophile system, which will be judged according to the weakest of its components.
What is the point of having components at € 2 each (audio source, amp, pre-pre, preamp, speakers) while saving on cables, which in the end will cause distortion and sound? rotten? By making savings on the speakers which will not be able to reproduce what the whole chain is capable of producing etc ...

It is therefore better to progress with an overall consistency in order to achieve the desired model step by step, improving each link one after the other, so that the level progresses as a whole. It is perhaps there that we will understand what the “missing model” is ... since there will always be something to improve ... man is doomed to improve models, since We will always have to work on the weak link ... Just an idea ...

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Bad example ... cables don't influence almost for nothing in the audio quality. The acoustics of the room, on the other hand, are a huge percentage!

[Obamot]

Bad example ... cables don't influence almost for nothing in the audio quality.

Where did you get that from?
Already the section of the cable plays a fundamental role (I'm not talking about a simple Hifi.)

The acoustics of the room, on the other hand, are a huge percentage!

in any event, the principle of settling the problem of "weak link" remains (I can still admit that it is not the cables there is no problem ...)

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

I mean that between a cable dedicated to acoustics that costs 50 euros per meter and one that costs 100 times more, the ear will not make any difference. On the other hand it will undoubtedly make it between sound diffused in toilets (or in an elevator) and sound diffused in an auditorium with studied acoustics, with equal equipment.

[Obamot]

I mean that between a cable dedicated to acoustics that costs 50 euros per meter and one that costs 100 times more, the ear will not make any difference. On the other hand it will undoubtedly make it between sound diffused in toilets (or in an elevator) and sound diffused in an auditorium with studied acoustics, with equal equipment.

Said like that, okay, it's not necessarily the price that makes the difference. Cables must be tested before purchasing them.
I have tried different types. Oxygen free copper, copper kept 4cm apart, thick mains cable, old shielded 10 baseT network cables which cost me zero and turned out to be the best. It seems that the best of the best would be the antenna cables that the lightning went through, because all the atoms would be directed in the same direction, I have not tested. There remains the solution of the ultra short speaker cable, in bi-amplification. The amplifier is next to the speaker and the signal comes with a balanced cable input.

On the other hand it will undoubtedly make it between sound diffused in toilets (or in an elevator) and sound diffused in an auditorium with studied acoustics, with equal equipment.

Said like that, obviously agree.

[humus]

]

For the rest, well, we must necessarily review the current fundamentals, since they are the ones leading us into the wall.
Not every sustainable model is suitable. .

Well obviously you too are still high, you are too young in the subject, you are trying to bargain
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8 ... Cbler-Ross

Study the question on your own and you will see that the only solution is sustainable at all levels. (and still specialists say that even that, it is not possible any more but as long as nobody tries, we will never have the proof.)
And there aren't 36 ways to be sustainable.
The first points to be made sustainable are the base of Maslow's pyramid

Insulting? Of course I am, faced with such inertia. Between the nostalgic for the 3rd Reich (Janic everything is screwed up, we can not do anything), the fatalist intellectual (Ahmed, we can not do anything all screwed up) and the negotiator in the face of death (lasting, yes but must see) , you, who do not really know the subject.

Virtuous? Be kind ? I have already given.
I do not believe that you realize the urgency of the situation, I do not have the patience and energy to devote for a null result with grandpas too stubborn on this subject (especially janic).
I am in acceptance at the level of the subject of collapse and the only possible solution durability but I am still angry with the balls, that I do not accept.
And anyway, if advanced there is, it will be without you, it will be with people who see clearly now, not in 50 years.

Well ... end of the game it seems to me, at least with me, I'm going out.

[Janic]

humus
you should avoid the permanent masturbation you indulge in, even the most robust end up exhausting themselves in it. Amazing how he looks like the aptly named ABCon / ABCile narcissist!
You're just a pretentious kid who wants to teach those who brought it into the world about life.
For what concerns me being aimed:

Insulting? Of course I am, faced with such inertia. Between the nostalgic for the 3rd Reich (Janic everything is screwed up, we can not do anything),

unlike you who was not even a sperm in your father's balls, me and my parents, grandparents, we have lived this period, in real life, [*] not in your comics. teenager! So instead of telling that kind of bullshit, turn your hands 3 times on the keyboard before you type on it.

[*] the "resistant" (often kids) did not understand that by breaking everything, they were only killing innocent people, including parents, or even their own, by reaction from the occupier. Easy to break everything, harder to repair!