Same compromise I made when I bought the base range version of my car with LFP chemistry. But I would not go lower in range than that. LFP is already much safer than any gasoline engine. I would like sodium just for the reliable range on low temperatures. Probably in the next years we will reach comparable density for sodium.

Battery density is energy per kilos. The problem is not only were to put the battery, but also the added weight.

No, Poland is not a vassal. Hungary demonstrates it is quite possible to have a foreign policy that is literally hostile and still being part of the Union. At any time any country can leave the Union as UK demonstrated. So all member in the EU wants to be part of the union, they are not vassal. Poles do not want a communist government influenced by Russia. This is a fact. As of 2022, 97% of poles view Russia unfavorably and 89% view EU favorably. You cannot be more clear than that.

No, not propaganda, it is reality with data, and totally inconsequential to the discussion. Industrial growth is a small part of all the factor involved in quality of life, and while Soviet growth in the 60s and 70s was real, that stopped in the 80s and 90s causing the fall of the Soviet Union. The same industrial growth was common in all European countries post WW2.

What you should care is the vast majority of poles agree that joining the EU was one of the success stories of the century for Poland, with 70% to 85% saying that life is better under the EU. Poles are some of the most pro EU countries in Europe. The amount of independent pools on this is staggering. You need to be really dumb to not see this. And yes, some people have communist nostalgia, but the vast majority agree that was a dark age for Poland.

If you deny life in Poland is much better on all useful metrics now that Poland is sovereign and allied with european nations in the EU than before as dominion of the Soviet Union then your brain is rotted and I pity you.

You define imperialism as military conquest alone

Not true. I will use wikipedia definition: “Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism).”

This perfectly matches both the behaviour of the US and the behaviour of Russia. This does not matches every war in history. It was coined in the 19th century to describe Napoleon III’s attempts to gain political support by invasion.

You claim the Ukrainian people support their current government. Under martial law, with opposition parties banned, media consolidated, dissent criminalized, what does that support actually measure? Polls in a war zone with no free press are not evidence. They are propaganda tools.

You are getting confused with Russia. Free press is allowed in Ukraine. According to Reporters without Borders, Ukraine ranked 62nd out of 180 countries, one of the strongest performance since it’s independence.

Russia has offered terms: neutrality, demilitarization, recognition of Crimea, self-determination for the Donbas.

You are forgetting also all territories currently occupied, the entirety of of Donbas and Luhansk they do not control. Neutrality and demilitarization with an imperialistic power at the border that has attached and conquered their neighbor since it was born as country means letting the door open for further conquest down the line. With no guarantee this is surrender. Russia is not willing to give anything for peace.

You ignored the core of my last message

Because it is irrelevant and a waste of time. US meddle with external country as it is an imperialistic nation. Russia meddle with external countries as it is an imperialistic nation. So what is there to discuss? Who does it more globally? The answer is the US. Who does it more in Ukraine? The answer is Russia. Now that we have this out of the way let’s focus on the core of my first message.

The position that serves Ukrainian workers is peace, sovereignty, and the right to determine their own future.

And the only way we saw this can be achieved for countries that border Russia is join the EU or NATO. Poland is now free, Czechia is now free, Romania is now free, Slovakia is now free, the Baltic states are now free, Hungary is now free (but we need to wait for next election to know if this will remain true).

Expansions with military conquest is imperialism. Imperialism may use economic coercion but it is not required. Ukrainian people support their current government. Russia does not want to negotiate anything short of full surrender. There is nothing else to add

We are not discussing US vs Russia. We are discussing Ukraine vs Russia. I do not care if Russia is worse or US is worse. Both are terrible, and Ukraine deserves to be his own country. Removing Ukraine from euromaidan and pretend it is a US coup is ridiculous.

Both Russia and US are imperialistic nations. So in Russia (the imperialistic invader) vs Ukraine (the victim of invasion), we must stand with Ukraine.

you are saying this like Russia propaganda machine and hybrid warfare is not multiple times more extensive and pervasive. Moscow financed the pro Russian government with between US$50 and US$300 million and further energy schemes in the billions. To prevent an agreement with the EU Russia invested 15 billions.

Russia was pouring millions in Ukraine before 2014

Russia has spent $300m since 2014 to influence foreign officials, US says

How do not see how anything that I have shared or that you have shared change the fact that 2014 Euromaidan was not a US-backed coup

That is simply false. A simplification that is not helpful. Ukraine is allied with Europe and was a strong ally of the US under Biden. Now Ukraine has a practical approach: in no way makes sense to help Russia and Iran as both are bombing Ukraine, so it is better to help the US to force them not to further help Russia and help with NATO cohesion as Ukraine depends on NATO working for them on continuing support against Russia.

2014 was not a US-backed coup, you would need to demonstrate that. The scale and spontaneous origin of the protests, the leaked US diplomatic phone calls, and the immediate return to democratic elections monitored by OSCE are all clear indication that it was not an US-backed coup. Stop spreading false propaganda

The biggest country in the world military conquering his neighbors is imperialism. The only reasonable things to do is supporting Ukraine against Russia, and Iran against US and Israel.

The US is helping Russia against Ukraine despite Russia helping Iran against US. (Lifting sanctions to Russia, raising oil prices financing Russia, withdraw military and financial support from Ukraine)

Ultimately you are formally correct (the best kind of correct).

But I think it is reasonable to assume the demand of objective evidence as foundational assumption to explore knowledge. I think that “I need objective evidence to warrant belief” bring about less baggage then “I need an uncreated eternal, unobservable, personal creator of universes with personal agency to justify my existence”.

your own atheism would fail the scientific method

No it would not. You are atheist if you say you do not believe in god. I do not believe in god because there is no good reason to believe it exists so I am atheist. Not believing in something is not the same as believing something does not exists. My position is the default position and perfectly in line with science.

there’s really no way to objectively interrogate this

that is exactly the point. If there is no way to objectively interrogate something you should not believe in this. Believe in something you cannot interrogate is faith, and faith is bad. Religion requires by definition some level of faith. Science does not. Religion is not just a moral, societal or political position: you need to fundamentally believe something that cannot be investigated to be religious. The fact that religion seeks to answer question such as “why do we exists” is the problem. Because the answer can be used as justification for atrocities (“we are good chosen, we were given the land”).

Every faith provides reason yes, but the simple fact that I can believe anything with faith, makes it a bad tool for understanding the world. Science is a better tool: independent people following science principles will come to the same conclusion. Religious thinking make it so that independent people come to different contradictory conclusions.

I have yet to find a good reason to believe in god or gods from any religion. Most religious people do not believe other religions. They have access to the same “reasons” given as me. If religion people find other religions unconvincing, why should I be convinced by any of them?

What about religion in general and religious extremist in particular. I am atheist myself but none of what the modern Republican Party does is in line with Jesus teachings. If Jesus was reborn today in the US he would be sidelined by evangelical as a radical leftist.

The problem is not Christianity or Islam, but the core idea of faith and belief without good reasons.

Was the Empire of Brazil political autonomy controlled by Portugal in 1880? If the answer is no, then it was not a colony. Not that difficult to grasp. Was the US under Andrew Jackson a British colony? No, even if the local elite was European British elite of origin for the most part. Pedro II of Brazil considered himself Brazilian, born under an independent Brazil. Foreigner according to Portuguese law, educated in Brazil, with no loyalty to Portugal, he is considered one of the most important figure in Brazilian history.

I am so embarrassed in front of your clearly superior knowledge. You made so many unbiased relevant defining points tonight that I really struggle to reconstruct my flawed vision of global socioeconomic dynamics.

Ok, you won, my original claim that “Germany industrialized without colonial benefit” is false. I am defeated. I will claim that “Germany industrialized with minimal colonial benefit where minimal represent an economical input that is less then 5% of GDP by 1880”.

then I will stop this charade. Have a nice day, king of worthless discussion

Learn to read the context when discussing, it is really like chatting with a robot…

Rubber was not a thing in 1880

CONTEXT: Germany 1880, trying to establishing the relevance to national wealth of rubber imported from colonies.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: do the math, in 1880 we are before the invention of pneumatic bicycle tire, before the automobile industry, before rubber plantation in Congo and Asia. Global production is 11K tons, almost entirely from the Empire of Brazil, not a colony of a European country, most of which goes to Britain, US and France. At 1880 that is less then 0.2% of GDP for Germany. To me in the context of establishing the reason for Germany wealth being driven by colonial exploitation that is nothing. If for you 0.2%, 0% of which is from a colony, is worth discussing over then you are totally missing the point.

Shipping insurance wasn’t a thing in 1880

CONTEXT: original quote “European banks, shipping, insurance”. We are talking about the system put in place to facilitate exploitation of colonies.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: Stressing “European”. Europe was not a thing. Shipping insurance was a thing since medieval age. Was Florence banking system and Genoa shipping insurance in 1300 put in place for exploitation of colonial empires? No, it was put in place to facilitate trade. My mistake in assuming you meant a unified “European” system of exploitation as the alternative was just silly. If you really meant banks and insurance then good for you, on a national level that was a thing and totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Germany didn’t import minerals or agricultural supplies

CONTEXT: you said “British and French colonies supplied cheap cotton, rubber, minerals”. I asked you which mineral. Your quote is not a quote, I never said that. The context is still colonial exploitation, and by asking which mineral I have implied there is no mineral import from British or French colonies relevant to the conversation.

COMPLETE EXPLANATION: The only mineral not from a European country in your list was tin. Germany had tin deposits on the border with Bohemia, but most of the Tin was from Cornwall. So most of what was true for rubber is true for Tin we are talking a very small portion of GDP most of which was from Britain. The rest was from Malaya

The fact that you cannot grasp a contextual analysis and instead search for futile points to strawman when your points are trash tell me everything I need to know. Seems I hit the nail on the head as they say (bullseye). 🤣

I am not a german teenager, are you a fucking AI? Because you are sounding just like AI following a script of bad training.

“cannot isolate a national economy”, “never purely national”, no shit Sherlock. But we are discussing insignificant parts of a nation wealth. Rubber in 1880 Germany was like 0.2% on GDP if I am being generous. Deutsche Bank is a national bank. By 1880 Germany with no colonial empire was a capital exporter, not importer. Sweden and Spain, your typical african colonies.

Why are we discussing this shit?