Every new FBI agent is also required to visit the holocaust museum.
That sounds like something that's being taken out of context.
If you told me "every new FBI agent tours the capitol and museums in DC to familiarize them with the layout", I would not find that surprising at all.
it won't make Argentina's bad debt magically go away
Of course it won't. But what it will do is free Argentinians from being burdened by the government's credit rating. Dollarize, and suddenly private citizens and businesses can borrow at more reasonable 8-10% while the government can't. This allows commercial life to carry on even while the government continues to be a tire fire. This is exactly what happened in Ecuador and El Salvador.
I don't see how shutting a central bank down is going to solve anything
It does exactly one thing:
It formalizes the currently informal situation which insulates private wealth from government policy. Argentinians already have zero faith in their currency. Argentinian private citizens already hold billions in US cash.
The lack of competing grids is itself the result of regulation.
No, it's a consequence of physics.
Do you know what happens when two alternating current systems which are not in phase exist in close proximity to one another?
They fight. Literally. The phase angle between the two power signals resists each other. They don't even have to be physically attached, simply running two out of phase ac systems close to each other will cause some induced load from the opposed phases because wires are not perfect conductors.
If they connect, well...
Whichever system has more inertia will win (assuming the contact point survives for more than a few milliseconds). The other system's phase angle will be physically (violently) dragged up or down to the phase angle of the system that has more spinning mass. In effect, the generators which are out of phase will cease to be generators and momentarily become electric motors. This has profoundly bad consequences for both systems. In extreme cases it can cause turbine blades to fucking snap. Although realistically all it will do is cause a whole lot of breakers and safety relays to operate and cause a blackout.
Because they cannot coexist out of phase. As long as the phase angle isn't in sync, they aren't "powering" things, they're fighting each other.
This is why the proposed junction between the three grids (Tres Amigas Superstation) is designed around these giant fucking 20 mile long superconductive HVDC cables. Because to even think about having the grids coexist with each other, you first have to strip out phase angle entirely and convert the energy to DC.
Natural monopolies are not inherently bad inof themselves, so long as adequate precautions are taken.
The national energy grid is a good example of both things working well and things working poorly. It only makes sense to provide most customers with one electrical service. As long as the billing adequately reflects the cost of the delivered energy and the upkeep of the delivery system, and as long as there is a uniform set of standards to which that system is to be run, it's good.
i can't say those same problems wouldn't have existed in a atheistic world
Of course you can't, because it's trivially obvious they would. People are going to do what they're going to do.
why is it their are wakes of bodies in this concept that is necessary for peoples well beings
Because we are selfish creatures living in a world of scarcity.
But the really bizarre people are the gaians. Those eco fascists who's standard of morality is that humans are all bad and everyone (except, conveniently, themselves) must die for the sake of nature.
I know enough of them to take them at face value that they do believe humans are a corrupting influence (that statement inof itself is generally true). But the common thing about them is that they all are either very dim people with NO practical knowledge of industry at all, or they're EXTREMELY intelligent people who are misanthropic idealists who know better but don't care. The former are annoying, the latter are dangerous.
also, morals don't exist so your right on the money with that however... despite what i said earlier... some bad people in position of power like... kings, and rulers. would times use god or be fill in for gods who would unfairly rule over his subjects
Yes, they did. Tyrants are an effective source of absolute right and wrong. Backed with an army they are certainly capable of actualizing their moral system.
But as I said, they're not a reliable source. Not every tyrant is just, and even just tyrants are still mortal. They grow old and die (or, tbh, more often are killed).
Perhaps someday we'll make a machine that can be a perfect tyrant, and on that day god can retire. But frankly I think people like yourself will hate that even more than they hate god, because in that case you'll have a tangible target.
you believe god is a necessary evil... to keep people from doing bad things
No, that's an overreach. God is only necessary to DEFINE absolute good and absolute bad.
All moral absolutism is a fabrication. It does not exist in nature. But being a fabrication does not make something not real.
Without god, the moral relativists are "correct". A cat's sadistic joy of playing with a mouse it has already wounded is right and good because the cat's own existence and satisfaction is all that exists to the cat.
We humans invented god. As surely as we invented tools and weapons. We invented god to serve a purpose, to solve a problem which we have studied for thousands of years. We looked for a source of moral absolutes that could be universalized onto all beings. And what we found is that no source within ourselves would serve. We had to project the problem onto something external and untouchable. Law is insufficient. Tyrants are unreliable. Only god could fit the task.
Never let devs lie to you about how difficult it is to make a game
YOU are assuming that their difficulties come from technology and not people.
I have enough experience with programming to know that "it's difficult" is polite for "I don't care enough to fight for it".
Yahtzee is correct that the novel and auteur games are typically a one-man show. Because they're not accountable to anyone for decisions.
i am an atheist. i don't believe that a god exist.
The question is not whether god exists. God did not create man, man created god, that much is trivial. If you think reaching that intellectual level is somehow a dunk on the faithful, you're just a very dim, shallow, petty, and naive person.
The question is why god must exist. When you understand that, then you can understand why man attributed man's creation to god.
God must exist for one simple reason. To make the wrongness of murder universal. That's all. A flat foundation on which to build a counter philosophy to moral relativism. Nothing more. Understanding that, then you can get to whether you believe in god, and your answer to that says nothing about the nature of the universe and existence, and everything about you and your view on moral relativism.
This is most strikingly shown in regard to painting, where mastery of technique is at least as much within their power as within ours; and hence they are diligent in cultivating it; but still, they have not a single great painting to boast of, just because they are deficient in that objectivity of mind which is so directly indispensable in painting. They never get beyond a subjective point of view.
-Arthur Schopenhauer
If you want someone to point blame at, blame Egypt and Jordan.
They both hate the Palestinians only slightly less than they hate Israel. Egypt is why Gaza isn't Israeli territory but Egypt is also why Gaza isn't Egyptian territory. Gaza is basically Egypt's little North Korea, an unaccountable angry puppet full of people they don't want to actually admit into their country.
The only path to peace is a three state solution and those three states are Israel, Egypt and Jordan, so the Palestinians who don't want to live on the border can fuck off to somewhere else while Cairo and Amman are accountable to keep Hamas and Hezbollah from starting shit.
Old thinking, needs a revisit.
Take the fandom convention scene. Sociopaths DID largely take over conventions for a while, and a lot of them are now gone, because while they're good at winning power struggles, they're far less capable at actually accomplishing shit.
So am I to understand your view is that "Irish ethno-nationalists deserve no support because they're still progressives"?
Edit: Since you didn't bite... Assuming that's an accurate summary of your perspective, I'm having difficulty perceiving what your endgame is. How do you win when you'd rather take a loss than settle for the achievable partial victory?
Conceptually I understand why some people are all-or-nothing purists, but only when that rhetoric is backed by accelerationist action. If you will only accept total success, your only path to that lies on the other side of total collapse, because you'll never accept a world where you compromise with your opponents.
If you read enough history you see that real life rarely produces situations where a system totally and utterly collapses and is successfully replaced by something better. The few times it has happened almost always involve a dictator.