Etymologically I would say it fits. "Smith" means a metalworker, note the relation to smite, which one does a lot in blacksmithing, and "black" refers to the black oxide forge scale the results from repeated heating of the iron and steel (vs other metal workers, e.g. silversmith or goldsmith).
So give they are using more or less the same methods of a blacksmith of yore and the etymology works, they would seem to be a blacksmith to me.
"With that much power behind the 22″ wheel, the electric unicycle achieves a wheel lift speed of 140 km/h (87 mph). The wheel lift speed is the unloaded top speed of the unicycle’s wheel when the unit is lifted into the air. It is higher than the actual top speed when ridden on flat ground, but is a useful metric used in the industry for comparing electric unicycles. The actual operational top speed of the V13 is still likely to surpass 90-100 km/h (55-60 mph)."
It’s so wrong to pretend that sellers don’t have a say in how much they ask for their goods that it borders on disingenuous. To blame the market (as if that existed apart from buyers and sellers) is to ascribe agency to something which is wholly responsive in fact.
If buyers are willing to pay $80 for a barrel of oil, must BP ask for $80 and not a cent less? Of course not. You may claim they are right to do so, but don’t pretend they have no choice and therefore no blame if there are ill effects to such pricing.
>If buyers are willing to pay $80 for a barrel of oil, must BP ask for $80 and not a cent less? Of course not. You may claim they are right to do so, but don’t pretend they have no choice and therefore no blame if there are ill effects to such pricing.
Since we're talking about commodities, prices are most likely set by bids/asks from all participants, rather than your model of a shopkeeper deciding what to write on price tags. If the current bid/ask for crude is at $90/$91, then there's no reason why BP should sell their oil at $80. Doing so would just end up giving $10 worth of value to whomever accepts BP's offer. In fact, you can even make it a business, by beating everyone else to the punch, buying oil at $80, then selling it back to the market at $90. The only way to avoid this is to sell the oil at market prices.
I find ground beef smells worse than any of the plant-based alternatives, personally. Give me the impossible or beyond burgers any day over a real burger if we're judging by smell or mouth-feel. In taste, I'd say they're equal. The planty patties lose out and mouth-feel, usually, but some of them are ok in taste, and usually smell good. The planty patties tend to crumble and fall apart which makes them hard to eat as burgers.
So you think the problem of high-tech spambots is that there aren't enough people using them? Is your goal to make forums and such unusable as fast as possible?
This is happening regardless of our desires. The best we can do is to be prepared and have the tools not available to only the most powerful few, but to ordinary people as well.
I'd say it's more like showing up at an all-you-can-eat buffet and eating with a fork. It's not anything that one should be charged extra for. If the bandwidth is the issue, they can charge realistic prices for bandwidth.
Perhaps a better analogy is showing up to an all-you-can-eat buffet and grabbing 20 brownies to take home. Sure, it doesn't change much, but if everyone did that there'd be a problem and the service provider should probably police it.
No, that's a worse analogy. The issue is not with the amount consumed. We're well aware that there's no such thing as all-you-can-eat or "unlimited" anything. A Matt Stonie would be banned from any all-you-can-eat buffet.
What's egregious is ISPs also enforcing _how_ I'm allowed to consume the data I'm paying for. So the fork analogy is much more appropriate.
Not enough for a space elevator on Earth, but definitely in the range you need for very long suspension bridges -- think in terms of railway bridges over the English Channel, the Straits of Gibraltar, the Irish Sea, and (with causeways/island hopping) the Bering Straits.
You’re seemingly unaware that petrochemicals can be synthesized with energy and simple organic feedstocks. The chemistry is pretty well established to bootstrap up from water and CO2 to complex hydrocarbons and from there of course the same petrochemical processes can be applied. Green energy is perfectly capable of this.
They can, but that takes energy. You have to have sufficient green energy to produce it and how do you get to the place where you have sufficient energy? Currently, that means you burn massive amounts of dirty energy to make the transition over, what, decades?
Your comment is well intended but it is the same sort of 'one day it will be perfect' thinking that glosses over the messy transition that actually needs to take place first.
Most uses of fossil fuels these days are for fuel, not petrochemicals. The energy needed to get to petrochemicals (and the fraction of carbon currently coming from fossil fuels to get to petrochemicals) are relatively modest.
Citation needed. Sorry but it takes, more or less, as much energy as that which is stored within the chemical bonds of a petrochemical to make that chemical from raw materials. Also, what? Your comment doesn't seem to fit into the context of our discussion. Where is the energy and raw materials to produce the green energy materials going to come from?
When renewable energy is abundant, we will find it cheaper to synthesize the hydrocarbons we need than to pump them out of the ground, transport, refine, and transport them again.
In the meantime, the overwhelming majority of oil pumped is burned. In the nearer future, only oil that is the absolute cheapest to pump will be, mostly as feedstock for bulk chemistry, because it will not be worth the cost to refine it for fuel.
So where will energy to transition come from? Fossil fuels, which are today produced in the trillions of tons annually. As more renewables are built out, some of their output will go into producing new panels. Eventually, panels will be produced from 100% renewable energy.
You will not notice any change, except lower power bills.
The quantity of carbon in petrochemicals (rather than fuels) is small enough that it could be supplied with the carbon in waste biomass streams. This carbon is reduced; the energy cost of reducing CO2 has already been paid.
Among the aristocracy, sure. Maybe the near-aristocracy. What about the other 99% of historical humans? Do you have any sources that the average peasant was marrying primarily for advantage? What advantage is there even to gain in a marriage between two peasants?
For the 99%, marriage was an arrangement - the man earns, the woman supports the household and both make babies to keep the family moving on. A lot of the arrangements were done by parents, even in poor families. This was all blessed by the church/temple.
Even that is a relatively modern arrangement. More typical was man does the day-to-day farming, woman raises children and produces textiles for the family's use, all hands on deck for key farming events like harvests. Most peasants earned very little hard currency; generally only a bit from surplus food or textiles when their children were the old enough to produce more than they consumed.
