US has some of the world's largest natural gas deposits, and is a major producer of helium, so it makes less sense to have a strategic helium reserve. Even the SPR was created in the aftermath of the last middle east oil crisis, back when the US was a major net importer of oil, and many people have been saying we should scrap the SPR, as no major oil producer has an SPR.
The problem with the SPR is that it is used to manipulate prices, which was why Biden on the one hand cut oil leases and reduced domestic oil production, but then did major SPR drawdowns before the election to hide the realities of these policies. Now Trump is playing the same game, sanctioning oil producers and creating wars in the middle east, but using the SPR to hide the effects of these policies until after the midterm.
In both cases, we'd probably be better off without an SPR, so all of these actions against oil production would be immediately felt at the pump before the election and voters could respond quickly. It's just too tempting to have this tool to manipulate oil prices that incumbents can use before elections.
Huh? The oil price shock in 2022 and resulting SPR drawdown had nothing to do with oil leases. Prices almost doubled worldwide in the span of a week after Russia invaded Ukraine. Look at any chart of petroleum products and it's clearly visible as a huge, almost vertical line.
The explicit purpose of the SPR is to function as a lever to smooth temporary supply shocks. The US increasing oil output by a few percent in either direction wouldn't have made any difference to global disruption of oil markets from a major exporter to Europe starting a war and then getting sanctioned.
Yeah, it's strange that people who should be knowledgeable in experimentation ignore that. "I heard that people enjoy skiing. I've tried skiing on whatever surface happened to be on a nearby hill and it didn't work!"
When I click your share, it shows the model. When I click into my chat, it just says "High". I did ask the model what it was and it said "GPT-5.6 Sol".
Oh, and I don't even have a "light" option, and I'm signed in to a Pro account.
(I continue to despise the chatgpt.com frontend.)
In any case, I tried again forcing GPT-6 Astra Pro (apparently I can't choose GPT-6 Astra non-Pro) and gave the same prompt. It searches the web and gives a long-winded answer, including:
> 7. Does unspecified sphere–sphere friction change the static answer?
> For ordinary ideal point contacts in this regular-tetrahedral configuration, it does not. Gravity, the floor reactions, and the frictionless equatorial rope exert no torque about any sphere’s center. The tangential intersphere forces must therefore balance their torques by themselves.
I'm glad it contemplated the possibility of friction, but it forgot about the table/floor there. So maybe this is a little better than Sol?
He had little choice. The Trump tariffs could've been a massive, massive blow to Amazon, so I'm sure he felt he had to get out in front of them and buy some influence with the incoming administration.
See also Tim Cook. Doesn't make it right to suck up to Trump, but it was, and unfortunately still is, a rational move.
you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich).
The fact that so many people believe this is what bums me out.
You need to understand something: the people who want you to think this way do not have your best interests in mind, any more than the rabid right-wing Trumpers do.
In no way do I mean that someone has to suffer for someone else to thrive. We could (and should) all thrive and have our needs met.
I’m just saying the term is relative, like “tall” and “short”. If we were all the same height, no one would be tall or short, we’d just be. If we all had the same amount of money, no one would be rich or poor.
An economy isn't a zero-sum game. Wealth doesn't just pop into existence when someone in the government clicks a button on a screen. Money is created that way, but wealth isn't. It has to be created by creating something that someone else values enough to pay for willingly.
No one has to lose anything, in the sense that no one has to give up more than they think the product or service is worth to them. In your example, it's possible for everyone to grow taller.
Wealth, like gravity, distorts everything around it with excessive concentration.
It matters little how wealth is created. No one has to lose anything for the excessive concentration of wealth to cause the lives of everyone to be worse.
For the third time, that is not the argument. Read what I wrote and try to steal man a bit. Get your preconceived argument out of your head and understand we are in agreement. The difference between wealth and money isn’t in question, that is something you just added to the argument and decided with zero basis that I disagree.
The fact that so many people jump to conclusions and immediately dunk on others who agree with them is what bums me out.
What a waste of a conversation. Why are you spending time criticising those who support the same points?
What a waste of a conversation. Why are you spending time criticising those who support the same points?
All I know is what you wrote, sorry. Same shit we could all read on Reddit: "If everyone had the same amount of money, no one would be rich, you need someone to be worse off (poor) to have someone better off (rich)."
If you frequently find yourself misunderstood in this way, work on expressing yourself more clearly.
By your own admission, you read my words and associated them with other conversations had by other people on another website. In other words, “all you know” is the preconceived bias you have in your head leading you to rushed wrong assumptions.
> If you frequently find yourself misunderstood in this way
I don’t, no. There you go again, making unsubstantiated claims based on faulty assumptions.
> work on expressing yourself more clearly.
You were obviously the only person confused. That makes it abundantly clear the problem wasn’t with my explanation but your comprehension. Perhaps a little humbleness on your part is in order, as opposed to, you know, doubling-down on your own misinterpretation despite having been spoon fed multiple clarifications.
I should have known he had views like this. I've heard similar things expressed and I believe this sentiment personally, but I'm happy to know I can add his name and the original quotation to my archives.
Exactly. The marble metaphor should've been enough to get the point across.
Big fan of lcamtuf's writing (I think it's the only 'subscribe to my newsletter' offer I've ever actually clicked) but this one seemed a bit overcooked.
reply