Hyperloop Is Just A Hype?

Isn’t building a Hyperloop requiring more effort than just building a Maglev train? Furthermore, Hyperloop is probably more dangerous because having an emergency exit could be rather a pointless thing to have once the pressurization within the loop is no longer working as it should. Basically, your pod could be crushed like how you would step really hard on the side of an empty Coke can. Perhaps Maglev train could be just as dangerous, but could the Maglev train collide with train tracks by chance to create friction and decrease the magnitude of the accident so some survivors could climb out the train eventually? Well, at the moment, in China you could ride a Maglev train at 267.811 miles per hour (431kph), but you could only dream that a Hyperloop could be built and be this fast. In the videos right after the break, you could see why building a Hyperloop is a foolish endeavor!

Advertisements

It’s Cool To Hear Liu Cixin’s Thoughts on His “Three Body Problem” Trilogy and Other Cool Sci-Fi Things in an Interview.

Liu Cixin’s “Three Body Problem” put me in an annoying state but in a good way. Why? After getting to know his “Three Body Problem” epic trilogy, I couldn’t find any other sci-fi work to surprise or wow me anymore. Since then I keep wanting to be introduced to a similar or better trilogy but I had found none. To appease my thirst for sci-fi I’d to settle with my older favorites like Star Trek, but what I want is something as epic as “Three Body Problem.”

I’m really happy to see Liu Cixin talks about his work in the interview in which you can watch it in the video below.

I also heard that a new Chinese sci-fi big budget movie is coming out to a theater near you soon in the United States known as “The Wandering Earth (2019),” which is also based on one of his short stories. I can’t wait to go to see it in a theater near me. Hopefully, it won’t be a disappointment because sometimes a great story doesn’t make a great movie. The reality is sometimes rather cruel to a book lover because a movie may fail to reimagine a book in live action for various reasons such as budgetary problem and so forth.

Older Men Wage War, Younger Men Fight Them?

Is it safe to assume that when a country is still young and full of energy, it prefers to take more risks and expand? Is it safe to assume that when a country is old, it prefers to play it safe? What would make a country young? In my opinion, a country is young when it got a huge amount of people that are between the age of 12 to 27. Why? These young people can and will be able to lead their country in the direction that they want since the older generations have to pass their torches eventually. Furthermore, a young country got enough young soldiers to wage a war! This will not be that important when a country decides to employ more AI robots and automation in a war, but at the presence, human soldiers are still being mainly a deployable asset for any combat situation. Human soldiers are still driving and flying war machines and drones.

A small country with a small population and not enough economic power and technological might cannot be a threat to bigger countries even though such a small country may have a huge population of young people. It would be a different story for a huge country with a huge population size because such a country can deploy young, energetic human resources to grow and expand a country’s multifacet powers. It’s even more dangerous when such a country got a really large, energetic, young population. Why? Assuming we’re not going to use automation anytime soon, and so if I’m running such a country I would think about capitalizing the power of a huge young population to grow and expand my country. For an example, I wouldn’t be so timid in launching a war against a hostile country.

I have a feeling that even when automation gets to be in the driver seat, an unrest young population of whatever country could still drive their country into a more risky proposition than otherwise. After all, logically if they’re not taking risks when they’re young, what would make them excited when they’re old? If my theory is correct, I wonder could we see a lot more wars and deaths if the world’s population is full of young people? Of course, I could be wrong in a way because older people do take risks too! What if a small group of older people can make and drive the agenda that make use of the aggressiveness features of the young population? Nonetheless, I still think the huge population of young people still is an important element in the equation for taking risks. Without the huge, energetic young population, nothing will happen even if the small group of old people wants to wage a war!

What Do You Think? How About Car Sharing In A Similar Manner To How China’s Bike Sharing Is Currently In Operations?

A lot of videos on YouTube complain about how China’s bike sharing had become a problem since the sidewalks are littering with unused bikes.  This gave me an idea, why not replicating China’s bike sharing problem into something good for car drivers!  Imagine cars could be available everywhere so everyone can use their smartphone to unlock, pay, and drive away for a day.  After a person is done with the car, he or she can just park the car in any parking lot nearby.

Of course, car sharing might come with more problems for the car operators/lenders than the car renters because cars are more expensive to maintain.  Also, car operators need to make sure each car needs to be covered by insurance policy.  This could also get rather expensive for the car operators.  Nonetheless, if someone could use some good math skill or an artificial intelligence algorithm to figure out the bottom line, then I guess if the bottom line is good then there shouldn’t be a problem to allow car sharing en masse. 

How To Fix A Corrupt Country?

I stumbled on a Quora’s question “How do you fix a corrupt country?” and so I decided to give my two cents on Quora in regards to how I think such a country could fix its problems.  Well, I will quote myself fully right after the break.  Nonetheless, you can also visit Quora for this specific answer too, but you may have to go through countless other answers that were given to this same question.

Here I quote myself:

When a country is being weakened by a weak leadership or a weak governance structure — having both would be a disaster — such a country needs to find a way to exert law and order so everyone in the country could recognize a corruptive behavior isn’t acceptable. When people are actually supportive of a measure against such corruptive behavior, the government could slowly gather strength through the recruitment of a strong leadership to carry out the enforcement of rules and regulations to curb the corruptions.

I think many forms of corruption could be very subtle too, and so corruptive agents could actually thrive in almost all governments — doesn’t matter what form a regime is actually practicing. For example, a democratic country is relatively poor, and so such a country will not be able to have strong leadership even though it got a democracy. Without a strong leadership, things tend to slip in and out between cracks, and so the corruptive agents could easily use such opportunity to do corruptive things out in the open.

In a dictatorship regime, corruptive agents in the position of power would be unchallenged since there won’t be enough checks and balances to curb such power. If a dictatorship regime got a weak leadership, the country could experience widespread corruptions that go unchecked. A good thing about the dictatorship regime is that if a country got a strong leader who actually cares for the people, such a leader could use the absolute power to weed out the corruptions really fast and effective. Basically, there are pros and cons to a different form of governance and style of a particular government.

I think to fix a corruptive country, the most important things are to find the right leadership and enhance or rebuild a governance structure so the country could thrive on rules and order. As long the rules and order are making sense and the people could feel safe, then other good things may come eventually. For example, a strong economy is a must for a leader to keep the people happy and healthy. When people are happy and healthy, they tend to do the right things and be supportive of the government. With strong support from the people, the government could exert enforcement to weed out corruptions without much of any opposition. Heck, when a government is being loved by the people, the government could take a lot more risks to achieve its aspirations.

I’m curious anyone else thinks this is the right approach to fixing a corrupt country?  Please leave a comment or two in the comment section if you agree or disagree with my suggestion.  Thanks.

Space Elevator or Space Tower?

I asked this question “Japan is planning to be successful in making a first space elevator, can Japan realize this dream? Can space elevator really help us get around in space better than today’s spacecraft propulsion technology?” on Quora and I got an answer with a very cool video which linked by a Quora user Bert Murray.  Check the video out right after the break.  I think you’ll like it, and you could learn something about space too.