Founder of a deeptech/hardware startup in a difficult sector and we are struggling to get our tech validated (latest datapoint are no improvement over the current practice).
While i believe with sufficient time it can be proven and improved, that crosses into the realm of academia and not entrepeneurship.
So yeah motivation is quite low at the moment, and im not sure if to push-on or accept failure and move on.
In Europe the right doesn't really care about abortion that much, its not really something i hear parties discuss.
Their main focal point is immigration, anti-muslim sentiment.
The left can be for reduction of GLOBAL human growth, but still increase LOCAL growth, which is primarily caused by immigration not birthrate.
I was under the impression that VAT taxes are considered to impact mostly the poor. While in absolute terms the rich are impacted most, in percentage terms VAT is considered a much smaller portion of expenses for the rich than the poor. I quote:
"VAT is a regressive tax, putting more burden to the poor than to the rich. Indeed, VAT applies the same rate to everyone regardless of their level of wealth – but the richer you are, the lower the proportion of your revenue goes to consumption."
Why tax the gasoline but then the airplane ticket and not the kerosene?
And similarly i would extrapolate to do we tax the buyer of electricity (which could be green sourced) or the manufacturer - the gas burner. Or maybe even at the first point of contact with the carbon source, the oil company.
If you shoot someone and hit their head killing them or just their ear, its a matter of luck (and possibly skill), the charges are different. The justice system judges based on intent as well as outcome (i.e. execution X luck).
I really don't understand this metamaterials hype.
While obviously this stuff is cool, is it science worthy?
This is basic engineering isn't it? How is this different than a bridge designer designing how a bridge will deform and different kinds of stress?
Sure they make it modular more abstract and general, but is it truly novel its the same science as the bridge designer isn't it?
They drive on the city road in between other "8000 lb" suvs. Not sure why that matters.
I drive my car a 1,500kg car right next to 30,000kg trucks, was never an issue for me.
I find this fascination with the size of the car and how it supposed to be a hazard quite amusing.
Roads are meant to be shared between different participants. These carts are meant for the city, where everyone's speed limit is 50kph anyway, and they avoid the faster roads. For many, this is all they need.
Well first of all this claim is quite a bit exagerated, as a single QD could produce twice more electrons in some situations, but only in some. A process called MEG - Multiple exciton generation.
Let me explain a bit simplified. Normally in semiconductors, when a high energy photon is absorbed, excess energy is converted into heat, and you end up with an electron with energy equal to the bandgap of the semiconductor.
With QDs you could have two QDs in close proximity, and when one of them absorbs a photon with energy more than twice the bandgap, there is a possibility that instead of only one of them getting excited with excess energy, two excitons will form of half the photon energy in each of the two QDs. Resulting in double the amount of excited electrons (A doubling of the electrons!).
If this was really efficient it would mean that now you need to optimize your PV material bandgap differently. And instead of a theoretical maximum efficiency (Shockley-Queisser) for single bandgap solar cells of ~32%, you could theoretically get 45% with a single bandgap.[1]
Completely Agree, Capitalism combined with right boundary conditions ie. limits, regulations, credit systems, or whatever, have to be used. The current system rewards those that manage to make use of the 'commons', and by that way socializing the costs (pollution, waste, etc.) while privatizing gains.
Crop yields have increased by use of fertilizers, modern farming machinery, and chemicals that prevent disease. Yields did NOT substantially increase due to higher photosynthetic rates which is how carbon is fixated.
Could you elaborate on your world view or are you just trolling?
Progress and capitalism optimize for value or $, and have no attention for the environmental cost as long as those are not put into regulations. You don't agree with that?
Founder of a deeptech/hardware startup in a difficult sector and we are struggling to get our tech validated (latest datapoint are no improvement over the current practice). While i believe with sufficient time it can be proven and improved, that crosses into the realm of academia and not entrepeneurship.
So yeah motivation is quite low at the moment, and im not sure if to push-on or accept failure and move on.
Any advice?