looping__lui

Industrialized countries generally need stability when it comes to electricity. People also want to watch TV whenever they like and take a hot shower whenever they feel like it.

What are you going to do at night, or in Germany when it’s cloudy and rainy for a month straight? I can show you my electricity consumption from my heat pump in the winter compared to the electricity my PV system produced. Hint: it doesn’t work. And batteries aren’t an option either, because I can’t generate any excess electricity during the day. Take a look at the Fraunhofer study.

You are aware that the EU must choose between nuclear or gas to produce electricity when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine. That backup capacity needs to be equal to the entire electricity demand. Renewables need to exceed that by a significant margin. So, either you build gas power plants and keep them idle, or you build nuclear power plants and switch them off when the sun is shining.

There is an interesting in-depth analysis by Fraunhofer: https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/de/documents/p... (see page 25, for example).

Considering that the EU classifies nuclear as equally renewable as solar, why should we rely solely on solar?

PS: I built a low-energy house, heat it with a heat pump, and have PV on my roof.

I am no authority to speak about this - but I believe expanding sensors and improving on data gathering is a continuous and on-going effort (e.g., weather station on ships, airplanes, stations deployed on sea etc.). Better weather satellites are also a thing. But then there is just so much more that could be done and all these data-points are still unevenly distributed (e.g., planes and ships follow routes). Weather models are improving quite a bit “behind the scenes” but again - I think we are far away from getting anything reliable for several days into the future; not to speak months or years.

Here is a nice interview highlighting a couple of improvements people are driving for a niche sport weather forecast: https://magazine.weglide.org/skysight-interview-matthew-scut...

As a fan of a sport that greatly relies on accurate weather forecasts with an interest in weather models my impression is that more supercomputer budget isn’t necessarily the issue (eg., more granular models can be less accurate) but the lack of data on the initial state is… Things like snow on mountains, soil conditions, vegetation, soil humidity and simply the problem of just having relatively few data-points makes stuff tricky… That stuff changes with season. I have seen some magic improvements coming from small shop companies tweaking the models here and there a bit - massively impressed. Now, running these simulations even further into the future - I have my doubt much useful prediction is gonna come out.

I would never again found a company in Germany - not because of the super high tax or these arbitrary rules like you need to pay insane amounts to the Chamber of Industry and Commerce (IHK) or the GEZ for radios you don’t have; but: dealing with the bureaucracy and the tax authorities is just insane. Like you are required to pay a registered tax accountant do your books then they have “screenings” where you PAY him again to check his work and explain it to the IRS - only to find you missed paying 13.09 EUR of social security for the artist guild. Spent 5k in tax advisory fees and countless working days dealing with the questions over 13 EUR.

If you ever had to deal with German tax authorities - assume the actual worst case scenario.

The comment was not AI generated. I had grammar spelling and language fixed because english is not my first language and culturally the way I express myself does come across as harsh to sensitive American audiences.

Do you believe anything I say is inaccurate or do I need to accommodate another “please don’t do X because otherwise I feel offended/cannot trust a random stranger/…” stance?

I do not know how widespread Rotax engines are in Australia and how large the GA is there. Also, I do not track standardized failure rates of engine models around the world - but shared anecdotal evidence. Except two instances, ALL reports or stories from friends and acquaintances around engine failures involved Rotax engines (probably 5:1 ratio). Tracking planes with up to 800kg in the study eliminates all Pipers and Cessnas - which I admit I used as a baseline comparison for my statements. I guess the only plane with a Lycoming/Continental engine below 800kg that comes to mind is the Pa18 from the 1940s/1950s.

Last year, the LSA association in Germany started a large survey across its members because of the high number of failures with Rotax engines: https://www.daec.de/news/news-detail/service-bulletin-zu-sto...

Now, I definitely do not say that these are bad engines, but there is a lot of chatter in Europe how these engines are plugged into a wide range of airframes and there are more complex system interactions than meets the eye which can cause some problems. Or put differently: C172 and Pa28 are probably among the most common airframes to stuff the Lycomings and Continentals into. I suspect we kind of figured out how to make these work reliably.

Rotax works in MANY many different combinations and many different airframes - so there is that.

GA engines use low compression ratios and high displacement to generate power at lower RPMs, reducing mechanical stress and heat buildup that would be catastrophic during sustained high-power operations like climb and cruise. The need for low propeller RPM means designs either go for a gearbox-driven high compression, low displacement approach like Rotax, or the low RPM, low compression, high displacement route like Lycoming—and given these constraints, the good old Lycoming design isn’t all that bad.

(Edited for completeness)

FLARM as the “uncertified predecessor” in the gliding community was a game changer for safety. Game changer.

Completely agree with you.

I hear you in general, but GA engines need to work more reliably and go through way more intense operational challenges than automotive engines. Picture this: you take off at 100°F on the ground at full throttle with only air cooling to save weight and reduce potential failure points, then climb to 10,000 feet where the outside air temperature drops to around 65°F (or even freezing conditions). The baffling is a bit worn, and the pilot maintains 70 knots in the climb, pushing cylinder head temperatures (CHT) to 420°F or higher. Then the pilot gets chatty and pulls the engine back to near-idle while CHTs are still at 350°F, before pushing the nose down to kill altitude—causing CHTs to plummet to 250°F in minutes. Through all these extreme thermal cycles and temperature swings, the engine simply cannot quit on its pilot.

GA engines may look antiquated—with their carburetors, magnetos, and mechanical fuel pumps—but this apparent simplicity is entirely by design. These “outdated” systems are actually time-tested solutions engineered for ultimate reliability when failure means catastrophe. While car oils use metallic detergent additives, aviation oils must use ashless dispersants to prevent spark plug fouling that could cause engine failure. The oils must handle sustained high RPM operation and brutal temperature cycling while meeting strict FAA specifications that prioritize proven reliability over cutting-edge performance.

Every component, from the dual magneto ignition (no electrical system dependency) to the mechanical engine-driven fuel pump, represents decades of refinement focused on one critical goal: the engine will not quit when you need it most. It’s not that these engines are behind the times—they’re precisely engineered for their mission-critical role where proven, simple systems trump technological sophistication.

You might be in for a bad awakening when comparing the reliability and safety statistics of Lycomings to the Rotax engines in Flight Design planes. Even though I entirely share your enthusiasm in general - these “old technologically outdated Lycosaurus engines” are really reliable in comparison…

Rotax engines have been extremely popular in Europe for LSA equivalents - but boy do I recall countless stories of engine failures. The most crazy one was of a flight instructor that had a total of 12 (!?) before he quit flying. A lot has to do I believe with the “creative ways the engine and its components are stuffed into different airframes”.

I don’t think that comment makes sense in context of the original comment I replied to.

Totally get where you’re coming from—German can feel like a surgical tool when it comes to precision, especially in law or certain engineering domains where it’s still dominant. But from my (very subjective) experience, that sharpness doesn’t always carry over to areas like machine learning or modern software architecture.

Most cutting-edge research and discussion happens in English, and honestly, I find it pretty tough to have a deep technical conversation in German—even with other Germans. The language just doesn’t seem to reflect the latest advancements in those fields.

I used to agree with the “German is super precise” sentiment—especially when it came to legal or philosophical stuff. But the more I’ve immersed myself in English, the more I’ve seen how nuanced and expressive it can be too. And ironically, German law often ends up being a case-by-case “interpretation party” anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, I still appreciate the poetic weight of words like Müßiggang—there’s real beauty there. But when it comes to actually getting things done or discussing complex, evolving ideas? I’m not sure German gives us much of a practical edge anymore.

In most countries it is not.

In the country with the highest GDP per capita it may appear to be prevalent more because people seem to make VOLUNTARY choices with respect to their diet and exercise regime that do not tend to go well with their health.

Capitalism is not equal to “the economy”. “Currency” on its own doesn’t increase the wealth of a society. It is correct that unconstrained capitalism is unstable. Most countries in the world understand that.

Do you know how to grow vegetables, how to produce antibiotics, how to diagnose and treat diabetes, how to operate a farm, how to build up and run an electrical power grid, how to build a fridge, a TV, a car or a motorcycle?

No?

The “economy” allows you to trade something that YOU are capable of into an imaginary representation of currency which you can trade in return for things you need but are incapable of doing yourself.

And it does that so well and so effectively, that mankind has achieved a quality of life unseen in human history. Children don’t randomly starve to death during a winter, your mom doesn’t just randomly die from an infection any more and we have a pretty chilled live compared to our ancestors 10 thousand years ago I believe.

Yeah, I don’t know what the economy has given me in return either.

Fastspring was amazing for exactly that. We loved em for most part.

Maybe those were just artificial constructs that cost everyone a lot of money and we just started to realize now? “Hey let’s support these 30$ lunches at the food truck downtown.” Maybe we are as a society better off without these massive concrete structures that are only occupied 8h / 24h a day and serve no other purpose? Maybe requiring less resources and infrastructure to get people to and from other concrete structures that they only inhabit during the other part of the day is a good thing kind of?

They burn it :-)

I’d recommend to switch dentists maybe. Philips Sonicare is such an improvement for teeth hygiene - how could I live without?

Also: floss and mouthwash. Like floss is really important…

… didn’t Apple switch away from Nvidia, push for OpenCL and keep Adobe in the rain when their new release was all super optimized for Nvidia? And I think heavily push for their proprietary video and image editing software? But Adobe rewrote its codebase and had the better product after all. And that was 15+ years ago?

One article from back in 2010: https://nofilmschool.com/2010/07/apple-snubs-adobe-again-wit...

One of the fee startups I am genuinely impressed: skysight.

https://magazine.weglide.org/skysight-interview-matthew-scut...

Freakingly accurate weather forecasts for the niche sport of gliding. Builds on top of ECMWF and incorporates refined soil moisture. It’s really good in predicting mountain waves (and used by Perlan: https://perlanproject.org/perlans-sponsors-enable-us-to-fly-... ). Also convergences and thermal activity which is very dynamic…

Incredibly impressive.

Abitur is 30% of students roughly which was the point of my discussion: https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiturientenquote

This should include the students who do Abitur via FOS.

I do not disagree with that stance; but now we are comparing a population of 1 B people and a country the size of US+Europe+more with the US or a European country. E.g., it would sound a bit like comparing all of the opportunities and prospects kids in the EU have to the US and calling the geographic discrepancies “social barriers”. So, the “poor european families don’t get to send their kids to the fancy US schools”.

I don’t disagree there is unfairness - but it exists everywhere and China just has more people than US, EU, Canada, UK combined.

There are additional paths people can beyond high schools and we have different tiers (allgemeine Hochschulreife; Fachhochschulreife) for different tiers of universities (academic further qualifying for a PhD career / practitioner); as the original post was referring to Chinese high school students specifically I tied it back to Gymnasium where give or take 30% of students go (probably a tad higher today because they lowered the bar).

Ok, the point being though (it seems): advantages are not universal geographically across China; I agree, that I also observed that.

Thanks! That’s a lot of additional information. I appreciate the effort!

Thanks for the additional details.

In Germany only about 30% of high-school kids qualify academic high-school (merit-based) and are eligible to apply for university after two-years of exams that determine your final grade (and chances). There are literally only public schools.

I think you describe that it is very similar today in China after they banned the private tutoring a couple of years back. So, we are somehow back to “work hard on not to unequal grounds and your personal merit/luck will determine your future”.

Thanks for sharing additional detail and it resembles what I remember - but it does not seem to be “instrumented in a way to keep certain groups out of academia based on income or social standing”.

Imho a 30% ratio for university graduates is a sweet spot for society. We have great (free) vocational training programs in Germany that empower all those who did not go to university to make money quicker and they more often that not end up in financially better situations. University often pays off only for top university graduates once they pass 35/40 years of age.

Kid’s ability to make it through the ranks of academia in my personal anecdotal evidence depends less on financial ability or social standing in China compared to the US or India.

I agree that it is merit driven above anything else - not sure I would agree that this is favoring wealthy kids/certain social class in a more disproportionate way than what we see in India or the US.

Now, I will say that neither university nor high school in China or India imho prepare kinds for success in life or the corporate world. Europe (with a hands-off “you get no help and will just struggle your way through life and learn quick”) and the US (“here are actual experts dedicated to help you succeed) seem imho to produce capable graduates for the corporate world.