The cat is moving in a circle, so it has a centripetal acceleration and a centripetal force. At the apex of the loop, that force is the sum of gravity, and resistance from the track. The track force is greater than or equal to zero, so acceleration due to gravity is less than or equal to the total centripetal acceleration.
g ≤ v²/r
So,
r ≤ v²/g
Taking top speed of a cat as 8.278m/s (from Wolfram Alpha), and g on earth as 9.81m/s², this gives us r ≤ 6.99m. So long as the cat can maintain its top speed all around the loop, it can successfully do a loop of up to 14 meters diameter. This is a lot bigger than I expected, to the extent that I suspect some flaw in my reasoning.
True. But if top speed allows for 14 meters, surely a 1.5 to 2 m loop should be possible (especially given a cat’s incredible reflexes and control given a lack of friction or even freefall). I’d guess that a cat, given enough motivation, could keep running under the little friction provided by the centripetal force for a few hundred milliseconds - likely long enough to complete a 1m loop, maybe even 2, given sufficient space for a top-speed run before entering…
I get the same math… Seems fucky but… This is assuming the sum of centripetal acceleration and gravity at the peak of the loop is zero. It may be physically possible for a cat to learn to manage a loop with such velocity but I imagine a cat wouldn’t be able to maintain a stride through a zero-g portion of the loop the first time it tried it.
So, instead let’s throw an assumption that the cat must maintain at minimum sum of -1g at the maxima of the loop. That may be badly phrased, assuming the cat must have at minimum a net force of at least one g between it’s paws and the surface of the loop it was currently using to accelerate…
3.5 meters = 11.5 feet
Radius, so still a freaking 7 meter diameter loop feels incredible…
Socialists don’t hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn’t. That’s the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
Market forces on their own produce many if not all of the perverse incentives of capitalism. Only a centrally planned economy, built on a foundation of grassroots democracy, can hope to overcome those incentives by doing economic planning with an eye towards future sustainability and quality of life, rather than towards profitability.
I think the better way would be a centrally planned economy for some goods (electricity, “normal” food, health, …) and something more “free” for the rest of the market. Bread has a marked price but a PS5 doesn’t.
The idea of centrally planned economy ignores the lessons of the past. Bronze Age empires and recent examples all display universal inability to adjust to changes.
It’s the same magical thinking as the blind belief in market forces exhibits.
Priests of “invisible hand of market” ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia, believing that markets will just magically fix everything in time for it to matter.
Preachers of central planning ignore information exchange speed limits and market inertia (and yes, there is a market, as long as there is goods and services exchange, however indirect) by believing they will have all the relevant information and the capacity to process it in time for it to matter.
Neither is true. Neither school of thought even attempted to show itself to be true.
Within the context of one person’s career, socialism on its own can do quite a bit to transform people’s relationship to their workplace. No longer would your job be at risk because you’ve all done too well and it’s to “cut labor costs” while profits soar. No longer would you be worried about automating away your job, instead you’d gladly automate your job away and then the whole organization could lower how much work needs to be done as things get more and more automated.
Democracy would massively improve work-life balance.
Of course this comes with problems, all of which exist in capitalism (how do we care for people outside of these organizations who won’t have access to work, for example). But if I had to choose between market socialism and capitalism, the choice is pretty clear, and it’s something much easier for liberals to stomach.
Here’s a list from the creator. I’m not sure if they’re all always there:
“Here is the semi-official list of symbols, more or less in order of frequency of use: eyeball, piece of pie, alien, dynamite, K2, upside-down bird, bunny head, crown, single shoe, arrow in the back.
They began in 1996 when I decided out of boredom to draw a little bird sitting on a shelf where it didn’t really belong”
Not quite the same, but if you want to replace ghee with something vegan, try avocado or coconut oil. There is vegan ghee (made from palm oil I think?) but it’s bad for you the same way old timey margerine is bad.
Incidentally, unprocessed red palm oil could be a nice replacement, but it has a characteristic earthy/almondy taste. I love it on fish dishes but it’s not the taste you expect from Indian food I think.
Think this post confuses veganism and vegetarianism. Also it’s chemicals all the way down. Those spices? Made of chemicals.
Those alternative burgers are actually pretty tasty but also very heavy because they are imitating beef. For American fare I’d generally prefer a sandwich with deli style meats made out of tofu or seitan, or a bean burger.
Tofu has a lot of range, there are many types of tofu you just won’t see that many in a Western market. There are also a lot of ways to prepare tofu, it’s very versatile.
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.