Yup

“Essential workers” I seem to recall from the pandemic.

That is precisely the point.

The term “Unskilled labor” is derogatory, misleading, and commonly used to suppress wages. My question is if there’s something better we can call it to reclaim the power of the word, and break the cycle of abuse?

with slightly different boundaries for each respective perspective.

Agreed

I mean, the main argument is that none of them are unskilled, but it looks like you can find work as a painter without prior training.

Agreed.

Searching through my text books, unskilled labor sometimes is defined as requiring <30 days of training. US plumber’s take more, and as such I’ve changed the example to painter, which doesn’t. I believe all of the examples now can be attained in less than 30 days of training, although longer training is available for each, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

In other contexts it’s defined as any low-profit labor, and more updated discourse have changed the division to low vs high wage, although with slightly different boundaries for each respective perspective.

Low-barrier => accessible labor?

Fungible labor is new to me, but wouldn’t that imply an interchangeability that doesn’t quite reflect skill, and even moreso institutional such?

This might be the correct answer tbh.

Work is work, labor is labor.

Agree on all points.

We have 2-3 years to be accepted into an apprenticeship, but we also don’t use the skilled/unskilled terminology.

My question comes from discussions about economics in media and text books, so it could both be simplified and/or narrowly contextual.

Maybe it’s a language issue, I mostly discuss this in economics contexts and experience that the divide is always skilled vs unskilled labor.

Trades never seem to come up in such discussions, but they might be an assumed third party I just never hear mentioned.

In discourse I find that skilled mostly means educated. And plumbers, although trained, seemingly don’t typically make the cut.

Few blue collar jobs seem to count at all.

Maybe basic education labor?

Or just “base labor”?

Base could convey both being the basis of society and/or the foundation of it.

I’m thinking the complement could still be skilled labor, or advanced or specialised labor.

Those who are making money off it…

How is this confusing?

“Russia owes an answer to the United State that has worked very hard to come up with a mediation effort,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot told reporters.

Hahaha, I couldn’t read this without the most patronising tone.

Sexuality is often treated as more complex a topic than emotions, but I found a similar meta-study The role of conditioning, learning and dopamine in sexual behavior: A narrative review of animal and human studies, 2014 concluding that conditioning and associative learning does occur around sexuality and can be used as basis for treatment.

From other sources I’ve read, there’s so many influences going into sexuality that it’s impossible to see how it develops, but from a layman’s perspective I’d agree that not reinforcing child abuse probably makes it more rare.

My remaining issue is that with such a simplistic view, any non-normative sexuality can/should be conditioned away. We already have the abusive gay conversion camps, should we go back to do the same with polygamy, bdsm, porn? How much should fashion dictate what sexuality is allowed?

(Roman style orgies seem to have faded in popularity, but tantra and swinging seems to have risen lately, which should we be conditioning away? Who decides?)

Nuanced take coming, take a breath:

I agree that Child Sexual Abuse is a horrible practice along with all other violence and oppression, sexual or not. But the attraction de facto exists and has done for thousands of years, even through intense taboos. It seems our current strategy of shaming and ignoring it has been ineffective. The definition of insanity being repeating the same thing expecting different results and all that.

Short of eugenics (and from previous trials maybe not even then) we might not be able to get rid of it.

So when do we try other ways of dealing with it?

I’m not saying generative AI is the solution, but I’m pretty sure denying harder isn’t it.

This worked, thank you.

Article only says doubly efficient, and H2 to He3 reaction.

To get to .9c we still need a couple million kg of fuel.

Even .1c needs about 40 000 kg of fuel, which is doable, but probably unfeasible.

Still blocked, but thank you

Article is capped at 18 views/day so can’t see numbers.

But theoretical cap of energy would be something like E_kin = (\gamma -1)mc². Without knowing anything about the mission or engine, a 50 kg probe at a velocity of .9 c means an energy requirement of about 1,0e19 J.

Fusion of H2 to H3 yields about 340e9 J/g meaning we need about 3 million kg of fuel at 100% conversion rate, or a third if we manage He3 reaction.

Realistically heating, engine efficiency, deceleration, vibrational damping and such would probably lower efficiency to at most 40% and we end up at 8 million kg of fuel to propel a 50 kg payload (not counting the fuel mass).

Seems unfeasible.

Edit as @i_have_no_enemies@lemmy.world kindly provided an alternative link.

Article only says doubly efficient, and H2 to He3 reaction.

To get to .9c we still need a couple million kg of fuel.

Even .1c needs about 40 000 kg of fuel, which is doable, but probably unfeasible.

0,05c should be in kgs range, and is probably plenty (100 km/s).