Australia is bigger than some people overseas imagine.
So here's a quick comparison of Australian states to their US counterparts.
Tasmania is Australia's smallest state, with a total area of 68,401 square kilometres.
That's bigger than West Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, or Rhode Island.
Australia's second smallest state is Victoria, at 227, 444km2.
It's larger than Minnesota, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, Washington, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Wisconsin, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maine, Florida, or Pennsylvania.
Fun fact: Victoria is larger in area than Indiana and South Carolina combined.
Now on to the ones that might surprise you.
You know how Texans love talking up how big Texas is?
New South Wales is bigger than Texas.
And by quite a margin. NSW is 801, 150 sq km compared to 696,241 sq km for Texas.
South Australia is bigger than Texas, and Michigan. Combined.
SA is 984, 321 sq km.
Texas (696,241 km2) plus Michigan (250,493 sq km) is just 946, 734 sq km.
Queensland is bigger than Alaska.
Queensland is 1,729,742 sq km, compared to 1,717,854 sq km for Alaska.
That also means Queensland is bigger than Texas and California. Combined.
Texas (696,241 km2) plus California (423,968 km2) is 1,120,209 sq km.
You can add in Michigan too (250,493 sq km) and it's still only 1,370,702 sq km.
That's right kids. Texas, California, and Michigan combined are 359,040 sq km smaller than Queensland.
That leaves Western Australia. It's 2,527,013 square kilometres.
How big is that? Well, the combined area of Texas and Alaska is 2,414,095 sq km, so pretty bloody big.
The other fun one is that the continental US (AKA everything except Alaska) is just about the same size as Australia. Then when you consider that there’s 49 states versus Australia’s 7, you can see how the numbers come about.
Not sure it’s capitalism per se. Perhaps rampant waste. Criticism of capitalism could include monopoly formation; massive tech companies buy small ones (obtain more capital = more control over production = more profit).
There’s despair over everyone, big & small, resolving the same recreated problems. Kelley doesn’t talk about breaking Microsoft up (i.e. redistributing their capital). He implies he’d be ok for Microsoft to maintain its market position if it just fixed some damn bugs.
Growth might be impossible, but a steady and “boring” amount of profit should still be possible selling plain-ole-dishwashers. Yet … for some reason, we don’t see that.
God yes this bothers and fascinates me.
Instead companies throw everything into growth and we get the retarded bluetooth enabled dishwasher problem everywhere, and I’d like toknow more about why.
I think it’s alluded to in the article:
They found a way to make consumers spend more money on dishwashing. The line goes up, for one more year. But it’s not enough. It has to go up every year.
Digging deeper: why must the line go up? Pesonally I see it as a deeply emotional, human thing.
When you read those annual financial reports from big companies, they will do anything to make sure things look rosy. Bullshit terms like “negative growth” are used because “loss” or “shrink” sound bad. So what if it sounds bad?
Confidence. Trust. It’s emotional. These are deep in our psyche. It’s how governments get elected, contracts are won, and investments are made. It’s what makes us human. If that line goes down… will it go back up? What’s going to happen? Alarm bells! Uncertaintly. Anxiety. People abandon you. Money, power, influence fades. You could find yourself replaced by the up-and-coming who “show promise”.
Our social emotional species has hundreds of thousands of years (millions?) of years of this stuff hardwired into us. Trust let us cooperate beyond our own individual or family interests. Would we be human otherwise? (I found the article Behavioural Modernityinteresting).
I honestly find it worrying that someone would think it’s some sort of deeply ingrained human trait when it’s clearly not culturally universal (eg. small hunter-gatherer tribes wouldn’t exist otherwise) and not present through all of history.
I think “growth” is a strong signal for people to put faith and trust into something. And that these emotions have influenced our behaviour for a long time.
Why did the Roman empire keep expanding? What made them want more? I’m not a historian nor an anthropologist (far from either!). But this feels like “line go up” behaviour. What would it mean for those in power to communicate that some part of the empire was receding? Even if, overall, the empire was objectivetly huge relative to other organised groups?
One thing I think about is there could be eroding confidence and trust of those in power by colleagues and the general population. If people lose faith, the powerful lose power; they lose ability to influence behaviour. Growth is obsessed over because it’s a means to capture influence over the means of production (and capture profit).
The line has to go up because the current economic system demands it has to go up
What about outside of economics? Even metrics on fedidb.org: shrinking numbers are coloured red. Growing numbers green. Green = good, red = bad.
Another thought. The other day I was at a cricket match. Grand final. Because the home team was losing, the stadium started to empty. It wasn’t about enjoying the individual balls/plays. Supporters were not satisfied with coming second (an amazing achievement, much “profit”!), it needed to be more.
To stretch this shitty metaphor further, when the supporters (investors?) lost confidence in their ability to deliver more, they just abandoned the entire match (enterprise?) altogether!
Again: I’m not stating anything here as fact. I’m just absolutely dumbfounded as to why “line go up” is, as you say, such an obsession. I hear you when you say that it’s a consequence of how the modern economy works. That makes sense. I guess I wonder what would happen if we snapped our fingers and we could start again. I wonder what the economy system would look like. Would we still be obsessed with growth?
Accessing Mastodon and the fediverse via email: https://www.olowe.co/tmp/fedimail.mp4
An experimental #IMAP and #SMTP interface.
I feel like #NNTP#Usenet interface would be more appropriate.
But gotta start somewhere!
Threading and replies work ok too (so far!).
Ha good eyes! :) I have basic receive-only working with Lemmy using a virtual file system interface I wrote (pkg.go.dev/olowe.co/lemmy). Just realised we actually spoke about this a while ago haha (lemmy.sdf.org/post/1035382 )
But synchronising to disk is super inefficient: too many API calls. Should subscribe using ActivityPub proper and store updates received as RFC 5322 messages.
From there we could serve the messages via NNTP. Then, finally, we could use nntpfs(4)
Oh wow thanks! :) One program syncs my home Mastodon timeline, with all replies, to a Maildir. Dovecot serves that over IMAP. Sending involves a custom SMTP server which reads the mail message and creates a post from it.
For Mastodon it was all about converting statuses (toots? Posts?) into RFC 5322 messages. Using the status’ ID as Message-Id in the message header is handy. Mail clients do the heavy lifting of rendering threads thankfully!