Yeah, I realise the Nobel prizes cannot be revoked. It was sarcasm.
But let's hear it from the horse's mouth..
The secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, wrote in his memoir that the decision “did not achieve what the committee had hoped for”, and that “in hindsight the argument … was only partially correct.”
The open workroom was a relatively short fad pioneered by Frank Lloyd Wright. If you look at office buildings before that, they're much more similar to houses and apartments. Lots of rooms connected by hallways, staircases, and atriums. You can imagine the difficulty and expense of lighting a large open space without electricity.
Not to take away from the larger point, but the US remains a manufacturing juggernaut compared to anyone that isn't China. It's still the #2 manufacturing nation in the world and produces more than the EU as a whole. It's just become a small aspect of a much larger economy.
Yes, but I think the US industrial output is overvalued.
The US has a very small value of total exports, and this lead me to assume that the goods it makes a lot of are not always competitive on the international market even though they sell for a great deal in the US.
It's quite common for utilities like water and gas to be shared, where the renter is billed proportionally to the usage of the entire block/rental complex.
Plus, people generally aren't doing chores or using appliances unnecessarily. That means it's difficult to find ways to save meaningful amounts of energy other than adjusting the thermostat. Most household energy use outside heating /cooling comes from the appliances they can't upgrade, so the alternatives are quality of life issues like fewer showers and less laundry.
It's not for mining, but the US built Camp Century and Camp TUTO in the ice to determine how feasible Project Iceworm would be. A construction film about the former was declassified some decades ago [0]. Icefield construction wasn't feasible even in the context of cold-war era MAD spending.
Actual subglacial mining has only been attempted a few times. Kumtor gold mine in Kyrgyzstan is in the middle of a couple glaciers and reshaped the landscape to redirect the glaciers a bit. Svea Nord in Svalbard ran tunnels under a glacier for coal. Canada's Granduc mine wasn't technically on or under a glacier, but it was just below one.
I guess I don't even know what to do with some of this information. It occurred to me that you'd also probably have to build some infrastructure (power plant, railroad, fuel terminal, a real port... I don't know) in order to even get the ball rolling. I don't think anyone's going to pay for that by taxing the citizens of Nuuk.
I also wonder if there has ever been a real geopolitical obstacle to doing this stuff, since the Danes and Greenlanders seem amenable to doing business. It would seem the obstacles have all been financial.
As I said in a comment elsewhere, arctic mining is doable with nation-state level resources. There's just no reason to do so that isn't better accomplished by other means. It would be stupid, expensive, and devastate a beautiful country.
As for "amenable", my experience is that people in the arctic are relatively unhappy about that sort of industrial development. They like the places they live.
Greenland isn't entirely covered in ice. Take a look at any of the mineral resources maps floating around for the country. Everything's on the coastal margins in places only covered by seasonal snow. The interior is a big blank because no one's been able to search under the ice.
However, the adjacent Canadian provinces (Nunavut & Northern Labrador) share many of the same geologic provinces, also without significant glaciation. There aren't a lot of big mines up there relative to the mineral wealth because it's simply too challenging. Constructing big infrastructure in the arctic takes resources approaching nation-state levels. Most mining companies can't muster that or maintain it long-term.
Density is also a problem caused by zoning/permitting regulations. SF, LA, and even NYC should all be more dense than they currently are. Not being able to increase their density just means that prices have gone up instead.
I can get behind that message, to a large extent. The rest of the complaints are largely all downstream of that, though? The reason places don't have the same cheap food options that denser locations have is pretty much fully down to the density question.
And sure, we can tackle making places denser. A large hurdle there is that people want both the space that they currently have, along with the benefits of higher density. And that just doesn't work.
It absolutely does sound like "write your first order logic in this subset and we'll solve it". There's no reasonable expectation that it's going to do the impossible like solve decideability for first order logic.
> It absolutely does sound like "write your first order logic in this subset and we'll solve it".
No it does not. Please read the words that you are citing, not the words that you imagine. I honestly can't tell if you are unable to parse that sentence or if you a cynically lying about your interpretation in order to "win" an internet argument.
All programming languages are restricted, at least, to a "Turing complete subset of first-order predicate logic." There is absolutely no implication or suggestion of automatically solving any, much less most, first order logic queries.
reply