Day: October 27, 2022

Why Fusion Will Power the Race to Net-Zero


This post is by Bruno Venditti from Visual Capitalist


The following content is sponsored by General Fusion
General-Fusion_How-Soon-Will-We-Have-Fusion-Power

Why Fusion Will Power the Race to Net Zero

Governments worldwide are targeting massive decreases in carbon emissions by 2050.

With growing populations and high demand for energy, renewable energy sources will be needed to reach a net-zero scenario. However, renewables like wind and solar are intermittent and need a baseload source of clean energy to supplement them. 

This infographic from General Fusion explores fusion’s potential to deliver clean, abundant, reliable, and cost-competitive energy.

How Fusion Energy Works

Fusion powers the Sun and the stars, where immense forces compress and heat hydrogen plasma, fusing it into helium and releasing enormous amounts of energy.

Here on Earth, scientists use isotopes of hydrogen—deuterium and tritium—to power fusion plants. Deuterium is abundant in seawater while tritium can be produced from lithium, a common chemical element used in batteries, glass, and ceramics.

In fusion technology, light atomic nuclei are compressed under intense pressure and heat to form heavier ones and release energy. The fuel is heated to about 100 million degrees Celsius. At this hotter-than-the-sun temperature, a fully ionized gas plasma is formed. The plasma is then ignited to create fusion.

Unlike nuclear reactors that split atoms apart, fusion power plants fuse atoms to generate energy. One of the challenges for fusion, however, is to ensure fusion power plants can generate more (Read more...)

Cumulative vs. Cyclical Knowledge


This post is by Collab Fund from Collab Fund


President James Garfield died because the best doctors in the country didn’t believe in germs, probing Garfield’s bullet wound after an assassination attempt with ungloved, unwashed fingers that almost certainly contributed to his fatal infection.

It sounds crazy – 1881 wasn’t that long ago – but historian Candice Millard writes in her book Destiny of the Republic how controversial germ theory was to 19th-century doctors:

They found the notion of “invisible germs” to be ridiculous, and they refused to even consider the idea that they could be the cause of so much disease and death.

Even the editor of the highly respected Medical Record found more to fear than to admire in [antiseptic pioneer] Lister’s theory. “Judging the future by the past,” he wrote, “we are likely to be as much ridiculed in the next century for our blind belief in the power of unseen germs as our forefathers were for their faith in the influence of spirits.”

Not only did many American doctors not believe in germs, they took pride in the particular brand of filth that defined their profession.

They spoke fondly of the “good old surgical stink” that pervaded their hospitals and operating rooms, and they resisted making too many concessions even to basic hygiene … They believed that the thicker the layers of dried blood and pus, black and crumbling as they bent over their patients, the greater the tribute to their years of experience … They preferred, moreover, to rely on their own methods of (Read more...)

Cumulative vs. Cyclical Knowledge


This post is by Collab Fund from Collab Fund


President James Garfield died because the best doctors in the country didn’t believe in germs, probing Garfield’s bullet wound after an assassination attempt with ungloved, unwashed fingers that almost certainly contributed to his fatal infection.

It sounds crazy – 1881 wasn’t that long ago – but historian Candice Millard writes in her book Destiny of the Republic how controversial germ theory was to 19th-century doctors:

They found the notion of “invisible germs” to be ridiculous, and they refused to even consider the idea that they could be the cause of so much disease and death.

Even the editor of the highly respected Medical Record found more to fear than to admire in [antiseptic pioneer] Lister’s theory. “Judging the future by the past,” he wrote, “we are likely to be as much ridiculed in the next century for our blind belief in the power of unseen germs as our forefathers were for their faith in the influence of spirits.”

Not only did many American doctors not believe in germs, they took pride in the particular brand of filth that defined their profession.

They spoke fondly of the “good old surgical stink” that pervaded their hospitals and operating rooms, and they resisted making too many concessions even to basic hygiene … They believed that the thicker the layers of dried blood and pus, black and crumbling as they bent over their patients, the greater the tribute to their years of experience … They preferred, moreover, to rely on their own methods of (Read more...)

Handle Hard Well


This post is by Collab Fund from Collab Fund


I have been writing these articles for close to a decade now. In doing so I have covered many topics, but none have resonated more than this issue of adversity. As a result, my antenna is up. This is why I happened to notice something this past Sunday afternoon while watching the Buffalo Bills play the Kansas City Chiefs, specifically the two starting quarterbacks — Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes.

Allen and Mahomes may be the two best quarterbacks in the NFL today. Allen is currently the frontrunner to be this year’s MVP, while Patrick Mahomes was the League MVP in 2018 and Super Bowl MVP in 2020. Yet, neither was expected to even make it to the NFL. In fact, Mahomes wasn’t even ranked in the top 50 recruits in his home state of Texas and Allen failed to receive a single scholarship offer coming out of high school.

Intrigued, I started doing some more digging.

Like Josh Allen, Aaron Rodgers, the four-time and two-time reigning NFL MVP, also didn’t receive a scholarship offer coming out of high school. He was then passed over by 21 other teams and had to back up Brett Favre for three seasons before starting his first NFL game.

How about the 2019 MVP, the year between Rodgers and Mahomes? Lamar Jackson was a three star recruit (out of five) who wasn’t even among the top 400 recruits his senior year in high school. He was also strongly encouraged by the “experts” to play (Read more...)

The Top 100 Most Valuable Brands in 2022


This post is by Carmen Ang from Visual Capitalist


View a higher resolution version of this graphic.

Infographic showing the most valuable brands in 2022

The Top 100 Most Valuable Brands in 2022

View a higher resolution version of this graphic.

Given the allusive nature of brands, determining a brand’s financial value is a difficult task.

Despite a brand’s intangibility, it’s hard to deny just how effective a strong one can be at boosting a company’s bottom line.

With this in mind, Brand Finance takes on the challenge of identifying the world’s most valuable brands in the world in its annual Global 500 Report. The graphic above, using data from the latest edition of the report, highlights the top 100 most valuable brands in 2022.

Editor’s note: This ranking measures the value of brands, which can be thought of as marketing-related intangible assets that create a brand identity and reputation in the minds of consumers. It attempts to measure this in financial terms, calculating what the brand is worth to the company that owns it. For more information on methodology, calculations, and sourcing, go to the bottom of this article.

A Full Breakdown of the Most Valuable Brands

With an increase of 35% since last year’s report, Apple retains its top spot on the ranking as the world’s most valuable brand, with a total brand value of $335.1 billion.

This is the highest brand value ever recorded in the history of the Global 500 report, which has been published each year since 2007.

As one of the world’s largest tech companies, Apple dominates the smartphone (Read more...)

Charted: Gender-Neutral Names in America


This post is by Omri Wallach from Visual Capitalist


ratio of boys versus girls with gender-neutral names in the U.S.

Charted: Gender-Neutral Names in America

Over the course of the last three decades, gender-neutral names have become more common across the United States.

This graphic by Georgios Karamanis uses data from the U.S. Social Security Administration to show over 168,000 names, and how the ratio of boys versus girls with each of those names has changed since 1880.

The data examines names that have been given to both genders, so any gender-specific names have been excluded from the dataset.

And it looks like after initially becoming more common in the early 20th century, gender-neutral names became more common after 1990. As an example, here’s a look at the top gender-neutral names in the U.S. in 2017:

U.S. Baby Names (2017)FemaleMale
Gentry109110
Ryen3131
Kayce2323
Kyri1919
Cashmere1717
Safari1515
Gemini1414
Munachimso1414
Elis1212
Iremide1212
Ziyan1212
Yarel1111
Kimoni1010
Roe1010
Autry99
Kelyn99
Kitt99
Romie99
Ekko88
Jojo88
Majestic88
Bevin77
Jerzey77
Victorious77
Aidynn66
Biak66
Cobie66
Dhani66
Jayln66
Jem66
Jessee66
Kastyn66
Maxie66
Shaden66
Tobie66
Ase55
Azeriah55
Cameo55
Choice55
Chosyn55
Ellyot55
Hyland55
Iretomiwa55
Jeylani55
Kahri55
Kaysyn55
Kharsyn55
Kiko55
Kindred55
Landy55
Lyrix55
Ngozi55
Yohanan55
Zaryn55
Zhen55
If you’re interested in articles about gender and society, check out Gender Diversity in Corporate America.

The post Charted: Gender-Neutral Names in America appeared first on Visual Capitalist.

Ben Hunt of Epsilon Theory on Turning Layups into Losses, UK Pension Problems, Building Community & Much More


This post is by Howard Lindzon from Howard Lindzon