If inflation doubled in a single year like that, and the bank didn't set their interest rate to at least double, then the bank lost money. Banks aren't in the habit of losing money.
A bank isn't giving away loans for less than inflation. Especially not in a year's time. They're looking at the fed rate (itself set according to inflation), adding one or two percent, and taking that. Yes, even for low risk loans with full collateral. Higher risk loans set it at fed rate plus 5 and go up from there.
The loudest anti-inflation voices over the past 40 years haven't come from the left. They're right-libertarians railing about "Audit the Fed". You should ask yourself why those temporarily embarrassed billionaires don't like inflation. It's definitely not because they have a sudden care about the working class on this issue.
Rich people are affected by inflation. If your return on investment is 4%, but inflation rose 8%, you lost money.
The detachment of productivity gains from average wages is a much stronger argument. They more or less matched up through the 70s, but then a stark difference settled in as the extra money made from things went to the investor class rather than the working class.
I keep waiting for someone to lay it out and explain how the companies are actually benefiting in some subtle way from this arrangement. As far as I can tell, no, this is just what they decided to do.
Ever see a standup comedian try to repeat a joke when people didn't laugh at it in the first place, and figured they just didn't get it the first time?
If a whole lot of people are collectively deciding it's not funny, stop trying to make it work.
Implosion-type nukes are all but impossible to make go off that way. They need a whole bunch of small explosives to go off very precisely to squeeze the core in just the right way. A short circuit or a crash won't have the necessary precision. This isn't entirely safe, either--it can still cause a small explosion with a flash of fallout and radiation--but it's a manageable problem.
Gun-types (Little Boy was one) are easier to go off on accident, but the US retired its last gun-type design decades ago. I don't think Russia used them much, either. They're only good for smaller bombs, and their safety issues make them questionable for any use. Smaller nuclear powers aren't bothering with them.
You know how the Internet made fun of Stockton Rush for using carbon fiber in a sub, which is a compression structure? Similar thing going on here. Carbon fiber is a great material for tensile strength and lightweight. It can be used in compression structures, but it needs more careful engineering to pull it off. The benefits do not always outweigh the costs.
As a more general issue, if a car the size of a Geo Metro or smaller can't be safe on roads, then motorcycles and bikes can't be, either.
Just as an observation, there was a time when everyone on the Internet was gaga over the idea of Project Orion, and you didn't dare speak out against it lest you get a hail of downvotes.
It'd work fine in deep space. It's not a good idea to launch from Earth this way. But again, we'll probably find something better once we're at the stage of needing it.
It's also a three-wheeler, which gets around US safety regulations. It gets registered as a motorcycle or autocycle (depending on how your state handles it). However, it's still an enclosed metal box. There's not a lot of good data, but it's arguably better to be sitting loose on a motorcycle with a helmet and safety gear as opposed to being crushed inside a sardine can.
There's a certain point of shrinking cars where you have to ask "why not use an e-bike?", and this is that point.
The sun gives you around 1500W per m2. If sun shines at maximum brightness for 24 hours, you get 36kwh per day. That's enough to fully charge a small EV every day. That's a spherical chicken estimate.
Bringing this to numbers that exist in the real world, the sun will only give you about 20% of that over the course of the day, and the panels are around 20% efficient. You'll get more like 1.4kwh per day per m2. You can double or triple that, depending on how much surface area you can cover. An EV can get around 3 miles per kwh, so tripling that number will get you 12 miles. Considering the extra costs involved (both in buying the panels and adding weight), it's not even worth it as a supplementary source.
There's some possibilities for RVs, which have a lot of roof space for panels, tend to sit in one spot for days or weeks, and have other power usages that are a lot less than driving. Otherwise, put the solar panels over the parking places and roadways, not on the cars.
It would probably work just fine, but it needs a huge ship. It could get up to a few percent of the speed of light.
FWIW, nuclear test ban treaties are considered to outlaw it. I think we're more likely to solve the technical difficulties of antimatter propulsion than we are to get over the political difficulties of nuclear bomb propulsion.
I don't think these problems should be dismissed out of hand. There is guidance out there on how to take back a shitty union.
The UAW has long been neutered with poor leadership, and sometimes leadership that gets thrown in jail for good reasons. They've recently rebuilt and are making huge gains.
Low testosterone can be a real issue. It'll reduce energy levels and limit bone and muscle strength. The right wing nonsense around it is obscuring some actual issues.