Rhaedas

Oh, god. We won because we were good at memes.

One thing I read once suggested that Homo Sapiens might have been better at communication and strategy against the stronger Neanderthals, so when there was conflict they’d tend to win and claim victory (and the women, which is why we have some Neanderthal genes). And maybe that also gave better adaptation traits when climate and other changes happened.

Kokoro was the one I was going to mention. I played around with it a bit, was very impressed with the speed and quality. And then I realized I had been using it in CPU mode. GPU is incredible.

Right. I actually don’t have an issue with them not having a transponder on. That was the least of the problems. But not being aware of standard traffic around an airport… come on.

That’s comforting that they could be that way and be running silent from ATC and other aircraft anywhere. What could go wrong?

Nothing will happen because it’s US military, but shame on those pilots because you know THEY saw the JetBlue coming their way, knew the route they’d take, and didn’t give a shit. They didn’t even have to say anything, just change course.

Of course they would adapt to changing times. Who goes around opening chests anymore?

Now I want to see an evolutionary tree of mimic adaptation.

That has its own slope of discrimination from data due to being able to pay or not. If we determine a certain thing is okay ethically to screen for, anyone should be able to get it. Bad enough to have one gray area, we don’t need a gradient of gray everywhere.

My first question was, why is this a target? This is terrorism and outside war rules (insane that we have rules for war instead of just not having it). Laws are only as good as their enforcement though.

From a science pov it makes sense that it’s something to pursue, even as just a renewable biofuel. Algae grows fast, it’s where oil comes from, it’s a biological “fix”. It’s perfect. Except it didn’t work nearly as well as hoped.

I looked into it a long time ago as a “solution” to how to best pull carbon of out the air and sequester it. Algae farms over deep water areas, grown and culled and the dead carbon sunk deep to stay out of the loop. Sounds perfect, doesn’t it?

But in both scenarios there are so many costs and variables to consider that are left out when proponents are selling it. Some are just the “forgotten” costs of running a process that pollutes on their own and take energy (that requires emissions too). Some are effects outside the process that damage the environment in other ways. And the costs and effects of feeding the algae itself, it just won’t grow in a vat of water alone. So many things that change the net result. And with the case for fuel (which doesn’t lock the carbon away so it’s not a help to existing carbon in the air) assuming the fuel percentage per weight would be high enough to justify the rest of the costs. Which Exxon figured out it was not, while selling it as a miracle.

Climate Town just did a video on that topic. Exxon is apparently still running the PR commercials they made for it, but that project is all but dead because it wasn’t going anywhere. Turns out doubling the output of not much doesn’t get much.

Like the others have always been labeled afterwards.

This timeline they’ve already been through the system and saw our broadcasts. Guess who is on the “Do Not Contact” list for the warp capable group?

Depends on their goals. If they want the US powerhouse to topple, then fanning this flame is very productive.

My phrasing may have sounded like the “humans aren’t the problem” climate deniers, but my point was that our amounts are only a percentage of the natural ebb and flow of CO2. The problem is that our addition was enough to tip the scales and cause an initial slow climb that has gotten faster and faster, and our percentage (which has itself magnified in the past few decades) is still a part of an increase from other natural sources that would have stayed dormant had we not started the process. Human activity was the catalyst of the reaction, and usually a catalyst amount required isn’t large.

Unless global heating is reduced to 1.2C

If we plateaued right now and did everything possible to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere and oceans, it would probably take a few thousand years to get back down. The reasoning - we weren’t the main CO2 contributor, we just were the extra catalyst to throw things off to begin the acceleration up. So now that things are off balance and feedbacks are kicking in, how can we reverse what we put into the environment AND counter the extra feedback outputs? It’s like trying to stop the boulder that was easy to push onto the hill slope.

I think I get it, but it still hurts the brain. I think many scifi stories may be right and if we develop some type of warp/hyperspace/whatever, a human looking into whatever it looks like would go mad.

Not sure this guy understands

That’s far enough.

Huh. Who would have guessed that would happen? /s

So you disagree with her stance? Or just how much attention she’s bringing to the topic? Why does it bother you?