it

we

Get in the van, no using pronouns here >:(

Sorry, I was trying to make a reference to an image macro. What I was trying to express is that I didn’t understand the explanation.

I’m not American, and no.

Besides, better working conditions for the team means more mentally healthy workers means a better and more creative product.

Burnout and depression are natural responses to a disconnect between what you do and what you care about. Their psychological/physiological purpose is to get you to stop and rethink your life at a deep level. There are many questions that you don’t typically think about, like “why am I still participating in this economy”, “is it ethical for me to pay taxes”, “do I need to prepare for civil war”, or “how do I build up contacts in underground railroads” that your body knows have non-trivial answers in this scenario.

Chimpanzees have politics and tyrants, which means that our ancestors have had to deal with tyrants for at least 10 million years or at least 400,000 generations. We can feel in our blood when other tribe members are scrounging for sharp rocks to bludgeon us to death in the night, and it is only natural to withdraw from business as usual and rethink our options.

Representative democracy is a lie, but if they let you vote you can still use that vote to help choose your adversary. Better a genocidal ‘centrist’ than a genocidal fascist, at least until the left is strong enough that they could take the right in a fight credibly enough for the ‘centrists’ to pick the left.

> there being a vote in 2028

good one

It’s common sense from an outsider perspective that any organization that expects children to pledge allegiance to it 3000 times before adulthood is loaded with propaganda and the kids that graduate from that aren’t going to have proper common sense.

And just because other countries aren’t as obviously villainous about it doesn’t make their standardized textbooks and their corporate media (much of it imported from the propaganda empire above) that much less propagandistic.

So it’s common sense that common sense is tainted by decades of propaganda, and actually understanding something means unlearning what they taught you and looking with fresher eyes.

So you’re right, common sense is for chumps, and that’s just common sense.

That’s huge. That means that if you’re in the tenth percentile of income/emissions, you might well be emitting less than the global average.

I say this because it’s true if you make the assumption of exponential decay. Their data isn’t accurate enough to check that assumption, but it’s the most parsimonious one, and in this case the function that fits would be:

 E = 29.5 e^(-P*0.36)

Where E is the emission fraction and P is the percentile as an integer. This results in the table below, with the numbers in bold the ones that the function is fit to.

Since a percentile is 1% wide, an emission fraction of 0.8% is below the global average.

This assumption doesn’t fit with the remaining 90% of the population, but it makes sense that the exponential relationship would slow down as people maintain a “poverty line” minimum footprint. If this consideration already affects the 10th percentile, it’s possible the 10th percentile still emits more than the global average.

I don’t have a car and I don’t eat meat, so it definitely doesn’t include me.

Sorry for not engaging with the content, but please add paragraph breaks. kthx

The program has the information, but that doesn’t mean the people that wrote the code felt it was worth their time to make the “upgrade” text inclusive to Linux, if they even considered the possibility of Linux.

Frustration at having to choose between being fucked slowly or quickly. I’m no accelerationist, but I get the feeling.

Tell that to the 10% of the German population that didn’t survive WW2.

Ah yes, the C bugs in the kernel libraries. We’ve all seen them.

This is the same kind of logic that would say 9/11 is fake because one of the terrorists’ ID cards was found unscathed in a New York street.

I’m not saying it happened, but your skepticism is way out of proportion.

• The filling issue is an obvious problem, which is why any Czech trying to sabotage it would have spent the first couple years of their enslavement trying to to come up with a method that works. Maybe the factory made its explosives in-house and the explosives guy was in on it too, instead making inert chemicals with the same raw materials. Maybe the explosives where rendered inert through a chemical process. Maybe the explosives were smuggled out of the factory to empower resistance movements and exchanged with dirt.
• When locked in a factory and ordered to make a certain amount of explosives, not making those explosives but making duds instead leaves you with a lot of spare time. If you’re already supposed to be a line worker making thousands of the same thing, why not make thousands of similar letters expressing your hope of rescue?
• The shells would have been more solid than explosive shells, being filled with inert shock-absorbing dirt. Many of them would have exited the craft, but some would naturally have gotten stuck because the point of cluster munitions is to be birdshot.
• It’s good military-scientific practice to study the weapons of the enemy, especially if they don’t do what you expect. British military intelligence was very thorough, down to using novel statistical techniques such as the German Tank Problem. Explosive munitions not exploding is a definite curiosity worth investigating.
• No, the Nazis did not have good quality control. A lot of the popular conception of Nazis as technological geniuses comes directly from Nazi propaganda, repeated by American propaganda for the sake of demonizing the USSR and trying to justify Operation Paperclip scientists like Von Braun being given a warm welcome and getting rebranded as a hero.

Inheritance or gambling.

I wonder how many prehistoric humans would fail a survival test. Given they rarely lived in tribes smaller than 50 people, there’s got to have been quite a few that just didn’t bother to learn every survival skill.

Based on my amateur understanding, it actually seems possible if climate change gets bad enough. When the calcium carbonate of plankton, seashells, and limestone reacts with the carbonic acid that defines the acidic zone, you do get an increase of gaseous carbon dioxide in the water.

The main chemical reaction is

CaCO3 + 2 H2CO3 -> Ca(2+) + 2 HCO3(-) + CO2 + H2O

The chemical reaction by which seashells and limestone dissolve, releasing CO2 and increasing the gas pressure. The CO2 can be dissolved back into the water via

CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3 (<-> H(+) + HCO3(-))

While dissolving limestone and seashells neutralize the acid in the short term, this just means that more CO2 will be pulled in from the atmosphere and from the freshly produced CO2 to increase the acidity again. Luckily this isn’t an infinite loop - half the CO2 gets stuck in HCO3- each time - so this would actually be a carbon sink from a purely chemical perspective. Ecologically, the dissolving of plankton would take away a carbon sink and so accelerate climate change.

As for the limnic eruption, while shellfish and plankton live in shallow enough water that them dissolving would probably be able to outgas into the atmosphere quickly enough that there is never a toxic concentration, limestone deposits can be found at great depths and can be over a kilometer thick. Just because the ocean can dissolve a 0.2mm plankton shell quickly enough for it to die doesn’t mean it can eat through 2km of limestone at an appreciable rate. It seems possible that ocean acidification would increase fast enough that the limestone isn’t yet all gone by the time it erodes fast enough to form a convective plume, sucking in fresh acidic ocean from the surrounding water while carbonated but less acidic water quickly rises to the ocean’s surface, outgassing the carbon dioxide like a limnic eruption.

While on average the dissolution of limestone would be a carbon sink, a lot of the ocean floor is not limestone, and so these places would draw in CO2 while places that do have limestone deposits would vent CO2. I don’t know if it would be fast enough to produce a toxic concentration of CO2. I also don’t know if by the time oceanic limestone gets eaten away at this rate the earth would still be habitable by humans.

I remember the DVD commentary on the 2004 Spongebob movie talking about this. It’s bad, but it’s not new.

Going by the NOAA’s data, it isn’t even getting worse, and the five year rolling average has decreased steadily since 1995. It’s inevitable that some years will be above average with that amount of variance.

A plan to slowly decrease it is in operation, the cause and consequences are known and accounted for. As far as climate disasters go, this one’s pretty tame.