thebestaquaman

joined 2 years ago
[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Also completely neglecting that not all the energy in a slap will be transferred to thermal energy in the chicken.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (4 children)

There have definitely been unjust wars, where various propaganda has been used to get people to fight for corporate or imperialistic agendas.

Acting like the people that died fighting Nazis, or the people that died prevented North Korea from taking the South, didn't die protecting others is just disrespecting those people. Imagine how many people that have survived, lived, and prospered on the European continent and in South Korea because soldiers and resistance fighters were willing to lay down their life for a greater cause.

This isn't a black-and-white issue.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

when the 5 day a week, 40 hour work week began there was a specific level of productivity. As technology increased the output increased.

Exactly, so following this argument, we can choose between living at our current (increased) productivity level (40 hour weeks), or trading off the technological advancements for more spare time at the cost of going back to the productivity level we had previously.

I won't argue for which of these two is "correct", I think the tradeoff between free time vs. more access to goods and services is considered very differently by different people. However, I do think that a major problem we're facing today is that the increased productivity we've had the past 50 years due to technological advances has benefited the wealthy far too much, at the expense of everyone else.

I think it's more fruitful to first try to take care of the wealth distribution, such that we can actually see the quality of life our current productivity level can give everyone. Then we can make an informed choice regarding whether we want to reduce the productivity in exchange for more free time.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (8 children)

Sure, I agree with that. However, we also need to consider what a "net decrease in productivity" actually means for the population as a whole, and whether it's something we want to accept as a trade-off for more free time. Briefly, we can collectively choose to work four, three, or even two days a week, despite seeing a decrease in overall productivity. However, a decrease in productivity means that stuff like clothes, transport, food, IT services, and pretty much everything you can think of that someone has to produce becomes more scarce.

You basically need to answer the question of "would you prefer two days off per week with current access to goods and services, or have more days off with reduced access to goods and services". Of course, there may come along technological innovations that change this in some ways, and there are studies showing that a lot of people can be sufficiently productive on a four-day work week. On a society level, I still think the point stands as an overall tradeoff we need to consider when talking about whether we should reduce the work-week.

My point is that it's not just a "capitalists are bad, and we're owed more free time" thing. If we produce less, then goods and services become scarcer for everyone. I would say the distribution of wealth in society, and how it's shifted the past 20-50 years is more concerning than the fact that we're working the same hours as we were 20-50 years ago.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Here you can donate directly to Ukraine.

If you prefer to donate "generally", just click "donate now". If you prefer a specific project, just select one from the list. There are two projects for air defence systems now that are close to reaching their goal!

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Aha! I can tell I am totally unqualified to speak on what they do and do not address. Thanks for informing me :)

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How many are there now? I didn't know there was more than like two (maybe three?) movies, is there more?

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

They don't address any of that. It's essentially an "every person for themselves" situation, where those that can afford it hole up in highly secured homes, while people living on the streets are hunted for sport.

The do mention crime within households when this one guy sneaks into his girlfriends home and tries to shoot her father though. However, nothing like what you're mentioning.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Not only are there warnings: Around a month ago, a fund that has funded some students at top US universities quite literally evacuated several of the students they were funding.

We're talking about Norwegian students in the US getting a call telling them to "get your passport, and get on the first possible flight home, don't worry, we're paying." This was just around when people with certain skin colours, political opinions, or sexual preferences started getting snatched off the streets.

That's when I realised how absolutely fucked shit has gotten over there. When Norwegian citizens on student visas were literally told to evacuate the country.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Still remember the first time I saw this. It was the last time I touched YouTube for a looong time.

It would cost them absolutely nothing to show a feed of hot/high rated/popular videos. Throwing in some entropy such that it doesn't only show the most viewed videos globally wouldn't be hard at all either. They're just openly stating that they don't want you there at all if they can't track your viewership.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I'll also agree that Iran definitely should not have nuclear weapons, especially when keeping in mind that they've openly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the map (implicitly saying it could or should be done in a violent way).

However, two wrongs don't make a right, and these attacks remain blatant violations of international law and the UN charter. If "we" want to maintain any semblance of supporting a rule-based world order, as opposed to just "right of the strongest", we can't accept these kind of violations of international law.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

This is where you're dead wrong. A country amassing weapons is not a justification for preemptively attacking them. Much less so when there's not even consensus that they're amassing the weapons you say they are.

This is just absurd to claim. It's like saying russia was justified in attacking Ukraine because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. It's like saying that you're justified in shooting someone because you think they are going to buy a gun. Just ask yourself: When was the last time Iran launched "preemptive" strikes on Israel, or conducted "preemptive" assassinations on Israeli soil?

If anything, these strikes prove to Iran that unless they acquire nuclear weapons, they will never be able to deter Israel and the US from conducting "preemptive" strikes and assassinations on their soil. I can completely understand the Iranian regime for reasoning that "Whelp, we had a deal, and the US withdrew from it. Then we were actively holding negotiations and they bombed us. It looks like the only way we can ensure they leave us alone is acquiring MAD capabilities."

 

Det har kommet frem noe jeg ikke var klar over i forbindelse med aksjehandelsaken til Ola Borten Moe: En stortingsrepresentant har (per grunnloven) ikke lov til å trekke seg, men er nødt til å bli sittende ut perioden. Det er (slik jeg forstår det) heller ikke lov å skrive ut nyvalg/oppløse stortinget i løpet av en stortingsperiode, slik som man kan i mange andre land.

Jeg ser at det er gode argumenter både for og mot dette, og er interessert i å høre hva folk synes om det. Bør en politiker kunne trekke seg / utvises fra stortinget hvis de misbruker folkets tillit? Bør det kunne skrives ut nyvalg hvis stortinget går i vranglås og ingen klarer å samle flertall for noe?

Nedenfor er det Aftenpostens leder har å si om saken:

Å sitte på Stortinget er ingen straff

Ola Borten Moe må nok jobbe med motivasjonen. Men han ba om tillit fra velgerne. Da må han stå løpet ut.

Det kom et lite hjertesukk fra Ola Borten Moe fredag. Han varslet at han går av som statsråd, trekker seg som nestleder i Senterpartiet og ikke stiller ved stortingsvalget i 2025. Men han slipper ikke ut av Stortinget før denne perioden er over.

Moe virket ikke spesielt motivert for en slags åpen soning på Løvebakken. Det er mulig å forstå. Men hverken hans eget parti eller andre bør lytte til oppfordringen han kom med om å se på dette regelverket på nytt.

Moe peker på at andre land gir folk mulighet til å trekke seg fra nasjonalforsamlingen.

Ulike demokratier har forskjellige løsninger både når det gjelder dette og andre ting. Norge skiller seg fra mange andre, også ved at det ikke er mulig å oppløse parlamentet og skrive ut nyvalg. Det er en styrke for det norske demokratiet. Partiene tvinges til å finne løsninger sammen når velgerne har sagt sitt. Det har bidratt til en kultur med brede forlik om viktige saker som blant annet pensjon.

Plikten til å stå løpet ut for den som velges til Stortinget, er grunnlovsfestet. Unntak er blitt gitt for representanter som får internasjonale toppverv, som da Jens Stoltenberg (Ap) ble generalsekretær i Nato i 2014.

En generell mulighet til å trekke seg ville ha flere uheldige sider. For velgerne ville det blir mindre forutsigbart hvem de egentlig stemmer på hvis en toppkandidat plutselig kan trekke seg etter valget og noen andre rykker opp. Partier kan fristes til å toppe listen med kjendiser som etterpå finner ut at de har morsommere ting å gjøre enn å sitte i komitémøter og votere til langt på natt, mens andre nyter lyse sommerkvelder i juni.

En risiko er også at velgernes avgjørelse undergraves. Det kan oppstå press i offentligheten for å få en representant til å trekke seg. Hvis det lages en nødutgang fra Stortinget, kan også partiene få enda mer makt ved at brysomme representanter kan skvises ut.

Moe sa på pressekonferansen at han er innstilt på å gjøre en jobb de neste to årene for velgerne i Sør-Trøndelag som ga ham tillit i 2021. Det er fullt forståelig om motivasjonen hans akkurat nå ikke er på topp. Men han vil trolig – og forhåpentlig – klare å mobilisere sine sterke sider som politiker igjen.

Den som har sagt ja til å stille til Stortinget, og som får velgernes tillit, må stå løpet ut. I gode og vonde dager.

 

I'm getting into trad climbing, after quite a few years of indoor and outdoor sport and bouldering. I'm very aware that trad climbing involves more risk, especially if you climb above your ability and/or are bad/inexperienced at placing runners. Does anyone here have tips on how best to practice protecting a route to the point where you feel safe enough to climb a difficult crux with only trad protection below you?

 

Inspired by the linked XKCD. Using 60% instead of 50% because that's an easy filter to apply on rottentomatoes.

I'll go first: I think "Sherlock Holmes: A game of Shadows" was awesome, from the plot to the characters ,and especially how they used screen-play to highlight how Sherlocks head works in these absurd ways.

 

I'm immediately sceptical to the idea of ruining even more areas of nature than we already are, but at the same time I recognise that if we want to build feasible green energy and storage, we need rare-earth metals and heavy metals. This might be a good alternative to massive deforestation.

Since the article is paywalled:

Pushed by the threat of climate change, rich countries are embarking on a grand electrification project. Britain, France and Norway, among others, plan to ban the sale of new internal-combustion cars. Even where bans are not on the statute books, electric-car sales are growing rapidly. Power grids are changing too, as wind turbines and solar panels displace fossil-fuelled power plants. The International Energy Agency (iea) reckons the world will add as much renewable power in the coming five years as it did in the past 20.

All that means batteries, and lots of them—both to propel the cars and to store energy from intermittent renewable power stations. Demand for the minerals from which those batteries are made is soaring. Nickel in particular is in short supply. The element is used in the cathodes of high-quality electric-car batteries to boost capacity and cut weight. The iea calculates that, if it is to meet its decarbonisation goals, the world will need to be producing 6.3m tonnes of nickel a year by 2040, roughly double what it managed in 2022. That adds up to some 80m tonnes of nickel in total between now and then.

Over the past five years most of the growth in demand has been met by Indonesia, which has been bulldozing rainforests to get at the ore beneath. In 2017 the country produced just 17% of the world’s nickel, according to cru, a metals research firm. Today it is responsible for around half, or 1.6m tonnes a year, and that number is rising. cru thinks Indonesia will account for 85% of production growth between now and 2027. Even so, that is unlikely to be enough to meet rising demand. And as Indonesian nickel production increases, it is expected to replace palm-oil production as the primary cause of deforestation in the country.

But there is an alternative. A patch of Pacific Ocean seabed called the Clarion-Clipperton Zone (ccz) is dotted with trillions of potato-sized lumps of nickel, cobalt, manganese and copper, all of which are of interest to battery-makers (see map). Collectively the nodules hold an estimated 340m tonnes of nickel alone—more than three times the United States Geological Survey’s estimate of the world’s land-based reserves. Companies have been keen to mine them for several years. With the coming expiry, on July 9th, of an international bureaucratic deadline, that prospect looks more likely than ever.

It’s better down where it’s wetter That date marks two years since the island nation of Nauru, on behalf of a mining company it sponsors called The Metals Company (tmc), told the International Seabed Authority (isa), an appendage of the United Nations, that it wanted to mine a part of the ccz to which it has been granted access. That triggered a requirement for the isa to complete rules on commercial use of the deposits. If those regulations are not ready by July 9th—and it seems they will not be—then the isa is required to “consider and provisionally approve” tmc’s application. (The firm itself says it hopes to wait until rules can be agreed.)

tmc’s plan is about as straightforward as underwater mining can be. Its first target is a patch of the ccz called nori-d, which covers about 2.5m hectares of ocean floor (an area about 20% bigger than Wales). Gerard Barron, tmc’s boss, estimates there are about 3.8m tonnes of nickel in the area. Since the nodules are simply sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the firm plans to send a large robot to the seabed to hoover them up. The gathered nodules will then be sucked up to a support ship on the surface through a high-tech pipe, similar to ones used in the oil-and-gas industry. Mr Barron says that his firm can break even on nodule collection at nickel prices as low as $6,000 per tonne; nickel currently sells for about $22,000 per tonne.

The support ship will wash off any sediment, then offload the nodules to a second ship which will ferry them back to shore for processing. The surplus sediment, meanwhile, will be released back into the sea at a depth of around 1,500 metres, far below most ocean life. And tmc is not the only firm interested. A Belgian firm called Global Sea Mineral Resources—a subsidiary of Deme, a dredging giant—is also keen, and has tested a sea-floor robot and riser system similar to tmc’s. Three Chinese firms—Beijing Pioneer, China Merchants and China Minmetals—are circling too, though they are reckoned to be further behind technologically.

As with mining on land, taking nickel from the sea will damage the surrounding ecosystem. Although the ccz is deep, dark and cold, it is not lifeless. tmc’s robot will destroy many organisms it drives across, as well as any that live on the nodules it collects. It will also kick up plumes of sediment, some of which will drift onto nearby organisms and kill them (though research suggests the plumes tend not to rise more than two metres above the seabed).

Adrian Glover, a marine biologist at the Natural History Museum in London, points out that, because life evolved first in the oceans and only later moved to the land, the majority of the genetic diversity on the planet is still found underwater. Although the deep-ocean floor is dark and nutrient-poor, it nevertheless supports thousands of unique species. Most are microbes, but there are also worms, sponges and other invertebrates. The diversity of life is “very high”, says Dr Glover.

Yet in several respects, mining the seabed has a smaller environmental footprint than mining in Indonesia. The harsh deep-sea environment means that, although its inhabitants may be highly diverse, they are not very abundant. A paper published in Nature in 2016 found that a given square metre of ccz supports between one and two living organisms, weighing a couple of grams at most. A square metre of Indonesian rainforest, by contrast, contains about 30,000 grams of plant biomass alone, and plenty more if you weigh up primates, birds, reptiles and insects too.

But it is not enough to simply weigh the biomass in each ecosystem. The amount of nickel that can be produced per hectare is also relevant. The 2.5m hectares of seabed that tmc hopes to exploit is expected to yield about 3.8m tonnes of nickel, or about 1.5 tonnes per hectare.

Getting hard numbers for land-based mining is tricky, for the firms that do it are less transparent than those hoping to mine the seabed. But investigative reporting from the Pulitzer Centre, a non-profit media outlet, suggests each hectare of rainforest on Sulawesi, the Indonesian island at the centre of the country’s nickel industry, will produce around 675 tonnes of nickel. (One reason land deposits produce so much more nickel, despite the lower quality of the ore, is because the ore extends far beneath the surface, whereas nodules exist only on the seabed.)

All that makes a very rough comparison possible. Around 13 kilograms of biomass would be lost for every tonne of ccz nickel mined. Each tonne mined on Sulawesi would destroy around 450kg of plants alone—plus an unknown amount of animal biomass, too.

Pick your poison There are other environmental arguments in favour of mining the seabed. The nodules contain much higher concentrations of metal than deposits on land, which means less energy is required to process them. Peter Tom Jones, the director of the ku Leuven Institute for Sustainable Metals and Materials, in Belgium, reckons that processing the nodules will produce about 40% less greenhouse-gas emissions than those from terrestrial ore.

And because the nodules must be taken away for processing anyway, companies like tmc can be encouraged to choose places where energy comes with low emissions. Indonesian nickel ore, in contrast, is uneconomic unless it is processed near where it was mined. That almost always means using electricity from coal plants or diesel generators. Alex Laugharne, an analyst at cru, reckons Indonesian nickel production emits about 60 tonnes of carbon dioxide for each tonne of nickel. An audit of tmc’s plans carried out by Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, a firm based in London, found that each tonne of nickel harvested from the seabed would produce about six tonnes of co2.

In any case, metal collected from the seabed is unlikely to entirely replace that mined from the rainforest. Battery production is growing so fast that nickel will probably be dug up from wherever it can be found. But if the ocean nodules can be brought to market affordably, the sheer volume of metal available may start to ease the pressure on Indonesian forests. The arguments are unlikely to stay theoretical for long. Mr Barron of tmc aims to start producing nickel and other metals from the seabed by the end of next year.

Correction (July 6th 2023): An earlier version of this piece said global nickel production would need to reach 48m tonnes per year by 2040, and would total 320m tonnes by 2040. The correct figures are 6.3m tonnes and 80m tonnes. Apologies for the error.

 

I remember reading somewhere that mathematical symbols make up an "incomplete" written language (or something like that). I commonly formulate problems, or complete sentences using only mathematical symbols. From a linguistic perspective, what separates mathematical symbols from "complete" writing systems?

 

What is it, what are its consequences, how does it work, why is it there, why do we care about it?

 

I mean, I've heard that you can typically only survive about three days without water, but what exactly causes your body to fail when you dehydrate too much?

I guess one point is lack of salts (if you sweat a lot) but I'm specifically wondering about lack of water (although a closer explanation about how lack of salts will kill you is also appreciated)

 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/441437

He would be the perfect person to AMA as he’s already associated with Reddit revolts, and it would result in tremendous media coverage and mark fediverse as a viable alternative to Reddit. What do you think?

 
 

view more: ‹ prev next ›