In other news today...
-
-
@izzion said in In other news today...:
I see you're trying to have some fun. Would you like help downloading videos of Congressional hearings instead?
@Cursorkeys said in In other news today...:
Hmm. Wonder if that'll work for UK users on PornHub after Monday...
-
-
-
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
This new method could enable the direct generation of longer nitrogen chains.
Anybody else think of "High Nitrogen Energetic Materials" when you read that? Yeah, I think I'll let somebody else generate those long nitrogen chains while I stand over there. Way over there.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In other news today...:
Anybody else think of "High Nitrogen Energetic Materials" when you read that?
Yes.
Yeah, I think I'll let somebody else generate those long nitrogen chains while I stand over there. Way over there.
Do you want running shoes with that?
-
-
@TimeBandit "The Verge", snickers in French
-
Hope it's not against the rules to have two articles from the same site in the same day:
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
rules
-
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Inert nitrogen forced to react with itself
The new synthesis pathway functions under very mild conditions: at minus 30 degrees Celsius
Paging @TimeBandit
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In other news today...:
very mild conditions: at minus 30 degrees Celsius
Spring time
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Now I get it. They're called rules because that's what you get hit with when you break them.
-
@TimeBandit said in In other news today...:
Why are those centimeters subdivided into 8 or 16 parts, instead of 10?
-
@PleegWat said in In other news today...:
Why are those centimeters subdivided into 8 or 16 parts, instead of 10?
Those rules are broken.
-
-
@jinpa said in In other news today...:
Hope it's not against the rules to have two articles from the same site in the same day:
"We found if you put a person in the same circumstance as a computer, suddenly the humans tend to agree with the machines," Firestone says. "This is still a problem for artificial intelligence, but it's not like the computer is saying something completely unlike what a human would say."
Oh no, am I going to be replaced?
-
Where did I say that in any way, shape or form? He quite clearly said we don't have the correct solutions to the problem and that we need to find the correct solution, which leads to his plan on having more kids. More kids so that we can have more scientists to solve the problem.
Don't really agree with his view on more kids either, but I fail to see where you are getting that he denied that climate change is a problem?
-
Yeah, he did say the word church, followed by about 3 more minutes of explanation that didn't mention churches at all. But I can see that this one word has triggered you and you probably didn't hear the other 3 minutes. I understand, it happens to a lot of people. It is okay.
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Where did I say that in any way, shape or form? He quite clearly said we don't have the correct solutions to the problem and that we need to find the correct solution,
We don't? Must've missed the memo where "eat less meat" (like we somehow managed to for centuries) is suddenly an impossible thing. I dare say that this guy just doesn't like the solutions and that is the reason why they're "not correct" to him.
Business as usual in that regard. Old white guy yells at incoming avalanche that it's inconveniencing him and all that jazz.
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Old white guy yells at incoming avalanche that it's inconveniencing him and all that jazz.
Read that as "and all that jizz"
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
Must've missed the memo where "eat less meat" (like we somehow managed to for centuries) is suddenly an impossible thing.
So did everyone else on the planet, if that makes you feel better.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Read that as "and all that jizz"
I'd rather not think about that in the context of eating less meatâŚ
-
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
We don't? Must've missed the memo where "eat less meat" (like we somehow managed to for centuries) is suddenly an impossible thing. I dare say that this guy just doesn't like the solutions and that is the reason why they're "not correct" to him.
That is no more a solution than not having cars or airplanes is a solution to reducing CO2 emissions.
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
We don't? Must've missed the memo where "eat less meat" (like we somehow managed to for centuries) is suddenly an impossible thing. I dare say that this guy just doesn't like the solutions and that is the reason why they're "not correct" to him.
That is no more a solution than not having cars or airplanes is a solution to reducing CO2 emissions.
Which itself doesn't seem to solve the "problem" it's trying to solve anyways.
-
@dkf said in In other news today...:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In other news today...:
Read that as "and all that jizz"
I'd rather not think about that in the context of eating less meatâŚ
What about the context of an avalanche, does that make it better?
-
@hungrier No. It really doesn't.
-
Good news everybody!
-
@loopback0 Orange Phones bad!
-
@loopback0 said in In other news today...:
Good news everybody!
In Other Other News, the BBC is trolling people:
Try playing the video, I dare you
You can't, because it's a screenshot!
-
@JBert said in In other news today...:
You can't, because it's a screenshot!
In the article it's a GIF.
ď
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Yeah, he did say the word church, followed by about 3 more minutes of explanation that didn't mention churches at all. But I can see that this one word has triggered you and you probably didn't hear the other 3 minutes. I understand, it happens to a lot of people. It is okay.
No, it has not triggered me and I understood his point, even though itâs a bad one (and even if âmore kidsâ were the answer, the church part would still be ridiculous)
I was just doing, in a much much weaker form, what he did. At least he did actually say the solution is in churches, unlike those people he claimed to have said âget rid off all cowsâ, who never said that at all.
-
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
We don't? Must've missed the memo where "eat less meat" (like we somehow managed to for centuries) is suddenly an impossible thing. I dare say that this guy just doesn't like the solutions and that is the reason why they're "not correct" to him.
That is no more a solution than not having cars or airplanes is a solution to reducing CO2 emissions.
Which itself doesn't seem to solve the "problem" it's trying to solve anyways.
Since you mocked âMr Science Guyâ before, Iâll tag that as
[citation needed]
-
-
@TimeBandit That looks too warm to be
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
We don't? Must've missed the memo where "eat less meat" (like we somehow managed to for centuries) is suddenly an impossible thing. I dare say that this guy just doesn't like the solutions and that is the reason why they're "not correct" to him.
That is no more a solution than not having cars or airplanes is a solution to reducing CO2 emissions.
Which itself doesn't seem to solve the "problem" it's trying to solve anyways.
Since you mocked âMr Science Guyâ before, Iâll tag that as
[citation needed]
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@Rhywden said in In other news today...:
We don't? Must've missed the memo where "eat less meat" (like we somehow managed to for centuries) is suddenly an impossible thing. I dare say that this guy just doesn't like the solutions and that is the reason why they're "not correct" to him.
That is no more a solution than not having cars or airplanes is a solution to reducing CO2 emissions.
Which itself doesn't seem to solve the "problem" it's trying to solve anyways.
Since you mocked âMr Science Guyâ before, Iâll tag that as
[citation needed]
Basically, the idea that it solves a dangerous rise in temperature is based on inflated predictions from models that do not seem to do well when validating them against the real world.
-
@boomzilla So your alternative explanation of the observed rise in temperatures is?
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
Yeah, he did say the word church, followed by about 3 more minutes of explanation that didn't mention churches at all. But I can see that this one word has triggered you and you probably didn't hear the other 3 minutes. I understand, it happens to a lot of people. It is okay.
No, it has not triggered me and I understood his point, even though itâs a bad one (and even if âmore kidsâ were the answer, the church part would still be ridiculous)
I was just doing, in a much much weaker form, what he did. At least he did actually say the solution is in churches, unlike those people he claimed to have said âget rid off all cowsâ, who never said that at all.From the FAQ about the bill:
âWe set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we arenât sure that weâll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero,â
That sure reads like they want to get rid of all cows to me.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla So your alternative explanation of the observed rise in temperatures is?
Why does he need to provide an alternate explanation?
-
@Dragoon âNet zeroâ means you can offset the emissions with something else.
âFarting cowsâ is not âcowsâ. Donât ask me how.
Maybe change their diet, genetically engineer them not to fart, I donât know (ask all those kids in the churches ) . Or, as above, just offset their emissions with something else.
-
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla So your alternative explanation of the observed rise in temperatures is?
Why does he need to provide an alternate explanation?
The given explanation is backed theoretically (the greenhouse effect) and observed rise in carbon dioxide correlates with observed rise in temperatures. So itâs pretty plausible. If you dismiss it, Iâm interested in a better one.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
correlates
That is the key word there, it correlates. As points out in his links, when you try and extend that correlation into projection the model falls apart. So, correlation does not equal causation and no alternative theory need be provided.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla So your alternative explanation of the observed rise in temperatures is?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. It's...not as much as the computer simulations say. But yes, I doubt that it's all us and our CO2. We don't have a lot of good explanations for previous temperature changes and it's obvious that our modeling is missing something, assuming it's even possible to model the climate.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
âFarting cowsâ is not âcowsâ. Donât ask me how.
Just plug their butts and when they start to swell up with gas, light a match and you've got instant burgers, no cooking required.
-
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@Dragoon said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
@boomzilla So your alternative explanation of the observed rise in temperatures is?
Why does he need to provide an alternate explanation?
The given explanation is backed theoretically (the greenhouse effect) and observed rise in carbon dioxide correlates with observed rise in temperatures. So itâs pretty plausible. If you dismiss it, Iâm interested in a better one.
Yes, the theory is plausible overall. But as they say, when your theory doesn't match observations, you change your theory. You seem to be under the assumption that I'm arguing the CO2 doesn't have anything to do with the rise in temperatures. If that's what you think, it's pure strawman because I never said that and I don't believe it.
But there's a lot more to it all being a catastrophe than getting the sign of the correlation correct.
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
âFarting cowsâ is not âcowsâ. Donât ask me how.
Just plug their butts and when they start to swell up with gas, light a match and you've got instant burgers, no cooking required.
All I can think of is the whale they tried to blow up...
-
@Dragoon Well, youâd need to look into the future to know that for sure. But you still have a problem of rising temperatures to deal with. So yes, there better be an alternative theory.
And if most climate scientists think thatâs the cause and some think it isnât but thereâs no better theory, you better should err on the side of caution and try to fix the suspected cause you do have.Besides, it reminds me of this:
-
@hungrier said in In other news today...:
@topspin said in In other news today...:
âFarting cowsâ is not âcowsâ. Donât ask me how.
Just plug their butts and when they start to swell up with gas, light a match and you've got instant burgers, no cooking required.
Not the same thing, but I was reminded of this.