Pixophir

Source, pls. There is no such thing as a general optimised diet, and by far not ecological. Diet depends on many things, from age over level of activity and what can be grown and what is available at all. The news of famine in growing areas of the world, shortage of potable water on the one side and overfed people on the other side is everywhere. None of them has 'ecologically optimized diet'. This not anything new, mind you, it is just showing after 20 years of unheard warnings.

Well, the discussion about vegan or vegetarian diet is somewhat distracting from the real problem, the influence agriculture as a whole has on climate. The GHG emissions of agriculture including animal husbandry was in 2007 estimated to be 18% worldwide (IPCC), newer estimates take it slightly higher, prediction see it rising also. Without going into detail, but the way modern agriculture is done is not sustainable. It leads to loss of land through increased erosion and loss of diversity, and subsequently to not enough land to feed everybody. This is yet only a slight problem in North America and Europe at least, but will become if diet is not changed and land use reformed. Some sources: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0200781 https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://www.carbonbrief.org/worlds-soils-have-lost-133bn-tonnes-of-carbon-since-the-dawn-of-agriculture/ Only indirectly related to sea level rise.

I don't know exactly these games, but I would guess that you may run into issues at higher resolutions. And I have no idea about the future. But I fear that 1000 funds is too tight for a gaming PC today. I recently got me (also for dev) something similar to @Elthy's suggestion. AM4 B550, AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 3600 CL 14 16GB, 2*nvme, 1 for the OS, 1 for data, and an RX 6600 XT, 850 Watt power supply. I had to pay 700 for the graphics card last November. It struggles with complex games at 1440p, but runs smoothly at 1080p. It runs blazingly fast when overclocked but gets very loud (AIO cooler with 3 fans, 6 box fans), and draws ~500 Watts. That is too much for just wasting one's time on gaming, and the newer PCs draw even more. I am thinking about an AMD 5600G with onboard graphics, a small nvme ssd, 3200 cl 16 ram 32gb for dev and low power consumption. That's not for gaming, though.

What ? Oh, a state machine is not a political but a logical construct that stores its information in discrete states (no gradual changes) and their interdependencies. Btw.: what will the red-buttons (analogy to red-pills :-)) eat, without gut flora. Even the yoghurt has vanished (not everybody hates yoghurt :-)). Think of it, there's no way to space in a couple of days until starvation. In a particularly ugly vision they'll have their beloved but at some stage maybe tasty looking children or other relatives. Because there is nothing else to eat. They may hope that their first poop contains some seeds left from yesterdays meal worth trying to grow something, but that'll take months. And, you know, it may work in the movies, but irl it would need some knowledge many of us don't have. Also, there is no soil any more. Nothing grows on pure sand. They may write a kitchen recipe for their children describing how to cook themselves, and leave it on the table tucked with a knife, then finish themselves off and hope the kids do the right thing. Which they probably won't. So back to plan a, have the kids. Seriously, killing everything else is killing oneself. Killing oneself gives everything else a chance.

Anybody pushing red would die of hunger or thirst the other day or in the mob plundering the grocery stores that can't be refilled because lack of, well, other species that the stuff is made of. But the aliens are certainly not as gruesome as to enable a single individual to extinguish whole species. The whole setup was just a test, a statistical probe, no life was actually lost *phew*. Participants are invited to listen to some alien poetry before being beamed back to their homes :-) Btw., evolution is not a state machine. It is (simplified) a constant, gradual process of adaptation through variation. No individual or species at a certain point in time is more evolved than any other. Also, there is no perfect adaptation, there can't be because such a high specialization would hardly be able to adapt to a change of the niche, they would be prone to die out quickly. When we let's say zoom out of the dimension 'time', the whole concept of hard definition of a species dissolves because they are in constant change. Which also means that taking out any part of an evolutionary system, species or environmental, makes it collapse and take away part of the basis of existence of other species in the system. It may reach a new state, but it can't be put or directed into a prior state.

This is a bit metaphysical, but anthropic principle kicks in long before any limits imposed by physics. Iow, there is no sense in physics (or the universe) requiring an observer, they don't. Ask a tree if it is aware of physics, even if it develops branches capable of withstanding gravity, it is not aware, and it won't answer, yet physics (and the universe) exist.

Yep, quite generally life has no purpose, just like physics has no purpose and doesn't consider the fate neither of individuals nor of any groups. Evolution just happens. Something spreading into the cosmos is highly hypothetical, there's up to now no indication of that happening, neither by natural means (panspermia) nor by technology (outside of films or defective camera sensors) or even as a planned action (directed panspermia -> not even wrong, one can make a pattern out of everything and the internet is an accomplice for spreading anything). But a lot of evidence that this happens on various occasions on earth, hypothetically and with some reasoning and applying some principles, in suitable pockets on other bodies, simply because the ingredients are found in many places, no need to spread them. But this may lead a bit too far. The question asked for an individual opinion. Anyway, I'm obviously no fatalist and all is well :-)

Otoh, the biosphere will have a better chance to recover without humans and once the inertia already put into the system has worked off. That's why green. But this is all just a play of mind, around the corner someone is waiting offering a choice between red and blue, promising a return a to numbness or waking up in a possibly unpleasant reality ... :-) Seriously, many have the "unpleasant reality" right now, suffering from 40-50°C (currently parts of Arabian peninsula, northwestern Africa, south eastern Asia) or loss of property (storm, fire, flood). So, the green button for the rest of the world to have a chance. Sure, domesticated animals will disappear, but with few exceptions they were held to die anyway. But the biosphere may recover, in a different state of course.

In such a scenario the ocean has probably become sub- or anoxic (which it slowly does). Meaning no edible stuff at the shores, it is a smelly, probably poisonous mess. Atmospheric oxygen levels will be low because there are many sinks and only few producers. Even lung breathers will have problems converting energy. Existing or new conflicts aside, most individuals will just starve or die of thirst, gradually, as conditions worsen, not in a single generaion. But even if some groups survive in pockets somewhere, it needs a certain gene pool size for offspring that is not only functionally capable but also able to produce fertile offspring themselves. If distances are too large for genetic interchange, the groups will just disappear, individuals at younger age or when wounded, because there is no-one left to care for them. Btw., what was once dubbed "bottleneck hypothesis" in the wake of the Toba eruption, which has always been controversial, has no place in modern palaeo anthropology.

Rodents are not primates. Both mammal groups are thought to be monophyletic, so one could search for a common ancestor.

This is an excellent question ! Orbital resonance is the cause of both stability and instability. On top of that, there are instabilities and perturbations from inside and outside. Even if seen as an "adiabatic" system (without external interaction), will it fly apart sooner or later ? How long can this be stable ? I am not sure if there is a clear answer at all or if there is a solution to the problem. Here's a text I found via stackexchange. Have no time right no to digest it all. It doesn't answer the question but gives on overview of the mechanics involved: https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~renu/malhotra_preprints/rio97.pdf

A paraglider is not a rescue or emergency device. Paragliders, motorized or not, are light aircraft or sports equipment, depending on varying local regulations which may be relaxed compared to the bigger machines, or when not used commercially, e.g. for paid tandem flights. But in most countries paragliders are required to carry an additional rescue device, called a reserve, which usually is a just a canopy designed for ease of use and quick deployment, but there are also steerable versions. Example non steerable reserve, the pilot has neatly collected the non-flying main canopy to avoid any interference which might compromise the reserve's functionality and awaits the ground in a relaxed manner. Hopefully the next pub isn't too far away :-) Sink rate is around 4-6m/s (there are different sizes), so one would have to be really unlucky to seriously hurt oneself on touchdown. Though with this version there is no control whatsoever about the exact place.

A star is not a billiard ball and that spot is not a specular reflection.

We actually can resolve Beetlejuice as a disc, with the VLT and ALMA. Don't have links to papers right now, but when you search "Betelgeuse image VLT" or ".. ALMA" you'll find it :-)

Nope, this isn't humanities decision, this is how mathematics work and that is the same all over the universe. One cannot solve an ambiguously written expression, no matter which rules are applied. Personal interpretation comes in the way and that has no place in a proper expression. The above is not a proper expression, and the internet is full of such things. If people don't understand this and must live by simple thumb rules to perform basic operations, and are fooled by these because of bad writing, they cannot do the next step and solve expressions. And if even a mathematician comes along and tells them where the error lies and cannot make them think there is nothing one can do. It is the post factual world where logical reasoning has become meaningless. Btw. and as stated upthread: desmos delivers the wrong solution only because of user input error, it is that simple.

Again, yeah, I am simplifying to avoid further teetering ;-) As a high level overview, and probably most of us are aware: There is for one the physical level of climate change. It goes deeply into geo-science, physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics for modelling. Many people are studying and working and collaborating worldwide to gather knowledge and publish it. The gist of this work is: burning fossil fuels is the main driver of climate change. For the other, there are policymakers who fell decisions. As a bridge between the two there is the IPCC whose task is to prepare outlooks for the policymakers by browsing publications and compiling them into a high level presentable form to support decision making. Their motivation, and their reports, are on their website. There's a discrepancy between the projected outlook and what's actually happening on the one side, and the amount of action taken on the other. Thus projections must adapt. That's how the IPCC gets to up to 6° warming by the end of the century, they are accounting for the failed action proposed in earlier reports Climate change is manifesting itself now, any future technology, like fusion, may be nice to have if it works as assumed, but it can't help stopping or even slowing climate change now. So, back to 0, and yes, simplifying, but I see no other way when my premise is to transport the important stuff. The only way to slow it down now is to stop burning fossil fuels, and hope that other means like GHG extraction are available and applicable one day. This can be done on any level down to the individual, removing the need to blame others. Peace in a free and hopefully not too hot world !

If you want to participate and feel suppressed, go study, choose a task, prepare a paper (usually needs collaboration) and submit it for review. But I can assure you with what you wrote here there is no chance anyone casts an eye on it, for obvious reasons. So stop trying to discredit people in such a nonsensical manner. You can still do a blog or youtube video and express your feelings there. That's why I avoid those places, they are full of things not-even-wrong.

Well, as long as we're distracting, inventing excuses, pointing to others, we won't change our lives. The planet's habitability is at stake, with local variations. The whys and who's responsible are irrelevant. At least in democratic countries people have a voice to choose a way for the future. We energy hogs can adapt our behaviour, driving for shopping in 2.8 tons is an idiocy to begin with, and no mistake, running AC all day long against the warming climate is another such let's unlogical behaviour. The consequences of our current behaviour are laid out (IPCC pathways) and they are happening, and for those with a short attention span or an extraordinary ability to evade logical deduction they some up to stop burning fossil fuels, reduce energy consumption, or at least get reasonable with it, roll out renewable energy on a global scale (DIY if your country is reluctant, you don't have to go off-grid, it pays off quickly). Apart from that, invent and install methods to extract greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, at a faster pace than they are emitted. Everything else is just distraction. Of course we can discuss the means and methods, but this is not the right place for that. Yeah. Impossible to respond to in a reasonable way.

Hard to read because improper spelling. Sorry if I come along as trying to talk old ... @Nuke: Where do see differences between what you call natural and anthropogenic climate change, why are they more specific and than what ? How would you quantify the differences ? What would you call a scientific purpose ? Has science a purpose ? And what kind of credibility do scientific sources need to make them scientific sources that you'd accept ? What makes a thing "credible", to whom, and why ? What is a scientific source at all in your understanding ? I assume you would accept (though probably not understand, no offence) a Nature or Science paper, maybe PNAS, Royal Society, also EGU, AGU, ... for geoscience related pubs. The IPCC publications have a long appendix of sources. But how about pre-print ? Second and third tier journals ? Are they still "scientific" and "credible", or would one start to treat them selectively ? If so why, and by what criteria ? Natural science doesn't need credibility. It is not a judge nor a preacher. It has its methods. They add to knowledge or not, or do so temporarily until reconsidered. There is no room for belief in a formula. There is room in the interpretation of data, and there are limits to modelling, but that's only for the knowledgeable, and they must communicate it in a generally accepted manner, via peer reviewed publications. Far too often things in discussion or proposed are reproduced in media articles as "scientists have found out". I ignore these, I go to the sources. I can do so. What do we do with this so clearly presented data ? Do we say "all nonsense I burn fossil fuels" or "I must change my life or it takes a bad ending" ? It looks the world chooses the first option. The IPCC has created pathways to illustrate the outcome of these and things in between, that's their purpose. Many people already feel personally the implications of anthropogenic climate change. I propose a different approach that does not depend and such soft wordings. That is called "sit on your behinds and learn". I mean, not you personally, that's valid for everybody including me when I leave my field of expertise and even when I am in it, though I have once studied the stuff and try to keep me informed. But I also understand enough of social media and forums that I know there is no way to convince people that have made up their opinion. That's why I for instance don't try to argue against "But the climate always change", simply because I have so many things in my mind when I read this, things a non geo-scientist or aficionado can't even imagine. Unfortunately, this subforum is full of science-unrelated stuff. Including the last two posts of this thread :-)

That would be cool, but I feel physicists clench their fists, and if such e reaction was naturally possible, then how does water form in the first place ? (No, there'd not be fireworks because physics would have to oscillate then)

As said, this has never been a proper argument. Climate change means anthropogenic climate change. We can distinguish pretty well. Those phrases are mutually contradicting even with the sloppy use of terms. Here, global warming means the abrupt temperature rise caused by anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. Repeating publicly available data, anthropogenic climate change will continue for decades even if all emissions are reduced to zero.

"base load" is to a large part an artificial thing, at least in Europe. It is created by advertising, even subsidizing resistance heating or by creating pricing structures to shift consumption to certain times (night), to justify the operation of large thermal power plants. When dealing with energy consumption in a reasonable way, use heat pumps instead of resistance heating and air conditioning, induction cooking, a smaller car, not using a PC that needs >500w, then there is no such "base load" and most of those plants became even more unprofitable. As to PV, for people who might think about it and need a few more numbers: A 12kwp installation with 10kva inverters and a 28kwh battery (LiFePO4) costs me around 25 kEuro with all parts and installation. Biggest part was the electronics (all Victron chargers inverters and control units, dedicated network cabling, and all is redundant so that the failure of a battery unit, charger, inverter or panel string doesn't leave me in the dark) but I expect that to hold a long time. Full charging capacity is a little under 240A at 55V DC (losses ignored). Subsidy (not yet included) could be ~10kEuro. I'll run the house off-grid and with heating/ventilation/cooling (subtropic setting) and a small car with it. Utility bill could reach 150,-/month for car charging and everything else, so after 15 years or so I'd be even with that high price setup, 10 years with subsidies and leaving some slack. The only thing I can't take care of is a direct lightning strike, the house is too small for a proper LPS. An installation that stays connected to the grid doesn't need such a battery and such a redundant setup, the cost can be reduced to less than half with ~5k state/EU funding, paying off much earlier when charging car and washing clothes during the day time. Edit: just want to add, comparing the 25k investment for 15 years (conservative) to the >50k people spend on cars without questioning, and that maybe every other year, that is ridiculously cheap.

The electrician question came up: well, partly. One does not need to be an electrician to build a photovoltaic installation. One does need a certified electrician for connecting such an installation to the grid. This has to do with regulations, and technical details of the local or national grid system and how to prevent damage from the own installation. This is not to say that something flies off and hits somebody, but (example) such things as the own inverters for feed-in need to shut off in case of a grid failure or when line repair work is done across the road. This must be guaranteed under all circumstances to avoid that grid-workers are being hurt or even killed because one neighbourhood still feeds in. Solar panels can't switch off when the sun shines, this is functionality in the converters. There are other more complicated things to observe that have to do with conversion from DC to AC.

@TKMK "Out of ideas", yep summarizes it :-) So am I, so is everybody. No, we can't even bore through the crust. Pressure/temperature conditions are too hard for any material we have. People tried to store waste in the mines in salt domes, defined it under political pressure (Chancellor Schmidt that was) as a "final storage" ("Endlager" in German) while geoscience warned because even for a first semester student this is a ridiculous idea, salt is highly mobile in the crust. Didn't take long until stuff started to leak and radioactive contamination cannot be excluded. Access is not possible in some areas because of radioactivity, or simply because stuff got under groundwater. Finland/Sweden have built a long term storage, to hold 100 years or so. But first that's nothing and second those such pledges are worthless.

Allow me to stay with the technical stuff because else it gets too fluffy for fruitful discussion. Yes, cracked panels should be exchanged. They are designed for impact of hail grains and to resist wind, it's all in the technical description, but they are not indestructible ofc. My claim was some rely 100% and a lot have a large percentage of renewables in their mix, large being 30% (like for instance France) or 50% (like for instance Germany, but varies from year to year). And it was a response to "magnitudes off" for nuclear power which doesn't coincide with reality in most countries. There are other problems emerging for thermal power plants, that's a heating environment in which it becomes difficult to get rid of waste heat. Reactors already have to shut down during heat waves because of overheating of the connected water bodies. @TKMK: It was an example, a response to the claim that it could not be done, one could DIY a solar panel from parts (I actually had single cells in mind, like those for use on tiled roofs), but I wouldn't recommend it. I would actually recommend highly efficient bifacial panels on a reflecting roof, if local regulations allow. They are incredible even under diffuse lighting conditions like clouds cover. But than again, some people do things just because :-) @DDE: I repeat: nuclear waste disposable is an unsolvable problem and it is getting worse every day. It can be swept under the carpet, stored somewhere for a limited time (100 years is limited, such repositories are not a solution), transported and re-processed, but it can not be solved. I am a scientist, not a politician.