just for the chatbot, it's trivial to switch, create a new account and start asking questions from deepseek instead. There is nothing holding the users in chatgpt.
The original comment made it sound like minorities are just hunted down by random whites, lynching style.
But even if you look at police murders on civilians, they are killing more whites than blacks. You might argue that whites are 5x more than blacks, but police has more interaction with blacks than with whites. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...
If you look how many white people are killed by blacks versus blacks killed by white people, you will have a shock. Even when you account for whites being a few times more than blacks in the general population.
I really don't buy this "minorities" are being killed story.
Little known fact (I am still amazed how people don't know the mechanics of global warming...): CO2 effect in the atmosphere is logarithmic, increasing with concentration. That is because CO2 can only block one band of light, so at one point, you're approaching asymptotic effect. That's why we keep talking about "doubling of CO2", because it's a logarithmic function....
But yes, the temperature will increase slightly because of CO2 emissions. That triggers more warming due to feedback effects though, and those are hard to quantify, and more scary.
The Earth is warming, but how much of it is caused by humans is under debate. The Earth is still coming out of an ice age, so it would be warming even without humans.
Also, the more important question is: how much will it accelerate based on our emissions? If there are no positive feedback loops, it would only warm up 1C maximum, no matter how much more CO2 we will emit. But because of the positive feedback loops (warmer earth -> more water evaporating -> more warming), this warming can trigger a 4-5C further warming. The feedback loops are just theoretical(you can't measure them empirically) and the quality of the estimations is based on our understanding and modelling of the climate.
> I thought they didn't bother and just buried it if it wasn't profitable.
In my county, they are obliged by the contract to NOT bury the mixed recyclables. So they used to offload it to some companies that would then also promise not to bury them (pinky promise), and ship them to China. Contracts in China are then not so easy to follow and enforce and voila, problem is now somewhere else.
It was viable only because we were shipping "recyclables" that had to be "recycled" by contract, not pure garbage that could have just been buried. Sorting through that whole mess of "recyclables" was more expensive than shipping it to China and letting them just burn or bury it.
GPS can be jammed (see Russia-UKraine war), so inertial systems are still very important for rockets, for example some HIMARS rockets start with GPS and then rely only on inertial while getting close to target.
I remember seeing one of those computers on Wisconsin, but I only saw it after decommission, as a museum piece. Those computers are truly mind boggling, if you're reading this and you're close to Norfolk you should visit battleship Wisconsin.
The even more annoying fact is that the whole global warming crisis is BECAUSE of that thermodynamic effect. With increased CO2 alone, if we emit as much as we could, would only warm the Earth 1C at the most. CO2 has a narrow band of light that is obstructs, and once that is filled, there no more heat it can trap. The scientists believe that global warming will be as high as it will because of the positive feedback loop a little warming from CO2 causes with water vapor(which is a more potent greenhouse gas): you heat up 1C, which means more water evaporates, which means more heat trapped, which means more water evaporates etc.
If it wasn't for more water in the atmosphere, just CO2 warming, there would be no Global Warming crisis, it would be just a blip. And still, somehow people widely believe we'll overall be in desert-like conditions?
> The world was wrong to expect that climate change would trigger rapid and widespread desertification in the world’s arid lands
The science never said that. It was popsci, magazines and attention brokers that pushed that narrative. A warming world looks like Jurassic park, not Mad Max, but that doesn't sell, so they had to make it scary to sell it, hence the desertification narrative.
I don't understand how Microsoft gets under fire so easily, but Google bundles everything in Android, and you can't even uninstall most of them (maps, gmail etc.). Same with iphones. This is regulatory tipping the balance.
The map shows solar resource, irrespective of the technology you're using. For example, you could be using heat collectors that would capture closer to 100%.
To keep things simple, for back of the envelope calculations, you can imagine 1kW per square meter. Subtract cloud coverage, night hours and then multiply with 0.2 for PV panels efficiency.
If you want 11kWh/day, you need: (5.7 * 0.2) * Y = 11, so Y = 10 square meters.
You can double check this: 10 sqm should have about 10KW of solar potential energy, but with PV efficiency you're getting about 2KW, so to reach 11kWh, you need 5 good hours of sunshine on average.
absolutely, but CAPS are intended to draw attention, and we should be paying much more attention to this. How did we end up in a society where multinational companies can assassinate their whistleblowers in plain daylight and we're all completely apathetic about it? Same with Epstein.