I think most lifeforms will have more pressing matters than wasting large amounts of time an energy blasting signals in to space for no reason, or listening to the sky.
Maybe those civilizations that waste more energy chasing aliens die off sooner due to wasting resources on sci-fi bullshit and ignoring their real problems at home.
I think it is in the drake equation effectively, it factors into the length of time that the civilization might send and receive detectable signals - It doesn’t say why the Civilisation might collapse, but the planet becoming uninhabitable is surely one reason. On wikipedia for Drake Equation the Carl Sagan specification of L is in terms of the “fraction of planetary lifetime”.
I think a missing factor might be how directional transmission and receiving is, if we can’t broadcast to and listen to the whole sky equally then we might have a 1/r-cubed type issue with the chances of both listening and transmitting with enough strength/energy at the same time.
15 pin d-sub that could support TWO joysticks if you had the splitter cable. Micro machines 2 : 4 player, with 2 gamepads into the soundcard, and one player using each side of the keyboard.
Cool, that looks great to me.
Tell your mum I’m enjoying the new album.
Honestly, that unit reads like bullshit to me, when stated out of context- I did used to work in energy and emission forecasting, but never that deeply into the academics so feel free to disregard my comments on that basis - we relied on scientific advisors for that stuff.
Personally I’d hope that all the papers quoting such a thing should have a simpler literal maybe step by step explaination of what the fuck they’re trying to measure . But i really did hate academia generally for its introverted tendencies, I don’t think they write those papers to inform oiks like me.
If the unit is supposed to be a scale for the long term average net flow of greenhouse gases from the planet’s surface into the atmosphere, then that is a complex thing; I think it deserves a load of words to explain the what is being described - more than a few of letters and numbers.
Here’s my attempt at what I think the abbreviation is trying to say:
“Average mass of greenhouse gas emissions with equivalent potential to warm the planet as a gigatonne of carbon dioxide, less any amounts absorbed back into the earth, per year over the last 100 years (GtCO2e)”
I dont feel the “y-1” adds anything since the unit is dimensionally a number of tonnes - unless I’ve misinterpreted -which seems likely.
One shouldn’t just use an abbreviation if one want’s to communicate to non-specialists. I’d always advise to spell it out in real words and sentences. If complex, try to break it down into simple parts. Then after a full explanation, you can later reply on the abbreviation - for example in a graph label.
If the measurement or estimate is important, then the audience deserves enough words to explain it. If the measurement or estimate does not come with enough words to explain it then in my opinion the author doesn’t care enough to try to explain it so it can’t be that important. It may be just a rhetorical grph or it just looks good - no real meaning.
The only exception for me is the “standard units”, metre, kilogramme etc. as we can rely on S.I. for those standard measures overing the main material dimensions.
Look it proably really is all just me being an asshole, but I get very sick of hearing vague, imprecise bullshit like “Carbon” being used as a term for “greenhouse gas emissions”. I did have a job where the difference between C and CO2 caused a factor of 0.278 discrepancy in some arguably important figures. High school fucking chemistry. Those people should have known better and resolved their unit of measure ahead of time.
I get that some people had a hard time in school, but I think it should be about trying to help them understand more and learn , not dumbing stuff down to imprecise terms because we’re so scared of confusing someone . If a person doesn’t know the basics, say the difference between an element, an atom and a molecule; we should help them learn that before going on at them about complex atmospheric concentrations and global warming equivalent potentials.
“G/year” “GtCOe” Be careful of feeding the “science is wrong” trolls by misrepresenting units of measure.
this dude claims he made a cargo bike on his kitchen table. https://invidious.reallyaweso.me/watch?v=SDlnDEXlfm8&t=56
yeah but ai means the same stupid ape can excrete 25 times the stupid shit in the same time period. That’s progress.
It’s my pile of sand, and I’m keeping my head deep down within it. Now “temple of doom”, that was going too far. And dont get me started on the godfather
bunch a muppets
yeah, glad that these sequel fuckers didn’t think about mad max or the terminator either. there can be only one.
. . . that’s what life is, it’s a series of down endings.
And flood loads of valleys to create massive hydro power stations? Norway’s low density gives it plentry of cheap renewable electricity (per person). In my country we have loads of people living in valleys, so we’d probably not get away with building that much hydro generation capacity.
Although there’s a whole area called the “lake district” that is literally asking for it.
naah, places like France and China don’t exist.
A lot of coal was used for another 100 years or so before that. Lower global population back then.
Use that archimedes solar death ray that completey failed to work on mythbusters
I think that’s partly to show the point, median is a lower than something equivalent to mean, indicating the high skewess of the distribution.
The gdp vs wage angle is adding another point about about unearned income, rent and interest. I’d be slightly worried at not provisioning for fixed capital stock formation out of GDP - you do want to produce some of that stuff was well as consumption.
Of course you can argue about who is best placed to own the capital too - as well as how the fk it can be measured in a market price system. (I already see a LTOV comment further down).