adrienthebo
Keep in mind that Obsidian requires a license for business use[3]. They're a very small shop that's entirely funded by licensing/sync/publishing income and are making a pretty fantastic product and they deserve some cash to keep developing Obsidian.
[1]: https://github.com/denolehov/obsidian-git [2]: https://github.com/vrtmrz/obsidian-livesync [3]: https://obsidian.md/pricing
On geological time scales involving massive deposition of organic material.
In contrast, lithium can be recovered from batteries with an industrial shredder and chemical processing.
Fossil fuels are non-renewable in a trivial sense but are grossly different in a practical sense; treating them as equivalent is a borderline specious argument.
> Should we move back away from parallelism and focus on handling synchronous stuff faster instead?
Rust already has excellent handling of synchronous computation, given that it can meet/sometimes exceed equivalent performance in C. The problem is when you're I/O or network bound; you can either throw threads at the problem (and by extension throw memory at the problem for the thread stacks) or use async programming.
When Pixel phones switched from navigation buttons to gestures I tried them and hated the experience and reverted. Eventually I got forced over to gestures and still hate them so delaying gave me a bit more bandwidth to allocate from stupid UI changes to things I actually care about.
Coral bleaching isn't typical and is a direct indication of water temperatures exceeding the max habitable temperatures. You can look at coral, or manatees, or algal blooms to confirm that our present conditions are anomalous. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but the research is in regarding rising sea temperatures.
[1]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12237-014-9875-5
> Even if the 101.1° water temp isn’t verified, it was exceptionally hot in the Florida Keys, and it remains that way.
> Water temperatures at other buoys, and remote sensing using satellites, have recorded water temps in the mid to even upper 90s around the Florida Keys.
> This has resulted in brutal heat for the land areas.
It may be that the Manatee bay sensors are in a uniquely hot location but the temperatures there will be negatively impacting wildlife; outside that location water temperatures seem pretty darn elevated.
To begin using pubertal blockers, a child must:
Show a long-lasting and intense pattern of gender nonconformity or gender dysphoria
Have gender dysphoria that began or worsened at the start of puberty
Address any psychological, medical or social problems that could interfere with treatment
Have entered the early stage of puberty
Provide informed consent
Particularly when a child hasn't reached the age of medical consent, parents or other caretakers or guardians must consent to the treatment and support the adolescent through the treatment process.
The process of going on hormones/puberty blockers is a labor intensive process and typically requires the sign-off from a doctor and therapist. Nobody's getting sacrificed that isn't willing to jump through a number of significant bundles.
- Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels
- Oceanic temperatures and pH
- Quantities in PFAS in the environment
- Opiate deaths (and other deaths of despair) per capita
- Percentage of children and teenagers with depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation or have attempted suicide
- Per-capita income in Africa and South America over the last two decades
- School shootings per capita and firearms related deaths in children within America
Admittedly there's also grinding poverty in parts of Florida so I appreciate the comparison; that's a good hole in my argument.
Should we provide compensation for Floridians to move to safer areas? Yes.
Should we provide compensation for Pakistan for improved flood management? Yes.
Should Pakistanis or Floridians rebuild in the exact same places and the same ways where they've been building? No, unfortunately nobody gets that luxury. That's the horrible thing about climate change - we have very few options and they all have major downsides but we don't get to opt out. Florida's going to experience massive flooding regularly and Pakistan will face the same, and either populations in both areas adapt in some fashion (build for floods or move) or continue to experience mass devastation when the inevitable occurs.
I don't get to dictate where people live any more than I get to dictate where the flood waters go. It's heartbreaking but that's the world we're stuck in.
Major earthquakes happen an order of magnitude less frequently than major storms - but there's merit to reconsidering how much infrastructure we build right next to fault lines. So, possibly?
> What about areas where forest fires are routine?
Without appropriate fire breaks or building construction, possibly - if your house and property isn't constructed to survive a wildfire, then it's _going_ to burn. We can either adapt now or pay much higher costs later.
> Flood prone areas?
Oh jeez, yes, the fact that we build in flood plains is absolutely bonkers.
> Tornado prone areas?
Maybe, but it's a much lower risk than hurricanes. We really need to account for risks during building construction; our current approaches aren't working that well.
> High UV?
High UV is a bummer, not an repeated existential risk to all inhabitants.
> Poor air quality?
Poor air quality is also a bummer but is something we have more control over. Similar to high UV, poor air quality doesn't represent a regular, frequent, unavoidable, catastrophic risk to all of the inhabitants and all property in the vicinity.
> It makes no sense whatsoever to dictate that people cannot live on the coasts due to natural disasters which happen everywhere, all the time.
It makes even less sense to build in areas that are all but guaranteed to be destroyed several times per century. If you can build infrastructure that'll actually last or are willing to accept all liability when the inevitable occurs then by all means, build your house on stilts and cover the cost of reconstruction. But beyond freedom of choice, I don't understand why we think it's okay to assume obvious risk and expect society to provide compensation for a risk that's been known for decades if not centuries.
We've been treating these areas as fit for habitation and we're watching in realtime as they become uninhabitable. While it may have been more tolerable to live in these regions in the last century when global temperatures were lower we're at an inflection point; we're going be forced to concede spaces as too dangerous for regular habitation because storms are only going to increase in severity and frequency.
As a society we have a few options: 1, we continue to rebuild and pay the costs until it becomes completely cost prohibitive; 2, dramatically rethink how we build in the area and construct buildings that can cope with several feet of storm surges; or 3, accept reality and begin the process of resettling people in areas that won't be submerged in 100 years. It's likely that we're going to pursue option 1 for the next 10-30 years because collective change is hard but we ought to start having these conversations well in advance of insurance companies writing off all of Florida as uninsurable.
This doesn't even begin to touch on the benefits of allowing areas to revert to wetlands, but considering that they act as excellent buffers from the storms we're observing as well as carbon sinks, but it's worth stating that retreating from these areas makes more sense on ecological and financial grounds.
* Cap radio: The Racist Removal Of Native Americans In California Is Often Missing From Wildfire Discussions, Experts Say https://www.capradio.org/articles/2020/09/16/the-racist-remo...
* Nature: Quiet Fire: Indigenous tribes in California and other parts of the U.S. have been rekindling the ancient art of controlled burning https://www.nature.org/en-us/magazine/magazine-articles/indi...
Edit: formatting
Edit - ingested herbicides at any meaningful quantity.