I don’t know what will be done about it, but I would like something to be done that stops Israel from proceeding and eventually forces them to give up Netanyahu for trial.
A reality check:
Fuel Shortages Hit Russia’s Far East as Ukrainian Strikes Take Refineries Offline
My assessement: economically, Russia is very exhausted. Living conditions over there have objectively worsened. Inflation is so high that countries with a normal-sized police force would experience rioting (Russia has about 4 times more cops per citizens than a normal country, so it doesn’t).
Meanwhile, the weapons industry is of course booming and has gained lots of new knowledge. I’m not sure if the leading country in drone technology is Ukraine or Russia, but others are quite clearly bogged down in bureaucracy or lazy due to no perceived threat. Financing that industry is however close to falling apart.
Considering inflation (the same money is worth less) and the exhaustion of its sovereign wealth fund (saved up oil revenues) and considering that Ukraine is apparently enforcing a ban on oil refining in Russia (13% of refineries down in one month), Russia might have to reduce its military budget next year, despite not wanting to. (It has already reduced most other budget lines.)
Population has been reduced by emigration (those who could bailed out when it started), war deaths (about 1M men considered expendable are now dead or injured) and lack of births (people lack optimism about future). In fact, population data likely haven’t looked so miserable since the 1990-ties, for which reason publicaton of data was reduced.
Ukraine is, of course, experinecing the same kind of misery, but other European countries have enough resources to keep it functioning.
This could drag on for long, but would end if something broke. It would be far better if the agressor broke.
It seems that someone noticed that absorbing CO2 leads to ocean acidity rising (the carbonate ion, CO3, is a negatively charged ion with a nominal charge of -2).
Neutralizing CO3 by providing it something permanent to bind with - for example by forming NaHCO3 - will likely have the desired effect (nobody goes testing with a ship without first testing in a lab)…
…but the scale of the task makes me doubt if this is a feasible / reasonable approach. All that sodium to make soda would have to be produced somehow, without emitting almost any CO2. This, I have doubts about feasibility.
Wright told CNN that he hand-picked the four researchers and one economist who authored the Trump administration report: John Christy and Roy Spencer, both research scientists at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, Steven E. Koonin of Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry and Canadian economist Ross McKitrick.
Straight out of joke country. :o
As an EU resident: we promised him that during the next migration of flying unicorns, they would land in the US.
We’re not even going to cheat. Unfortunately flying unicorns don’t exist.
100% prevention is probably unattainable, but in case of the childrens’ camp an early word of competent instruction “get away from rivers and find shelter on high ground” would have probably helped a lot. Even if it would have woken up only 10% of the people, they could have woken up the rest.
As a minimum, a local emergency deparment should have an automatic interface to the nearest weather radar. If a radar scan suggests “ocean falling down”, people should be alerted with text messages in the same way they’d be alerted of a wildfire, chemical leak or incoming missile strike.
The image caption does say “could double”, but the PNAS article doesn’t mention that. As far as I understand, the role of the Southern Ocean as a whole as a carbon sink is big (two-digit percentage of human-caused emissions). But the effect subdivides into biological (phytoplankton) and physical (currents downwelling CO2-rich water and upwelling CO2-poor water). And I’m not aware or capable of pointing out a balance sheet of how much each component does.
Yes. It seems to have turned a part of the ocean which acted as a carbon sink into a carbon source. They don’t mention gigatonnes, but I would guess: a few (that’s a lot).
That’s some quite chilling reading.
People never got information about what mistake or malfunction took their relatives’ lives, but the leaked files draw a pattern of Teslas making erratic maneuvers when self-driving.
Also, there’s a pattern that crashed Tesla drivers tend to burn to death without passers-by being able to help them - because passers-by depend on opening doors using their handle, not pulling people out through windows or cutting through structures with hydraulic scizzors. By the time firefighters arrive, the person is dead and the fire too hot to apprach.
I would never buy a Tesla anyway, since I like utmost simplicity in vehicles.
But the Tesla battery seems like a special invitation for trouble to me - a ridiculously high number of small lithium ion cells. Unless your production is 100% reliable, that’s not a manageable configuration. A low number of large cells in manageable. Also, it seems that their battery is very likely to short in a crash. A low number of large cells have more limited options for shorting and more chances of the single series connection breaking. As soon as you have parallel cells, you’re asking for trouble.
If implemented like moped battery swapping on Taiwan, things might work. If everyone designs their own unique solution, nope. :)
It’s like with earthquakes. At first, when nobody knows jack s**t, they tell you 10 people died.
When the statistics come home, often enough, an initial 10 turns into 10 000.
With a heat wave spanning half a continent and breaking records, the typical mortality to expect (basing on experience) is at least 1000 people (some of them old and about to go anyway, but pushed over the edge by heat).
Something is wrong here. Likely the exact category in which things are compared. 1.17 kilograms, 200 W and world’s lightest… I’ve seen 2000 W drone motors that weigh less than 1 kilogram and aren’t called the world’s lightest, because one can go lighter.
It looks like a neat motor, though. For a very limited power level. But they didn’t even tell the efficiency…
It was meant to be humorous framing, given the impossibility of making humans from magma or the iron core. :)
Which ethnicity’s population are we going to reduce?
I honestly believe that “we” aren’t going to do jack s**t. It’s a process which is nearly unsteerable. People are going to live longer and longer, and use resources that would otherwise be used by children they might have had. Society is going to be burdened by caring for the old, and this is going to reduce chances of caring for the young.
In nearly every developed country, population growth is slowing or population has already started decreasing. Only in the least developed regions (some areas of Africa) does the opposite still apply, but UN predictions (made by competent people) suggest the process just reaches there later.
So, every ethnicity’s population is going to be reduced. Every ethnicity can also consider if their numbers are adequate, too high or too low. If a nation feels threatened by disappearing from the maps, they can try to reorganize their society. Random ideas: a few laws that give parents various health and social security guarantees regardless of their employment status, especially in case they’re single parents, then maybe create a few dating sites that actually try to help their users find people they like, etc…
There is plenty of resources to support humanity.
I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we’d need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.
I think we shouldn’t use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans. Our species has experienced a massive population explosion and is at peak numbers.
Usually this kind of events are followed by a hurtful population crash. It seems considerably better if growth ends due to a (subconscious?) decision to stop expanding, rather than a war for remaining resources.
The founder of the Antinatalism International, Anugraha Kumar Sharma, argues that “there is absolutely no hope whatsoever in this world.”
Well, that’s hard to argue against. I might disagree, but I cannot artificially give him any hope, even if he wants some.
For some, the progressive embrace of antinatalism might just be a reaction to the pronatalism espoused by the Right. Because Vice President J. D. Vance wants you to have more children, the only natural reply is that we ought to have none.
Not for me. They can want all they want, but to consider children, I imagine I would need to find a society relatively free of strife, a society with lower risk. I would need to feel somewhat secure in my own future, because you have to raise children for a hefty amount of time. Most importanly, I’d have to find someone who’d like to do this together.
Some creatures respond to environmental stress by breeding earlier and faster, and trying to do that more desperately. I cannot find such a response in my own “code”. I respond to environmental stress by saving resources to overcome hardship, and focusing effort to defeat the source of hardship. If that means a decline in population by 1.7 people, so be it.
I think that in the modern times, more people have started thinking this way. Having children is expensive and can effectively put you below the poverty line, and stop you from pursuing goals, whatever they are.
I’m not even anti-natalist. I’m just not interested in reproduction - precisely because I still have a future that I might influence for the better - but not if I waste my resources on reproduction.
Also, I think a scarcity of humans might actually cause society to value humans more. In the Middle Ages, when the plague reduced populations, serfs were able to obtain better conditions and break the pattern of slavery in many lands. Feudal lords struggled because their vast empty lands could not be managed by their dwindling crew - someone could till a field or hunt game without paying taxes or asking for permission out there. Of course, this pattern might not apply in modern times, however.
the global democratic left has been incapable of developing an economic agenda that looks beyond the next election cycle.
Not sure if I can agree. Over here, the agenda looks pretty clear. Achieve progressive taxation. Achieve higher taxation of capital than labour. Achieve lower taxation of worker-owned companies. Achieve universal health insurance. Beyond the economic, achieve a governing system not disproportionately influenced by the wealthy. Preferably, achieve all this without violence.
(and reaching those goals is prevented by the disproportionate propaganda capability of the economic right, mostly financed by the wealthy)
"My immediate reaction was to say, ‘I don’t talk with the FBI,’” Neill said. The man said, “OK,” and Neill shut the door. Two other activists described similar visits in interviews with WBUR.
This guy is my hero. :)
Thank you for the advise, I acted upon it too.
For those who don’t know: the Hind Rajab Foundation is the Palestinian equivalent of the Simon Wiesenthal Center - and just as necessary in our time. They take legal action to bring likely war criminals to trial.