Because religion evolved to thrive in us.
It's like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.
Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn't have these beneficial traits went extinct.
Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it's necessary to spread your belief to others, are 'somehow' more spread out than religions who don't convey that need.
This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.
This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It's funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.
Right?
"I would have helped avoiding the apocalypse! But then some random guys sprayed paint on some things!"
Activists (try to) do that as well. But it's much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.
Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader's interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.
So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don't do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.
Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.
And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.
Dumm di dumm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles
Der Markt für Verbrenner verschwindet in den nächsten 10 bis 20 Jahren. Zeigt mal wieder deren Wirtschaftskompetenz.
What do you mean? Of course they do. It's not a contradiction, because they are adversaries.
making the shops pay more to use the payment service, so that the shops then increase the prices, so that you pay the same as before
Just nitpicking because I enjoy these thoughts:
When the shop increases prices, it has to do it for all the customers, including the ones without credit card. So a part of the cost is offloaded to other types of customers. While credit card customers should see a slight increase in price, it should not be as much as they saved previously. So still a net win for them, at the cost of others.
As others pointed out, the real scheme is probably entirely different.
Yeah, just for reference ... 2 weeks of 1920x1080 video at 60 fps is about 7 GB.
Snapshots, or recorded actions, should be possible with far less space than 2 GB.
Japan’s coal imports are overwhelmingly local – AUS and Indonesia.
That's roughly as local as France or GB to US east cost, similar distance and similar other differences. IMHO both connections aren't even regional anymore. But yeah, it's fairly short what coal import routes concerns.
Würde ich auch vermuten. Ihre bisherigen Forderungen waren es aber nicht, mit großem Abstand. Also mal schauen.
While you guys kind of have a point, the specific argument you put forward is rather weak. Transportation accounts for an almost negligible part of the overall emissions of a product. Bulk freight cargo is super efficient. If you want to moan about transportation emissions, look at single people sitting in tons of steel making short trips.
The point you still have is that emissions are caused in the process of satisfying a demand. Consumers do have a partial responsibility. However I would object in that the problem cannot be solved from the consumer's position. It is a market failure. Markets have no incentive to internalize their externalities, that has to come from a different place; e.g. politics. Carbon pricing is an interesting mechanic, since it utilizes that same argument for good.
That's true. A lot more could be said about this, on various levels in various directions. Ultimately I don't think this systemic crisis can be solved on a consumer level. The attempt leads to the status quo; different subcultures with some people paying extra to calm their consciousness, while most don't care or cannot afford. I'm afraid if we try to work with individual sacrifice against economic incentives, the latter will win.
It's also true that some companies use their economic power as a political lever, to influence legislation in their favor. Or as a societal lever, to sway public opinion in their favor. I guess this meme here tries to address that. I honor the motive. Just the chosen vehicle is broken. With mountains of evidence supporting the cause, however, there are plenty of other, perfectly fine vehicles available.
This meme is so wrong it is deliberate misinformation. The Guardian made an article which is probably this meme's source. It even linked to the original source, the Carbon Majors Report. But blatantly misquoted the CMR. For example, CMR says something like "100 fossil fuel producers responsible for 71% of industrial GHG emissions", but The Guardian (and meme posters) omit the italic bits.
What do they mean with producers? Not companies like Apple or Heinz, but simply organizations which produce fossil fuels. Duh. Shell, BP, but also entities like China's coal sector (which they count as one producer, although it consists of many entities). CMR also states 3rd type emissions are included. Which means emissions caused by "using" their "products", e.g. you burning gasoline in your car.
So yes, the downvoted guy saying "Consumer emissions and corporate emissions are the same emissions" is pretty spot on in this case, albeit most likely by accident. Rejected not for being wrong, but for not fitting into a narrative, which I call the wrong reasons. Please check your sources before posting. We live in a post-factual world where only narratives count and truth is just another feeling, because of "journalism" and reposts like this. Which is the infuriating part in this particular case. I guess you want to spread awareness about the climate crisis, which is good, but you cannot do so by propagandizing science and spreading lies.
All that from the top of my head. Both the ominous TG article and the fairly short report are easy to find. In just a couple of minutes you can check and confirm how criminally misquoted it was.
Eventually, things settle at almost perfect ratios. Everything between creates some kind of friction.
What does it even mean to bruteforce creating art? Trying all the possible prompts to some image model?
Doesn't have to be that random, but can be. Here, I wrote: "throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions".
The approach people take to learning or applying a skill like painting is not bruteforcing, there is actual structure and method to it.
Ok, but isn't that rather an argument that it can eventually be mastered by a machine? They excel at applying structure and method, with far more accuracy (or the precise amount of desired randomness) and speed than we can.
The idea of brute forcing art comes down to philosophical questions. Do we have some immaterial genie in us, which cannot be seen and described by science, which cannot be recreated by engineers? Engeniers, lol. Is art something which depends on who created it, or does it depend on who views it?
Either way what I meant is that it is thinkable that more computation power and better algorithms bring machines closer to being art creators, although some humans surely will reject that solely based on them being machines. Time will tell.
That depends on things we don't know yet. If it can be brute forced (throw loads of computation power, gazillions of try & error, petabytes of data including human opinions), then yes, "lots of work" can be an equivalent.
If it does not, we have a mystery to solve. Where does this magic come from? It cannot be broken down into data and algorithms, but still emerges in the material world? How? And what is it, if not dependent on knowledge stored in matter?
On the other hand, how do humans come up with good, meaningful art? Talent Practice. Isn't that just another equivalent of "lots of work"? This magic depends on many learned data points and acquired algorithms, executed by human brains.
There also is survivor bias. Millions of people practice art, but only a tiny fraction is recognized as artists (if you ask the magazines and wallets). Would we apply the same measure to computer generated art, or would we expect them to shine in every instance?
As "good, meaningful art" still lacks a good, meaningful definition, I can see humans moving the goalpost as technology progresses, so that it always remains a human domain. We just like to feel special and have a hard time accepting humiliations like being pushed out of the center of the solar system, or placed on one random planet among billion others, or being just one of many animal species.
Or maybe we are unique in this case. We'll probably be wiser in a few decades.
Teilweise juhu, prinzipiell jedenfalls. Praktisch bleibt mir völlig unklar, wo zu welchen Konditionen denn nun Bubatz zu haben ist. Oder ob damit gewartet werden muss, bis die heute gesäten Pflanzen geerntet wurden. Es finden sich haufenweise Informationen dazu, wie kompliziert alles ist, aber diese eine entscheidende praktische Frage habe ich noch nirgendwo beantwortet gefunden.
Falls da jemand mehr weiß, für Hamburg oder auch anderswo, das wär toll.
In Germany, whenever the discussion about wether to deliver a specific weapon system or not extends to a "new" weapon system, this usually is an argument against. Hurr durr, it could be used to poke too deep into Russian-held territory, or beware, even strike native Russian soil. Russia might not like that and pull Germany into the war or throw a nuke or whatnot.
The day this country’s tensions between conservatism and liberalism die is the day the USA ceases to exist. That tension is at the core of our republic, literally since its founding, and it’s what makes us great, unlike any other nation on Earth.
That sounds as if this tension was somehow unique to the united states. It's not, it's everywhere. Even worse, the US have less of a political spectrum than most other nations, just shy of dictatorships.
https://piped.video/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo
Sources: Juliet B. Schor, "The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure"
---
David Rooney, "About Time: A History of Civilization in Twelve Clocks" E. P. Thompson, "Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism" | https://www.jstor.org/stable/649749 James E. Thorold Rogers, "Six Centuries of Work and Wages: The History of English Labour" | https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/rogers/sixcenturies.pdf George Woodcock, "The Tyranny of the Clock," Published in "War Commentary - For Anarchism" in March, 1944
---
GDP per capita in England, 1740 to 1840, via Our World in Data | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-in-the-uk-since-1270 Nominal wages, consumer prices, and real wages in the UK, United Kingdom, 1750 to 1840, via Our World in Data | https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nominal-wages-consumer-prices-and-real-wages-in-the-uk-since-1750
Running around with StreetComplete, the app sometimes tells me to leave a note instead, which I do. Short time later, I receive an email that another person has resolved my note. That's nice, but wouldn't it be better to do it all on my own?
I think I need a more powerful Editor for that, and installed Vespucci. Now I'm scared to break things. What are the next steps, how to proceed?
The volume of a cylinder is found using the formula V = πr2h. Using π = 5, r = 10 and h = 10. Find the volume V.
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
---
Text version, thanks to @CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
---
Text version, thanks to @CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
---
Text version, thanks to @CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
https://www.youtube.com/@Brackeys/about
---
Text version, thanks to @CorneliusTalmadge@lemmy.world:
Image Text
BRACKEYS
Hello everyone!
It’s been a while. I hope you are all well.
Unity has recently taken some actions to change their pricing policy that I - like most of the community - do not condone in any way.
I have been using Unity for more than 10 years and the product has been very important to me. However, Unity is a public company. Unfortunately that means that it has to serve shareholder interests. Sometimes those interests align with what is best for the developers and sometimes they do not. While this has been the case for a while, these recent developments have made it increasingly clear.
Unity has pulled back on the first version of their new pricing policy and made some changes to make it less harmful to small studios, but it is important to remember that the realities of a public company are not going to change.
Luckily, there are other ways of structuring the development of software. Instead of a company owning and controlling software with a private code base, software can be open source (with a public code base that anyone can contribute to) and publicly owned. Blender - a stable 3D modelling software in the game dev community - is free and open source. In fact some of the largest and most advanced software in the world is built on top of open source technology like Linux.
The purpose of this post is not to denounce Unity because of a misstep, to criticise any of its employees or to tell anyone to “jump ship”. Instead I want to highlight the systematic issue of organizing large software projects under a public company and to let you know that there are alternatives.
I believe that the way to a stronger and more healthy game dev community is through software created by the community for the community. Software that is open source, democratically owned and community funded.
Many of you have been asking for us to produce new tutorial series on alternative engines such as Godot, which is currently the most advanced open source and community funded game engine. I don’t know yet if this is something that we can realise and when.
I can only say that I have started learning Godot.
Best of luck to all of you with your games, no matter what engine they might be built on!
Sincerely,
Asbjern Thirslund - Brackeys
I managed to disable it, but I can't find how to remove it entirely. Anyone knows?
I'm talking about the screen all to the left.
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/2294408
> https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/chart-solar-installations-set-to-break-global-us-records-in-2023
- https://piped.video/watch?v=KV-VXkx-eVM
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV-VXkx-eVM
Die Französin Ariane Kujawski stellt ihren Landsleuten das winzige deutsche Wort „Na“ vor. Es kann so viele Bedeutungen haben:
- Ansprache
- Vorwurf
- Freude
- Ärger
- Ungeduld
- Resignation
- Überraschung
- Gleichgültigkeit
- Unbestimmtheit
- Na toll
- Trost
- Bedrohung
- ...
I'm specifically looking for these two:
- https://thevapor.space/c/vapemail | !vapemail@thevapor.space
- https://thevapor.space/c/diyejuice | !diyejuice@thevapor.space
They exist, but I cannot find them through the lemm.ee search, so I cannot subscribe to them. I tried all tricks of which I'm aware several times. I checked wether we blocked or defederated each other, which does not seem to be the case.
So what's the issue, and how to fix?
You're also welcome to post other communities related to vaping, e-liquids, electric cigarettes.
I'm often unsure how to rate the surface quality of an inherently rough surface, like sett, paving stones or cobble stone.
Question 1: These surfaces are defined by having seams. So would it ever be right to rate them as 'seamless'?
Or should we rate them as 'seamless' when they only have the expected amount of seams? Especially cobblestone makes me wonder, which usually comes with large seams and a rough and irregular surface.
---
Question 2: Tactile paving for blind people. Does that make a surface rough for you? In a way, that's literally how this paving becomes tactile, right?
---
Question 3: A pedestrian crossing going over a traffic isle (but marked as one continuous path). Assuming otherwise perfect surfaces, does it have 'cracks' (since it goes over 4 curbs), and a 'rough surface' if it has tactile paving?
---
Question 4: The marked entitiy is a wide area, not a narrow path. You're asked to rate it's surface quality. The area is mostly flat and smooth, but has some cracks and potholes in a few localized spots.
Do you mark it as 'a little bumpy' because that's how it would feel if you walk/bike over the bad spots? Or do you mark it as 'perfect', because it's easy to find a way through without encountering any obstacles?
- https://piped.video/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
--- Video Description:
Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.
Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.
---
Channel Description:
Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.
The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.
---
CHAPTERS (and key bits)
- 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
- 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO2 in 2022.
- 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
- 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
- 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
- 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO2/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
- 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
- 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO2
- 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
- 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
- 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO2 in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
- 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
- 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
- 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
- 24:35 Outro and credits
- https://piped.video/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
--- Video Description:
Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.
Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.
---
Channel Description:
Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.
The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.
---
CHAPTERS (and key bits)
- 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
- 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO2 in 2022.
- 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
- 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
- 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
- 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO2/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
- 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
- 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO2
- 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
- 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
- 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO2 in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
- 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
- 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
- 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
- 24:35 Outro and credits
- https://piped.video/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
--- Video Description:
Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.
Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.
---
Channel Description:
Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.
The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.
---
CHAPTERS (and key bits)
- 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
- 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO2 in 2022.
- 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
- 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
- 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
- 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO2/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
- 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
- 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO2
- 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
- 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
- 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO2 in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
- 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
- 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
- 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
- 24:35 Outro and credits
- https://piped.video/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
--- Video Description:
Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.
Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.
---
Channel Description:
Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.
The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.
---
CHAPTERS (and key bits)
- 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
- 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO2 in 2022.
- 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
- 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
- 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
- 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO2/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
- 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
- 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO2
- 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
- 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
- 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO2 in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
- 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
- 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
- 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
- 24:35 Outro and credits
- https://piped.video/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
--- Video Description:
Direct Air Capture (DAC) has been getting more and more attention over the last few years. Could we avert climate change by pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere? Could we not just stop, but actually reverse the damage done? Unfortunately, most don't fully appreciate just quite how much CO2 we've emitted and the outrageous scale of the problem facing us. Today, we apply the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to question whether this is even feasible.
Written & presented by Prof. David Kipping. Edited by Jorge Casas. Fact checking by Alexandra Masegian.
---
Channel Description:
Space, astronomy, exoplanets, astroengineering and the search for extraterrestrial life & intelligence.
The Cool Worlds Lab, based at the Department of Astronomy, Columbia University, is a team of astronomers seeking to discover and understand alien worlds, particularly those where temperatures are cool enough for life, led by Professor David Kipping.
---
CHAPTERS (and key bits)
- 0:00 Climate Change: Some CC is needed just to maintain a level.
- 2:44 Removal Requirements: We released 37 Gt of CO2 in 2022.
- 3:38 Possible Solutions: Trees are good for 4 years, then no space.
- 5:03 Introducing DAC: IPCC estimates 20 Gt/yr @ 2050 required.
- 5:43 Climate Anxiety: This video is sponsored by betterhelp.
- 7:12 DAC Principles: Currently 19 DAC plants remove 10'000 tCO2/yr, or 0.000003% of global emissions.
- 8:14 Scalability: Why this video focuses on physics, not economics
- 9:29 Thermodynamics: Why DAC is a fight against entropy, introducing Gibbs. Lower limit: 120 kWh/tCO2
- 12:08 Progressive DAC: Starting in 2025, remove how much and how fast?
- 13:32 RCPs: Why 2.6 is discarded, why 4.5 is chosen (with an outlook on 8.5)
- 15:09 Simulations: For 450 ppm, we need to scrub 20 GtCO2 in 2050. For 350, almost 80 Gt.
- 17:03 Energy Requirements: 450 ppm requires 5% of global electricity. 350: 15%.
- 19:34 Efficiency: Above numbers assumed 100% efficiency. Current estimate 5%, measured 8%.
- 21:21 Conclusions: It's tough to do, but just possible. Easiest way: Stop emitting.
- 24:35 Outro and credits
Original title: "Misunderstanding Your Job Description - Delivery" by Viva La Dirt League
> Delivery man Byron learns some really important information about his job... that he probably should have learnt 6 years ago...
For those who don't know the show: It's important to understand that Byron is a very, very dedicated employee, who accepts any challenge, and takes great pride in his work. His colleagues sometimes don't remember him after working with him for years.
- https://piped.video/watch?v=0srs5jZ1qdg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srs5jZ1qdg
WARNING - LOUD!
Gav plops down the high speed camera next to a rocket engine with 45,000lbs of thrust and the results are epic. Big thanks to Firefly for allowing us to film at their facility and BBC Click for letting us use their behind the scenes footage from the day.
Filmed at 2000fps
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Aerospace#Reaver
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_diamond
- https://piped.video/watch?v=0srs5jZ1qdg
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0srs5jZ1qdg
WARNING - LOUD!
Gav plops down the high speed camera next to a rocket engine with 45,000lbs of thrust and the results are epic. Big thanks to Firefly for allowing us to film at their facility and BBC Click for letting us use their behind the scenes footage from the day.
Filmed at 2000fps
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_Aerospace#Reaver
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_diamond