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.
Cool, that looks great to me.
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
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
After a thorough review, our lame language model told us that if we don’t have all your data, and if we don’t use our AI to analyse it it, then it will be impossible for us to keep you safe from evil haxors , jeffrey epstine, putain, terrorists, china and drag queens.
For your own protection we’re duty bound to enable it by default in the next version. #savingyourlife
Call the Sales/new accounts line and see how long it takes them to pick up.
English dos do be done daft. https://inv.us.projectsegfau.lt/watch?v=6lhxxiqqlQY&t=293
lemmingnade
If only motor vehicles were animals.
If you’re bothered about overall waste, consider that some batteries degrade slower if you charge slower. I tend to prefer a slow charger when i can.
Tape over the hole.
Yes, I was going to comment that this sounds “sociopathic”, but they didnt actually inclde that in the paper.
I wonder if its also correlated with a likelihood to drive at excess speed in built up areas, use mobile phone whilst driving, or otherwise things risk the safety of those other than the perpetrator.
Personally I don’t like the idea of debate as in words vs words, i prefer empiricism - set out theories and test against observable evidence. It’s hard to do that in this case though.
But I must admit I do find the “sun will rise” argument hilarious as I think it is a very limited description of the relative movements of the sun and earth - and a clear example of personal bias vs considering alternatives impacting peoples ability to make a better description of what is going on. So yeah maybe it really does make your point.
“Sincere” doesnt seem right or relevant. and “counter argument” is a bit too adversarial for me. You’ll get sucked into bad-faith tennis matches with flat earthers; which is just a waste of time.
So +1 unpopular - but it’s not far off.
If you’d said . . . “you should consider a range of different hypotheses, grant them equal respect and try to gather (and assess) evidence in a way that is not biased for or against any of the hypotheses. You should then see which of the hypotheses seems most likely given the evidence.”
Then i’d agree. And I’m not sure how unpopular it’d be. Science vs not-Science.
But if your hypotheses are: H0: A is true. H1: A is false. Then I don’t see how you can be “sincere” about both if you literally believe A in the first place.
You probably do have to be open to the possibility of being wrong - so maybe the tough part is actually being a little insincere about H0. It’s the evidence that should decide afterall.
Sunrise is a matter of perspective though and I don’t think it is a very well refined scientific explanation of a broad set evidence. Ask a polar bear or an emporer penguin at this time of year. Or consider the majority of places in our solar system.
How was appollo programme planned?