PumpkinSkink @ PumpkinSkink @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

158

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's an interesting claim considering that US oil production has rapidly increased in the last 10ish years. Like, I hope he's not full of shit, but the numbers I can find suggest were actually producing the most oil we've ever produced right now.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m

Like it's nice that he's saying that and all, but I hope my skepticism can be forgiven until the US government, like, actually does something to reduce oil production. I hope he's right, but right now congress can't even pass a fucking budget, much less create sweeping, radical anti-oil-production legislature.

No the part where he's leaving.

"No matter the odds, or personal cost, we did the right thing... in this spirit that I have decided to depart the House at the end of this year"

Never thought we'd agree. Hope more people decide to make the right choice.

It stands out to me how they make a specific goal on increasing renewable capacity but make no such goals to reduce fossil fuel production. My concern is that if we don't consciously do the latter, the extra renewable capacity will, in effect, be used to increase power output without reducing the absolute quantity of fossil fuels significantly. There's a lot of capital wrapped up in fossil fuel extraction, and we would be asking a lot of very power entities to take a haircut on their RoI by not continuing to use it. I think it's a non-trivial problem that is really not being taken seriously enough in these kinds of talks.

My money's on Sean winning.

But he... wasn't. He lost the presidency in 1932 to Paul Von Hindenburg (53% to 37%. not even particularly close) who later appointed Hitler under pressure to the channclorship (which was an appointed role) in 1933. Hindenburg died in January of 1934 and Hitler de facto merged the presidency and chancelorship into one office (Fuhrer). The story isn't "regular people put Hitler in power", it's "broken legislative systems are vulnerable to facists".

There's good reason to presume carbon is required. Carbon has some nice, and totally unique properties that allow it to facilitate life.

The most important features to carbon in this context are:

1. Stable catenation of atoms. Carbon atoms can bond to other carbon atoms in a long chain, and that chain does not become appreciably more reactive. This allows for the construction of very large molecules with specialized mechanical functions.
2. Ability to form stable multiple bonds. Carbon can form single, double, or triple bonds with itself (and oxygen and nitrogen), which allows carbon-based molecules to have ridgid shapes. Double bonds are found all over the place in life because they allow molecules to have sections that aren't just wiggly noodles of atoms.
3. Bond stabilities that fall in a kind of "goldilocks zone" where carbon bonds to other atoms are strong enough to resist falling apart, but weak enough to be broken later.
4. Nearly identical electronegativity to hydrogen. Carbon pulls on the electrons in its bonds about the same amount as hydrogen. This allows it to make stable bonds that are non-polar, which, when used in conjuction with other, more electronegative atoms (particularly oxygen and phosphorus) allow Carbon-containing molecules to be hydrophobic, hydrophilic, or both simultaneously. This property is what allows for complex structures like Lipid bilayers and proteins to be formed.

No other atom, not even silicon, has this set of properties, and it's very hard to imagine how you would make all but the most simplistic verson of life without these.

I mean, I can agree that simple autocatalytic reactions can occur with chemistry based on other elements... but it's a stretch to say that suggests "alien life might not be carbon-based". Maybe very, very simple, life-like chemical systems, but life as we know it is defined by large, many-atom molecules, and no other element can do this the the way carbon can (not even silicon, whose bond energy decreases with catentation of more silicon atoms link, which, combined with it's poor ability to form multiple bonds ruins the possibility of silicon-based life). Anything that we can conceivably think of as "life" beyond simple self-reproducing chemical, or bizzare Boltzmann brain-esque systems will have carbon-based chemicals in it.

Hey...If she wants to wear a bikini, who am I to tell her no? Go for it. Unless of course, she doesn't actually want to and is just being intentionally obtuse like a old judgmental cunt.

tomato, tomatoe. Not that I'd ever put tomatoes in a cucumber salad. That's heathen shit.

I'm not your boss. Do it up, man.

I'm kinda surprised how few people have mentioned Chrono Cross. It's not the same game, but it has a lot of cross over, and might help scratch that itch for "more chronotrigger".

If i chop up a cucumber and throw it in a bowl with some vinegarette, I call it a cucumber salad.

I have similar suspicions, but my great concern is that, at that point, the solution that many countries will come to will be to start shoot migrants at the border rather than to actually do anything to mitigate the root cause of the migrations.

Ok, I get the sentiment but let's bear in mind that whatever rules apply to Trump will be applied to others. It should be very hard to bar someone from running. Trump doesn't have the support to win the general. It's not happening. He lost the Republican party multiple elections now, and they know it (well, enough of them know it). Let's not forget that Eugene Debs ran for office in 1920 from prison. He was put there under the Sedition Act for speaking out against WW1 and the draft, if I recall correctly. This type of thing is a sword that cuts both ways.

I notice a fair number of people suggesting that it might give incentive to corrupt the public media outlet, or that it may be biased toward the government funding it... and yeah... that's probably true to one degree or another. But, that said, I think we all should take a moment and think honestly about bias in media. All media is biased, especially the ones that claim they're unbiased. Just because it's privately funded doesn't make it any less succeptible to corruption or bias. Indeed one of the biggest complains about our news is that the majority of media companies are owned and operated by, what is it, six(?) companies, and we know they all mislead people regularly on issues that affect them. Instead of focusing on removing bias from media, we should all be more diligent about being skeptical of the author's presentation of the media we consume regardless of funding source, and particularly when it is selling is info that we agree with and that angers us.

When toxic "econimistism" comes home to roost. A "strong economy" as measured by stock markets and company profits, both owned primarily by the extremely wealthy is not the same as "working class people are doing well economically", which is what should be meant by "a strong economy" if it were not for the neoliberal brain rot.

I mean realistically the most obvious thing to me is that something has to be done to make the prospect of having children less daunting. I can't speak to Japan, but for my friends here, in our early 30s, we're only just now getting to a place where moving out of our parents/a 5 person roommate situation is feasible. Many of us don't have long-term romantic prospects, and work all the fucking time. Ok top of that, having a kid just sounds terrifying. The cost, and amount of effort needed to see a kid not have a terrible life is daunting (I'm a teacher. Just imaging the amount of effort I, as a parent, would need to put in to have a average kid succeed in a school environment is horrifying)

I imagine a real intervention for this sort of thing looks like less work; good, free child care; our cities building culturally relevant community spaces that people actually want to go to outside of the internet; and creating a culture of community-oriented sharing of the responsibilities of caring for children. In short, we'd need to make our society one that's less hostile to having kids. That seems pretty obvious, and from my understanding, a lot of these factors are worse in Japan than in the US.

Well, y'know, we were an explicit apartheid state for 80% of our history, and were founded on the back of slavery and genocide so brutal it served as the blueprint for Nazi Germany... The more alarming part is that anyone is proud of our nation.