Some of the more "radical" scientists have been calling for such a thing for a while now. Meaning that it's needed even more now since we haven't done much to change anything and more damage has been done. You aren't wrong, addressing the core problems would be a long and intensive process and most people would resist even required participation (which says something about the chances of voluntarily doing much).
Every new science finding always says "faster than expected", but we sure aren't acting like the clock is running out. Attacking car emissions without doing something about cars themselves (that cause and/or are a cause of a larger problem) isn't really going to solve much, and certainly not if that's all we change in more than a decades. How about less cars? Easier to just shift the marketing and keep on producing something.
Multi-generational homes doesn't necessarily equate to multiple incomes for support. Historically there was a single income earner because cost of living was more balanced with average income (not true for everyone and every demographic, but on average). Having two or more people in the family earning a paycheck is a modern invention as wages flatlined. I suppose you could go further back when the income was the family farm or business and the kids were free labor, but that's not really a comparable situation to what's being discussed.
It's not AGI that's terrifying, but how people are so willing to let anything take over their control. LLMs are "just" predictive text generation with a lot of extras to make things come out really convincing sometimes, and yet so many individuals and companies basically handed over the keys without even second guessing its answers.
These past few years have shown how if (and it's a big if) AGI/ASI comes along, we are so screwed, because we can't even handle dumber tools well. LLMs in the hands of willing idiots can be a disaster itself, and it's possible we're already there.
More methane release overwhelms the natural breakdown agents in the atmosphere (hydroxyl radicals) so an increase bumps up the decay half life average and overall greenhouse gas effectiveness. We know there's more methane leaks now due to both manmade sources as well as natural feedback loops from warming. Yet the IPCC still uses the older half life numbers for methane even now.
Reminded me for some reason of the description of what "catastrophic damage" is in the board game Starfleet Battles. Not necessarily the level of the nacelles falling off the ship, but a bit more than the captain's chess board slipping off the table.
Even Democrats over decades have changed their stance on issues. Changing your mind with experience and new facts is a sign of rational thinking. That's just a long jump for someone who has been with the Republican party until now. As the quote goes, "THIS was the line that was crossed for you?"
But it's happened before. The Eisenhower Democrats were a group that felt it was time to cross the aisle, but that was mainly because they saw a drift of the Republican party into waters they didn't agree with. The gap was not as far as it is now. The only way I can see it is if one has been totally blind to what the party supports for years and has been voting party lines without question or even looking at the issues. And sure, there's people that do that, but anyone who is like that and is in politics isn't a leader, they're a tool.
This goes along with someone else's question above in response to Boebert - "which church?" It's ironic that the biggest benefactors of separation are religions, and they're the first to try and dismantle it.
The founders of the Constitution and others back then disagreed on a lot of issues and had a few false starts, as well as expected us to continue to modify laws as society changed. But they certainly agreed on no religion within politics, they lived in a world where that had been shown to be problematic over and over. We can see it now as religion creeps back in to our current politics as well as worldwide in other nations.
It's talking about the annual global average, probably surface air since that's mentioned later in the article. You're right that it should be much more specific about what's meant in the first sentence, not near the end.
If you really want to get the full idea of what Kirk as a captain is like, dive into the old paperback novels. He has a presence of command that many good writers have expanded on, and there's a reason he's a legend among the many Starfleet commanders. Although I have a head canon that anyone getting to the point of captaining a starship has similar awesomeness in their character that can face just about anything head on. A 23rd/24th century version of the steely-eyed missile man.
Which puts a new light on the various captains in all the series that "failed" in some way. Decker and the rest. They were Kirk level, and what they went through still broke them.
Given that was the very first filmed episode (as a second pilot) it can be forgiven (The Man Trap was the first aired). I can't find a reason for picking "T" later on in the series, but it sounds better than "R" when announcing his full name to an alien ship. "Tiberius" didn't even come along until a later animated episode, and still wasn't canon except to fans until it was used in The Undiscovered Country.
Flying with a payload requires a lot more lift which goes down as temps go up, plus it could be just the heating of the motors under load that have a certain limit before they tend to fail.
Rhaedas @ Rhaedas @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 403Joined 2 yr. ago
A safe bet that if it's outside the U.S., it's Celsius. I don't think anyone would be alarmed about 60F even on the heat bulb chart.