True, and there is some variation in the axioms. But for the record, pretty much all systems keep the logical rules of AND elimination and OR introduction for example: if A and B are true, then A is true. If A is true, then A or B is true. However, the law of excluded middle is sometimes excluded for constructivist reasons.
You should not be applying to companies if you are interested in graduate school. You should be applying to graduate school to get a student visa. Then apply for companies near the end of your degree.
I don't think it is when the students are random variables, because enhanced information retrieval will increase the proportion of the lazy in the class.
The entire point of AI is not to make people more productive, but to trade productivity in the short-term for even more automation that goes beyond the point of diminishing returns so that those at the top can accumulate even more wealth. Big-tech corporations act as attractants for those who love power and money above any other concern and they certainly are not creating any tools to help anyone.
When a small company makes a product, they are happy to make something useful in exchange for a living. When big tech makes something, you are the product and they just want to use their economies of scale to squeeze you dry, making you think they have something useful.
People talk about AI now as if it is a great tool for them. Maybe it is, but in some years it won't really be a great tool at all except at keeping power in the hands of the most wealthy.
Isn't this the case with any invention that greatly improves productivity? Ask early 1800s English textile workers. Their wages did not return back to late 1700s peak, inflation adjusted, till WWI. Does that mean that mechanisation of textile industry was a bad thing? It meant people no longer had to wear $5000 T-shirts (https://www.sleuthsayers.org/2013/06/the-3500-shirt-history-... - I inflation-adjusted $3500 from 2013 to today).
If it was made in the US with a $7.25/hour wage sure, now do it in cambodia for $200 a month, at 48 hours a week that's barely a dollar an hour, all of a sudden it's a $500 shirt already.
Anyways I don't think you can use inflation over 700 years to come up with a tshirt price based on modern min wages, even peasants had clothes and they sure did not spend 6 months of labor to get a single item of clothing
After spending some times looking about more info on this topic you very quickly find people who debunk the original claim, and the inflation adjusted price the list is about I came up on my side using cambodia: https://www.bookandsword.com/2017/12/09/how-much-did-a-shirt...
It is the case, but it varies in magnitude. The textile industry was a bad thing in one way in that it caused an uncontrollable surplus of clothing that is in a sense "too cheap" and now is a major environmental problem. They key is that each invention can be thought of having a magnitude M of how it becomes uncontrollable, and once M > T (some threshhold T), then it becomes a net negative, where AI is certainly greater than T.
Not exactly but often these are postprocessing contests with a lot of stacking, and composites in the range of thousands of images. Even before AI, milky way photography has long had a tradition of very heavy-handed postprocessing.
> Yet they still long for those days. As if in those days they were happier than they are now. I think it's the opposite.
Well, I had a pretty peaceful life without all that stuff you mentioned, and I think life was better before the internet. For sure. Now, I'm not saying we haven't improved a few things, but I think somewhere in the middle would be ideal: internet of the older days without so much commercialization and internet speeds around 56K modems.
How about a computer that just gets out of my way and lets me type stuff! Seriously, I've been using computers since the DOS days and the only thing that has made my computer more intelligent was when the crashing bugs were fixed. Now get off my lawn.
Not so sure. There are quite a lot of bright high school students that could indeed understand it. Maybe not in general but for a special interest group for sure. The local university had a group covering stuff like this and I found it to be very fun as a high school student, and there were at least 5 people that I went to school with that could easily handle this material (and I didn't go to some special school, either).
Unless you’re talking about an elite private school where 5 student class sizes are the norm, no, a discrete math course is not appropriate for high school students.
I took an intro discrete math course in second year of university (at a school which is easily top 5 in math and engineering in my country) and I along with most of my peers struggled intensely with it, despite all of us having completed the proof-heavy courses in first year.
On the other hand, I routinely work with high school students who are unable to multiply a pair of single digit numbers without a calculator.
Though some High school kid with interest might grasp the parts he/she is interested in.
There is a big lap from there to "Could be taught in High School".
The sheer amount of work is the main obstacle in addition to the lack of specialization in the courses is one of the obstacles I think, apart from the obvious one which is the lack of foundational skills.
We covered part of this material to a similar level in high school in Australia in the early 1980s along with Calculus, probability and statistics.
In the math II/III streams ("advanced" for those wanting to do Enginering, Medicine, STEM, hard trades courses that need a grasp of math, etc).
This was a public high school in a remote area BTW, which I attended pretty much straight off an outback cattle station.
It's my understanding the US doesn't tackle any of this, nor Calculus, until undergraduate university.
Other countries address similar material (eg abstract algebra) in high school.
The full text is a bit OTT for high school (as I experienced it in Australia), but a good chunk wouldn't have been out of place, I and many of my peers would have happily read it as an extra curicular interest.
I’m speaking from the perspective of the U.S. I still contend though that the vast majority of people ages 12 - 18 are incapable of learning this book. Note that I’m talking about this book as it is in it’s totality.
This book includes counting principles in it so one can always claim that aspects of this book can be taught to people between ages of 12 - 18. We do teach people how to count at a young age. The subject matter is such that one can introduce concepts from this book in grades 7 - 12 but not at the depth the book covers them.
Calculus is taught in most high schools in the U.S. but very few students take calculus in high school.
> the vast majority of people ages 12 - 18 are incapable of learning this book.
Sure.
That doesn't prevent it being a high school text taught in some high school streams though.
Math I was taught to bulk of upper school students in Australia (in years 11 and 12), Math II/III was taught to those students interested in STEM at a university, Math IV was remedial math to bolster the poorer math students that didn't exactly pick up primary school math.
Again, it's similar in depth to how I was taught math in high school and how my peers were taught in high school, but I guess we were more math orientated than others. *
What makes it not a high school text (for advanced high school students here) is length rather than depth, while a breadth of math subjects were introduced along with concepts such as proof, reasoning, various notations, etc it was uncommon for a single subject such as discrete mathematics to be dealt with at great length, perhaps a third of the material presented here at a similar depth would be more common (again, for some high school students, not all high school students).
Length + depth determines the appropriateness of a book at a given level. They go hand in hand and my comment was about this book. Not 1 or 2 chapters of it and not 1 or 2 chapters of it dumbed down a bit.
Again, while part of the book might be presented in a high school courses I took, a number of students that took such courses would read the entire book out of interest.
I'm unsure how you were taught but we in Australia frequently had textbooks that were only partially taught in high school, leaving the rest as untested and for interest.
This, as I'm sure you follow, means it would be fine as a text book despite only part of the text being taught.
Many of my peers were recommended a list of texts to read in high school that were never fomally taught in high school. A couple of people that were in our circle at that time read such things before high school.
It is quite obvious that you have not taught mathematics at a non specialized high school. You think the experience you and 3 other people each of whom got a Ph.D. at a good university in science and/or philosophy is somehow normative. You think this book could be taught to 15 year olds to anything more than a very small number of people is insane. Please go spend time in a classroom as a mathematics teacher before asserting such things. You might be right but your evidence is lacking. You clearly have no idea about the state of things in the average high school.
EDIT: My wife is a physician who dropped out of high school. There are people who think that because she did it this proves that more than an extremely small number of such people could become physicians. They are wrong. She got lucky and the vast majority of high school dropouts can’t become physicians.
People think that their experience going through high is indicative of what it is like on average and they advocate for positions based on their experience. It’s the “I did it therefore you can too” fallacy.
You found 12 people who could learn this book in high school. You found them in university. They didn’t all go to the same high school. Each high school has very, very few students who could understand this book. High schools don’t have the resources to teach a class for just 2 or 3 students.
Twelve, not three, in my first year university math 100 class, I gave three typical examples of the twelve.
It was almost the only university in the state at that time, two others opened in the year or so prior and these were (at the time) free universities for any that got a sufficient TAE score (high school exam for tertiary entrance).
All in all many more people were educated in mathematics or in their particular interests in this small state, and that began in primary and high school.
I attended a non specialized high school in a remote corner of a large state (3x size of Texas) with a small population (less than 2 million at that time).
I don't think that the book can be taught to any 15 year olds, I think it can easily be taught to 15 year old students interested in math, as other similar books have been.
In a not disimilar manner I know others who started olympic level swimming training in high school as part of their high school curriculum. Not for everyone, just for those high school students with aptitude.
I have spent time in a classroom as a mathematics assistant tutor, it was good pick up money during the five years I attended university.
Naturally many people that were awarded Ph.D. attended high school, I'm unsure why you would choose to exclude them from the population of high school students.
The state of things in average state run Western Australia high schools in the 1980s was that most student got mainstream education and students that showed promise in any number of different ares would get moved to specialised stream or invited to subsidised speciality camps; these existed for math, literature, theatre, music, sports, machining, etc.
eg. Heath Ledger got more theatre exposure in his High School years in this state than the majority of other high school students .. the fact that they didn't go on to play the Joker in a major Hollywood production doesn't negate what he did in high school.
You clearly have no idea about the average high school in the place and time to which I refer.
My own son attended a state high school (free public education) that had an aviation course, he and his classmates built an aircraft over two years and then took turns flying it. ( https://www.kentstreetshs.wa.edu.au/aviation )
It's sad that you seem to want to homogenize the high school experience to the least common denominator.
EDIT: “I did it therefore you can too” - not a claim I made, please stop strawmanning.
Again, there is nothing preventing a university level text being taught to high school students with aptitude and this actually happens in some education systems outside your ken.
In parallel other advanced subjects and skills can also be taught to high school students with aptitude .. and some education systems do this.
I'm sorry you apparently have not experienced such a system.
What you’ve been saying is based on your experience (very limited). The essence of your beliefs are that you and 12 other people could have done this book on high school therefore it should be a class in high school. Though you have no evidence that high schools have the resources to give a class that very few people are qualified to take. The distribution of qualified students is such that each individual high school will on average have very few students capable of taking such a class.
You went to high school and university and tutored some people. Therefore you know much more than me on what is appropriate to teach high schoolers. I just have 30 years of experiece teaching college level mathematics. Your arguements are compelling and I now agree with you.
The irony of you making this comment in a thread about math. 12 per year out of a population of 2 million in a remote, thus likely under served, thus likely under performing region.
My own experience is a rate closer to 1 per 35 in a reasonably well off region within the US.
You clearly have not taught mathematics at either the college level or the high school level. But your experience carries a great deal of weight. You are correct. I’ve taught mathematics at Purdue University, Florida State University, University of Kansas, various community colleges and in a prison. I don’t know what I’m talking about. The book in question should be a course at every high school. Each high school will certainly have enough students who can take such a course to justify having the course.
By the way, don’t look up what an outlier is and don’t forget that your anecdote is, in fact, data.
Indeed, I have not. Nor do I need to in order to make simple observations that contradict your claims. You are representing that something which is already widely put into practice is infeasible. A strange hill to die on.
The amusing thing is that if your claims weren't framed as an absolute they'd likely be correct. But when you attempt to make sweeping generalizations about the entire country you will almost invariably be wrong regardless of the topic at hand.
I'll also note that intentionally misattributing claims to me is neither in good faith nor in keeping with HN guidelines.
I'll chime in as someone from the US who attended a public school and took a calculus class that used a university level text and did exactly as you described. Color me surprised when I arrived at university only to encounter that same book in use for the calculus course sequence.
The person you're engaging with here clearly has an overly generalized view of the US educational system (and is overly confident in it). It's not surprising that there's a bit of variance - the place is rather large after all.
Ninth grade introduced me to algebra and my 'technical' high school program spent a lot of resources teaching calculus and algebra. I also opted into all the other math courses they had, doing discrete math, complex numbers and stochastic math. I didn't have points to put into taking it but the school also offered a course on modern physics, teaching stuff like field equations and quantum mysteries.
One of my adolescence girlfriends left Russia after fifth grade and had an introduction to both algebra and some discrete math there.
Read the article. This isn't a climate solution, it's a solution to mitigate the effects of climate change on people, making them even more likely to go on with their wasteful ways.
Don't get me wrong: planting trees is a good thing. But the word "solution" implies a reduced rate of increase of CO2 over time, which this will not do. We have to use far less energy and far less fossil fuels to actually do that, and shift away from consumeristic innovation, which no one will do. Instead, they'll just plant trees to keep them cooler.
Degrowth isn’t a realistic nor acceptable solution to climate change. People aren’t going to accept a lower standard of living because scientists and activists told them they should. The only solution is technological progress.
Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite.
It's already happening for many people today who had no choice in the matter while people in developed countries have an endless stream of excuses.
Degrowth is inevitable. The only difference is when it happens, which is dictated by our choices. We're speed running it and using every excuse we can come up with.
> Don't worry, unlivable conditions will force lower standards of living on everyone except the elite.
Thank you, I didn't know that was the real goal of the climate movement. Just one question: How do you intend to force unlivable conditions, which in turn will force lower standards of living? I mean, which is the cause and which the effect if they are at all different?
Also, you have to advertise your goals more aggressively, don't be timid. I imagine the billboards:
"Degrowth is inevitable"
"Fight for unlivable conditions and low standards of living for everyone except the elite".
60 percent of Americans can’t afford a basic quality of life. People are having less kids because of their economics globally. The existing system is the forcing function.
Living standards won’t increase because demographic dividends from growing working age populations is over, and total fertility rates are rapidly declining globally.
That went completely over your head. Was missing the point on purpose?
Climate change is already here and happening. You can easily see how it's changing global supply chains and agriculture. Many coastal and island people's have already had to relocate or are spending massive amounts of money trying to relocate(or mitigate sea level rise).
Tens of thousands of people are dropping dead every year from just the heat. Heat that's never hit their parts of the world. Then we have drought(desertification), hurricanes/typhoons of record size, dust storms, disease outbreaks, flooding, wildfire, extreme winter weather. The list is huge and obvious.
There are no lack of clear examples that the climate is becoming less hospitable to humans. And there's no denying it is being caused or accelerated by human behavior. Our models are accurate and paint a very clear picture of what's causing the climate to change: human consumption derived climate change.
Climate change is already forcing growth to slow. It won't be long until degrowth is happening. There are no downsides to curbing our consumption now.
The reality is we have been enjoying subsidized food and products since the industrial revolution. We have known our extreme-consumption is not sustainable since the 1960s. We've been taking on climate debt with our $3 patriot beef burgers and cheap plastic shit. The climate is now calling due on that debt.
In Spain, a private company has planted almost 1 million trees in one year as what I guess is in part a marketing effort[1]. Barcelona itself counts with 1.5 million of exemplars.
So yes, you are probably right. 60K in 25 years is a PR note.
Not disagreeing with you, but I also wanna make a small effort towards being less cynical.
Not knowing much about Nevada or Las Vegas politics, I'm sure the political environment in Spain, and specially in Barcelona, is very different. 60k trees in however many years (we don't know if they were mosty planted in the last 5) might be all that they could get, and this PR note is their attempt at bringing more attention and try to muster support for more.
That private company that planted 1 million trees is a massive corporation with tens of thousands of employees in Spain. I'd bet their budget, even for marketing stunts, is bigger than Clark County's.
Also, marketing stunts are not /just/ marketing stunts. Companies, specially huge ones, contain multitudes. I'm sure many of the folks pushing for this actually cared about planting trees.
You are absolutely right. I don’t have detailed knowledge about the internal administrative organization of U.S. states, and I simply assumed that a county housing a world-class city like Las Vegas would have a very large budget. Even if this initiative is primarily symbolic, it could still play a valuable role in shifting public perception about managing street temperatures.
beyond insuficient,perhaps a record in insuficiency
friends were tree planters durring college years,
"high ballers" who would clear more than $200/day
5¢ a tree, 4000+ trees a day, one woman I know did it for 10 seasons, and hurt her kicker foot after planting millions of trees.
It is the literal truth that a small tree planting crew could handle all of the worlds urban tree planting scheams in a very short time.
humanity has cut a lot of trillions of trees, there are (not enough) trillions left
urban tree planting is tokenistic set dressing for the political theater to come.
this is like a government anouncing funding
for 60000 bits of new code to be written over 25 years.
Story like this are perfect examples of how far from understanding the scale of human caused climate heating we are, and points to how bad things will get before anything substantive is done.
I believe we have more trees today then ever before.
That isn't all that matters though. We replant monocultures and harvest them. This isn't a good ecosystem. It's also a net negative on the environmental emissions(carbon sequestered).
The age of the forest, variety, etc all matter a lot.
I spend a lot of time in forests. The difference between a harvested in the last century and an old growth forest is very obvious. They are drastically different.
I'm breathing air polluted by Canadian forest fires as we speak. Maybe you aren't getting the point I'm trying to make?
Almost all issues discussed around here are complex and multifaceted but way too many comments display obstinate tunnel vision... You may want to think about that when you stop crying.
off the cuff, recent news about a satellite to count the worlds trees, mentioned current estimates in the trillions, and it would be way low to suggest that we have not cut 3/4 of the pre
bronze age forests.....read the epic of Gilgamesh,
and read about the timbers, still holding up the internal chamber in Jhosers pyramid and all of the storys of what north america looked like pre colinisation, and well..... the story of the world and all of the epic forsests that are gone now.....it's all there if you look(archeology,dendrocronology,general historical acounts,etc), humans cut them down , starting in earnest about 10000 years ago, the earliest wooden structure was(likely) shaped by humanitys ancestors more than 1000000* years ago, we kind of owe the trees a break eh!
* yes 6 zeros+, forget the exact reference, but one of the best hominim sites in africa, perhaps oldavi gorge?
Neither labor nor capital are free. If you want to donate yours, I'm sure they could plant a few extra trees. But those resources need to come from somewhere, and they aren't unlimited.
> Maybe if it wasnt suck by funding hyperinflated bogus military tech… there would trees.
US military spending for 2024 was approximately $850 billion. Let's say we put all of that money into one of those $1-per-tree charities. That is 850 billion trees taking up around 7.98 million km^2 at typical planting densities. This is about 2/3 of total US land area. Maybe we can get some more value for money at scale and plant 1.275 trillion trees covering the entire US land area instead.
Once all those trees are grown, they would absorb anywhere from 10kg-25kg of CO2 per year. That's about 12 to 31 gigatons per year for all of the US land area.
The world currently generates ~41 gigatons of CO2 per year.
The just-plant-trees "solution" doesn't really work.
> Do you really think Las Vegas is cash strapped so that they can't afford it?
I've been to Las Vegas a handful of times, and it's really striking how much poverty exists there.
To be clear, I'm European and even Los Angeles or San Francisco are dystopian from my perspective; but Las Vegas is much better at keeping it out of tourist areas and it goes unreported because of it. I don't know a single person in Las Vegas who is living the middle-class lifestyle comparable to my friends in New Jersey, Philly, LA or Seattle.
Statistics be damned, because likely there's massive inequality that's pushing those numbers up.
They are both free when you are the one who prints the money. Governments can definitely afford to plant trees, even though I agree that it won't solve the problem.
Printing money (monetary inflation) is essentially just a stealth tax on everyone who holds or earns dollars. I'm not opposed to increased government spending on mitigating climate change but let's be honest about it and budget for it properly rather than wrecking our currency.
Interestingly, that’s exactly where this mantra is false.
Printing money for projects that benefit the greater good does not create any inflation and costs barely anything to anyone.
Print 100 for no reason and give it to the economy and for sure you create inflation. Print 100 and plant a tree, you just have a tree and a worker who get paid for doing real work.
But everyone gets a tree.
Printing money shouldn’t be seen as a crime in the context of climate change. But it must only be directed towards everyone benefit like public infrastructure projects that will stay public forever.
Bonus : great infrastructure reduces a lot of other costs and boosts the economy.
Not agreeing with either side here, but, printing money and handing it to an investment class who then launders it through their companies, to acquire more assets vs printing money that goes into infrastructure, works projects, or R&D are wildly different.
Not all monetary inflation is the same, and the destination of the money and the work produced with it can actually have quite an impact on the true wider economic effects of that increased money supply.
To be very clear, I'm not saying monetary policy is magical, or that it doesn't cause inflation.
It has very little to do with "things you like" and a lot more to do with "utility to society accomplished with the policy" along with the velocity of that money afterwards in local economies (IE. a worker is more likely to buy, well, food and rent, education. A PPP loaned exec will buy assets, or another yacht)
Believe it or not, one of those can generate more widespread economic growth than the other, for the same amount of money printed
> They're identical from the perspective of creating inflation, even though they might have different outcomes
That will only hold true if you look at only the singular issue:
Printing money while not changing economic output increases it's availability and thus decreases it's purchasing power, which we call inflation.
However: if the money goes towards things like clean air and other infrastructure, there are suddenly less things you need to pay for (clean air, water, cooling in summer, cost of transportation become cheaper), which effectively leaves more money for you to spend on wants, offsetting the effect of inflation partially/fully.
Another effect is that correct public can increase overall value generated (think: "nice, with cheaper transportation my home sales business is now viable and contributes to the value/tax pool"), so the "new" money can become backed by real value, again offsetting the loss of spending power for the average Joe.
I agree that if you add more variables that counter the effect then the effect will be countered. But that seems tangential to whether you pay for something by printing more money vs another means. If you use another means you don't inflate the currency, and you decrease inflation, leading to a better outcome.
Spending on things like infrastructure or R&D might in theory increase productivity by more than it increases money supply, in which case it would not result in inflation.
It's not on "things they like" it's on productive output.
Because as long as the folks who buy your Countries bonds believe you are spending the money in a way that will eventually return on the investment, your bonds are still valuable and you con continue spending on projects.
> Printing money (monetary inflation) is essentially just a stealth tax on everyone who holds or earns dollars.
Of course it is. My point is someone doesn't need to donate labour or capital to make this happen. Governments, not people, should be the ones who are doing it.
For one, the trees used here are mostly the desert variety that can withstand the hash conditions of our summers and infrequent waterings [1] -- they're actually quite beautiful too!
Secondly, LV is one of the most water efficient cities in the world. We recycle nearly all of our indoor water back into Lake Mead, and despite the city growing by 800K over the last 20 years we've reduced per-capita water consumption by 55% [2]
Our water crisis is a symptom of the water rights debate between the four states, not our over-consumption of water. You could actually eliminate the state of Nevada from the water crisis debate over the Colorado river and we wouldn't even make a _dent_ in the impact, it's the irrigated deserts of AZ and water intensive farming in CA that's the unsustainable piece (coming from a proud local who grew up in LV).
For sure a concern. Water-stress on one hand vs pretty dirty electricity sources (NV is like 2/3rds fossil fuel iirc) on the other. The overall calculation would be pretty complicated (and like how water-hungry are these trees?) but presumably someone's done it...
Lol. If Las Vegas city planners can't single handedly solve climate change then they shouldn't beautify their tourist district.
You seem to dislike the article's framing, which is fine, but then you start on a crusade.
It's ok to plant trees so that hot people will feel slightly less hot. It doesn't need to fix every problem, just the small problem that there's too little shade in their tourist district.
The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs. It's just so annoying to see this smugness from online commenters. "Their solution isn't Pure enough [therefore I'm smarter/purer than them]."
Maybe the Las Vegas city planners have good reasons for doing what they did. I mean that's possible right? Could it even be possible that there's more to this story than you understand?
> The unstated premise of your post is that you know better than the Las Vegas city planners and that your ideas are purer than theirs.
Wrong. The unstated premise of my post is that I'm sick of articles pointing out "solutions" to the climate change problem which contributes to people believing that recycling and planting trees in their yard of their big house will help. This has to do with the person who wrote the title, not the city planners. The city planners didn't claim it was a solution. I'm not commenting on the city planners at all –– and I understand the situation perfectly.
This framing of climate change (as a problem which can meaningfully be addressed by private individuals changing their habits) must be loved by people who stand to benefit from climate change.
One night in a garage with a car with a running engine and you’re dead. Is it really that hard to imagine what happens if you have millions and millions of humans, cars, factories and other poluting items for many years? The atmosphere is not that big, that’s actually one of the main observations that astronauts have who have been to space. And if it is humans that have changed the climate by their behavior, it is also in our power to change it differently.
Sure, but the GP is referring to the tactic wherein orgs making money hand over fist from polluting substances or industries like to frame it as an individual problem to solve, not a massively systemic problem that'll require conscious collective action to resolve.
E.g., BP used to advertise in my country with ways you could reduce your carbon footprint.
You know, have shorter showers, recycle, etc.
BP is a company profiting massively from fossil fuels,and for funsies, on whose behalf the British government asked the CIA to overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, and install the exiled Shah, who was much more business friendly.
So they pay clever people to try to refrain climate change as "if only you did some things, it'd go away, it's your fault, all of you."
Pay no attention to the corporation behind the curtain.
Unless I missed it, the article doesn't say anything about a tourist district. If anything, it's focused on the neighborhoods that are not in the tourist district.
That said, we need to start qualifying the phrases we use to describe climate change issues. This one (if it works) is a "climate change adaptation solution".
You’re right—based on everything I’ve heard about the development of Las Vegas by mobsters in the 1950s, it sounds like they started with a very intentional multi-decade plan focused on ecological impact and sustainability.
If people walked more because the route was actually pleasant and cooler with shade, that's less automobile miles, perhaps lower AC costs, and likely less healthcare costs in the long term. So even a relatively small number of trees in the context of "climate change" could have an oversized indirect impact.
There is nothing bad in CO₂ .
When all of the now buried alive CO₂ was in the atmosphere, the planet was a tropical paradise and could support tall heavy cold-blooded reptiles.
We need to burn more coal and return more land nowadays covered by permafrost into the agricultural circulation.
Whoa are you serious? During past fluctuations of CO2, the world had millions of years to adapt. Though, I think tall, cold-blooded reptiles would be preferable to the current state...
>During past fluctuations of CO2, the world had millions of years to adapt
We won't need to explicitly "adapt". The excess released carbon dioxide is going to make Sahara and Gobi greener, because it will be easier for the plants to grow with a higher concentration of CO2 in the air.
In other words, it's not going to stay in the atmosphere for a long time, it's going to become embodied in the trees and other plants.
Unless we diligently self-destruct by cutting literally all the trees living on the planet. (Possible, but unlikely.)
But even if we just keep doing what we are doing now at the same pace, it's going to be more or less enough. The excessive CO2 is _already_ making the planet greener.
(I guess it's a good idea to plant more trees anyway.)
> Homeothermy is one of the 3 types of thermoregulation in warm-blooded animal species
> Some homeotherms may maintain constant body temperatures through behavioral mechanisms alone, i.e., behavioral thermoregulation. Many reptiles use this strategy
They seem to actually have nearly all been birds or what birds evolved from. A simple check on your favorite dinosaur to see if it still was probably a reptile is whether it's legs come out of the side like a crocodile or Komodo dragon
Dinosaurs look way less cool covered in feathers, but hopefully we get some new Jurassic Parks where the people start getting victimized in snowy environments too.
We should not have social media at all. It's too big to be controlled. TikTok should be shut down, and the social features of other platforms should be trimmed so that algorithms are crippled to the point where trends cannot easily happen.
I've personally come to the conclusion that most of these artificial cybernetics are just really bad with almost no upside.
I listened to part of one of the recent court hearings with Google the other year and their lawyer complained that if they had to get rid of this stuff they'd "just be a directory which isn't what anyone wants." The judge agreed without any thought which I thought was terrible. That's exactly what most people want! Google just doesn't want that because it's easier to make people impressionable with feeds.
That is true. I think there is a huge difference between what people want and what people will do their best to find an upside to and adapt to. People will adapt and use social networks because of the prisoner's dilemma, but everyone wants a world where there is less social media, just like everyone (hopefully) would like a world without nuclear weapons but no one wants to disarm.
True, and there is some variation in the axioms. But for the record, pretty much all systems keep the logical rules of AND elimination and OR introduction for example: if A and B are true, then A is true. If A is true, then A or B is true. However, the law of excluded middle is sometimes excluded for constructivist reasons.