[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 16 points 1 month ago

my preference is Xitter (pronounced shitter)

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 59 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

i would say yes. there likely isn't going to be some fundamental re-thinking of evolution. sure, there are details and interactions we surely don't know about yet, but the general principles and mechanisms are astoundingly clear.

on the other hand, gravity is central to the problem of combining general relativity and the standard model. so afaik, something significant will need to change in at least one of them to resolve the issue of gravity. so we know we have a pretty massive gap in our understanding somewhere.

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 20 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

we'd only be able to represent bases for numbers with one digit though because what does base 15+1 mean? the 15 could be in any base higher than 5. the clearest way would probably be to just represent it with lines or something "base ||||||||||"

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

from what i understand, the real world hybrid data is significantly worse than its WLTP test data. so much worse that it's only a 25% improvement over petrol/diesel instead of the 75% improvement that would be expected given the WLTP.

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 29 points 5 months ago

just a reminder that IQ tests may have the goal of measuring intelligence, but that says nothing of their precision and accuracy

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 21 points 5 months ago

I wish we would just keep adding E's so long threads would be REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

which also happens to be the noise I make when I see them.

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 19 points 5 months ago

we also live in a world which has now known that premise and used it for 300 years, which makes it seem much more trivial than it was at the time.

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 13 points 7 months ago

I think they're referencing this song https://youtu.be/TMHCw3RqulY

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 27 points 10 months ago

what if it needed just one more second to complete?

[-] niartenyaw@midwest.social 23 points 1 year ago

i said this in a reply, but think it's important enough so I'll put it on its own too.

to me, this is very reminiscent of the paradox of tolerance. just because we want an open platform doesn't mean we need to, or should, support those who do not have that same thing in mind. and allowing it is at the risk of allowing them to operate unencumbered and most likely take advantage of open stance.

24

TL;DR

using/generating energy always emits heat as waste and there is an upper limit of efficiency that we are not that far from. if that energy was generated via something that is not a natural heat gradient for the earth's surface there is a net increase of heat in the earth system simply by generating and using energy.

a lot of energy sources fall into this: fossil fuel, nuclear, geothermal, etc. two that don't are (certain types of) solar and wind, since their energy would eventually be dissipated onto earth's surface whether we intercept or not.

that waste heat is currently estimated to be ~2% of the heating power caused by global warming, so already significant. we essentially have an upper limit on sustainable energy usage on earth (and therefore an avg per person usage) or we will have Global Warming 2: Waste Heat Boogaloo.

view more: next ›

niartenyaw

joined 1 year ago