Having recently migrated from Reddit (and kept up with commercial social media hacks) I’m used to Nothing To See Here! We totally didn’t store your personal information in plaintext for hackers to snatch. Oh and maybe please change your passwords. All Part Of The Show!
So, by comparison, the response here is downright heartwarming.
It’s a difficult question to answer precisely, because of:
Scientific uncertainty in exactly what the climate effects will be. It will be “bad” regardless, but exactly how bad and exactly what will go wrong is not 100% clear
Uncertainty over how much warming will happen over the next few decades - this is highly dependent on how much action is taken to reduce emissions
Interactions between multiple highly complex systems, including climate, the biosphere, and human societies
The difficulty in imagining what life will be like when there are significant changes in parts of the world. One of the things people really struggled with in the early days of COVID was: “what the hell is this going to be like?!”. No one really had anything to compare it to. It is similar with climate change, but on a much larger scale.
Timescales. Even if we limit it to this century, that’s another ~77 years (but the effects will probably go on for multiple centuries). It’s really difficult to predict the future with a high degree of confidence.
So limiting it to the end of this century, there’s a few things we can say. This is taking a somewhat pessimistic view, i.e. there won’t be a substantial change in emissions trajectories over the next couple of decades.
Climate change itself is highly unlikely to wipe out humans on this time scale. We are a highly adaptable species, spread across the planet and the temperature / climate changes won’t be enough to kill us all.
That said, there will be human suffering on a scale that is difficult to imagine. Millions will die in heat waves, droughts, floods, fires and other extreme weather events. Some regions, including heavily populated ones will become uninhabitable.
There will also be suffering due to food and water shortages, and the spread of diseases
Social instability (including war) will increase, due to competition over resources, migration on an unprecedented scale, and general fear/uncertainty among the population. It’s possible that instability could become bad enough to wipe out humans (and possible all life) through nuclear war.
Parts of advanced society could begin to break down, e.g. we may no longer be able to maintain reliable electricity grids
Other species will be hugely impacted too. The rate of extinctions will accelerate, although some species will probably benefit (not necessarily species that humans get on well with).
It is pretty hard to overstate the scale of what will happen this century. It may take a while before we see the worst of it, but we’re already seeing the effects, and I think within 20-30 years it will be hard to deny that climate change is affecting everything. At that point, there probably will be substantial action to reduce emissions.
As bad as all this sounds, it’s important to remember that it is the “pessimistic” view in terms of our emissions trajectories. i.e. it is not written in stone. There is still time to bring emissions down to avoid the worst of it. There is also no point where it’s “too late” for action. Every 0.1 of a degree that we can limit warming will reduce the impacts. So it’s important to avoid “doomerism”, which often just ends up being an excuse for inaction.
Even if we do restrict warming to 1.5-2C, the world will look very different to what it does today. To get to that point, there will have to be fundamental changes to global society and the economy, which will make the world unrecognisable from today. There are no moderate solutions left, it’s either the nightmare described above, or a complete transformation of society. So in that sense, the apocalypse (going by the dictionary definition) is guaranteed.
It’s not a mistranslation that caused it, kobolds were both described and illustrated as doglike until 3rd Edition where with no explanation they simply changed it and decided they were lizard like/draconic.
I do think the new version of kobolds is an interesting creature, but truthfully they should’ve just come up with a new name for this new creature instead of just completely changing the kobold.
Yeah. I’ve never really been sure what a Kobold was. My friend had an older monster manual that showed it as a chubby beady eyed goblin, while mine had a little rat man, and then I get back into the game a few decades later, and kobolds are now little dragons.
Found a really good source including a picture of the first edition. It looks like that they were mentioned indeed in the 2nd edition to be more dog like in a sense of voice “yappin like a dog” and smelling like damp dog. Their visuals however were not really dog like. So I assume it was maybe both a mistranlation and an over interpretation of some texts from 2nd edition or just pure free choice from the author of this anime. belloflostsouls.net/…/dd-monster-spotlight-kobold…
The kobold in the 1st edition illustration in the article you linked has a distinctly dog-like muzzle. Other related media, such as Stone Soup, also depict or describe them as “dog-like”.
I guess with some imagination you could say the muzzle does indeed look dog like but the rest? I mean even if you morph some reptiles into humans you’d get such kind of muzzle. It’s not really that “distict” imo, but I get why some would say otherwise.
“Kobolds were first described as hairless humanoids with small horns by Gygax in the Monster Manual (1977)”
Could have brought viashino into D&D. They were introduced in MTG in 1998 so could have been added for 3rd edition. I kinda wish they had pulled more of magic’s original species into D&D earlier, there are some cool ones.
I swear I remembered dog people from 2nd edition and was super confused when I started playing DDO and they were some kind of dragonkin. Then people who started with 3rd were telling me kobolds had always been lizards.
Somewhere my old 2nd edition books are still around in a box, but damned if I know where.
Just as long as he declares it “an official act”. I think he just has to say that. It doesn’t have to be written down or anything. And it doesn’t matter if anybody actually hears him say it, as long as he does.
Yes. It can be made decriminalized by executive order, since it’s based on the list of schedule 1 narcotics. He could have done it on day 1. One has to infer he thinks it should remain illegal. Bernie said during his primary runs that he would have done it on day 1 if he’d been elected.
There is a separate timeline out there where Bernie beat Trump in 2016 and we didn’t have to go through any of this shit. I hope the me in that timeline realizes how lucky he is.
Trump also could have won in 2020 and we’d already be living in the dictatorship with no prospect of an election this November, so does the “you” in this time realize how lucky you are?
Well, you have to take into account that Biden has been looking to be re-elected for a second term. It’ll be interesting to see how he handles things now that he doesn’t have that concern. I’m looking forward to it, actually.
I doubt he’ll do anything much different before the election. Harris is going to try to run, at least in part, on the current administration’s record so Biden actions will be constrained by the fear of hurting her campaign.
The president does not have the authority to unilaterally change drug classifications, only to nominate a DEA director who will engage in the defined process for changing the schedule of the the substance.
I’d practically guarantee there’s a nonzero amount of suits out there who think it’d be a fantastic idea, and have at the very least tried to make it happen, and that it’s only a matter of time before one of them talks somebody into it if they haven’t already
Don’t have links anymore, but few months ago I came across some startup trying to sell AI that watches your production environment and automatically optimizes queries for you.
It is just a matter of time until we see first AI induced large data loss.
But copilot suggested it and it obviously knows what it’s doing! If I couldn’t trust literally everything it spat out it wouldn’t be sold by Microsoft for really obvious liability reasons!
There’s a real challenge for designers of trash bins in parks in at least North America. The overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest people is pretty big.
my employer has decided to license an “AI RDBMS” that will dynamically rewrite our entire database schema and queries to allegedly produce incredible performance improvements out of thin air. It’s obviously snake oil, but they’re all in on it 🙄
Separate apps for various retail stores. I don’t want a home depot app. I don’t want a kroger app. We have a generic app for this category called a web browser. If you want me to download a specialized app for your store, I assume that means that my browser does not sufficiently breach my privacy for your “business purposes.”
The only one I use is Safeway, to scan the in-store coupons. I’m not sure how much info they can get, because the app fails to load until I pause my VPN.
Dude the phone “app” is 100% on the list for me too.
As a stop gap between good web design including PWAs it made sense at a time, but 99% of apps are just bloated websites that data and power for no noticeable gains…
Depends on what you mean with not working. Get any errors? e.g. i like to test with vkcube (vulkan-tools need to be installed. don’t know the package name on Nobara / Fedora). if gamescope vkcube runs, then its likely not a gamescope problem but one with the e.g. game you try to run or wine / proton.
But the latest versions seem to be indeed a bit problematic. The last that works (mostly) flawless on my Arch is 3.14.2. So maybe worth a shot to downgrade to that if your current one fails with vkcube.
Otherwise, it is probably a good idea to get in contact with the Nobara community or the developer. I hate to recommend Discord, but as far i know that is unfortunately the only place where they are active.
Points for consideration, there were a handful of ships full of Jews during WW2 seeking asylum. It's widely believed that world leaders knew of or suspected that the Holocaust was murdering Jews around the time those boats were rejected for asylum.
Additionally, even after people knew the details of the Holocaust people still didn't really like Jews.
how would you account for those points?
also thank you for engaging with me on this. I'm genuinely enjoying our conversation!
Everything you’re saying really just supports the fact that the nations of the time were handling the situation in a wildly immoral way, and the creation of Israel as an ethnostate was part and parcel of that immorality, and remains highly consequential to this date.
There’s no point asking me as an individual how I would personally have solved the crisis if I could travel back in time, because one person can’t unilaterally force a nation to do anything without being a dictator, and people don’t become dictators without doing horrible things.
What matters is recognizing that the Israel of today came to exist out of two factors:
Wealthy and influential Zionists wanted to claim Palestinian land by any means possible to further enrich themselves.
Other nations wanted somewhere to send as many Jewish people as possible because they were antisemitic and didn’t like refugees.
Now we’re stuck dealing with the consequences of our idiot racist ancestors. Let’s just try our best to not be overtly idiotic or racist ourselves (racist, for example, by turning a blind eye to the genocide happening to Palestinians, as if they’re not even human beings, or idiotic by thinking that there’s any justification for Israel’s insanely disproportionate use of force).
Just to be clear, I’m not accusing you specifically of being racist or idiotic, I’m just describing my general position on things.
It won't solve the problems of today but sometimes it can be interesting to see what people of today think for problems and crisises of yesterday. I was in model UN and that was a fairly frequent conference idea.
I also enjoy talking to people because it's easy for us to say "that's a colonialist action" and even though it's true the question becomes (for me) 'alright how could we have done better' and discussing that thought experiment
and I appreciate the call-out, I definitely didn't assume you were calling me one.
Maybe for a better question we ask "what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman." While they were singular people they did give the diplomats their marching orders when it came to the peace resolutions.
“what could I have done as Winston Churchill or (I think it was) Truman.”
These people were influential but did not have unilateral power. In their position I would have tried to establish refuge for Jewish people and grant them protective status. Then because of how racist and dumb society was, I would have lost my political position and my influence.
Mmm that's a pretty fair point. Even back then being the President that ended a war only got you so much political good will in the States. Not sure how it worked for Churchill.
I kinda wonder what if any good solutions there were for this. Doing the moral thing but losing your job doing it and potentially seeing the work you did undone by your successor would suck hella bad.
Well thank you for indulging my questions this has been really fun chatting with you!
Churchill lost re-election because he made a really tone-deaf radio address on Labour’s plans for socialized medicine, national insurance, and nationalisation of utilities and critical industries (all of which the overwhelming majority of the country wanted), basically calling them communism, said it would require a “gestapo” to implement, and he wouldn’t stand for it.
Clement Atlee more or less thanked him for that speech the next day, and assumed the Prime Minister role after the Tories were absolutely trounced in the 1945 election.
Atlee lasted 6 years. Labour ran the show with a huge majority for a full five year term, then got an unworkably small majority of 5 seats in 1950. Snap election was called in 1951, and Conservatives retook the majority, despite Labour getting 48.8% of the vote, and Conservatives only getting 48.0%.
…Funny how that keeps happening.
Churchill resumed the role of Prime Minister until he retired in 1955.
It wasn’t (maybe still isn’t?) a strictly proportional representation system, so the urban areas get slightly fewer members per vote. More equal than the Electoral College, but still imbalanced in favor of the rural areas where wealthy people have huge estates that have been handed down for generations.
That’s because he’s wearing an American flag and as a nation founded under God like it says in the pledge of allegiance and on our money, and you godless atheists are sickened by the true meaning of our nation. /s
My favorite part about that nonsense is that until 1954-55 God didn’t appear either in the pledge of allegiance or on our money. You can bet your bottom dollar if you took that line out of the pledge though conservatives would have a fit over “Woke revisionism” even though it itself is a revision.
And in what world is that? Everyone needs chairs, houses(of some sort), tools, utensils … ect. I can’t imagine a world or a time period where people who made the stuff everyone else needs didn’t just survive but thrive.
Except he wasn’t a “carpenter” in the sense that we think of it. He wasn’t a woodworker building tall tables and chairs. The translation would be more accurate as “builder” or “construction worker”. Would still be in good shape, but nothing out of the ordinary.
You know construction workers are jacked compared to desk workers right? Like if you take a random construction worker and a random office worker, neither of which lift, the construction worker is going to tend towards both more mass overall (as it helps prevent injuries) and more muscle mass (because working out as your work tends to do a lot for your body)
Not sure why NA is being singled out here. Bottles are largely the same shape (with a few functional differences, see below) no matter where they come from.
The round shape is mostly a historical artifact from early designs that were hand-blown. A hexagonal (bestagons!) shape would pack better in an infinitely large container, but since most shipping crates are rectangular, there will be wasted space either way, and round is far easier and cheaper to mass-produce. Also, as a carbonated beverage, sharper corners could create stress points and exploding bottles.
Toppling over could potentially be reduced with a wider base, but fitting in the hand is a hugely important factor for any drinking container. There are larger-based bottles, but they also need more specialized packaging and storage space. By using bottles that are similar size to aluminum cans, lots of infrastructure can be dual-purpose (I’m thinking of things like can/bottle storage in your refrigerator, for example).
Double the volume of what? Glass bottles have to be thicker than other materials, so to get the same volume as a can with the same size base, it has to be taller.
If you want to do a lot more reading, here’s a few sources I borrowed from:
Those ‘shoulders’ we keep mentioning remain in modern beer bottle design mainly for aesthetic reasons. Their original function was to provide a handy place for the yeast residue and dregs to collect, so that these didn’t pour out into the glass with the beer. Nowadays, most beer is filtered, so this design feature is no longer needed. Unless you’re bottling a yeast beer like a Belgian beer, of course.
By using bottles that are similar size to aluminum cans, lots of infrastructure can be dual-purpose (I’m thinking of things like can/bottle storage in your refrigerator, for example).
A great benefit of both containers being designed to fit in a hand!
kbin.life
Top