starman2112
@starman2112@sh.itjust.works
- Comment on ... 1 hour ago:
Just a regular platypus.
PERRY THE PLATYPUS!?
- Comment on 2 days ago:
My understanding is that they use something like polarizing filters. Both slits have the same filter, they make a diffusion pattern as the waves interfere with each other. Both slits have different filters, there’s no wave interference and you get two slits.
Calling it an “observer” is maybe the most damaging name in the sciences since some douchebag decided to call the orthoganal number line “imaginary”
- Comment on Mandatory self-reflection hours 5 days ago:
Me when I engage in em-dashes, rules of three, and promotional language — it expertly sets off sensitive AI language generation detection methods, cleverly appearing to other users that I’m using a Large Language Model myself.
- Comment on MIT Study Finds AI Use Reprograms the Brain, Leading to Cognitive Decline 1 week ago:
🍪
Pirate gave me an egg, so I baked a cake emoji as well. Have a slice for getting it so close without even using a calculator 🍰
- Comment on MIT Study Finds AI Use Reprograms the Brain, Leading to Cognitive Decline 1 week ago:
🍪
You got as far as nanoseconds so here’s a cupcake for extra credit too 🧁
- Comment on MIT Study Finds AI Use Reprograms the Brain, Leading to Cognitive Decline 1 week ago:
The other day I saw someone ask ChatGPT how long it would take to perform 1.5 million instances of a given task, if each instance took one minute. Mfs cannot even divide 1.5 million minutes by 60 to get get 25,000 hours, then by 24 to get 1,041 days. Pretty soon these people will be incapable of writing a full sentence without ChatGPT’s input
- Comment on You are stardust. 1 week ago:
Forged in the heart of a dying star
- Comment on You are stardust. 1 week ago:
Am nihilism enjoyer, am bottom pic
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 1 week ago:
Forests cannot grow faster than trees decay forever. We gotta turn the carbon back into rocks at some point, and we gotta get working on that tech sooner rather than later
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 1 week ago:
I want to be clear, nowhere have I said that we shouldn’t be planting trees. Having a deeper reservoir for the carbon will buy time to develop more efficient and permanent sequestration technologies. It’s just that a lot of people in these comments seem to think that we shouldn’t even pursue sequestration tech because trees exist, despite the fact that they fill different roles in the solution to anthropogenic climate change
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 1 week ago:
The carbon in that wood is only sequestered until it rots or burns. It may be a hundred years, it may be a thousand years, but it has not been removed from the carbon cycle. Again, at best, you’re kicking the can down the road.
- Comment on Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws 1 week ago:
There’s no problem, so we don’t need one.
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 1 week ago:
Wood rots and wood burns. Felling the trees and piling them up does not remove the carbon from the carbon cycle, at best it’s kicking the can down the road
- Comment on Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws 2 weeks ago:
You sell that cert to a local kid for $50
You generate another cert to sell to a local kid tomorrow
???
Profit
- Comment on Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification laws 2 weeks ago:
Oh yeah just pack up and move! What an easy solution! Why didn’t the Jews think of that back in the 30’s and 40’s? They could have ended the holocaust all on their own by simply leaving!
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
A long time isn’t forever. Wood burns and wood rots. How many wooden structures from over a thousand years ago are still around?
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
Entirely different use cases. Planting trees makes a deeper reservoir to store carbon, but it doesn’t take that carbon out of the carbon cycle. There is still more carbon than the carbon cycle evolved to handle. We need to do both, and also stop bringing more carbon from outside the carbon cycle into it.
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
It’s prohibitively expensive and inefficient, but also it’s a necessary early step in making a way to take carbon out if the carbon cycle that isn’t prohibitively expensive and inefficient.
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
Are we building shit like this at 3:1?
No, and we never will if the technology doesn’t improve. The carbon has to go, there’s no two ways about it
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
I never said anything about capitalism. Technological progress continues regardless of economic systems, and this is an early step in carbon sequestration technology. A technology we will still need after we abolish fossil fuels, because we have put more carbon into the carbon cycle than the carbon cycle evolved to handle.
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
None of this addresses the comment I left. I never said the saudis are gonna be the pioneers of renewable powered DAC lmfao
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
Once fossil fuels are out of the equation, we will still need to sequester carbon. And at point, it will actually be powered by renewables.
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
Yeah, and the Wright Flyer could only travel like 30 yards. A 10 megabyte hard drive used to fill an entire room. You can’t build a better machine without building the worse ones first
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
That energy can come from somewhere that doesn’t produce more carbon than this sequesters. Solar, wind, nuclear. Obviously we need to stop burning fossil fuels, but also we need to turn the carbon we’ve already produced back into a form that won’t find its way back into the air.
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
Trees do not permenantly sequester carbon, they act as a reservoir. If we cover the entire land area of the earth in amazon rainforest, it’ll sequester like 150 years worth of our carbon emissions. After that, there would be no more land left to plant trees on, and we would be back to where we are now. The only solution is to simultaneously stop bringing carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle, and also remove the carbon that we’ve already brought in.
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
Forests are a reservoir, they do not remove carbon from the carbon cycle. The only actual solution is to stop bringing carbon from outside the carbon cycle into the carbon cycle, while also removing the carbon we’ve already added. Natural phenomena cannot permanently sequester carbon, this is something humans will have to construct
- Comment on Inspiring. Innovating. 2 weeks ago:
And when they rot away, that carbon is released back into the atmosphere. Hundreds or thousands of years isn’t nearly enough, we need to take it out of the carbon cycle permanently. These particular machines will last maybe a couple of years, and will probably generate hundreds of times more carbon in their construction and maintainence than they’ll sequester, but it’s a necessary first step. It’s not possible to put the carbon back in the ground where it belongs at a viable cost and energy expenditure without building these machines first.
- Comment on What age gap is too big of an age gap if someone's in their early 30's? 2 weeks ago:
“Anything goes 18+” doesn’t exclude the possibility of some things going <18. I think the name of this fallacy is like “denying the antecedent” or something nerdy like that
- Comment on What age gap is too big of an age gap if someone's in their early 30's? 2 weeks ago:
Lemmy the only place where well-articulated sentences still get misinterpreted. You can say “as long as you’re 18 you can date whoever you want” and somebody will say “16 and 15 shouldn’t date?” No bitch. Dats a whole new sentence. Wtf is you talkin about.
- Comment on What age gap is too big of an age gap if someone's in their early 30's? 2 weeks ago:
Nobody’s downvoting your for saying 25 and 10 is gross, they’re downvoting you because you’re bringing up irrelevant nonsense. 19 and 15 is weird, but I’d rather see that 19 year old go free than make a 19 year old register as a sex offender because he slept with his 17 year old girlfriend.
The static age gap thing is an issue. 30-20 is way worse than even 55-35, despite that being twice the gap. Half your age plus seven solves that by making the socially acceptable age gap grow with age.