Hacker News Reader

Comment by overcast | Hacker News Reader

Things like this are only going to get worse, as we continue changing the climate. It's a good thing urchin roe is delicious, time to get eating.

View on HN

Yep. From https://www.splendidtable.org/story/why-we-should-be-eating-... -

> "'Chemically and culinarily, you should think of them as a wonderful hybrid between an artichoke and an egg, or an avocado and an egg may be a better comparison. Again, you ask somebody 10 years ago, "What do you do with avocados?" and nine out of ten times they're going to say guacamole. Now they're in everything, almost to a point of self-parody. Same thing with uni. They are full of fat and protein, so you can use them as a source of browning. You can incorporate them into a barbecue marinade or a yakitori marinade. You can use their fattiness to enrich doughs; they make some of the best brioche that I've ever tasted. I sweated down urchins with andouille sausage and used their fat to make probably the best dirty rice I've ever made.'"

Aren't urchins, as bottom feeders, fairly dangerous to eat in the same way shellfish are?

You've got two dangers in shellfish, one is bacterial spoilage and another is domoic acid poisoning that comes from plankton metabolites concentrating up the food pyramid. I always eat uni live so that's not really an issue - actually I can't stand it in a restaurant because I've always had it straight out of the ocean and nothing compares to that. But domoic acid doesn't concentrate in them because they don't eat those plankton - you only really have that issue with mussels, some tissues in scallops, and the tomalley of crab and lobsters - and that's very seasonal and typically not an issue.

Shellfish are dangerous to eat?

They can accumulate toxins from bacteria or algea in their environment. I can't eat any shellfish (mollusca) because it's an instant allergy and impending vomit if I force myself to eat it.

Well certainly anything to which you are allergic is dangerous, but I don't know that I would classify shellfish as dangerous otherwise.

Hopefully the otter population will also expand. Adorable otters! Squeeee

They also murder-rape young seals lol: https://werc.ucsc.edu/Publications/2010%20Harris%20et%20al.p...

This was a traumatic read for me but enlightening as well - this is a very strange planet.

Things are going to get different. It's only worse in the context of our preconceived notion that the natural world is unchanging.

No, it's objectively abnormal.

Which time-interval is your baseline for ‘objective normality’?

The most recent where humans didn’t introduce climate changing amounts of green house gases.

Humans have been changing the climate for longer than we’ve been farming. We killed off the mammoths, which turned the tundra from grasslands into taiga covered in tiny low growth forest and dramatically reduced the albedo of lots of Northern Eurasia. Humans prefer grassland over forest which is part of why eucalyptus are so prevalent in Australia, they do better with fire than other trees. It has been posited that the Little Ice Age was because when 95% of the American population died there was a great deal less land management and deliberate forest fires, resulting in more than two centuries of above average carbon sequestration and a drop in temperatures.

Humans have been changing the climate for a long time.

Yes, but it is much, much, much faster now than any previous time. Plus we have the knowledge of its effects upon us directly and the ecosystem that we rely on to survive, combined with the technological knowledge & wealth in order to reduce the effects and mitigate the impact.

So you are talking about Calculus. 'Much faster' implies 2nd derivative.

What rate of change is your baseline for ‘objective normality’?

You come across as somebody who's trying to fallaciously prove how smart they are, so can dismiss any argument you think isn't worthy of your esteemed intellect. It's not a good look. Your username adds to the suspicion that you're just a troll.

If you really want to, compare the past 150 years with the previous 2000: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

Seeming as you clicked the down-vote button and not the 'reply' button, I am going to just assume you don't know...

Congratulations. You win the argument, and the internet.

Pointing out the problems without offering solutions isn't a very useful thing to do.

I don’t think I can downvote replies to my own comment on HN. But I’ll take the internet crown anyway, thank you!

Edit: just tried it, I can downvote your original comment but not your replies to mine.

You come across as somebody who doesn't have an answer to the actual hard question. Yes - it's faster now than 150 years ago.

What should the rate of change be at? What should we be aiming for?

Give me a bounded interval.

There’s nothing to be gained here so I’ll apply the principle of conservation of energy and move on. When two arseholes blow hard all you get is a smelly room.

What do you expect to gain from somebody who already agrees with you, Mr Obvious?

Having the last word was a really poor effort at conserving energy.

We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Creating accounts to do that with will get your main account banned as well, so please don't do that.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Uh, “much much faster” is 1st derivative. “Getting faster” is second derivative.

While you are tripping over semantics ponder on this:

Is it 'getting faster' if 'much much faster' is faster than 'much faster'?

I don't have much patience for linguistic prescriptivists. If you are 'correcting' other people's sentences you understood exactly what they mean.

That’s great, because our children will have no preconceived notions of a world with plentiful drinking water, food, and a variety of different species. To them it’ll just be normal, and they won’t know how bad our generation fucked them. It’s all about perspective. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com