bendigedig

I am just going to leave this here for context:

Wildlife in 'catastrophic decline' due to human destruction, scientists warn - https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54091048

Sounds like their previous generation satellites were 30 times more responsible though.

I wonder if it is possible for starlink as a company to be socially responsible.

To discredit capitalism is not necessarily to credit communism.

We can surely criticise one without having to immediately complain about the other, can't we?

Edit: To be clear, my problem with this is that to pretend that there is only a choice between 'capitalism' and 'communism' is a false dichotomy.

I would be wary of drawing conclusions from this cohort you are questioning on hacker news.

It almost certainly holds only a small portion of the individuals from rough childhood backgrounds.

And don't forget that a number suffering the most will have taken the 'ultimate opt-out' from this forum.

Neoliberalism is allergic to addressing most root causes.

From TFA:

> The vast majority of participants across the four countries overestimated the average personal carbon footprint of the poorest 50% and underestimated those of the richest 10% and 1%.

Edit: are you an LLM?

To communicate the fact to people that they and others likely misunderstand their own carbon foot print.

This is the kind of thing that makes it on to the news because it connects something abstract with everyday people.

But surely that's the point of this study? i.e. to help communicate this fact to the masses? You know, with evidence instead of hunches and stuff?

They eat a lot more meat though. And that's much more CO_2 intensive than grains and legumes.

I find it hard to understand why we think it is possible to assume that the influence of genes and influence of environment are independent in this manner.

Given that we know that the environment affects how genes are expressed; and given that it's the genes that happen to be expressed which have more of an impact on intelligence than the genes one happens to 'have', then surely all research in this area which fails to account for interaction between (various) environmental impacts and genetics is bound to be futile?

Perhaps stable equilibrium would be a better phrase than harmony.

We as a species are currently knocking our environment out of a fairly stable equilibrium in to some dynamic trasition to some new point which may not be so habitable or suceptible to out 'mastery'.

Mastery means knowing your limits and working with your working material rather than arrogantly pushing it past what it is capable of sustaining... And then getting angry when it doesn't do what you want.

To arrogantly pretend we can truly be masters of our environment, and that we will never need the insurance policy afforded by maintaining biodiversity is absurd.

The AMOC and the Gulf Stream are two separate systems.

I will be fed up of the bullshit.

I think it might be time to consider diversifying our skills to cover non-tech areas of employment. I know I certainly am.

The capitalists fight back with.... this?

Some companies advertise solely to make themselves look dynamic to investors.

Thanks for your constructive input.