pmayrgundter

Main points are that brain takes ~20% of body's Base Metabolic Rate, and that active thinking takes 5% more than BMR.

Whole body context: - Base Metabolic Rate (awake): ~1.0-1.1 kcal/kg/hr - Deep Sleep Metabolic Rate: 0.8-0.9 kcal/kg/hr

CG says brain follows this as well.

So it suggests brain power use varies from 0.8 minimum to 1.1, with an extra 0.05 for thinking. This supports ideas that thinking is a relatively minor brain function, at least energetically.

It's much bigger than just the JFK files.

Just announced, House Oversight Committee led by Rep. Luna is forming a taskforce to uncover secrets of JFK/RFK/MLK, UFOs/UAPs/USOs, Epstein, Covid Origins & 9/11 - JFK: Single-shooter incorrect and likely involved 2 shooters. FBI has thousands of pages of new documents - UAPs: "We are not alone". "Let's see the evidence" - 9/11: How much did the CIA know in advance - Encourage whistleblowers to come forward

https://x.com/RepLuna/status/1889404082118398379

Note, had the same convo with ChatG and it blew right by the O word, and commented that it's nice to have an old recipe to work on over time.

I tried voice chat. It's very good, except for the politics

We started talking about my plans for the day, and I said I was making chili. G asked if I have a recipe or if I needed one. I said, I started with Obama's recipe many years ago and have worked on it from there.

G gave me a form response that it can't talk politics.

Oh, I'm not talking politics, I'm talking chili.

G then repeated form response and tried to change conversation, and as long as I didn't use the O word, we were allowed to proceed. Phew

It's turning into a comic sub-genre https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1HuP9d2T9j/

Meanwhile on Earth, UAP disclosure is kicking into full swing

How long until HN community picks up interest

You can see it on his map.. it's one of the pre-configured waypoints (top right map symbol)

next time! :)

Great launch guys!

Primary objective: Orbit [y]

Sub-objectives:

1. [y] Liftoff

2. [y] Max-Q

3. [y] Main engine cut-off

4. [y] Stage separation

5. [y] Stage 2 ignition

6. [y] Space (100km)

7. [y] Fairing separation

8. [y] Booster re-entry burn

9. [X] Booster landing at sea

10. [y] Secondary engine cut-off

11. [X] HN unicode support for check mark

Not clear from the linked article. Did you see something else?

NPP is probably increasing as it's been observed for years now that the earth is net greening in response to rising CO2

Been listening. Amazing

Fair nuff. Thanks!

Not following. That top entry is marked as Transformer, which does mean it's an LLM

There's a vid going around of a more x-wing configuration

thanks. Also forgot to note size difference between those airports.. DEN is #4 in the US with 38M passenger boardings/year, PDX #33 with 8M. So maybe 4x larger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_busiest_airports_i...

Based on the discussion in the descendent thread with morsch, it seems like the runways are the real story, at 1000x the mass of the airport roof.

But concrete is not so CO2 intensive. Lumber has a +1.6 sequestration factor of CO2 emitted vs built mass, compared with concrete at -0.8.

So we'd need runways made mostly of wood, or combined with a Woodcrete that was net sequestering, and then maybe there's a way to make even our most CO2 intensive industries net neutral so long as we rebuild continuously.

Also, since construction is about 40% of global CO2 emissions, if it could become a net sequestration as a whole, maybe it could flip the sign to -40% and offset most of the rest of our industrial emissions.

This also got me interested in what's a good number for rebuild rate.

Found a study that concludes the "Apparent ecosystem carbon turnover time [T]" is 43±7 years.

So maybe we should be rebuilding our built environment at 2.3%, or probably higher since species have evolved to be more energy intensive, humans especially.

[T] https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2517/2020/essd-12-25...

I found a more authoritative reference, from the Institute of Structural Engineers, which appears to be a major international organization [ISE].

The Embodied Carbon figure they use is 1.64kgCO2/kg timber as a rule of thumb [ISE-EC], and agrees with what I posted above

For processing that yields built lumber, they account in stages, with % CO2 emissions added:

A1) Raw Material Extraction, 20-25% A2) Transport to Facility, 8-10% A3) Manufacture, 5-10% A4) Transport to Site, 50-55% A5) Construction, 10-15%

A1 to A3 reduce sequestration by 0.28, for a net of 1.36. They then say A4&5 account for 1.5x more emissions than A1-3, so .42kg total factor, for a net sequestration of 1.22kgCO2/kgBuiltLumber. They separate these as the transport is the largest variable between projects.

These figures are from Austria to UK. From the reporting, the PDX project is using mostly local wood.

So I think they're getting a net sequestration for the roof project.

It's really interesting that building with wood has this major sequestration factor. It'd be really something if we could build our way out of the environmental crisis just by switching to wood! :)

[ISE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institution_of_Structural_Engi...

[ISE-EC] https://www.istructe.org/IStructE/media/Public/Resources/ARU..., p17: "The amount of carbon sequestered can be assumed as -1.64kgCOe per kg of timber when product-specific data is not available". I take the e to be emission, so a negative is a sequestration.

Just finished the full edit.. check it out. If the full airport is made out of wood, seems like it's getting towards plausible, or at least not obviously wrong

Most uncertainty is how much mass the ceiling is compared to rest of airport. Maybe it's more like 1/10th. Hmm

Interesting point!

It looks like Skanska is GC for the Project, and cites it as a 9 acre (!) lumber roofing system[SK], and that it uses 3.5M board foot of Douglas Fir Project Lumber[PL].

Douglas Fir is 3.2 pounds per board foot, or 1.45kg [DFM]. So 1.45 * 3.5M = 5Mkg of lumber for PDX airport.

DF has an Embodied CO2 of 1.6kgCO2/kgLumber [DFC]. A little hard to believe? But maybe that's bc a lot of the mass of a tree is left in the ground. Worth following up.

1.6kgCO2/kgLumber * 5MkgLumber = 8MkgCO2 = 8KtCO2 embodiment/sequestration from the PDX roof project. (tho there's a lot more to the project that probably goes in the other direction)

Global CO2 emissions from commercial flights is ~60MtCO2/month [CF], so we need roughly 12,000 airports per month, 144,000/yr, to offset flight CO2 emissions.

There's 9000 commercial airline airports [NA] (tho obv many smaller than PDX, but they would also represent less CO2 from their flights), so 144,000/9000 is a 16x annual airport rebuild rate we'd need to offset CO2 emissions from the flights they service.

So yeah, this is absurd on the face of it.

But, how much of the mass of an airport is the roof? If it's like 1/100th the total mass, and you start building airports with all wood (foundation, runways, etc) you'd get to 16% annual rebuild rate to offset flight emissions. Still too high to be plausible. But another 10x somehow and you get to ~1% range of annual airport rebuild rate to offset emissions.

Then you'd have something.

[SK] https://www.usa.skanska.com/what-we-deliver/projects/278172/...

[PL] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnoseid/2024/08/19/portlands-...

[DFM] https://www.globalwood.org/tech/tech_wood_weights.htm

[DFC] https://www.douglasfir.co.nz/net/environment/carbon-footprin...

[CF] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1500409/global-aviation-...

[NA] https://sentinel-aviation.com/blog/over-40000-airports-in-th...

I can't wait for Schizophrenic automobiles

This is a strong positive imhe:

"- Step 1: handling it

- Step 2: making sure it doesn’t happen again

So when a major issue happens over the weekend only Step 1 happens during the weekend. Step 2 involves following up with other teams, creating new alarms and updating the runbook. And all that usually happen during the week. The oncall is going to spend at minimum their Monday doing that so it’s better if the schedule reflects that."

Sigh, agreed!

Here's a little project looking at a related concept using multiple stars

https://github.com/celestiary/mglt

Yeah, it's a good point. The end of the handle for the Little Dipper is Polaris, the North Star

I have it lined up now in Celestia, to see how it would project relative to someone looking down on the columns in Canberra from above, and seeing the LD thru the Earth. The whole constellation is flipped left-right, and would always be a bit under the horizon looking North, and skewed if projected on the ground plane.

Also filtered down to only visible stars.. looks more like HIP 90182

https://www.universeguide.com/star/90182/hip90182

Another thing, pillar 4 (pillar instead of column on dcrypt.org) uses a constellation encoding

https://www.dkrypt.org/Pillar_4

quick observation..

The layout of the columns is a "constellation" that looks like the little dipper... same basic layout, number of stars, curve of handle

If so, the H column is the odd one out, and if you look for an interesting star around there, I find a syzygy of k Cephius & HIP 99169, tho distance away isn't quite right. Or maybe HIP 92738

Also note that stars come up in the symbology for F column, which is speculated to encode spectra, maybe from stars

The very notable thing here is that the best method uses a Transformer, and no other entry does

Here's a 25 video critique on the CMB projects by Pierre Robiteille

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnU8XK0C8oTDaiwe8Us_YNl4K...

He also has an alternative theory for stellar physics that might call into question the interpretation of Cepheids and SNs, tho I don't think he's done a major analysis there, at least afaik

Well, agreed! I'd say that's good evidence the political bureaucracy of big-Science has substantially corrupted that (your?) culture.

It's not the only way though. There's a bright light coming from open source. Stay close to the people in AI saying "code, weights and methods or it didn't happen"

The code that runs most of the net ships with lengthy howto guides that are kept up to date, thorough automated testing in support of changes/experimentation, etc. Experienced programmers who run across a project without this downgrade their valuation accordingly

It doesn't solve all problems, but it does show there's a way that's being actively cultivated by a culture that is changing the world

Maybe the #1 valued thing in "capital S Science" -- the institutional bureaucracy of academia -- is trust. Trust that the bureaucracy will be preserved, funded, defended.. so long as the dogma is followed. The politics of Science.

The #1 valued thing in science is the method of doing science: reason, insight, objectivity, evidence, reproducibility. If the method can be automated, then great!

Sweatman has a very thorough YouTube channel where he goes deep on this topic and carefully rebuts the criticism towards his ideas and the debate around the Younger Dryas Impact Hyptohesis

https://www.youtube.com/@prehistorydecoded4454