strainer

The prospect of intelligent creators is irrelevant here as if they are present they are unseen. What can be partially made out is the broad path of evolution which has actually somehow arrived by its own properties on intelligence in animals - and also appearances of intelligent/cooperative etc. relationships between species. Many different kinds of relationships over kinds of chemistry and activity are present, which themselves may evolve and may have evolved over and throughout species.

The presumptive outlook is that all of the simple and complex evolutionary processes are in sum and product - assuredly mundane, stochastic, resilient to any accidental discord which could be caused by humans bodging their evolved configurations and then non-competitively reproducing trillions of carriers and spreading and maintaining them across the globe with no means to ever recall the version. That's GM agriculture described 'on an equal footing' with the products of natural history.

In a hard place at a push, syringes could be sterilized before reuse. Sterilization is not effective against prions but some doctors without supplies could possibly resort to it.

The story is gut wrenching. Children in poverty need free basic health services everywhere.

Its not a great answer because despite superior size and having immune systems, microbial life is still routinely deadly, just not too often so deadly to cause extinctions. I have read microbiologists puzzles over for example, what mechanisms 'evolves' strains of flu viruses between periods of relative dormancy and deadly flare up.

That oxidation event represents one major collapse on an ancient scale, but did not owe to a species over-predating others, which Im considering here as a more pervasive risk for species 'dynamics' than pollution/poisoning.

I find no firm answer to these concerns. We dont know that species genetic information has not evolved to avoid over-competitiveness, configurations that could be broken by non-evolved modifications, mass reproductions and releases into the system. Its not a matter which can be settled by current insights, so its somewhat plausibly disguarded as fear and uncertainty. But it might even be the case that what genetics may naturally evolve are naturally confined to modest competitiveness by a property of the yet mysterious steps which enable life to evolve - because we don't even know in what circumstance life evolves. Plenty of theories but no one has ever observed life assembling and evolving from lifelessness, or even modelled a viable sequence illustrating it, and not from lacking of trying for the great achievement and accolades that would bring. Its such an amazing scientific subject, the developed science is amazing too but not nearly so much as its subject matter - biological complexity and remaining mysteries. Its worth treating with special care and humility of some kind.

I question why doesn't some amoeba just maximize its fitness and so turn into effectively a bioweapon that eats all the mammals on the planet? It has some sort of intelligence that restrains it from wiping out its food source? I do wish for Genetic Science and all relevant fields to take that mystery very seriously and solve it securely before its confident to mass replicate novel species in the huge system. Species which have evolved somehow over ages to not be routinely in massive flux between champion species. The microbial world could liquidate swathes of the phylogenetic tree repeatedly, if all it needs is a chance mutation to create a new alpha species. What stops an experimental GMO containing such an over-competitive mutation, or a precursor to such?

There is so much yet not known or controllable in microbiology, it does worry me that the prevailing attitude is so confident with the little that is known and doable. Its alarmist and uncertain, but so is the foresight that significantly increasing ghgs through the whole atmosphere is too dangerous, or filling the sea with more plastic waste than there are fish left in it is not worth the price and risks. Hopefuly culture is on the verge of accepting these concerns have had rational basis. It needn't result in the end of modernity, but in the appreciation and protection of some older things.

The fear is not inherently irrational either. Its clearly a very powerful field on the confoundingly complicated biological domain, and with more power and complexity comes greater potential for serious error. It can be fair to disagree about the safety and wisdom of various GM applications, but the charge that it is all irrational is really just divisive rhetoric.

I don't approve of novel GM in agriculture, I encourage naturalistic development for mass production in the environment and especially the materials we routinely put into our body. Poor nutrition is caused by poor politics, culture and economics over and above all of the existing foods which are already available to solve it.

I think GM will best be limited to acute medical challenges and containable research and emergency uses, until we have actually developed a strong command of diseases and natural (evolved) systems. Our agriculture should be as contingent as possible with natural history and existing species in our already very disturbed sphere of ecology.

Further to this picture, in recent years the processing potential of extensive microtubule networks which feature in all cells, and can have special characteristics in nerve cells is beginning to be recognised:

> Microtubules are major architectural elements without which the neuron could not achieve or maintain its exaggerated shape. In addition to serving as structural elements, microtubules are railways along which molecular motor proteins convey cargo. Microtubule arrays in axons, dendrites, growth cones, and migratory neurons are tightly organized with respect to the intrinsic polarity of the microtubule, which is relevant to both its assembly and transport properties. Vibrant research is being conducted on the mechanisms by which microtubules are organized in different compartments of the neuron, how microtubule dynamics and stability are regulated, and the orchestration of microtubule-based transport of organelles and proteins. While all of this is surely enough to cause one to marvel, we cannot avoid pondering - what other work might microtubules do for neurons?

Microtubules as neuron information carriers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979999/

The author is frustrated by their apparent misunderstanding of theory and history of theory that is very hard to understand, and is even not completely understood yet, and is right to be subject to new questions and outlooks.

It seems equally selfish to be offended personally or in a groups honor, by accusations of innate intellectual prejudices at large, than it is selfish for the intellectually isolated individual to entertain and express such accusations.

Medical herbalist, Yarrow Willard enthuses about these 'saprophytes' in this video[1] Many will find his outlook completely fanciful ( he says they are nervines of the forest) but I think its positive and he is experienced in ways.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI8s01q0Ojk

Right but I think were only scraping the surface of whats possible over millions of years meddling.

We could have adjustable rings of reflective shielding orbiting the Sun and throughout the entire Solar System - well before then. Potentially even be capable of slowly moderating the Suns evolution. A billion years has unfathomable potential for technological development.

The cross section of the beam can be any shape, the important thing is the signal source is an area not a point. The value of the inverse square (of distance from source) is dominates power density when the signal source is effectively a point - this becomes the situation for a laser or anything at long enough distance, but at distances where it is effectively a beam, the strength of power density does not dissipate by that value. The geometry of the beam concentrates the power density at its focal point, which can be far behind the source or in front of it. For an ideal beam focused to infinity (parallel rays) its power would never dissipate with distance - as all of the power goes in the same direction. We don't need to form an ideal beam to say its doesn't follow the inverse square rule, any focusing of rays breaks the rule (at scales where it is reasonable to treat it as a beam and not just rays emanating from a point)

I hope that helps picture the situation. My original comment that a beam can have a different exponent was incorrect except in some approximate sense. The inverse square value will still apply, but from the beams real or imaginary focal point (if it is a point) But it the case of a transmitter beaming a signal at another, that focal length can be far beyond the reciever, so the 'rule' can be completely confounded.

You get a lower exponent than the square with a beam. For a perfectly parallel beam the exponent is technically 0 (same intensity regardless of distance - like a laser pointer) For a focused beam intensity will actually increase with distance up to the focal point. Some energy can be absorbed by the medium (air/moisture/rain), but that is not covered by the inverse square law.

When you say "we" - are you speaking as one of the many who have puts years of work into these matters? If not shouldn't you at least say "they... do not have good models" etc ?

I don't mean suggest that you/we have no ability to look over experienced shoulders to cast judgement on their works, but to speak as them without having their full experience seems problematic.

> 110MW, which I presume is the thermal energy captured

That would be deceptive advertising. 110 MW is the "nameplate capacity" which is basically its maximum sustainable generation capability. Its storage capacity is specified straight-forwardly as 1,100 MWh (electric)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Pr...

They're not fairly consistent, its a genuine misunderstanding of the system that they have to be. UK has a bit of nuclear, a lot of gas and biomass plant, some very useful pumped hydro and sizable interconnects to trade electricity with Europe. Everything is adjusted to match generation to demand. Generation is dynamic - Demand is dynamic. There is no panic when demand or generation changes, its handled.

> That suggests that we'd need to keep most of the existing infrastructure for power generation and also replicate its capacity with wind and solar plants. That sounds both expensive and inefficient.

Its efficient to use existing plant for as long as it is useful. The main expense of running most of it is fuel - and the cost of that in legacy terms and in CO2 is slashed by 'replicating' its capacity with wind/solar.

Currently when we add wind and solar capacity almost their entire output replaces fuel burn. When in a handful of years wind and solar have replaced 30-40% of demand supply, about 10-20% of their output may possibly be getting rejected. That makes wind/solar maximally 10-20% more expensive than what they would be with full storage and use. Hydro, batteries and long distance transmission is already economically viable in certain situations. Hydrogen synthesis will become increasingly economically viable, with carbon pricing and development. There are technologies existing which are ready to reduce waste supply from wind/solar as it arises. But even without them a potential overhead of 10-20% cost wont stop more wind/solar getting built, because its already currently cheaper than fuel burning -without carbon pricing and has been getting more efficient year on year, with no end in sight.

This actual economic performance contrasts with new nuclears promises which are in truth in their final throws, completely outperformed already by the alternatives which have been developed. Investment in Nuclear is no real threat to wind and solar anymore, the arguments seem to persist only to delay overall action on policy transition. New nuclear plants may or may not get built, wind and solar IS getting built and its variable nature will make nuclear supply uneconomic - there's no sense in financing plants on the basis of supplying constant power, when a huge competitor supplies much much cheaper power 75% of the time, and encourages hydro, biofuels and maybe cheap storage to fill in its gaps. Nuclear is not going to be economical for that, and that is the opportunity which is being created by wind and solar manufacturers and installers, as we hash over this outdated debate.

> if you want to go from eg 50% to 100%, then you need MASSIVE storage to guarantee that you have power when you need it.

You really dont, you just need to burn fuel to fill in for gaps caused by weather, that become increasingly less frequent the more wind and solar is oversupplied. And oversupply is not a big problem - it can be easily curtailed. The optimal amount of renewables supply to build is over the level where they regularly exceed demand - and that is the stage where big batteries become very economical to build.

Carbon neutral fuel-wise, biofuels and electrically generated fuels are very viable future options.

Storage doesn't become more of a problem with more wind and solar - it becomes more of an opportunity to further reduce fuel consumption.

Storage is not a problem now - economic solutions exist already to build it where it is valuable. Its just not needed much yet.

I expect seals and humpbacks enjoy interacting with each other and that supportive feelings accompany their relationship. Humpbacks don't as individuals try to protect their babies in order to pass on their genes and survive as a species, they love them. Its only a tenuous academic exercise to suppose that they do not have a complex appreciation of their neighbors - as though they might be operating with little consciousness, like microbes. There is no great argument that we should reduce the appearance of friendliness between intelligent and emotional species, to clinical survival strategies. Its perhaps a trend left over from recent history when animal psychologists conducted cruel experiments in the name of science.

Humanity currently dumps about 2 billion tonnes of waste every year[1]. That's ten thousand times as much as this (projected) figure. And we are currently producing about 400 million tonnes of plastic per year[2], which is itself about two thousand times as much.

There is no particular reason to expect all of decommissioned wind turbine waste to get shredded into landfill. The core of modern blades is mainly balsawood[3], metal parts should be recyclable, fiberglass is inert and probably recyclable. The small fraction of epoxy and coatings should certainly be processed responsibly.

[1] http://www.theworldcounts.com/counters/shocking_environmenta...

[2] https://www.darrinqualman.com/global-plastics-production/

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpRudTUIyfM

Since you are curious I really suggest you look into it - read some environmental studies and articles on salt pollution, get some details on the actual situation to offer rather than you know, just sayings and analogies.

I've a hunch that a Lagrange point sun shield is becoming quite affordable with recent reductions in cost of launching to space. A sunshield consisting of many self orientating mirror bearing craft would have the advantage of being able to be quickly attenuated if required, even filtering more or less light on particular continents or weather systems.

That phrase appears to be apocryphal, salt quickly disperses in practice and no land has ever been known to be deliberately contaminated by it.

I feel these vague worries about road salting relate to this article about highly toxic contamination as a kind of "what-about-ery" but are even less connected by having been introduced as "kind-of-reminds-me-about-ery".

You are confusing different classes of chemical contaminants. Rock salt which is spread on roads consists of a chemical subset of seasalt - which is completely safe to humans as evidenced by healthy coastal communities.

The contaminants discussed here are of an entirely different class, they are toxic at trace levels. Sea salt and rock salt are ubiquitous natural materials, if they were toxic at low levels plagues of disease would occur until animals evolved resistance to them.

Sorry I was a bit short to simply say "untrue" but I had not raised the prospect of radioactive release and am aware of closed layers of cooling. I pointed out all thermoeletric plants consume significant amounts of increasingly scarce water resources and it seems only misleading to reply "Reactors don't consume water...". Its like saying people don't consume gasoline (their machinery does) Reactors don't consume water (their electrical generation systems do)

> Furthermore, this is not an inherent quality of nuclear power

I never suggested it was - although nuclear plants due to having more complicated safety requirements than other thermoelectrics, do tend to have lower thermal efficiencies and higher cooling costs per energy unit produced.

My point was those costs are significant at any practical scale of generation. The heat output itself of thermoelectric plants can be environmentally significant, so the idea of reactor breakthroughs promising "unlimited" generation is, well, its basically a marketing line, for research funding.

Thanks, I wasn't clear on what that vector f*x was. So the noise function is mapping pattern values to coordinates, and the SBM function is combining/layering its patterns calculated with different powers at different scales.

Still on the face of it that advice "the choice of noise function doesn't matter much" is tricky, considering "white noise" is mentioned in the intro which takes no coordinates, but white noise walks of different scales can be combined I think to produce a non-white noise walk.

Besides this combining in a loop the same kind of noise/texture with different power over different scales, I would be interested in also varying the kinds of texture that are layered into different scales.

The code examples have me confused because they return a single sample at a time, but if noise is to have the kind of different characteristics discussed at different scales, individual sample values cannot be independent of previous sample values.

I guess the provided code examples must return values which are ordered somehow by properties of the `noise` function, which must involve some memory of previously given values. But this function is described as:

>some noise function of our choice... the choice doesn't matter much

The nature of that function is really essential, if it has any independent random distribution, the examples will just return values with an independent random distribution that is bell or triangular or spike shaped.

The basic method of creating a sequence which has different variability at difference scales is to create separate random walks, scale (resample) them and then sum them together. This can be optimized by generating the component walks (with different scales) on the fly, but there is no way to create such a sequence on the fly from a function which returns values which are independent of the sequences previous values.

> Reactors do not "consume" freshwater, primary and secondary coolants runs in a closed loop, water never "leaves" or runs out.

That is untrue. They have the same cooling requirements as all thermoelectric power plants do, and some like eg. Diablo Canyon do straight up boil water away. Others heat up lakes or coastlines - which costs (more plant, land and maintenance) and can only be done in some places [1]. Plants cooling requirements are a big part of their overall cost, even with the legacy environmental protection which has led to our current crises.

[1] - https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/energy-and-water-use/wat... Types of cooling

( https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045... )

More magic unlimited thinking I'm afraid. There are costs to desalinating seawater, cost of the plant, cost of locating plants to suitable coastlines, cost of disposal of concentrated brine, cost of introducing gigawatts of heat into water courses and local region - in an already heat stressed climate.

Its big resource intensive thermoelectric generation, with or without unlimited fuel source.

It is a heat source for thermo-electric generation - basically just a way to boil water[1] not the "unlimited" power its always promoted as promising. We don't have unlimited water resources[2].

Elon Musk decided big disposable rockets where just not worth building - well big thermo-electric plants are just not worth building. Solar and wind are the paradigm change in power generation, any Manhattan project would be crazy not to focus on them now and supporting technologies.

[1] https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/t...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21156408 - "Global groundwater extraction a ticking time bomb”

> the deduction is not the problem of the naturalistic argument, the axiom that natural equals good is

In philosophy deduction is a problem, but there are innumerable well reasoned positions which people take that are totally reliant on deduction so it cannot be claimed to identify generally false reasoning (fallacy).

It is incorrect to interchange the concepts of "appeal to nature", "naturalistic argument" and "naturalistic fallacy" and presuppose the strength of an axiom of "natural equals good" in different contexts (except perhaps theories of ethics).

Notice that you have accepted yourself a universal axiom of "natural has no valid appeal in any context". That is an incredible position to have accepted. If it is argued "natural building materials are better for ecological concerns",or "natural foods are better for health concerns" regard what is intelligibly meant by the statement. Regard what "better" and "natural" and "concerns" mean in each statements context.

An appeal to nature in a discussion is an invitation to examine in good faith what is natural to articles under discussion. A reply "arsenic is natural and bad food" is surely not in good faith, surely it can be understood that arsenic is not natural to mammals diet? (except in accidental and rare amounts). Such pontifications should go without saying in good faith discussion, or at least not be offered to claim a perspective is fallacious (invalid).