256 karma · joined November 23, 2011
#set signature="cat ~/.signature && telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl 666 | tail -n3|"
No WebGPU available. Please use Chrome.
on chrome (Version 129.0.6668.29 (Official Build) beta (64-bit)) , under windowsnothing interesting on the console.
https://skins.webamp.org/skin/d77a144cdb775a0937617389b6e0e4...
(firefox / ubuntu). so I'm sorry to say 'no' ;)
although wholeheartedly I agree with your sentiment, that's where our opinions diverge... none of the parties mentioned in the original issue are 'wanting to do good' in my opinion, even thoug it _is_, as you say, understandable that they do what they do.
(ff 91.0)
on my side of the pond we've committed to a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030 as compared to 1990... that's just 9 years, and we are _still_ at 1990 levels or thereabouts, meaning we have done essentially _nothing_ in 30 years.
I'd damn well say we're against the wall.
from what I _can_ see it looks cool. I used to love demos in the old days on my 386 with gravis ultrasound :)
[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...
https://www.singerlaren.nl/en/nieuws/460/burglary_at_singer_...
I suppose you mean this video ?
I guess we differ on the 'economically viable' part. but in the really long run (say greenland being free of ice) my guess is no amount of money is going to save the netherlands.
so the question is more whether it will be economically viable to keep the land dry. personally, with the more pessimistic IPCC scenarios in mind, we will come to the point where that decision needs to be made. not in my lifetime, most likely not in yours, but still.
as to your last sentence : we have never seen a scenario like the ones now looming over us.