I think people are just nervous they’ll click and get some crazy climate denying stuff or something especially with all the hate she gets. The YouTube recommendations go nuts if you watch even a single video on something. Risky click. Excellent science based video you posted there though. A /s would’ve saved on the down votes if you care.
That the eye can only perceive 24 fps is a myth. Plus vision perception is very complicated with many different processes, and your eyes and brain don’t strictly perceive things in frames per second. 24 fps is a relatively arbitrary number picked by the early movie industry, to make sure it would stay a good amount above 16 fps (below this you lose the persistence of motion illusion) without wasting too much more film, and is just a nice easily divisible number. The difference between higher frame rates is quite obvious. Just go grab any older pc game to make sure you can get a high frame rate, then cap it to not go higher to 24 after that, and the difference is night and day. Tons of people complaining about how much they hated the look of Hobbit movie with its 48 fps film can attest to this as well. You certainly do start to get some diminishing returns the higher fps you get though. Movies can be shot to deliberately avoid quick camera movements and other things that wouldn’t do well at 24 fps, but video games don’t always have that luxury. For an rpg or something sure 30 fps is probably fine. But fighting, action, racing, anything with a lot of movement or especially quick movements of the camera starts to feel pretty bad at 30 compared to 60.
Bring in the guy that fixed the first one with dark arisen please.
A rare exception to the “if a headline asks a question the answer is no” rule.
Theoretically yes, but that’s not what happened. Also not sure if average in op’s case is referring to mean or median, the word average could refer to either. But mean and median are close in this case. Median wage growth statistics are readily available, here’s median:
https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker
And if you dig into data more, you’ll find real wage growth (wage growth minus inflation) was strongest in the lowest income bracket, not the highest.
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/
That’s not to say that just a couple years of higher wage growth in low income brackets will erase the US’s enormous long-standing problem with income inequality. And the top 10% have still been doing better than upper middle class with recent wage growth.
It’s not as far off as you might think, screen size can be misleading for phone size as aspect ratios and bezels change:
S7 dimensions: 142.4 x 69.6 x 7.9 mm
S24 dimensions: 147.0 x 70.6 x 7.6mm
Mostly it’s slightly taller than the S7, otherwise about the same.
You could also argue the lack of bezels now makes cases more necessary and adds to the bulk too though.
Oh I agree, absolutely. Just thought I’d add that as some people might wonder what that big jump was halfway through last year.
This is an El Nino year too, La Nina years will drag down the average somewhat. You can even see the inflection in the chart when el Nino started. Though obviously the charts are not looking great, with or without El Nino.
That’s a slight misreading of the headline. It’s not saying the that the carbon capture machinery emitted more emissions than it captured. It’s saying the hydrogen refining plant as a whole released more emissions than was captured by the carbon capture machinery in the process of refining hydrogen. So the hydrogen produced had less co2 emissions associated with it than was typical, but some co2 was still released. This makes sense because it would be basically impossible from a chemistry standpoint to make a machine that captured 100% of the carbon emitted.
Fta:
At best, it prevents some carbon dioxide from polluting facilities from reaching the atmosphere, but it is not a negative emissions technology
I think the best use of these technologies for the time being is to lessen the harms of already running sources of emissions where co2 is highly concentrated and some of it can be captured, if it’s some kind of situation where a greener technology can’t just replace it outright for some reason, which obviously should be the preferred route.
Shell is misrepresenting this as removing co2 already in the atmosphere, when in reality it’s just lessening new emissions somewhat. And they’re trying to use this to argue for the creation of even more fossil fuel facilities, when this technology is only reducing the harms, not taking it away, so creating more polluting sources than already exist is the last thing we need. And I totally agree using taxpayer money to help fossil fuel companies greenwash is asinine.
This is also different than those projects where they’re just trying to pull it out of the air, which are totally ridiculous with any current technology but theoretically would result in negative emissions (and which Shell is hoping people think of when they say “carbon capture”).
Probably something humans screwed up
/checks article
Permafrost thaw from global warming, yup. Interesting article though.
“Teacher, why is there a foot of standing water in the school?”
“Because of woke democrats Billy. Now be quiet and listen to the lesson on the war of Northern aggression and how unhappy all the black people were that the north ended their job training programs where they got valuable career skills.”
Comment from a ublock developer on this:
There is a lot of chatter in the last days about how Youtube is slow with content blockers. Those performance issues affect only the latest version of both Adblock Plus (3.22) & AdBlock (5.17), and afflict more than just Youtube. uBO is not affected.
Terrible title. It’s implying the study is something about the accuracy of finger printing. It’s a study where Ai was able to find some similarities in finger prints to different fingers in the same person, and sometimes could guess if they were different fingers from the same person, though not very consistently. I’m not making any judgements on the accuracy of forensic fingerprinting techniques here but that’s is not what this article or study is about.
Leaders of the tax-writing committees in the House and Senate are working on a deal to expand the existing child tax credit in exchange for extending certain business tax credits
Republicans: No money to help end child poverty unless corporations get handouts too
But seriously when this credit was active, it alone cut child poverty by a third. Imagine what we could get with a true universal basic income. A good first step at least though.
They’re the secretary of state. Every state has one. Their primary job is administering elections in the state. This includes applying rules for eligibility of candidates. For instance if you were 30 and applied to be put on the ballet for president, it would be the secretary of state who says no, you must be at least 35, we’re not putting you on. Of course their decisions about various things can be challenged in court and often are.
In the Colorado case the decision first came from a judge, because there the secretary of state declined to take him off the ballot. Colorado voters sued their secretary of state for neglect or breach of duty for allowing Trump on the ballot in violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Here’s the ruling from that case where you can see it was technically the secretary of state for Colorado who was sued:
In Maine no one had to sue the secretary of state first, the secretary of state just said straight up, hey trump you’re not eligible, 14th amendment applies, just like they would have if he didn’t meet other qualifications like being a natural born citizen or being at least the age of 35. Now likely Trump will sue the secretary of state in Maine to try and get the courts to put him back on. They also became involved in the litigation in Colorado after it started, since he had an interest in the case.
There’s a lot of problems with this. Just some include that it’s a blog and doesn’t link to the actual study so it’s impossible to see what’s going on with the this report. They also never explain what this “reliability score” even means or what’s included in that. Then they start doing things like using a percent to compare the scores saying this is percent more reliable. But we still don’t even know what this score is, and comparing as a percent may not make any sense to say depending on what the scores are and how they’re calculated. Unfortunately you can’t really draw any conclusions from what’s in this article.
Fossil fuels being sold this cheap are essentially a high interest loan that will be paid back one way or another, likely in the high price of failed food harvests, water shortages, and environmental disasters. The price should reflect the true cost, including the environmental damages it will inflict. If the price actually reflected the cost, we’d have been moving away from them for quite a while now, and that’s not even bringing up the fact that they get subsidies on top of that. And there’s more than enough money in the economy to make this possible too and help people that higher prices might affect in the short run, I know of a certain top 1% in the United States holding onto 31% of the wealth that did quite well during the pandemic that we could start with. And some massive fossil fuel companies with hundreds of billions of dollars that have been profiting on all of this for decades while using their money to try and hide the evidence and encourage inaction.
Love this idea from the article.