Yeah it’s a weird thing about parasocial relationships. You like someone based on things you’ve seen about them on TV and then you start feeling like you know them. But really, nope you don’t.

I think it’s fine to like famous people, but just understand that you don’t really know them. If you later find out they’re a horrible person well then don’t like them anymore and it’s no big deal. You only like the things you know about the person, but if you avoid going down the road of feeling like you really know them, it’s fine.

I always thought their goal was to weaponize the xenomorphs?

But I suppose it’s not meant to be clear. They’re greedy corporations looking to milk as much profit from anything they can find. Good thing corporations aren’t like that in real life ;P

When Trump left office he took classified documents with him which was illegal. Like he possessed something it was illegal to possess. it’s over three years later and the prosecution is still underway.

So it’s very doubtful that a crime he just committed will be prosecuted before November. Though it will be prosecuted at a future date, if people go out and vote to keep him from being President again.

Yeah and there comes a point where you know you can win, but don’t want to go through all the turns to get there.

I think most chess games don’t end with a checkmate, many games end when a player concedes because everyone knows the outcome and it’s pointless to play it out.

It’s down to the technological improvements in TVs and increase in the expense of going to the movies (relatively speaking).

There used to be a very wide separation of resolution between SD CRT TVs and seeing a film in a cinema. Now you can have a fairly large 4K TV and have something very close to a cinema experience at home.

And on the the other end, with technologies like digital cameras, “The Volume” and CGI in general, it’s becoming less expensive to put movie quality production values within reach for TV shows. If you can re-use the same CGI models used previously the costs go down. Sure it costs money to make a CGI Star Destroyer or a robot, or a city backdrop or whatever, but once it’s done it can be re-used over and over again.

This all adds up to people only going to theaters for event type movies where people will dress up in costumes and have a party like atmosphere. As engaging as it may be to see a story about some rich people squabble over getting a lot of inheritance, it’s not something that you need to go to a cinema to experience.

Yeah and given his previous role as Stryker and complaints about not getting paid enough for it, and saying Deadpool and Wolverine is like a party… it comes across like he’s just bothered that he didn’t get invited to the party.

Even easier to rewrite history when someone is attacking something like Stonehenge. “Just a bunch of idiots that don’t really care about the problem, they’re just trying to get attention for themselves.” And is that all that far from the truth? IT is 100% about getting attention the only thing that’s debatable is whether it’s attention for the cause or attention for themselves.

The problem isn’t that people don’t know global warming exists, the problem is they don’t care. Sure, being an asshole gets you attention, but it doesn’t influence anyone to help with a cause. So whatever their intent, these kinds of actions are just selfish attention seeking.

There’s zero chance that protesting Stonehenge will improve the future, they’re just rocks.

Protesting an oil refinery might have better odds tho.

If we’re assuming that humanity will go extinct, then sure there’s no point to stonehenge. But then there’s also no point to a protest either.

If we’re assuming humanity isn’t going extinct, then there is a point to preserving stonehenge and there’s also a point to having these protests.

Seems like there’s a logic fail happening here where there’s no point to preserving stone henge for the future but there is still a point to a protest about preserving things for the future.

Yeah I was just being fatuous.

It’s NYT so they’d be using the American billion. So 1 billion = 1000 million.

So 100 plants * 1 million would be 0.1 billion metric tons. Still far short of the 36 billion metric tons per year.

This is ignoring their main usage of that 0.0001 billion metric tons is for oil extraction thus increasing the 36 billion metric tons.

I think it’s best to think of oil like the illegal drug industry. Better to focus on reducing demand, and the supply will drop. Electric cars, better transit, replacing power plants will reduce the amount of oil being burned, and if you do that the oil industry can’t sell something no one is buying.

But all that being said I’m mostly in agreement with you. This technology alone isn’t going to solve global warming. We have to stop using fossil fuels and do it fast.

But some things aren’t very simple. The airline industry puts about a billion tons of carbon into the air, and while there are ways they improve efficiency, it’s hard to beat kerosene for energy per kilo. Hydrogen is an option eventually, but it’s going to be quite awhile for that to happen.

At any rate, there is the problem of the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere from a century of fossil fuel use. It’s not really going anywhere until we suck it out. So this kind of tech will be needed to fix that at the very least.

Fully grown trees are carbon neutral. Yeah trees are made of carbon and when growing they pull carbon from the air and turn it into wood. Once fully grown that’s it.

We should use more wood for construction, that way we clear more land for growing new trees with the wood essentially storing carbon in the structure of a building.

But the impact of that won’t be much. We should do it because every little bit counts, but it would only be a minor part of a much larger solution.

We could also stop digging up oil from the ground and burning it. Novel idea I know.

Yup. That’s the crux of the problem. We’re pulling chemicals from the ground and burning it. Were do the gases from that go? Nowhere. They just stay in the atmosphere.

But he might bring about the complete collapse of the US… which would result in less emissions.

Try to be more optimistic!

I’m a drake, you made a mistake.

Tools will wear out too and need replacement. Boots, gloves and many articles of clothing will wear out.

If you replace a machine that does the job of 100 people and replace it with 100 people, those people will need to commute to work, they will need to eat, and this will put carbon in the air and/or use electricity. Thermodynamics is a bitch, the energy needed by a group of people to lift something will not be any different from the amount of energy needed for a robot to lift something. Growing food to get that energy and then the person shitting out the waste requiring water treatment plants to process it may not be the most energy efficient way to move heavy objects.

And I’ve worked on machines that can do calculations to optimize where materials are cut to minimize wastage. A human with a tape measure and a calculator won’t be able to achieve this level of material usage optimization. Automation can actually reduce material waste.

A lot of the problems you mention would still be problems even if we went full Butlerian Jihad and eliminated all robots. Bad management? Yeah it’s not going to go away when a manger has more employees to manage. Wasteful use of plastic in shipping things? A person can wrap stuff with plastic just as a machine does.

If you don’t like automation that’s fine. But there’s no environmental reasons for being against automation. In fact we need to produce a lot of wind turbines and solar panels as fast as possible. Like a huge number of them. The workforce isn’t big enough to produce them all.

The three games I was most interested in last year were Kerbal Space Program 2, Cities Skylines 2, and Zelda Tears of the Kingdom. Two of them had newly designed game engines. The third used the engine from the previous game.

Guess which one I enjoyed playing the most?

In software development sometimes you do have to rewrite some code to improve things. But if you have something that functions really well, it’s better to be just continually making improvements. A lot of what makes a game great is going to be artwork, story, creative level design, creative enemy design, etc. But all of that work can be wasted if the software is buggy, which will happen if most or all of the code is written on a tight deadline.

Block their IPs. Keeps happening? Block their subnet. Of course taking this approach we may end up blocking all of Russia, China, NK, etc.

Nothing of value will be lost.