Why? The reason climate change is dangerous is not because it'll get too hot or cold for us, but because the temperature is changing too fast. It's the gradient that's the problem.
Vast swaths of North America have been under water or covered in ice sheets at various points in the Earth's history, including the time when humans lived.
I think it's fair to say that we are not well adapted to live under water or ice, yet both of those are definitely coming. Someday.
> Perhaps nuclear advocates haven't considered [that if we can slow down climate change then we'll have to make some steady societal changes over the next few thousand years (instead of over a much smaller time-frame) to adapt to the Earth's natural climate changes]
Not to be rude, but you're wasting peoples' time when you don't even follow your own line of thinking in your comments. You've made quite a few comments on this post that don't really contribute to the discussion.
I'll accept that as your subjective opinion and respectfully disagree. I'm quite well informed on this topic and this thread needed several truths surfaced which were occluded by industry PR claims.
It's worse than that though, because, for example, nuclear power is significantly safer than other technologies currently in use[1][2], and as another example, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States[3][4], at least for several generations (they asymptotically approach native levels).
So I think we're fighting a couple of battles here: fear-mongering and misinformation/ignorance, and I guess they go hand-in-hand.
You're getting downvoted, but I understand the sentiment. It's amazing to me that people talk about nuclear power as if it's something that we'd ideally be able to avoid outright. Nuclear is getting safer every year (and it's already safer than everything else we're currently using in terms of deaths caused and environmental damage per unit of energy, at least[1]), and people want to just shut it down? I can at least understand a sort of "nuclear isn't ready yet" stance, but I'm baffled by the idea that the end goal is to just not utilise this whole area of physics for energy production at all. You can understand the opposition in the 1970s/80s and even 90s when things were still being ironed out, but at this point, in 2019, it does seem like it's creeping towards anti-vax levels of science-denial.
You're anti-old-nuclear. It's like being anti-old-aeroplanes, which isn't an interesting position. The article is about depoyment of new plants. You've replied to a bunch of different threads with empty comments like this. You shouldn't do that.
The problem is that nuclear has become a loser technology. It's not failing because of the public thinks it's unsafe, it's failing because internally they can't compete (and excuses about regulation are just that, excuses.)
If nuclear were 1/3 its current cost we'd be building nuclear power plants left and right, protests be damned. But it's not, and we aren't, and we won't be. Deal.
I'm not experienced on this stuff either, but it seems like Serverless (the org/framework) is designed for architecting whole sites/apps, whereas faast.js is focussed on hhandling batch computing jobs.
"Everything" isn't offensive, no. But some things are, to some people, and sometimes for good reasons. We should try to be a bit more careful in our talking and thinking, I think.
I think, too, sometimes, but not too much, or else I get no sleep, but please don't hate my use of commas and run on sentences, I swear I'm making a point.
I'm interested in this too. The dev would probably have a good answer since they previously made a pure JS sand game too: https://github.com/MaxBittker/dust
I'm not so sure about that. Certain species pf crows and parrots have long been understood (even by non-scientists) to have general/abstract reasoning abilities. And people who actually study them seem to think that we often underestimate them [0] - probably because of widely held myths like the 5 second memory one.
I haven't read Hawkins' book yet, but he and the vicarious crew tend to conflate "neocortex" with "general intelligence" in their public talks. Birds and, it seems, the vast majority of animal species rely on predictive models of the world to navigate it - even if their "model-builder" doesn't look exactly like the mammalian one.[1] It makes complete sense to me - if a lizard loses a leg, it quickly learns how to walk with just 3 legs. If a finch is born with slightly larger wings than normal, and it also loses some of its tail feathers at some point, it quickly learns to adjust its motor patterns to suit the new conditions. You solve problems like these with sensory-motor models, not with hard-coded algorithms.
I'm no historian, but my best guess it that it's just correlation and that the main underlying cause of "civility" is wealth. When your citizens are struggling to survive, they (at least in their own minds) don't have time to think about women's rights, racial prejudice, etc. The progressive countries of the world just happen to be a few decades ahead on the technology timeline. There are obviously other factors, but I think that's the big one.
Wealth is probably the immediate cause, but in time, it seeps into the mentality of a people. The result is a society where trust in other people is low, everyone treats everyone else like they are out to cheat you, have little civic spirit and don't want to spend energy for the betterment of the whole. They would vote with whomever gives them bigger short term gains, damn with the future and consequences, other people will inherit them. It's hard to turn a mentality around, you just have to wait for older people to die and be replaced.
His followers have absorbed some pretty terrible ideas from him. This was a comment about the recent decriminalization of homosexuality in India: https://i.imgur.com/W80VytS.png
I had to do a double-take. Satoshi and Peterson in the same sentence? One is famous for kickstarting decentralised currencies/markets/etc., and the other is famous for... Lobsters? Pronouns? [Saying that women shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup at work?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZrSrZpX5l8). Very strange that Cowen seems to think they're somehow comparable. [Unrelated](https://i.redd.it/w412971qqf011.png).
Why? The reason climate change is dangerous is not because it'll get too hot or cold for us, but because the temperature is changing too fast. It's the gradient that's the problem.