jjaken

There actually is a trademark files for THREADS https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87522273&caseType=SERIAL_...

Now compare mental energy

Does Musk still attract A+ pedigree? I wouldn’t be caught dead working for someone so tech illiterate.

I thought I knew all the vague definitions of woke but none fit the context clues in your sentences. What are you talking about?

Almost none of that is true

Physicians are some of the larger victims of this inflation, no? Also “they” are not doing anything with ACGME in general, that’s an entirely separate issue.

Yeah, threads.com is taken by a slack competitor

What are you going on about? That’s all nonsense.

I think the ambiguous display of these things on the store, when few other apps show this, is cause for questions and concern. Everything you just said is equally speculative.

It’s not from the article. It’s clearly stated on the app store page for Threads: https://imgur.com/a/Lk8Olb6

MANY. This is the most annoying case of confirmation bias.

Climatologists make predictions in terms of probabilities. “If emissions go up X amount then we will see Y increase in likelihood of impact Z”. They can’t predict a specific future. Our climate is a single instantiation of many possible climates, and climate prediction is a matter of characterizing the possibilities.

The vast majority of predictions from actual climatologists has/is occurring. From increasing mean temperatures, to increasing hurricane intensity and frequency, to marine life impacts (eg Maine lobsters are migrating so far north they won’t be Maine lobsters soon), to decreasing sea ice, to innumerable ecological impacts. ALL of that was predicted. Accurate temperature predictions go back 150 years.

They can’t predict “sea ice will diminish to exactly this amount by year 2023,” they make probabilistic statements about how mean sea ice will decline per decade. They can’t say “in year 2040 all the lobsters will be gone,” they say the mean lobster population will migrate north to cooler water.

I assume you heard a few reporters make specific claims about a hurricane hitting your town or something, but they missed the point. Maybe you watched too many fictional movies. That line of reasoning is utter propaganda that you’re spreading. It’s antiscientific, unsubstantiated lies.

Yup. I’m not catholic anymore but it’s what I was taught too.

Yeah it’s a dream for me and I hope funding persists.

I wish I had a good answer. I’m a late-stage PhD student and I work full time at a national lab that is doing this work. I ought to start gauging the job market for when I defend my dissertation. With the current administration, there are several national labs interested in this problem. I have thought about looking at NOAA, NASA, NSIDC, etc as well. I’ve heard many of these government orgs are looking for data scientists for climate work, I suspect eventually there will be enough climate-data-scientists to hire them specifically. It’s all government I suspect; there’s not much for a private company to gain from climate research unfortunately.

Depends on the dogma. For some christian sects the old testament is genuinely a fable. It isn’t necessarily the religion, or spirituality more generally, that is opposed to science or rationality, but the dogma and way the spirituality/religion is taught/practiced.

It’s multifaceted. Scientifically it’s too soon to say. Engineering-wise, it’s entirely doable. I’ve seen a couple talks in which they worked out how to do it with current technology and within budgets that are manageable by cooperating governments. Politically it seems like a toss-up, but I’m least qualified to comment on that.

My hunch on the science side (take this with a grain of salt, I’m a computer scientist in climate informatics, not a climate scientist) is that there will surely be undesired effects. I’m working on method development for identifying all of the downstream impacts, but it’s low TRL. I think we’ll end up needing to weigh the negative with the positive impacts unless we find some miracle silver bullet. Intervening in a system as complex as our climate makes it a good bet there will be undesirable impacts.

My guess is we’re ~10 years from confident estimations of what is/isn’t a good idea. Then we have to convince governments to act. That’s really slow. The marginally good news is, perhaps the right intervention can cool the earth fast enough (possibly at the cost of something like Ozone).

That said, we are already intervening in the climate with greenhouse gases. The safest intervention from here is to just stop/slow that. We know what the world is like with less GHG. We only get one shot at a habitable Earth, so while it is scary to try fixing it, it’s more scary to continue breaking it in my opinion. No one wants to act hastily though, we’re working on the science to make sure we know what we’re doing.

That’s the one example anyone ever uses and it’s way oversimplified. It’s also something that occurred 400 years ago, conducted by a church that doesn’t exist anymore (the catholics have changed a lot in 400 years and the Inquisition has been dead a long time).

The argument in the OP isn’t that religion hasn’t opposed or suppressed science. It’s that religion isn’t fundamentally opposed to science. While some may wield religion to whatever ends suits them, the religion itself was merely the tool of the day. We see evidence of that throughout history, to oppose science or anything else.

We might. I’m one scientist working on making sure we don’t. There are many scientists trying to do that. Hopefully we can learn and act in time.

Becomming an old programmer.

Sounds like a joke but really, I felt super green until suddenly I didn’t. I didn’t really figure anything specific out, I’ve just now seen enough problems that I am confident I can work through whatever I run into.

Times like this are when people can only speculate. There’s too little information for anything else. The discussion is tautologically speculative. Some will be optimistic and others will be pessimistic and the only thing informing the disparity of those opinions is the authors’ personal perspectives and biases. You’re frustrated by something that is only natural.

Yeah debates in climate science are about phenomena laypeople don’t even know exist. It’s about how what we observe happens. No one is arguing about what we’re observing, eg global warming.

Oh interesting, I didn’t know that

The important part to understand is timescales. In a day, the Earth does absorb some energy. Of course it does, plants collect it, solar panels collect, the ocean and land collect it. The amount Earth collects is a tiny fraction of what it releases. That collection isn’t permanent though and is slowly released. Within a day, the Earth absorbs some energy, but over a long enough timescale, all of that energy is released again.

The Earth is taking on energy every day from the sun. If we didn’t release it all back, the earth would be warming much much faster. It only remains relatively cool because it releases almost as much as it receives.

Another important note is that long term energy is not only stored as heat on earth. It’s stored as potential energy in the atoms of cells in plants and animals. Think of how cold a gallon of gasoline is, yet how much energy it stores.

For an example think of hot asphalt from a summer day. It gets real hot all day and slowly cools down at night. Sometimes it can be pretty warm to stand on the road even if it’s a cool night.

Within the human timescale, the Earth is retaining some (tiny fraction) of heat. That tiny fraction of heat is a very small window of heat that life can tolerate. It’s not too much and not too little. If the earth were to retain just a tiny bit more, suddenly life can’t tolerate it. On the scale of the universe, the difference between those realities is minuscule, even though it’s enormous to us.

Heat death doesn’t mean “no heat” or that energy has depleted. It just means that energy is fully dispersed. All kg the hear exists, it’s just that no one place has any more than anywhere else, and so there is no longer any transfer of energy.