Get outta here with your simple reasonable explanation and excitement and interest in the topic
(Do you have full text for the thing you linked to? I read the abstract and I thought it was pretty interesting yes yes)
mozz
joined 2 years ago
Yeah. As with many things, "Can this make money?" is not the same as "Is this a nice thing to have around?" and the disconnect between the two when capitalism tends to assume they'll be the same thing, is a source of unhappiness in many ways.
Whoa
Becoming ever more obnoxious with ad placement because your ad-supported service is losing money and you don't know what else to do is a classic late-stage-enshittification step. It is usually the last one before the service becomes openly hostile to its users and partners and becomes a mostly-worthless relic. I did not think Youtube was at that stage or even close to it but maybe it is.
I can't really tell if Youtube is losing money or not, but it creates about $8 billion per quarter, and Google's overall operating expense is $55 billion per quarter, and I think it actually might be a safe assumption that Youtube is a pretty decent amount of that expense given its scale and its storage, bandwidth, and employee-resources requirements.
It's absolutely true that she's invested in election integrity... from a certain point of view.
plants still absorb 90% of green light
(Your statement is technically true I think; I assume that plants like all opaque nonreflective objects absorb most of the light of any wavelength that hits them. But that doesn't mean they're using the green stuff for photosynthesis)
green light holds the highest proportion of the energy radiated by the sun
green light has too much energy
What are you talking about
However, this is not to say that green lights ability to efficiently evaporate water is not a factor in this evolutionary development, hell it's probable that these two things are heavily related
What are you talking about
Did you read this recently, and just automatically assume that that thing about green light is probably heavily related to this other thing about green light because they're both green light? I'm not tryin to be a dick about it by saying that, but that doesn't sound automatically probable to me.
So essentially, while absorbing all green light would provide the plant with more energy, it's not capable of handling this energy so plants evolved to limit their intake of green light.
This part for all I know could be true. (Or, the thing that linked paper says which this is kind of a simplified version of.) I couldn't completely make sense of the paper just from the abstract, but to me it looks just from a first glance like it's not real convincing as an overriding proof that what they're talking about is (a) necessarily exactly how it happens in biological systems or (b) wholly responsible for plants being green if it does. It's just a theoretical indication of one way that you can do the regulation, which also doesn't work real well if you're choosing to absorb green light.
The thing I linked to claims that the green color is a result of an evolutionary trap (presumably based on evolving under conditions of green light unavailability and then having the machinery too complete to go back and redesign to absorb green light? Once green light became available again when the retinal-based organisms weren't around anymore? Maybe.) I'm not convinced either explanation is proven but IDK if you can say just based on this one paper that it's absolutely definite that that's why and how it happens.
Fun fact: There's a pretty compelling case to be made that early photosynthesizing organisms were purple instead of green, so that for about half a billion years the earth was purple and blue like a cyberpunk street scene.
Sounds good. Here's hoping Netanyahu's "fuck your difficulties, the important thing is let's talk about what you need to do for me" attitude will occasion a sea change in how the US deals with him. I'm not real hopeful for that outcome though, no. I anticipate a veto and a tepid statement of both-sides condemnation from Biden as normal.
Netanyahu’s latest public statement about the war said forthcoming decisions by the ICC could set a “dangerous precedent.”
Interestingly enough this is pretty much exactly what the US said about the ICC when they were trying so hard to block it under Bush 2. Like if you're gonna tell me I can't go around war criming then what even is the point of having all these weapons we worked so hard on.
Reported for the edit to the headline
Also side note, ICJ and ICC are very different. ICJ is mostly toothless (which is fine, it's a fact-finding body which can inform action by other states). ICC has some teeth which is why the US post-Clinton has been working to obstruct it as best as we can. It tends to get used against African warlords and similar targets who aren't geopolitically-connected enough to warrant of a US veto get out of jail free card.
I have a theory which I just came by recently which I think makes a lot of sense:
In the 1968 Democratic convention, a good number of the rank and file of the left wing of the American politics got attacked by the police, beaten, gassed, thrown in jail, sent to the hospital, or otherwise told in direct physical terms that their "allies" within the establishment weren't their friends. Before 1968, you could explain it away as one corrupt police force or local suburban society being the enemy, but maybe change was possible within the system at some level. After 1968, it was explicit: Not only are we not going to work for your goals, we might try to kill you if you try to work for your goals. Now please support us in the election, please.
It would be surprising if that led to anything other than a massive collapse in support for Democrats within the approved electoral system. It would be surprising if that led to anything other than a huge upwelling of momentum and success for the explicitly-fascist wing of American politics, that let them finally take action on their awful longstanding goals after they'd spent decade on decade losing ground.
And look, both of those things are exactly what happened. It took until 2008 until a Democratic president not named Carter held office and did anything even vaguely left-wing -- 40 years. The corporate-death project made quite a lot of progress during those unrestrained 36 years.
I have no idea if the cause and effect worked the way I describe. But it would make sense to me if it did.
You're perfectly content to let Capitalism crush millions right now
When did I say that?
I think changing the system into something better sounds like a great idea. I'm being a hypocrite about it because I haven't really done shit in an activist sense; that part is accurate. But if you ask me what I want, I want the system to change into something better. I don't want it to change into something worse. How does that translate into me being perfectly content with the current system?
presuming every revolution will lead to totalitarianism
There's a reasonable middle ground between "let's ignore the history of the outcome of this strategy and assume it'll be fine" and "every revolution will lead to totalitarianism, I'm content with the current system." I am definitely not saying the second one, although I can get where it might have sounded like I was. In my opinion the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes.
Just gonna leave this here -- the recent fatality rate in humans is about 30%. There are a tiny number of data points but the point is, it looks to be more deadly than Covid was by quite a lot. And clickbaity news about the 2022 dolphin case aside, it's clearly everywhere, and able to jump to new mammal species readily.
Maybe I am missing something but assertion that the current public health risk is low seems to be based on more or less nothing. Why is the risk low? People are still working among animals some of whom are definitely infected, every day, in messy conditions. The consequences once it figures out how to spread person-to-person will be somewhere from moderate to apocalyptic, and what we're doing right now is clearly just half-measures to delay that happening by a little bit. Why is that low risk?