wow it’s not the dwarf toploading ps2 either.

How was appollo programme planned?

I came to say raclette and also Roque(fort) Balboa?

Valençay

heres some radom impractal ideas.

identify excesses fo power that do not work in the national interest and figure out what stable system can be put in place to regulate those excesses down to lower levels as effectively as possible. simples. /s

regulate banks so that they invest more of your savings in businesses and services that your country needs for your future. (this is a very long term fix as they’ve spent 40-50 years divesting from your society).

regulate capital gains so that business can not meet shareholder needs with asset price bubbles, only dividends. regulate dividends too. (aim is as Keynes said to avoid “whirlpools of speculation” and see only “bubbles” on a steady stream of investment).

nominal transaction tax (tobin tax), and transaction delay times for all exchanges to stop stock markets being ran so fucking stupidly they do not need to trade that much that often

dissociate commercial banks from building societies separate and minimise home loans- but regulate house prices to prevent mortgage bubble. (/ust accept low gdp growth , gdp is fucking made up number) basically do a load of FDR bank regulation stuff that got scrapped in the 70s/80s under dubious pretexts.

better to promote localised banking and local lending coops and such, then the power to make businesses loans is held closer to the savers and borrowers, and can be more accountable just by being a closer group that interacts mmore frequently.

regulate scarce situations that are hard to replicate , rent controls in centre of town or near transit (or other land use regualtion). try to manage away property bubbles - this is part of the reason businesses become uncompetetive, along with all the other stuff that pushes up cost fo living.

Of course regulation is difficult, prone to corruption, as al) the freedoomers will say. It is after all an excess of power - but it it not the only one and might be the only one with a chance of reducing the ppower of the others unles you cound bloody revolutions every now and again that also end up investing a new set of powerful people… And it doesn’t help that one of your(assuming i’m talking to usa by context) parties just works solely on behalf of al those power mongers that most need regulation; their real neat trick,“govt is shit”, “look at us we’re govt”, “you’d better reduce the power of regulators in case you elect idiots like us again” And that line of reasoning is so successful that the other party imitates it.

So you need a way to make the regulators accountable, and elections are not a necessarily the best way to improve regulation , but they can be part of a wider system to hold the regulatros to account. On a more local scale , something like having to explain themselves and their decisions to random anonymous juries. They should also, as public officials have to submit their income and weath statements to the jury of the people to try to demostrate no bribery.

you dont need perfect, just a framework where it can improve bit by bit, and gradually weed out those with excess power orwho abuse it. which basically needs transparency and accountability at a level and frequency that matches the circumstances at hand.

fuckin biden making gasoline too expensive /s

It does give the impresson that grand theft auto is a realistic simulation.

I think most lifeforms will have more pressing matters than wasting large amounts of time an energy blasting signals in to space for no reason, or listening to the sky.

Maybe those civilizations that waste more energy chasing aliens die off sooner due to wasting resources on sci-fi bullshit and ignoring their real problems at home.

I think it is in the drake equation effectively, it factors into the length of time that the civilization might send and receive detectable signals - It doesn’t say why the Civilisation might collapse, but the planet becoming uninhabitable is surely one reason. On wikipedia for Drake Equation the Carl Sagan specification of L is in terms of the “fraction of planetary lifetime”.

I think a missing factor might be how directional transmission and receiving is, if we can’t broadcast to and listen to the whole sky equally then we might have a 1/r-cubed type issue with the chances of both listening and transmitting with enough strength/energy at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Sauce

15 pin d-sub that could support TWO joysticks if you had the splitter cable. Micro machines 2 : 4 player, with 2 gamepads into the soundcard, and one player using each side of the keyboard.

Cool, that looks great to me.

Tell your mum I’m enjoying the new album.

Honestly, that unit reads like bullshit to me, when stated out of context- I did used to work in energy and emission forecasting, but never that deeply into the academics so feel free to disregard my comments on that basis - we relied on scientific advisors for that stuff.

Personally I’d hope that all the papers quoting such a thing should have a simpler literal maybe step by step explaination of what the fuck they’re trying to measure . But i really did hate academia generally for its introverted tendencies, I don’t think they write those papers to inform oiks like me.

If the unit is supposed to be a scale for the long term average net flow of greenhouse gases from the planet’s surface into the atmosphere, then that is a complex thing; I think it deserves a load of words to explain the what is being described - more than a few of letters and numbers.

Here’s my attempt at what I think the abbreviation is trying to say: “Average mass of greenhouse gas emissions with equivalent potential to warm the planet as a gigatonne of carbon dioxide, less any amounts absorbed back into the earth, per year over the last 100 years (GtCO2e)”
I dont feel the “y-1” adds anything since the unit is dimensionally a number of tonnes - unless I’ve misinterpreted -which seems likely.

One shouldn’t just use an abbreviation if one want’s to communicate to non-specialists. I’d always advise to spell it out in real words and sentences. If complex, try to break it down into simple parts. Then after a full explanation, you can later reply on the abbreviation - for example in a graph label.

If the measurement or estimate is important, then the audience deserves enough words to explain it. If the measurement or estimate does not come with enough words to explain it then in my opinion the author doesn’t care enough to try to explain it so it can’t be that important. It may be just a rhetorical grph or it just looks good - no real meaning.

The only exception for me is the “standard units”, metre, kilogramme etc. as we can rely on S.I. for those standard measures overing the main material dimensions.

Look it proably really is all just me being an asshole, but I get very sick of hearing vague, imprecise bullshit like “Carbon” being used as a term for “greenhouse gas emissions”. I did have a job where the difference between C and CO2 caused a factor of 0.278 discrepancy in some arguably important figures. High school fucking chemistry. Those people should have known better and resolved their unit of measure ahead of time.

I get that some people had a hard time in school, but I think it should be about trying to help them understand more and learn , not dumbing stuff down to imprecise terms because we’re so scared of confusing someone . If a person doesn’t know the basics, say the difference between an element, an atom and a molecule; we should help them learn that before going on at them about complex atmospheric concentrations and global warming equivalent potentials.

cleveland?

“G/year” “GtCOe” Be careful of feeding the “science is wrong” trolls by misrepresenting units of measure.

this dude claims he made a cargo bike on his kitchen table. https://invidious.reallyaweso.me/watch?v=SDlnDEXlfm8&t=56

yeah but ai means the same stupid ape can excrete 25 times the stupid shit in the same time period. That’s progress.

It’s my pile of sand, and I’m keeping my head deep down within it. Now “temple of doom”, that was going too far. And dont get me started on the godfather

bunch a muppets

yeah, glad that these sequel fuckers didn’t think about mad max or the terminator either. there can be only one.

. . . that’s what life is, it’s a series of down endings.