dimreepr
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by dimreepr
-
-
-
-
9 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:
No informed person thinks we are there yet.
It's an interesting question though, when can we expect them????
16 minutes ago, Sensei said:1) You do not know how many automatically driven cars reached their destination successfully.
2) The media will only talk about failures, not about successful arrivals.
3) Unlikely media will reveal what is percentage/per millage between crashes/not crashes of automatically driven cars, versus human-driven car crashes/not crashes.
(you are not informed about the number of airplanes which not crashed today either, you're just informed by the media only about one which crashed today)
My thoughts about the software:
When car driver instructs car where to go, device should show map of known (already taken and stored in db) parts of road (with green color), and unknown (which will be the first time taken) (with red color). Software should lower speed of driving on roads which are taken the first time. Human must be in advance informed about it. During driving software should compare what it gets from sensors and camera, is what is already in database. When there are bad weather conditions, obstacles on road, heavy traffic, etc. etc. what is in database won't match sensors, and speed should be lowered in advance. Automatic exchange of databases between cars, and central server, would help finding when software made mistake. Exchange of data between cars will prevent crashes between cars (data "we are here #UID at location x,y,z with speed vx,vy,vz, and acceleration ax, ay, az". From #UID computer builds history and predicts future path. Repeated by the all cars on the road tells about heavy traffic in some area in advance).
It's therefore a question of statistics, not ethics or morals; who do you chose to kill???
-
14 hours ago, beecee said:
Did Chris set out to discover America? Did he even know America was there? How many died on that and his other trips to the new world, and while we are at it, how many died in any of the voyages taken by the old seafaring explorers?
The difference is, how much more "can" we know???
For instance, we know the distance to Mars; we also know, that's a trip to the local shop...
I don't think anyone is suggesting that, we don't go looking...
Just that we need to spend our budget wisely...
-
The problem with conspiracy on the tinternet is, it sucks in suckers; not on a site like this, where people ask the right questions.
But, on a site where people feel righteously indignant (FB, for instance); and point the fingure (which having write moves on). when a dog owner fails to pick up it's shit from the middle of a briar patch...
-
12 minutes ago, iNow said:
I’m not here to defend Ron Johnson. I find his general approach here repugnant and detrimental, but none of these things you’ve said in the above quote are possible for you to know. You should stop making assertions regarding things impossible for you to know.
Most primates, just want to eat...
-
Just now, Hans de Vries said:
Ketamine has been a breakthrough in psychiatry, it produces fast and dramatic improvements in a myriad of mental health conditions, including major depression, anxiety disorders, ocd and bpd likely as well.
The downside is that those dramatic effects wean off in a matter of one to several weaks. Why is that so?
Wean, seems the operative word...
-
-
-
-
20 hours ago, Area54 said:
Corrected. At least for the moment. Perhaps if you were less obtuse people would better understand your intent. (Or, perhaps, if you were more obtuse people wouldn't discern your intent. One wonders which is true.)
The truth is, I'm just plain stupid at explaining myself in one hit; my best hope is a conversation.
My intelligence, for what it's worth, reside elsewhere.
12 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:I am of the view that the problem must be addressed at the energy industry level, through government policy planning and regulation inducing a transition to very low to below zero emissions. To be effective clean energy abundance such that even people with extravagantly wasteful lifestyles who do not care will have low emissions is necessary. Personal choices to avoid waste, choose lower emissions options and otherwise reduce personal emissions are helpful - and necessary for our sanity and self respect - but without that fundamental shift to clean energy they cannot solve the problem. Going stone age by choice is not a viable choice and failing to go stone age by choice is no more hypocritical than justifying no efforts to reduce emissions through economy wide policy on the basis of a choice to deny or ignore climate science or just not caring.
We can mostly agree that stealing is wrong but it takes laws and enforcement to discourage it - and still stealing is widespread; relying on that in-principle agreement that it is wrong is insufficient. I think the climate problem is like that - something widely agreed should be addressed but relying on that in-principle agreement or personal choice will always be insufficient; people are people and still do things despite knowing better.
The issues of social and economic equity can't be set aside but it looks clear to me that failure on emissions will overwhelm any short terms "gains" for the poor by deferring or preventing that transition. Good governance is essential, including for poverty alleviation and should include measures to insulate the most vulnerable from short term economic harms from policies to shift to low emissions. In my experience it is primarily people who can afford such measures that are the ones making the strongest objections that they should not be done because it will hurt the poor, speaking of hypocrisy.
What he said... +1
12 hours ago, swansont said:
This is from the recent book by Bill Gates. It suggests where the tall tent-poles can be found.
Indeed, stop buying shit we don't need...
-
Just now, Area54 said:
Corrected. At least for the moment. Perhaps if you were less obtuse people would better understand your intent. (Or, perhaps, if you were more obtuse people wouldn't discern your intent. One wonders which is true.)
Being obtuse is a great way to dig through the knowledge of understanding, and a great way to disguise one's knowledge...
34 minutes ago, Area54 said:(Or, perhaps, if you were more obtuse people wouldn't discern your intent. One wonders which is true.)
I have no idea...
-
-
On 4/16/2021 at 2:23 PM, dimreepr said:
I wouldn't expect you too...
The neg rep; is a badge of honour; thanks...
I'm sorry that seems a little aggressive, I forget you're new to the forum; thanks for the neg rep, whoever it was...
On 4/16/2021 at 2:14 PM, greeneye12 said:If you don't have enough money, you will naturally be ecological. If you have money, with the current system, you have a choice of being or not being ecological.
Only if you chose to spend more money, a privilege only afforded to people with an excess; and they tend to spend more money on protecting their money.
It's a curious concept (money), it has no value, yet it's all we seem to care about...
15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:thanks for the neg rep, whoever it was...
Two now!!! That's rubbing it in... 😣 🤣
-
3 minutes ago, greeneye12 said:
If you don't have enough money, you will naturally be ecological.
Well, I have to walk to my local shop and carry home what I need to eat; and if I'm cold I throw on a blanket; how many tons does that equal?
36 minutes ago, greeneye12 said:haha sorry I still dont get it
I wouldn't expect you too...
The neg rep; is a badge of honour; thanks...
-
-
1 minute ago, greeneye12 said:
@dimreeprI agree with you, and I turned to vegetarian for this reason, trying to reduce my carbon footprint.
Yet, you've missed my point...
3 minutes ago, greeneye12 said:Though, reducing waste, reducing consumption etc is great but it does not get you there. You can probably reduce your carbon footprint from 12-15 tons per year to let's say 6-8 tons a year. Though if we are still 7 billions in 2050, it means 3 tons per person, if we are 10 billions, that's 2 tons per person....
To get there we also need low emissions energy, low emissions food production etc etcReducing your carbon footprint, is a red herring; perpetrated by those who want to maintain the status quo and "
Stoptryingtry to gather more money thanyouone can spend..."15 minutes ago, greeneye12 said:It's tough for low income households as everything will have to make efforts.
Do you mean the low income households:
Who don't have a car.
Who struggle to find enough money to be both, warm and enough food to eat.
Who can't afford to buy shit they don't need.
???
What's tough, is for a middle-class person to look in the mirror... 😉
-
1 hour ago, greeneye12 said:
I feel like the community is generally split between the 2 sides: Aurelien Barreau or others for the decline side (and many more I don't know!) and Elon Musk for the "technology will save us, don't worry", what do you think?
We need a fundamental change in the economy, for technology to save us; but do what you can to help, for instance:
Stop buying shit you don't need...
Stop buying more than you eat, only to throw away the excess...
Stop trying to gather more money than you can spend...
Though I fear Aurelien Barreau may have a point, history provides many examples of it happening on a local scale; but now we have a global economy.
-
3 minutes ago, TheDelugeMan2 said:
I'm not talking about controlling the culture, but about possbility of predicting the whole pandemic situation, by some random on reddit. His answers on thread that I shared in most of cases were silly, and maked me think, that was just a joke. But there is one weird thing, on the place where he talking about january 2020, as a month where our lifestyle will become to change becouse of some disaster, like a pandemic.
It's not like a culture, to describe a disaster...
-
3 minutes ago, TheDelugeMan2 said:
What do you think about this post from reddit conspiracy from october 2016: https://archive.is/uhMtg ?Guy there claims that something special will occur 3 years and 3 months later (January 2020), and it will be thing that will change our lives.
You say the event around 2020 will change the world in hours or minutesNot exactly, around 2020 an event will happen that will change the way we live. In my research this doesn't seem to be the event that will change our lives in minutes or hours. I don't see that coming until a bit later.Just let me say, up until a event that cosmological, everything that you see go on, on a major scale no matter the cost of human life WAS PLANNED OUT.This life changing event in 2020, what countries do you think will be hit worst?America, it is already starting to affect parts of Europe now. Most of the world has always been the half empty. Whereas America has been half full if you get the analogy. America will see how it feels to not be half empty.... but actually empty.It's in 4 years, realistically what kind of event could happen? All out war? A super plague? Nuclear warfare?Less than 4, actually 3 years 3 months. But the exact as if it will be plague, war, etc., are not 100% for certain because that depends on many factors.
What do you think? January in 2020 was the month where media start to talk more about virus etc.I don't know how to look at this whole situation, and need your rational look on this.
Government doesn't control culture, however much it tries too; what makes you think a conspiracy theory, would have any more success???
-
-
7 minutes ago, swansont said:
I don't disagree, but the question was about why things are the way they are, not how things should be. (and there are governments that do something about this)
90% of the children I grew up with, were homed by the state; then the state sold (out) 90% of the home's; in England that's why "big city rent is so expensive"...
-
17 hours ago, iNow said:
Is the anger you feel something that can be used to make the situation better? If so, then there’s no need for anger. Focus on making things better. If not, then your anger is only distracting you from finding those things that can help.
Anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die. Try exercise and meditation instead, or whatever brings you joy.
Nice post +1
Change what you can, enjoy what you can't...
15 hours ago, Phi for All said:Emotions are great motivators
And easily manipulated, when they're not understood... +1 BTW
-
Decline or Greentech growth: your opinion & your favourite forum/places to talk about ecology & technology!
in Ecology and the Environment
I think Ken recognises the futility of seeing the problem in terms of "a carbon footprint"; when the rich uses it as an excuse to do nothing but point the fingure at the poor.
Brazil for instance, where the poor burn the rainforest to have enough to eat; the West can afford to pay them to stop; but not through the filter of a corrupt government.
Which circles back to my first post...