Have you been to the far north?
I'm not talking about the far north where there is permafrost, I'm talking about the vast area south of the permafrost and north of the currently farmed areas. That area is currently growing a lot of trees and while that does not automatically mean that all of it will make excellent farmland undoubtedly some of it will.
I don't fully understand the sentencing for this act, not that it is excessive, it's just unclear how anyone arrives at that number?
Well from TFA he was already a registered sex offender for another crime involving a minor and under a community service order for that plus he had a suspended sentence from another previous sexual offence. Frankly, at this point, 5.5 years seems low but it may be close to the maximum for this latest offence plus whatever sentence he had suspended.
how do you measure the temperature 500 meters down?
You put a thermometer there. There are some underwater observatories, like Ocean Networks Canada who have undersea power and data networks for various sensors including temperature.
But can someone please tell me how you can measure the temperature of all of the ocean water to a quarter of a degree?
Clearly you cannot but if everywhere you have sensors show an increase then it is not unreasonable to assume that the change is reasonably universal since it seems very unlikely that everyone just happened to randomly put their networks only in the places that warmed. However, as with any sampled measurement that does lead to an uncertainty.
But it'll take until 2060 before meaningful action starts, because humans only act after the disaster.
The way we dealt with the hole in the ozone layer shows that to be clearly wrong. Humans will act before a disaster if the science is clear and the fix is not even more disruptive than the problem. The problem with global warming is that subtle climate change is masked by weather variations and it has only been a combination of better climate models and more significant climate change that has made it clear and unambiguous (and even then the scope and degree of the change still has significant uncertainty). Then there is the problem that making our economy carbon neutral is a massive undertaking.
These two issues: the challenge in detection and massive changes needed to fix it explains why we have been much slower with climate change that with other problems like the ozone layer.
Where the land isn't conducive to farming, lacks resorces to build shelter,....
It isn't conducive to farming at the moment because the growing season is too short because the temperatures are too low. However, if global warming increases temperatures land nearer the poles will rapidly become much better farmland even as land near the equator becomes worse. The predictions for northern Alberta due to global warming is that land further north will be farmable and more productive warm-weather crops will be able to be grown in land already being farmed.
However, when that was mentioned in a recent university press release it generated a large backlash because apparently you are not allowed to point out any benefits of global warming even if there are clearly going to be some. As for resources to build shelters a lot of the newly farmable land is currently forested so resources to build shelters is not the issue - the effect of removing that forest to make more farmland should be something we think about carefully though.
Fuck school: the endgame has already been achieved.
How much cash do you think an ATM machine carries? Even if they drained a full machine that's nowhere near enough to set you up for life.
Theres a reason most climate scientists privately think we're toast as a sepecies.
Based on what? Climate change is a serious problem but there is literally nothing that suggests it is close to an existential threat to humanity. The amount of CO2 for that is orders of magnitude higher than what we have even the fossil fuel reserves to release. That sais climate change is going to be highly disruptive and impact our quality of living as agricultural zones shift and populations may need to relocate but there is nothing to suggest it is even close to an extinction-level threat for us.
Not listening to the science is what caused the damage. Fixing it is going to require listening to science and rolling up our sleeves, not throwing up our hands in despair at the false doom-laden rhetoric coming from idiots. Indeed, our species has survived larger changes in temperature in the past without any of the modern technology we have today and while the change we are facing now may be more rapid it is smaller in magnitude and we have significant technology now to help us adapt and possibly even to reduce the change if we consider geo-engineering.
Also CEOs have golden parachutes..
True but for Boeing CEOs those parachutes will have been made by Boeing so whos knows what might happen if they use them.
I think you mean "Earth-like" planets.
No, I meant what I wrote. Potentially habitable means might be inhabitable by humans, not any type of life that might exist. We have absolutely no idea at all whether any of these planets is actually Earth-like. All we know is that they are in the orbital zone where they get a similar amount of solar radiation to Earth. We also have no clue what range of life is possible so we have no way to determine what planets may be inhabitable by lifeforms we have no knowledge of - indeed we know so little of the potential range of life (we have a sample size of one) that if you use this definition then any planet might be potentially habitable.
The point is that eventually, on a per km basis, is AI *better* than a typical human?
Just requiring an AI to be better than the average human driver is setting the bar too low since that means that at least half the people letting the AI drive would do a better job of it than the AI. I'd set the threshold at the 95-99% level i.e. an AI has to be better than 95-99% of human drivers out there. This is because we are not going to trust an AI system unless we know it is well above a typical human's driving capabilities. We all tend to think of ourselves as good drivers and anything less than a threshold this high will have us all thinking that we are in the 50% that are safer than the AI. If you doubt that just look at how many people gamble, something that requires you not understand statistics and blindly think that you, personally, can beat the odds.
On what authority does the US government have to determine ownership, rights, or even to resolve disputes of celestial bodies?
Technically it is not doing that. All it is saying is that if you do mine resources from the moon then, once you get them back to Earth, if you are in the US then they belong to you. In many ways this is far more restrained than the last time we had to deal with large amounts of unexplored and unknown territory. Back then the Pope was happy to assign half the world to Spain and the other half to Portugal in the Treaty of Tordesillas which the eventual huge colonial holdings of the UK, France etc. shows how well respected it was.
In comparison, the current US law seems very restrained, possibly because the US itself is a result of what happens if you overreach and try to enforce your sovereignty where you cannot enforce it.
To be fair that page is a blog post of the announcement of Greater Big Bend earning their endorsement and has a date published of April 2nd, 2022. The new site received certification on March 11th, 2024.
Every stakeholder needs to be committed.
Well it's rather hard to think that the people running this group are very committed given that they don't even seem to be aware of reserves they have already approved.
Dark Sky International isn't saying that Jasper is not a dark sky preserve by not having them designated
That is literally exactly what they are saying if they claim that a smaller preserve is the largest in the world....either that or they are just ignorant not just of Jasper but of the Big Bend reserve that they approved themselves just under two years ago. If they do not take their own approved and posted reserves seriously how can anyone possibly take them seriously?
How is this different than someone telling people to ignore what the CDC says and go buy horse paste to cure covid and being blocked?
It's different because they are saying it in exactly the same place as the official announcement and directly next to the official announcement. This is not at all the same as having an official announcement on an official government site and then some random idiot saying something else on a very clearly unofficial social media platform. People judge the validity of information based on where they hear it from and if they hear both from the same place it becomes harder to determine which one to trust.
A list is only as strong as its weakest link. -- Don Knuth