Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Depends on genre. (Score 1) 140

Here's the lyrics to a fairly typical, average kinda tune:

We used to swim the same moonlight waters
Oceans away from the wakeful day

My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Scent of the sea before the waking of the world
Brings me to thee
Into the blue memory

My fall will be for you - My fall will be for you My love will be in you If you be the one to cut me I will bleed forever
Into the blue memory

A siren from the deep came to me
Sang my name my longing
Still I write my songs about that dream of mine
Worth everything I may ever be

The Child will be born again
That siren carried him to me
First of them true loves
Singing on the shoulders of an angel
Without care for love ‘n loss

Bring me home or leave me be
My love in the dark heart of the night
I have lost the path before me
The one behind will lead me

Take me
Cure me
Kill me
Bring me home
Every way
Every day
Just another loop in the hangman’s noose

Take me, cure me, kill me, bring me home
Every way, every day
I keep on watching us sleep

Relive the old sin of Adam and Eve
Of you and me
Forgive the adoring beast

Redeem me into childhood
Show me myself without the shell
Like the advent of May
I’ll be there when you say
Time to never hold our love
-------

But there's next to no repetition in it.

Comment Re: Not due to population loss? (Score 1) 164

Between 2016 and 2020, averages dropped by 2-3% across the US, the 1.8% seems to indicate that California has less reduction than the mean.

1.8 percent per year corresponds to (0.982^4) reduction, or 7% decrease over four years. This is a larger reduction than "2-3%".

This has been a problem with this entire thread, people comparing drop per year with drop over four years. Units matter.

Comment Re:Cool... (Score 1) 214

Anyway, more importantly, if that's so easy and economically viable [to recycle lithium-ion batteries], where is it? Where do people actually do this on a non-lab scale if it's so easy and economical?

Large scale production of lithium-ion batteries is a very recent thing (e.g., https://batteriesnews.com/wp-c...). There really aren't a lot of these batteries to recycle yet (despite all the hype about short lifetimes, the current tech of lithium batteries have proven to easily exceed ten year lifetimes, and are still going strong). There are some recycling companies doing business now, but as a general thing, people aren't going into the business of recycling batteries at a large scale without a lot of batteries at end of life to recycle.

Is it like this mythical "EV cheaper than ICE car" that leftist propaganda is chock full of, but which is conspicuously absent at any, you know, actual real real-world car dealership I have asked?

The history of technology shows that new technologies start at high cost, and cost decreases with time. As Neils Bohr said*, "the future is hard to predict, especially when it hasn't happened yet," but I'm old enough to remember $500 calculators. I'll put my money on cost decreasing as the tech goes down the learning curve.

(* also attributed to Yogi Berra, but Bohr said it first. And, as Berra said "I never said half the things I said.")

Comment Corals mostly didn't make it [Re:makes sense] (Score 1) 56

One of the oldest, most durable archaeolifeforms on this planet is threatened by it getting warmer by a couple of degrees?

Almost. One of the oldest, most durable archaeolifeforms on this planet is threatened by it getting warmer at a very rapid pace compared to geological climate change rates.

More likely, some opportunist corals which had highly specialized over the last 20k years or so are unable to adapt to an ever changing climate and are struggling. That's how life works. What will happen is they will be replaced by more heat tolerant variants

...in ten thousand thousand years or so. A few million at most.

...Corals as a species have survived numerous extinction events.

Nope. Corals species die in extinction events. Corals as an order (Scleractinia) have survived numerous, but not all, extinction events.

And it's not "speed of the change" as some events - like the Chicxulub impact - had a vastly larger effect than a few degrees and it happened in a geological instant, not centuries. And corals likely struggled but survived just fine.

It took two to five million years for corals to reappear in the geological record after the K-T extinction event. The coral that survived were, in general, deep-water genera, not the shallower reef-forming ones. And the corals after the K-T extinction event were different species.

Comment Re:really - the whole world's ? (Score 1) 56

Taking a step back, isn't this just evolution at work? Survival of the fittest? Corals that can survive the warmer temperatures will evolve and spread?

In the long run it is, but the current warming is too fast for evolution to keep up. If species can't adapt fast enough, they just die. In the long run, other species will probably re-occupy the ecological niche, but this can sometimes take a long time. After the extinction of rugose corals at the Permian–Triassic extinction event, for example, there was a gap of tens of millions of years until unrelated species evolved to fill the ecological niche.

Yeah, we're definitely part of the cause of it, but an asteroid millions of years ago caused dramatic climatic change as well.

That did not work out well for the species living at the time. Of the animals, nothing larger than a squirrel survived. We would prefer this not to happen while we are to the species living at the time.

From 110,000 years ago until 11,000 years ago we were in the middle of a pretty substantial ice age.

Yes, the last glacial maximum.

Comment Re: Not due to population loss? (Score 1) 164

So a 1.1% decline does not contribute to a 1.8% decline for metrics that according to basic logic has a direct relationship?

1.1% in four years does not account for a 1.8% per year. To put them in the same units, 0.275% per year accounts for only 15% of the decline. So, it yes "contributes", but it only contributes 15%.

Moreover, according to the state in said area the decline of both people and businesses was a lot higher than 1.1% annually.

I gave a link. Go argue with them, not me.

Less people means less emissions, you want zero emission, eliminate all people.

Now you're just trolling.

Comment Should the government subsidize bait and switch? (Score 4, Informative) 93

Turbotax is not required either. They can use HR Block, or, *GASP* pen and paper!

When Turbotax is advertised free, why would you think people will search for something else?

The answer is, Turbotax has been doing bait and switch.

Bait and switch is one thing on something that is an optional purchase (although still illegal). What makes this specifically the government's business is that it is bait and switch on something that is required by the government.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Working...