Do you accept thermodynamics and the energy absorption and re-emission properties of carbon dioxide?

I think the real point is that human beings are, like the chimpanzee cousins, rather good at assessing proximal risk. We're hardwired to see something like fire or even strange movement in the tall grass, and move swiftly from assessment to reaction.

Assessing risk that is more remote requires someone to actually put the cognition to work. It means putting aside emotions, whether they be fear, denial or a sense of comfort, and actually analyzing the trends and what they mean at some point in the future. I think most people are probably capable of this, but emotionally it's easier to simply go along with what seems to be the most desirable strategy, which usually ends up being the path of least resistance.

I had a fascinating discussion with one of my partner's relatives. He's a guy who spent most of his career working in the oil and gas industry. His metric for determining the veracity of the effects of AGW was essentially economics; his livelihood and pension are fed by this industry, and thus claims about emissions and their effects must be false. In other words, faced with the choice between reality and a pleasant myth, he chose myth, and in fact became quite irate at the very thought that his beliefs were based purely on short term economic benefit.

It leads me to believe that, in fact, most deniers, including the people who post on /. shaking their fists at climatologists actually know that we're in a mounting crisis, but until remote becomes proximal, their emotional responses will drive their cognition.

In short, most people are reasonably intelligent and quite capable of understanding enough chemistry and physics to know that increases CO2 and other GHG levels is causing serious problems and those problems will only get worse so long as emissions continue to rise. It's just that, well, they're emotionally immature. It's not a matter of stupidity, it's a matter of many, perhaps most adults that you encounter are actually not much more mature than a cranky 12 year old.

There's not a hope in hell that I would ever expose a SMB file server to the Internet.

That doesn't do a lot of good for distributed workforces. The alternatives, such as VPNs, come with their own issues. I think Sharepoint is a horrible beast that's the worst of all worlds, but the concept itself isn't bad.

Even if the AC would have infinite efficiency (instead of typical values of 2-3), you are increasing temperature out-of-the-house by reducing temperature in-house

So then, you can just shut off your AC and just have it permanently cooler inside, right?

Wait, no you can't?

That's right, because heat leaks back into the house from the outside - warming your house, and cooling the exterior. And the amount it cools the exterior is approximately equal to the amount you're pumping out. Only the energy used by the AC is actually changing the outdoor temperature. But it's utterly dwarfed by the impact of the sun.

(I stress "approximately because there's some slight radiative balance changes - the heat outflow is a point source while the inflows are diffuse, and thermal radiation is proportional to the temperature to the fourth power - but it remains a trivial factor in practice)

Physically, we're non-continental. There is no "continental shelf" here. We're not on continental crust. We're a part of the Mid-Atlantic ridge, the Atlantic seafloor, that protrudes above sea level. We're MORB, not granitic crust. Tectonic plates != continents. The North American plate for example contains large amounts of both continental and oceanic crust.

And yes, geopolitically, we're entirely European.

** Of the places I've visited on the mainland. Ireland, England, Scotland, Holland, Germany, Austria, Czechia... wait, I do remember that my hotel in Paris didn't have AC, and I was utterly miserable there. Czechia and Austria were in the winter / early spring so one wouldn't notice. But I'd think I'd remember if the others had it or didn't...

It's weird that I can't remember the AC status of the places on the mainland. I can say that here in Iceland AC is rarely used, usually only ventilation systems (if that) on large buildings, while homes and apartments usually just open windows.

French Energy Minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher countered that large-scale air conditioning would heat streets with exhaust, worsening heat waves.

"HEAT FLOW DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!"

(For anyone who's unclear: all the heat that you're pumping out of houses is basically perfectly offbalanced by the heat penetrating into them. Only the energy to run the AC creates new heat, same as running any electrical appliance, but vs. the sun which - when overhead on a clear day - deposits about 1kW of energy per square meter, it's an utter irrelevance)

just because you "got over" a disease, it doesn't mean you're "better". Not all damage just goes away. It seems every month brings a new discovery about some disease is brought about or greatly increased in likelihood from past infection. For example, my mother suffers greatly from Sjögren's (incl. neuropathy where it feels like her skin is on fire). There's now increasing evidence pointing to it and related diseases as being at least in part triggered by Epstein-Barr, and my mother has strong diagnostic indicators of EBV reactivation. Even Alzheimers' research is pointing at past infection (combined with genetic susceptibility) as being a potential case, as amyloid beta and tau appear to be part of the brain's innate immune system, with accumulation as a result of inflammatory processes in the CNS.

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is frankly nonsense. What doesn't kill you can leave you crippled, brain-damaged, with cancer, or any number of other things. Sequelae and postviral illnesses aren't some sort of a joke. I think one of the main lessons of COVID is to take sequelae and postviral illnesses in general more seriously - COVID brought them to attention because so many people got sick from a new virus at once, many severely ill (vs. say influenza, where only 5-15% contract it per year, and more often mild cases), but in no way is COVID unique to causing sequelae and postviral illnesses.

... but even not infected brain slowing down anyway. It seems just typical aging, ...

You sure proved them.

I'll personally never get over how surprised people are to hear that COVID affects the cardiovascular system. The spike protein literally targets ACE2. That's its point of entry. ACE2 is a blood-pressure regulatory surface protein (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 - angiotensin is a vasoconstrictor), expressed by cells that need to modulate the cardiovascular system. Pulmonary-related deaths were the #1 cause of death from COVID, but cardiovascular-related deaths were #2 or #3 (depending on whether you count respiratory or multi-organ failure in the same category), not a trivial fraction, and with much greater potential for having been missed (as the pulmonary-related conditions were so characteristic and readily diagnosed, as well as being so much better known). Corresponding with the clinical data from known COVID cases, general-case cardiovascular deaths also spiked during COVID waves.

It's IMHO quite the irony that all the antivaxxers were freaking out about typically mild myocarditis from vaccines when COVID itself causes a much more severe myocarditis progression, much more often, and that's just a lesser one of its many cardiovascular complications.

A quick AI-deepsearch doublecheck suggests that this isn't at all pseudoscience, so care you defend your argument?

An analysis of scientific and medical research largely supports the provided statement, with some nuances. Here's a breakdown of the fact-checked claims:

Heparin Use in Severe COVID-19

The statement claims that heparin, a blood thinner, was used for more severe Covid-19 infections because the smallest arteries, including those in the brain, tended to become clogged.

This is largely accurate. Severe COVID-19 is associated with hypercoagulability, a state of increased tendency for blood clotting[1]. This led to a higher incidence of thrombotic events, or blood clots[1][2]. As a result, anticoagulants like heparin were recommended for hospitalized patients to prevent and treat these clots[2][3][4]. Studies have shown that heparin can improve outcomes for severely ill COVID-19 patients, particularly those with high D-dimer levels, which is a marker for blood clotting[1][5]. While the statement's wording "clogged with products of the virus' effects" is a simplification, the core idea that heparin was used to combat blood clots in severe COVID-19 is correct.

COVID-19's Effect on Small Blood Vessels in the Brain

The statement posits that COVID-19 affects small blood vessels in the brain.

This is well-supported by evidence. Research indicates that COVID-19 can cause damage to the brain's small blood vessels[6][7][8]. Studies have shown evidence of inflammation and damage to the walls of these vessels, leading to leakage of proteins like fibrinogen into the brain[6][8]. This microvascular injury is considered a likely cause of neurological symptoms associated with COVID-19, such as "brain fog" and cognitive issues[6][7]. Some studies suggest this damage is a result of the body's inflammatory response to the virus rather than the virus directly infecting the brain's nerve cells[8].

Gender Differences in Blood Vessel Problems

The statement asserts that blood vessel problems are more common in males.

This is a more complex issue with some supporting evidence. Generally, men are at a greater risk for cardiovascular diseases, including atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) and high blood pressure, for a significant portion of their lives[9]. However, after menopause, the incidence of cardiovascular disease in women increases and can even out[9]. Some research also suggests that women's blood vessels may age faster than men's[10][11]. Furthermore, women are more likely to develop blockages in the heart's smallest blood vessels, while men tend to have them in the largest arteries[12]. Therefore, while there are gender differences, the claim that blood vessel problems are broadly "more common in males" is a simplification of a nuanced biological reality.

Arterial Disease as a Risk Factor for Brain "Aging" and Dementia

The statement claims that arterial blood vessel disease is a known risk factor for brain "aging," cognitive impairment, and dementia.

This is well-established. Vascular pathology is a significant contributor to age-related dementia[13][14]. Conditions like arterial stiffness and atherosclerosis are considered risk factors for cerebrovascular disease and dementia[13][15]. The health of blood vessels is crucial for brain function, and impairments in blood flow can lead to cognitive decline[14][16]. The link is so strong that controlling vascular risk factors is considered a key strategy in mitigating the impact of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias[13][14].

The Hypothesis: COVID-19's "Aging" Effects on the Brain are Mediated by Small Blood Vessel Effects

The statement concludes with the hypothesis that the "aging" effects of Covid-19 on the brain are mediated by the virus's impact on small blood vessels.

This is a plausible and actively researched hypothesis. Studies have shown that severe COVID-19 can induce molecular signatures of aging in the human brain[17]. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that the pandemic itself, even without infection, may have accelerated brain aging[18][19][20]. Given the known damage to small blood vessels in the brain caused by COVID-19 and the established link between vascular health and brain aging, it is a logical conclusion that the virus's impact on these vessels contributes to the observed accelerated brain aging and cognitive decline. Research points to neurovascular injury and inflammation as key mechanisms of COVID-19's effect on the brain[21][22].

Sources
help
nih.gov
scispace.com
mdpi.com
mdpi.com
nih.gov
defense.gov
sciencealert.com
drugtargetreview.com
cas.cz
vascular.org
news-medical.net
brighamandwomens.org
jacc.org
nih.gov
alzheimers.net
aginganddisease.org
nih.gov
time.com
nottingham.ac.uk
dw.com
news-medical.net
nih.gov

It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. It's to an individual organization's best interests to pay, but it's to the government as a whole's best interests that nobody can pay, to reduce the incentive to infect their systems in the first place.

Offline backups are of course a very good thing, but even some simple things would greatly reduce your need to ever have to use them. For example, having your fileserver use a snapshotting filesystem and not run any remote-access tools (such as SSH), so snapshots can only be deleted in-person. Unless the hacker has a zero-day exploit for e.g. NFS or the server's operating system, that's a pretty safe setup.

Again, you still want offline (and off-site!) backups on top of that, but that's really something that you never want to have to resort to.

IMHO, we could basically reduce ransomware to near-zero if motherboards shipped with a fully-independent on-board snapshotting fileserver (with its own (minimal) compute hardware/memory, and with a physical button to switch between administering the filesystem and the main OS), and the main OS just mounted drives from the on-board fileserver. The best an attacker could do would be to fill up your drives in hopes that you'll just delete snapshots without checking why it's filled up, or to try to social engineer you into doing so.