We don't even have a permanent colony on Antarctica, just scientific expeditions manned part-time.
To be a multi-planet species, we would need at least one permanent colony on a second planet (Mars, presumably).
Mars is a LOT harder than Antarctica.
I would say the non-litterer is preferable to the person who even litters on the moon.
It's the same reasons that CEOs who wreck multiple companies one after the other seem top find a golden parachute and a new job waiting for them.
Just wait until they get that massive ticket for littering...
Hawaiian eruption last a long time and the lava flows persist for years.
Your effusive eruptions last on average no longer than our effusive eruptions. The fact that Iceland also has phreatic eruptions doesn't change the fact that most of ours are effusive basalt, just like yours, with corresponding eruptive dynamics. Also, FYI, for a given total effusion volume, slow eruptions are easier to divert. Diversion is much more challenging when an equivalent volume of lava is effused in a short period of time. And it's not like you have vastly larger average lava flows than we do. The largest lava flow on Earth in the Holocene (modern era) is in Iceland (the THjórsárhraun - 900km2, 25km3, 70km underground travel followed by 130-140km on the surface). For comparison, Hawaii's largest holocene flow is the Ailaau Flow at 430km2, 4-5km3, and 40km.
If we want to limit to more recent flows (since Ailaau was fairly recent, in case you think Iceland stopped having big eruptions), Iceland's biggest *after* Alia'au was Laki (1783–1784 AD), at 600km2, 15km3, and 80km. It lasted for 8 months to 2 years, depending on whether you count the concurrent Grímsvötn eruption as part of it. So much gas was released from that huge volume of lava that despite us being nearly arctic (polar volcanoes have much lower near-term climate impacts than equatorial volcanoes), it caused a winter so severe that the Mississippi froze at New Orleans and ice was seen floating in the Gulf of Mexico.
We simply get bigger effusive eruptions than you, full stop. Not all eruptions, of course, both of us have a huge variance in eruption scales and dynamics. But trying to claim ours are somehow "easier" is just not in line with the facts. Also, Hawaiian eruptions tend to occur on terrain that slopes significantly more consistently toward the sea, aka where you want to divert lava toward; on flatter or less-consistently-angled terrain, lava "piles up" more and makes it easier to overtop berms.
There is a practical side that it is easier to move people and build coffee shacks
I'm not talking about "coffee shacks", I'm talking about whole communities and beloved places. In particular, I'm thinking about the 2018 Lower Puna eruption. Of course the homes near the vents in Leilani Estates were doomed, but there is absolutely NO reason why you should have lost anywhere close to as much as you did so far from the vents. Losing Kapoho Bay for example was simply cultural fatalism. I watched a person crying on the news saying she didn't understand why Pele chose to take such a beautiful place. It's not Pele who took it, it's your insane resistance against doing anything to protect yourselves. That was one of the easiest possible flows to divert. Most of the lava fronts moved at a crawl, you had warning long in advance of the eruption and a very slow eruptive rampup (didn't really take off until June), and you had a steep slope to the south into unpopulated areas you could have easily diverted it down. Losing all that was a choice.
"Oh, we can't!" is just an excuse for your fatalism that gives you an excuse to not put forth the effort to actually do it. It's not the 1940s anymore, we're not chucking surplus WWII bombs at lava tubes anymore. Lava diversion is a science and is routinely effectively done. There are limits, but you were nowhere near said limits for sites far from the vents. There are costs, but they are nowhere near the costs that you paid by refusing to act.
Yes it's very interesting how quickly we have learned that the Constitution is simply a piece a paper with no inherent power, except as people honor it. Once that honor is gone, the constitution is gone. Congress and the courts also have no real power, except that which is granted voluntarily. Courts can rule until they are blue in the face but when a president just says, "so what" everything is lost. We all got extremely complacent, thinking that all people, especially presidents, ultimately uphold the constitution as we do individually. Despite generations of talking about freedom, it's astounding how quickly so many just don't care about it actually, and are happy to have a king.
I agree with John V. Last: It's worth fighting for, even if I'm not hopeful about winning. At least you can tell you kids you stood up for the constitution and freedom, even though you lost. The next 10 years will be very interesting.
Well, to make a not so subtle point, there WAS an armed revolt, but it was in defense of all this, not in opposition.
It's none of those things. It's just seething vitriol. Republican voters, who are predominantly poor, sick, and uneducated, have been told for years that they're poor and uneducated because of the only people on this earth who don't want them to be poor, sick, and uneducated. The GOP can't succeed without a huge tribe of victim voters who can only be trained in base instinctive behaviors like hate and violence.
Manufacturing didn't move to China because the Chinese were cheating and undercutting American companies. Rather it was a deliberate decision on the part of American companies to kill local manufacturing and eliminate jobs (employees are simply costs to reduce), in order to maximize short-term quarterly gains. No amount of tariff and government banning will fix that.
I take native Hawaiian religious objections seriously. These are people who take a fatalistic "Pele will take what she wants, it's pointless to try to stop her" attitude toward lava flows running over their houses that seems utterly insane here in Iceland. We'll buy up every available water pump on the international market and walk on active-flowing lava fields to save a harbour for a couple thousand people. We'll keep running tourist sites right next to a volcano that erupts every couple months by building multi-story-high berms around it with giant bulldozers and cooling anything that tries to overtop to make the berms even higher. And it totally works . But Hawaiians will sit back and watch incredibly slow-flowing flows with easy diversion paths take out everything they hold dear. At best they'll point to some primitive failed attempts in like the 1940s as a reason to not try, but then when pressed, it often comes back to: "Pele will take what she wants to take."
Another example: geothermal drilling on the Big Island. Massive protests. Massive resistance, way beyond the token NIMBY resistance here. Meanwhile Hawaii continues to generate most of its electricity from oil, at great cost. Hawaii is the only other place (outside of Iceland) to have accidentally drilled into a magma chamber. In Hawaii they treated it as a major incident and immediately shut down the well. When we did it? Our reaction was, "WOW, we can produce REALLY hot steam from THIS well!", made it into a production well, and started planning to drill more.
I guess one major difference here is that in the early Icelandic cosmology, volcanoes weren't the product of a high-ranking creator goddess, but rather, Surtr, who was practically a demon and was fated to destroy the world. It's good to resist Surtr!
Except his complaint is not.
Yes, it literally was. The main public complaint of the weavers was that they spent their entire life learning their art, and then their bosses come in with a machine that they teach to replicate the patterns that they developed, churn out cheap "slop" versions of them, and fire them.
And here we're talking about profits, despite their huge scaleup expenditure. Theirs and OpenAI's margins on serving inference are ~40%.
It's almost impossible for a company undergoing a massive scaleup rate to turn a profit, let alone growing 10X annualized for 3 1/2 years running, but Anthropic pulled it off.
If you're going to repost the entire lede of the story, at least also share the counterpoint: "Gary Marcus, a reliable critic of the field, called the release amazing but vastly oversold. Some specialists expect that once the dust settles, a few of the ten will look genuinely surprising and the rest will be classified as reachable problems that nobody had gotten around to attacking."
And ironically, or maybe unironically, this story reads like it was AI-generated. Phrases like these:
"Three objections are worth taking seriously, and the honest reading concedes all three."
"Grant every objection and the structural point survives intact. Whether the ten were cherry-picked or not, the certificates still verify. A curated result that mechanically checks is a different object from a curated result that does not."
"The cost of producing a hard answer just fell to almost nothing, and the constraint moved to proving the answer is right."
Most humans don't write quite like that.
Woke is what happens when you go to see a movie and instead of being told a compelling story woke ideology is proselytized
Recursion (n): See "recursion"
It's hilarious how obsessed you people are over a term that you can't even define and that none of you agree on. As far as I can tell, the only thing "woke" means today is "I'm A Right Winger, And This Is Something That I Personally Hate". I've seen people describe concepts as unrelated as "the concept of a metaverse" and "removing copyrighted materials to avoid lawsuits" as "woke".
An example of woke AI slop is Everything Everywhere All at Once
Um. What?
That movie was filmed from January to March 2020. You think AI video was a "thing" then? The movie premiered in March 2022. The infamously awful "Will Smith Eating Spaghetti" AI video was what AI video looked like in 2023. AI video was not "a thing" back when that movie was being made. What you actually hate is that movie's CGI.
Secondly, since when is "Jackass"-style "bro" stuff** famously leftist? Sexual gags are stereotypically "bro culture" and stereotypically disliked by feminists in particular and leftists in general. Don't get me wrong, you'll also find some people on the left who like that stuff, but the right tends to buy into it more (men tend to vote more rightward).
As far as I can tell from this, what you actually hate is (A) CGI, and (B) bro culture. Based on this, what you should actually consider yourself is an AI-supporting leftist.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.
