If subnautica taught me anything, he voiced the actual sub.

Yeah I guess zero-g really fucks with the urinary system. Kidney stones are a big issue too. IIRC even after returning to earth, astronauts have a much higher incidence of stones for the rest of their life.

Idk if catheters would be a good option, since those increase the chance of a UTI - ideally things only ever move one direction through the urethra, since probing shit into gives pathogens an express trip to the bladder. My best guess is a strict diet and drink regiment made specifically to rule out kidney stones, and scheduled/frequent urinating so bacteria don’t have a chance to propagate.

If you happen to have easy access to the ROM, how’s “Star Wars: Racer Revenge” run?

It’s the less popular but more fleshed out spiritual successor to the N64 pod racing game - the PS2’s take nailed the physics - the two engines and racer pod are (or at least feel like) three separate entities, and playing in first person view with the engines controlled separately by the left and right joysticks feels fucking magical.

Tried to run it on PCSX2 years ago, but it was one of the few games that meshed so poorly with the emulator that it wasn’t playable. I’m guessing the emulator has seen some improvements since then - could definitely use a nice shot of nostalgia.

Zotero

If you’re in any flavor of academics from middle school to doctorate program or otherwise writing papers that require strict citation formatting, drop what you’re doing and click that link.

Or probably YouTube it or something first so you can see why it’s so much better than your standard internet citation generators.

Don’t forget to share the intel with your classmates!

Edit - honorable mention to Desmos for 99% of your calculator needs… with the unfortunate exception of exams, cuz phone.

If it’s done correctly, it should really only be hitting the C4 or C5 vertebral region; anything else is just poor form.

Increase your workout efficiency by targeting shoulders and biceps at the same time!

Yeah those microtransactions didn’t lead to gambling, they are gambling.

Gambling aimed at minors via that lootbox shit was a thing even before videogames - earliest example I’m aware of are baseball cards. Our failure to legislate that shit into the grave at day 1 is why we’re in this situation now.

Aight, lots of discussion on tricks here - adding one to the pile.

Use food.

Especially fibery food that still has some texture when you chew it up, vs something like a banana that just chews down to a liquid anyway.

Think like Triscuits or something.

Anywho, add food of choice to your face. Chew it up until you’re ready to swallow- but don’t swallow. Grab your pill, and shove it right into the middle of your mass of Triscuit paste. Then swallow.

The mass of food will just push the pill right along with it - you’ll barely even notice it’s there.

People struggle with liquids because they just wash around the pill without pushing it.

Food is king for pill taking.

I think that’s maybe a bit harsh compared to a lot of the games mentioned here.

For sure - by “looking at it through the lens of relativity” I guess I failed to specify what I was holding it relative to - where my brain’s at W1 as a starting point, and the quality of W2 and W3… Relative to other trilogies that actually did well, Witcher’s starting point is hot trash. Like, a game that bad doesn’t generally go on to have good sequels, but the degree of improvement in both W2 and W3 is fucking astounding.

Looking through the lens of relativity, I’d have to say Witcher I. The fact that the fucking masterpiece that is Witcher III and not-amazing-but-definitely-worth-a-playthrough that is Witcher II both stemmed from the comically bad dumpster fire that was #1 is nothing short of a miracle.

The franchise *should* have died at #1, but I’m sure glad it didn’t.

Subbed the channels. It’s not my area of study, but I’ve definitely got at least a hobbyist-level of interest in things like physics and astronomy, which Earth sciences ofc fall into. Next semester of nursing school starts NEXT WEEK (fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck) so I probably shouldn’t dive down any new content rabbit holes at this point, but it’s in my feed now so definitely marked for future down time!

In agreement with almost everything you posted… although that has me continuing to scratch my head at the disconnect leading up to now.

Just a handful of points to address-

If you truly believe that this trend is going to lead to iron boiling on Earth’s surface

I don’t, nor did I ever claim to. I do believe the fireball we live next to, which is large enough to fit a million-and-some-change Earths inside of it, has more than enough energy to make that happen, especially over the course of a million years, if the right circumstances align; and that those circumstances are within the scope of possibility our universe is capable of serving.

The case I’m trying to make isn’t to support the worse case scenario; but to emphasize that there are a ton of possible scenarios, some really really good, others really really bad; and that we cannot point to any one of them and credibly claim “That IS going to happen!”

Life will survive us.

Absolutely. But that life has its limits, just as we have ours. And when those limits are met, there may be an even more resilient flavor of life that takes the stage; but that chain isn’t infinite, especially within the scope of a single planet. Further narrowed to the million-year scope of this conversation… yeah my wager is with everyone else here that there will probably still be life left on Earth. I just can’t say with absolution that there will be.

Russel’s Teapot

I’m not sure if that’s directed at my inability to prove the worse case scenario (gotta reiterate - that was never my goal!) or the inability to prove life will prevail. Either way, you’re correct to call it out as a fallacy. At this point I think we’re mostly just splitting hairs over where to draw the line between ‘might’ and ‘will’. I tend to treat absolutes at face value, so things like “life WILL survive” vs “life WILL PROBABLY survive” are two very very different things. The former has no room for error, regardless how minute. Or to the previous point “Life will survive us” vs “Life will survive -period-”; can say the first with certainty, but not the second.

I gotta get my ass to bed, but I can’t overstate how refreshing your posts are. The amount of strawman in this thread was really getting under my skin. Not used to seeing that here, even if the source of the discussion is just a 4 panel meme.

Here, I hyperlinked each part of your post to the corresponding fallacy you’re attempting.

You do have one line in there that I got nothing on, so… cheers to that. Edit- to be clear, the line above that one isn’t itself a fallacy; the hyperlink in that one is to label what the “above examples” amount to.

Here, let me hold your hand through this one. The meteor is an example of the extreme strength in energy that was exerted on our planet. The force of such a force was about to shake up the planets health shortly. Humanities strongest “machine” is 1/2,000,000 that force.

When humanity slowed down their societies even for a couple weeks (covid) the air pollution dropped so drastically they saw positive air quality in c02.

When the towers fell and all airplanes stopped and we’re grounded the same occurred with air quality as with covids air quality change.

The information above are examples of two things…

1.humanity can have a direct impact on the future of our environments.

2. Humanity is not capable of “destroying” all life on the planet. Even if we drop 2 million nukes, or a 175 mile wide meteor 59,000mph into the surface.

Your original comment was extreme hyperbole. It’s not a good start to a conversation about this in a level headed discourse. When you use hyperbole to exclaim an opinion you wind up being overlooked because of how ridiculous your claims may be. It’s childish.

Here’s the discussion I was after!! Seriously, thank you! 🍻

Mixing and matching a bit, but this seems like a good thing to start on:

This is important to make clear because truth is important, speculation is not helpful

Speculation is all any of us are doing - that’s what I keep trying to hammer home.

Life has endured a lot, but that does NOT mean it can endure anything. Folks here have a blind faith that it can, and blind faith gets under my skin.

But we need to examine what we’re talking about here specifically.

Self-admitted speculation on my part; speculation conflated as fact from just about everyone else.

in order for your “concern” to have teeth you would need to show that there’s anything we can do here and no or even in the next thousand years that could change the nature of Earth’s atmosphere enough to replicate the kinds of conditions that created Venus’s current conditions.

Why? My only real claim is that we don’t know shit. I’ve hypothesized a range, based on our lack of understanding, spanning from “everything will self-correct and life will be hunky-dory” to “our atmosphere is doing the magnifying-glass thing, and the sun is plenty capable of cranking out enough energy over the course of a million years to melt Earth thoroughly enough that it doesn’t support life”

Others are making the claim that life WILL be fine. You’ve done the most to defend that claim (again, thank you!!) but for some reason folks seem to expect the burden of proof to fall on me for pointing out that a huge array of things could happen vs their claim that one specific thing will happen.

The ‘teeth’ of my concern stems from the exponential nature of the temperature increase we’re seeing; the myriad of climate articles about “we thought the last year was gonna be bad, but not this bad!!”; and the presence of positive feedback loops (which I haven’t actually defined, and it just donned on me that that term might be causing some miscommunication here, so just in case: “positive” doesn’t mean “good” or anything. A positive feedback loop is one that produces an effect that makes the next ‘loop’ even more severe than the previous, which makes a stronger effect that bumps up the next loop and so on. They’re self-aggravating until some other force cuts the process off. Most of the ones I’m familiar with are physiologic, and they tend to be super dangerous. An environmental example would be that permafrost traps methane; heat melts permafrost; methane releases and does its greenhouse thing; greenhouse thing leads to more heat; permafrost melts faster; methane releases faster; climate warms faster; permafrost melts; methane releases; climate warms; melt; release; warm; etc. It does this until there’s no permafrost left to melt, no methane left to release, or something happens that actively interrupts the cycle like some kind of terraforming or weird space shit that somehow gets something tidally locked between the Earth and the sun that cuts off our supply of heat… in which case we’ve now got an even bigger fish to fry).

We’ve had Earth heat up to scorching conditions from the planet turning inside-out several times

Now that is relevant to what we’re talking about! My question is the extent of turning inside out - was there life before hand that survived the process, or did it form after the fact? If the former, were there pockets of relatively unaffected ‘safe spots’ for life to wait out the worst, or did it somehow survive the planet being completely/uniformly molten? I know there’s life that can survive extreme temperatures, but are things like molten iron within those survivable temps?

You mentioned a few other ‘doozies’ but I don’t see the relevance of those ones other than to showcase life’s resilience… which is great, but again that doesn’t make it absolute. I’d point to the rest of the observable universe as contrary evidence. We have a sample size of exactly ONE planet out of trillions that we’re sure there’s life on. The conditions for life to exist relative to what the universe is capable of dishing out… that sweet spot is tiny! I just can’t wrap my head around why I getting so much heat for suggesting a literal star is capable of nudging a planet out of that range.

And of course we have to address the fact that we’re not even sure if Venus is sterile, there are increasing signs of bacterial life in the atmosphere so it’s quite possible that once life gets a foothold it may be incredibly hard to dislodge.

Definitely an intriguing point, but even giving that the benefit of the doubt and assuming there’s microbes in Venus’s atmosphere, is that a guarantee that microbes will persist on Earth’s? If shit gets hot enough to sterilize life through and beneath the crust, I wouldn’t have high hopes for atmospheric critters surviving the beating.

speculation is not helpful when it points out unlikely extremes, it gives ammunition to deniers when you proclaim factually improbable extremes. Things are absolutely going to get bad, but there’s no reason at all to hype it to an extreme or you shoot yourself and your cause in the face.

With you there… although, I can’t see humanity actually getting ourselves out of this one. I’ll vote and act according to preservation, but… even as bad as we can credibly predict things will get, we aren’t really doing shit to stop it. Looking again to positive feedback loops, our limited power might have been in not unleashing them… But now? We’re fucked.

In what ways do you feel the great oxidation event is comparable enough to what’s happening today that allows us to confidently rule out a worse case scenario a million years down the road?

You somehow have the hubris to assume that life as we know it to exist is the only form of life that can exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Two in one! Nice.

It’s insanely egotistical to think humans could possibly destroy an entire planets worth of life lol. A meteor 200 miles wide impacted the earth at 100 million megatons of impact pressure…the Tsar bomba the biggest nuke ever made is 54 megatons lol. It would take 2 Million Tsar bombas to even match the destruction of that meteor.

I’m tired of refuting that strawman shit. Please stop putting words into my mouth. They taste funky.

You make a strong argument against… something, probably, but I’m not sure why you’re posting it here.

Naw, if his aim was any indication, he was still a bit sleepy.

Really is a shame he skipped his morning coffee that day - if he was just a tad more woke he could have saved us all a lot of trouble.

Here’s hoping the next guy gets plenty of rest first.

explain

I mean, shit, no one in this conversation has done me that courtesy - all I’ve gotten so far is a Jurassic Park quote, a chain of false equivalencies, and a hundred downvotes… and I’m not even the one making a claim (other than “we don’t know enough to make a claim”).

But fuck it, here ya go:

We’ve set off positive feedback loops that are warming the climate at a rate that keeps catching us off guard because we don’t know what the fuck we’re dealing with. Because we don’t know what we’re dealing with, we don’t know what will end those positive feedback loops, so the extreme end of worse-case-scenario is Earth gets better and better at soaking up the sun’s energy - heat increases enough and things like oceans evaporating start to happen; more heat, the crust start to melt.

There comes a point in all of that where even the most resilient of life finally dies off. You can’t just count on adaptation/evolution when the planet is made of boiling iron.

…people keep talking about things like nuclear war scrubbing the surface and extremophiles eventually emerging as the next batch of life to take the reigns… Earth’s combined nuclear arsenal is barely a spark compared to the forces at play here - which is a literal star, and a planet’s increasingly efficient ability to soak up that star’s rays.

This is unlike any previous mass extinction event we’re aware of - the only data we have is what’s unfolding in real time, so there is no basis to any assumption, good or bad.

That worse case scenario is as much speculation on my part as the prevailing “life, uh, finds a way” sentiment, but I’m having a hell of a time convincing anyone here that NONE of us knows shit. People seem to think life will prevail no matter what, but that’s just blind optimism.

tldr,

My take: things might be bad.

The rest of Lemmy’s take: things will be fine.

The ONLY data on the earth warming as quickly as it is, is the data we’re gathering right now as shatter record after record. We don’t know where these positive feedback loops end, or how any life will handle it.

How life did during the ice age or dino-meteor etc doesn’t mean shit - we have zero examples to pull from that are comparable to what’s happening right now.