"Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
However. Fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal take millions of years to form naturally, and they bind carbon to them that usually would not be released freely back into the atmosphere. Our current coal reserves were created in a process that lasted 300 millions of years, and we unearthed and released large quantities of the carbon that was stored in them in a span that lasted less then a hundred years.

In 1783 when America won it's independence, the annual CO2 emissions were around 17 million tons. By 1850 they would spike to 200 million and by 1900 to 2000 million. Today we sit at a comfortable level of 35.000 million tons of annual CO2 emissions. In roughly 220 years we went from 17 million to 35.000 million.

And like you said it's a cycle. Those emissions are now naturally present as part of that cycle and it took them hundreds of millions of years to become naturally dormant, before we reintroduced them to the cycle by unearthing and burning fossil fuels. Of course many other industrial processes contributed to this, but fossil fuels are the easiest punching bag to demonstrate the issue. The cycle that you describe has been somewhat disturbed, wouldn't you agree?
Of course, I just think that targeting the actual problem is better. There is literally nothing wrong with common hydrocarbon fuels. They are very energy dense, relatively safe, liquid at sane temperatures, and noncorrosive to common metal containers. We should be producing these fuels on the surface from nuclear/hydro powered GMO algae farms instead of digging them up. That way emissions don't matter as no additional carbon is introduced to the cycle. Much more expensive but sustainable. Merely planting trees does nothing, you would need to plant 40m trees every day for the US to be carbon neutral. You're going to run out of land and then those trees will eventually die/burn and release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere
 
Of course, I just think that targeting the actual problem is better. There is literally nothing wrong with common hydrocarbon fuels. They are very energy dense, relatively safe, liquid at sane temperatures, and noncorrosive to common metal containers. We should be producing these fuels on the surface from nuclear/hydro powered GMO algae farms instead of digging them up. That way emissions don't matter as no additional carbon is introduced to the cycle. Much more expensive but sustainable. Merely planting trees does nothing, you would need to plant 40m trees every day for the US to be carbon neutral. You're going to run out of land and then those trees will eventually die/burn and release all that CO2 back into the atmosphere
I see what you mean.

Do you think there is a way to lower the current CO2 emissions in our atmosphere through those methods, or maybe an additional process, while still allowing humanity to support it's energy needs? Also, would it be possible for humanity to both stabilize it's CO2 emissions while still retaining energy potentials for technological and general progress?
 
Null: “how do you even measure CO2 emissions? It’s like a religion or something”

5 minutes later…

View attachment 6144547
The claim that hurricane records date back to 1851 is extremely misleading. The NHC's hurricane archive, called HURDAT, has every documented storm since 1851. There was no weather satellite or radar in 1851, so any hurricane over open ocean was completely unknown, unless a ship managed to get close enough to one & survive to tell the tale.

Even if a storm did make landfall in a populated area, there was no accurate way to assess hurricane intensity, especially by wind speed, which is what the Saffir-Simpson "category" scale is based on. The current way we get accurate maximum wind speed estimates is by flying high altitude planes directly into the eyewall.

At the most generous estimate, the era of accurate historical hurricane records begins in the 1960s, when satellites became somewhat common.
 
I see what you mean.

Do you think there is a way to lower the current CO2 emissions in our atmosphere through those methods, or maybe an additional process, while still allowing humanity to support it's energy needs? Also, would it be possible for humanity to both stabilize it's CO2 emissions while still retaining energy potentials for technological and general progress?
Not without burying stuff unfortunately. Pulling CO2 from the air sucks and doesn't scale well if you are going the nonorganic route. 300ppm is not a very big piece of the pie and you're never going to have the perfect scrubber. The only really scalable solution I see for carbon capture is to foster organic growth to pull carbon into more manageable organisms in big farms, and thermally distill that into inorganic carbon that you can bury
 
I see what you mean.

Do you think there is a way to lower the current CO2 emissions in our atmosphere through those methods, or maybe an additional process, while still allowing humanity to support it's energy needs? Also, would it be possible for humanity to both stabilize it's CO2 emissions while still retaining energy potentials for technological and general progress?
People tend to view Humanity as adversarial to nature which seems to hold to our current mode of modernity but in actuality, Humanity are the ultimate keystone species. People have the very unique power to steward the land to support and promulgate healthy biodiversity. There was an incredible project carried by an ecologist tasked by the Saudi government named Nael Spackman who regenerated the Al Baydah region in Makka southern desert and reversed desertification caused by heavy use of irrigation that drained their natural aquifers by engineering the landscape to retain and capture water with native plant-life. He's been in Saudi Arabia working on this since 2010 since he's sponsored by some Saud princess iirc. PRESERVE TUBE ARCHIVE

 
Not without burying stuff unfortunately. Pulling CO2 from the air sucks and doesn't scale well if you are going the nonorganic route. 300ppm is not a very big piece of the pie and you're never going to have the perfect scrubber. The only really scalable solution I see for carbon capture is to foster organic growth to pull carbon into more manageable organisms in big farms, and thermally distill that into inorganic carbon that you can bury
Just use nuclear energy. The byproduct is depleted uranium which you can turn into bullets to kill people. There's no downsides.
 
I hope josh covers the second star giant video since he covered the first one and this legit has the worst framing I have seen
Video is out

Funny bits
Rebecca talks about George Floyd
View attachment 6144916
Tranny grooms pooner into joining a poly relationship and gets upset about penis jokes
View attachment 6144954
The anti anime rant will be strong with this one
 
I see what you mean.

Do you think there is a way to lower the current CO2 emissions in our atmosphere through those methods, or maybe an additional process, while still allowing humanity to support it's energy needs? Also, would it be possible for humanity to both stabilize it's CO2 emissions while still retaining energy potentials for technological and general progress?
You could always go the mad scientist route too and just roll the dice on whether you will fix the world or destroy it. Couple cool ideas:
* Go balls deep in GMO research and create designer sea algae that becomes reflective when it dies
* Use sodium based fuels on shipping boats to dump the lye byproduct into the ocean and neutralize the acidity from CO2
* Explode hydrogen bombs in the middle of the Atlantic every day to make more clouds and increase reflected energy from the sun
 
Some news for the next episode. The article is long as fuck, but you don't have to read the whole thing, since I had a summary made with ChatGPT.

Klaus "You VILL Eat Ze Bugs" Schwab has been accused of perpetuating sexual harassment and racial discrimination at Davos.

Summary:
Klaus Schwab, the octogenarian founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), reportedly initiated a push to remove older employees in an effort to lower the organization's average age. This directive clashed with ethical standards upheld by the HR chief, Paolo Gallo, who was subsequently fired by Schwab. These events reflect internal tensions over Schwab's management style and decisions.

The WEF, known for its Davos gathering and advocacy for global improvement, faces internal accusations of fostering a discriminatory environment. Multiple female employees allege mistreatment related to pregnancy, including job loss or career setbacks upon returning from maternity leave. Additionally, claims of sexual harassment at Davos and within WEF offices have surfaced, implicating both senior managers and external VIPs.

Despite WEF's public commitments to gender equality and inclusion, former employees assert a disconnect between these values and the organization's internal practices. Schwab himself is accused of making inappropriate comments and gestures towards women over several decades, which some describe as creating a discomforting workplace atmosphere.

WEF has responded to these allegations by asserting adherence to high ethical standards, conducting thorough investigations into reported incidents, and implementing confidential reporting channels. However, critics, including former employees and internal whistleblowers, maintain that systemic issues persist within the organization.

Thread with full article and more info can be found here.

Edit: Topic was already covered in another thread that I failed to notice. Link to that thread can be found here.
 
Last edited:
in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Broccoli
image_2024-07-01_221358115.png
 
I can't remember if it was the last stream or the one before, but Null brought up how artists feel regarding AI, and as an art fag I wanted to add my two cents. I don't feel remotely threatened by AI, because all the AI art I've ever seen has this uncanny polish to it like the chinky filter troons use; it gives everything an unnatural vibe and so I don't see it as a threat to people who do traditional art. Any artist afraid of AI is outing themselves as a hack whose work is so bland it can't be distinguished from a robot's.

TL;DR The kind of people who would hang an AI piece of art in their homes aren't the kind of people who would pay commission prices for a decent piece of real art. It's two completely separate markets.
It's the same way I look at suno.ai as a former music fag. If I was still writing music, I'd use it as a tool to spur creativity the same way I used to use Fruity Loops arpeggiator when I was a kid.

Any songwriter who is intimidated by suno is retarded. It's gift if used properly. Why artists aren't looking at DALL-E in the same way confuses me.
 
Back