schrodinger’s chekhov’s gun. a detail in a story that looks like it should have some big payoff but it’s too early to tell if that’s relevant or if the author just has a passion for lovingly describing guns.
schrodinger’s chekov’s occam’s razor: you find an inconsistent or inaccurate detail in a work that would be brilliant if it was foreshadowing a plot twist later on, but it’s too early to tell whether the author expects you to be smart, and the simplest explanation is that they fucked up
Wait. This makes too much sense and I don’t like it.
Someone recently mentioned that they need something like TweetDeck for Discord, and I’m really torn because, on the one hand, if you need TweetDeck for Discord that might be a sign that you are on Discord too much and should touch grass. But on the other hand oh my god I need TweetDeck for Discord.
i mean then maybe the answer is just that you should touch grass
If someone manages to trick 35 different people into thinking they’re dating, I think it should not only not be illegal, but rewarded by a public medal of some kind
Am I misreading this paper? It appears to propose that mining/drilling/fracking/extraction as a source of hydrocarbon will be less profitable than using solar power to harvest CO2 from the atmosphere and turn it into methane, within the next decade.
Not “we need to regulate extraction out of existence.” Just “the market will make drilling unprofitable.”
The reason I’m asking is because if this tech displaces extraction as a source of carbon fuels, that’s a cap on the amount of CO2 introduced to the biosphere, which puts an upper limit on global warming. It feels like hope.
(there’s lots of other reasons why this tech is neat. but that’s the one I’m highlighting.)
Very cool if it works out
Bear in mind mining/drilling/fracking technology will also be improving in the next decade. Also, not knowing anything about the details 1 decade seems absurdly optimistic for it to be economical making electricity into fossil fuels, given that right now doing the reverse is economical in many places and neither electricity -> fossil fuels nor fossil fuels -> electricity is nearly 100% efficiency.
But once this does happen it could easily get locked in as companies stop bothering to prospect for new sources of hydrocarbon and stop improving technologies to mine them, and existing sources dry up- even if there’s plenty of fossil fuels left to mine we need to keep going after harder and harder to reach sources, which doesn’t happen with renewables.
don’t worry, we’ll subsidize fossil fuel extraction to keep it competitive.
Is it weird that I can hear the disdain for your local politicians through the text?
we really devolved as a society when we stopped using fully painted pictures on romance novels and started using cheap photoshop instead
case in point
this is a Hell of a downgrade
worst crime capitalism ever committed was eliminating Horny Oil Painter as a viable career option.
So great news actually the horny oil painter style is starting to make a comeback with millennials who’re into adult romance novels, but not in the way you expect!
I think one thing that happens is that people get annoyed by something harmless or is just kind of a show of solidarity because they see it a bunch and then try desperately to form some deep moral reason to criticize the person doing it and it could be avoided by examining your emotions for more than 2 seconds.
[Tweet from @/fozmeadows: “human gender and sexuality are very much like animal taxonomy, in that both look structured and simple on the surface, but once you start investigating, it turns out there’s actually no such thing as a fish despite the fact that we all know what a fish is, and that’s okay”]
As a biologist, that is a fantasticcomparison.
We talk about “fish” (which, cladistically, do not exist, there is no monophyletic group of “fish” that simultaneously includes all organisms we understand to be “fish”-like while also excluding, say, humans) because, despite the utter fiction that is fish, it’s still a useful label when we talk about certain features that “fish” tend to have in common.
![chinesehanfu:Reference : Tang Dynasty Paintings《 唐人宮樂圖軸 》[Hanfu · 漢服]China Tang Dynasty Chinese Trad](https://64.media.tumblr.com/5a31b83eac5b842f428dd69881d5ecc7/d289729e93e683ec-bf/s1280x1920/4d70c045f1c25bbea7c79d57d5da84a53f6a2c4f.jpg "chinesehanfu:Reference : Tang Dynasty Paintings《 唐人宮樂圖軸 》[Hanfu · 漢服]China Tang Dynasty Chinese Trad")
