The undercurrent of dissatisfaction which led to his popularity was already there. And has been for decades. Do you blame the drought, the dry kindling, or the match?
You don't get the wildfire without all three, and anyone paying attention can observe the looming danger and the inevitability of ignition. Who lights the match matters. But is only a small part of the contributing circumstances.
Trump is at least in part directly responsible for said undercurrent of dissatisfaction. He's been part of the wealthy scammer class for decades, providing the drought, kindling and matches. The fact that he's the most visible of the bunch and popular thanks to being on TV doesn't remove his deep connections to the root cause.
The wealthy have been manufacturing these issues for decades now by buying up the entire media apparatus and gutting systems to the bone so that they can squeeze out a bit more blood to drink.
> The wealthy have been manufacturing these issues for decades now by buying up the entire media apparatus and gutting systems to the bone so that they can squeeze out a bit more blood to drink.
This is the stronger part of that statement to me. More than individual responsibility. Collective responsibility of the powerful. It seems to me that there's plenty of blame to spread around, which doesn't negate any of it. I even see ways democrats have contributed by, for example, conspiring to exclude Bernie Sanders who plays to the same feelings of dissatisfaction as Trump, but in a different way. More build it better than burn it down.
Though I think that's what Trump sees himself as doing as well. People don't have to agree - I appreciate some things he's done and recoil in horror at others. But similarly for democrats. I was very displeased with Obama for renewing the Patriot Act while appreciating the difficult compromise of the Affordable Care Act.
Historically, US politics has been quite volatile. The period between WWII and the 90s was unusually stable and prosperous. Which I tend to credit having bombed the rest of the world's manufacturing capacity to smithereens and the recovery period for, mostly. I think we're entering a more volatile period, but who knows?
Evolution of small things like algae and the krill which feed on it and feed the whale is quite fast. Single celled organisms reproduce on the scale of 20 minutes and hold immense amounts of genetic diversity in their populations to facilitate the success of a better adapted line almost immediately. Additionally, they are adept at horizontal gene transfer from other well-adapted organisms.
This would be great news if the whale literally only required krill to survive, but complex megafauna have complex needs, so the ability of krill and other small creatures to evolve is largely irrelevant in a discussion regarding the ability of megafauna to survive. This is especially true if you read TFA and see that the whales already adapt to eat different things as necessary.
Algae are the bottom of the ocean food chain. Everything interacts with it. But algae's happy to grow in a bowl of water left in the sun.
Lots of things eat krill and small fish. They're near the bottom of the foodchain too. In addition to algae, krill are opportunistic omnivores who often consume detritus. But their primary diet is algae. Small fish tend to be pretty similar.
It's not that other things don't interact with algae or krill or small fish, it's that those groups are the foundation bedrock of the ocean ecology. And single celled organisms like algae are tough as nails in aggregate. Couldn't kill them all if we tried. Pool owners will be familiar with the struggle.
But it's not a bottom up interaction. If whales are killed off from climate change, then those other things can get out of control. Too much algae, and then you have hypoxic environments.
A perfect example of this is when sea otters were nearly hunted to extinction which caused sea urchins to flourish which caused the death of coral and coastal environments which started to affect the larger things that depended on those environments.
My point is that any change to the careful balance can have non-linear effects.
I think we're coming at this from different directions. The OP I responded to originally said: "Warming will kill off most of the systems these animals depend on within 30 years." which isn't what you're talking about. A top-down extinction looks like whaling in the 1800s and we already had that. Now they're on the mend.
As one of the 10% of humanity who has a severe allergy to cats which causes me to be unable to breathe, break out in hives, and weep incredible amounts from every exposed mucus membrane, I had to laugh at this. And cry a little.
Y'all have no idea how high impact cats are.
Fel D proteins seem to trigger immune responses across a broad range of mammals. They are homologs of slow loris venom which also causes intense immune responses. Hypothesis is that they evolved in part by inducing an intense allergic response when the cat is eaten. Which obviously helps the survival of the next cat that predator encounters. It seems to be sheer accident that 90% of humanity isn't bothered by it. Even so, cat allergies are the single most common allergy among humans. Cats shed Fel D 1 everywhere. Being in the same room with one is enough to wreck me for hours to a week. Some folks can control it with medication, but I can't take enough to be in the same room with one.
Rat traps are less expensive, more effective, less prone to killing things other than rats, sanitary, don't have to be fed, don't need a litter box, don't cause allergies, don't need shots, medications, or vet visits, and don't have kittens. Far lower impact and much less work than a cat.
Killing rats is just an excuse people use to keep an emotional support critter around. And is unfortunately inconsiderate of 1 in every 10 people in public spaces.
1 in every 10 people may have a cat alergy, but the % of folks with an allergy as severe as yours has to be much lower. I know plenty of people with cat allergies who can spend entire evenings in my cat-inhabited with only very minor discomfort. The person with the most serious allergy to them I know is miles away from your symptoms.
I think you are exaggerating the severity of the issue, but I'm sorry you have this terrible allergy to something as common as cats, that sucks.
> I think you are exaggerating the severity of the issue
You and everyone else who doesn't suffer. But I was conservative by stating 10%. Medical literature says 10 - 20% and even qualifies that as a potential underestimate. I have looked for stats on severe sufferers, and they are unfortunately very difficult to find.
It does suck. But I would caution you not to discount the discomfort of others so easily.
People tend to understand that exposing someone with a peanut allergy to peanuts is dangerous and can even be considered assault or attempted murder.
No one thinks that about cats.
But the severity of the allergic response occupies the same spectrum (same immune system, misbehaving in the same way). Peanuts just aren't as cute or fluffy as cats. No one is offended if you don't want to pet their peanut. No one makes you eat peanuts in order to visit them at home. No matter how mild the peanut allergy. No one rubs peanuts into every surface of a place like cats spread Fel D 1.
But immune systems don't know the difference. An allergen is an allergen.
To folks who have the allergy, the differences in the way it's treated compared to others affect our every day.
Less than 0.5% of people are at risk of anaphylaxis from cat allergies. Since you brought up peanut allergies, it's relevant to point out that we haven't banned peanuts. It sucks that you and others suffer, but getting rid of cats doesn't make sense when you can ask if there are cats around, much like people with peanut allergies ask about the presence of peanuts.
Cat owners have significantly lower cardiovascular deaths. Children growing up with a cat have an almost 50% lower development of asthma and allergies. They reduce stress and depression.
I think you'll find that's as true for animals who don't shed proteins evolved to elicit severe allergic reactions as it is for those that do.
Your reference begins with: "The presence of pets has been associated with reduction of stress and blood pressure and therefore may reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases."
> inconsiderate of 1 in every 10 people in public spaces.
It's high-impact for you but low-impact for humanity in general or even just for businesses with a rat problem.
1 in 10 is exactly the definition of "low impact". I get that it's a ginormous inconvenience to the dozens of you out there---and as a person with his own allergies, albeit not to cats, you have my sympathy---but that doesn't change the fact that 10% falls pretty squarely under the definition of low-impact.
In a city with a population of 8.5 million 10% is easily under nine hundred thousand people, such a low impact indeed ... 'dozens' might be overstating this /s
You're claiming that the single most common allergy suffered by humans is low impact compared to a $2 rat trap which doesn't bother anyone. The cope...
You can just say you like cats. You don't have to invent fallacious reasons for it.
What a privilege it must be to think so. Sadly, I cannot relate. To me they're poison or a visit to the ER. Like if most of the people in the world thought diamondback rattlesnakes or boomslangs made adorable pets to let roam free.
If you can imagine drowning in your own fluids, unable to breathe, while your whole body swells painfully and itches, your nose runs uncontrollably and eyes swell shut, you've got the picture.
Y'all don't have to ask ahead of time before you go anywhere new if there will be a cat there. And you don't have to cancel if they say yes.
It's an incredible amount of privilege thinking that about the most common allergen affecting humans. Only someone who's not affected could think it.
For those of us who are, it's literally the foundation bedrock of every choice I make during the day. My work is cat-free. My family don't own cats. My persistent friends are the folks who don't own cats that I can visit regularly. My world is a lot smaller than yours. Less opportunity.
People with severe food allergies have to plan and limit themselves similarly. Because people who don't understand can't be trusted to help limit exposure. Sensible precautions are seen as unnecessary drama by those who don't need them.
Anyone with a severe allergy can share a dozen stories about the times someone who didn't understand almost got them killed. Standing up for ourselves in the face of folks trying to downplay our conditions is the reason any of us are still alive.
No, you’re just being really dramatic over an allergy. My brother literally will actually DIE if he gets too close to peanuts and he’s not this insufferable.
If you can't suffer some words, then your brother and I have a much higher pain tolerance than you do. lol
Will you DIE from words like your brother and I from our allergens? If not you can calm down about it. Unlike us you can just walk away from this. If it causes you suffering you're choosing to suffer by engaging in the conversation. That's not good for you. Take care of yourself.
No, which is why I’m not being insufferable, lmao.
As a side note, I get the chide about labeling. You might accidentally eat cat and die! It slips in all the time! Granted, the labeling is not enough to protect him due to the severity of his allergy. Don’t try to bring him down to your level. It’ll take months anyways.
At this point you're interpreting genuine care and empathy for your brother's condition and appreciation for a hard-fought safety measure as chide. I remember when it was enacted. And a win for any of us is a win for all of us. Re-evaluate that assumption of yours.
You're right that a respiratory and contact allergy wouldn't benefit from food labels. Safety labels for folks like me would go on buildings, especially public spaces. And they would absolutely be helpful. The ADA does have some protections for folks with respiratory allergies in public spaces, but they're somewhat severely limited to a 6mo period after which filing an enforcement action is not possible. If you miss it, tough luck.
You are demonstrating to others the sort of attitude folks like your brother and I encounter constantly. So thanks for that. It's good for folks to see that just talking about the things that I and others like me experience and expressing care for others with similar conditions is enough to elicit hate. Because that's not uncommon. Most folks like me have dealt with that behavior, and nothing you say about me or my allergy will have any effect other than reflecting on yourself.
> Rat traps are less expensive, more effective, less prone to killing things other than rats, sanitary, don't have to be fed, don't need a litter box, don't cause allergies, don't need shots, medications, or vet visits, and don't have kittens. Far lower impact and much less work than a cat.
Are they? If the cats are eating rats, then they don't really need to be fed. If they're allowed to go outside, then you might not even need to clean the cat's litter box. Rat traps have to be reset, and the corpses disposed of; cats do all that automatically.
Yes, they are, objectively. The minimal amount of labor involved in setting and clearing a trap (literally 30 seconds) is significantly less than the time spent tending to a cat. Even if you only pet it occasionally. I own traps I don't even have to touch with my hands. And they were inexpensive.
Rat traps work 24/7, unlike a cat which sleeps up to 16 hours a day.
Cats must be spade or neutered, an additional cost and effort lest they contribute to the epidemic of semi-feral cats.
Outdoor domestic cats kill an estimated 7 - 26 billion wild animals yearly, most birds, 3/4 of which weren't eaten when studied.
Outdoor cats especially need flea treatment, else they'll bring them into the building. Having dealt with a flea infestation, trust me you don't want to. Involves poisoning your whole dwelling for a few days at significant expense.
On the other hand, since all the design files are available, anyone can design an upgraded motherboard for this machine and keep all the other parts out of the landfill.
That’s true. It doesn’t even have to be just „anyone” as they sell compute module upgrades themselves. The thing it though, the old ThinkPads are already here, readily available. It’s still more environmentally conscious to get one every few years instead of buying a new compute module.
I'm not sure it's so clear. On one hand, businesses will continue to purchase computers and sell them in lots every few years. On the other, every computer purchased from some other supplier is one less made by someone else. What's important about a computer is it's suitability for purpose, which is not necessarily the same thing as fastest / latest / cheapest / whatever. If my purpose requires modular expansion, my choices are this thing and Framework. Neither of which I'm going to find inexpensive used. I can think of a lot of scientific and engineering data logging applications that would be great for. And a machine like that might serve 20 years if it works well at the task. I've seen a lot of machine controls still running Windows 98.
https://www.clockworkpi.com/home-uconsole is another great example of a machine I've seen people mod into all manner of special-purpose device that wouldn't work as well with a used business laptop.
I think it’s very important to have someone making new, open, upgradeable computers. Getting an old computer might be more environmentally conscious now, but it doesn’t feel sustainable in the long term. New computers will (need to) continue being made, and the Reform by far seems like the best way to go about that.
A few nerds like us getting all wrapped up in environmental impact is going to be overshadowed by 1 day's worth of laptops bought at a single Costco. Unless you're able to affect a large group of people (ie: what Framework is doing), I wouldn't get too worked up about the impact of custom PCBs vs old ThinkPads - on any reasonably scale, it just doesn't matter.
I agree, it's probably a better idea to stick to something that was sold in high volume - if only for replacement parts down the road. If one really needs low power, an older M series Mac would also suit the bill (sacrificing many of the other benefits of course).
I don't mean to lessen the impact of that statement. I think climate change is a serious problem. But also most of the geologic time that genus Homo has existed, Earth has been in an ice age. Much of which we'd consider a "snowball Earth". The last warm interglacial period, the Eemian, was 120,000 years ago.
That's an interesting bit of detail. As you intended, it does not lessen the impact of the statement: "conditions never witnessed by us or our prehistoric relatives". It confirms it, with some additional context.
To me, it seems to make it even more significant. Because as you point out, Homo evolved under ice age conditions over millions of years. Well, here we are about to be thrust into uncharted territory, in an extremely short period of time. With very fragile global interdependencies, an overpopulated planet, and billions of people exposed to the consequences.
Right? I would only caution that neither has the ice age been particularly kind to humanity. It seems at least a couple times to have almost gotten us all. There's a genetic bottleneck in genus Homo which seems to date back ~80k years, which aligns suspiciously with the Toba supervolcano eruption. And another around 850k years ago. During each there were likely fewer than 2,000 breeding humans.
Earth has certainly thrived with a warmer climate. No reason we can't too. The problems - for us and other life - stem from the rate of change. Which is easy to see is very very rapid compared to the historical cycles, but still a slow motion trainwreck compared to an asteroid strike, supervolcano, or gamma ray pulse, all of which it seems Earth has experienced. Life and human society will adapt if it has enough time. The quicker the catastrophe the more challenging that is.
I guess what I'm saying is that we're not doing ourselves any favors, but we also shouldn't underestimate mother nature's ability to throw us a curve ball in the 9th inning that makes everything worse. Life has endured an awful lot on this little rock.
What you just wrote is the same as: 'the entire lifecycle of humanity has no precursor to the conditions' we are about to face.
We aren't facing the ice age that has been the last 120,000 years.
I'm sure the rocky planet will survive just fine, maybe even some extreemophiles, even if we completely screw up the atmosphere. Not 6 billion humans though.
I can both be alarmed at how quickly the ice age humanity has evolved within is ending, and find that a very funny way of phrasing it. These things don't conflict in me, though it seems triggering to some. People are downvoting me with moral conscience, but I'm just over here laughing at a funny conjunction of paleoclimate and word choice. :) People getting offended by it kinda makes it funnier.
this is the same style comment as "no offense, but <offensive thing>"
if you didnt intend to lessen the impact of that statement, why say something that is specifically meant to lessen the impact of the statement? just say what you want to say without the hedging.
Dow Chemical operates brine wells from which it extracts bromine in the middle lower peninsula of Michigan as well. Around Mt. Pleasant, St. Louis, and Midland. Besides all the uses you listed, it's also widely used as a fire retardant.
In 1973, Velsicol Chemical Corporation, who was operating in St. Louis, Michigan at the time, was manufacturing Polybrominated biphenyl fire retardant, as well as animal feed supplements. They were bagged similarly, and PBBs were accidentally shipped into the food supply. Which led to the largest livestock culling in US history at the time. https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/safety-injury-prev/environmen...
My family's lived in mid-michigan for four generations now, going on five. I've known a lot of people from the St. Louis (Velsicol Chemical Corp) and Midland (Dow Chemical Corp) areas. Heard a lot of stories. Chemical release alarms go off occasionally and everyone shuts their windows as the cloud rolls through town. Mysterious mass bird, amphibian, fish, and insect die-offs. Strange dusts covering everything. Cancer and birth defect rates above average.
The EPA has been heating the ground in St. Louis to above boiling, with a giant rubber cap on top to boil off volatiles and collect them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHnFXrhSvM and that's after dredging the river, capping the whole site with clay and concrete, and other remediational work. People will never be able to drink the well water there again.
Take-away is that I'd like to live as far away from chemical plants as I can afford.
The hardware description languages, even if they have a single language specification, are divided into 2 distinct subsets, one used for synthesis, i.e. for hardware design, and one used for simulation, i.e. for hardware verification.
The subset required for hardware synthesis/design, cannot be unified completely with a programming language, because it needs a different semantics, though the syntax can be made somewhat similar, as with VHDL that was derived from Ada, while Verilog was derived from C. However, the subset used for simulation/verification, outside the proper hardware blocks, can be pretty much identical with a programming language.
So in principle one could have a pair of harmonized languages, one a more or less typical programming language used for verification and a dedicated hardware description language used only for synthesis.
The current state is not too far from this, because many simulators have interfaces between HDLs and some programming languages, so you can do much verification work in something like C++, instead of SystemVerilog or VHDL. For instance, using C++ for all verification tasks is possible when using Verilator to simulate the hardware blocks.
I am not aware of any simulator that would allow synthesis in VHDL coupled with writing test benches in Ada, which are a better fit than VHDL with C++, but it could be done.
I read about a VHDL that used DIANA.
DIANA was an IR in some Ada compilers; I would imagine that such a common IR would facilitate exactly those test benches with an ease that borders on 'ludicrous'.
I remembered being vaguely amused learning VHDL how familiar it felt because I'd learned some Ada long ago. But yes, it's not a deep connection. I don't know if there would be much to be gained from bringing them together.
It's an intriguing idea. Having experience with software but almost none (only hobbyist) in hardware, I imagine it'd require a strong type system and mathematical foundation. Perhaps something like Agda, a language that is a proof assistant and theorem prover, with which one can write executable programs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agda_(programming_language)
I wonder if an escape hatch like Rust's unsafe{} would be enough... a hardware{}. The real complexity likely lies in how to integrate the synthesis tools with the compiler and debugger. The timing model. A memory model like Rust's would certainly aid in assuring predictable behavior, but I'm not certain it would be sufficient.
Previous administrations weren't easier to resist. Look up Joseph Nacchio's story. Short version: refuse to install https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAINWAY without a warrant, go to jail.
Just a little vibe coded CLI file search tool I whipped up for my own use. It uses ffmpeg, libreoffice, and mupdf to break down a multitude of file formats and feed them to YAMNet for audio classification, Whisper for transcription and translation, Qwen 2.5 Omni 7B for music classification, and ultimately Jina Embeddings V4 to produce the embeddings used for search.
You don't get the wildfire without all three, and anyone paying attention can observe the looming danger and the inevitability of ignition. Who lights the match matters. But is only a small part of the contributing circumstances.
reply