Comment 21st century material (Score 3, Informative) 6
Nobody was doing strained-layer epitaxy in the 1950s.
Nobody was doing strained-layer epitaxy in the 1950s.
The heat and the light are not physically different things. If the light is absorbed, then the object that absorbed it was heated by that amount of energy.If the heat escaped, that would mean the light was reflected, and it wouldn't be black, it would be white. (Or a mirror, depending on how consistent the angle of reflection is)
Yes and no.
Visible light carries energy, and hence, yes, absorbing visible light will heat the fabric. However, at temperatures less than a thousand degrees or so, most of the heat energy is carried in infrared light. Since the fabric is specified as being black in visible light, it may or may not be absorbing in infrared.
The fact you consider this as "safe" is the problem with society.
Well, yes: we live in a society in which 50-kg small humans coexist in spaces with 1000- and 2000- kilogram metal vehicles travelling at a hundred km/hour, and only the social rules keep them safe.
You've excepted a horrible band-aid for a dangerous situation covering a small minority
The entirety of our civilization's "safety" relies on our society and its rules. It's not a "small minority"-- it's all of it. Every time I drive I put myself in a situation in which I'm less than one second away from flaming death if I should make the wrong move.
> Meanwhile, H.264 has dedicated hardware decoders in world+dog devices, including ancient ones.
Ancient ones, yes, but most devices sold in the past five years have AV1 *decode* support.
Hardware with AV1 *encode* is still pretty rare but a fair number of up-market chips from the past few years have it.
What we mostly care about here is the $20 amtel or mediatek devices sold today, and those are fine.
Netflix can support the older devices with H.264 as long as it makes more sense to pay the patent license fees than to drop support for old devices.
It won't be long before there are no devices that the manufacturer still supports that can't decode AV1 in hardware. Not that most end-users even know their device went EOL and now a potential liability.
Given that Netflix has native apps on most of these systems it should be straightforward to serve the non-patented stream to any device that can play it well.
> They don't do backups at those outfits?
We really need Federal government backups to be centralized at the National Archives.
Both so one expert team can make sure it's done right, instead of hundreds of teams with questionable experience and track records attempting to do it right.
And
Right now, the prosecutor just goes, "shucks, I guess we don't have a case then. Better fire some leaf-node IT contractor."
Ring wing operatives have long been trying to prove that government doesn't work.
Right-wing operatives have long been pushing that ALL government work should be done by hiring contractors from private industry. This was an example.
The contractor they had been hired by was a company called Opexus; they were hired as engineers working on projects for various agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service, Department of Energy, Defense Department and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General.
Obviously Opexus didn't do a good job at background check.
A few more sites: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bloomberg.com%2Fnews...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Farstechnica.com%2Finform...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcyberscoop.com%2Fmuneeb-...
The kids should cross the street at normal crossings like everyone else, not just anywhere a huge yellow beast stops and flips out a sign.
I'd say the safest place to cross would be in front of a huge, impossible to miss bus, with a flipped-out sign reading "STOP" and with flashing lights.
Of course they overplayed their hand, it was the only way to get funding. One side of this debate got funded and the other didn't.
For years the oil companies were heavily funding people to create doubt about climate science. They eventually got publicly outed for paying for bad science, and stopped because it looked bad.
As for atmospheric science, the main funding for atmospheric science is in improving weather models, including hurricane path predictions and aviation weather. Climate predictions are pretty much just another application of the models made for other purposes.
As for the oil companies, they shifted their strategy to funding "think tanks" pushing libertarian ideas, funding advocacy that the government needs to avoid taking any action on climate change.
You're full of shit; I remember sitting in school watching a video about how the world was going to freeze over ( in 2nd grade no less. Wild times ) by 2000.
I remember when my second grade teacher told us that the earth was hotter in summer because it was closer to the sun!
The lesson is, maybe you should learn more science after 2nd grade.
I'm not worried about people who make errors, discover the errors, and retract the work. I worry about the people who lie, and when the lie is pointed out, double down with bigger lies.
I don't know what the definition of "accountability" is in climate research, but a threefold error is terrible science, it should have been caught in peer review, and everyone involved owes the scientific world an apology.
To be more accurate, this was an error in an economic study. Economists might think their field is a science, but scientists don't.
.. there is no disastrous climate change, just normal cycles. The climate-fanatics almost convinced me that there is some disaster incoming, but thanks for I have still have some brainb capacity left.
The normal cycles-- known as "Milankovitch variations"-- happen on a time scale of tens to hundreds of thousands of years. The current climate change is much faster than that.
Long before industrial age there were massive CO2 dumps (super volcanoes, asteroid impacts, etc.) that we know spiked CO2 past even current levels and it did not result in effects these models predict.
Nope.
Volcanoes can dump large amounts of carbon dioxide, but for short periods of time. Cumulative, no, volcanoes produce less CO2 than humans do. (And supervolcanoes are more of a problem with ash deposition, not CO2.)
Asteroid impacts, on the other hand... the Chixulub asteroid impact killed every species of life larger than a squirrel (and a large amount of smaller life). Do you really want to say "no worries, carbon dioxide is no worse than a mass extinction?
...
There is even a technical term for it - interglacial period. Which we are entering now.
The interglacial started about eight thousand years ago. The interglacial sea-level rise finished about four thousand years ago. You're way behing
Let’s say climate change is real, fine, but some of these papers are drifting into doomsday fanfic territory with a few equations stapled on. Are we meant to treat every climate-catastrophe model like holy writ now?
No, of course not. The idea is to look at the information and learn as accurately as we can.
The idea that humans in 2100 will politely sit on their hands while the planet burns is genuinely adorable. Humans invent things.
The whole point of the discussion is deciding what to do. Your statement "surely we will do something!" is more or less useless.
But your implication that we can just wait until 2100 and then do something (the path the oil companies want us to take)-- do keep in mind that a lot of climate change will have already happened. The earlier we implement these innnovations, the less bad the problem will be. And, the earlier we fund the research to make these innovations the earlier we will be able to start implementing them.
AI is already chewing through research faster than half the committees publishing these forecasts.
I am not a fan of the "don't worry, we don't have to do anything, AI will solve all our problems" approach.
Mystics always hope that science will some day overtake them. -- Booth Tarkington