not to stop it, but to support it?
the pope called in a message of support.
I dreamed a fleet of alien ships had shown up to destroy the human race, and the ships were all invisible but were easily detected because they were using some kind of chameleon camouflage which didn't work if the thing they were chameleonizing as was another invisible ship
not to stop it, but to support it?
the pope called in a message of support.
which is when I left
More from foone
More from Science
Hugh Everett's birthday! Pioneer of the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Let us celebrate by thinking about ontological extravagance. I will do so by way of analogy, because I have found that everyone loves analogies and nobody ever willfully misconstrues them.
We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.
One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).
But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!
So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
The physicist Hugh Everett III was born #OTD in 1930. His \u201crelative state\u201d formulation of quantum mechanics, which we now call the \u201cMany Worlds Interpretation,\u201d was published in 1957. pic.twitter.com/ZqMsZcPJDG
— Robert McNees, the bastegod (@mcnees) November 11, 2020
We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.
One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).
But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!
So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
💥💥 Situation Update, Dec. 7th – DNI John Ratcliffe, the bogus science of PCR testing and China’s GMO super soldiers
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
✅ I cover the bogus science behind PCR testing, explaining from a lab science point of view why no PCR instrument can “quantify” anything,
[M. Adams]
1. whether it’s a coronavirus viral load or the percentage of a food that’s GMO. In fact, literally all the tests currently conducted with PCR equipment are scientifically invalid when it comes to diagnosing illness or determining infectiousness. The sample acquisition used for
2. PCR tests — nasal swabs — aren’t even standardized! (100% bogus junk science).
After covering PCR tests, today’s update then goes into detail about Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe, pointing out that he will be issuing a report on foreign interference
3. in U.S. elections on or before Dec. 18th. If this report confirms the existence of foreign interference that was capable of altering the outcome of the election, it gives President Trump full justification to declare the election null and void and dispatch military troops
4. to seize all ballots and hold a new count under military authority.
👉 Podcast notes and sources:
The office of military commissions has cleared its calendar for December:
https://t.co/u4nFRiUj8m
US military STOCKPILED Pfizer’s mRNA vaccineBEFORE it was approved by theFDA
I took a look at Shell's first ever 1.5C scenario and found that it is... remarkably similar to its “well-below 2C” scenario.
Oil, gas, coal, solar.... all basically unchanged.
The key difference: A new forest the size of Brazil to suck up the extra CO2.
Including "nature-based solutions" in the outlook brings forward the date for net-zero emissions to 2058.
Without them their pathway for CO2 emissions is the same as the previous one.
(It's also towards the higher end of 1.5C emissions pathways.)
The "Brazil-sized" forest idea isn't actually new, it has been kicking around for a couple of years.
It was referenced in the "well-below 2C" scenario although not formally included in it, and Shell's CEO has been framing it as the only viable way of getting to 1.5C.
Fine, but who is going to plant all those trees? Well... Shell says it will plant some of them.
Only yesterday Shell said forests were a key part of its net-zero strategy.
Not everyone is convinced though
https://t.co/RaJm7tOHxb
Given that Shell's 1.5C scenario also sees a big scaling up of bioenergy, the question remains: where are all those trees and bioenergy crops going to go?
Oil, gas, coal, solar.... all basically unchanged.
The key difference: A new forest the size of Brazil to suck up the extra CO2.
Including "nature-based solutions" in the outlook brings forward the date for net-zero emissions to 2058.
Without them their pathway for CO2 emissions is the same as the previous one.
(It's also towards the higher end of 1.5C emissions pathways.)
The "Brazil-sized" forest idea isn't actually new, it has been kicking around for a couple of years.
It was referenced in the "well-below 2C" scenario although not formally included in it, and Shell's CEO has been framing it as the only viable way of getting to 1.5C.
Fine, but who is going to plant all those trees? Well... Shell says it will plant some of them.
Only yesterday Shell said forests were a key part of its net-zero strategy.
Not everyone is convinced though
https://t.co/RaJm7tOHxb
Shell plans to use forests to remove 120 Mt/yr of CO2 by 2030.
— Greg Muttitt (@FuelOnTheFire) February 12, 2021
Appropriate land for forestation is finite, and risks competition with food production and human rights of current land owners/users, esp Indigenous
Given that Shell's 1.5C scenario also sees a big scaling up of bioenergy, the question remains: where are all those trees and bioenergy crops going to go?
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
