I saw the story and I wonder how the DNA managed to be preserved all this time? Typically after 1000 years 75% of genetic code is degraded, and that seems like you shouldn't wake up after that. I know some unicellular life doesn't grow new cells unless it reproduces so could probably live without DNA for some time, but I don't think nematodes are single celled organisms.
Social pressure to conform is always painted as the ultimate evil, but sometimes you should conform because what you're trying to be a non-conformist is stupid and bad.
IT SOON SHALL BE! FEEEEED ME, AMERICA! FEEEED ME POTAAAATOES!
(The actual point of my estimation was to look at the order of magnitude idea that the earth is so overpopulated it can't possibly support humanity, and it sure looks like if you can give the world shitty potato farms based on a fraction of one population, we're probably mostly ok)
(The actual point of my estimation was to look at the order of magnitude idea that the earth is so overpopulated it can't possibly support humanity, and it sure looks like if you can give the world shitty potato farms based on a fraction of one population, we're probably mostly ok)
Doing some research, it looks like potatoes are one of the most energy dense foods you can grow at 17.8 million calories per irrigated acre. A regular human diet of about 2000 calories per day would work out to about 730,000 calories per year. This means that if you used every mm of that area to grow potatoes, you’d come up short, about 356,000 calories per year. And you’d need to find water, and so on and so forth, I think it’d be a challenge.
On the other hand, the US has about 1.6 Billion acres of land that’s presently used for grazing cattle, forests, farming and so on, so if you gave 8 billion people a fair share of each, you’d give everyone 0.2 acres about 800m3. At that point, each individual person on earth would likely have enough land to grow food, have a place to live, maybe have some light (or heavy) industry.
Incidentally, the federal government owns about 640 million acres (2.6 million km2) of land in the United States, about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres (9.2 million km2). That could be enough to provide 0.08 acres (Approx 3000 square feet) to everyone on earth, and if you assume (incorrectly) that all that land is fertile enough to grow potatoes with irrigation, that area could likely just barely feed and house everyone and also give a bit of space for a fallow field.
On the other hand, the US has about 1.6 Billion acres of land that’s presently used for grazing cattle, forests, farming and so on, so if you gave 8 billion people a fair share of each, you’d give everyone 0.2 acres about 800m3. At that point, each individual person on earth would likely have enough land to grow food, have a place to live, maybe have some light (or heavy) industry.
Incidentally, the federal government owns about 640 million acres (2.6 million km2) of land in the United States, about 28% of the total land area of 2.27 billion acres (9.2 million km2). That could be enough to provide 0.08 acres (Approx 3000 square feet) to everyone on earth, and if you assume (incorrectly) that all that land is fertile enough to grow potatoes with irrigation, that area could likely just barely feed and house everyone and also give a bit of space for a fallow field.
Canada is getting a 988 suicide hotline. Speed dial for becoming an hero!
"Every day, an average of 12 people die by suicide" said one MP, "those are rookie numbers. We gotta get those numbers way up"
"Every day, an average of 12 people die by suicide" said one MP, "those are rookie numbers. We gotta get those numbers way up"
If you think about it, the hollywood strike is sorta funny.
Hollywood writers and actors advocated for policies that destroyed everyone's wages and quality of life, now they're striking because their wages and quality of life have been destroyed.
But as many people have pointed out, in 2008 people let Hollywood into their homes, but that's not really the case in 2023.
Hollywood writers and actors advocated for policies that destroyed everyone's wages and quality of life, now they're striking because their wages and quality of life have been destroyed.
But as many people have pointed out, in 2008 people let Hollywood into their homes, but that's not really the case in 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yuZp5JX2mI
Blows me away the truth this guy speaks.
In particular, people who go around chanting "PUNCH A NAZI" don't realize that they're cultivating the next Nazi regime personally right now.
Blows me away the truth this guy speaks.
In particular, people who go around chanting "PUNCH A NAZI" don't realize that they're cultivating the next Nazi regime personally right now.
Had a really neat dream. It was after the end. We start in a warehouse or something and the MC is getting a message that they need to figure something out or they're never going to get out alive. There was all kinds of scheming. There's a number of people in the warehouse and the exit is surrounded by zombies. One of the people there has a girlfriend who turned into a zombie.
Over time it becomes obvious that some of the people are changing. The MC keeps getting the message that they can get out if only they figure things out and that they'll be powerful if they can figure it out. The guy who had a girlfriend breaks down and claims he went out and met with his girlfriend. everyone is horrified, and agree to lock him out -- you want to be a weirdo like that, go to her.
Eventually it becomes clear there's a certain laugh that predicts someone becoming a zombie. An insane laugh like you've given up hope. Even old corpses reanimate as zombies once they let out that laugh, and having figured it out the way to protect themselves they finally see out one of the other windows and see the world outside of the little enclosed area outside the entrance -- every building has an emotive face etched into the buildings, representing the emotions that the people in each building have settled on.
The scene changes. An old civil engineer is angrily flipping switches trying to keep his tunnels in check as he walks through and sees the mess people have left behind. You think he's in trouble with everything going on but he seems to be strong and in charge even though he's clearly annoyed. It seems like there's an indication that this guy's controlled righteous annoyance has been channelled into strength, actual physical strength... In this world it seems that it matters how you express your emotions, it can make you weak, or it can make you strong.
I think the dream is an allegory for the different ways people react to the current age. The ones who laughed and became zombies and tore everyone apart were the ones who fell into despair, the old engineer got angry but kept on doing the work that mattered. The dream didn't show it, but it was heavily implied that there were many other options besides the two. Presumably some of them would help you build and protect what matters, and others would become mindless forces of destruction.
Over time it becomes obvious that some of the people are changing. The MC keeps getting the message that they can get out if only they figure things out and that they'll be powerful if they can figure it out. The guy who had a girlfriend breaks down and claims he went out and met with his girlfriend. everyone is horrified, and agree to lock him out -- you want to be a weirdo like that, go to her.
Eventually it becomes clear there's a certain laugh that predicts someone becoming a zombie. An insane laugh like you've given up hope. Even old corpses reanimate as zombies once they let out that laugh, and having figured it out the way to protect themselves they finally see out one of the other windows and see the world outside of the little enclosed area outside the entrance -- every building has an emotive face etched into the buildings, representing the emotions that the people in each building have settled on.
The scene changes. An old civil engineer is angrily flipping switches trying to keep his tunnels in check as he walks through and sees the mess people have left behind. You think he's in trouble with everything going on but he seems to be strong and in charge even though he's clearly annoyed. It seems like there's an indication that this guy's controlled righteous annoyance has been channelled into strength, actual physical strength... In this world it seems that it matters how you express your emotions, it can make you weak, or it can make you strong.
I think the dream is an allegory for the different ways people react to the current age. The ones who laughed and became zombies and tore everyone apart were the ones who fell into despair, the old engineer got angry but kept on doing the work that mattered. The dream didn't show it, but it was heavily implied that there were many other options besides the two. Presumably some of them would help you build and protect what matters, and others would become mindless forces of destruction.
Ackshually, one of the defining features of our religion is that it isn't a religion.
ngl, the redditors coming into the threadiverse sort of piss me off.
They come in, act like they invented the fucking thing, and then shit on the people who have been there for years. "Oh, why do those people come into our space?" Uh sweaty, they were there first.
They come in, act like they invented the fucking thing, and then shit on the people who have been there for years. "Oh, why do those people come into our space?" Uh sweaty, they were there first.
I think he was always always always planning on doing this. I recall it being right in some of the documents from the very beginning.
People’s opinions have changed a lot in the last 25 years. In the late 90s we got to see the last gasps of the real power of the religious right, in the early 2000s we got to see the dominance of the neoconservative right, in the late 2000s we got to see a massive shift leftward as a backlash against the religious right and the neoconservative right, then from the more chill hippie left wing we got to see the rise of the authoritarian woke left, and right now we’re starting to see a backlash against that. It isn’t always from different people, it’s often from the same people changing their minds.
For quite some time I’ve thought of it like steering a car. If you steer hard to the left you’re going to hit the ditch, if you steer hard to the right you’re going to hit the ditch. Really what you need is to course correct at times just stay on the road. Sometimes you need to turn the wheel pretty hard in one direction or the other, other times you want to just nudge the wheel, and get other times you don’t really want to move it at all.
Some regions voted hard for Clinton, then voted for bush, then voted for obama, then voted for trump, then voted for Biden. Such a thing might look completely inconsistent, but politics is a dynamic system where circumstances change, certain movements win and then we get to see the consequences of those movements, new movements form, and maybe old movements collapse.
This isn’t a new idea. Hegelian dielectic proposes that in politics, a dominant idea (thesis) eventually leads to its opposite or challenge (antithesis), resulting in a resolution or synthesis of the conflicting ideas. Such an idea predates Marx, so it’s been around for quite some time.
There are quite a number of examples historically of people completely changing their mind on a topic. The father of Canadian universal healthcare, Tommy Douglas, was a powerful advocate of eugenics when he was younger, and as he got older he realized that he made a terrible mistake and changed his mind. Solzhenitsyn apparently early on in his life believed in the Soviet project but once he learned of the gulags had his views fundamentally change. A lot of people like to pretend that national socialism died with Adolf Hitler in that bunker, but a lot of people believed in and supported national socialism in Germany, and those people continue to exist after world war 2, but I think it’s safe to say that for the most part they learned the error of their ways. I’m sure there are lots of people who supported Putin internationally in the 90s who wish they could go back and change that decision now.
To me it’s one of the deepest dangers of the purity spiraling we are seeing from the left right now. The fact of the matter is, as you kick more people out of the left, it becomes a less and less viable movement. As the left acts as if people become irredeemable the moment that their opinions are wrong, it becomes something that will inevitably fail.
I feel like the modern left would take a look at post war germany, and post to japan, and would just immediately start implementing genocide. “Nope, they were Nazis they are irredeemable they need to be pushed into the sea”. The most amazing thing about the end of world war II is the incredible wisdom with which the world powers helped to rehabilitate Germany and Japan into some of the most powerful nations in the world today, but for the most part lacking in the qualities that set them off to war and atrocity way back when.
For quite some time I’ve thought of it like steering a car. If you steer hard to the left you’re going to hit the ditch, if you steer hard to the right you’re going to hit the ditch. Really what you need is to course correct at times just stay on the road. Sometimes you need to turn the wheel pretty hard in one direction or the other, other times you want to just nudge the wheel, and get other times you don’t really want to move it at all.
Some regions voted hard for Clinton, then voted for bush, then voted for obama, then voted for trump, then voted for Biden. Such a thing might look completely inconsistent, but politics is a dynamic system where circumstances change, certain movements win and then we get to see the consequences of those movements, new movements form, and maybe old movements collapse.
This isn’t a new idea. Hegelian dielectic proposes that in politics, a dominant idea (thesis) eventually leads to its opposite or challenge (antithesis), resulting in a resolution or synthesis of the conflicting ideas. Such an idea predates Marx, so it’s been around for quite some time.
There are quite a number of examples historically of people completely changing their mind on a topic. The father of Canadian universal healthcare, Tommy Douglas, was a powerful advocate of eugenics when he was younger, and as he got older he realized that he made a terrible mistake and changed his mind. Solzhenitsyn apparently early on in his life believed in the Soviet project but once he learned of the gulags had his views fundamentally change. A lot of people like to pretend that national socialism died with Adolf Hitler in that bunker, but a lot of people believed in and supported national socialism in Germany, and those people continue to exist after world war 2, but I think it’s safe to say that for the most part they learned the error of their ways. I’m sure there are lots of people who supported Putin internationally in the 90s who wish they could go back and change that decision now.
To me it’s one of the deepest dangers of the purity spiraling we are seeing from the left right now. The fact of the matter is, as you kick more people out of the left, it becomes a less and less viable movement. As the left acts as if people become irredeemable the moment that their opinions are wrong, it becomes something that will inevitably fail.
I feel like the modern left would take a look at post war germany, and post to japan, and would just immediately start implementing genocide. “Nope, they were Nazis they are irredeemable they need to be pushed into the sea”. The most amazing thing about the end of world war II is the incredible wisdom with which the world powers helped to rehabilitate Germany and Japan into some of the most powerful nations in the world today, but for the most part lacking in the qualities that set them off to war and atrocity way back when.
Nobody wants president Kamala. World war 3 would start and she'd be on TV explaining the news like "war is when some mean people try to get their way by sending people with guns called 'soldiers' into an area so they can have that area using those guns"
Given a choice, I'd prefer getting called a name to getting blocked.
The latter is a really cowardly way out. Especially when the last message is announcing that you're blocking me. Fuck off, don't announce that you're a coward and you're fleeing to your safe space where you only see opinions you agree with and you can ignore that people who disagree with you exist.
And on the topic of healthcare, I always say this: America already taxes enough to implement universal healthcare. It spends as much public money on healthcare -- PUBLIC money mind you -- as countries like Canada or the United Kingdom, per capita.
If you're paying for it anyway, you ought to get it.
The latter is a really cowardly way out. Especially when the last message is announcing that you're blocking me. Fuck off, don't announce that you're a coward and you're fleeing to your safe space where you only see opinions you agree with and you can ignore that people who disagree with you exist.
And on the topic of healthcare, I always say this: America already taxes enough to implement universal healthcare. It spends as much public money on healthcare -- PUBLIC money mind you -- as countries like Canada or the United Kingdom, per capita.
If you're paying for it anyway, you ought to get it.