theultdev

Because of politics and nothing else.

That's the only issue with nuclear, politics.

Yucca Mountain.

Elaborate.

China and Russia use them quite effectively.

You dock them right on the shore and it powers an entire remote village / small city.

As another user pointed out, they've also been used by the US military for many decades to power carriers and subs without incident.

that's not at all a relevant response to the discussion.

but to play that game, you also learn about adaptation in high school

How much are we altering it over coming out of the last ice age and the natural effects of volcanos and vents?

That is still unknown and constantly shifting in predictions.

Yes we should minimize our effects on the environment as much as possible, and we are doing a lot better in that goal, but we still need to live.

I wouldn't say living our lives is playing God.

Or the fish will continue to live in the reef skeletons and move on to healthier reef systems.

Added C02 from boats may have an effect. And people may know not to touch it, and you may not, but that doesn't mean other's don't.

The best way not to effect nature is to not interact with it.

Obviously that's not 100% possible nor pleasurable, but for more sensitive systems, it's more necessary.

Electric drones could suffice if you still want people to be able to view it up close.

There's plenty of nature reserves that have tourism limitations for the very reason that high traffic has negative effects.

The best thing for the reefs in Thailand was Covid (ie, the absence of people)

The GBR is not that old, and it experienced a major boom during it's creation, obviously.

We really don't have enough data to rule anything out as we weren't tracking it that long relatively to say for sure. We also don't know all the variables.

This is a valid concern as Thailand barrier reefs made great recovering during the covid period (hinting that tourism could have had major effects)

Thank you for the clarification. Some may interpret "not stable" meaning that it could be detrimental to it's life, not just the textbook velocity definition.

Could you answer the second part of my question:

> "How does explosive growth fit with the predictions that the coral is dying?"

To your statement:

> "We also need to understand the biodiversity, is one coral taking over because it is better adapted and creating a monoculture"

I'd say that we should not assume one way or another. It very may well be, or not. That data is probably out there and I'd be interested to know the answer. If the answer is yes, it's very healthy.

I'd also like to know what species these scientists are breeding. If it's only a select few species, is that healthier than the species that have adapted naturally and are growing fine?

Correct, there's no law of the universe that says change will occur a survivable rate. Species have been going extinct long before humans. We should help those species who environments we damage and we should mitigate or nullify the damage in the first place, but we should not play God.

Your last sentence would have been a fine reply to the GP without any meta level commenting.

And GP's main point was that the data from the experts monitoring the reef did not line up with the climate change predictions of the reef.

He didn't say HE knew the truth, he's saying the truth from scientific reports are not matching the predictions.

If anything, he's pointing out the real "experts" data. The opposite of what you are accusing him of.

> It may be possible that this recent spike in growth indicates that there is a strong recovery, but looking at the data it also seems inarguable the ecosystem has become highly unstable as well over the past 20 years

Could you expand on how the recent explosive growth is unstable and fits with the predictions that the coral is dying?

And GPs post was evidence based, your interpretations were not, they were subjective and a bit handwaving, which is why I would like clarfication on your above view.

Yes I am. That's how it happens and how it should happen.

Coral systems live, spread, and die. That's what they do.

These processes happen over thousands of years.

It would be nice if people responded to you instead of downvoting silently. Thank you for the information.

It's also worth noting the Great Barrier Reef is fairly new (6-8k years old). It came to be from the sea rise of the Last Glacial Maximum 20k years ago.

There are many coral reef systems doing quite well.

The great barrier reef living system is only about 6k-8k years old. Much of that was land not too long ago.

The sea level rose there about 20k years ago (coinciding with the Last Glacial Maximum) and slowed to a near halt 6k years ago allowing coral to grow there.

In no way do we fully understand things like the big bang or life.

How would we when we don't know what caused them.

Good. I bet Mozilla is nervous.

Japan is not in the same era as what you're describing.

There are many modern buildings that are built the same way as other modern cities and designed to last.

They have very modern infrastructure, and while what you're describing does exist, but is by no means the norm nowadays.

It's common knowledge (or used to be) that humor is a healthy coping mechanism for fear and dark/uncomfortable situations.

In other words; comical relief.

Faked their observation and thus their interpretation. To trust one's alleged observations is to trust the interpretations based on them.

OP suggest was to always observe, no matter the person, which is what TFA is doing.

Feel free to expand on what you think is the problem and solution if you feel everyone is off-target.

Yes, if it's frequent it becomes annoying.

If it's infrequent you forget what it's for.

I blare music when I code too, so that takes precedence.

The weather is perfect right now, take advantage!

Also it's perfect most of our "winter", unlike many places where it snows / gets too cold.

No place other than California will have perfect weather all year, but then you live in California...

During the summer my wife and I run inside, or very early in the morning outside.

that's what you wanted to reply with?

How do they try to convince you?

Like when they're taking it from you, or do they contact you later somehow?

If it's when they are taking it, why do they try to convince you instead of forcing you since they are already using force to take it?

If it's the latter, how do they contact you if you don't have a phone?

Got it, "smaller vehicles" would stop and the cybertruck would not, scientific test concluded.

So you don't think there should be vehicles other than "smaller ones" on the road anymore, or just no cybertrucks?

Btw I disagree, generally in a higher up vehicle you actually have a better view down, and the cybertruck is not as a high up as a truck anyway.

But it's less about overall size and it's more about window size and the front of the car. (that's why you see buses and trucks with the flat fronts)

Also you have a human and a computer looking for objects vs just a human (and there are many humans who I don't trust on the road)

I think if your child/stroller gets hit with any car it's going to be a problem

They are all over Austin.

Haven't seen many in Texas other than liberal areas.

That said, they're actually really nice, will be getting one after another gen or two.

But I don't view it as a truck, more of a modern bullet-proof[1] el camino, still keeping an ICE truck for work/play.

[1] https://youtu.be/teRRk-0KHus?si=5_98wHeU5pSIP0R6&t=196

> It can be quite liberating and fun to understand and process these things, much like understanding code and data structures in order to recombine them into things you want to achieve.

This thread actually made me realize it's much easier to express this in code vs words since it deals with state and logic:

https://gist.github.com/TheUltDev/fc8386e42205504c55d1cf2127...

This is the my process of rationalization and resolution. The flow is the same for all scenarios, but I only coded logic for one scenario I described in another comment:

Let's say someone close to you is unusually quiet and short with you. You irrationally think they are mad at you or ignoring you because they are being short. That makes you feel mad because you didn't do anything to them! Upon receiving the feeling you start rationalizing the response and realize that you have no evidence that they are mad at you and there are many times you don't want to talk. You then simply ask them if anything's wrong and they say they have a headache! Whew, it wasn't about you at all, it was just a headache! You then empathize with them and want to help so you ask if you can get them some advil and know not to be loud or talk too much until they start feeling better (acting normally)