Way too many services in Mexico only work from Mexican IPs, from paying your electricity or internet bills to topping up highway toll accounts and even ordering food from a supermarket
Indeed, "the West stopped imagining better futures". But authoritarian capitalism isn't the only alternative out there. Millions of indigenous people around the world are living in many "alternative" societies, many of them very functional and delivering happiness and prosperity. It may be wise to check them out
This sounds suspiciously like the "noble savage" myth perpetuated by imperialists during the colonial era. Guessing which context you intended your comment to be read in, I can't help but find that a little ironic.
Lawn mowing seems like such a useless thing. I mean domestic lawns themselves, especially in a crisis of biodiversity loss, are such a waste of possibility. I had to stop the video when I saw the mower was going for a patch of clovers, thus reducing plant diversity to a single boring, useless species
Indeed. Sure, lawns do have their place, like for playing sports or for kids to play around. But otherwise, what a waste. Just plant some local flowers or whatever and have a meadow.
As an example, at some point my father stopped bothering to mow his lawn all the time (basically only once per year). It's now a nice meadow with all kinds of grasses. Frogs, butterflies, dragonflies, bees like it.
An additional issue with robotic mowers is that they tend to kill hedgehogs.
That's only an option in areas where the township will allow it.
Big reason to cut the grass is to keep pests away from the house.
That said, I rather consciously arrange deadfall along one steep bank between our house and that of a neighbor so as to encourage/foster lightning bug egg laying/larvae/pupae.
Dwarf clover is a great alternative to a lawn. I used to think lawns were useless, but if you stop and think about it for a moment, you're gonna need some clearing between the woods and your house for a firebreak and safety (snakes). Of course you're gonna want something aesthetically pleasing planted there, so that's usually grass unless you go with an alternative
clowers work only if you never use the lawn, even with mild foot traffic it just dies off and you are left with patch of mud. all the biodiverse no lawn movement only works in pinterest photos and chronically online subredits. my lawn is for recreational activities outdoors, hard to do that in the mud or grass taller than my 7 year old.
a square of tall grass and weeds isn't all that pretty and outright annoying if weeds are of the painful kind.
Like, yeah, there are more interesting things to do with your lawn but they all require more effort than dropping a robot charging station and letting it do its thing.
Also the clover patch is probably gonna regrow, mine do... tho I don't try to ground them to the ground
„biodiversity“ as in „just let the place rot and get covered by weeds until trees and over stuff planted by you collapse due to the massive-and-aggressiveness of pests and pesty weeds.
a lot of folks don't understand permaculture when they first dive into it and end up in a bad situation. cultivating a pleasing ecosystem is both complicated a lot of work to get right, but eventually it can mostly take care of itself. sadly, traditional gardening doesn't really teach you how to maintain plants in concert or how to passively repel pests. it can be pretty rewarding to learn though if you don't mind getting into the science of it.
„biodiversity“ as in a mix of roads, gutters and cars. There was a suggestion of introducing some footpaths to the mix but there was concern it was too much diversity.
Quote from the paper: "the continents are now the leading contributor (44%) to mass-driven GMSL rise". As regards to non-mass-driven rise, another article[0] states, "Ice-mass loss—predominantly from glaciers—has caused twice as much sea-level rise since 1900 as has thermal expansion". I think the findings about sea level rise are as interesting as the ones about fresh water disappearance.
The study you cite is talking about sea level rise since 1900 which is a very different story.
The IPCC section “9.6.1.1 Global Mean Sea Level Change Budget in the Pre-satellite Era” says Since SROCC, a new ocean heat content reconstruction (Section 2.3.3.1; Zanna et al., 2019) has allowed global thermosteric sea level change to be estimated over the 20th century. As a result, the sea level budget for the 20th century can now be assessed for the first time. For the periods 1901–1990 and 1901–2018, the assessed very likely range for the sum of components is found to be consistent with the assessed very likely range of observed GMSL change (medium confidence), in agreement with Frederikse et al. (2020b; Table 9.5). This represents a major step forward in the understanding of observed GMSL change over the 20th century, which is dominated by glacier (52%) and Greenland Ice Sheet mass loss (29%) and the effect of ocean thermal expansion (32%), with a negative contribution from the LWS change (–14%). While the combined mass loss for Greenland and glaciers is consistent with SROCC, updates in the underlying datasets lead to differences in partitioning of the mass loss.”
Edit: by a different story I mean a different story from what is the leading driver of sea level rise. Sea level rise from ice melt was larger since 1900 because sea level rise in general was less fast back then and global mean temperature rise was much smaller so thermosteric sea level rise played less of a role. Thermosteric sea level rise is larger than ground water factors, both will be eclipsed by ice melt in the upcoming century.
I would note the authors pointedly do not call it the leading driver of sea level rise.
- sea level is formally referred to as Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL)
- its change is segmented into two subcategories in literature(?), mass-driven (e.g. ice melting?, freshwater runoff?, freshwater water cycle stuff?) and non-mass-driven (e.g. thermal expansion?)
- freshwater loss from land was found to be at present the lead driver of the mass-driven change as per the paper (over what timeframe?)
- title says it's the primary driver for GMSL change overall, which this alone doesn't support (i.e. the title is a lie)
- @ornel (the person posting) points to another study that claims mass-driven change is the leading change, hence the title [0, this doesn't pass my smell test but i see the logic]
- you point out that that's glossing over that that other study is counting from 1900, but if one shrunk the evaluation window, the non-mass-driven causes would be the drivers now [1, this doesn't pass my smell test either, but i see the logic here as well]
The latter point then begs the question though, what is the time window in this case then, and how stable that result is? What would be an "appropriate" time window to choose, and how would one derive that?
Regarding my non-passing smell tests, imagine the following scenario for some event:
- category A: 51% of the total
- cause A1: 26% of the total
- cause A2: 25% of the total
- category B: 49% of the total
- cause B1: 27% of the total
- cause B2: 22% of the total
In this case, category A will be the lead contributor, but individually none of its contributing causes will be, addressing [0]. The causes will be ordered like so instead: B1 > A1 > A2 > B2. More elaborate variations are possible of course. For [1], you can imagine the same scenario just in reverse.
I appreciate the effort in your comment. I think upon further reflection my simpler objection is calling freshwater loss the main driver of sea level rise when the journal article and news article don’t. Also I would note this is only one study.
Thanks for that! I do wish it wasn't necessary though, but I guess that's just how real life problems go.
> I think upon further reflection my simpler objection is (...)
Right, that's perfectly fine; just got curious and you seemed informed.
Editorializing the titles in general is against the guidelines here anyhow to be fair, I'm expecting it will be updated by the mods eventually: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
My father set up a Ventura Publisher-based publishing shop in the 80s and it was great. I got to use a laser printer for the first time, retouch photos with Corel Paint and play around with GEM, which I remember had an extremely smooth mouse pointer. All in glorious high resolution (720x348) gray scale.
Regular internet on ships is a flat rate for the ship owner (except for Inmarsat, which is hugely expensive and only used if nothing else works) and the big issue is sharing limited bandwidth with all users. Before Starlink this meant blocking all streaming for our ≈35 people crew, unless you used a VPN, which allowed you to bypass blockage and would get you banned if caught. It's a huge cat and mouse game that burned too much of my time. But then, cruise companies are sleazy as fuck and totally deserve this.
Source: I was a radio operator on Greenpeace ships for nearly 20 years
I made a version[0] of this years ago inspired by something similar in MailChimp using a pasted spreadsheet. Mine converts to Markdown and simpler text. I used it to send table data as plain text emails
I really hate the result, they apply something like some gaussian filter followed by deconvolution which makes people's faces very uncanny: super soft skin with super sharp wrinkles
I made a readable passphrase generator[0] (in Spanish) with a UI that lets you configure the sentence structure. It's all generated in the client and code is open[1]. According to my primitive calculations I get up to 9x bits of entropy
