Well, there you are again. You said “my questioning of what you claimed”. That isn’t self reflection. If you aren’t asking in bad faith, you need to spend more time on your wording.
Well, there you are again. You said “my questioning of what you claimed”. That isn’t self reflection. If you aren’t asking in bad faith, you need to spend more time on your wording.
The downvotes are because it seemed that you were asking in bad faith. You said “I believe it is true”, but now you say (admit) that you were questioning it.
They say “she was being fed the questions”. What would be the point of being fed the questions while you are on stage?!
I know that what they really mean is that she was being fed the answers. It just shows exactly how little effort they put into these claims.
The attraction of Linux is precisely that it isn’t one of the two ‘standards’. Your working environment doesn’t get determined by some product manager in a far-away office, who has a set of target users in mind, which he’s given fictional names, biographies and mugshots.
Do you think that these might be some of the subpar dwellings that they’re talking about: https://southamericabackpacker.com/exploring-slums-of-medellin-colombia/ ?
No, I’m not serious. Of course they don’t need roofs or windows or multiple storeys. I’m just joking about that stuff.
The ones in Texas are built of a “high performance polymer concrete”, so probably including cement and contributing to climate change. They appear to be single storey as well.
The things they have chosen as demonstrators have holes in the roof! They are not suitable as homes by any reasonable definition. I also think that light and security are necessary for a home. Certainly if you are trying to improve on an existing “subpar dwelling”.
If they wanted to demonstrate how they can 3D print homes in rural Colombia, why didn’t they print something that would be suitable to be a home in rural Colombia? They only had to load a different model into the printer, right?
Well, quite. They don’t appear to have windows or doors either (doorways, yes, but not doors), and they have holes in the roof. Yet the article mentions “homes” about a million times.
It’s almost like somebody who didn’t have any knowledge of construction had the idea of 3D printing buildings. Probably in the shower.
I notice that they fill the walls with natural fibers by hand (see the photo) - so they must pause the printers at regular intervals and get a ladder to get up to the top parts. So even what we see isn’t entirely 3D printed.
No reinforcement? What are the upper floors made of?
Runs debian unstable. Shuts down his machine every year or so.
The email says that you can do it. It doesn’t say that you can do it without purchasing the upsell option.
The author mentions that some of the changes broke things, but it’s a long way into the article before the word “test” appears. It’s only point 6/7 of his recommendations.
Making changes with no test coverage is not refactoring. It’s just rewriting. Start there.
Millions? 7 billion more like.
I would say that the bbq is already on and the ceiling is going black, and then the alarm is installed.
Formula 1 switched to semi-automatic in the 1980s. The technology has only improved over the last 40 years. If fast is what you want, driving a manual is insanity.
Although we do still need to keep an open mind. Most approaches take years to roll out. For example, Solar wasn’t very efficient in its infancy, but there have been massive improvements since then. Nobody was talking about e-bikes replacing many car journeys; they might not have got anywhere if we hadn’t already had big investments in battery and motor technology thanks to e-cars.
I hear what you’re saying, but I think the real problem is the policy makers, who are without doubt choosing to use the least scary predictions, and pushing even those targets back when they fail to achieve them.
Have they?
“In this case, their very specific prediction was that warming of between 1.5°C and 4.5°C would accompany a doubling of atmospheric CO₂” https://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502
Isn’t the problem more that people have been reading that and assuming that it means 3°, not ‘possibly 4.5°’ ?
That said, the study there seems to assume that the effects are roughly linear, ie. that there are no tipping points.
If you have listened to Electric Avenue, you will understand why Eddie Grant may have been particularly outraged by Trump using it.