As the parent says, the goal is to have NET 0 emissions. Certainly some emissions will still occur but they need to be small enough to be offset by CO2 removal. Because it is almost always much easier to prevent emissions rather than remove CO2, preventing 100% emission from cars and their production is likely to be best path to NET 0.
Cutting emissions by 100% and being net zero are two different things. Emitting a bunch of GHG and then buying carbon offsets is radically different from never actually emitting GHG. And the parent never says "net", it says cut emissions 100%. You're reading words that aren't there.
If you wanted to cut emissions 100%, you would stop making cars. You would stop making busses. You would stop building roads. You would stop building trains. You would ground every plane. You would stop every boat. You would no longer have AC, you would no longer have refrigerators.
Fossil fuels aren't 100% of GHG emissions. It's a large percentage, yes, but not 100%. So sure, you've cut 90% or whatever, but not 100%. You're still probably using virgin plastics somewhere, still making concrete, still making asphalt, still making steel, still need refrigerants, etc.
According to the EPA: "Hot water dissolves lead more quickly than cold water and is therefore more likely to contain greater amounts of lead. Never use water from the hot water tap for drinking, cooking, or making baby formula."
The applicability of this advice is probably quite variable.
In addition to this, tank water heater systems include a sacrificial anode rod.
Water heater tanks include different metals in contact with the water, which creates a galvanic cell. Over time this corrodes the least noble metal. The rod is added in the design to corrode before pipes do. The rod is usually magnesium, aluminum or aluminum-zinc. It slowly but steadily leeches out the rod metal into the hot water supply.
Serious question: do we still install lead pipes anywhere? If no, when would be the threshold year where installation started to drop off for various reasons? I have heard that pex plumbing has taken over, but I have no idea if that is only for residential, but commercial use is something else entirely.
Several kinds of semiconductor materials are used for high power or high frequency applications but only at much larger process nodes. For example Gallium Nitride, InP, SiGe.
It's an almost universal practice now for consumer SSDs. Intel's consumer SSD product line was the last one where I was pretty sure they weren't doing this.
Companies want to build product identities that can last for more than a year, but also want to be able to react to changes in the supply chain. Fixed BOM guarantees really aren't viable in this product segment, but you can often get such assurances in the enterprise, industrial or client OEM SSD markets.
Most of the time, swapping in a newer generation of NAND flash memory is a net improvement for a drive's performance and power efficiency, but when the newer generation increases the capacity per die there will almost always be a downside in some corner-case benchmark. Those swaps aren't worth worrying about, unless you're trying to abuse a consumer SSD for the kind of workloads enterprise SSDs are designed for.
Likewise, controller swaps are usually nothing to worry about—aside from some instances where performance downgrades stemming from NAND downgrades have been misattributed to a controller change, the most harmful examples in recent years have been when the amount of DRAM is reduced from the usual 1GB per 1TB ratio down to something more like 256MB per 1TB. The consequences of such a change are easy to demonstrate with synthetic benchmarks, but almost impossible to measure let alone notice for real-world usage patterns. Other times, a controller "downgrade" simply swaps in a cheaper controller that is still more than fast enough for the NAND to be the bottleneck.
It would be nice if we could universally get more detailed spec sheets and a guarantee of a new consumer-visible model number when the major components change, but the consumer SSD market has proven too price-sensitive and the technology and supply chain too dynamic for that to be a competitive business strategy. For the most part, you do get what you pay for, except that a few of the top brands also command an undeserved price premium.
Not really true. ADATA pretty much demonstrated that you could get away with swapping the controller at least 3 times and slowly shaving off performance so that people won't notice until they actually did. And the performance was down by 25%-40% in the third swap. This sets a precedent and sooner or later other manufacturers will follow.
My pet peeve with the whole debacle is that words and promises no longer matter especially when marketing ends up using words like "upto."
Give me a minimum, maximum and specs written in stone and I won't care if you change out components. As it is now, the entire thing has become a game of whack-a-mole, SSD reviews are loosing their relevance and given enough time (+current trajectory) we could easily end up in SSD market which is more like fast fashion than anything else.
> Companies want to build product identities that can last for more than a year, but also want to be able to react to changes in the supply chain.
A fixed product identity for something that materially changes would best be described as a form of fraud, and it is unfortunate that sort of deception is business as usual in too many places.
> A fixed product identity for something that materially changes
For the most part, these changes are not "material" in the sense of having a significant impact on the overall performance of the product or its suitability for the intended use cases.
It's mostly the tech enthusiast audience that cares about these changes. That audience is highly susceptible to fixating on "objective" criteria or benchmarks that aren't actually relevant to any of their real-world usage. If you exclude the differences that only show up in synthetic benchmarks specifically crafted to reveal subtle differences in SSD performance, the scope of this issue and the potential instances of fraud are vastly smaller.
Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space. EEI is set by natural and anthropogenic climate forcings and the climate system's response to those forcings. It is also influenced by internal variations within the climate system. Most of EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atmosphere. We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50±0.47 W m-2 decade-1 (5%-95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures.
In 2011, approximately 26.7 million tons of pollutants were emitted by GLGE (VOC=461,800; CO=5,793,200; NOx=68,500, PM10=20,700; CO2=20,382,400), accounting for 24%−45% of all nonroad gasoline emissions. Gasoline-powered landscape maintenance equipment (GLME; leaf blowers/vacuums, and trimmers, edgers, brush cutters) accounted for 43% of VOCs and around 50% of fine PM. Two-stroke engines were responsible for the vast majority of fine PM from GLME.
There are at this point billions of cameras running continuously or within arms reach. Instead of speculating about silly eye witness reports, lets wait for the physical evidence to materialize. Look how many videos there are of the Chelyabinsk meteor.
If I linked 50 videos and photos (you could easily find some yourself with a search engine), I suspect you would say something like "look how easily you could do this with CGI." Sure, it's true, but using that No True Scotsman line of thinking, literally nothing will change your mind.
So unless you have an answer to this alleged isolated hallucinatory mental illness that lacks any scientific rigor, can you really refute thousands of witnesses or the validity of their other forms of evidence, such as photos and videos?
Do we have any such examples with 50 different angles of the same UFO event?
Whenever an actual event occurs (meteor, explosion, and so on) we have video footage from multiple angles uploaded almost immediately. If UFO activity was a frequent occurrence happening to thousands of people, it would be truly remarkable if it was never captured by multiple cameras somehow.
As for dismissing reports: There are hundreds of millions of people in the US alone. If you go searching for claims, you can find thousands of people who will make similar mistaken or untrue claims about anything. At scale, the amount of misperception and misremembering is massive.
> Whenever an actual event occurs (meteor, explosion, and so on) we have video footage from multiple angles uploaded almost immediately.
There are a few problematic assumptions in this line of thinking: you assume the event is as dramatic as a meteor or explosion, occurs in a highly populated area, and involves no discretion on the part of the object. This is typically not the case, although you could argue that people recalling the same specific details in smaller witness groups, but across many different incidents, could constitute the same idea. Even with this in mind, I can think of a few truly mass sightings.
And you should read these if you are interested in an account where either the Navy fabricated this weird hoax, fake data and got a squadron of pilots to lie about it very convincingly, or the whole event is real. Multiple radar, multiple pilot visuals, multiple angles.
All of which occured before the advent of ubiquitous hand-held cameras, security camera footage, and dash-cams. Can't help but feel had these been captured we'd have found simple explanations for each, and people's memories of them would be less malleable.
Re the naval sightings, the article you've linked to says "experts emphasize that earthly explanations can generally be found for such incidents".
Most interestingly, the captioned video:
"That footage, published previously but with little context, shows an object tilting like a spinning top moving against the wind. A pilot refers to a fleet of objects, but no imagery of a fleet was released."
Lack of digital footage doesn't seem incongruous. If we accept that aliens are capable of travelling vast distances to be able to visit the planet then they're capable of technology significantly advanced from where Humanity currently is. With 'magic' levels of technology, the ability to disrupt a CCD sensor doesn't seem beyond the pale.
(I don't think I actually believe aliens are here and walking amongst us, but I'm not sure I can see a lack of evidence as being evidence of them not being here either).
It would be ironic if the aliens were here all along but were using cloaking devices, and the UFOs people were seeing really were swamp gas, Venus, etc.
What the user above is saying is about smartphones. To give an example, with one of SpaceX's initial launches I had a bunch of friends send me photos (I was working as a rocket scientist at the time). I literally got a dozen photos. The same thing happened with an unannounced Navy missile test. I got tons of messages and Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc was littered with photos. All the links you listed are from the pre-cellphone era. This is fine, but not what the parent was talking about, so the response isn't great. Personally I'm not aware of a UFO phenomena that took place with the criteria the parent listed (multiple angles and recordings). But I have personally seen that criteria for claims of UFOs but in reality be explainable man made phenomena.
As to the Navy stuff Occam's razor would say that these are edge cases where the instruments fail. Having viewed these videos this seems like a reasonable explanation. Sure, it could be aliens, but sensors being wrong is an extremely common occurrence so it is a much simpler answer. Edge cases where sensors fail are also cases where human sensors are likely to fail too (this should be unsurprising if you've studied a bit of computer vision). So
> either the Navy fabricated this weird hoax, fake data and got a squadron of pilots to lie about it very convincingly, or the whole event is real
Is a false dichotomy. Sure, those are two options, but a third option is that people simply don't know what they saw but it was a natural phenomena. Ignoring that case isn't helpful to the discussion and more likely to convince people that you're a crackpot (I don't mean this in an offensive way, just trying to help you set up your argument better. I want you to have the strongest argument you can make because that's how we find answers).
What's interesting about the Nimitz incident is that sensor malfunction seems unlikely given that a number of different sensors placed at different ships and aircraft registered the same thing. Now, that thing was probably not an alien spacecraft, but dismissing it as a "visual artifact", "sensor malfunction" etc. seems dishonest based on what I've read about it. Something was there, and it didn't move like anything man made.
Thanks! Those explanations seem reasonable. Certainly more reasonable than extraterrestrials. I was under the impression that the radar data that concluded insane speeds was aggregated from multiple sources. If that's not the case (as Mick seems to suggest), then I suppose it could be a radar glitch. And since the speeds and maneuvering of the object is the only thing that made it seem not man made to me, that falls too.
My point about "something was there" still stands though. I've heard other debunking comments that simply dismiss it as a video issue, and that is what grinds my gears.
> My point about "something was there" still stands though. I've heard other debunking comments that simply dismiss it as a video issue, and that is what grinds my gears.
Forgive me if I was a bit defensive in the before comment, but I did not make the claim that nothing was there. I made the claim that there were better explanations. It is important that we try to characterize arguments individually and not group as "them". All that leads to is frustration and fighting. I'll say it takes two to tango but we should all work on not stoking the flames. I think this is a big lesson we as a society need to learn from recent events.
I somehow missed the fact that you were the same person I replied to initially. That in itself is almost poetic in regard to the state of society that you allude to.
Also a response to the sibling comment: at a certain point you need to actually look into it yourself/read linked articles before commenting. If you look at the truly mass sightings throughout history (that I know of), most of them have occurred decades or centuries apart. It's the sheer volume of less prominent activity that compels me. I certainly hope we will eventually get one with a hundred different angles with the newest 2025 smartphone cameras. Although keep in mind even the newest iPhones can't take a great photo of a jumbo jet at cruising altitude.
And if, hypothetically, there was an intelligence, and it was intentionally being discreet, it doesn't take a lot of creativity to imagine they might be smart enough to go about their business while doing a decent job of avoiding the situation that would provide incontrovertible proof. While that seems like a cop out, so is claiming the Nimitz incident could be explained by some mysterious natural phenomena, without actually offering an explanation. If you actually put in the effort to consume all the information available on just that specific incident, it leaves little room for alternatives between the two options.
With the time thing, that would suggest that these events are uncommon. In that case it would be reasonable that the gov doesn't know what's going on either and that these visitors aren't here for the long hull. Of course, assuming these are visitors and not natural or man made phenomena. But I'll wait for the cell phone events. You suggest it should happen within my lifetime.
As was posted in another comment I'm going to post this video. And don't dare claim someone hasn't looked up the links and articles just because they don't agree with you. Do it if they demonstrate that they didn't (there's a big difference and the former is going to piss someone off and is against HN's good faith rules).
Posting the Mick West explanation is the go-to response for critics who have done the bare minimum research. And I have to give him credit -- his explanation of parallax as it pertains to Go-Fast is compelling and probably accurate. We don't have a whole verified narrative with multiple angles/witnesses (besides the two pilots) to enrich that incident.
I'm referring to the Nimitz incident. I don't mean to offend you, but I can say confidently there is information you have yet to consume on that incident. Taken alone and with no context, the IR video isn't convincing proof of anything, and West points that out, while ignoring that there is other information. But there is more verified info from the original NYT piece that makes this case special [0]. How do you explain the fact that passive radar from the ship was tracking this object on and off for two weeks before they finally deployed a squadron to investigate it? How do you explain the fascinating pilot testimony (they had multiple angles, by the way) of the white round object flying around erratically, then mirroring their descent, then shooting off into the sky [1]? Or the fact that their primary radars were being jammed (technically an act of war)?
Any of these pieces of information taken alone could be inconclusively explained away, but as you compound them, forcing a "normal" explanation looks more and more like the Catholic church telling Galileo that the cosmos orbit around the Earth.
Just look into crop circles on YouTube. It's plainly obvious to me anyway what is going on here.
But if a person doesn't want to see or believe, it's almost like a magical shield goes over their eyes - they simply won't see it, or won't be able to acknowledge it.
This one is a great example: The video linked here has been thoroughly explained to be very dull, boring things that were misinterpreted by the people filming them.
For instance, the second video, with the supposed fast-moving object over water, is very clearly just a regular bird, plus parallax effects from filming from a moving plane.
>Do we have any such examples with 50 different angles of the same UFO event?
Go join the MUFON Facebook group and look back the past few weeks at the folks discussing this blue thing off the coast of Hawaii. . I had multiple people get into arguments with me on the MUFON group about it's origins. I believe it was random space junk, immediately a man began insisting it was an "ion propulsion" alien ship crashing after it had been shot, kept insisting that only that bluish glow could be create by an ET exotic technology star drive, I quickly pointed out more than a dozen materials that create a blue flame when they burn at which point he kept arguing with me and got quite hostile insisting it's a downed alien craft. I think one even claimed they communicated with the 'crew of the ship'.
Neil Degrasse Tyson makes this point anytime he's asked if he "believes" in UFOs. Virtually the entire population has high quality cameras not only in their pockets, but very often in their hand, even when at home.
> but using that No True Scotsman line of thinking, literally nothing will change your mind
I disagree, many forms of “simple” evidence would sway most people’s opinions and almost everyone would be persuaded by replicated clear detailed videos of crafts, attempted communication, or some alien artifact. Even a half eaten discarded alien candy bar would change the minds of almost any skeptic. Where is such evidence? After all these years, there are still no good pictures of an alien or its spaceship.
People's abilities to disregard evidence selectively is more powerful in my opinion than your comment seems to give credit for.
Look into crop circles, if this topic interests you. I think how deeply you look into it will be a reflection of your beliefs - and more than that, of what you want to believe! (Same for each of us, generally speaking!)
Look into Richard Dolan's youtube presentations.
Now I just clued you into two rabbit holes- how deep will you go? See, your beliefs will determine that. Your desires to believe or not believe will determine how much you look.
I was interested, and wanted to believe, so I read 3000+ pages of Dolan's writings and watched 10+ hours of YouTube documentaries. Now I know practically "everything" (as far as I care to) about these topics. But it's because I wanted to know, I wanted to believe.
And how is the written or verbal testimony of hundreds of thousands of witnesses over time not counted as "evidence"?
Changing the minds of skeptics is impossible. People believe what they want to believe, in my opinion.
>Even a half eaten discarded alien candy bar would change the minds of almost any skeptic.
I don't think you've thought this one through fully. So you have this candy bar - what does it look like? Where will you have it analyzed? When you get the analysis back, who are you going to show? People will still be easily able to discount anything short of a direct landing of alien craft or a cyber-weapon that demonstrably altered reality. I'm not even skeptic and I can discount your candy bar in my mind in half a second - it just looks like a normal candy bar. Or just looks like a shiny candy bar. Or maybe its a prank made up by an elaborate joker. etc. etc. etc.
>After all these years, there are still no good pictures of an alien or its spaceship.
That's true if you ignore the videos that have been recently declassified and released by the US government and the assertions of former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who insists that the government has numerous photos and videos and is hiding them from the public.
Then you have the eyewitness testimony of numerous military officials who were in charge of our nuclear weapons arsenal. Are all of these guys (the ones who our government trusts to maintain and operate out most sensitive and powerful weapons) all lying and/or delusional?
> Look how many videos there are of the Chelyabinsk meteor.
That event was immediately noticeable and happened in an area where the vast majority of vehicles have dash cams due to insurance fraud.
Not a lot of people stare at the sky though looking for flying objects that they cannot identify. Most cameras aren't pointed in a direction to capture much (if any) of the sky either. Also, go outside next time the moon is out, get your phone out and take a photo or video of it... looks like a tiny blob of light doesn't it, far worse than what your naked eye sees.
In December I was curious about MUFON so joined, paid to take the test to become a field investigator as I was curious what people are reporting (largely commercial aircraft I suspect after having worked at an airport for 15 years and seeing aircraft appear to do wonky stuff due to distance/speed/absurdly bright landing lights), and joined the MUFON facebook group.
On the Facebook group, when you sift through the hot chaff of people claiming they've been telepathically communicating with umpteen races of aliens that "their sources" given them "intel" about, you get a lot of photos and videos of what are almost certainly commercial aircraft. In once instance in the past few weeks someone posted a photo of an "alien ship" that was blatantly a Mylar balloon in the shape of a sun with wavy rays of Mylar around the edge of the balloon.
Then factor in things like stars, planets, satellites, toy and commercial drones, Chinese lanterns, balloons, space debris reentering the atmosphere, military aircraft refueling, etc and you quickly realize that probably 99.999999999999999999999999% of Unidentified Flying Objects are man made and natural phenomenon, often extremely boring stuff.
Recently there was some siting off of Hawaii of some blue orb. I had multiple people get into arguments with me on the MUFON group about it's origins. I believe it was random space junk, immediately a man began insisting it was an "ion propulsion" alien ship crashing after it had been shot, kept insisting that only that bluish glow could be create by an ET exotic technology star drive, I quickly pointed out more than a dozen materials that create a blue flame when they burn at which point he kept arguing with me and got quite hostile insisting it's a downed alien craft.
The past 2-3 days that group has had people sharing a recent article about Juno detecting an FM radio signal from one of Jupiter's moons. Almost everyone on those posts is adamant it is an extraterrestrial signal that NASA is trying to cover up. Virtually none of them are willing to even entertain the idea that this is 100% a natural phenomenon that science can fully explain.
Even if all of the cameras we have deployed around the planet were capable of getting high resolution, stable, quality images of the bulk of Unidentified Flying Objects, some people would simply claim a conspiracy when you showed they were very much not little green men in flying saucers.
This is precisely why I use f.lux[0] on every computer. As the blue light is reduced toward evening, the screen becomes much less bright. Works great for eye comfort and is maybe even beneficial for sleep.
