Neil Degrasse Tyson on Mars colonization: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5D-0xrhwbR8 https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kOwTtxgcYeg
Why on Earth do shorts have to loop!!!
More Everything Forever
301–310 of 321 posts
Re: More Everything Forever
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We are inventing things to fix it though. We have massive advancements in battery technology and solar cells and nuclear generators that will lead to cleaner energy. Yet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has never been higher nor has the rate of increase.
I'm fairly certain the rate of increase has been higher, whether you mean in percentage or absolute terms. It could be a decade long blip but since we've peaked per capita and various large nations have peaked and we have extensive research on what the causes are and active programs to mitigate those it's probably more reasonable to say that CO2 (and Greenhouse gasses generally) are growing but at a slower rate with…
The only time we have seen a drop in emissions has been during covid or recession.
Re: More Everything Forever
#303If you like optimistic Sci-Fi, I would recommend the Culture Series. It really changed me when I read it in university.
The Culture is a world of AIs that are far better than humans at every task, and keep humans as basically pets out of sentimentality. I agree a lot of "nice" futures with AI will look like that, but the problem is that there are much more "nasty" futures than "nice". I don't see a path from AIs built for profit and national defense to a Culture-like future or any "nice" future at all. Or rather, there could be such a…
> The Culture is a world of AIs that are far better than humans at every task, and keep humans as basically pets out of sentimentality.
The difference is that there's no need to build AIs with "motivation". Computers don't view us as anything right now, even if they're better at working with bits than us. What would change this in your mind?
Naturally, we will anyway because that's a short-cut and we're not very imaginative. But any kind of AI that would want anything will have to be explicitly built by us.
Re: More Everything Forever
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
"not necessarily pretty smart" is a very nice way of putting it. I don't know where the threshold ought to be, but beyond a certain size a pile of money can only indicate bad things about its owner. Either they're too unimaginative to turn that potential into action, or their designs are so against the will of the people that it's going to take gargantuan amounts of coercion to get them done. Either way, a billionair…
> Either way, a billionaire is an individual of dubious merit. This sounds like the "poverty is a moral failing" argument in reverse. See eg https://unherd.com/2017/08/remembering-time-poverty-often-bl...
I think there's a pretty significant difference between criticizing somebody's lack of resources and criticizing somebody's allocation of resources. Both might be the result of choices they made, but the connection for the latter is much more obvious.
Re: More Everything Forever
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explains a lot, there's no such thing as substance without controversy.
Basically false, I think? From the first couple of pages of the top-of-all-time HN posts: * War stories (e.g. "How I cut GTA Online loading times by 70%" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26296339 ) * Anything by ciechanow.ski (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443229 ) * Strange bits of personal whimsy (e.g. "I sell onions on the Internet" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19728132 ) * Neat toys (e.g…
popularity != substance
Re: More Everything Forever
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how solving poverty on earth can't be more important than the endeavor of trying with the current rather limited tech to inhabit an as good as inhabitable planet.
Space exploration is merely a _technological_ problem. Solving poverty is a _political_ problem, one that is resistant to just throwing money at the problem.
Both problems are technological as well as financial problems, with politics involved in choice of precedence.
Re: More Everything Forever
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically false, I think? From the first couple of pages of the top-of-all-time HN posts: * War stories (e.g. "How I cut GTA Online loading times by 70%" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26296339 ) * Anything by ciechanow.ski (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42443229 ) * Strange bits of personal whimsy (e.g. "I sell onions on the Internet" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19728132 ) * Neat toys (e.g…
popularity != substance
You might have noticed that I didn't quote upvote figures, and that I omitted a bunch of possible options. I sorted by popularity and then selected ones with substance. (I presume you're not asserting that they have no substance by virtue of the fact that they were popular.)
Re: More Everything Forever
#308can we invent our way to eliminating billionaires? because that's the common denominator in every problem they claim to be the savior of
We already invented that. It was called the 20th century. Tried wealth caps, nationalizations, revolutions - you name it. Usually ended with gulags, breadlines, or both. Billionaires are a symptom, not the disease. You don’t cure a fever by smashing thermometers. If we want fewer billionaires, we need systems that don’t reward monopoly power ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[flagged]
Re: More Everything Forever
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't require a leap forward, we could put boots on the ground with 1990s tech.
aye we could have. and they'd all be long dead on the surface of Mars by this point. getting them there isn't enough.
Keeping them alive and returning them doesn't require "a leap" which is the central point of OP I am disagreeing with. We have all the technology, material science etc to do it.
Sure, it requires some research, engineering and a crapload of investment, but it doesn't require anything that is currently "science fiction".
Re: More Everything Forever
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
And Zeroly, there's absolutely 0 reason for people to go to Mars, AT ALL. This whole idea is the stupidest thing I've heard people seriously discuss. What would be the point? If you want to experience "life on Mars", bury a cargo container in your back yard, and live in it for a year. If there's some burning need to go live underground, as you would on Mars, why not just do it in Nevada? The grocery store is a lot cl…
Humans are better at exploring and doing science than rovers, they could get things done a lot quicker and better. They can repair things and are very adaptable. A mission to spend 6 months on the surface would be great. Perhaps not worth the risk and expense though.
When it comes to doing science where there is no food, water, or air, robots are actually much better at it.