Me personally? I don't have an opinion, but I guess concrete production represents 4-8% of global co2 emissions. Not sure where "little" is coming from. Concrete is ubiquitous. If a more resource-efficient process is available, it might be often applicable.
Lz4 decompresses with very little CPU load - a fraction of Zstd's load. When bottlenecked by CPU time rather than I/O it could make a large difference.
Wooden structure is as durable as metal, it can rot if wet, but metal rusts if wet. Both can be painted, but its expensive and a bit polluting. Wood can be produced in systems vastly more friendly to environments than any current way to produce metal. Perhaps one day dropping it in from foundries in space might compete.
While technically true, since rust is an iron oxide, the meaning behind the "metal rusts if wet" statement was more generic and less scientific. If you are a bit more forgiving in the interpretation of what was said, you could have acknowledge that aluminum does indeed oxidize over time. Aluminum just happens to have a nice property where the oxidation process creates a protective film that helps prevent further oxidation. Aluminum can be exposed to elements that destroy that film and result in accelerated oxidation.
And if you want to see something extra fun, look at what mercury does to aluminum without that protective film.
It is somewhat deceptive framing, because methane can not accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Its levels in the atmosphere will break down relatively quickly if we reduce output, unlike CO2. But the present level of methane in the atmosphere basically captures about 30% as much heat as the present level of CO2. That still leaves CO2 as significantly larger immediate problem and the much larger future problem.
We must do what we can, observing that every little counts - a little, and every lot counts a lot.
Yeah but that CO2 is already part of the ppm that is measured. And water vapor of course, has the ability to cool or heat depending on the position in the atmosphere and amount of particulates for it to condensate on (to form clouds).
That is a humorous distraction. We need to put waste plastic into a billion bins, the billion bins empty into fewer larger bins and landfills are the final bins. The landfill area required for this eventuality is tiny relative to the area of environment which we consume for many other things - even car parks alone consume far more of Earths environment than landfills. Airports too, and Mines, Roads... all themselves dwarfed by agriculture. Properly situated 'big bins' have far less impact on surrounding places than those things.
Criticism is of interest to us when we are serious about achieving success. When really trying to achieve something, ideas of fatal flaws are fascinating. On the other hand during a performance, criticism must be effectively ignored.
Sorry I am commenting in a hurry, but I just have to say... Our way of living - is not a desirable standard. Your mileage may vary, you may be "making it" - but most people aren't. We find reasons to be thankful, but most people are lonely, insecure, unfulfilled and comforting with junk food or media, 'retail therapy' or drugs.
Most adults are 'feeling their age', unfit or overweight, medicating. Surrounded by and even consuming materials untested by natural history, that may be contributing to rises in autoimmune
and cancer. Some goods are in relative abundance, but also overall as many ills.
same thing, they take too long to start working. without active sensors/valves, they are useless for seismic and no one yet has been whiling to take the risk on active system. I'm sure we'll see them eventually, it's just not worth the risk for now.
They vaguely list it as a contribution but they have nothing to back it up.
On the other hand, you have scientists who ran computer simulations and shaking table experiments proving that passive damper do almost nothing during a seismic event.
As I said before, the reason they rarely get mentioned by actual engineers/scientist in this domain who can back up their claims is that we've known for decades that they are literally useless for seismic. We're at the point where you don't even need to quote sources on your peer-reviewed article to say in your intro that they don't work for this use case.
Where there times when people who discovered sharing an interest were more keen to mine into each others insights or differences, than of late? Where people generally keener to increase and test and propagate their outlooks in person. Perhaps just my own foibles or relative age, but in later years it seems more contentious to conversationally dig into and challenge others takes on their subjects of interest. Its a though as individuals we have no call to query an others interest, no more than to pleasantly listen and affirm them. Perhaps with interests now developed more through information technology, where contrasting perspectives are already collected and competitively marked, it has become harder to be intellectually generous and curious in person.
It is no small feat that what is essentially pre-debugged C64 Basic psuedo-code, is yet dynamically illustrated quite nicely by bespoke javascript rather than a pulled-in browser c64 emulation module.
Besides the unusual errors in the displayed code, the lesson seems to flow nicely and I think may be great when "actualised" to actual c64 Basic. I only missed not being able to scroll the screen with arrow or space keys, mobile and mouse wielding readers may not notice that issue.
