Marine fuels were the last remaining stronghold of anthropogenic SO2.
The two large scale changes in recent years of atmospheric makeup were the SO2 generation reduduction from marine fuel phase outs and the unuual high altitude water vaper injection from a volcanic eruption.
Atmospheric gas makeup changes are mapped from a number of global sites, and recently mutlispectral orbiting gas sensors have been fine scale mapping sources.
People undergo radiation therapy as a cancer treatment and they feel nausea but it's not a lethal dose. ChatGPT seems to think that:
Recovery from Mild Symptoms
At a dose of 0.5–1 Sv, symptoms such as nausea, fatigue, and possibly mild skin reddening may appear within a few hours to a day after exposure.
Recovery is likely within days to weeks as long as there is no further radiation exposure and the total dose does not exceed the body's capacity to repair cellular damage.
----
But then it's just a machine so obviously one should consult a nuclear physicist before actually implementing this in a multi-millenia nuclear waste containment site
When it comes to old nuclear material, it's more the danger of getting radiactive particles on and in you than it's about pure radiation. You can walk away from a machine but you can't walk away from that fine powder you just inhaled.
For a real life example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident It was finally clocked as harmful 15 days after they got a hold of it, plenty of time for lots of people to get a lethal dose. And these people probably had at least some pop culture knowledge of nuclear radiation, compared to a distant primitive civilization who would have nothing.
I read the text: it's license hermenuetics at best and FUD at worst. Has there been a single instance in recorded history of the author of a public domain work trying to enforce usage, modification, or distribution permissions. Sure, you can point to theoretical variation in the precise semantics of the public domain in various jurisdictions, but it feels like a bar exam puzzle, not a real world practical concern. In the real world, you can safely do whatever you want with public domain software. It counts as free software. That half the planet nowadays uses SQLite and treats it as free software is testament to this reality. Obscure license pedanticism just doesn't inform the choices of anyone actually building.
Open source and Free software have different philosophies, but in practice they are essentially the same. You are thinking about copyleft vs non-copyleft. BSD, MIT, CC0 are all Free Software licenses but not copyleft.
You’re making the common mistake of confusing the copyleft vs. permissive distinction with the free software vs. open source distinction.
GPL is copyleft. MIT, BSD etc. are permissive. But all of those are both free software and open source, which are essentially synonyms.
The reason so many people get confused by this is that some of the people who prefer copyleft licenses (notably the FSF) also tend to prefer the term “free software”, for philosophical reasons.
It might seem really unlikely any acquirer would ever sue, but if your big company has compliance auditors they will need to see something in black and white.
reply