It seems like it’s easier to just let them decompose than to get rid of the necropheliacs.
I think this is a situation if “of course no one wants necropheliacs, but we’re all ears as to how you drum them out” so the practical hack of just letting the bodies sit for a bit so perverts don’t like them any more is much more effective.
This comes up a ton in software development where people fixate on what users SHOULD do (eg, rtfm, click this button, register this way) instead of what they actually do. I’m old enough now that I can’t afford the luxury of time spent trying to change users psychology and just want to adapt.
Honestly I was afraid of this, but when I walked up to the front desk to quit, I was given a clipboard with a single piece of paper. It was pretty painless.
EXCEPT. There was no way to cancel online, so, may they go to hell. But like, the nice part of hell.
No, that's not how you do it. Cunningham's Law requires a positive assertion:
"Samsung TVs have NEVER spontaneously connected to Wifi. That's just internet BS."
I know there are patents for it. There are patents for a lot of things that never make it to market. I'm not sure whether this has ever happened or people just assume the well-publicized (relatively speaking) patents mean it has actually happened.
I've tended to guess that the legal implications of connecting to random hotspots are complicated enough to prevent it from happening at scale. It's clearly not a technical problem to hook up to hot spots set to be open without passwords, after all.
It also might simply not be worth it with open hotspots not being that common anymore. Tbh, I'd expect TV manufacturers to ship a SIM with the TV before even seriously considering using random hotspots.
Yeah, an unhappy side effect of the bandwidth of 5G is that that may become economical, even for light video ads. I'm not sure they'd want to pay for really heavy video ads, but even that's probably coming into range.
Previous gen could probably afford images, but I'd bet 4G video where the manufacturer is paying for the cell connection probably couldn't swing the price of video.
Curiously, it turns out that elephants eating fauna actually promotes plant and tree growth. I remember reading something (ca 2007?) about the possibility that reintroducing elephants to the American Southwest could lead to reforestation of areas that are currently desert.
Which, of course, doesn’t really provide good justification for de-extinctifying the mammoth (although as I say this, I wonder if they might acually play a role in preserving the permafrost, as per this recent Science Friday story: https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/becoming-earth-how-li... )
Pleistocene Park and albedo. I don't think you've got this exactly right, it's about grassland, not forest. Also forest is supposedly bad for permafrost, raising temperature slightly.
> Pleistocene Park is a truly fascinating and daring experiment in the far Arctic, in Siberia, run by the Zimovs, Sergey and Nikita Zimov, a father and son scientific team, and their families. And they have this theory that large megafauna in the Pleistocene, things like mammoths and mastodons and bison, these large grazing animals, co-evolved with the grasslands that existed at the time. And so the grazers and the grasses maintained and sustained each other.
> These large animals would trample the trees and shrubs that would otherwise compete with grass, and the grass would provide these grazers with this rapidly regenerating vegetation that they could continually graze on. But it went further than that in their estimation, because, together, the grasses and the grazers, according to their theory, were helping to keep the permafrost frozen.
> So, for example, the grazers, just by being so large and by walking through these grasslands, were stripping away these insulating layers of snow, which allowed these frigid temperatures to penetrate deeper and keep that permafrost frozen. And grasses, just by virtue of being lighter, paler in color than trees, reflect more light and heat back to space. So they’re also keeping the land cooler. And so their idea is to bring back large grazing animals to Siberia, to recreate some version of these ancient Pleistocene grasslands, and thereby counteract the thawing of permafrost to some extent.
Agriculture in general significantly reduced the amount of carbon trapped in vegetation. One of the causes of the Little Ice Age is often proposed to be the reduction of human population (and correspondingly, land area under cultivation) and reforestation after the Black Death, Mongol invasions, and the Columbian Exchange.
Woolly mammoths were a geoengineer species that have no living proxy. Bringing them back is definitely a controversial project, but there's a case to be made that de-extincting the woolly mammoth could help prevent permafrost from melting.
Of how many animals would we need genetic material from? are there enough dna available that it would be possible?
if all animals will be clones, genetic diversity will be a problem. hopefully there is enough material available. seeing mammoths die out in real time would be more heartbreaking
Maybe this is what it'll take to seriously combat global warming. Filling zoos with wooly mammoths, and then extorting us into dropping global temperatures to keep them alive.
Unless we're headed for a Day After Tomorrow situation. Then it might be the mammoths keeping us in zoos
I finally started using the app after they screwed up my order a couple times.
I park by the building, order and pay through the app, and then drive-thru.
reply