Absolutely - one of my favorite bug with users was an application we had made in which the loading of a filtered view was so slow, that results would come in one-at-a-time, such that clicking 'select all' would only select those ones. When this was removed, users complained until we added shift-clicking to select groups of items
Leading to a new equilibrium. That equilibrium will not necessarily be one favorable to human life. In the same way that eating an extra 5 donuts a day might lead to a new equilibrium of your weight, but that doesn't necessarily imply one is healthy.
The global greening does show that from the perspective of a healthy, fully greened planet, the CO2 concentrations are actually too low still. Plants favor a CO2 concentration of at least 1000 ppm. That's why in agriculture, extra CO2 is used to stimulate plant growth.
I think this should be noted, since the slogan by alarmists is usually "save the planet".
Average temperatures in the Jurassic were only about +2.5C over current averages.
We're shooting north of the Carboniferous (+3C) and headed towards the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse period, where average temps were +5C to +8C over where they are now.
Probably not survivable for humanity as we know it now.
We're already seeing wet bulb temperatures over the survivable maximum in some parts of the world, imagine stacking another 3-5C on top of that. Large parts of equatorial land would be fatally warm to humanity, and the temperate band for growing crops would shift at least a thousand miles north.
> The experiments that showed this were confusing correlation with causation. High CO2 in rooms is a marker of reduced O2, and a lack of fresh air.
Not to a significant degree. Oxygen is normally around 20.9%, if you raise CO2 levels by 1000 ppm, that goes down to… 20.8%. There's a bigger change to how much O2 you breathe just from the change in air pressure from going up 10 meters.
O2 turning into CO2 becomes lethal at 4%; if O2 concentrations go down in step with that (e.g your breathing causes it) you'll only be drowsy and nauseous from the latter while the former is killing you.
This distinction is also why diving rebreathers work: they remove the CO2, which is toxic much sooner than the mere lack of oxygen.
Also:
Fresh air contains less CO2. In Bohr's day, fresh air meant something like 280 ppm, today that means 440 ppm. If some future atmosphere contains 1000 ppm, that's what "fresh" means in that case.
I'm at least marginally confident you're just misreading the Bohr effect.
Thank you for that paper. It shows that the proposed negative effects of CO2 do not exist.
Let's take the study by Rodeheffer. Even 15,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere did not change the results of a thorough 90-minute test. If this is not indicative of the benignancy of CO2, I don't know what is.
Let's take the another study by Allen that showed "SMS performance was 15%
lower for 945 ppm and 50% lower for 1,400 ppm relative to 550 ppm"
This was not a controlled study, but just an association study in different buildings. All the studies that use a good setup do not report marked lowering of cognitive function.
Then you can look at the paper by Herczeg and the mental performance is not really much different between 600 and 4000 ppm - merely 5% difference in errors found in the test. With only few participants, this is not significant. Since this is a short-term study, adaption to higher CO2 levels needs to be considered.
Thank you for your patience. I looked at the Rodeheffer study which does indeed conclude that CO2 has no effect on cognitive function (among submariners). I have updated my beliefs accordingly.
The nature paper does suggest that it's concerning so I have not ruled out the option of high CO2 exposure negatively affecting humans. I'll have to look into this more at some point.
Your comments have suggested you are, so I'm assuming with low confidence you are biased towards these things being positive, or much less negative than the scientific community thinks.
You are correct that there will be plenty of life on the much warmer, greener planet we are heading towards.
Well, probably. There won't be many humans around to verify.
When people say "Save the planet" they generally mean "save the planet as it currently exists", since taking 100 years to make environmental changes that usually take 3000 will have negative effects that outweigh the increase in plant life from a human perspective.
Ah that's on me, it's a private repo because my code is embarrassing. But behind the scenes here's how it works:
- I wrote my own scraper for HN for reasons I no longer remember
- Scraper is called every 30 seconds by an Apps Script timer on a Google Sheet (to be dirt cheap, Vercel doesn't have free cron jobs).
- Caches the front page, plus ten comments per post into a single Firestore document (to save money on reads vs 20 reads per load)
- Home page loads via SSR with Nuxt.
- Post pages will load the rest of the comments from a separate doc for each post
- the other comments load instantly on navigation if on a halfway decent connection - but if not, you still get to see the first 10 comments to get an idea of the discussion while you wait.
- Added some Workbox stuff to get it offline-first.
- Added an IndexDB wrapper around Firestore for more control over cache behavior I think.
- It's worked now for over a year with no oversight needed and not costing a penny!
Then I got distracted because I wanted to rebuild it from scratch to not use Nuxt and never completed that rewrite. Been a while since I've worked on it, had no idea other people even knew it existed! There's definitely some bugs (I think CSS gets broken on deeply nested comments) but it worked enough for my uses so I moved on.
Author of hn.zip here - thanks so much for the shout out! I never really publicize it and never 100% finished it, but I'm so glad people are using it! It's basically how I browse HN on my phone and once it reached 90% good enough I stopped working on it haha.
Can you do this with every website in the world?? I’m kidding of course but man, it pains me to browse the web as it is today knowing that things could be “this good”.
- The array of numbers is essentially a font, defining the numbers 0..9 and lastly ":"
- We pick which character of this font to render based on a Substring of Date(). Either a number, or ":".
- Date()[16] is where the Time string starts, and chars are rendered 8 blocks wide.
- With the beginning `x / 2 % 4 < 3` we render 2 spaces of dark characters between numbers.
- At the end, render our `font` with the x and y coords
- x is divided by two, so all pixels in this font are two characters wide.
- font glyphs are 3x5, and thus defined as 15 bits.
- for example, the glyph for '0' is:
111
101
101
101
111
- which results in 0b111101101101111 and therefor 31599
- To render these characters, we bit shift (<<) the number by the row & col*width and see what value is in the `1` place.
#5 - Coming together
Now just travel the last few steps back up the chain again, and you can see how these characters are placed in `o` - and if `c` is true (we hit a character) it is rendered yellow. `o` is put between a "<script>" and that resulting string is put in document.innerHTML every 100 milliseconds.
10 cases in several years, and "in all of the cases, the people had some sort of immune-compromising condition, mostly cancer, but also solid organ transplant and HIV. This likely put them at higher risk for infection and severe outcomes."
So yes, use distilled water... but in terms of risk factor, I don't think it's too high.
I don’t get it. Doesn’t this “dangerous” tap water get in our eyes, mouths, nostrils (at least as steam or spray) every single day when we shower? I’m having a hard time getting too worried about this.
The nose has the olfactory epithelium, and the eyes and mouth do not.
The olfactory epithelium allows external substances deeper into the body tissue than other boundaries in order to enable the sense of smell.
You can inhale (or be exposed by a wound in the skin) a single droplet of water containing Acanthamoeba and get sick and die. That would be a rare occurrence, but it does happen.
You can drink 10,000 liters of water full of it and never get sick, it rides down the slip-and-slide of your throat into your stomach where your stomach acid destroys it. It is likely that half of all people in the United States drank some today.
Several types of bacteria are like this, like staph and legionella, you can eat and drink them but the second they get in your nose or lungs (or blood via a cut or scrape): no bueno.
Unless, like the article suggests, you have an immune-compromising condition you have very little to be afraid of.
Just don't go swimming in warm stagnant water no matter how healthy you are.
Thank you for the explanation - I appreciate it. But I still don’t understand - if just a single droplet can do kill, and half of American’s probably drank some, why aren’t we dropping dead from droplets getting into our nose during showers? There is either way, way less of this stuff in our drinking water, or some other protection in the nose. Or … ?
It wasn't clear from the article if there were only 10 cases during this time, or if they only looked at 10 cases, but there were more during this period. Kind of an important detail!
Yeah, I think this was just a sample. There’s no mention of naegleria fowleri[0], which will definitely kill you even if you’re healthy. Wikipedia cites nasal irrigation as the source for about 9% of infections. Still not super high risk, but still a risk that I’ll happily avoid.
I just filed https://chrome-please-fix-your-audio.xyz the other day for chrome bug #327472528 - apparently all audio output is noise-reduced from audio input in Chrome - even when using headphones and when explicitly disabling this feature in the Web Audio API. It basically means you can't make any music app where you sing along with a background track, among other obvious use cases for microphones.
Unrelated to the post, but I tried out your Loopbox app you linked in the bug report. I couldn't quite figure out how to get it working, so I clicked the question mark icon for a tutorial. But the linked YouTube video is of someone's holiday photos! Just fyi
Haha those are my photos! Forgot I had that placeholder in there. I'll remove it until I have a tutorial video in place - that's my last major task left, outside some bug fixes and waiting for Chrome to fix their audio.
As for how the site works - make sure you have a microphone and ideally headphones. Click START and you'll hear a metronome. Click ADD TRACK to record a loop. If you're musically inclined you can combine multiple recordings to make a short looping song, by either adding bars to a loop or layering multiple tracks. Hit CTRL or right-click (long press on mobile) a track to modify how it sounds or delete it.
