How interesting! These great minds you speak of, are they objectively great, or only subjectively? If they are only subjectively great, then why should a lazy appeal to them sway me? And if they are objectively great minds, then how does that not acknowledge my premise?
I'm teasing you, I do acknowledged that there are great minds, past and present, who disagree with me. And I trust you can acknowledge the same, there is no shortage of great minds who believed and argued that objective truth, beauty and merit really do exist. The question I have for you or anybody who disagrees is this: can you acknowledge the existence of media you don't like one bit but nonetheless acknowledge as having merit which transcends your own personal opinions? I can easily, I can't stand Shakespeare's Othello, and I simultaneously acknowledge it as possessing a great deal of objective artistic merit. For me, there is no contradiction here because merit is not a function of personal opinion.
Using flowery language does not automatically make you correct, and even if on the hard facts you are correct, it comes across as condescending and arrogant.
What you're saying, "There are shows on TV worth watching and the art form is still evolving, and one person not liking it doesn't mean that it is bad" would have come across much more cleanly if you had stated it plainly.
> What you're saying, "There are shows on TV worth watching and the art form is still evolving, and one person not liking it doesn't mean that it is bad"
That's not even remotely what I'm saying!
I would instead say that media is only "evolving" insofar as it is being optimized by media corporations for reliable fiscal return. No risks allowed, everything needs to be cookie cutter, no risks, barely any new IPs even, the industry just wants to get committees of nepo hire "writers" to remix shit they can be reasonably confident will find reliable audiences, and that means pandering to viewers instead of challenging them. Every decision gets run through test audiences, opinion polls, and legions of executives and their consultants. Art cannot be created in such an industry environment. All they can make is base slop.
That I acknowledge there are great minds on both sides of the debate means that I wouldn't treat it as a hard fact when talking about it in an online forum, which was the explicit point of my response.
If you can recognize the greatness of somebody you disagree with, then you should also be able to recognize merit in media you don't personally like. And if merit can be thus decoupled from personal opinion, that affirms my point that objective merit really does exist.
You could make the same argument for any language. It still requires you to think and implement the solution yourself, just at a certain level of abstraction.
Not quite: you can use it for games rendering, but with a Wifi adapter you more importantly want to use it for the video signal, and only transfer highres in the area you're looking at. A 4k game (2048*2048*2 screens) is 25gbit uncompressed at 100fps, which would stress even Wifi-7. With foveated rendering you can probably get that down to 8gbit easy.
Valve is applying it to the streamed view from the computer to reduce the bandwidth requirements it's not actually doing foveated rendering in the game itself because not all games support it.
Foveated streaming is just a bandwidth hack and doesn't reduce the graphic requirements on the host computer the same way foveated rendering does.
Are you a climate scientist? Do you have any understanding of how co2 lowers alkalinity in a solution or what impacts that might have on the planet? It seems sort sighted to say “it’s not even close”
Ocean acidification is small fries compared to how much impact thermal effects have. Just about every area of concern when it comes to climate change - heat waves and extreme weather events, agricultural impacts, sea level rise - comes from thermal imbalance alone.
Can you "reduce output" globally, to negative values, within the next 5 years?
Because that's what's required to match the predicted effects of doing stratospheric aerosol injection at scale.
Currently, the temperature is still "chasing down" the sheer amount of CO2 that was emitted over time. Even the completely unrealistic scenario of reducing emissions to zero instantly would cause climate change to continue for a while.
Geoengineering offers a range of sharp, cost-effective interventions that can knock the temperature down more quickly and more directly.
you just restated what you already said in response to the question, "do you know what you're talking about?"
i'm not judging either way, i'm not a climate scientist and i have no opinion on the importance of ocean acidification, i just find it obnoxious when someone's asked to defend their position and they just say it again, but _harder_.
Unfortunately, I do know what I'm talking about. Which is where my sheer hatred for environmental activists is coming from.
The top 3 enemies of doing something about climate change are: fossil fuel megacorp PR and lobbying efforts (no surprise), mainstream media (little to no surprise) and environmental activists (fucking why).
I agree that we need to have a conversation about geo engineering. And I've been staying up to date with the sulphur regulation thing. That being said what do you think of the position that we should avoid temporary solutions to global warming in order to drive a sense of urgency? You could make the argument that we want the slope of temperature change to be as high as possible in the near term to drive political action. Again I have no doubt that geo engineering will become the only viable solution. But right now a significant % of tbe population doesnt even believe in climate change and wouldnt support any action taken. So maybe they need to be convinced - and so far education hasn't convinced them so maybe 5 degrees fahrenheit will.
I do not think that "climate change accelerationism" is a defensible position.
We are fighting climate change not to feel good about ourselves, but to prevent those higher-degree impacts from happening in the first place.
What's worse is that climate change has a considerable momentum. If you resolve to hit +2C before taking climate action, then even stopping all GHG emissions instantly would leave you with another ~+1C that would trickle in over time. In reality, there is no fucking way to obliterate all GHG emissions overnight.
Geoengineering solves a lot, but it doesn't delete all of the problems outright. Unless you commit to some truly unhinged methods. Which might not be the worst idea, really - but then every problem we have with making geoengineering happen apples at least tenfold.
Yeah I was mostly playing Devil's advocate. This sulphur cloud thing has been driving me nuts for over a year so I've entertained the accelerationist concept to save my sanity. It's incredible that it's not talked about more and yes it does call into question the rationality of many climate activists. At the end of the day I don't think the monkey brain evolved to handle this type of decision making.
It may not be option to most people in the US (most self driving use case is built around the US market)
In America driving is a economic necessity, from going to work to even the grocery shop needs cars and dependency increases inversely with affluence [1]
Mass public transit is non existent barring very few regions.
So car (for commute) and flight (for long distance) are the only two viable transit options .
People cannot choose to not work because weather is bad, and remote work / work from home applies to only some jobs.
[1] food and other service deserts are more likely less affluent neighborhoods meaning you will need to drive and for longer for food , pharmacy or any other services if you are low income .
This is a chicken and egg scenario. Before we had cars, people got to work fine. Now we're OK with killing 40,000 people a year and injuring many more so that people can "get to work".
