gandalf_der

yeah i remember how shocked i was recently when i told somebody "the farmers don't grow food, the plants grow food". and they responded with "yeah but that's their fate. plants literally exist to be eaten" and i was like "what if you said that about people? some people literally exist to be enslaved?"

point is, we treat nature with no respect about how it feels. this goes for plants but also other animals. it's quite weird if you think about it. anyways, this discussion is getting weird.

good. the sooner they go, the better

you are an economist. eliminating zoning laws and HOAs would make construction of houses cheaper, saving lots of people lots of money, but the construction companies would be less profitable. do you argue in favor of unnecessarily complex building codes sothat the company stays profitable at the expense of the population?

eh, money is supposed to represent resources, and saying that money = hours, is to say that there is no other resource besides human labor. there is land usage, plant growth, mineralic reservoirs, etc.

ah shit i have the perfect meme for this but i can't find it.

it's a boot (microsoft, apple, etc.) and the snake exclaims "at least it isn't the goberment"

how do you know that the books aren't mind-washing by the CIA?

you can stop in many models by letting the hot air out (partially)

yeah but what if it isn't called "hours"?

eh idk, i had difficulty finding exact numbers. apparently the napoleonic wars did have wide consequences but not so much because of the number of people that died in them but because they basically pushed very severely the modernization of all states in europe, which then caused a whole lot of things to happen rather quickly.

yeah that's not what i meant. phylogenetic trees are constructed by considering the genetics of recent (living) species, not from fossils.

there are 3 sources of energy on the surface of earth:

energy from inside earth (geological heat)
energy from the moon (tides can make water go up and down -> generates energy)
energy from the sun (and hypothetically, other stars)

so, the thing is that earth's internal heat generates 0.03% of the energy on the surface of Earth (source) while i couldn't find any numbers for the moon (so i guess it's too low to mention). so basically everything comes from the sun.

and this is true for living beings. living beings can live off the sun's energy (photosynthesis) or they don't, in which case they're utilizing Earth's internal processes (volcanoes, ...) as an energy source.

basically all life was dependent on energy from inside the Earth before photosynthesis was developed, which is severely restricted. this is why this is such a big breakthrough.

ehh, modern biology doesn't construct evolutionary history from fossil records, but from genetic similarities.

i looked up the number of deaths during the napoleonic wars like yesterday

yeah it was outright visible that the documentary was especially well-done because a potential IPO

lots and lots of biological systems are very well made

i'm not a fan of musk at all; however this is in the technology community because it's a good technological breakthrough.

my guess is because it's a vulnerable area (lots of soft tissue directly behind it) and so it makes sense that your body says "ugh, no" when something touches it.

this is a lot like US politics but instead of the mayor, it's the people.