3 ms·

I'd be surprised if it was, especially given that we evolved in a C02 concentration between 180 and 280 ppm, as opposed to the 410 ppm outside today.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gvd 8y ago
We are ending up being to stupid to solve climate issues
- leadingthenet 8y ago
  too
  - notJim 8y ago
    Oh god, it's already happening.
    - _Nat_ 8y ago
      Plus the comment 4 levels up had "C02" rather than "CO2". <rant> I searched for why people do this 1337-substitution [1], and apparently the justification's that "C02" can be quicker to type on some mobile keyboards since "0" is a single press while "O" requires hitting Shift too. But in chemistry, we'd often write chemical formulae in linear format. For example, "H2O" is water while "C6H12O6" refers to some simple sugars. The basic rule is that digits after any letters are in a subscript position, while digits before any letters are a scalar multiplicand. So, when I see "C02", I immediately parse it to "{C}_{02}" rather than "{C0}_{2}". This reduces to "{C}_{2}", which obviously doesn't make sense, so then I have to figure out what's going on. Obviously it's not too tough to figure out from context that "CO2" was meant, but since I have to infer that from context rather than from direct parsing, it comes off as an obnoxious typo. For example, if someone wrote "C2O", I could figure out what they meant from context too, but it's still annoying to have to be like, "What?". Then I don't even know why it exists. I mean, who talks about CO2 so much more than other chemical species to memorize a 1337-alteration that saves them having to hit a Shift key? It seems like a rather niche micro-optimization that certainly can't be worthwhile to too many typists, even if we ignore the obnoxiousness it imposes on readers. Which, tl;dr, my point's just that "C02" might be a cute 1337 substitution if you don't usually read a lot of chemical formulae, but if you do, it invokes a parsing error that you either have to consciously resolve or else memorize a new slang term to avoid. </rant> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
      - bsmith 8y ago
        Plus, the comment 1 level up had "CO2" rather than "CO₂."
      - Symmetry 8y ago
        It wasn't a deliberate substitution, just a result of typing quickly, having 'O' next to '0', and having them be hard to distinguish with the font I was using.
      - notJim 8y ago
        Lol, you gotta chill out.
    - inflatableDodo 8y ago
      There must be some kind of solution. Quick, to the conference room.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gvd 8y ago

We are ending up being to stupid to solve climate issues

leadingthenet 8y ago
too
- notJim 8y ago
  Oh god, it's already happening.
  - _Nat_ 8y ago
    Plus the comment 4 levels up had "C02" rather than "CO2". <rant> I searched for why people do this 1337-substitution [1], and apparently the justification's that "C02" can be quicker to type on some mobile keyboards since "0" is a single press while "O" requires hitting Shift too. But in chemistry, we'd often write chemical formulae in linear format. For example, "H2O" is water while "C6H12O6" refers to some simple sugars. The basic rule is that digits after any letters are in a subscript position, while digits before any letters are a scalar multiplicand. So, when I see "C02", I immediately parse it to "{C}_{02}" rather than "{C0}_{2}". This reduces to "{C}_{2}", which obviously doesn't make sense, so then I have to figure out what's going on. Obviously it's not too tough to figure out from context that "CO2" was meant, but since I have to infer that from context rather than from direct parsing, it comes off as an obnoxious typo. For example, if someone wrote "C2O", I could figure out what they meant from context too, but it's still annoying to have to be like, "What?". Then I don't even know why it exists. I mean, who talks about CO2 so much more than other chemical species to memorize a 1337-alteration that saves them having to hit a Shift key? It seems like a rather niche micro-optimization that certainly can't be worthwhile to too many typists, even if we ignore the obnoxiousness it imposes on readers. Which, tl;dr, my point's just that "C02" might be a cute 1337 substitution if you don't usually read a lot of chemical formulae, but if you do, it invokes a parsing error that you either have to consciously resolve or else memorize a new slang term to avoid. </rant> [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
    - bsmith 8y ago
      Plus, the comment 1 level up had "CO2" rather than "CO₂."
    - Symmetry 8y ago
      It wasn't a deliberate substitution, just a result of typing quickly, having 'O' next to '0', and having them be hard to distinguish with the font I was using.
    - notJim 8y ago
      Lol, you gotta chill out.
  - inflatableDodo 8y ago
    There must be some kind of solution. Quick, to the conference room.