5 ms·

If they are so sure about amounts I expect a date.

nomel 4y ago
This doesn’t make sense. Volume is measurable. Satellites do it. There’s little prediction, it has already been done. Predicting when something will happen, in the future, is much harder. For example, you could measure a hamburger in front of me. Predicting when, and if, I’ll eat it is much harder.
- reportgunner 4y ago
  Not that hard. You will eat it before it gets bad, possibly before it gets cold. If you are having a burger at a restaurant you will eat it before the restaurant closes. I predict you will eat it in about 1 hour. Seeing your post was 19 hours ago I doubt you still have the burger in front of you.
  - nomel 4y ago
    Well, you proved my point. With time, you can get within the usable life of the burger, with a bunch of assumptions, like me not being vegan, or the server accidentally giving me someone else's order. Compare this to a 0.01% error bar for the mass/volume measurement of the burger, with a cheap scale. One is measurable, and known, where the other requires imprecise prediction that doesn't realistically have a bounds. Going back to the original comment, just because they can measure the ice with extreme precision, doesn't mean they can put a date on the when secondary affects will cause them to disappear. Just because you can know the precise mass/volume of the burger, doesn't mean you can put a time on when I'll eat it. Measurement is direct. Prediction is indirect. In both cases, it'll be some fuzzy prediction.
    - reportgunner 4y ago
      You are desperately moving the goalposts, there are vegan burgers and people eat someone else's orders.
      - nomel 4y ago
        I'm not moving the goal post. The fact that all of these details are required, making the prediction of future events difficult, compared to the triviality of directly measuring a physical quantity, is the entire point of this discussion.
antibasilisk 4y ago
BOE by 2030.
Eumenes 4y ago
Ask Al Gore

This doesn’t make sense. Volume is measurable. Satellites do it. There’s little prediction, it has already been done. Predicting when something will happen, in the future, is much harder. For example, you could measure a hamburger in front of me. Predicting when, and if, I’ll eat it is much harder.

reportgunner 4y ago
Not that hard. You will eat it before it gets bad, possibly before it gets cold. If you are having a burger at a restaurant you will eat it before the restaurant closes. I predict you will eat it in about 1 hour. Seeing your post was 19 hours ago I doubt you still have the burger in front of you.
- nomel 4y ago
  Well, you proved my point. With time, you can get within the usable life of the burger, with a bunch of assumptions, like me not being vegan, or the server accidentally giving me someone else's order. Compare this to a 0.01% error bar for the mass/volume measurement of the burger, with a cheap scale. One is measurable, and known, where the other requires imprecise prediction that doesn't realistically have a bounds. Going back to the original comment, just because they can measure the ice with extreme precision, doesn't mean they can put a date on the when secondary affects will cause them to disappear. Just because you can know the precise mass/volume of the burger, doesn't mean you can put a time on when I'll eat it. Measurement is direct. Prediction is indirect. In both cases, it'll be some fuzzy prediction.
  - reportgunner 4y ago
    You are desperately moving the goalposts, there are vegan burgers and people eat someone else's orders.
    - nomel 4y ago
      I'm not moving the goal post. The fact that all of these details are required, making the prediction of future events difficult, compared to the triviality of directly measuring a physical quantity, is the entire point of this discussion.

antibasilisk 4y ago

BOE by 2030.

Eumenes 4y ago

Ask Al Gore