revax

8 ms·

31.
by revax 5y ago
>It is not a conspiracy theory to believe that a relatively untested vaccine can have unknown side effects. Everybody knows that. But the benefits (reduced transmission, protection from severe forms of the disease) still outweigh the ris
32.
by revax 5y ago
Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3322 >Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a
33.
by revax 5y ago
Please publish a scientific paper debunking this. In the mean time, I'm more inclined to believe the article I've linked.
34.
by revax 5y ago
>It's not an existential threat For the human kind, no there is no doubt that we will survive. But don't act like it's nothing. Here's one of many examples https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate
35.
by revax 5y ago
Then I have a easy solution, split China in ten countries. Of course, per capita is not the only criteria to be considered but, those who emit the most per capita and profited the most from fossil fuels should be an example to the world.
36.
by revax 5y ago
>Add renewable energy to the equation and you can build a fantastic system running 24/7 without any waiting for trains. You'll need some storage or natural gas power plant as most renewable energy are intermittent. Also, unless
37.
by revax 5y ago
>Beef also primarily produces methane, so I'm not sure if the co2 impact of beef is the proportional impact in methane or actual co2. Methane has a much shorter term. impact vs co2. It is most certainly accounted for. The correct un
38.
by revax 5y ago
>Why do we insist that we are moving around the sun, and not the other way around if everything is relative? Try to express the trajectories relative to earth of other planets in our solar system and you will quickly understand why we us
39.
by revax 5y ago
I think your numbers are also way off, wikipedia cite 16t CO2 emission per capita (and not household) in the USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
40.
by revax 6y ago
>For example, increasing fuel efficiency of cars does decrease energy use MPG from passenger car didn't decreased since 1976 despite huge advancement in fuel efficiency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CAFE_m
41.
by revax 6y ago
Here is the paper about parachute in your example: https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5343
42.
by revax 6y ago
Mainly the problem is phasing out nuclear power before coal. By doing doing so, we are losing 20 years in a race against climate change.
43.
by revax 6y ago
I like it but in every theory, there is always some edge case where the theory doesn't work. In a sense, every models in natural science are wrong but some are more right than other.
44.
by revax 6y ago
>Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective. Why that? In France nuclear power plants are kept to the newest safety standards. Everything in a nuclear power plant can be replaced apart from the reactor
45.
by revax 6y ago
Can you link to the comment, that sounds interesting!
46.
by revax 6y ago
>That quote always bugged me because it disregards that our economic growth is not really tethered to natural resources. I really think the opposite is true, what makes you think that?
47.
by revax 6y ago
Plenty of things are nonlinear in physics though. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law
48.
by revax 6y ago
It is 10% users, not people in general if I understood correctly.
49.
by revax 6y ago
More like 300% as electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity is around 35% efficient IIRC
50.
by revax 6y ago
0 is divisible by every integer.
51.
by revax 6y ago
IMO even with those goals stated it is not clear what course of actions should be taken. Because they could be all linked together, a crumble economy might kill more people you are trying to save [1]. A right balance needs to be found. [1]
52.
by revax 6y ago
Mainly from the IPCC reports.
53.
by revax 6y ago
Yes you are right but this is not enough to have a meaningful impact.
54.
by revax 6y ago
FYI melting iceberg do not cause sea levels to rise, but glacier do. An ice cube melting in your glass water do not rises the level.
55.
by revax 6y ago
Thank you for your insightful comments, I stand corrected. I didn't think of the local effects.
56.
by revax 6y ago
This is basic thermodynamics stuff. Looks like energy used in datacenter in 2018 was around 200TWh. If you use all this energy to heat only the mediterranean sea, you will have a change of temperature of 0.00006°C. I used this calculator h
57.
by revax 6y ago
Ami is small car, much like a cart, only 20000 are produced per year. It's hard to make a profit with a such low volume. Only 250 parts are used compared to 30 000 for a standard car. Source (in French) https://www.caradisia
58.
by revax 6y ago
>The half paid by the employer is actually taken from your salary. That is not true, if you don't have the transit pass (eg. you only take your car) you are not paid 38€ more than your coworkers.
59.
by revax 6y ago
Also, https://oui.sncf for the main trains operator in France.
60.
by revax 6y ago
The technology you talked about is only available in developed countries. What about the people in parts in Africa who already have problem in terms of food insecurities?

More ›