|
 Someone mentioned how D&D used to have a lot of posts that were science or technology news and how that never happens anymore. So here is a thread for people to post world news that fit in the topic of science or technology.  1. For this thread to fit in D&D it should probably focus on technology news that could potentially have an impact on society or science that increases our understanding of something. So more posts about NASA missions or artificial kidneys going into production, less about new graphics cards. 2. Don't accuse anyone of being a fake gamer girl. Nerds love to gatekeep being interested in things. It's lame when they do it about batman and it's lame when they do it about quasars. If someone says they like quasars and you think they aren't authentic as you or authentic enough in liking quasars because they are just a filthy casual help them out to learn more, don't go on a crusade to teach them not to like quasars anymore. (This time 10x if you literally do it to women) 3. most technology disproportionately benefits advantaged people and does not immediately benefit disadvantaged people. This is true. But it's not necessary to post that 'pictures of sad children" comic too many times per page to remind people that.  1. Self driving cars are one of the biggest and most society changing technologies right now. So I don't want to say no one should ever post anything about them, but for whatever reason the emotional opinions have about cars is massive and self driving car threads are almost always uniquely terrible. So keep it to a healthy level please? If possible? 2. Automation and the future of work. There is a current thread on this here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3800017 3. Is science over or slowing down or speeding up? Who knows. A bunch of threads like this end up in the same discussion of if there used to be more new science or not. The discussion on if the iphone is more or less important than antibiotics is nonsense and never has ever gone anywhere the 50 other times it comes up in other threads.  I was going to start this thread by posting a link to some current news story from today but while looking I instead found a video of the smallest motor on earth being used to spin the gently caress out of a mite. So I'll post that here instead. 
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
This might be a bad start to my own thread after talking about how bad car technology threads are but man this is only a thing that could happen in 2017: https://electrek.co/2017/09/09/tesla-extends-range-vehicles-for-free-in-florida-escape-hurricane-irma/ Tesla remotely extends range of vehicles for free in Florida to help owners escape Hurricane Irma Millions of people are currently affected by the evacuation of Florida as Hurricane Irma starts reaching the state and creates some difficult traffic situation when escaping north. There are reports of traffic jams and gas stations running out gas. There are a lot Tesla owners in Florida and they are also escaping north using the Supercharger network. Now Tesla has even facilitated travels for some of them as the automaker remotely unlocked the full battery pack capacity of Model S/X 60/60D vehicles with 75 kWh battery packs. That’s due to Tesla using an unforeseen feature of their over-the-air software update system. Tesla used to offer the option to buy a Model S or Model X with a 75 kWh battery pack software-locked at a capacity of 60 kWh. The option would result in a less expensive vehicle with a shorter range, but the option to pay to remotely enable the longer range at a later stage. Some of those owners reported this morning having more range than usual in their vehicles. A Tesla Model S 60 owner in Florida reached out to us with almost 40 more miles than in his usual full charge and a new ’75’ badge in his car software. While he didn’t ask for it nor knew why it changed, Tesla had temporarily unlocked the remaining 15 kWh of the car’s software-limited battery pack option to facilitate the owner’s evacuation. We reached to Tesla and a representative confirmed that the company has put in place the emergency measure to temporarily extend the range of the vehicles of Tesla owners in the path of Hurricane Irma. The company says that a Tesla owner in a mandatory evacuation zone required another ~30 more miles of range to optimize his evacuation route in the traffic and they reached out to Tesla who agreed to a temporary access to the full 75 kWh of energy in the battery pack, an upgrade that has cost between $4,500 and $9,000 depending on the model and time of upgrade. Considering the 15 kWh (30 to 40 additional miles) could also be useful to other owners affected by Irma, Tesla decided to also temporarily unlock other vehicles with the same software-lock battery packs in the region. Tesla’s Supercharger network is fairly extensive in Florida and most owners should be able to get by even with a Model S 60 (the shortest range option), but sometimes that 30 more miles of range can make a big difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
I think you missed threads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 801–823. The aim of this paper is to analyse teledildonics from a phenomenological perspective in order to show the possible effects they will have on ourselves and on our society. The new way of using digital technologies is to merge digital activities with our everyday praxes, and there are already devices which enable subjects to be digitally connected in every moment of their lives. Even the most intimate ones are becoming mediated by devices such as teledildonics which digitally provide a tactual stimulation allowing users to have sexual intercourse through them. The efforts made in order to provide such an intertwinement of our everyday lives and digital technologies are evident, but the effects produced by them are not clear at all. This paper will analyse these technologies from a phenomenological perspective in order to understand their effects on the constitution of the subjects and on our society at the intimate level. Discuss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
a cute sea otter posted:Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 801–823. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arse_Elektronika
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
I don't know how seriously to take all this. How big is their impact factor? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
a cute sea otter posted:Science and Engineering Ethics, June 2017, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 801–823. quote:The subjects, instead of seeing the world in a sharper way through the clear lenses of the glasses, will see the world around in a kinkier way through the “dirty lenses” of the teledildonics. Please don't doXXX (heh) me by posting the lovely course essay I wrote tired and drunk at 3AM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:00
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
The future of sex technology always seems weird, for how much people like sex and masturbating sex toys have generally stayed pretty simple for most people. Like most men don't own anything and most women own fairly simple dildos or vibrators. Not like, giant full body mechanisms. Most women don't buy sybians and it doesn't feel clear to me that even if a sex robot or big internet sex rig got really good that it'd ever be more than a niche product. On the other hand, it feels really obvious that any sort of robot ever got any degree of real dexterity that humans in private would all independently try to get it to play with their dick. Like I don't know if anyone has put this on their penis or not but since it works by replaying recorded hand motions (which makes it not enough to really be a kitchen robot yet outside of canned videos) I absolutely guarantee that making a jerking off hand motion was something did in literally the first few minutes of it being built. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyp_ubQArHk
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
You should be pround of your work! It's gone though a stringent peer-review process and has already been cited in further research! I applaud your insights into using interconnected sex robots to numb the soul-crushing reality of our digital existences.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The future of sex technology always seems weird, for how much people like sex and masturbating sex toys have generally stayed pretty simple for most people. Like most men don't own anything and most women own fairly simple dildos or vibrators. These guys seem to be doing pretty well for themselves. The naive side of me wants this to be a way for long distancers to help each other out. The cynical side knows this is going to be the next camgirl service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
I guess it still seems like people don't buy like, elaborate tools for sex. Vibrators and fleshlights and stuff exist but all tend to fall into the like sub 100 dollar range and are all simple things that people throw in drawers, like sex dolls exist and people buy them but they aren't mainstream, women don't buy big complex rigs with their dildos or anything. I imagine a market will exist for computer controlled sex toys and companies will exist that support themselves but it does seem like they won't really take off in society. Although I do feel sure that some device designed to do something else will eventually come to the point that everyone accepts that everyone has sex with them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
People who are resigned to telesex probably don't need it to be 'elaborate' though. Software connected sex toys that can be controlled remotely (and connected to a VR headset) are already a thing (I mean, REZ was basically that in '06), but I haven't seen remote sextoy-controlled-sextoy as a commercial product yet. Wouldn't be surprised if it does exist. I would expect a system like that to be no more niche ITF than fleshlights are today. The internet cafe of tomorrow 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
a cute sea otter posted:People who are resigned to telesex probably don't need it to be 'elaborate' though. Software connected sex toys that can be controlled remotely (and connected to a VR headset) are already a thing (I mean, REZ was basically that in '06), but I haven't seen remote sextoy-controlled-sextoy as a commercial product yet. Wouldn't be surprised if it does exist. I would expect a system like that to be no more niche ITF than fleshlights are today. The internet cafe of tomorrow I guess in my mind unless there was some extreme range of motions there wouldn't be very much of interest transmitted, Like it'd be easy to stick a dildo on a linear actuator and raspberry pi so it can move in and out but you wouldn't get a ton of practical difference on if you had a guy on the internet moving it or just having it move on a sine wave with some randomized noise or something. Like you'd need something pretty complicated to get to the point different people operating it would be a different experience and make it feel like it was actually meaningful that it was over the internet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Can we talk about space and space colonization here? Because wackily enough, the Space & Spaceflight thread in SAL doesn't seem to be the place to do it. You'll get laughed out of it if you as much as mention anything beyond what NASA is doing with probes right now (cool enough on its own!) and the livestreaming the latest rocket launches.   But basically this: we should be getting into space. I think the long-term survival of the species -- probably even multicellular life as we know it -- depends on our ability to get our poo poo together and colonize space. I think the way we're going to do it most efficiently is with O' Neill Cylinders, and we can get into a whole discussion about how practical/impractical this is versus say terraforming Mars. The short of it is that there's so much material in space, and it costs so much less energy than lifting things up and down a gravity well, and you can create so much more living space on the inside of a bunch of giant rotating cylinder, that it's more cost effective in the long term to concentrate on space colonies. Anyway, there's a myriad of factors that are associated with space colonization, not the least of which is the equity factor. The way we are approaching space travel and colonization right now is not, in my opinion, a sustainable or equitable way of doing it. We shouldn't be putting our hopes for the species on the shoulders of Elon Musk and a few other sci-fi loving billionaires. This is just going to lead to an Elysium scenario where a 1-way ticket to Mars or the L5 colony is something sold to the world's elite 0.1% while the planet burns. That can't be the way forward, the way forward should be equitable and should make space accessible and free for all. I really just want to start people discussing various issues related to space travel and space colonization! Also exploration of the solar system (suuuuuuuper excited about that Europa crust-boring probe that they want to send maybe someday), and more general "cosmological" things like the Fermi Paradox are fun to talk about as well!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Can we talk about space and space colonization here? Yes, I hope that is a major topic if this thread actually manages to survive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
I think teledildonics is a more important subject than space colonisation. Also equity is the least of the issues associated with it, unless it somehow becomes cost effective in the future to launch poor people into space to make room on earth. Sure earth has the disadvantage of gravity, but comparing earth to space is like comparing your ancient family home which is a fully supplied climate-controlled fortress containing the largest most lavish garden in existence, with a fart propelled rubber dinghy in the arctic ocean. The technology needed to make a space colony attractive to sane people is mind boggling. There are two advantages to space colonisation. One is the "don't put all your eggs in one basket"-argument, which would work if humanity was a hive mind and not made up of individuals who would all just pick the safest basket. The other is escaping the "gravity prison", which while inconvenient, is also guaranteed to always keep our entire world together. The world consisting of things like the fuel we bathe in and the propellant we walk on, swim in and fly through. Yeah, I believe that someday we can build O'Neill cylinders with armies of construction robots equipped with advanced ion thrusters fuelled by vast arrays of solar panels or fusion power. But that is probably also the day I can order my Roomba to recreate the hanging gardens of Babylon in the middle of the Sahara.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
It seems like we're pretty far from colonizing Mars if we can barely colonize coastal deserts and can't colonize interior deserts worth a drat if there aren't fossil aquifers. Like, summertime Admunsen-Scott base is a thousand times more livably and human-friendly than the moon, but I don't think they can do anything remotely on their own. Not that it's not worth thinking about space colonies, but we should be able to turn the Sahara green well before we consider the moon a reasonable "don't put all your eggs in one basket" kind of backup. I mean even if we used all the planet's GDP to establish a moon or Mars colony, all it would provide is a few months at best of the people in that colony saying "well poo poo, Earth died, we're so hosed" before they died too. On a related note to not derail the thread, does anyone know if Masdar City ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City ) is a real, practical thing, or if it's a scam to con rich Emiratis out of their money? Is there anything similar going on that will actually make seaside deserts reasonably livable and self-sustaining? Coastal deserts need energy to be sustainable, so the obvious candidates are solar and wind since hydro is obviously out*. Tidal energy seems like it might be a thing that exists in the next decade or two, which might be feasible in some regions, particularly those with bays if I've understood it correctly. * I've seen people mention the Red Sea–Dead Sea canal or the Qattara Depression which would power hydro plants due to the natural elevation difference and use that power to desalinate the water. This seems like it should be a good idea — you just have to balance out the water inflow with the water usage so the depression doesn't fill up, which should be manageable? I guess it is not or someone would have done it. On the other hand, this is applicable in only a handful of places in the entire world, so maybe the investment on figuring out how it would work is not worth it since it would not be extensible to other regions. The summary of problems with the Qattara Depression don't quite make sense to me—i.e. difficulty of construction (how is that exponentially harder than making the Panama Canal?) and the risk of tectonic activity (seems like there are a lot of major dams in tectonically-active regions without any problems). Saladman fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Sep 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Saladman posted:It seems like we're pretty far from colonizing Mars if we can barely colonize coastal deserts and can't colonize interior deserts worth a drat if there aren't fossil aquifers. Like, summertime Admunsen-Scott base is a thousand times more livably and human-friendly than the moon, but I don't think they can do anything remotely on their own. Why would they though? Like no one ever set out with the goal of making antarctic bases self sufficient and it'd basically just cost a lot of money with no clear end goal. Like they don't need to be self sufficient for any particular reason and no one told them they should be so they aren't. They could probably stop what they are doing then spend millions of dollars to mine iron and build hammers to be used on site but like, we already got hammers, we can just send them some if they need hammers. (to some degree this is true of space as well, clearly it's not as easy to ship things cheaply to mars, but they wouldn't be totally separate from us, they don't need to start on a blank minecraft map with an empty inventory, we will be able to send them things within limits)
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
I find myself drawn to the horrible dystopian technologies more than the world saving ones. This seems promising: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11oGZ1Ke3wK9E3BtOFfGfUQuuaSMR8AO2WfWH3aVke6U Is it bullshit? If not, what are the potential implications of this? What other personality traits could be revealed by mere photographs? Can my computer tell me if my favorite Youtube superstar is a pedophile? But seriously, I honestly wonder about what large amounts of circumstantial data or straight up brain scans could reveal about a person in the future. What if you could detect if someone is more likely to commit a crime? Are we gonna let governments scan our brains to find the next Anders Breivik? Is that also going to reveal if you are prone to minor but embarrassing things like littering, shoplifting, infidelity, weird fetishes etc?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Why would they though? Like no one ever set out with the goal of making antarctic bases self sufficient and it'd basically just cost a lot of money with no clear end goal. Like they don't need to be self sufficient for any particular reason and no one told them they should be so they aren't. They could probably stop what they are doing then spend millions of dollars to mine iron and build hammers to be used on site but like, we already got hammers, we can just send them some if they need hammers. Oops, I definitely wrote "(not that they're trying)" in parentheses for Admunsen-Scott's priorities, but apparently I cut it out when editing. I agree, I meant sustainability more in terms of responding to 'all eggs in one basket' thing, which seems to be one of the top priorities for Internet proponents of space colonization. If Earth is teleported to the sun by an alien death ray, then having some human eggs on Mars isn't going to do a fat lot of good unless they're 10000% sustainable indefinitely. I don't see us getting anywhere close to there until Admunsen-Scott and the Gobi desert are thriving, renewable energy, agricultural paradises, or at least until they have the technological feasibility to be so if someone wanted to invest the money. But to the thread's topic, how's terraforming going on earth? Every project I've ever heard of about turning the desert green, like the Great Man-Made River in Libya or whatever, rely on killing off desert fossil aquifers, but this isn't something I follow closely.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Mercrom posted:
It feels really unclear if this is picking up some biotruth or if it's doing "Once upon a time, the US Army wanted to use neural networks to automatically detect camouflaged enemy tanks. The researchers trained a neural net on 50 photos of camouflaged tanks in trees, and 50 photos of trees without tanks. Using standard techniques for supervised learning, the researchers trained the neural network to a weighting that correctly loaded the training set - output "yes" for the 50 photos of camouflaged tanks, and output "no" for the 50 photos of forest. This did not ensure, or even imply, that new examples would be classified correctly. The neural network might have "learned" 100 special cases that would not generalize to any new problem. Wisely, the researchers had originally taken 200 photos, 100 photos of tanks and 100 photos of trees. They had used only 50 of each for the training set. The researchers ran the neural network on the remaining 100 photos, and without further training the neural network classified all remaining photos correctly. Success confirmed! The researchers handed the finished work to the Pentagon, which soon handed it back, complaining that in their own tests the neural network did no better than chance at discriminating photos. It turned out that in the researchers' data set, photos of camouflaged tanks had been taken on cloudy days, while photos of plain forest had been taken on sunny days. The neural network had learned to distinguish cloudy days from sunny days, instead of distinguishing camouflaged tanks from empty forest." to some common difference in 9 out of 10 gay men and 8 out of 10 gay women's photo choices for a dating site. Like, profile pictures on things are really really rote and follow very strict unspoken rules. It seems really weird that 2017 would be the first time humans noticed some really reliable context free biological face thing that is so easy to measure out of random photos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Saladman posted:Oops, I definitely wrote "(not that they're trying)" in parentheses for Admunsen-Scott's priorities, but apparently I cut it out when editing. I imagine an unsustainable mars base is step one to getting a sustainable one. For earth based places there is just no reason, who would bother? We don't make desert towns self sustaining because there is no specific benefit to doing so. We can carry things in from other places. But having some town that gets deliveries of playstation 4s because they don't build their own is closer to self sufficient than having no town in a desert at all .
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Saladman posted:It seems like we're pretty far from colonizing Mars if we can barely colonize coastal deserts and can't colonize interior deserts worth a drat if there aren't fossil aquifers. Like, summertime Admunsen-Scott base is a thousand times more livably and human-friendly than the moon, but I don't think they can do anything remotely on their own. Not that it's not worth thinking about space colonies, but we should be able to turn the Sahara green well before we consider the moon a reasonable "don't put all your eggs in one basket" kind of backup. I mean even if we used all the planet's GDP to establish a moon or Mars colony, all it would provide is a few months at best of the people in that colony saying "well poo poo, Earth died, we're so hosed" before they died too. It's a fair point to make - "Moon/Mars colonies are not really 'lifeboats' if they're still ultimately dependent on Earth supplies" - but I just wanted to address the point about the costs of establishing a lunar base or orbital habitat at the Lagrange points. There have been a few studies where they ran some estimates on how much it might cost based on realistic launch costs. Bear in mind that the figures of $2k-$14k per kg come from a time before SpaceX started working on its reusable rocket. At any rate, it's much less than the planet's GDP. Here's one: http://space.alglobus.net/75SummerStudy/Chapt6.html And another basic intro from NASA: https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Basics/wwwwh.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
I checked these books out from the library, which were recommended to me as possibly the best histories of technology ever written https://www.amazon.com/Creating-Twentieth-Century-Innovations-Revolutions/dp/0195168747 https://www.amazon.com/Transforming-Twentieth-Century-Innovations-Consequences/dp/0195168755
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
When people talk about space colonization being a backup to all the eggs being in one basket they don't mean "literally the first temporary colony to ever exist will instantly be that".
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
On the topic of space exploration, as a total newb to this, I do wonder what the "best" body would be to colonize first. Easy answer is the moon, because of its proximity to earth and possible abundance of rare resources like helium-3, and it's easy to harken back to the glory days of the space race. Beyond that though, what would make the better candidate for colonization? From my brief wiki-diving of the outer-solar objects, the main candidates seem to be Mars, Europa & Titan. Ignoring for a second the fact that the further out, the more energy needed to get there and back, which of these is better situated for colonization?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
double nine posted:On the topic of space exploration, as a total newb to this, I do wonder what the "best" body would be to colonize first. Easy answer is the moon, because of its proximity to earth and possible abundance of rare resources like helium-3, and it's easy to harken back to the glory days of the space race. The moon is a vacuum with 250F degree temperatures in the day and -250F degree temperatures at night and doesn't really have much accessible except toxic electrically charged sand. Mars isn't paradise but it's got water (ice), oxygen (in water) and is covered with big exposed patches of iron ore and sometimes is up to 70 degrees out. Although you'd need a pressure suit. Realistically for the next 50+ years though any base would be basically a space station someone stuck on a planet and what the environment was outside would just be a curiosity and a place to study, not a real source of meaningful resources to the base.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Space colonization. . . is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Realistically for the next 50+ years though any base would be basically a space station someone stuck on a planet and what the environment was outside would just be a curiosity and a place to study, not a real source of meaningful resources to the base. That's why I think building a Mars base first is putting the cart before the horse. Initially what you can do on Mars is basically study the geology and climate which is great but there's a limit to how much it makes sense to invest in that. There's useful things to do nearer Earth though. We'll probably need to figure out some way to clean up orbit - it's not a critical problem or anything but at some point we should probably have a system for that. A fleet of tugs to boost and refuel satellites might be useful too. Research station on the Moon, figure out if there's water in the polar craters, if so mine it and build refueling infrastructure. It's then cheaper to send stuff to Mars and wherever else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Let's colonize Antarctica first. We can even stop global warming by painting the continent white.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Let's colonize Antarctica first. We can even stop global warming by painting the continent white. I know you are just trying to shitpost because you are mad about space or whatever but the reason people don't colonize antarctica is because there is international treaty law saying not to, not because it's impossible or that no one would try. About 4000 people live there and it keeps increasing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
I'm not shitposting; the challenges of colonizing Antarctica are instructive because it's orders of magnitude easier than colonizing anywhere off world. I'm saying space colonization is a bad goal. The economic exploitation of space will be set back decades if it focuses on colonization. Space colonization is about as useful as any other prestige project i.e. not very.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm not shitposting; the challenges of colonizing Antarctica are instructive because it's orders of magnitude easier than colonizing anywhere off world. I'm saying space colonization is a bad goal. The economic exploitation of space will be set back decades if it focuses on colonization. Space colonization is about as useful as any other prestige project i.e. not very. Yeah but the challenge of colonizing antarctica isn't that it's technologically hard, it's that humans from 53 countries declared strict limitations on what can be done in antarctica. People don't want it. Antarctica basically has a little bit of a lot of different resources and people decided none of it was worth ripping the whole place up over or fighting bloody wars to try and see who can claim some but not very much oil or whatever that is buried there. If it was some giant source of anything people would care and if there was nothing no one would want it but when it turned out to be "meh" everyone decided everyone backing off was the answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
First let's see how the war over the soon-to-be-melted arctic goes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Aren't we already terraforming the antarctic right now? Wooo! Go go go!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Aren't we already terraforming the antarctic right now? While we're terrunforming everywhere else! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
If you think about it the reason we haven't colonized the ocean yet is because of international treaties. Those drat politicians always ruining science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Isn't it also illegal to colonize celestial bodies for the same reason?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Aren't we already terraforming the antarctic right now? With y-units of delta-mass, does that mean the sheets were gaining mass up until 2010?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
A_Bug_That_Thinks posted:With y-units of delta-mass, does that mean the sheets were gaining mass up until 2010? "Anomalies Relative to Timeseries Mean"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 02:52
|
|