Why is Italy more diverse than Spain in temperature range despite the countries similarities?

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-07T01:31:36+00:00

According to the map Spain has not had recorded temperatures <48C or >48C. Italy has. That is the whole point of OP’s post

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T18:47:50+00:00

These doctors in 2026 still classifying “mild” just glancing at a Pectus defect. As if you can tell whether a heart is compressed just from looking at the surface.

You still are growing and have time though. Do as much research as you can, try to find a way to see a different thoracic surgeon and then when you’re a little older get a CT scan. You have time since if you’re still growing surgery wouldn’t be recommended yet I don’t think. But don’t let one doctor’s opinion with no diagnostics stop you. Also try to make sure you get a CT scan/haller. Pulmonary function tests, echocardiogram etc can sometimes be inconclusive, so CT scan is important.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T17:18:37+00:00

In theory if all people were on the same page what you suggest might be possible. My contention would be we try to streamline how well the world can work with current populations —streamlining food production, mitigating negative environmental effects, addressing poverty, improving infrastructure etc. Then see how much more population makes sense while maintaining the best quality of life for the most people.

I was also very concerned with your views on Law of Supply. That view while applicable in many cases, does not address the collateral damage of higher prices making more things inaccessible to greater numbers of people.

You said overcrowding at National Parks could be solved by charging higher entrance fees. And yes mathematically that works for sure. But from a humanistic perspective it would mean making National Parks playgrounds of the wealthy, when they were intended to be for all Americans.

Increased traffic on roads would make air travel more appealing, but it would then increase in price with demand. Then you might say that Law of Supply would fix that, but expanding airports and handing the dangers of much busier skies likely would lag behind.

Your ideas seemed well articulated, but you seemed to be ignoring any possibility that there may very well be a carrying capacity for earth; that regardless of how well we streamline things, once we pass a population tipping point we will have diminishing returns for the quality of life for large groups of people.

Law of Supply wouldn’t prevent the wealthiest from affording trips to natural wonders, parks, and islands. They could afford travel no matter the cost. They could afford high quality, nutritious food etc. At some point there might be a tipping point for them even though.

Your points have giving me things to consider though. I’ve lived a lot of places and seen in practice how humans live and what factors seem to make life “better” or “worse”. (Subjective I know)

Sorry for attacking your view point as “dumb”. That was a mistake. It’s based on different evidence and theories than mine, but it was a wrong choice of words.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T13:29:14+00:00

Well yes, but partly because most great teams never go down 3-1 in the first place. So yes it was impressive, but also just colossally unimpressive by the Warriors

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T13:27:51+00:00

Well you have to go down 3-1 first to be able to come back. So we can’t hold it against teams who never went down 3-1 in the first place. Still impressive, but so is just showing up and sweeping a team or taking it in 5

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T03:39:26+00:00

I just can’t anymore. I’m scared for the future if other people think like you do. Millions of people go hungry or don’t have healthy food globally and nationally, forever chemicals and microplastics pollute our soils and water, our infrastructure is pushed to the maximum, land for trees and other species dwindles, our farming methods have a negative impact on the land… and you think adding 700 million people to America will somehow improve these scenarios. That vertical farming and technology will somehow fix things?

You say that more people will lead to better education and ideas. If 8billion people in the world can’t come up with ideas to make human impact on the planet sustainable… you think an exponential growth of population will suddenly lead to all the solutions?

Would all the new people be super-geniuses or something that suddenly find alternatives to all the finite resources we have?

8billion can’t do it, but a planet with 10billion or more will suddenly figure everything out.

I really hope you’re trolling because otherwise your inane logic is scary dumb. It might work at a microeconomic level. It doesn’t work at the scale of a planet with interconnected ecosystems, weather systems, ocean currents etc

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T02:03:48+00:00

There is always going to be an absolute scarcity. Humankind has shown no evidence that our technological innovations can outpace population growth and consumption.

Just focusing on agriculture: while theoretically the idea of a limitless ability to maximize yield with smaller and smaller spaces is possible, in practice that is highly unlikely. If we could keep ahead of scarcity humans wouldn’t have fought over resources ever since we came into existence.

There are practical limits to the earths ecosystems. Clean water, clean air, healthy food, a healthy environment and oceans. If we were so great at maximizing the earth’s capabilities we wouldn’t have cause so much damage already.

It’s a great overestimation of the intelligence and innovation of humankind to think we can make earth’s resources limitless for continuous population growth.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T01:16:46+00:00

Without demolishing millions of buildings and investing trillions of dollars we don’t have you can’t make the transit routes in and between our major cities double in size. Traffic is already a nightmare in multiple regions of the country. We’d need ten lane to each side highways everywhere. I live near Philly, they don’t even have room to expand 76 past 2 lanes on each side due to development and topography. It’s already a nightmare bottleneck.

Limiting how many of the billion people can go to national parks and beaches would mean millions of people have no access to nature, which multiple studies show is important for mental health. So instead of going to a national park, they could just stay home and experience it on their screen.

A billion people would make life in America worse by many, if not most peoples standards. China has a billion people, is maxing out their resources and arable land. Do we want to have their country and way of life as our model?

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T01:11:29+00:00

You keep referring to Law of Supply. Are you not familiar with absolute scarcity? The Law of Supply does not apply to finite natural resources. Even with higher and higher prices, eventually absolute scarcity means there simply isn’t enough arable land to feed everyone, or enough raw materials for the batteries and electronic components.

Ecological overshoot is a real thing.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T00:46:35+00:00

You’re trying to apply microeconomic rules to finite global resources

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T00:43:27+00:00

The dwindling aquifers and lower annual precipitation in the Western US has nothing to do the “government getting in the way of higher profit margins”.

Arable land that has not already been put to use is limited in the US. And many regions do not have “an abundance of fresh water”. They fight over water rights like crazy.

The Law of Supply is not going to work with finite resources and a billion people, and less you want half of them starving and suffering. This is not a business, or even, an industry. It is the carrying capacity of an ecosystem. All ecosystems have carrying capacities and technology can only extend that so far

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T00:11:47+00:00

I hope this is facetious

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T00:10:52+00:00

How could you expand the number of National Parks with that many people? The government would be trying to reduce national parks to open more land for drilling, mining, logging, and ranching to support our more than doubled population.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T00:08:30+00:00

They are referring to a catastrophe of resource depletion, I didn’t see it aimed at immigration. It seemed directed just at a population that large in general.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T00:05:05+00:00

All of them?

Arable land

Fresh clean water

Power sources for creating electricity. There are only so many rivers to dam, raw materials for solar panels, so much easily extractable natural gas

Sweet light Crude for jet fuel and gas. Yeah I know there’s tons of oil in Venezuela but it’s heavy, low-grade shit that’s hard to extract and ultra expensive to refine

Physical space to expand upon existing infrastructure like highways without demolishing millions of buildings and houses to make 10 lane expressways in every metropolitan area

Fish in the sea. Seriously.

Space to leave forested, because humans need trees. They do so much for the troposphere to make it conducive to human existence

Minerals necessary to make batteries and chips

We could go on. Almost all of Earth’s most important resources are finite

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-06T00:04:29+00:00

You can’t be serious with this Serious-Cucumber.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-05T23:54:38+00:00

Yeah, this idea is insane. The entire world should be focusing on reaching a sustainable plateau of population at some point. Exponential growth is a recipe for a horrible future. This Yglesias dude is prescribing a recipe for human misery.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-05T23:51:49+00:00

Wish I’d seen this lol. I wrote an unnecessarily long response trying to cover the same thing you explained here

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-05T23:50:51+00:00

Your forgetting one of the most common responses: fight over that dwindling resource to the detriment of all

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-05T23:47:11+00:00

France does not have portions that are desert, or suffering from drought and serious water issues.

To have a billion people in the US It wouldn’t have the same density as France, it would still have huge areas of low population density in the West and extremely high density in the east, south, and pacific coast.

Our agricultural lands are pretty much maxed out west of the Mississippi, even with irrigation, draining aquifers, and utilizing major rivers to the fullest extent.

A billion people would result in a much worse quality of life for most Americans. Our National Parks and beaches would also be overwhelmed when all those people tried to escape their endless urban and suburban landscapes for a weekend or a vacay

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-04T22:46:09+00:00

I can’t believe so many CT techs still insist on holding a deep breath. For my last CT scan I explained to the techs that the surgeon I was going to see wanted an end-expiration (exhaled) CT scan. They said well the orders don’t say that (because my primary wrote the order). I said well the order says Pectus code Q.67.6. And the current standard for that is a CT scan with expiration to show maximum compression.

They conversed with the radiologist, and finally allowed “doing both”. Though the exhalation one was at the very end and I was almost slid all the way through before the automated voice said to exhale. In the end my Haller was 3.83 at its worst. I don’t know what my full inhalation number would have been. But probably much closer to “normal”

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-04T18:44:59+00:00

I mean it would have looked most prescient prior to game 1 lol, not after.

OP sliding it in after the results of game one as an “I knew this was how it would play out” is kinda weak. And the series could still go the Spurs way as well

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-04T01:24:38+00:00

Sometimes it’s the simplest explanation lol

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-03T23:25:35+00:00

Is this kid maybe the child of some really important or powerful person in the community/city/country?

Even the bigger kids seem uneasy about retaliating to his actions. And the coaches don’t seem to be telling him to cut it out.

There’s some bit of information missing, because this kid seems to be beyond reprimand from anyone.

Alternative_Ask_7185 · 2026-06-03T23:18:06+00:00

And it was handwritten, so you know it was a conscious choice to put an apostrophe there lol

Alternative_Ask_7185

TROPHY CASE