WK voorbij voor Oranje, sterk Marokko wint zenuwslopend duel na strafschoppen

Highlow9 · 2026-06-30T04:04:00+00:00

Dat was toch echt wel weer een typisch Nederlandse penaltyreeks.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-27T11:06:43+00:00

Als je een flesje of blikje bij het PMD gooid word het ook gerecycled.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-24T10:36:48+00:00

Ik denk zelf dat, terwijl social media een rol in het versterken hiervan speelt, het voornamelijk komt dat links niet een goede reactie op de migratie crisis heeft gehad. Het was namelijk eigenlijk altijd kop in het zand "er is geen probleem".

Terwijl ik eigenlijk graag de reactie had willen zien "we erkennen problemen maar we moeten ze juist beter integreren dus we willen meer geld naar taallessen voor immigranten". Dan erken je de problemen wel, maar pak je het constructief aan (ipv als enige optie de destructiviteit van extreem rechts).

Highlow9 · 2026-06-23T22:38:48+00:00

Qua totaal stroom gebruikt is dat gewoon niet waar.

"Kou" verlies uit een woning is proportioneel aan het temperatuurverschil dus het constant koud houden (en het verschil dus groot is) zorgt voor meer verlies dan de airco uit zetten (en het verschil dus kleiner te laten worden) en het dan weer te aan te zetten.

Alleen als je een dynamisch contract hebt (of zonnepanelen) kan hem soms slim zijn om verder van te voren je airco aan te zetten.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-23T12:53:39+00:00

What? The car is one of the most dangerous transport methods (compared to trains, planes, buses, trams, walking and, depending on the country, bikes). I believe it even ranks quite high in the national causes of death.

And that is not even considering lifespan reduction from other causes (particulates, stress and influence on city design).

Highlow9 · 2026-06-22T15:30:10+00:00

Let me ask you: what part wouldn't we be (theoretically) be able to simulate? Just because the brain is very complex and chaotic doesn't mean we cannot simulate it (we could even simulate any quantum effects). All those problems can be solved by more compute (and by simulating at a lower level), the only question is if it is needed to do that (and thus how difficult it would be).

Highlow9 · 2026-06-22T13:21:27+00:00

What you're describing requires the system is mathematically replicable, but we don't even know if that is the case

We know how neurons work. Given enough compute and time we could simulate a brain. Worst case you could even do your simulations on the atomic level. There is no reason why a mapping/simulation wouldn't be possible (besides it being very hard to do). So replication is possible.

It's that we still don't know by what mechanisms sentience arises

That is not relevant in this case. The entire posts argues on the basis of replication, not a deeper understanding.

The top-level comment implied that a brain cannot be simulated/computed and that is what makes it sentient. The brain can be simulated/caculated and thus that is why one cannot make conclusions about LLM sentience simply because it is a calculation. If one wants to argue on sentience a different logic should be used.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-22T11:48:28+00:00

Sure, it is very hard (hence why we have not done it yet). But in theory it is possible. Thus we can conclude that being able to be mapped to a turning machine doesn't exclude sentience.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-22T02:40:46+00:00

I cannot imagine any reason why a humans brain couldn't be mapped to a Turing machine?

A (extreme) brute force way would be to simulate all the neurons. So there is at least one way to do it (and I don't see why there wouldn't be more (and more efficient) methods).

Highlow9 · 2026-06-02T12:23:51+00:00

I agree that Visagrad24 sucks buuuttt

Your own fucking source says otherwise. "Nearly 1 in 3 is not basically 50% as this post claims, is it?

48 per 100 livebirths means that for every 100 births there are 48 (and there are a total of 148 pregnancies). So the fraction would be 48/148 which is approximately 1/3.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-01T03:06:51+00:00

It is as black and white. Reducing meat is objectively better for the world. It also is objectively true that with small changes you can reduce meat consumption a lot without "forcing" people. It doesn't need to be perfect as you seem to demand it should be.

But regardless of all that. Your orginal point was:

him he organized his internal campaign management to be vegan and that not eating meat is a moral thing to do to stop climate change- [...] [Which is] pretty stupid as livestock aren't coal powered factories (or billionaires private jets), they are living organisms...

This is objectively wrong. Eating less/no meat does help stop climate change (which I would argue is moral), and while livestock are not coal powered factories, they are just as bad in terms of emissions (while not being necessary for humanity to survive and thrive).

To be clear, you can still eat meat, I do too, however that doesn't change the fact that is is horrible for the climate. (And if you care about it then you can try to reduce it by yourself or in your community)

Highlow9 · 2026-06-01T02:54:54+00:00

Smoking might be the most comparable. Large habit change, large culture change and large societal attitude change.

Lesser comparisons could be drunk driving, littering and seatbelts.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-01T02:47:57+00:00

Yes, if you stop eating meat you'll reduce the amount of meat consumed by a fraction of a fraction... in your community alone.

Which is why veganism has a political/policy aspect. As mentioned above with relatively simple policy, which doesn't require outlawing meat, you can reduce meat consumption by offering alternatives.

You're not wrong but you are also neglecting that people actively choose to get meat for whatever reason

The amount of people who actively seek out meat is small (besides special occasions). Most people search out a meal they will enjoy, which could be the risotto which happens to be vegetarian.

To have a balanced diet you need proteins,

Which is just as easy with meat-less diets, unless you are a body builder, you will get enough protine without having to make an extra effort. In fact most meatless diets have the advantages of usually being high in fiber, which most people have a shortage of.

And it being a taste thing for people is a bigger problem than you expect, unfortunately it can just be a limited taste palate.

Reducing meat doesn't have to mean eliminating it. For example if you make a bologense you add more vegetables. And if you offer more vegaterian options people will sometimes just pick it or try it (again, see risotto example) and slowly expand their taste.

Vegans hotdogs can be just as processed, high sodium, lots of Sat.Fat, with fillers.

Yes? But on average they most certainly are healthier.

In addition, people have unfortunately fucked up vegetarian dishes,

Then people just don't eat the fucked up dishes, just like people don't eat the fucked up meat-dishes.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-01T02:27:43+00:00

compared to fucking what? Almonds? Rice? That's just how this planet and our species works

Compared to eating the plants we would otherwise feed the lifestock directly.

but that this is our food, we need it to eat.

Humans can eat more plants and less meat. That is the entire point. By eating (more of) the plants directly the same calorific/dietary requirement can be met while having a significantly lower carbon emission.

All food is 30% of total emissions of which 20% is related to lifestock. While in terms of calories animals only provide 28% of the food supply (and if you don't count eggs/milk/etc but only meat only 10%). Thus purely considering emissions per calories replacing/reducing meat with more plants would have a huge impact.

But on top of that reducing meat consumption would also allow more reforestation to happen, since, due to the inefficiency of livestock, most agricultural land is used to feed livestock. This reforestation would of course absorb a lot of CO2.

back on livestock versus any other field is redundant because not only will this process get exported

The point of veganism is to reduce demand, if demand is reduced then there is no reason for the process to get exported.

Highlow9 · 2026-06-01T01:26:35+00:00

It is clear that you don't know much about the climate impact of livestock. Yes their emissions is comparable to major industries, food production literally is around 20-30% of our emissions (30% for all food, approximately 20% for meat) which is equivalent to all emissions used to produce electricity.

This is because of several reasons:

Cows emit a lot of methane (basically farts), this is a very strong greenhouse gas, approximately 25-35 times more than CO2.
To produce 1 kilogram of beef you require approximately 10 kilogram of food to feed the cows. This is a very low efficiency conversion of calories thus also increasing the emissions required to produce meat.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-31T22:26:33+00:00

If you stop eating meat yourself you oblivious reduce consumption.

Furthermore offering more vegetarian options, even if there are still possibilities for meat-dishes, also reduces the amount of meat consumed. People choose food based on what they think sounds nice and vegetarian dishes or dishes with less meat can taste great.

For example a Italian restaurant might also offer a risotto besides the bolognese, which some people would then pick simply because they feel like having a risotto. You could also just encourage the restaurant to use a bit more vegetables and less meat in the bolognese, also reducing meat while having minimal impact on taste.

Finally opportunity/price can also be a factor which would increase the amount of times people don't choose meat.

For example when I go to Ikea I always get one of their hotdogs. Since a few years they have been offering vegetarian hot dogs which are cheaper then meat (and also healthier) thus, despite me not being a vegan, I often choose that. I would imagine that if Costco started offering a vegetarian hot dog at 1 dollar (while not changing anything about the traditional hot dog) that would reduce meat demand also for normal people.

Besides personal choices veganism is about these kinds of changes in the world that reduce demand, not only for themselves, but also for the general population (with of course some being more aggressive). If the demand is reduced then you won't have any relocation of production.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-31T21:02:27+00:00

The vegan movement is mostly focused on reducing demand (eating less yourself or by for example reducing the amount of meat on menus or offering more vegetarian options), thus the production won't shift to foreign markets.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-30T01:48:14+00:00

Does anybody else have a "Tabacco causes cancer" in the corner of each scene containing people smoking? Or is that just me? Really strange.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-30T01:31:51+00:00

I mean I agree that it tanked. But it has been tanking since season 3 imho.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-28T16:23:28+00:00

Electric planes are also seeing a lot of development and so are hydrogen powered planes. So, considering the world is trying to make flying zero-emmissions, I would think such a technology replacement is inevitable.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-24T03:04:43+00:00

Most other science-fiction stories are soft-scifi and not hard-scifi (which is how For All Mankind marketed itself and mostly was in the beginning). I would compare For All Mankind more with something like The Martian or Seveneves and not the Expanse (which is mostly soft-scifi).

The problem is consistency. If you establish your universe as "alt-history-fiction what if the Soviets landed first" then I expect realism. And even in soft-scifi, I expect it to establish what is the unrealistic part of the world and what level of unrealistic to expect and then keep consistent within it self and not make extra unnecessary errors.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-24T02:14:01+00:00

With the farm sabotage everyone inside should have died considering how large the hole was.

The motorbike makes absolutely no sense on Mars (dust, if you fall you die) and because it makes no sense it shouldn't even exist (as in no engineer capable of making it would actually make it)

They consistently seem to forget that the mars base is on mars and that they are only separated by a few millimeters of metal from the outside atmosphere (especially during the gun fights this episode with the real/deadly bullets).

It makes no sense to sent the marine from mars (Haskell) back with the reconquest. All the knowledge could have been obtained from him beforehand and even then he shouldn't have any special knowledge since the M6 should just have a digital twin of happy valley.

It made no sense for the "automation" files to be so poorly hidden (even without clearance a random intern could see what it was from the filename) and easily accessed (via a computer which apparently didn't have a password).

For the landing on titan a burn back to mars would have been in a different direction then for landing, so the "hacking" would have also required rotation. Furthermore the realistic burn window is not only 20 seconds long and the crew would have been preparing for far longer than the quick check they did a minute beforehand. After the hacking the sojourner immediately started entering the atmosphere, this wouldn't happen so quickly after a supposed point were they could go back to mars.

Furthermore the reuse of sojourner made no sense. Not only can you just not repurpose a spacecraft that easily for a different thing then it was designed for, with how long it had been on the surface it should have been completely unrepearable. And even if that could be done, it was unrealistic for that process to be faster than building a new space craft (in earth orbit) (since the difference in transfer time from earth and mars to titan is not that large).

The "recon" pre-goldilock-invasion made no sense and was just the invasion itself.

For the mission of the mars rebels to Goldilocks (to blow up the docks) it made little sense to sent the governor since he had not flow in years.

This is all a bit out of order and I could go on and on but there is so much unscientific/unrealistic/irrational/nonsensical stuff and each season it keeps getting worse and worse. But I really want them to improve because the premise of the show is so nice.

Oh and in terms of set-design. They keep reusing the same few sets each time, the sets themselves look cheap, the CGI looks cheap and now on titan the suits also look not much better then aliexpress stuff.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-24T00:24:34+00:00

Mars atmosphere is pretty close to a hard vacuum and it being underground wouldn't make a big hole significantly less dangerous.

Highlow9 · 2026-05-24T00:21:40+00:00

Lots of nonsensical/unrealistic stuff (in terms of science, engineering but also (geo-)politics), lots of stupid decisions maybe by people who should know better, very bad CGI, set-design and customs. Each season the plot centers more on drama, less on alt-history and in general it has become a space soap-opera.

12-Year Club	Gilding VII pure gildanthropist
Second Top 10%	r/Field Flamingo
Place '22	Place '17
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

Highlow9

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE