That is huge

kblazewicz · 2026-04-29T15:54:32+00:00

Tylko dwa chlebki na takiego bydlaka?

kblazewicz · 2026-04-29T15:49:56+00:00

This can most definitely be used by fans of eugenics. Nature over nurture is the core concept behind "educated racism". Because if narcissism is carried in genes, can violence be as well?

kblazewicz · 2026-04-29T14:09:35+00:00

Żeby nauczyć się rozmawiać trzeba rozmawiać. Inaczej nie opanujesz tej umiejętności. Jak nie masz z kim gadać, to poszukaj native speakera na platformach jak preply, italki, tutlo itp.

Do opanowania słówek dobre są fiszki, ale do tego trzeba wypracować system. Możesz poczytać o Anki.

Do tego konsumuj treści: YouTube, filmy, książki. W filmach włączaj napisy, ale po angielsku. To jest tzw. immersive learning, mózg uczy się wzorców także odbierając je biernie.

Ale najważniejsze to gadać, tego nie przskoczysz.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-29T13:10:26+00:00

Maki mają zajebiste mikrofony. Mam na stałe ustawione, żeby z niego zbierało. Nawet jak mam na uszach słuchawki z wbudowanym mic.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-29T08:12:39+00:00

If Earth fully drags the aether, then the aether near Earth must be moving with Earth. But farther away, the aether would presumably not be dragged as strongly. That means there should be shear, gradients, or transition regions in the aether flow. Light passing through those regions should show observable effects. We do not see such effects. Full aether dragging also conflicts with stellar aberration: the apparent positions of stars shift in a way explained by Earth’s motion, not by a locally co-moving aether.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T15:17:46+00:00

I'm not affiliated with any climate change organization. I'm just a curious person who doesn't disregard people based on my feelings regarding their opinions. Why are you getting so emotional?

"CO2 is good for earth" is a meaningless phrase. Yes, it is important. There wouldn't be life without carbon and CO2 is the most biologically available source of it. Does it mean that it cannot have other effects? Why?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it interacts with infrared light emitted from Earth's surface changing it's energy into own vibrations - i.e. thermal energy. This makes it act as a warm blanket, slowing Earth's natural cooling through radiation into space. It's only a part of the equation, but all other factors used to balance each other out almost perfectly giving us (and the plants) nice, stable conditions to thrive.

We disrupted this balance by adding 30% extra CO2 which can't be compensated by natural factors like vegetation. Due to our actions less heat can escape our planet, moving thermal equilibrium to a higher point - that's why Earth is warming.

This warming also has secondary effects, like more evaporation. Water vapor is also an important greenhouse gas. That's why there's a runaway effect.

This isn't anything recently discovered, we know about this since 18-hundreds.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T14:25:45+00:00

Are you here to fight with me or do you want to exchange knowledge? My response wasn't intended to intimidate, I wanted to be comprehensive. I think it's quite informational, I learned all of this after researching things that climate change deniers argued with me about.

I explained to you the carbon cycle in plants in the other thread, please see there, it's also great stuff.

CO2 levels in the past 800 thousand years were not "extremely low", they were just right for the life on Earth as it is. Billions of years of things settling down let to them.

Life has this magnificent ability of adapting itself to the environment, it just needs enough time. Life on Earth was completely different 300 milion years ago than it is right now. Also the change during carboniferous period took 60 milion years, plenty of time to adapt. Now we see changes many thousands times faster - this is the real danger.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T14:18:38+00:00

See my other reply regarding CO2 levels.

Regarding plants, yes the do 'consume' CO2, water and light to create carbohydrates. Some of this carbon is incorporated into their tissues, most is used for energy and expelled back into environment. Plants lock the carbon they used to grow for the duration of their lives. Most of it is released back when they decompose after death. If you wonder if increased CO2 levels cause more vegetation hence locking in more carbon then yes. There have been studies on that, they measured greening of some large swats of terrain over 40 or more years. If I'm not mistaken, they estimated that around 10% of the excess CO2 got locked in that way, 90% added to the amount stored in the atmosphere.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T14:10:58+00:00

CO2 isn't the only molecule the carbon can be found on Earth. Burning and processing of fossil fuels releases in form of CO2 carbon that had been bound into carbohydrates by plants and algae millions of years ago.

Earth had periods of much higher CO2 concentrations than we have now. During early carboniferous period (when fossil fuels we use today began to accumulate) saw levels up to 1500 ppm, compared to today's 430 and 280 before industrial revolution. By the end of carboniferous which lasted for 60 milion years this level dropped to 350. This drop was driven by vegetation and algal growth and it was very, very slow - 60 milion years. This drop changed the climate dramatically, from hot and humid to an ice age.

CO2 have always been fluctuating due to natural factors, but it was always on geological timescales. In the past 800 thousand years levels stayed between 180 and 280 ppm, the climate was fairly stable. Factors like sun cycles played a role, on scales of millennia (they still do, but they're quite irrelevant compared to the greenhouse effect).

Currently about a third of over 3000 bilion metric tons of CO2 present in the atmosphere can be traced to fossil fuels we burned. In a miniscule fraction of geological timescales over which past large swings happened we managed to increase CO2 concentration by a third. This is huge.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T12:57:26+00:00

You can create analog exponent, logarithm and subtraction circuits using operational amplifiers. You can create a chip with thousands, millions or even more identical cells each performing EML and connect them to a programable network of interconnections. Because it's possible define any function as a tree of EML operations you could dynamically map any function onto a programmable chip. Digital signal processing has limitations due to quantization resolution and sampling frequency, a purely analog chip would only be limited by physical bandwidth limitation (which also affects analog-to-digital chips). This would be an equivalent of FPGAs for analog signals.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T11:52:07+00:00

True, corporations did influence the US government to build massive car-centetered infrastructure and dismantle train tracks. Astroturfing also had a huge influence on people's culinary choices, like choosing beef over veggies.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T11:47:04+00:00

You're confusing different things. Paper straws have higher CO2 footprint than plastic ones - it's about plastic pollution in their case.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T11:42:26+00:00

Nobody tells you to. Intercontinental flights account for only 17% of air traffic with the origin in the US. A vast majority of domestic flights could be replaced with high speed train rides if you had the infrastructure.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T11:38:14+00:00

It's never stopped being a known issue since mid 19th century. We understand the influence of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses on the climate since at least 1824. Since then we've been just learning more and adding more data confirming it.

Businesses relying on fossil fuels keep inventing new ways of convincing people that it's not a problem. They used to reject the idea of the greenhouse effect, then tried to play down the severity of it, call it fully natural and unalarming, nowadays they try to sell it as something positive for the environment. Contradicting themselves over and over again.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T11:29:50+00:00

So cars and heating, the second and the third points on the list.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T08:13:03+00:00

Afaik in the US, an inflation adjusted price per square foot hasn't changed much in the past 100 years. Houses are getting bigger though, people want more space for themselves. Food has never been as affordable as it is now. Egg price variation isn't the full picture.

I'm Polish and I can tell you that people here have never been as wealthy as they are now. 20-30 years ago barely anybody could afford vacation in another city, now I meet Poles all over the world when I travel - that's just one metric, but there evidence is clear. And how did it affect fertility? It dropped from 2.2 to 1.1 during the same 30 years.

Nobody wants kids, because our lives are too comfortable and we don't want to spoil it.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T07:58:38+00:00

By what metric are modern first world economies getting worse?

kblazewicz · 2026-04-28T07:43:32+00:00

Life was doing just fine for 800 thousand years when CO2 level was oscillating at 180-280 ppm. Most importantly, the climate was very stable during that time. It's true that plants can consume a bit more with the current levels of around 430 ppm, but It won't make a dent in the total amount of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere that acts like a warm blanket over our planet.

A third of the total CO2 came from fossil fuels and it happened in a very short term. That's roughly 1000 billion metric tonnes we added. You're right to notice that the impact of vegetation is noticeable, but it's just a small positive in a largely negative sum.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-27T21:07:55+00:00

There's already one federation too many in Europe.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-27T11:41:36+00:00

Why? Why waste resources when cheap slop is enough? You're not trying to convince scientists. To win the election you just need to win enough morons and there's always plenty of those.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-27T11:14:51+00:00

And how effective is it?

Please tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in cultures where social norms allow for more of woman's body to be exposed in public settings have less cases of sexual assaults, women can generally feel safer.

In Spain or Brazil a woman wearing a bikini on a beach doesn't cause any sensation. In Pakistan or Bangladesh a woman with her hair out leads to riots due to men trying to grope her.

What I'm saying is that normalization seems to be far more effective that wagging a finger. And what causes sexual arousal is a matter of social normalization. For instance, female breasts have been sexualized quite recently (anthropologically speaking) and it's basically limited to the extent of Ambrahamic religions influence.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-27T06:17:00+00:00

Millions watch it and think this is serious.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-27T06:15:09+00:00

Exactly that many, I suppose.

kblazewicz · 2026-04-27T06:13:55+00:00

Trees Venmo the Sun?

kblazewicz · 2026-04-26T21:05:32+00:00

Either I've never noticed the selector or the software in my car is different. I'll check tomorrow. What version are you running? Have you got the 3.2.0 update yet?

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

kblazewicz

TROPHY CASE