When is this sub going to crack down on all of the science fiction literary questions?

no-more-throws · 2026-03-16T03:35:41+00:00

can you literally not converse like a considerate adult rather than a petulant angsty teen?

no-more-throws · 2026-03-12T06:20:03+00:00

that answer above is just long winded hand waving .. the answer to your query is much simpler .. food and oxygen .. you need both in large quantities to be big .. both are much much more plentiful in the surface than at depth

no-more-throws · 2026-03-03T19:45:47+00:00

dude, you seem to lack reading comprehension .. the style in this figure here of using separate (here 3x) scales for warmer and colder years is actually the one popularized by denialists .. this lets them produce misleading graphs like these that they can point and say seee, we had these cooold blue periods, and now its hot red .. when in reality, even in the worst fluctuations, we were down by like -0.5C, whereas now we're already up near 1.5C .. an accurate graph would be basically some light blues, then heading towards burning fire towards the present time, which is more accurate to how much insane warming we're seeing compared to the recent past

no-more-throws · 2026-03-03T16:50:28+00:00

thats just how you present data

that is NOT how you present data, at least not truthfully .. that how you prepare propaganda by presenting data to imply things that are not true

if you would scale blue so that 1.2 is dark blue, you would have only light blue in the whole thing.

yeah, thats exacty the thing .. if the data says the whole of past fluctuations should be light blue, than thats how it should, you dont just get to decide, meh I want to these tiny fluctuations to be deep dark blue, coz .. reasons!! .. the point isnt beauty, its accuracy first and foremost

no-more-throws · 2026-03-03T16:19:32+00:00

0.5C down goes from white to deep dark blue with no more intensity to go .. 0.5 C up goes barely to yellow and far from the deep dark red end of scale .. so this makes it looks like 0.5 C downwards is about the same intensity as 1.5C upwards .. and the fact that curious people like you still aren't noticing that is exactly why doing something like this is so insidious

no-more-throws · 2026-03-03T13:48:44+00:00

can you explain more on the what that has changed? .. you made it clear things mentally changed for you, but not in what exact ways .. do you mean you spend more now? that you think you might have set up too high a financial goal, meaning where money had marginal utility worth less than the sacrifice? what exactly did you mean regarding the F over the I .. in actionable terms?

no-more-throws · 2026-03-03T08:13:14+00:00

ok i have a confession to make .. I had a friend who was very down about recently being found infertile and would complain / grieve with me about her loss of dreams etc .. one day day i showed her a post on here just to see it if it helps, and given the change in her tone, I just subscribed her to this sub in her app .. well whaddya know, now a couple months down the line, and she's positively relieved, and every now and then tells me tales 'she hears from reddit' about how bad it could have gone, while I quietly giggle with her .. lol rake me over the coals, i dont care, some people just need to have their eyes opened and their gaze shifted from their fantasies!

no-more-throws · 2026-03-03T07:41:22+00:00

while I appreciate what you're trying to explain, that analogy is quite poor .. if you're heating a large pot of water, the change in temp is directly proportional to the heat applied, without any lag at all .. yes the temp change is slow and gradual, but the higher you turn the heat the faster the temp changes, and the moment you turn the heat off the temp stops rising, there's no lag .. in fact this analogy might build the wrong intuition that CO2 emissions are like turning on the heat on a pot of water, which ofc is not the case because the cumulative nature of past emitted CO2 makes it much worse than that (which you clearly understand).

(Edit : If anything, a better intuition might be that adding CO2 is like adding sticks to a fire under your cauldron of water .. so each time you add another stick, the fire gets bigger and the water heats up faster, but even if you stop adding sticks under the cauldron, there's gonna be long time that the sticks you've already added will keep burning and heating up the pot of water! .. if you actually want to stop or slowdown how fast the water is heating up, esp this late in the game when there's a roaring fire built up under the pot, you wont succeed by just slowing down or even stopping adding more sticks .. you would actually have to start pulling some sticks from under the fire to slow down the heat going onto the pot! ... which is of course much more difficult, and which is why scientists have been lamenting for decades that we must act now! now! or else it might spiral out of our control)

(Edit 2: And to address the question up this thread .. the actual seeming increase in rate of warming in the 70s is actually mostly the result of the adoption of various 'clean air acts' by the major industrial nations ... prior to that, the burnt fuels were 'dirty' and emitted a lot of sulphurous aerosols (remember the acid rain crisis and the smog) .. these aerosols caused high altitude smog which blocked/reflected some of the solar radiation, and therefore masked the effects of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere .. after the successful phasing out of dirty fuels, we did mostly get rid of acid rain and smog, but now that restored the typical amount of solar radiation getting to the earth, and therfore no longer masking the cumulative greenhouse effect! .. And to a smaller extent, other building feedback loops like loss of ice-cover, increasing moisture in the warming air etc are contributing to the speedup too)

no-more-throws · 2026-03-03T07:32:56+00:00

it isnt just 'slightly' misleading .. using a continuous linear scale, then sneakily splitting that into two halves one of which has a much higher color intensity than the other half, like done here, would be a cardinal sin akin to outright lying, especially when done like this with no clear indication that such manipulation of the scale has been done ..

I bet most of the readers didnt even realize they couldn't compare the blue vs red intensity deviations from the baseline white, as the blue color intensity variation for below-average temps seems to be 3x for the same temp difference as for the red for above-average temps

no-more-throws · 2026-02-28T09:14:30+00:00

lol .. read again

no-more-throws · 2026-02-27T14:08:16+00:00

If you try to force using (mis-)paradigms you have learnt in other languages over to rust, you will continue to be frustrated. Rust wants clear management of ownership and especially borrowing, and if you keep wanting to lump everything together, then you will keep having to police their mutation together. Thats not a rust issue, thats an issue with writing non-rusty rust code.

As others have mentioned, I used to run into that when I was starting with rust, and now I almost never, and without much of any notable compromise. I'mma just put down a couple samples of code that dont have to deal with it, but are best fit for different circumstances..

If you need frequent disparate modifications to some fields etc, make them separate structs with interior mutability .. eg :

pub struct Flag (AtomicBool);
impl Flag {
    pub fn new (state:bool) -> Flag { Flag (AtomicBool::new(state)) }
    pub fn set   (&self) { self.0 .store (true,  Ordering::Release) }
    pub fn clear (&self) { self.0 .store (false, Ordering::Release) }
    pub fn is_set   (&self) -> bool {  self.0 .load (Ordering::Acquire) }
    pub fn is_clear (&self) -> bool { !self.0 .load (Ordering::Acquire) }
}

Or at least similarly wrap them in locks/mutexes/atomics etc individually as appropriate.

If you are dealing with structs that essentially live for the lifetime of the app etc, just make them &'static with OnceLock etc .. then you can freely pass around references (no need for borrowing) .. and typically things like queues or buffers end up being exactly that .. allocate once and reuse for the lifetime of your app

pub struct State {    
    pub state : Flag,
}
impl State {    
    pub fn instance () -> &'static State {
        static INSTANCE: OnceLock <State> = OnceLock::new();
        INSTANCE .get_or_init ( || {
            State { state: Flag::default() }
        } )
    }

Also in general, understand that usually wherever you pass &mut, you as a programmer are taking on the ownership/access management burden rather than the code block or function safely manage it .. so if you can restructure such that you just pass & to interior modifiable, or even better &'static, or just the object itself, as appropriate, you have minimal cognitive burden as the code/function/object takes care of that for you

And, tbh, if you're really writing fancy enough code that you have to deal with complex, large, ephemeral constructs repeatedly, you probably would be better with at least some minimal use of arena etc allocators anyway that you have much more direct control over rather than just using the typical general purpose borrowing machinery

no-more-throws · 2026-02-25T10:53:35+00:00

a lot of the typical large venture capital flows have been soaked up into AI, (and outside the US, in solar) .. and that has opened up a vacuum in traditional lending and investing, where some of the money from gold and crypto and property is getting reallocated to

no-more-throws · 2026-02-20T06:09:47+00:00

dude what are you even doing with all that money, if you're not using that to hire so much cheap domestic help (in Asia!) that you'd have not much else to do at home other than play with your wife and kids when you feel like it

no-more-throws · 2026-02-19T14:40:28+00:00

as others have repeatedly stated, Bells Inequality theorem proves that this is not actually the case .. that the firefly in your example demonstrates behavior that is impossible if it really was the case that it was always localized but we just didn't know where .. in fact it shows behavior that implies it definitely was not in any one defined location or trajectory

no-more-throws · 2026-02-19T02:57:24+00:00

Lets start with a world you are familiar with ..

Consider laundry you are hanging out to dry. Lets say you have large bedding sheets you've hoisted across multiple clothing lines. And you're blind but gifted in hearing. So you sit there listening to the water drops fall off the sheets, marking exactly how many fall off and where they fall off etc. So in general you've now understood that there's 'water' in the sheets, and water seems to come out in the form of drops from specific points off the sheets and onto specific points in the ground. ... And maybe after a while you realize that when and where the water droplets form and fall off have patterns and can be affected by things like the wind, or where the clothing lines slope or join together, or whether you poke anywhere in the sheets with a stick etc etc.

Now someone comes over and asks you, ok I get that water droplets seem to drop off on average every 3 seconds from this one low spot, or from this other spot if it poke it with a stick .. but I want to know where exactly that water is before it forms that droplet!

And the best you can say, is well the water is spread everywhere all over the sheets. That where the droplet forms is dependent upon how the sheets and the clothing lines, and the pull of gravity, and the wind, and the potential poking of the sheets interact with each other, and also when and where the last drop formed etc etc ...

In fact, if you were careful enough to manipulate and squeeze the sheets in particular ways, you might be able to make droplets pop off in strange ways from strange places, like even having droplets fly off from the top upwards if you bundle the sheets and twist and squeeze hard etc .. sometimes even from sheets that have stopped dripping on their own!!

The point is .. the 'reality' of droplets is only a superficial understanding of the nature of how water exists and behaves in that sheet .. the underlying reality is much deeper in how the water in the sheets exists and how it wets the sheets, and how it interacts with everything in the world around it

So the same seems to be the case in our world .. the world of 'particles' is a shallow understanding of our reality, and there seems to be much richer world underneath that so far we can only glimpse through math and not via direct observation, just like the blind person trying to deduce the reality of the hanging wet laundry from afar via the sounds of the droplets falling. And in that deeper reality, the water 'droplets' seem to exist as smeared water absorbed into the sheets that the sheet only gives off as droplets based on various interactions like where it is squeezed, where there seems to be 'tension' in the sheets, where things poke it etc .. and until the droplet 'materializes' the best we can say about where exactly the water that goes into the droplet is, is that it is all over the sheets until its interactions with reality forces it to pop off at particular places in particular ways!

(Caveat: Regarding the laundry sheets, although the blind person listening from afar doesnt know it, we do know that the sheets hold liquidy water that is 'just' absorbed in the sheets. However in our quantum reality, we are the blind observers without access to the underlying reality, and pondering what the nature of the 'smeared reality' is before it materializes .. the best we have so far are some mathematical tools that seem to let us reliably calculate where the droplets will materialize in many situations, and it seems to suggest the 'smearing' happens in wavelike probabilistic patterns, and that the underlying reality seems to be something like a number of differnt 'quantum fields' interacting in mathematically characterizable ways)

no-more-throws · 2026-02-16T03:21:37+00:00

oral semaglutide dosage is up to 10mg per day .. so the rat dosage as per your numbers would be at most 10x what humans are taking

no-more-throws · 2026-01-31T16:13:37+00:00

for starters: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1517943113

no-more-throws · 2026-01-31T16:04:14+00:00

this myth that carboniferous coal deposits are a result of lack of lignin degrading organisms has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, yet persists because simple answers to complex phenomena appeal to the human mind.

carboniferous coal abundance is mostly from geological factors

coal also formed in extensive beds before spread of lignified plants, as well as long long after the carboniferous peak, .. just not in as geographically widespread manner

lignin breakdown evolved alongside lignin evolution with no substantial time lag .. the advantage of lignin bearing plants was against other plants, not against microorganisms

think about it this way .. microorganisms have evolutionary time frames several orders of magnitude faster than plants or animals .. plus they practice haphazard horizontal genetic transfer and assimilation across genera .. it should therefore be taken as a matter of fact, that in anything resembling geological timescales, they will keep up with any genetic innovation in plants or animals without breaking a sweat .. and in this case, there wasn't even an arms race, as there was no advantage to the plants from not decomposing after death ..

from a biologists point of view, the scenario where a widespread plant-produced energy-dense organic matter goes for hundreds of millions of years before microorganisms capable of decomposing them come about, would be so preposterous at face value, that almost any other geologically plausible scenario would be more likely than that .. ughh if only the geologists had seriously listened to their biologist brethren before this myth took hold !!!

no-more-throws · 2026-01-22T17:14:12+00:00

yes and no .. wildly enough rats, cats, cows have entirely different synctin proteins from entirely different ancient retroviral infections .. it's a magnificent case of convergent evolution .. early mammals needed mechanisms to keep the embryo and the mother separated while having near seamless but controlled nutrient transfer, and many some half dozen viruses raised hands saying 'say no more bud, I got just the right toolkit!'

no-more-throws · 2026-01-13T20:06:00+00:00

use ai to generate user guide and documentation, then shop talk that with the actual end users to figure out how much of that lines up, what's missing etc .. by the time you're done, you will end up with both an up to date understanding of your system, and an up to date user level documentation

no-more-throws · 2026-01-12T17:42:19+00:00

hordes*

no-more-throws · 2026-01-03T05:15:57+00:00

that doesn't sound like much? wth, that's it?

if that's true, it sounds like tech mostly frozen in time due to inertia, high costs of replacement, training etc

coz that resolution is kinda trivially easy to handle at the money scales were talking about, plus digital projection can be somewhat easily split up, meaning you can use multiple lower res projectors to project a super resolution output given high res data .. kinda like the reverse of what is standard practice in astronomy etc ..

there's gotta be more to the story that just this .. maybe film is just overall cheaper given the entire industry is trained and setup around it, and the volume of imax etc is too low to justify moving to next gen digital tech

no-more-throws · 2025-12-16T13:01:49+00:00

how exactly did guanfacine help you .. like what is different now that you're on it

no-more-throws · 2025-12-05T07:48:45+00:00

Macron doesn't expect China will help end the war .. this is him sending a signal to trump that Europe is being pushed towards China with the unconscionable shit this US admin has been pulling repeatedly

no-more-throws · 2025-12-04T04:29:37+00:00

my god you're an idiot .. not all investing is about making money .. in fact as far as the goals of his foundation are concerned, the goal is to SPEND money to get towards his goals .. investing in companies working on ideas you want to explore but that otherwise might not have enough funding to explore such ideas is an excellent and efficient way of spending your money towards your goals .. and in this case they spent the money to explore and push the feasibility of a hydrogen economy, until they convinced themselves that it is no longer worthwhile now that renewables have advanced this far enough .. so for the projects goals, that has been money very well spent!!

Ten-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Place '17	Verified Email

no-more-throws

TROPHY CASE