Friday assorted links

Comments

Doubtful I can read all links and be first this time of the day and with this buggy Edge browser but I'll try.
1/ Gravy candle; they love gravy taste in the Philippnes
2/ Something strange, did not read
3/ Weird "where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?" type board game involving GRU agents made by a Russian outfit, strange
4/ what the title says, did not read
5/ did not read, but sex is hard to sell in movies, makes most Americans uncomfortable. Compare to violence, the opposite.

First?

Agreed on #5. Sad.

I don't think that either sex or violence is what makes a movie attractive to traditional American audiences. I think a great story, a great film a great novel is what attracts people. The James Bond series had violence and sex but it was the story, the adventure the excitement of it all that appealed to the viewer or reader.

Count me as a movie goer who doesn't care for the neo-science fiction that so many younger viewers seem to like. I don't want to see magical super heros or vampires or movies based on stupid midless computer games. I like the good old fashioned action movie with a plot and interesting characters.

As a gamer I have to defend the medium. The GAMES are hardly mindless--to be good at modern games actually involves a tremendous mental effort, making complex decisions at lightning speed.

The issue is that movies based on games are at an inherent disadvantage. Games--of any sort, from a coin flip on up--are united by the fact that they are interactive entertainment. The entertainment value comes from the player doing something. Movies based on games, by definition, remove that aspect. It's a disadvantage that we've not learned to overcome.

There's a second issue here as well. The typical triple-A title contains dozens if not hundreds of hours of gameplay. Condensing that down to a two-hour movie is necessarily going to cull content. And since games are interactive, which content you cut is going to alienate someone. I ignore the Theive's Guild in The Elder Scrolls, for example--if it didn't exist, it wouldn't change my experience in the game. In contrast, I usually join the Mage's Guild. Others are the opposite. As a movie producer, who do you cater to? You can only choose one--and by choosing you eliminate part of your audience. Not an easy thing for a producer to do.

4. Maybe jars should be kept on the counters of coffee shops to collect change for the prevention of climate change. It's interesting that the photo that accompanies the article depicts the discharge from a powerhouse stack. The overwhelming majority of those emissions are composed of water vapor, not a contributor to climate change.

4 - Most Americans know that climate change is a hoax - think "solar output" and "interglacial." They sense that their economic devastation would ensue. And, they are just not into the elitists. See November 2016 election.

Ironically enough, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the earth's atmosphere is water vapor.

Let's be nice to each other. We're all going to be dead in 12 years.

How’s that wall coming Dick? Looks like your Orange Clown surrendered today to Cryin Chuck and Nancy.

We were getting tired of winning.

One, a major Democrat constituency - 800,000 federal employees - aren't being paid. Two, Hillary still isn't president. Three, hold my beer.

Maybe it should be cryin Dick instead of cryin Chuck.

Those employees will be getting a check, including back pay. Oh, and workers who...didn’t work will still be getting back pay. Fiscally responsible Rethuglicans, and I say that as a registered moderate Republican, apparently believe it’s better to pay federal workers to..not work.

Hillary isn’t President....okay. Maybe we can buy you a blankie embroidered with that phrase. You’re right she isn’t president, which is why we had a pointless shutdown over a racist wall that will never be built.

No wall Dick, and Mexico ain’t paying. On the bright side, illegal immigration has never been more popular. Warren in 2020 might sign the amnesty bill and eliminate ICE!

Way to twist the knife, Bub.

Trump 2020.

Trump approval: 37% and dropping
Trump disapproval: 58% and rising

Trump hasn't been winning for a while now. Midterms, the stock market, the wall, Roger Stone indicted, more Trump cronies in jail, rigged polls, tax cuts that failed, GM layoffs, the shutdown, federal workers needing payday loans, ISIS back in Syria after the Trump pull out, tariffs hurting US business, popularity of Dem pols like Bernie and AOC sky high. Trump can't win but he can whine. He's good at that. The best. Trump never gets tired of whining.

Anybody But Trump 2020

Trump's impeachment numbers are higher than his approval rating. I'm a fair guy so interpret that as you like.

How many sock puppets you got there Anonymous. You are a majority of one.

I bet your butt really hurts after all that losing nationwide since 2010.

Better pray for RBG.

@Joker - it's the new emission, man-made CO2, that's the Joker in the cards. Old stuff is baseline.

No.

Water vapor is generated during the combustion of hydrocarbons, just like CO2. If you're going to call one "new emission", the other is as well. (Nuclear power and the like don't generate water, but they DO generate heat, which has its own ecological issues).

The reason CO2 is the focus of climate change debate is residence time. It's harder to strip CO2 from the air than it is water vapor. Water vapor comes out of the air by itself--in the form of precipitation. So it doesn't last long enough in the atmosphere to significantly contribute to global temperature. Carbon dioxide, in contrast, lasts a while, and is removed mostly by biological/geological processes--photosynthesis and weathering of rocks. Of course, CO2 IS stripped from the atmosphere, so the total equation is far more complex than most people realize.

It's a bigger problem than you think.

They lost all credibility when they blamed CO2 generated by yeast. CO2 generated by biological sources doesn't significantly contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide load because it comes from the atmosphere to begin with--a mol of CO2 generated by yeast represents a mol that was, prior to being produced by yeast, stripped from the atmosphere.

The issue is, again, residence time. The problem with burning hydrocarbons is that they release carbon from a geologic reservoir (where residence times are measured on geological scales) into the atmosphere (where residence times are measured in terms of years). Because little carbon (comparatively) is going into the lithosphere, this means that the other three main reservoirs--the atmosphere, ocean, and biosphere--gain more carbon. And since we're in the middle of a mass extinction (which started 10ka to 12ka, depending on where you are), the biosphere can't take up the slack.

We all know that already, we just don't want to cripple the economy on the bet it might be a significant problem in 100 years.

If you are worried about it, turn off the heat, AC, lights, ride a bike, eat organic vegetarian, and whatever you do, nevah, evah fly on a jet plane.

Personally, I don't think we know enough about climate or ecology to make any useful adjustments. There are specific data gaps at we need to address first. Right now we are shooting blind, and any action has as much chance of making things worse as it does of making things better.

@Dinwar - thanks for that amplification, in that combustion from fossil fuels hydrocarbons releases water (hydro is Greek for water), but 'baseline', as you acknowledge, only includes gas that can help retain infrared heat.

Bonus trivia: burning methane, which would be good on Mars*, is: CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O (water) + releases energy.

*Mars, possibly because the TGO instruments are wrong, does not contain any methane, contrary to previous reports that the gas was common in the atmosphere. Who's right?

I do not understand what you mean by "baseline".

I will also add that gasses aren't the only issue. The heat island effect isn't understood very well--we know tat it exists, and have a send of how it works, but we have no clue how it works within the larger system of ecology (which includes climate). And guess where our thermometers generally are. That is why pale other monsters are so important here: modern data is generally biased. Of course, pale other monsters demonstrate that the concept of " baseline" in climate simply doesn't exist.

Yes, well, just because I wouldn't pay $10./month to fix climate change doesn't mean I'd be opposed to making you pay $1000s/month to do so.

Albie, Do you believe anyone around here has a clue as to the meaning of "Albigensian?" Not sure if my idea is yours, either.

Do you buy into the climate change graft operation?

4. The challenge is that many people want to address climate change and would make choose sustainable or eco-friendly choices, there needs to be better information. A qualitative scoring mechanism for all consumer goods/ life choices would be helpful. Something like a "Nutrition Facts" but for Co2 or sustainability.

The reality is that making a big impact on climate change at an individual level requires significant sacrifice for middle-class folks that most are not willing to make. A more sustainable life-style translates to a drop in quality of lifestyle. Google plastic-free lifestyles for an eye opener to the extent some people go (good on them!). Most people may not go that far, but a "Co2 nutrition facts" could nudge consumer choices in the right direction.

I personally do not have a car, live in a small apartment, and recycle so I feel pretty like I do an ok job.

@JMCSF - I'm greener than you likely, but it's the air travel that makes me a Davos Man type polluter. If you travel by jet plane it's like having a caravan of gas guzzling automobiles traveling at 550 mph, not to mention the contrails. Check out your carbon footprint online and be surprised how much air travel will make you non-green.

No, you burn garbage in the Philippines, Ray.

I'm not convinced getting rid of plastic is a good thing, resource-wise. Plastic packaging, for all its problems, really does help reduce waste by reducing breakage. the trick is to find a way to produce plastic in a manner that doesn't require oil. Plastics from biological sources--maybe even plastics that can be easily made biodegradable--would be ideal. Plastics that are biodegradable by themselves are out, because then your packaging has a finite (and often not very long) shelf-life.

As for the rest, the idea that "eco-friendly" and "low carbon footprint" are synonyms is one of the most pernicious lies perpetuated today. I don't give a rat's fuzzy tail about carbon dioxide; the question of ecosystem fragmentation, of invasive species, and of toxic releases are much bigger in my opinion.

What if I had plastic packaging that started to biodegrade once you ripped it open? Like one long chain that falls apart from the frayed ends that you cut open with scissors?

I don't think the molecules would work that way. They don't form twisted strands like rope; they from snarls like necklaces in a poorly-sorted jewelry box.

"I personally do not have a car, live in a small apartment, and recycle so I feel pretty like I do an ok job."

You are well intentioned and appear to be doing the right things.

I recycle also, even though it is irrational. Most of the carbon has already been released in the gathering of materials and the manufacture of the recyclables. Recycling itself releases more CO2 - the transport and conversion of the recycled material. I do it anyway because I feel better and I would feel worse if I put it in the trash and dumped in the landfill.

The problem is the second law of thermodynics - Everytime work is done entropy (disorder) must increase. Usually, that means waste heat.

The problem is there are too many humans.

We are basically f*cked.

4. That is sad on two levels. First, the climate change. Second, I'd really like to think most Americans have $10 to throw in the steet.

Maybe they are too deep in those payday loans, or other more mainstream consumer credit.

I certainly hope they are getting paid.

4. They are deep in student debt.

I'm a multi-millionaire.

I wouldn't spend $1 much less $10 to "fight climate change". I wouldn't do this because I enjoy spending my money on other things that aren't giant psy ops.

I lol'd

Yeah, like a real "multi-millionaire" is checking his monthly expenses down to $10.

My actionable advice would be to get out and live more, and leaving the bunker, shed yourself of "psy ops" nightmares.

Yeah, like a real "multi-millionaire" is checking his monthly expenses down to $10.

You might be surprised. Nobody becomes a millionaire by throwing away money needlessly. The wealthiest people I know are those who are the most consistent about their savings and their expenses. $10 here and there doesn't matter much, but the type of person who cares a lot about $10 here and there is also the type of person who cares about $100 here and there; and $1000 here and there.

Let's step back and think about what you are saying to me.

You're arguing that a multi-millionaire would not risk $120 a year that might, just might, improve climate change?

I think the definition you might be looking for is "cheap bastard" rather than multi-millionaire.

The US quit the Paris climate accords but is the one of the few nations actually meeting, or coming close to, goals.

Yesterday, I awarded you second funniest comment of the day.

"improve climate change."

Today you improved to number one funny comment.

Anthropomorphic climate change is a myth in vented at a British nuclear energy conference to promote nuke energy.

Think four global glaciations and interval global warnings in the past million years. The past 10,000 years have experienced comparatively little climate change. In the past 19 years there has been no warming. Think solar output and interglacial.

I think "improve climate change" is a nice way to imply a bending of the curves.

Whereas "myth in vented at a British nuclear energy conference" is the kind of bonkers stuff that makes this venue what it is.

You're arguing that a multi-millionaire would not risk $120 a year that might, just might, improve climate change?

No. I'm arguing that you might be surprised by how closely multi-millionaires monitor their monthly expenses.

Because one cent wasted on the climate change hoax is too much.

I'm better served spending $10 on MegaMillions lotto tix than on the climate hoax. Really, it's equivalent, except every so often someone in the lotto walks away with millions. The climate hoax not so much. .

Horsepucky. Al Gore and Shillary Clinton have made millions from this hoax.

A little more self-aware and .. well, your whole problem is that you can't get there.

Trapped in an intellectual local minimum.

Maybe Tyler can just make a few judicious snips to the page and go back to pretending libertarians are serious, and sane, and rational about environmental externalities.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm a Trump Republican. Classic shitlib idiocy.

If you think the general public is going to see any light between Libertarians and Trumpian climate denial you have another think coming.

First of all, the general public doesn't even know what a Libertarian is. Second of all, the same general public that voted to MAGA is going to do so again in 2020. And nothing you libs can do to stop it. In fact all your whining only helps us.

Even if you buy the disaster scenarios, it's not clear how throwing money at the problem is going to make a big difference. Me coughing up $120 is not going to make my neighbor junk his Corvette. It won't stop my coworker from taking her two cross-country trips to Vegas each year. Rather than get money to do stuff, you need a whole bunch of people to stop doing a whole bunch of different stuff. It's not at all clear that vast sums of money will accomplish that. I guess you could say we could use it for renewable energy research, but then why didn't the people doing the survey just ask people that, directly?

The assumption I had was "would you accept your monthly power (and/or gasoline) bill going up by $10 a month?"

The article didn't say that, instead describing a "fee," which can lead to confusion.

Ultimately, somebody is going to pay for climate change. Maybe we don't do anything about it and society has to pay for the consequences in 100 years. The real question is really, who should pay, how much, and in what capacity.

In Stubborn Attachments, Tyler talks about not discounting the future, but future wealth doesn't matter much if the planet is unlivable, to paraphrase Noah Smith. $10 a month might actually be a really great bargain when considering a 100 year time frame.

Of course Rayward, Anonymous, Dick the Butcher, Ray, Thiago, and all the koolkid commenters will be dead by then!

>Maybe we don't do anything about it

We can't.

The climate has been changing for billions of years, and it will never, ever stop or slow down.

Funny how many people think forking over $10 to the Feds is going to "fight" the thermodynamics of the universe. Strike that; it's crushingly sad.

If Tyler never mentioned climate he might be able to pretend that libertarians were better at things like this.

As it is, he gets yet another iteration of this motivated thinking, that "climate change can't be real, because if it was, it would be a job for government!"

"The climate has been changing for billions of years, and it will never, ever stop or slow down."

The assumption is that the pre-industrial revolution climate of 1750 or 1800 is the ideal climate for humans. This is unknown, maybe the warmer climate will be better overall. Historically, humans have fared better in warmer era, [compare Little Ice Age versus before and after].

"if the planet is unlivable"

See, this is why some people resist this climate change hysteria. There is no way the entire planet will be "unlivable".

At worst, portions will be more difficult and expensive places to live. Other portions [Siberia, northern Canada] will be easier to live in.

Most people are unaware of the Eocene Climate Optimum. It makes the worst global warming scare-stories look tame, yet there was no mass extinction associated with it.

The reality is that we're in an ice age. The world is colder now than it normally is (see Zachose et al., 2001). So unless we get a LOT hotter than the GCMs state we will, the Earth will not become unlivable.

If we should not discount the future, then we should be funding a way off the planet before our sun becomes a red giant.

Imagine the funds needed to escape the collision of the Milky Way with Andromeda.

And these are species killers that no one disputes.

4. I suppose it depends on the meaning of "pay". I suspect that the majority believe that those who contribute to global warming should "pay", which means the fossil fuels industry via something like a carbon tax. But if you phrased the question to include the economic reality that consumers of the fossil fuels (you and me) ultimately pay most of the tax, I suspect support for the tax would drop significantly. Of course, it's changing consumer behavior that will mitigate global warming, so making consumers pay is the answer. Don't tax you and me, tax the fellow behind the tree. That's Senator Long's wisdom many years ago. Americans are stupid people, and proud of it.

Do you believe that it's the fossil fuels industry and not the consumers who are more responsible for the co2?

Reading is an acquired taste.

4. “Most Americans are unwilling to pay $10 a month to fight climate change, a survey found.”

I would bet that they are paying a lot more that that already. Maybe they're hoping for warmer.

2. Many fear standing at the precipice for fear of an uncontrollable urge to jump. Many fear holding a large knife for fear of an uncontrollable urge to stab someone. An on and on. One view is that facing our dark side helps us process it. The other view is that facing our dark side encourages it. Me, I stay away from the precipice and sharp knives.

Re: 4. I won't pay $10/mo to fight climate change, but I'll definitely pay $10/mo to signal to the general population that I care about climate change.

I'll pay $50 to signal that I hate the people who have the loathsome opinion that climate change is real. Different opinions suck.

Ignoring whether or not global warming is really an issue or not, paying $10 a month won't solve "global warming" so why pay it? Unless China and India can be persuaded to reduce coal fired power it is useless to reduce CO2 emissions in the west. As noted on a previous thread coal as a percentage of energy consumption has remained the same for the last 20 years despite a fairly dramatic reduction in the west. This is thanks to an offsetting increase in develped nations. The UK is back at CO2 emissions similar to what it had in the 1880's thanks to gas, nuclear and renewables - impact on world CO2 emissions is trivial. I am assured by all the renewables enthusiasts that solar power is now cheaper than coal, so no need to worry, very soon now the world will switch to solar.

1% of people could pay $1000 a month instead, and hardly notice it.

#4...reply to ChrisA: China leads the world in hydroelectric production and has one third of the world’s wind power capacity. The International Energy Agency expects by 2022 that coal’s share of the world energy mix to hit the lowest level since IEA statistics began.

"... predictions are difficult ..."
Otoh, the reality is China and India are building about one new coal fired plant per week. They aren't going to retire those anytime soon. All the solar and wind promises are just hot air.

I won't even begin to consider AGW a problem until environmental activists start acting like they believe what they claim. It should be obvious to anyone my age that this has been a long con beginning with an Indian crying a tear on TV and growing heads like a hydra ever since.

That's reality, if the environazis believed their tales, and possessed at least beyond an average policeman intellect (100 to 110 in IQ), then they would be for nuclear power.

It's pretty clear the most environmental scientists don't consider long term AGW to be any worse than the long term use of nuclear power. If they did, they would have been pushing for an expansion of nuclear power. Instead, Germany is closing its nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is really the solution to a lot of problems, and the best way forward for even better energy sources. We could have easily had a nationwide infrastructure for electric vehicles by now had we adopted nuclear. The biggest fears are for old technology.

Nuclear power is millions of times more efficient than coal, which in turn is thousands of times more efficient than other sources.

3: could be genius marketing. I have vague recollections that the game of "Anti-Monopoly" became a collector's item because they got sued for copyright violations and had to stop publishing. And same for an early version of the game "Masterpiece" where they didn't get a license to sell reproductions of the famous paintings. This game will have its 15 minutes of fame and disappear -- and then maybe original editions will become collectors items?

I was going to say that someone should invent a boardgame about Chernobyl, but it's already been done:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/201012/chernobyl

And even a combined Chernobyl/Fukushima game (but what about Three Mile Island?):
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/173627/age-steam-fukushimachernobyl

4. How would throwing away even more money make any difference? More electric car subsidies for the wealthy is going to change the weather? The US carbon tax that eventually is going to be imposed upon us will have exactly 0 impact on climate. The anti-growth activists are already drowning in the money they are being paid to publish "science" to support the alleged consensus. Meanwhile a vast new and steadily growing literature demonstrates that the climate prediction industry assumptions are ungrounded and that their models have repeatedly failed. http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2018-3/

My personal link of the day:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2191814-we-may-finally-know-what-causes-alzheimers-and-how-to-stop-it/

If true, that is good news. I keep a very clean mouth! Yay!

Interesting indeed, and there's plenty of real science going on there. I'll probably even make an overdue visit to a dentist.

Still, there's a lot that remains to be seen, e.g. P. gingivalis in the mouth may mean one thing, and in the brain may mean another thing. Or which strain it is. We spend our lives with E. coli inside us, so E. coli might mean nothing or it might mean an epidemic. And then there's the question of how to deal with P. gingivalis so that it doesn't attack the brain. Still, it's interesting research.

Yeah, I'm going to start being meticulous.
However, it's unclear whether once the gingivalis bacteria gets into your brain that dental hygiene does anything about it. It might be necessary to take antibiotics to kill it, though the article says that it quickly becomes resistant. It sounds like it lurks in your brain and slowly does damage over decades.

On the other hand, here is an article suggesting that cranberry and rice extracts can inhibit gingipains.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4138498/

So maybe a natural substitute for the gingipains blockers that are now in clinical trials.

4. Based on model outputs, we are doomed.

However, models do not reflect reality very well, but we should keep funding modelling because:

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

AlphaStar is sadly missing in this link collection.

2: I skipped that article the first time I saw it because I couldn't make sense of what the article was about, much less what the art project was. Thanks to Tyler's link I took another glance at it and it is a noteworthy project, although a very weird one.

Unless: with the rise of the internet and video games, what makes entertainment (and art and sports and leisure) interesting and attractive in the 21st century?

I see a trend towards bringing the audience closer to the performance, making the real-life experience something that is clearly different from watching it on a smart phone: more participatory and more immersive.

In classical music, a trend towards chamber performances where the audience is much closer to the musicians (and perhaps gets to chat with them during intermission) and the performance might be in someone's house, possibly with a meal or potluck dinner with audience members contributing food. Even the local civic symphony is sending out small groups of musicians to perform in small intimate settings.

In theater, we've had dinner theater and murder mystery theater for decades, but I think I see even greater immersion and participation recently. The listing that really awoke me to this was this one for a staged performance of James Joyce's short story "The Dead" at the Irish Historical Society complete with audience members participating in the feast that is the setting for the story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/04/irish-rep-brings-james-joyces-the-dead-to-life

Meanwhile a group is performing Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray" in Portland OR as an immersive experience, for an extra fee the butler will pour your drinks for you as you move from room to room following the action.
https://noproscenium.com/portland-oscar-wildes-the-picture-of-dorian-gray-aea18ee32e7a

(That whole noproscenium.com website appears to be devoted to these immersive/participatory experiences.)

So I think this physics lab art project missed an opportunity. The performers are immersed into the activity. But they could've invited "audience" members to become visiting researchers (or grad students or even just the guy delivering bottles of oxygen) and be part of the activity.

We also have fantasy baseball camps where participants get to pretend they're at spring training, Renaissance Faires and the Society for Creative Anachronism, and re-enactors of everything from World War II to medieval wars and that recreation of an ancient Greek trireme (although I think that was a research project, not for recreation).

Some of these activities have been going on for decades but I think especially in theater and classical music (old-fashioned art media that are facing some challenges in attracting audiences) I've been seeing more of this sort of immersive or participatory or just plain intimate activity in recent years.

1: KFC has also famously been able to convince the Japanese to make KFC chicken a traditional part of Christmas Eve. When I was in Shanghai they were the most common American restaurant brand that I saw, more common than McDonalds or Pizza Hut, which were 2nd and 3rd.
Maybe while we've been distracted by Starbucks, KFC has been quietly taking over the world. (Side note: I'd never been to a Popeye's before but thanks to a coupon I've been to a local one twice in the past few months. Fast service, chicken that's hotter and juicier than KFC's, seemed to be a better-run restaurant. But I like those 11 herbs and spices on KFC chicken, other fried chicken is too bland in comparison.)

4: well yeah, this is why externalities are a problem. No single individual has an incentive to do anything about it. Even Alan Greenspan recognizes that the private market doesn't deal well with externalities, so did Ronald Coase.

Re #1: There is, indubitably, a most beneficent and good creator who cares and has affection for us.

WTF is MIETNSSJ?

markets in everything those new service sector jobs

5. Is eventual result going to be a new Hays code for the 21st century?

People spend $15 per month for Netflix because they're worried they might be bored for 5 minutes, and $10 per month on Spotify because they're worried they might miss the latest hot track. Revealed preference tells me they're not 'worried' about agw in any meaningful sense, but they are worried about the social (and possibly professional) repercussions of outing themselves as unconcerned about agw.

[[dr.mack201@ gmail. com]] was the email i contacted when my husband left me. After spell casting my Husband came back quickly. Keep up the good work
Hanna Brian

Comments for this post are closed