I'm sorry, but because you keep posting offtopic and flamewar comments, even after we asked you to stop, I've banned your account.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Every time AI encroaches on human territory it cannot be changed back. Don’t be fooled by the innocent nature of these early encroachments. At a certain point life on earth was just a bunch of amino acids…
Can you please un-flag my comment about dietary animal fat? Someone keeps on flagging my posts about the nutritional value of meat even though it doesn’t even come close to breaking guidelines.
I'm sorry, but you've been breaking the site guidelines so frequently that we're pretty likely to ban you.
I'm not going to ban you right now because I don't think that would be quite fair thing to do in response to a post like this. But you've definitely not been posting in a good way for HN. We really don't want flamewars here. Also, comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27637580 are bannable offenses in their own right.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, your best bet is to read the site guidelines, internalize them, and completely change how you've been commenting. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
What about the person who flags comments that don’t even come close to breaking guidelines? He doesn’t get anything? I’m sick of comments being flagged incorrectly. People are flagging because they are vegans who get triggered or because of their personal political views and you guys don’t do anything to stop it.
I remember that google hired a team of crack scientists to get the the bottom of global warming. Their conclusion was that even if all carbon production was stopped immediately it would not stop the runaway. That was in 2015.
We will probably end up needing to reduce solar flux. It’s the only thing that can save us. That’s why bill gates was planning on putting reflective aerosols in the atmosphere. That effort is to my knowledge the single most important effort relating to global warming. And people reject it. If we die we will certainly deserve it.
Remember, we can spread reflective dust at L1, too. Reflective in the IR, so plant life won’t be hit. You don’t hear about solutions very much in this atmosphere of doom worship.
Thank you for this. It is much easier for me to imagine that a relatively small expert team, well funded for the task (which is still virtually zero money in comparison to the cost of changing the world economy) could accomplish some feat of geoengineering which, would buy us time. I find this easiest to imagine. In fact, I see this as somewhat likely.
> In this paper a method of geoengineering is proposed involving clouds of dust placed in the vicinity of the L1 point as an alternative to the use of thin film reflectors ... it is envisaged that the required mass of
dust can be extracted from captured near Earth asteroids, whilst stabilized in the required position using the impulse provided by solar collectors or mass drivers used to eject material from the asteroid surface.
Don’t we run into problems of low level carbon dioxide poisoning, if we hit the levels of “the only way to keep the planet habitably temperate is to reflect sunlight”? At around 1,000 ppm we’d hit the point where everywhere outside you’d be noticeably affected. Which is around where we’re projected to be by 2100.
> We will probably end up needing to reduce solar flux
If you believe this, the time to start working on its actual practical application is probably right now. Do you believe in this enough to stop what you're doing for work, and work on this instead? The money is out there.
This isn’t bullshit. Directly observing the behaviour of live cells in context is a powerful technique. This work means such techniques will be even more powerful, by increasing the feature resolution and reducing light induced damage to the cells.
Electron microscopy has drawbacks when it comes to studying biological samples. The sample has to be prepared for examination in a vacuum chamber using ionizing radiation and using fixating processes and reagents that kill the cells and may damage/distort lipid membranes. Brief intro here:
The structures in biological samples are often very delicate, their structures ruined by all of those treatments: think soap bubbles rather than bones.
It doesn't matter how small the structures you can observe are if you can't be sure they haven't been warped and distorted by dehydration, doping with heavy metals like osmium, exposure to vacuum, and being blasted with radiation until it's heated to 150 degrees celsius.
Don't get me wrong: electron microscopy is great for mineral samples, and can be used for biological samples subject to some constraints. But you can't examine specimens with it while they're alive.
