Heat doesn’t go up. Hot air rises because it’s less dense than cold air. You know what’s less dense than hot air though? Vacuum. That’s a good thing, though, because we don’t want to be hemorrhaging atmosphere.

Even if we could build a physical heat sink sticking out of the atmosphere somehow, it would be less protected from solar radiation than anything inside the atmosphere, so if it were facing the sun it probably wouldn’t work.

Even if we had the resources and like, enough readily available materials on Earth to make some sort of retractable heat sink sticking out of the night-side of the planet, it’d probably require more energy consumption to create than would be worth it.

Probably the best way to cool things down is to quit burning so much shit and quit knocking forests down.

I love reading, but the moment an author tries to guilt me into reading their particular viewpoint as though I’m just a slave of the system if I don’t, I check out. I have better things to do, and this person doesn’t have any right to my time.

I mean, to me the meaning of that juxtaposition is pretty clear.

The Gadsden flag highlights individual primacy, but the thin blue line sticker makes it clear that it’s his individual primacy that he’s concerned with. For an anti-authoritarian evoking that symbolism, the ‘me’ refers to the general autonomy of humanity or at least Americans, but in this case it probably literally refers to that specific individual’s autonomy or to the autonomy of the United States as a country in a nationalistic sense.

He’s basically just representing his subculture and thumping his chest about how nobody better tell him what to do or get in his way, while also showing that he’s affiliated with a big gang. Whether he’s aware of the racist speech the symbol is referencing or the symbol’s deeper meaning is kind of up in the air, but it still probably wouldn’t produce much conflict with his sense of nationalist autonomy in an authoritarian context regardless.

Honestly, it’s that context that I think makes the association with Punisher inevitable. Whether the character supports the current gang in charge or not, he clearly believes in an authoritarian model of crime and punishment; that’s the lens he views the world through and the impetus for his actions. If it’s satire, it certainly doesn’t read that way. Though, to be fair, the show is probably a lot more egregious in that regard than the comic (while also likely being more widely consumed).

Frank Castle supports authoritarian measures so much that he goes beyond what the legal system allows for. He literally names himself after an action designed to reinforce authoritarian hierarchy. Sounds pretty on the nose to me.

I mean, obviously birth control is cheaper and easier for everyone, but that aside there should be as many as there needs to be. No one should have to carry a pregnancy to term against their will, and that shouldn’t be anyone else’s business or a political bargaining chip.

Don’t get me wrong, I definitely think the stronger argument to sway those on the fence is to emphasize that better access to birth control decreases abortions and banning abortion doesn’t actually reduce the abortion rate, it just makes it more dangerous. But like, that’s not why I take that position. Personal bodily autonomy is plenty of reason in my book, and I don’t feel a particular need to try to bring the number of abortions down.

But yeah, I’m sure it’s not a particularly fun medical procedure either.

A fifteen year old version of myself somewhere inside just screamed in iptscrae induced frustration.

You know, there’s a discordian game that seems pretty appropriate right now.

I honestly can’t stand slowly scrolling and waiting for the text to appear. What a terrible design choice.

Can we start archiving stuff somewhere that doesn’t block firefox?

Have you ever experienced actual snow? Like, four feet deep with a frozen crust on top? You’re not plowing that with your feet.

They won’t if you get rid of cars. Good luck plowing with a bike.

Skis would probably be more reasonable at certain times of year, but the terrain between cities isn’t exactly designed for skiing.

I know you want American infrastructure to not necessitate some sort of vehicle bigger than a bike, but it literally just does. Wanting it won’t make the change, and making unrealistic suggestions will remain just as ineffective as making no suggestions at all.

Accessibility is also more or less non-existent with these proposed solutions.

If you tried to bike in heavy snow here your entire tire would literally be buried. Especially if there were no plows.

There are, in fact, places that get real snow.

There’s some good information in this article, but I would have appreciated it being a little less of an ad for a podcast.

The title implies that we’re going to hear from scientists about their opinions, but all we actually get in its body is a single quote from one scientist as the literal tagline. Talk about clickbait.

In some places. But if you’re in a non-metropolitan area somewhere that it gets cold and snowy, you’re going to need a vehicle to bring you directly to your house unless maybe you’re downtown, and it’s going to need to have four wheel drive or at least enough weight to grip the snow.

I just want to, for a moment, shed some light on the mental disconnect here for Ms. Clifford.

This is a person who literally ran CNBC’s climate change desk. She is, then, ostensibly aware of all the same information any of the rest of us have about climate change.

And yet, she seems to think we can somehow have a world where everybody can casually fly to Istanbul or some other place they’ve never been every single year, and that’ll be sustainable. Or if she doesn’t think it’s sustainable, she’s still totally fine using her own financial position to do it anyway.

If this is how people who actually focus their careers on climate change think, we’re pretty fucked.

Have you not seen like, housing projects? High rises? Run down old apartments? Everybody who doesn’t have the kind of money you do doesn’t live like they do anyway. Like, in terms of transportation, I spend my whole work day driving people around who don’t really have the money to spend on a cab but have the money to spend on a car even less.

That doesn’t mean they manage to pretend they’re rich anyway, it means they make sacrifices you’ve probably never once in your life had to think about.

When they do splurge to make themselves briefly comfortable, it’s at the cost of more sacrifices that you don’t have to deal with anymore if you ever did. And then they get to deal with people rolling their eyes about how financially irresponsible they are.

Meanwhile the same people who make six figures are literally relying on people who make minimum wage in order to make their own lives convenient. And yet somehow that’s supposed to end up with everyone magically living like you?

You live in a fantasy world. Not everybody has the time or the money to prioritize spending several hours cooking. Not everybody is left with enough energy by the end of their minimum wage no benefit grind of a day that you expect them to tolerate in order to sustain your hunger for little conveniences like places to go buy fresh food to cook for your family.

Kinda sounds like you’re rich. I’m definitely not.

Wanna help? I can probably make an amount of money that you barely sneeze at go absurdly far.

I mean, isn’t the point of this article that they won’t stay that way?

Humans alter the landscape, but when nature takes it back why take away what it’s making use of?

Why does everything have to be for us?

Clickbait title. The places in question are: the South of the US, the Andes in Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador, and in highlands African countries like Ethiopia and Kenya.