You do know why wet bulb temperature of 35 becomes dangerous, right?

Because sweating stops working as a heat management mechanism due to physics.

Hrmph how does this work, did she get a chip?

Yup, I don't say it lightly, but they pinged my fed-detection unit too many times. Let me know your thoughts after you look into it.

Regarding CO2 and climate. It so happens that I’ve spent a part of my career working directly with climate related data. Think glacier extent, sea ice extent, sea surface temperature, etc. To me anthropogenic climate change is just a fact.

Plants will be fine, but humans and especially human civilisation are finicky things. Healthy humans start dropping like flies in wet bulb temperature of 35 Celsius. Currently that’s pretty rare, but it’s going to become more and more prevalent during this century.

On top of that add water stress, drought, and rising sea level, and you easily get to around a quarter of humanity living in areas that are going to become increasingly inhospitable. This won’t be a huge problem for, say, the United States. Americans can just move more inland and more north. Also, rich societies can find technological solutions to keep living in inhospitable environments.

The rest? The rest will try to move. This will lead to conflict and the fall of any semblance of international order. Because the places where these people will move to will become increasingly hostile to the newcomers as their numbers soar.

Regarding the laptop. I realise full well how the supply chain produces CO2, but that’s exactly the point I’m trying to make. In my opinion it’s not the use of energy that’s the problem. Energy generation might be, depending on mode of generation.

Concrete buildings are not the problem, coal being burned in kilns is the problem. I find this distinction really important. By focusing on the wrong thing we’re going to come up with the wrong solutions. Such as banning concrete. Or banning Bitcoin mining.

Yup, steam boat. There was a bunch of em at this marine festival today. I was memorized. Some wood fired some diesel. Soo cool

I’d still present “and that’s true for everything else” as a counter.

Steamboat?

If so looks like front and center is a gauge glass for water level. Top valve to fill, bottom to drain, both normally open during operation.

Top center between the gauges is likely the main steam stop. Hard to tell which is the throttle but it could also be that one. If it is it’s in a very weird spot.

Valve to the right of the gauge glass looks like it could be on the top of what may be a feed water heater but hard to say with the incomplete picture.

The two gauges on top are for boiler pressure and maybe condenser vacuum on the back side but hard to tell for sure.

Valve with the four prong black handle is probably the main throttle.

Can’t tell what the brass thing is tbh but maybe something for oiling? I would need to see a full image to figure it out.

All of this assumes you’re on a small scale steam boat. If you aren’t then ignore everything I just said 😂

🤓

Which knob does wat? 乁⁠༼⁠☯⁠‿⁠☯⁠✿⁠༽⁠ㄏ

good morning nostr, I made some pretty insane price predictions during the last bull market, that's on me, can't promise it won't happen again, stay humble and stack sats 🫡

Only on #nostr can you see this scrolling on universe in order

Cat

Tits

Anime

Bitcoin metrics

dick pic

Japanese writing

A song

Food

Pussy pic

Quote about history

Zapathon meme

Bot for gambling

A funny joke

And it goes on and on 😂

One of the things I don’t like about the energy argument is that it ignores how much energy the present system uses. That just gets brushed off. And arguably, the present system is less efficient because the energy is generated specifically to run it, whereas you can plop a mining facility in an area where energy is being generated for something else, but in excess and with that excess otherwise going to waste.

So, I’m one of the people who are convinced that CO2 is a problem. As in, it’s an existential threat to human civilisation. Not the planet, mind you, the planet will be fine.

But that doesn’t make me a Bitcoin hater. See, I don’t believe that energy use is the problem, it’s the mode of generation. When I switch on my laptop, it doesn’t start spewing out CO2.

I believe that the idea to start regulating what energy can be used on is a very slippery slope. Ok, let’s assume that a censorship resistant, global internet money is not worth it (I very much think it is). Why would gaming be exempt? Why would the energy spent in data centres running the ads industry be exempt?

If you thought your tweets that talked about Nostr on twitter were getting docked, you were right

Here is the competitor filter in Twitter algorithms:

Twitter is launching an in-app trading platform, it officially a shitcoin project now!

Will Bitcoin Twitter also pay for tweets with some shitcoin?

good morning nostr, we must build the future we wish to see 🫡

Thanks hun. That wasn't it. He had a list someone sent me but I can't find it. I need like... simple bitcoin stuff!

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

Can a few of you recommend me the Bitcoin books please? 📚 😆🤪🤓

But nothing too technical. Something easy please! My coworker confuses me too ✋️