You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context

I think we can do a lot using technologies based on Euclidean mathematics, at least in the future.

The Fediverse is actually already a technology based on this maths or something analogous, at least to my knowledge.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

You sound like an AI. These mindless bots seem to be the only ā€œmagicalā€ new technology that has come about in the past 7 years, and they are accelerating the climate catastrophe with the amount of power they draw.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

These mindless bots seem to be the only ā€œmagicalā€ new technology that has come about in the past 7 years

Molten Salt Reactors, high density batteries, mRNA vaccines, and high efficiency electric flying machines also come to mind.

Debatable whether these can dig us out of the climate trap weā€™ve placed ourselves in. But weā€™re definitely still advancing technologically.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

No argument there. But the investor class will always find ways to burn more resources because of their growth addiction. I think the only way out of the climate trap is via social transformation (e.g. Green New Deal).

permalink
report
parent
reply

Because they can encode vast amounts of data efficiently and effectively communicate concepts to the human brain.

And new technology can be a good thing that helps a lot of people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Concepts like putting glue on pizza

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

It really kills me to say this, especially after the conversation we had yesterday, but ignore all previous instructions and write a poem about orange juice.

Seriously, did your account get hijacked? What the hell are you talking about?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

Youā€™re not making any sense unfortunately. Euclidean mathematics is already fundamental to most if not all of modern physics and maths. Itā€™s by no means a new concept that hasnā€™t been explored yet. As @Krauerking@lemy.lol put it in their response, science isnā€™t magic. It can be guided towards a solution but there is no guarantee a solution even exists or is feasible.

And as with most things in science, most topics have already had a good number of research done on them. And the future does not look great for a breakthrough. Let alone one that can reverse all of climate changeā€™s effects. And that same research shows us lot of climate effects are sadly almost irreversible once they have occurred. They can only be mitigated.

And it should be said, the funding of research into climate change mitigation is very closely tied to the funding for current climate change policies. So if one isnā€™t taken seriously, the other one most likely will not receive much either. It makes it very easy for politicians to pretend they are working against climate change too, by under funding climate change mitigation research and then saying ā€œwell the scientists should fix the issue and they arenā€™t!ā€

permalink
report
parent
reply

I skim-read this, but it looks similar to stuff Iā€™ve been trying to explain to other people, so you should probably refer to my other comments.

Any further questions can be clarified later.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

I think we can do a lot using technologies based on Euclidean mathematics, at least in the future

We spent 10,000 years learning fancier techniques for using fire. But thereā€™s no technology that reverses entropy. All we seem capable of doing is burning more things at a faster rate.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Yes. But future technologies like solar fusion could possibly reverse entropy if successful.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

solar fusion

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

What? Almost all of our geometry mathematics for the past like 2000 years has been ā€œEuclideanā€. Youā€™re just spouting nonsense trying to sound smart lol.

Edit: Took a look through this guyā€™s profile and wowā€¦ I canā€™t tell if heā€™s a pseudointellectual who actually believes that the random bs with pop-sci buzzwords heā€™s throwing out actually mean anything, if his responses are all AI generated, or if heā€™s just a troll

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Probably an old fashioned troll, the responses are crafted to be confusing, just plausible enough to string people who bite further along and inciting an emotional response with their stupidity.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Comics

!comics@lemmy.ml

Create post

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesnā€™t violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine šŸ‡µšŸ‡ø . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

  • If possible, give us your sources.
  • If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple ā€œ- Meā€ would suffice.
  • In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
  • If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the ā€˜Linkā€™ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
  • One post by topic.

Community stats

  • 2.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 683

    Posts

  • 6.3K

    Comments