What does “too comfortable” mean in this context? To me it sounds like you’re bringing up the situation where students don’t care or find the subject boring and then do other things like staring at their phone, doodling, chatting, etc. Is that what you’re referring to?

I don’t think that situation has to do with comfort directly, if anything people feel uncomfortable because boredom is not comfortable. The cause for that boredom could be bad teaching/presentation, or maybe the taught information builds up on knowledge that the student doesn’t have cause they missed a class or didn’t understand the subject at hand or they simply just don’t care and find the topic uninteresting. The brain is good at conserving energy so when a situation seems unimportant it shuts off focus or shifts it to something else. That’s not always helpful.

I’ve heard that for people to be teachable they have to feel safe. Feeling afraid makes your body enter a defensive stance and this includes not only resisting harm but also resisting knowledge transfer. I assume that’s why people who struggle with a subject at school sometimes have a difficult time catching up even when with tutoring.

It would then be similar to how you can’t convince a stranger who believes in wrong things - controversial topics cause stressful situations and when you’re seen as an enemy their brain goes into a defensive mode, distrusting you and not letting new information in. You first have to build up a certain level of trust and mutual understanding.

Maybe that’s nothing new. Either way, this picture reminded me of that.

This reminds me of “Fun to imagine with Richard Feynman” (Youtube link)

In it he said that he thinks people who find science dull lose out on a lot of pleasure. Then he goes on to explain some of the physics behind things we encounter everyday.

And what are you, a Klingon?

Qo’

The reason I use the term “human” is because this phenomenon seems to exist throughout all of history, it wasn’t limited to one specific person or culture or era. This is also why I gave so many examples. If you think there’s a better way to convey the point without using this term, let me know.

Is this similar to the ozone depletion and ozone holes that were always a big deal in the early 2000s and had lead to bans of chlorofluorocarbons eg in refrigerants and other products, or is this an entirely different topic?

To me it sounds similar so I wonder why the danger of Earth losing its atmosphere “very quickly” hadn’t caused panic back then, it was only things like “stay inside so you don’t get sunburns”. Though the atmosphere disappearing would be a way bigger deal.

I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.

True! I tried to acknowledge that with my first paragraph and add that they already are greatly impacted. My second paragraph wasn’t aimed at your person, I merely wanted to bring it up/let it out.

And a messed up ozone layer means the atmosphere will… disappear?

Just a heads up, you quoted me writing “kill all complex life (…) is exaggerating”. Then as far as I understand you wrote “it absolutely is [an exaggeration]”. Then you argued that surely microbes would survive. However, to my knowledge microbes do not count as complex life. Was that intentional?

will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.

What?

Well disruptions of a system eventually lead to new, different forms of stability where things will settle down. I can’t imagine life is as fragile as you make it.

Having the ability to kill all complex life sounds like a misconception humans made up. After all, humankind always liked feeling important, feeling special and putting itself in the center: pretending they life at the center of a disc, pretending the whole universe revolves around the planet, pretending only human bodies were inhabited by an eternal soul, pretending an all-powerful being cared about them, pretending they’re the peak of evolution, pretending machines could never outperform them.

Humans always try to find new things that make them unique and set them apart from other forms of life. Yet they keep getting disproven.

Do I understand this right that the really big argument here is actually ocean acidification? I can’t really believe that this wouldn’t open up niches for other life forms in oceans. I’m certain that complex animals will be greatly impacted - they already are - but temperature shifts will lead to animals migrating and complex life will keep flourishing one way or another.

I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans. To my understanding humans have about the same impact as many other of the more impactful species do and while many have lead to big changes on the planet, to my knowledge none have managed to come close to “ending all life”. That’s reserved for grander desasters, either from inside Earth or extraterrestrial.

Life existed long before there were any significant levels of oxygen in the air. I doubt humans can undo much of the ~20% oxygen level that exists today. And I think that’s reason enough that life even bigger than microbes won’t die out.

Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.

Why would all life perish? From what I’ve heard and read about nuclear disaster exclusion zones, humans disappearing tends to make space for other forms of life that had previously been displaced by cities full of humans and such. To my understanding long time life probably won’t care about anything for the next few million years.

Short term many or most humans might die or suffer. I don’t think it’s easy to predict how fragile humankind is, civilization may crumble. I doubt all of humankind will be gone in a thousand years, though I wouldn’t bet against a semi “post apocalyptic” future.

I feel like comparing OTTD to OpenLoco is a bit similar to comparing Freeciv to Freecol. OTTD and Freeciv just had so much more popularity and development. But OpenLoco and Freecol are still nice to try.

Of course! TTD and Locomotion were developed by the same person. From my understanding Locomotion is closer to the Roller Coaster Tycoon engine and UI. Also I think I remember reading an interview in which Chris Sawyer said Locomotion had the cleanest code out of the three.

On that note, considering the original engines are similar I wonder if OpenRCT2 and OpenLoco have any big similarities in the code base as well…

I guess it should be the other way around. More money (per person) means you should be able to afford reducing GHG. For example by better isolating your home, using cleaner sources of energy or constructing more power efficient machines.

Well it’s still asking for a subscription and hides the entire article. I could only read it after some manual HTML/CSS cleanups.

I think linking directly to the quoted source instead would’ve been a better choice considering it’s not behind an - albeit very weak - pay/subscribe wall.

Do you still like catching sticks and eating food from the floor?

Just wanna add this: rain water going into canals that drain into rivers also ends up in the sea.