@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Gloomy

@Gloomy@mander.xyz

A buddhist vegan goth with questionable humour.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

It is stated in the article that it is a “second generation planet.”. The primary star went red giant and destroyed all the previous Exoplanets. The one they observed has reformed from that debre.

It’s a preprint tough, so not yet peer reviews. So for now maybe to be taken with a grain of salt.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

True, but there will be New Solutions. Or no YT for me at least. I am not willing to watch a single stupid add. Not one.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

I just copied them over from here. Works for me.

letsblock.it/filters/youtube-shorts

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

You forgot to put the /s in.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Thanks. If anybody is interested, I saved this article about said planet. It does, imho, a good job of going a bit deeper into the paper without beeing to technical (speaking from a lay persons perspective)

universetoday.com/…/planet-found-in-the-habitable…

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

… Horses, Sheep

It’s the animals enlaved for our plesure that have the highest likleyhood to survive short term, I agree.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Very true, that’s exactly how it feels to me.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

I wish, but most humans are stuck on the “there was a road untill here, we will find a new one. No need to slow down for that. There always has been a road.” sentiment.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Jtlyk, you can use a custom keyboard, like Swift Key. Many have the option to scale according to your preferences.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

This is not proven at all. It’s at best controversal.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

5 % of or, according to the article.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

You are confidentaly wrong here, my friend.

For one it realy is something that depends on the global and local region. There are multiple studies that point to a lack of evidence towards a clear answer. I’m not invested enoth to hunt down to many examples, so I’ll just quote this 2016 Australien study:

researchgate.net/…/305655680_Can_recreational_hun…

Public lands in Australia are increasingly being made available to recreational hunters to take introduced mammals such as wild pigs, goats, deer and canids. These species can cause substantial damage to environmental or agricultural assets, and it has often been argued that recreational hunting contributes to the amelioration of these impacts by reducing pest population densities. This position has been vigorously disputed by some parties. However, there is little locally-relevant evidence to support either side of the debate, and hence little evidence on which to base useful policy.

Even clearly pro hunting websites have liste of pros and cons to hunting as pest control, like this one

huntingandnature.com/…/hunting-as-a-form-of-pest-…

So no. It is not a clear cut matter, nor is it proven beyond any doubt.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Show me a study tust proves it then please.

Gloomy, (edited )
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

You are shifting the goalposts here. I argued against hunting beeing, and I quote:

Its pretty proven at a 5th grade reading level of study, and even more proven with every grade up.

Its actually kind if hard to find a more proven aspect of biology.

You are the one who claimed that it’s 1000 % proven that hunting is good pest control. Which is not true.

I didn’t argue against it beeing efficient in some locations. I argued against it beeing “hard to find a more proven aspect of biology” that it is so.

So either show me some scientific backup or admit that you might have been a bit of there (it happens to the best of us, no big deal).

That doesnt change the fact that in areas where we have removed or reduced predator populations, replacement hunting does show to help fill the gap and keep prey populations within healthy limits.

Please read the study I posted earlier, which shows how this is not universaly true, or, as I have said before, at the very least controversal.

Look at the american deer conundrum as your prime example. When we stop hunting them in areas low in predation, they start destroying their already fragile ecosystems with overgrazing.

Regarding this i would like to direct you to this study:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/…/ece3.5729

Specifically, recreational hunting was unable to decrease deer densities sufficiently to protect growth of the majority of Q. rubra seedlings, as reported elsewhere (Bengsen & Sparkes, 2016; Blossey et al., 2017; Simard, Dussault, Huot, & Cote, 2013; Williams et al., 2013). This inability of woody species to transition from seedlings to saplings over much of the eastern US, and not just of palatable species (Kelly, 2019; Miller & McGill, 2019), occurs in a region where recreational hunting is widespread, ubiquitous, and accepted by the vast majority of citizens (Brown, Decker, & Kelley, 1984; Decker, Stedman, Larson, & Siemer, 2015). Some authors claim that hunting can reduce deer browse pressure on herbaceous and woody species, but browse reductions were either small (Hothorn & Müller, 2010), or we lack information about differences in hunting pressure in reference areas that also saw improvements in woody and herbaceous plant performance (Jenkins, Jenkins, Webster, Zollner, & Shields, 2014; Jenkins, Murray, Jenkins, & Webster, 2015). We therefore need to reject claims by wildlife management agencies that recreational hunting is sufficient to allow forest regeneration and can protect biodiversity (NYSDEC, 2011; Rogerson, 2010).

To be fair, they are talking about hunting beeing the only method used here and also can’t find prove, that other measures (like only protecting the plants) and no hunting are enoth. There just is not enoth clear data to support either side right now. Hence its controversal.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

But do you act this way when someone says “yeah bleach is known as an effective cleaner” just because you cannot spray bleach on literally every mess in literally every scenario with every surface? I dont think you do.

Well I for sure woudnt say: "Bleach is the most efficient cleaner, it’s hard to find a better proven chemical fakt. "

;)

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Der verlinkte tweet spricht von 400 und 500 Gram, da hast du was durcheinander geworfen.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

How so? If the result is similar they are just different roots to the same outcome.

The main difference is that the resilience, or the ability of a child to cope with the abuse, may vary greatly between physical abuse, sexual abuse and psychological abuse (like what the article is talking about). So a single sexual abuse is much more likley to cause Trauma, then beeing yelled at once. But beeing yelled at for years? Beeing told that you are wortheles repeatedly? That is likley to cause a lot of harm, especially because it plants a sense of “not beeing good enoth” in you that can take a lot of work to overcome once grown up.

There is no need to rank diffent kinds of abuse against each other. We need to see them as equaly harmful for children and not trivialice them.

Gloomy, (edited )
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

This is mostly on point, but it also reproduces the 100 companies 71% line.

100 corporations are responsible for 71% of emissions related to fossil fuel and cement production, not 71% of total global emissions.

Of the total emissions attributed to fossil fuel producers, companies are responsible for around 12% of the direct emissions; the other 88% comes from the emissions released from consumption of products.

politifact.com/…/no-100-corporations-do-not-produ…

It’s unfortunately not true. Just widley quoted.

Gloomy, (edited )
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

You are speaking truth, going vegan has one of the highest possible personal impacts. Eating animals is one of the main reasons for the massive land use, since we need it manly to feed animals, therefore it is reducing biodiversity.

Personaly, I don’t think the second part of your comment is sensible. Beeing aggressiv and making accusations (even if warented) will not change peoples minds but make them defend themself. But again, that’s just my view.

(edit to reword a sentence)

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

No. It’s the System that encurages them to dog it out that is to blame. A System that is build around exponancial groth. Those 117 companies wouldn’t dig or pump that stuff out, consumers wouldn’t live lifes that use up extraordenary amounts of energy compared to any other time in human history, goverments wouldn’t make the GDP their holy grail, if not for the hyper capitalist framework that has enabled this to happen.

So, it you have to blame something, blame the bloody System.

And, btw., don’t use the “the companies are responsible” line to excuse not changing how you consume and how much you personaly continue. I am not saying that you are doing so, but I’ve read it to many times by now.

Yes, BP pushed the carbon footprint idea. Yes, BP and any other oil company has to do chance their buisness model. That does not mean that All of us will not have to degrow the way we live. Every one of us needs to start acting in a more sustainable manor, from Individual to company to government, if we want to minimise suffering for future generations. If we don’t (and honestly it doesn’t look like it) their will be a systematic reduction in complexity anyway. The only question is if it will be by design or by desaster.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

You can fuck right off with that attitude, mate.

/s

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

"Me, a members of the only dominant species, whom is at this moment causing the sixt mass extinction, has once fehlt minor inconveniance by one of the species we are currently wiping out, therefore it is completely justified to wish said species a painfull slow death."

  • You
Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

I came for this and was not disapointed.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

This is correct, but the link leads to the wrong article. The one you are talking about is here, I suppose.

When one thinks about it, it’s a quite genius move. He can’t name and shame, because that would be a breach of diplomatic protokoll, but as the host he can decide whom to give a voice. And by making the demands he is made he exposed those Nations that don’t realy give a fuck.

I like him.

Gloomy,
@Gloomy@mander.xyz avatar

Eventually there will be a global simplification. It remains to be seen if this will be by desing or desaster.

This is how a paper i read once put it and those words habe been engraved in my brain ever since.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • osvaldo12
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • everett
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • InstantRegret
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • Leos
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •