Thank you. I don’t know that I ever knew that statistic about Greenland’s population. The nuke statistic tossed around - that I always heard - was something like “there are enough nukes to blow up the world a million times,” with is a silly, sloppy metric that doesn’t day anything about the actual warhead count. Are those Tsar Bombas, or Fat Man? How many megatons are required to “blow up the world” once? But that graph is interesting; it’s even more interesting that there population of Greenland and the number of (viable) warheads on the planet have been so relatively close.

I mean, if that’s how you get your rocks off, you do you. Personally, I’ve never found vitriol to be in any way healthy.

The biggest challenge for future intelligent species, and the reason why I know we’re the first technological ones, is that we’ve mined all of the easily accessible metals and all of the easily accessible fossil fuels. Any intelligence arriving after us is going to have to make a civilization without iron, precious metals, oil, or coal. Unless you get into some sci-fi bio-engineering scenario where they’re growing high tech, they’re doomed to being stuck in the stone age. It’s going to be hard for them to escape the planet, defend it from asteroids, deal with super-volcanoes, build advanced calculating devices… all of the stuff we would already find challenging even with all the resources we have.

Millions of years are not enough to replenish the fossil fuels, and the sun is going to start expanding before enough life lives and dies to produce any useful amount of biomass. Before then, more metals will become accessible, in places, but good luck working it at industrial levels without fossil fuels.

I’m not saying it’s impossible, but we’ve given a severe handicap to advancing beyond a rudimentary agrarian society for any successor species; even if it’s our own descendants re-arrising from a post-apocalyptic environmental catastrophe.

“You’re not obligated to respond”, combined with “nobody else cares about your quarrel but you and that idiot” are the two maxims that make my social media experience better. Sometimes I feel like arguing, but if I think someone’s arguing in bad faith, I just block 'em.

Life’s too short to spend time interacting with morons.

But why would you have thought that? There have always (for recorded history values of “always”) been people in Greenland; there have only relatively recently been nuclear warheads. So - regardless of truth - why would you have assumed that there must have at some point been more warheads in the world than people in Greenland? That doesn’t seem like an obvious assumption, to me. What made that occur to you?

Just to clarify for OP:

The format is always SVG, as it’s an open standard. Inkscape is the leading FOSS SVG vector editor. Boxy is a web-based SVG editor which is freemium.

SVG is the W3C standard for vector graphics that can be rendered by practically every browser. Gzip compressed SVG files (svgz) are much smaller but enjoy less support.

Illustrator can import, edit, and export SVG files.

A little later, maybe, but much the same… on the upside:

• we were optimistic.
• we were going to conquer space, and it was going to be real live humans, not semi-autonomous robots
• society (in the US and W. Europe) was (very) slowly getting more progressive.
• Hitler had been killed, and fascism defeated forever. Never again would we have another dictator; never again would we watch a country commit genocide against a people.
• life was slower. TV was the bad influence rotting kids brains. We didn’t have an entire industry focused on commoditizing us.
• computers were fucking incredible. The future we imagined coming from computers was very, very different than what we ended up with. For one thing, we didn’t imagine a single-minded focus of all software and computing power on commercializing every aspect of our life.
• no Facebook, no Twitter, no TikTok
• Income disparity was far less extreme, and class mobility was a realistic dream. You could imagine buying a nice house and raising a family on a single income. If you worked hard and had a little luck you could pass on some reasonable wealth to your kids.
• shit really was - in the aggregate - getting better all around. Technology was advancing and bringing amazing products; science was being discovered that you could basically wrap your head around. Lives (in the Western world) were improving (relatively, compared to previous decades) for most people, and all this happened at a pace that didn’t up-end your world every day, 365 days a year.
• you could get all the news you needed for a fairly rounded world view in a single newspaper, much of which you could read over breakfast. There was no information overload.

On the downsides,

• dad beat us with a belt as punishment
• we were having wars that were disrupting society. The draft was a real worry.
• we were constantly afraid that nuclear war could happen at any time
• commies were hiding under our beds
• minorities of all kinds were fighting for their rights, and fighting to get them enforced. It sucked to be gay, or black, or a woman (but it was getting better, slowly)
• most people didn’t have access to a computer, much less a PC until well into the 80’s, so you had to infiltrate University computer labs.

It was a slower world, with fewer consumer goods, fewer conveniences, and worse medical care. Everybody smoked, all the time. But slower was good, and - best of all - we didn’t realize yet that we were killing the planet; the world wasn’t ending.

When it was first released, I was interested in the decentralized nature of it as a currency. I liked - well, I still like - the idea of a currency that isn’t controlled by a government. At the time (2009-ish?), I also thought it was anonymous, which also appealed to me; cash is mostly anonymous, but it can’t be used online, and even then the fact that society was increasingly moving toward cashless - and very traceable, and usary-heavy - credit cards was clear. Stripping privacy is critical to control.

Bitcoin isn’t anonymous, but other cryptocurrencies are, and bitcoin laid the groundwork. To your question, I, and many other people, paid some money to get some bitcoin - I think I spent $120? Mainly so I had enough to explore the space and play with it, because even then mining seemed painfully slow. Once money was spent on it, by whomever and for whatever reason, it acquired value: the value that, if you had some, you could sell it to someone else, or trade it for goods. In that way, it has the same value as an IOU on which I’ve scribbled “Good for $10 from Ruairidh Featherstonehaugh” and signed my name. Flawed metaphor, but you get there idea - the paper itself has no intrinsic value.

Despite that mining is so horrible for the environment, the concept that motivated Bitcoin still IMHO has value. An entirely digital, cashless system, not controlled by any one organization but rather by the community of participants. If Bitcoin didn’t have the environmental cost - if it has been proof-of-stake rather than proof-of-work, or if the computational work was actually something useful to society like gridcoin.us, it wouldn’t be so controversial. Sure, people are still going to be bitter about not buying into it early, but as long as people are willing to trade goods and services for it, it’ll have real value based on market rates.

There’s hope, though. Although stalled by the current civil liberties regression phase we’re going through in the States, and the rise of fascism globally, in some States and some countries assisted suicide is legal. There’s a wonderful product called the Sarco Pod, developed by an Australian, that performs euthanasia by nitrogen, which is one of the best methods of suicide. It’s not currently widely available, but hopefully services offering it will start popping up. We have to get through this rough patch, first.

Most of the people who get into trouble in the water and need to be rescued already know how to swim. My point wasn’t that they should be afraid of swimming, it was book learning isn’t going to help, and what they read in a book is going to be the first thing to go if they do panic. Which is likely what will happen if they read a book thinking they’re learning to swim and then go try it.

Go to a pool. Get in the shallow end and practice putting your face under water. That’ll be far more useful than reading about how to do a breast stroke.

Well, yeah. But they could also skip the books; the practice will be much more useful.

You can’t watch your form in a mirror, in a pool. Well, Elon and Bezos probably can, but most normal people can’t. So you can’t tell how you’re doing, if you’re trying to actually swim well. Having an instructor, or even a friend who knows a little about swimming would even be better than any amount of book reading.

I’m all for book learning, but I doubt many people learned to ride a bicycle by reading a how-to first.

If they’re going to spend time trying to learn to swim, that time is better spent in a pool, than reading about it.

I also have the prompt set to the host name. I’ve never understood why people included their usernames; I don’t log in to more than one account on each machine.

It absolutely is. The typesetting is beautiful, and it’s far easier to work with than (LA)TeX. It also doesn’t take up 2GB of disk space.

Based on some real-world knowledge, no.

For example, there’s this class that military helicopter pilots take as part of training for surviving water landings. They have the body of a helicopter which can be dropped into a big swimming pool. The pilots strap in, they’re dropped into the pool, and they have to unbuckled and exit the helicopter.

So many people fail this, repeatedly. Scuba divers are in the pool just to extract the people who can’t make it out. The issue is that when you panic, you tend to stop thinking rationally; it’s why swimmer lifesaving is so dangerous - a panicking swimmer will do anything to save themselves, including grabbing the lifesaver and trying to climb on top of them, which can result in both people drowning. In the pilot case, people panic and can’t unbuckle themselves, straining against the restraints to get out, until they have to be rescued. Even if they start well, trying to unbuckle, if they fumble at the restraints, they can panic and then they stop trying to unbuckle. Even though the helicopter is only a cockpit and a bay with big van-style doors, people panic and get lost trying to get out; they just can’t find the bay doors, and have to be rescued. For these night tests, you can’t see which was is up, and people panic and forget to take time to orient, and swim toward the bottom of the pool, and have to be rescued.

All of the theory in the world can’t protect you from panic; the only thing that helps is experience. You do it enough that you get used to it and have confidence that keeps the panic at bay.

Studying isn’t enough, because the first thing that goes when you panic is your ability to think rationally, and the only way to prevent panic is confidence, and that’s developed through experience. It’s why teaching always includes homework: you have to exercise the knowledge for it to become second nature.

According to election theory, a dictatorship is the only perfectly fair voting system: the only voter wins the vote, every time.

As long as it isn’t github.

Publish that puppy. It can’t hurt.

Don’t do it in github, though. Sourcehut is better; or if you crave that cluttered, JS-heavy feel, Gitlab.

Agent Smith wasn’t wrong. Most villains have a weak motivation; Smith’s was strong, because it is true.

Do you think I’m promoting voluntary extinction? I don’t think anyone has to do that - not only would it not make a dent in the race to doomsday, but it’s unnecessary since we’ve probably already passed the point at which we’re capable of halting the runaway ecological collapse we’ve engineered - even if there was any indication of willingness on the part of the biggest polluters to draw down, which there isn’t.

What I find funny is those people who are still making more people, as if they’re not dooming them to live through a true apocalypse: global societal and ecological collapse, technological regression, famine, and the resurgence of self-perpetuating oligarchies. A dark ages, but one we’ll never come out of.

Yup! Of the things we could be, we’re most like a virus, but parasite might work. Most parasites don’t kill their hosts, and if they do it’s a secondary action - it usually isn’t the parasite itself that kills the host, but some virus or bacteria the parasite transmits. There are some really nasty parasitic worms that will kill you, or make you wish you were dead.

We’re definitely not symbiotic, like most macro and many micro organisms are.

If we consider the the ecosystem as the host, we’re killing it; and individually, we’re micro-sized to the Earth, so I think virus is the most accurate model.