Comments by "Zrips" (@Zripas) on "Thunderf00t" channel.

  1. 1
  2. 1
  3.  @PinkbombUK  I'm not talking about special tiny areas, was talking about actual whole cities... After all those block your precious view of stars... So should we enforce for ALL cities to basically cut off electricity at night? Should we change our life just because 0.013% (actual number of people who looks at stars with telescopes) of humans? Should we stop technological progress just because 0.013% of humans have extra troubles looking at sky?... I don't like street lights, should I just smash those? Like, at which point does this become ridiculous for you? What is the percentage of humans which gets inconvenient by a thing when we should start hampering something? If SpaceX launches space telescope for public use, would you ten be happy? No idea why you even want to imply that I would have said that Musk does it out of altruism... Its a business... Just like every other... You can't launch thousands of satellites without it being some sort of business. Will put it in different analogy here. At one point horses got outlawed from public roads. Was it a good or bad thing? Well, it was good for road safety, did some horse riding fans got offended by them no longer being able to go to their local grocery store to buy milk with their mule? Yes. Should we just said "F**k those pesky cars, we offended 0.013% of people, let keep using horses!!!" You sound selfish, honestly. Instead of providing cheap internet to remote places on earth to start educate people on the world you just want to look at sky instead... Like, c'mon...
    1
  4. 1
  5. 1
  6. 1
  7.  @skuggeboy  "So you call it complaining and hating that somebody mentions a possible problem that could affect our planet?" Correct. As you don't have any actual numbers you objectively have no grounds to say that something is bad, as for something to be bad you would need to prove that it is bad, but as you can't do that, you can't complain about it. Its basic logic 101. Get actual numbers, if those show that its actually causing an actual damage worth noting then you will have valid reason to complain, if its on level of rounding error then you don't have reason to complain. Simple. "Even if we don't have the numbers yet, it doesn't mean that it isn't a problem" And it doesn't mean that it is... THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT! "can trigger destructive reactions between ozone and chlorine, leading to the depletion of the ozone layer" Can or does? If it only can then you even have way weaker argument than before... its not only that you don't know how much damage it causes, it only maybe potentially could cause some... "If you have looked into the matter you would understand that it's pretty complicated matter and there's no easy answer." Then don't claim that there is an actual matter to address here. If its complicated, then solve it, until then you don't have valid argument here. "You think it's okay that billionaires and big companies can just fill the low earth orbit with junk without looking into these matters?" No, but you screaming and screeching that something is bad because billionaire did it will not help you out here either. Prove that it actually damages ozone and we can work together to stop it. And just try to notice that now you went straight away in attack mode on billionaires and big companies, like it has any actual meaning. Billionaires, big companies, local tiny grocery shop runned by Joe, doesn't matter, have no actual impact on actual argument here. So why are you even mentioning it like it has any meaning? It either damages ozone or it doesn't, who did it doesn't have impact on argument. "What do you mean about that I should stop using electricity?" Because production of electricity creates CO2 and CO2 damages environment, so you should stop damaging environment, aka you should stop using electricity if you want to stop damaging environment. Just using your own argument against you, not my problem that it sounds ridiculous. "More and more energy is being produced without CO2 emissions" Magic isn't real. To produce electricity you will need equipment to do it, it can be wind, solar, water, geothermal or anything else, but you still need equipment to produce it and its production creates CO2 and general waste. Electricity storage/transportation creates its own waste on top of that, your electrical equipment (PC or whatever you are using) creates its own CO2 footprint. So no, there is no such thing as energy production/usage without CO2 emissions, there are only the ones which are less polluting. So use your own argument and stop using electricity!
    1
  8.  @skuggeboy  "I make risk assessments for living so screaming and screeching comes naturally to me" Looks like you are bad at your job. You should avoid screaming and screeching until you get actual numbers to work it, otherwise you just look like paranoid person. "Sorry for offending your world view" No offense, not even little bit, just annoyance of seeing people who seemingly are smart but are unable to think rationally in some situations. "a possible negative side effect" Yea, possible, just possible, without you even knowing if this is even worth mentioning at the end of the day. Its possible that sun goes supernova tomorrow, doesn't mean that we should start digging ditches... What is possible and what is actually true are not the same thing. "It was extremely dumb of me" All of us have their low times, I forgive you. "The best solution obviously is just to be quiet and not say a word" Or, you could gather actual information to support your paranoid statements? Wouldn't that be a better option instead of creating conspiracy theories? " I should stop everything I’m currently doing and start researching this complicated matter without any qualifications on the matter" So you don't have qualifications, you don't have any actual data on it, yet you want to rise this "issue" like its a real issue just because it maybe possible could be somewhat a damaging thing on some level? Do you see how worthless this makes your original statement? "Just like all the journalists are doing." Doing what?... Its like you are going balls deep into some sort of conspiracy... Maybe journalists actually looked into it and asked actual experts and they came up with nothingburger? Maybe there is actual damaging thing and journalists are simply gathering actual evidence BEFORE speaking about it? Maybe maybe maybe. But what they are not doing is not creating conspiracy theories. "We humans will keep repeating history by first trying things out without thoroughly searching them" What do you suggest here? Let's postpone things for extra few decades until its fully analized? How would you even fully analyze a thing which needs to be done in bigger quantities on longer periods of time to actually represent actual impact? With your logic industrial revolution would still be a thing of the future as we would be sitting around the fireplace and pondering how much of environmental impact bigger fireplace could cause here... "I shouldn't attack big companies and billionaires" My question is: Why are you attacking big companies and billionaires? Is this all about them and not actual environment? "It's not my place to criticize them because I'm just a lowly peasant" I mean, you already admitted to not have any expertise here and that you don't have any actual evidence, so yes, it's not your place to criticize anything here. Even if I agreed with our conspiracy theory, you would still have no right to criticize here... I'm not defending big organizations or billionaires, just pointing out your irrational argument based on your personal ignorance, that's the issue here and the only issue. "I might be too optimistic about reducing CO2 emissions but that's one of the issues that can actually be solved" Then show good example and stop using electricity, you can stop heating/cooling your house too, or using your car, or... I mean, everything you do in your life creates CO2, after all breathing is the thing you have too do and each breath creates CO2, sooo... Like... You know... Not actually suggesting that, but this is where your own logic leads too... Makes no real sense, doesn't it?
    1
  9.  @skuggeboy  "Every single risk will be listed" Like meteor strike? Alien invasion? Scientists figuring out that we are in matrix?... Clearly you are exaggerating here, you are not looking into ALL possibilities here, you are only looking into the ones which have some supporting evidence of actually happening at certain or higher chance value, right? Or does all of your risk assessments includes meteor strikes? Supernova explosions? Unicorns appearing from thin air and puncturing fuel tank with their magical horns? "We will then evaluate each risk with people with different backgrounds and expertise" Cool beans, so go and talk with those people if this is an actual issue or not, otherwise, as ridiculous as it sounds, its on same level as saying that there is a risk of aliens getting upset of satellites interfering of their spying no earth and due to that they will wipe all life on earth because they are that thin skinned... Do you see how ridiculous and how fast it can get with your level of logic? We could sit here for 5 years and list all possible issues with rockets and satellites, as there can be basically infinite amount of those, doesn't mean that we should waste our time on all of them, right? "If you think that I'm bad at my work because of it, then I'm happy that my employer isn't as harsh as you and I'm still employed" Depends on what is your actual job, if its just coming up with possible issues, then cool, I could do it too. But there is difference between coming up with possible issues and coming up with issues which are actual issues worth to talk about, and as you already admitted you don't have expertise about satellite deorbiting damage caused to ozone and you don't have actual supporting evidence besides that one research which says that something could maybe possibly potentially cause some undefined amount of damage.Like cool, me eating beans and farting could maybe potentially cause some undefined amount of damage to ozone too, doesn't mean we should all throw our hands up and ban beans now... What we need is actual data BEFORE you make any claims of a damage caused by that thing. "Same goes with the ozone layer. If we damage it for some reason the end result will be much worse than spending more time evaluating the possible risks." That's the more interesting thing, we already been at the point where ozone layer was severely damaged, it was way way way worse, we fixed cause of it, now it healed. Having some wage potential issue with satellites causing undefined amount of damage is just... Worthless at the moment. "Hardly ever rich people will go to jail if they break the law" Because that's not how the law works and, well, rich people do have connections helping them to awade punishments, tho issue right now is that you don't even have a case to make here. I would be more than happy to stand by your side and request different satellites or their banning in general if you managed to prove that there is actual damage by them, but you don't have it, you just trying to do some weird scaremongering, yes, this is basically what you are doing. Scaremongering. I'm not scared to be annoyed, I will be more than happy to be annoyed if I can correct someone. We seemingly agree on most of the things here, what we only disagree is your scaremongering, you might be used to just present bunch of possible issues as part of your job, but this is not your job, you should only present things which are actually an actual issues and not something YOU think to be an issue. Happy New Year.
    1
  10. 1
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1