Comments by "" (@billionai4871) on "Joe Scott" channel.

"2019 was kinda crazy" - Joe, before seeing 2020
115
@veritasetutilitas5432 there's also 2 other problems with CRISPR: It's not as precise as we thought when we first found him (though it is much better than everything else we had) and we have an imperfect knowledge of what messing about with genes will do to a human. So even if we had a perfectly precise gene editing tool, we're still not sure if changing this will only reduce the chance of intestine cancer, or if it will change the size of your intestines so you now have to be a carnivore, because it isn't long enough to properly absorb nutrients from plants. Gene interaction is much more complicated than people outside the field tend to believe, and while I'm not in the field either, I've listened to some science broadcasters and that's what I've been able to gather
33
@bbbf09 working with living things isn't really as easy as it seems, tho. like, sequencing a genome, all you need is some viral samples (easy enough to find) and cold, technological processing, where you prepare and analyze the data. But using that to work with organisms that all react differently and we still don't know why is tough af. We still need to learn a lot about humans and stuff, but 4 centuries ago, that advice would be "stay away, because your humours will be unbalanced" whereas now we know why and we can work torwards a cure, even if not as fast as we wish. Back then they'd say that and wait for the wrath of god to be over. progress happened, but we're not in sci-fi territory yet, unfortunately
3
and yet, they still managed being the "first private enterprise to put astronauts in the ISS" or something like that with their dragon launch earlier this year....
3
No Thanks! Information Security is sooooo bad right now that even considering how much better it got in the last 25 years and how it could be better in another 25, is still too big a risk of brain hacking
3
Next time someone as weird about charging the car at home, you can answer by mentioning how one time, you had to leave to get the news, by buying newspapers, or had to leave to get entertainment, be it movies, music, plays or whatever. You actually mentioned how much people thought we'd go to a library in your AT&T video. This is basically the same thing
1
"you just need to take your glasses off" is about the same as today's "just don't have a Facebook account, a Google account, use only privacy browsers and duckduckgo". Yeah, I'm doing some of this, because it is impossible to function in today's society without at least some of that. How are you using Google play/apple store is you don't have an account with them? What smartphone are you using if not one of those 2? Some websites are forgoing the whole login process and just using "login with Google/Facebook", how am I supposed to use them? If the glasses become web 3, or like smartphone, it's not gonna be easy to take them off
1
What you left out is that octane is much more energy efficient, so a methane based combustion engine would need lots more fuel to run. I haven't done the math to see if it is more carbon efficient per Joule, I just mean to say that energy doesn't come from the hydrogen, it comes from breaking the bond and there are loads of variables that factor into how much energy the bond will release. You can find a table online, if you wish to do the maths
1
The problem is that, if I understood correctly which is always a question since I dropped out of my physics major, there is no way to measure the particle without accidentally sending a signal the other way, there's no way to know when a signal has been sent and if you check all the time, when they send a signal the entanglement breaks, so... So far, theory is falling us
1
"those poor birds". That's why I always try to kill 2 stones with 1 bird
1
@morganrobinson8042 then think about it the other way around: Things can always get better. No matter how bad the situation gets, it will get better, we (as life on this planet) survived worldwide mass extinctions, surely we'll get through this and what awaits us in the other side is a better understanding and being more prepared for this kind of stuff.
1
@morganrobinson8042 yeah. We are gonna die someday. You can look at all the ways it can happen, and do nothing but live in a puddle of pessimism, or you ca look at all the stuff you can do between then and now and find a new hobby.
1
@robertidonotsharemyfullnam496 you don't have to convince me. I was just trying to be nice because most people can't handle looking striaght into the abyss and still living a happy life, that's why religion is so common, but even non-religious people sometimes need that. I figured better safe than sorry and try to cheer some random person up, instead of using fact to make them face the mortality they might not be emotionally ready to
1
@robertidonotsharemyfullnam496 dont worry, it's all good :)
1
The highly elliptical orbit and the non-stabilizing moon scenario could work. If they happened together, and their periods were different, say relative primes, for example. As an example: you could get a highly elliptical orbit that takes 13 years to complete, and a wobble period with a 70 year cycle (stupidly quick, but that makes this scenario less likely), and it takes 227.5 years for stuff to repeat. Yeah, they could figure it out, but realistically, they'd have to be looking for it, or have enough data to support such a claim which would require a "couple" of full cycles. At least 555 years, probably twice or thrice as much for anyone to even begin thinking about that pattern. And given the current state of technology, I highly doubt they'd have records of that, given that everything needs to be hand copied to continue existing after a few decades, and even if it did, why would anyone look for any length pattern? Especially such a big one? So the seasons wouldn't be random, they'd be regular but seem random. One last thing: Geography is freaking amazing. if G R R Martin actually managed to create a semi-stable system where a current is every so often shut down and grows back to life, I'd kill to get my hands on his global map. How on earth would THAT work? Anyways, awesome video, just found you, and I'm planning on staying
1
I was going to comment about how there's nothing wrong with ghost hunting, so long as you understand that getting nothing can mean that ghosts aren't real. You know, all accepted theories today were - at some point - highly debated and disbelieved before conclusive experiments (some after those experiments too). We need scientists that test stuff, even unlikely stuff. You just have to admit when you're wrong. And then you did it before I could... How did you read my mind 8 months before I thought of somethin? Are you a time-traveling mind-reader??
1
One thing that you mentioned but seemed to sort of brush off is that we don't have to solve everything from the start. Improving 75%, or less at first and continuing to develop the technology is still steps forward. I would not mind having a 50% longer flight time when I visit my family if it means less carbon emissions, and that's a 600Km flight that happens 7 times a day. Big difference at the end of the year. Just because the solution isn't perfect yet doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile
1