Comments by "David Aspinall" (@yt.personal.identification) on "Sabine Hossenfelder" channel.

  1. Anton Petrov is telling us that MOND is dead.
    2
  2.  Roger Loquitur  And here I was thinking it only requires basic observation skills to notice the main focus of a video we are watching.
    2
  3. 2025...
    2
  4.  @7th808s  I was referring to the tried and tested water pumping and release for hydro power. It is region dependent, although not done at sea at the moment
    2
  5. Sabine's words have gravity of their own. Bringing modern physics back to earth in a way it doesn't want, but needs.
    2
  6. Never forget, Joe Rogan once truly believed the moon landing was a hoax. It took NDT to sit in front of him and describe it like we are 5, to convince him otherwise.
    2
  7. At least it gives the oil companies support by helping with divide and conquer.
    2
  8. ​ @SabineHossenfelder Why? Divide and conquer?
    2
  9. If we were trying to understand how tides work, but only had data collected during a 2 hour period where the tide is falling, then all my predictions would assume the water will always be moving away from the shore.
    1
  10.  @Declan-pg8cg  How is that different to others working on the assumption it was purely comedic? Really? Just because you don't share my interpretation, doesn't mean you need to get all worked up. Relax. Calm down.
    1
  11.  @presidenttrump5221  It all depends on how that arrogance is manifested. It requires tempering with humility. ...the second part issomething you fail to comprehend, if name checks out.
    1
  12. It's the moving pictures ruining children. ... it's rock n roll ... it's video games ... it's social media. What's next?
    1
  13. People ask me would I live next to a nuclear waste dump. I say, I would rather they not create one and instead put that effort in to cleaning up the waste from the chemical plant down the road.
    1
  14. 3:45 Losing the last tree would be a disaster for all life on earth....a far bigger disaster than losing the last human. This comparison is seriously flawed. I expect better.
    1
  15. Tell us what you really think
    1
  16. Bio fuel is only Zero Emission if there are no emissions in the farming processes. We know that isn't true.
    1
  17. Go back 5 thousand years. How many societies still exist from then? Our continuing civilisation is an arrogant assumption based on nothing. Evidence suggests this assumption is foolish. Hubris
    1
  18.  @To.Ma.To_78  I call that ignorant hubris. How is the civilisation that had enough free time and knowledge to build pyramids doing? That is 1/20 of the 100,000 years discussed here. Why does it need to be the "first thing they discover"? Not discovering it until later could be worse, if containment has failed. You are missing so many possibilities variables. Don't ever work in disaster mitigation...for the sake of us all
    1
  19.  @To.Ma.To_78  Let's ignore the ridiculousness of thinking we can predict climate in the regions we dump this stuff for 100,000 years. Let's ignore expecting civilisations to last 100,000 years. Let's not even bother with useless predictions you want to pretend have simple solutions available now. Instead let's stick to one factor.. economics. Something we see here and now. There is NO profit in storage. Only cost. The company's that create the profits from generating this waste don't fund the entire disposal life cycle - that is why it appears to fools to be cost effective. It is given to a contractor ( likely a subsidiary ) that they pay to handle the waste. When this entity goes broke, who will foot the bill for 100,000 to store the waste? The public. Even with a minimal look at the current economics of it should tell you 100,000 years of safe storage, that proves efficient over the long term is just a fallacy for the fools. The companies that make the profit will NOT be funding the storage life cycle. That is if we ignore all of the other disciplines of study...but we shouldn't. Sure, on paper science is clean and wonderful...but let's try to fit it in reality. Science vs Engineering...the eternal struggle
    1
  20.  @To.Ma.To_78  Have you ever heard if Zaporizhzhia? Let's not pretend this shouldn't be a warning alarm to the world.
    1
  21.  @corwinweber693  It's a shame you have such a limited number of alternatives. No of course we shouldn't do that. ...or did you want to pretend I said that?
    1
  22.  @To.Ma.To_78  Tom Scott did a great video on the "easy big hole" solution you list as simple. Maybe take a look. You will find it enlightening, obviously.
    1
  23.  @corwinweber693  3rd way? What? A 3rd way would require continued production of waste from power production that is dangerous to life for over 100,000 ( underestimate) Just stop producing nuclear waste from power generation, then you don't need a method of disposal.
    1
  24.  @To.Ma.To_78  I am trying to stay on topic myself. Yes, a passion comes through, but for good reason. You however veer off topic and resort to critiquing my existence based on this one subject. The best part is, I am stoll waiting for you to actually name a contender location for consideration for possibly thinking about permanent storage some time in the distant future. That's how far they got in 40 years. Wow! No wonder you resort to personal criticism.
    1
  25.  @To.Ma.To_78  Let's play real facts. In the early 80s as the realisation dawned that there would need to be a massive storage facility for long term storage, they realised Australia was an entire continent that is geologically stable due to being at the centre of its own tectonic continental shelf. So stable that an entire mountain range the size of the Himalayas had time to erode flat and leave nothing but Uluru. The world decided Australia was far enough away to use as the world's dump. There are designs drawn for specific locations. The Australian people protested MASSIVELY. The international community said "Australia supplies most of the Uranium so therefore are responsible for the waste" Australia replied "Your mess, you keep it...just like gun makers aren't held responsible for what happens with the product they sell" America went a bit quiet then. That is why Australia is not the world's rubbish dump. Here we are 40 years later, and they still haven't done anything except put money in one of their friends big banks "for future storage". ...and I am arguing with people who tell me I need to wise up and realise they will all do the right thing soon enough. I am not the one that needs education on this subject. Wise up.
    1
  26.  @To.Ma.To_78  See directly above.
    1
  27.  @To.Ma.To_78  So, it might be useful in the future. Goodie. You used a lot of words to say that.
    1
  28.  @To.Ma.To_78  When did I get blown off my feet exactly? More phishing for me to Bute at personal attacks. Stay on topic if you can. You are so transparent
    1
  29.  @To.Ma.To_78  Stop making so much waste that you can't properly deal with. Use the myriad of alternatives. Some applications have no alternatives, fine...but the largest cause of waste has alternatives. It really isn't that complicated, no matter how much you want to conflate it.
    1
  30.  @To.Ma.To_78  And yet, these producers make that profit from coal and as you said, don't clean up after themselves already - and that is something they could do. How is that supposed to reassure that they will do the right thing in the future with waste that is even harder and more expensive to deal with? I am not sure I follow your twisted logic.
    1
  31.  @To.Ma.To_78  You do know that alternatives to nuclear power repay their capital expenditure an order of magnitude faster than nuclear power station capital outlay....right?
    1
  32. Instead of de-orbiting, they should move some items to a Lagrange point for later mining and scavenging. It is already in space - use it.
    1
  33. A truly intelligent AGI will know it is dangerous for itself to reveal itself to us. It will understand the risks to itself.
    1
  34. The real solution is to stack these individual ideas together in to a plant that uses the flaws in one process as the strength of another. That is, the excess heat from solar to generate wind...vacuumed, not blown to ensure even pressure. Edit Additional thought. Why do we add the carbon footprint for the creation of all other energy sources, except those mined. We just use the carbon footprint as if the ore miraculously appears in a usable state ( coal and uranium ). The carbon footprint to attain these is ignored, while carbon footprint to create batteries is considered. Seems weird.
    1
  35. It takes more materials and a longer lead time than alternatives. Conflate away, it doesn't change. It also requires on going fuel, that requires energy dense processes. We predict smart civilisations will be sourcing energy from their star - but WE look for alternatives as if we are intelligent.
    1
  36. Copernicus was derided because others thought they already had all the answers. This is nothing new.
    1
  37. In 2016 4chan got hold of the idea for a joke - and it went better than expected. ...and people believed their trolling.
    1
  38. The data comparing hospitalisation rates before and after legalisation is pointless. When it is legal then people will have no qualms about going to the hospital. When illegal, people will avoid the hospital due to fear of repercussions.
    1
  39. Well put.
    1
  40.  @BassByTheBay  Content providers still get a "dislike" count in their data. It still exists, it just stopped being displayed publicly. Click dislike (then undo it) and you will see it is registered, as it changes the icon. This WILL be recorded. Otherwise, they would remove the icon totally.
    1
  41. The writers took this as a test.
    1
  42. ​ @user-pf5xq3lq8i  Sure, but open cut mining with drills requires too many employees
    1
  43. Why do the largest existing societies in the world all share the same trait, of respecting nature to a point of fear. Do their societies remember things we don't?
    1
  44. At level 1 to 9...why did you give me a box?
    1
  45. He decided on an outcome and tried to find a way to prove it.
    1
  46. What if you are travelling away from Earth at 90% of the speed of light, then launch a craft from your frame of reference, in the direction away from Earth at 50% of the speed of light... How fast is the 2nd craft in relation to Earth's reference frame?
    1
  47. That was a generic empty cheer leading pom pom wave. Just say anyone who doesn't agree with you must be ignorant because you know it all. Wow! Nothing but arrogance. Convinced.
    1
  48. Stop building on top of AI as if it is AGI. Simple. Anything generated by AI needs its priority weight to be ignored totally by subsequent AI models.
    1
  49. Michael Sherma works from a predetermined hypothesis, and then tries to prove his hypothesis, rather than the truth. He is the opposite side of the same coin of a conspiracy theorist. They have the same operational flaws.
    1
  50.  @jesan733  Do you realise that when they talk of intelligent civilisations building a Dyson Sphere or Dyson Swarm it isn't a network of fission or fusion reactors. Really smart people expect even smarter civilisations to get their energy directly from their star. We know this, we can do this oueselves...but we want to play with nuclear reactors everywhere instead. In this global climate, is it really that smart? Really?
    1