keyboardpithecus

joined 1 year ago

Nah let us back in

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

[–] keyboardpithecus@lemmy.world -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

The media and a lot of social media painted the killing of the CEO as a kind of revenge by a victim of the health care system. But to be honest carefully looking at how it was planned and execute I got a very different impression. It looked like a contract killing executed by a professional.

I don't think that this event can be seen as a signal of the status of the system. If that interpretation were true we should see a lot more executives in the health care sectors being killed.

We don’t know the conditions that life arose in on Earth.

Yes, but, given that most of the fossils of archaic life was found where the primordial soup might have been present, that for the moment is the hypothesis with better support.

There isn’t an assumption that if it had liquid water it may have had life

Trouble is that between science and what we get from the media there is a big difference. In science the assumption is not there. But when you see the media reports about Mars or the future planned missions to Europa the assumption is there, blunt and with no attempts to justify it.

[–] keyboardpithecus@lemmy.world 23 points 3 days ago (8 children)

The problem with the modern media is that they frame everything in the context of money. Thus they ignore that the Britons joined just for the economy. They are a staunchly capitalist country that never managed to fit within the EU spirit. They kept resisting the integration and asking opt-outs for every initiative. During the exit process they acted as spoilt children, they absorbed all the attention and time of the European council and brought all the other activities nearly to a standstill. All of that tedious process ended up with a partial exit, the UK is still standing on the edge with one foot in and another out.

At this point I think that the best thing to do to stop crying over the spilled milk and do not even dare to think to come back, it would be just a pain for everybody.

 

An often repeated statement about any extraterrestrial object is: "if it has liquid water it might suport life". On this assumption a lot of space probes, robots and rovers include the sensors and the instruments the search for traces of past life. This has had high priority in many missions to Mars and it will have high priority also in future missions to the satellites of Jupiter.

Now the thought came to my mind that the ability to support life might not be enough. Life on Earth exists in the most inhospitable places, even in lakes that formed below the polar caps. But the theory is that life evolved in the primordial soup, which was a very favourable environment, only later it spread to inhospitable environments.

To repeat myself, what I am saying is that the ability to support life and the ability to support the birth of life might be two different things. How much different is the question. If the answer is that the difference is strong and life needs a cosy environment in order to arise the assumption it had liquid water therefore it might have had life is moot.

So, how strong is the difference? Is just some liquid water in unknown conditions enough to let life arise, even if it might support existing life?

[–] keyboardpithecus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

A real AI would have explained you that with great probability a room temperature (and atmospheric pressure) superconductor is not possible.

Few experiments were successful with small grains tested under enormous pressures. But apart from that a room temperature superconductor is unlikely due to the high entropy.