@webhat
quietly removing ‘rtext’ from Hypertext Markup Language?

@CiaraNi

@CiaraNi turning the ‘up slope’ of video into a cliff for us to fall off https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/112767616997017525

@aral thanks
https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/115949326682575405

@Durrell

@impactology the future of UI is less complex, but we will explore making it more complicated first

@fasterandworse @Npars01

@impactology yep

@Npars01

https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/115915898771966907

@impactology I’m lucky in that I don’t because I’m in my 60s. My generation and the one after me is pumping a huge river of shit on young people. I hope they find ways to stay out of its strongest currents, because submitting to them will wash them away

@Npars01

https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/115528012100649771

@impactology capital evaporated in 2008. It will do so again

@Npars01

@Npars01 agree with this. Its primary use will be the imposition of surveillance and oppression, which will be much in demand as the reality of a future with less affordable energy and resources bites down on distracted polities. At some point though that falls over too as the supply chains for it become impossible to sustain.

So it is most definitely not “here to stay”, along with much of modernity

@impactology

https://mastodon.social/@urlyman/115711731587842209

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @ErickaSimone

Hey, you could just rename them World Series

@graydon @futurebird

I wonder if over the short term it’s analogous to the point that @pluralistic has made about deliberate share price inflation by AI vendors.

All the world’s biggest private fossil/mining companies are sitting on assets which are in a superposition of being stranded. These same companies have the engineering expertise (in theory) to exploit Greenland. Merely ‘owning’ its assets is sufficient to provide a prop to share prices

@malte thanks for the link. A quick look at page 3 of the source report (https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621305/bn-carbon-inequality-2030-051121-en.pdf;jsessionid=A159EA1F6294BE9447493003B3F9F179?sequence=1 PDF) cites the “2.3” figure but doesn’t make clear how it’s arrived at. I presume theres’s a flawed and (as you say) out of date carbon budget being divvied up.

I note that https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-earth-naturally-absorb says there’s a ~100^9 tonne annual natural carbon cycle. Where to go from there I don’t know