It’s not limited to direct reproduction of one’s own genes. Keep in mind that we live in a society. Contributing to that society means helping others of our species (with almost the same genes) pass their genes on. Just being kind to others is already great. You’re valid.

Fair point, but despite how we as a society treat artists, I still think that the underlying impulse to do art is an attempt to capture the interest and appreciation of others, building social bonds. Rarely is art made without a tought of presenting it to others. This is how art seems to happen with every other species on earth that does it.

Perhaps not with conscious intent. I suppose even staying alive and contributing to a society still means that you help your relatives pass their genes on. Even gay penguins do this when they adopt an orphaned egg.

The war is bound to happen at the latest when the Himalayan mountain glaciers melt away and a sufficiently bad drought hits the region. We’ll see if they have the patience to wait that long though…

If you really boil it down, all that any species ever does is in some way an attempt to propagate its genes. We aren’t any different either. The artistic spark that got Davinci to paint the Mona Lisa was there due to such behaviour being an evolutionarily beneficial trait (being good at art increases the social standing of a person and thus increases their chances of reproduction). I don’t want to sound cynical about this because I’m not. That’s just life. It really doesn’t matter. The painting is still beautiful.

So was the video linked at the end. I knew I would regret clicking the link and I still did it. Morbid curiosity is a bitch.

Draw her maximizing shareholder value

I think someone is just utterly clueless about how any of this works, and decided to wipe the slate clean and try again.

Oh some random message said so, that means it must be true! Because no one has ever written anything untruthful in a message.

If you believe this, then I can tell you that you should give your bank account information to me. For I am a Nigerian prince who desperately needs to unfreeze their bank account and get my money outside of the country. If you could send me $1000 USD so the account will be activated, I will send you one million as thank you afterwards I promise!

No it isn’t. Employees have relatively strong rights here. Nurses and healthcare personnel were the only ones who actually had to take the vaccine(at least in my country), and for good reason. I think you have poor media literacy skills, and/or you are consciously pushing an agenda.

Also pay attention to what communities you post in. Posting things that are not on the topic of the community is annoying and you may well start getting banned from communities if you keep this up.

I have been worried for a while now that many of these retro looking wizardpost illustrations may be ai generated, simply because I’ve seen a lot of them out there. A lot more than I suspect exist due to old DnD rulebook illustrations etc… Yet I haven’t come across any clear evidence for this. It’s troubling to say the least.

The range of the bicycle is constrained only by the rider. Assuming that the rider eats, drinks and sleeps (as most of us tend to do anyways for the sake of staying alive), the range is unlimited. You can’t drive a car either if you starve to death.

I’m not disagreeing with you on the rest, I was just talking about dependencies, which the bicycle has the least (apart from walking or skiing for example).

Consider a bicycle. Very low maintenance, simple to fix, no need for fuel, unlimited range. Complete independence, with the sole exception of winter maintenance of paths, but that’s also a problem for cars and public transport.

Certainly

Or maybe they just left it in a cold place for a while. Strong spirits freeze at around -27°C and Jägermeister (35%) freezes at around -19°C.

Sorry, I suppose I’m a bit too used to idiots going off about the smoke plume caused by the rocket carrying an Earth observation satellite or such. When there’s anything to be gained, the costs of the endeavour should be measured up to that. Here there’s no gain for anybody (unless one of those fuckers onboard has enough braincells to be able to appreciate the overview effect enough to affect their future behaviour for the better), so it’s a net negative no matter how much the cost for the planet is. My intent was not to excuse anything about this.

To copy paste an earlier reply of mine:

I was talking about the direct emissions of launching a rocket. The indirect emissions are obviously vastly larger and might as well include everything in the wider economy that enables stuff like this. Just maintaining the necessary industrial capacity is already a huge strain on the planet. That’s what I’m after with these comments. The rich fucker joyride is a largely inconsequential yet overtly visible result of a bloated system hiding in plain sight. The aerospace sector as a whole is just the tip of the iceberg of a global industrial society in ecological overshoot.

I was talking about the direct emissions of launching a rocket. The indirect emissions are obviously vastly larger and might as well include everything in the wider economy that enables stuff like this. Just maintaining the necessary industrial capacity is already a huge strain on the planet. That’s what I’m after with these comments. The rich fucker joyride is a largely inconsequential yet overtly visible result of a bloated system hiding in plain sight. The aerospace sector as a whole is just the tip of the iceberg of a global industrial society in ecological overshoot.

Yes, the comment I replied to is technically right in that there are some tiny countries out there. Or they would be, if the rocket in question would’ve been a vastly larger rocket that burned a carbon containing fuel. The New Shepard tourist joyride is tiny for a rocket and its exhaust is water vapour.

I hate rich fucks as much as anybody, but this particular vehicle uses liquid hydrogen and oxygen for propellant, so no direct carbon emissions from the fuel.

The spacex superheavy is the biggest rocket stage around and has somewhere around 1.7 million kg of methane in it at launch. That results in about 4.7 million kg (4675t) of CO2 when it’s burned. That’s the same as the yearly emissions of 338 average americans, or 962 people at the global average.

Rockets are big, flashy and make a lot of smoke, but the numbers really don’t amount to much when compared to the sheer scale of more mundane economic activities.