I personally wonder if Jordan wrote himself into a corner with the Tower of Genji. The magic system and tone didn’t really match the rest of the WoT universe. If you look too closely at it, it raises all sorts of nasty continuity questions for the universe as a whole. The Tower of Genji smells like a deus ex machina.
Sanderson did a great job, but my only critique was that the Tower of Genji part seemed rushed. The build up to that was almost as important as the Last Battle.
I don’t think the rushing was Sanderson’s fault, but Jordan’s for leaving so much unfinished. My understanding is that when Jordan died, Sanderson was asked to write the “final book”. When looking at the material that remained to be written Sanderson said it needed way more than one more book. He ended up writing three, but I wonder if the material may have called for five. Sanderson had his own stuff he wanted to write and didn’t want to live for more than three-book-years-worth in Jordan’s universe. I can’t blame Sanderson for that.
Just make sure that Martin takes decent notes so that Sanderson can be tapped to bring the story home. Sanderson did a marvelous job finishing Robert Jordan’s giant story.
Assuming the sheep are only fed from the grass they eat on-site, how are they NOT carbon neutral?
You’re correct that they take in the same number of carbon atoms as they eventually exhale/excrete/etc… So, in that sense, they are carbon-neutral.
But that doesn’t mean they’re climate-neutral, because when you combine carbon atoms with 4x hydrogen, you get methane, which for physical reasons has a significantly stronger greenhouse effect than CO2. And ruminants (like sheep and cows) belch out lots of methane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminant#Ruminants_and_climate_change
I wondered if you were going to go the methane angle. Like most of the points here, you’re not wrong, but focusing on it negates the overall good.
That’s why even people who would immediately choke to death, if they ate a vegetable, could still help out on the climate front, if they switched from beef (and mutton) to poultry and pork. See this graph, for example: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints
But every conversation has to be injected with this message?
And yeah, reading through the article, I’m happy that it’s being used for solar, I’m happy that if we’re already raising sheep, they’re at least being used relatively efficiently, I’m even happy that the sheep are living a relatively happy life.
What I’m less happy about, is that OP vegan was pretty spot on. They’re raising additional sheep for this endeavour. And no one had the expert knowledge to ask, if the belching sheep maybe somewhat undermine the climate advantages of solar.
Because that wasn’t the choices. It was mow with fossil fuels or mow with sheep. This is what becomes so tiresome about the vegan injection. Yes things can be better. Yes this isn’t perfect. No, veganism isn’t the only way to achieve improved results.
Different vegan here. I’ll be blunt about it: There’s facts about animal agriculture, which are uncomfortable, if you’re not vegan.
Thats just it. This isn’t an article about animal agriculture. Its an article about solar power first, and reduction of carbon from mowing second. Both of these are good things! What the OP vegan did was look past all of that positive to try an extra a negative from it.
Actually being ignorant about them rarely happens as a conscious decision,
Strange phrasing, but I believe you’re describing “willful ignorance”.
it’s more a matter of it just not making for a great smalltalk topic when you’re not vegan.
That can be true of lots of distasteful, but necessary topics necessary for life. I don’t usually engage in small talk about mortuary science, sewage treatment, or surgical removal of tumors, but all of those are certainly incredibly important to life as we are biological animals ourselves.
Animal agriculture organizations will also gladly add to the confusion, by talking only about CO2 emissions, when they should be talking about CO2-equivalents. This post has too little info to really know what’s going on, but it happens that people think grazing animals are 100% climate-neutral, so it mentioning lots of grazing animals and a reduction in emissions also had me wondering, if that is actually true.
Assuming the sheep are only fed from the grass they eat on-site, how are they NOT carbon neutral?
This sounds like a “perfect is the enemy of good” situation. Saying using sheep used here to eat the grass around solar panels is not good enough encourages abandoning the idea and going back to fossil fuel based mowing. Or worse, that this is a “problem with solar” and “solar should be abandoned”.
If you google the title you find this article which is the one I assume OP used.
When I saw your post, I initially dismissed it entirely and thinking how embarrassing it was for you to take a story that does produce a positive net benefit for climate and try to turn it negative from a completely unrelated view. Obviously I assumed from your statements that your opposition was due to you being vegan. A 5 second view of your post history confirms this. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and understand where you’re coming from and what you want to accomplish. It got me thinking about what your thought process was when you posted here on this story. I have some questions about your motives and methods I wouldn’t normally ask, but you’re putting yourself in the spotlight for your cause so you might be open to a discussion. If so my questions are:
You clearly support veganism, and I assume you would want others to adopt it too. Did you think your delivery here here would make omnivores suddenly abandon their diets and adopt yours? Did you consider that your message (while containing some accuracy) would actually turn people off from veganism because they didn’t want to be associated with people that do what you did here and crap all over otherwise good news?
How did you decide to just inject your veganism into this story? What criteria did this one meet that you thought “this one, this one needs to have passive aggressive veganism representation”? Was it just random that you saw this one and weighed in with veganism or do you spend lots of time scouring for all stories that don’t have an unrelated vegan view and then you inject one? It makes me wonder how effective that is for your movement. Or is this more of a act of martyrdom? Are you “fighting the good fight” whenever and where ever it can be?
If your overall goal is reducing livestock agriculture have you considered your highly negative approach actually working against your goal? Alternatively, are you intentionally cultivating the negative stereotype against vegans for some reason I don’t understand? If so, can you explain so I can gain understanding?
My whole thread was specifically about Android. You know what? You’re looking to salvage a victory out of this based upon pedantry. If you’re that bad off that you need that, go ahead and take the win if you can call it that. I hope your circumstances get better in the future.
Read better.
Oh my, this is embarrassing for you. Look at my very first line in my quote:
"Nothing prevented Epic from opening their own Appstore on Android. "
So is this where I tell you to “read better”?
Your comment was:
they’ve taken Apple, Google, and Samsung to the cleaners over this shit.
The article is talking about a new app store. A new app store wasn’t part of “this shit”. Yes, Epic sued and got changes to Google’s app store pricing, but that has nothing to do with this article’s topic. I’m not that invested in this conversation, but you asked why I responded and that’s why. I hope you have a fantastic day!
I’m pointing out that what the article is showing (Epic opening their own app store) was always an option for them. The court ruling on Google’s app store didn’t enable that. It was always an option. This isn’t true on the Apple side, though. A non-Apple app store on iOS would be a significant change.
Nothing prevented Epic from opening their own Appstore on Android. Heck, Amazon runs their own you can load on your Android phone if you want.
The back of the box is open. This suggest that the cat walks in the back and sticks its face out the front. However, now I’m left to wonder how Beans gets out? Do they back out or does the owner have to open the box on the front for Beans to walk out?
My adolescent mind would find that delightfully funny.
“Mom, I’m going to be a Fart Scientist! A…uh Fart-ologist! Yeah, I’ll study farts!”
Home charging is a lifestyle game changer. I hope you get it available to you at some point.
Can I ask, is the reason you don’t have Level 1 (120v outlet) charging available because you’re renting where you don’t have a garage or dedicated outlet available to you?
And while that does come with an expectation of more content the speed people expect it at is wrong especially since this game is basically being made by one person.
I appreciate the solo developer, and that they are doing most everything else right, but he opened this can of worms because he sold early access. He could have chosen to wait until the game was finished to release it, but I imagine wanted the money up front from early access to help finance the development.
If you release unfinished, you open yourself up to your customers wanting it finished, and also wanting a say in how it gets developed. I’m not saying he doesn’t have a right to sell via early access, but he brought this on himself.
You highlight another point in the unspoken contract:
That’s gone too.
There used to be an unspoken contract with game developers and gamers:
Somewhere that evolved into shipping unfinished games, subscription based games, battlepasses, endless DLC, loot boxes, and forced online connections for single player games.
The game studios broke the contract. If they want endless money, that comes with endless work.
Thats the idea in concept. Its a bit harder than that though so thats why its not in operation yet.
From the little I’ve followed on this topic, any kind of kinetic space junk cleanup (meaning physically touching or capturing the junk) is going to be very very limited in effectiveness for the majority of the junk. For really large things, like an entire satellite still intact, it can make sense, but these are very few of the space junk pieces in orbit today.
The problem is two fold: Space is huge and the junk is very far apart. There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of space junk (mostly small).
The most promising approach to address the majority of the junk is a “directed energy” method. This would be using something like a laser to slightly push space junk into lower orbits where the thin air will slow it over time and it would fall back to Earth.
I like your choice of books. How was the Von Braun book? One I don’t see on your shelf, but would recommend it would be “An Astronaut’s Guide to Life on Earth” by Chris Hadfield. There is a second book he did at the same time of just photography he took while at the ISS. Both are worth looking at.