Alright this topic bothered me so I figured the onus was on me and looked it up. Apparently cold tap water temperatures in some cities around the world are usually around 15°C and can go as high as 25°C in summer. That’s definitely not my experience, I’m pretty sure it’s constantly below 15°C here. So then you’re not a crazy maniac and the regional differences really are way bigger than I expected. Who would’ve thought!

How is it more enjoyable to you? I don’t get it. Do you enjoy the temperature or is it an actual taste thing? Letting the tap run makes water so cold for me that I usually wait for a couple minutes before drinking more than a few sips.

Also if you want to drink something with a taste, always consider adding tap water to it. Most lemonades mix very well with tap water. Furthermore, not everything you drink requires carbonated water to taste good. Sirups that mix with water in a big ratio like 1 portion of sirup and 10 portions of water are nice too.

Carrying home 10kg of drinks every week seems like such a waste, I never understand people who do that.

Of course if tap water is contaminated because of a flood or some other accident it makes sense not to drink it. That said I think in many places tap water is usually cleaner than bottled water (some more so than others). I understand that I can’t generalize, but I think everyone who hasn’t should at least read up on the water quality of their region, ideally on official or trustworthy sources.

And since I’m already ranting: You don’t need ice in your drinks! It doesn’t make the drink tastier or more refreshing. It’s just a waste of time and especially energy, and also a contamination risk. You also don’t need tap water into the fridge. Just let your cold tap water run for a few second and it’ll rinse out the stagnant water that warmed up to room temperature, replacing it with fresher, colder water. I guess in some place this might be more viable than in others. Always depends on the local availability of water and energy.

I don’t really know much about this topic even after reading the article. It does bother me however that there’s so many channels/server on Telegram full of spammers that seem to offer drugs and prostitution. It’s almost like those were the only things that exist in this world. Which is such a huge waste of a chat program.

Also who the hell listens to any of the nonsense influencers/politicians write in their heavily biased channels, seriously, I can’t find a sane reason to join those, yet strangely that seems to be the only reason the masses use this tool. It’s all just confusing.

I want a comic about a friendly android who finds humor in spooking humans with red eyes (and other things).

Don’t forget the fact that this is all started by horny plants who only dress up nicely and offer sweets to allure innocent little bees because dirty as they are plants want bees to touch their genitalia to smear pollen all over their bodies as the little ones fly from plant to plant, exchanging pollen by means of a never ending bukkake.

I think rating genres is generally not a useful thing. I feel as though pidgeonholing games, music, videos or other things into categories and judging them based on that could lead to narrow-mindedness. Each genre has great games and each genre has bad games.

Some genres are more interesting to some people, but I’d say that’s because hobbies are sort of random and not because some are better than others. If by chance you happen to get a deeper knowledge about a certain genre or topic you will become more interested in it naturally. That doesn’t mean other things are more boring by nature.

I just checked. My own pooper is more or less halfway between my booper and my feet. So since I am a rept if I were a reptile I would be measured only half my current human size.

What exactly do you consider insane about it?

From this limited view pedestrians seem to have a pretty nice place there. Crosswalks are highlighted strongly and there’s no traffic lights to slow down pedestrians so they have the priority and the necessary attention. Sidwalks seem wide enough as well.

Yes the road is wider than the bike path, but they each have one lane per direction and there don’t appear to be any sharp turns. The bike lane should perhaps be a little wider, but if there’s only a low number of cyclers it seems equal-ish.

I feel like the little “hill” where the bike lanes and crosswalk intersect should start early, that way bikes could come to a halt at the top of the hill and wouldn’t have to accelerate through it, instead they could use it as a sort of break and later a little speed boost. Either way the hill seems like a decent idea considering bike drivers occasionally try to drive past pedestrians without a clear path, overestimating their agility - especially at high speeds.

While one could argue for a similar hill on the road, I’d consider that an unnecessary nuisance for the bus stop. Being shaken around while getting up for a stop is not a nice experience.

That said I’d argue it’s more of a pedestrians > cars > bicycles or maybe even a pedestrians > cars/bycycles system. Not quite as bad as your suggestion, but still not ideal.

Is this similar to the ozone depletion and ozone holes that were always a big deal in the early 2000s and had lead to bans of chlorofluorocarbons eg in refrigerants and other products, or is this an entirely different topic?

To me it sounds similar so I wonder why the danger of Earth losing its atmosphere “very quickly” hadn’t caused panic back then, it was only things like “stay inside so you don’t get sunburns”. Though the atmosphere disappearing would be a way bigger deal.

I didn’t say it’d kill all complex life, I said complex life would be greatly impacted.

True! I tried to acknowledge that with my first paragraph and add that they already are greatly impacted. My second paragraph wasn’t aimed at your person, I merely wanted to bring it up/let it out.

And a messed up ozone layer means the atmosphere will… disappear?

Just a heads up, you quoted me writing “kill all complex life (…) is exaggerating”. Then as far as I understand you wrote “it absolutely is [an exaggeration]”. Then you argued that surely microbes would survive. However, to my knowledge microbes do not count as complex life. Was that intentional?

will destroy the ozone layer, without which the earth will lose its atmosphere relatively quickly.

What?

Well disruptions of a system eventually lead to new, different forms of stability where things will settle down. I can’t imagine life is as fragile as you make it.

That sounds like a misconception humans made up. After all, humankind always liked feeling important, feeling special and putting itself in the center: pretending they life at the center of a disc, pretending the whole universe revolves around the planet, pretending only human bodies were inhabited by an eternal soul, pretending an all-powerful being cared about them, pretending they’re the peak of evolution, pretending machines could never outperform them.

Humans always try to find new things that make them unique and set them apart from other forms of life. Yet they keep getting disproven.

Do I understand this right that the really big argument here is actually ocean acidification? I can’t really believe that this wouldn’t open up niches for other life forms in oceans. I’m certain that complex animals will be greatly impacted - they already are - but temperature shifts will lead to animals migrating and complex life will keep flourishing one way or another.

I feel as though the assumption that humans had the ability to kill all complex life like some people suggest is exaggerating the significance of humans. To my understanding humans have about the same impact as many other of the more impactful species do and while many have lead to big changes on the planet, to my knowledge none have managed to come close to “ending all life”. That’s reserved for grander desasters, either from inside Earth or extraterrestrial.

Life existed long before there were any significant levels of oxygen in the air. I doubt humans can undo much of the ~20% oxygen level that exists today. And I think that’s reason enough that life even bigger than microbes won’t die out.

Yes all life will perish, but the earth itself will continue.

Why would all life perish? From what I’ve heard and read about nuclear disaster exclusion zones, humans disappearing tends to make space for other forms of life that had previously been displaced by cities full of humans and such. To my understanding long time life probably won’t care about anything for the next few million years.

Short term many or most humans might die or suffer. I don’t think it’s easy to predict how fragile humankind is, civilization may crumble. I doubt all of humankind will be gone in a thousand years, though I wouldn’t bet against a semi “post apocalyptic” future.

I guess it should be the other way around. More money (per person) means you should be able to afford reducing GHG. For example by better isolating your home, using cleaner sources of energy or constructing more power efficient machines.