SPAM random annoying things

Raven

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,040
The human race will eventually become extinct on earth, one way or another. populating other planets increases our chance of survival in the long run.

Plus its cool.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,563
The human race will eventually become extinct on earth, one way or another. populating other planets increases our chance of survival in the long run.

Plus its cool.
You know this is how the Eye Of Terror started right?
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
18,105
Hmm well what actually does putting a robot on Mars contribute to us? its cool and interesting. But the resources put in dont seem environmentally sound.

most of the discoveries that have helped us back on earth have been found in earth oribt. And we are literally shooting rare earth metals into a void where they will never be useful again.

unless you are subscribing to life boat planets for the human race.
I've said this before.

It's not about us.

It's about making sure we're focusing enough in that area so generations who are suffering because of our inability to act on the climate have alternatives.

And yeah, funnily enough, that includes life boat planets for the human race.
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,913
The human race will eventually become extinct on earth, one way or another. populating other planets increases our chance of survival in the long run.

Plus its cool.
Is it a bad thing that humans become extinct?

4 billion years or so for our sun to burn out. We will be extinct long before then imo.

humans destroying the universe and not just earth ick.

and i said it was cool. But not much more than that ;)
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,913
I've said this before.

It's not about us.

It's about making sure we're focusing enough in that area so generations who are suffering because of our inability to act on the climate have alternatives.

And yeah, funnily enough, that includes life boat planets for the human race.
Cause we are so special we deserve to endure. In order to kill even more stuff.
 

Raven

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,040
Out of choice, that is why we destroy everything, it doesn't have to be the way.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
18,105
Cause we are so special we deserve to endure. In order to kill even more stuff.
Yeah, I think that's pessimistic.

I think exploration is vital for our species, we've been doing it since day 1, and I think bad things will happen if we start to stagnate, sure, there's the oceans, but hurray there's another see through splodge stuck to the ocean floor gets boring.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
Yes, but one flying petrol car doesn't really make a dent.
Nope. But the article is talking about a $1tn market by 2040. Not a POC.

I think it's pretty obvious that they would eventually move to electricity
Before rollout...

Do you think we should cease space exploration until it's carbon neutral?
No. I think we've a finite carbon budget and have to decide whether to blow it on stuff that benefits all mankind or the already carbon-heavy super-rich.

Massively increased energy usage is a global goal. We need to find ways to do it without killing ourselves. And necessity is the mother of invention - if they're close on flying cars, then let them be part of the solution to lightweight energy-dense electrical output research.

Air travel is 2.4% (ish) of the carbon budget but 3.5% of the warming problem - so we shouldn't be exacerbating the issue for marginal gains for a tiny sector of the population.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
Out of choice, that is why we destroy everything, it doesn't have to be the way.
Yep.

Including making different choices about what we allow in terms of pollution to transport the mega-rich around.
 

Embattle

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
11,001
Is it a bad thing that humans become extinct?

4 billion years or so for our sun to burn out. We will be extinct long before then imo.

humans destroying the universe and not just earth ick.

and i said it was cool. But not much more than that ;)
It'll destroy the earth long before that, since it gains about 10% brightness every billion years thus in a billion years most of the planets life support system will be gone.
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,913
It'll destroy the earth long before that, since it gains about 10% brightness every billion years thus in a billion years most of the planets life support system will be gone.
Yeah seen that it expands and killed the goldilocks zone before it dies.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,137
Hmm well what actually does putting a robot on Mars contribute to us? its cool and interesting. But the resources put in dont seem environmentally sound.

most of the discoveries that have helped us back on earth have been found in earth oribt. And we are literally shooting rare earth metals into a void where they will never be useful again.

unless you are subscribing to life boat planets for the human race.
Forgetting for a moment that the quest for knowledge is inherently a good thing, the skills that went into developing that robot didn't leave Earth with it. They're still here. And they can be used for other things.
 

fettoken

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jul 18, 2004
Messages
9,616
I think the autonomous, electric, flying taxis make more sense tbh like this crowd https://lilium.com/

Drawback being they are classified as helicopters so need helipad access
A lot of helipads, in a row. I think it’s called pavement..

Of course, if it’s developed in Britannia it’ll be modeled after a Harrier and a helipad would make sense
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
Climate puritans @Gwadien?


I'd argue we can't afford not to be.

if we had acted in the 90's - when governments knew very well what was required (the IPCC was really setup as a delaying tactic so they could kick the can down the road whilst saying they were "investigating") then changes would have been cheap and easy to introduce. Now they'll be disruptive and costly. (Yet we're still not seeing any wholesale change).

Human progress can't continue if we destroy the natural world. So should we be prioritising carbon intensive flying cars or should we put that on a back-burner - not "cancel" just pause - until we solve our existential emergencies?
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,467
Nope. But the article is talking about a $1tn market by 2040. Not a POC.


Before rollout...


No. I think we've a finite carbon budget and have to decide whether to blow it on stuff that benefits all mankind or the already carbon-heavy super-rich.

Massively increased energy usage is a global goal. We need to find ways to do it without killing ourselves. And necessity is the mother of invention - if they're close on flying cars, then let them be part of the solution to lightweight energy-dense electrical output research.

Air travel is 2.4% (ish) of the carbon budget but 3.5% of the warming problem - so we shouldn't be exacerbating the issue for marginal gains for a tiny sector of the population.
You're getting all hot and bothered over nothing. This thing is a toy that has no future. Its not a flying car, its an aircraft that looks like a car and is therefore not a very efficient aircraft. The key issue is that you'll only be able to fly it from recognised airports/airfields, so the basic go where you like USP of a flying car is lost.

A real flying car will have to be VTOL to make any sense, and that would require such radical leaps in power and efficiency, that its a non-issue for the time being.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
30,497
You're getting all hot and bothered over nothing. This thing is a toy that has no future. Its not a flying car, its an aircraft that looks like a car and is therefore not a very efficient aircraft. The key issue is that you'll only be able to fly it from recognised airports/airfields, so the basic go where you like USP of a flying car is lost.

A real flying car will have to be VTOL to make any sense, and that would require such radical leaps in power and efficiency, that its a non-issue for the time being.
I agree, I'm way more angered by the mental attitude than the actual possibility of this getting off the ground, so to speak.

I think they could well make about a quarter of a million sales of it though - there's (googling) 226,000 ultra high net worth individuals. The sort of person who'd buy one to show off at parties.

But what I'm angered about is the immediate leap to protect idiocy by saying "environmentalism is obstructing human progress" - when environmentalism IS human progress. It shows we have a deeper understanding of the effects we have on our life-supporting systems and to disregard that knowledge is the action of the luddite dinosaur and it's these people that are holding humanity back (and endangering us), not environmentalists.
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,913
I agree, I'm way more angered by the mental attitude than the actual possibility of this getting off the ground, so to speak.

I think they could well make about a quarter of a million sales of it though - there's (googling) 226,000 ultra high net worth individuals. The sort of person who'd buy one to show off at parties.

But what I'm angered about is the immediate leap to protect idiocy by saying "environmentalism is obstructing human progress" - when environmentalism IS human progress. It shows we have a deeper understanding of the effects we have on our life-supporting systems and to disregard that knowledge is the action of the luddite dinosaur and it's these people that are holding humanity back (and endangering us), not environmentalists.
There are so many things that need a change of government laws.

they should not be allowed to produce anything new except medical equipment that doesnt have a full recycled workable methodology built into its design.

so many new to market pieces of single use plastic still its stupid. People are still producing new things that are completely unrecyclable and they are allowed to do it.

and there should be aggressive replacement schedules for current things that fit that bill. Its taken years just to get the rightto repair thing into working law.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,137
A mate of mine gave me a load of food recently (I think I posted about it). In that food are some Heinz beans "snap pots". They're basically yoghurt pots full of beans, with a film lid, that you microwave for a minute. They've done this presumably because putting some beans in a pan for a couple of minutes is too hard. Or putting the beans in a bowl in the microwave for a minute is too hard.

That's a 100% recyclable tin can, replaced with plastic pots and a film lid that cannot be recycled.

We need to stop shit like that.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,467
I agree, I'm way more angered by the mental attitude than the actual possibility of this getting off the ground, so to speak.

I think they could well make about a quarter of a million sales of it though - there's (googling) 226,000 ultra high net worth individuals. The sort of person who'd buy one to show off at parties.

But what I'm angered about is the immediate leap to protect idiocy by saying "environmentalism is obstructing human progress" - when environmentalism IS human progress. It shows we have a deeper understanding of the effects we have on our life-supporting systems and to disregard that knowledge is the action of the luddite dinosaur and it's these people that are holding humanity back (and endangering us), not environmentalists.
There are a bunch of mixed up stats in that article. In particular the whole "£1 trillion market" thing has nothing to do with this and everything to do with the drone/flying taxi concept, that has some credible backers like Hyundai, but is entirely electric. No-one is even considering ICE propulsion for these things. Now, I still think the whole thing is radically overhyped (getting the public into autonomous drones is going to be...a challenge), but the point is this thing is not part of that future, and HNW individuals aren't going to be buying these in droves; its in the same class of toys as personal submarines and jet packs. There's no universe where they're going to sell a quarter of a million of these; they'd just be part of the light aircraft market and Cessna (the global leader), makes about 500 aircraft a year.
 

Raven

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,040
Drones will be used for delivery more than human transport, and the market for that is going to be absolutely huge.

Edit, we already have those little 6 wheeled delivery bots trundling around all over the place here, CO-OP and Tesco use them.
 
Last edited:

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,913
A mate of mine gave me a load of food recently (I think I posted about it). In that food are some Heinz beans "snap pots". They're basically yoghurt pots full of beans, with a film lid, that you microwave for a minute. They've done this presumably because putting some beans in a pan for a couple of minutes is too hard. Or putting the beans in a bowl in the microwave for a minute is too hard.

That's a 100% recyclable tin can, replaced with plastic pots and a film lid that cannot be recycled.

We need to stop shit like that.
Yes they need to stop ‘innovation’ that isnt responsible.
 

Ormorof

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
9,166
Went to a fancier bar than I normally would go to, paid 13.50 euro for an very average ale 😭 did not stay for a second
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,913
Went to a fancier bar than I normally would go to, paid 13.50 euro for an very average ale 😭 did not stay for a second
Ouch. When i was in Norway beer was so expensive like 13 quid for a 330ml bottle. Glad it was expensed.
 

russell

FH is my second home
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
1,897
So in other news…. My friend has been banned from Tinder for life :LOL:
She has no idea why… emailed…and was sent a standard reply stating, well nothing really.
Can they do that?
She has just submitted a subject access request with they have to legally respond to in 30 days.
Just wondered if anyone knows how this kind of thing happens…( no nekkid pictures or offensive stuff on her account at all - yep she’s boring)
 

Moriath

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,913
So in other news…. My friend has been banned from Tinder for life :LOL:
She has no idea why… emailed…and was sent a standard reply stating, well nothing really.
Can they do that?
She has just submitted a subject access request with they have to legally respond to in 30 days.
Just wondered if anyone knows how this kind of thing happens…( no nekkid pictures or offensive stuff on her account at all - yep she’s boring)
Well its their platform they can allow or ban anyone they want really.

maybe someone complained about her. no idea what it takes to get kicked off that thing. Probably a blessing in disguise. There are others like plentyoffish and such
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,467
Rights issues in 2021. I want to download an audiobook. The audiobook exists, I'm happy to pay for it. Can I buy it? Can I fuck. And because its an audiobook the high seas option is rarely useful (the author is dead so I don't really have any qualms about poor hungry authors in this case). I can get the print version but I use audiobooks when I'm exercising so its just fekkin annoying.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom