Yep, I always read the labels and it helps my appreciation. I need something to connect me to what are often abstract concepts. Most of the art in museums or galleries is from a person different enough in time/place/culture that it takes me more time that I have available to cross that gulf and understand the subtleties in what they are saying. Labels help.

Not to riff on this too much, but the design is quite elegant. It is the prow of a warship, so it cuts through the water cleanly, presenting thin lines that the water slides by. But when faced with a solid object like a ship, it acts as a solid rectangle. It hits with all the weight of the ship as a hammer or mallet, not as a spike, designed to shatter but not to penetrate. And back in the day, ships would be more likely held together with mortise and tenon, not nails, and be vulnerable to being snapped. The target would be swamped in just a few minutes from multiple small leaks and become unmaneuverable, knocked completely out of action.

Thanks. Also, the shape of the ram (3 wide flat bars rather than a pointed beak) highlight the goal of preventing it from going too deeply into the target.

Historically, getting the ram stuck was a serious problem. I have a vague memory of reading that proper tactics dictated back-rowing (i.e. tapping the breaks) just before impact, with the goal being more to deliver a shock that pops every joint in the target, rather than busting through and getting your ram deeply embedded in the target.

However, I've had a few beers since I read that, and so it might be worth checking with a better source.

Sadly true, and it's admitted in the title. We have emitted/are emitting gigatons of carbon, so sequestering megatons has only a marginal inpact.

> Season after season if they’re properly maintained they can regenerate inches of topsoil that stores gigatonnes of carbon across the planet.

Do you have a source that documents their carbon sequestration potential?

Finally, people will start to care

Was this not well known? I learned this in junior high ("the United States went into the Civil War a plural and came out a singular"). It was an intentional process that was understood at the time.

We focus on what is important to survival, and for victims of this type of trauma, objects aren't the threats or resources. Threats or resources are people and their emotional states. I suspect this is related that I've repeatedly noticed, that also anyone who calls themself an "empath" has childhood trauma. They aren't sensitive or blessed or naturally in tune with the universe, they are simply hyper-reactive to a certain thing as a method of survival.

Speaking as someone who hates oil companies, I disagree. The energy transition is going to be very messy by definition. There are lots of factors and they all have different time scales, which makes it impossible to match them up. Oil and gas investments have minimum payback periods of 5-30 years, and so they can't respond to short term events, even intense ones. As global demand for fossil fuels falls, it will get even messier.

I'm not saying the fossil fuel companies are all acting in good faith, I'm saying it doesn't matter. They couldn't match supply to demand effectively even if they wanted to.

It doesn't help that the US is increasingly militaristic toward China, and has an agressive policy of preventing Chinese technological and economic advancement, particularly by denying them advanced microchips.

Guy reads a story about US and European invasions of Russia as part of an intervention in the Russian Civil War and concludes: Isn't it weird that Russians were skeptical of placing all their trust in European security guarantees?

Yep. Americans always seem shocked when other countries turn out to have their own histories that differ from "good" (pro-American) or "bad" (anti-American) explanations.

"Got caught up in" is kinda odd language. They were sent there as part of the war.

The problem, of course, is that words like "democracy" and "dictatorship" are such poor categorizations of countries as a whole. The US is not "a democracy" by any objective standard, nor is the category of "dictatorship" (exclusively used for countries on the official enemies list) particularly clarifying or helpful in this context. Our media is EXTREMELY concentrated and they all have extremely similar views, especially on international events. Again, your comment is an example of people who cannot look into the mirror.

Yup. And Americans will say the difference is because of other countries' propaganda, and never look in the mirror, or even imagine that a mirror could exist.

I was responding to your claim that is not their job to discuss it.

In the US, many states either frown upon any discussion of climate change in public school textbooks. If publishers can't get the textbooks approved for important segments of the public school market, they won't bother publishing them at all.

The idea that you could cover general biology at a college level without discussing climate change is educational malpractice.

This refers to college level textbooks

Or maybe just a "factual" way of looking at it. I mean, it's right there in the title.

Most are involved on a "brief, intermittent basis." Despite the current hysteria to try to portray sex work as "trafficking," most sex work is voluntary (as much as any work is voluntary) and is a limited means to an end, not a trap or a life.

I don't doubt the conclusion at all, but this sentence seems to make the study meaningless:

>Even without adjusting for any potential confounders like age, social demographics like race and sex...

If you don't adjust for confounders, what have you measured?