Skip to content

Rising rocket launches linked to ozone layer thinning

Technology
26 21 134
  • Yeah, cows used to be blamed for everything, now Elon and Russians are blamed for everything.

    Don't remember cows using hairspray

  • As if we didn't know this already.

    Space launches disrupt ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and global warming, waste a lot of resources, and produce tons upon tons of space debris.

    We should be careful with this industry and technology, and use it when it makes sense. But hey, why not launch billionaires and their cars into space for leisure and launch hundreds of satellites under different brandings all promising the best Internet ever or whatnot?

    Also, massive launches such as Starlink should be approved by international bodies, not national organizations. Cool, US has greenlit the launch, but now it's a global headache.

    I'd argue we need to advance spaceflight technology at as fast a pace as possible. Yes it does add CO2 to the atmosphere, but we've also gained some great advances through our exploration of space.

    We're doing a lot of things wrong on this planet, a whole fucking lot. But rocketry is one of the few things we're starting to do right and the bottom line is this, the situation on earth is not great, and it could get worse. Ultimately, the situation on earth will get a lot worse when a huge, life ending, continent obliterating asteroid hits the planet (and not if it hits earth, but when it hits earth). We should absolutely continue living on earth and striving to make it a good place to live, but we also, desperately need to get a foothold off of earth. When the next global calamity occurs (and it will), I would prefer if it didn't end all known intelligent life in the galaxy.

  • As if we didn't know this already.

    Space launches disrupt ozone layer, contribute to air pollution and global warming, waste a lot of resources, and produce tons upon tons of space debris.

    We should be careful with this industry and technology, and use it when it makes sense. But hey, why not launch billionaires and their cars into space for leisure and launch hundreds of satellites under different brandings all promising the best Internet ever or whatnot?

    Also, massive launches such as Starlink should be approved by international bodies, not national organizations. Cool, US has greenlit the launch, but now it's a global headache.

    Yes, but in today's geopolitical landscape, some countries would tie the allowance of such launches to weird requests.

    Israel denies the launch of European rockets, until support for Palestine is outlawed as "antisemitism", and pledge to donate weapons to IDF for free.

    Russia doesn't allow rocket launches to other countries as long as said countries not outlaw "Russophobia", which includes "recognition of Ukraine, the Ukrainian language, and Ukrainian people, as separate from Russia in any way of form".

    China demands the returning of its political refugees, or they will not allow rocket launches.

  • This post did not contain any content.

    Again? GOD DAMET!

  • So the billionaires escaping climate collapse into space will cause more climate collapse? That's a bit ironic but not really a problem since the important people will be in space anyway, right?

    But this can also encourage more billionaires to escape into space creating a feedback loop and new tipping point we have to worry about so maybe it actually is problematic.

    Let's just launch all of them into space preemptively!

  • I'd argue we need to advance spaceflight technology at as fast a pace as possible. Yes it does add CO2 to the atmosphere, but we've also gained some great advances through our exploration of space.

    We're doing a lot of things wrong on this planet, a whole fucking lot. But rocketry is one of the few things we're starting to do right and the bottom line is this, the situation on earth is not great, and it could get worse. Ultimately, the situation on earth will get a lot worse when a huge, life ending, continent obliterating asteroid hits the planet (and not if it hits earth, but when it hits earth). We should absolutely continue living on earth and striving to make it a good place to live, but we also, desperately need to get a foothold off of earth. When the next global calamity occurs (and it will), I would prefer if it didn't end all known intelligent life in the galaxy.

    To me, there are two reasons we're doing it too soon;

    • We don't really have technology needed to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere outside Earth; say, a colony on Mars is inherently dependent on Earth's supplies, and will quickly die out as Earth does too; the technologies needed can largely be developed on Earth;
    • The chance of some asteroid obliterating Earth in the coming millenia is so minor we might as well focus on much more real threats.
  • Don't remember cows using hairspray

    Or fridges.

    But I suspect we're over-thinking this comment. Its more dumb right wing attitude more than actual link to the ozone hole.

    Environmentalists point out the massive damage done by expanding the beef industry - through deforestation, effluent pollution of water systems, methane release, etc. Conservatives: stupid greenies are blaming cows for their problems lol.

  • To me, there are two reasons we're doing it too soon;

    • We don't really have technology needed to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere outside Earth; say, a colony on Mars is inherently dependent on Earth's supplies, and will quickly die out as Earth does too; the technologies needed can largely be developed on Earth;
    • The chance of some asteroid obliterating Earth in the coming millenia is so minor we might as well focus on much more real threats.

    Yeah, every time I see someone say go to Mars as an answer to the earth getting ruined, have to keep in mind that Mars is pre ruined, and whatever calamity that ruins earth will be easier to survive than colonizing Mars

  • To me, there are two reasons we're doing it too soon;

    • We don't really have technology needed to build a self-sustaining colony anywhere outside Earth; say, a colony on Mars is inherently dependent on Earth's supplies, and will quickly die out as Earth does too; the technologies needed can largely be developed on Earth;
    • The chance of some asteroid obliterating Earth in the coming millenia is so minor we might as well focus on much more real threats.

    It's not a zero sum game. I'd rather keep space research going to lower the risk as fast as we can. If you want to focus on the climate then we should end fast fashion which is much much worse for the environment.
    Also, space colonies are a chicken and egg problem, you cant just wait until the tech magically appears, you have to spend money inventing it.
    [Insert famous JFK quote about going to the moon here]

  • Yeah, every time I see someone say go to Mars as an answer to the earth getting ruined, have to keep in mind that Mars is pre ruined, and whatever calamity that ruins earth will be easier to survive than colonizing Mars

    Exactly

    Or those "terraform Mars" fantasies

    TERRAFORM THE DAMN EARTH FIRST

  • Yes, but in today's geopolitical landscape, some countries would tie the allowance of such launches to weird requests.

    Israel denies the launch of European rockets, until support for Palestine is outlawed as "antisemitism", and pledge to donate weapons to IDF for free.

    Russia doesn't allow rocket launches to other countries as long as said countries not outlaw "Russophobia", which includes "recognition of Ukraine, the Ukrainian language, and Ukrainian people, as separate from Russia in any way of form".

    China demands the returning of its political refugees, or they will not allow rocket launches.

    Why the fuck would Israel be allowed anywhere near anything internationally, other the criminal courts that is.

  • Why the fuck would Israel be allowed anywhere near anything internationally, other the criminal courts that is.

    They cry antisemitism, then the Seven Mountain Mandate people cry antisemitism, yadda yadda yadda...

  • 46 Stimmen
    34 Beiträge
    240 Aufrufe
    S
    They could have identified me, that's the point. We couldn't identify the criminals because that example was before facial recognition. You read the article but you still don't get it.
  • 349 Stimmen
    72 Beiträge
    392 Aufrufe
    M
    Sure, the internet is more practical, and the odds of being caught in the time required to execute a decent strike plan, even one as vague as: "we're going to Amerika and we're going to hit 50 high profile targets on July 4th, one in every state" (Dear NSA analyst, this is entirely hypothetical) so your agents spread to the field and start assessing from the ground the highest impact targets attainable with their resources, extensive back and forth from the field to central command daily for 90 days of prep, but it's being carried out on 270 different active social media channels as innocuous looking photo exchanges with 540 pre-arranged algorithms hiding the messages in the noise of the image bits. Chances of security agencies picking this up from the communication itself? About 100x less than them noticing 50 teams of activists deployed to 50 states at roughly the same time, even if they never communicate anything. HF (more often called shortwave) is well suited for the numbers game. A deep cover agent lying in wait, potentially for years. Only "tell" is their odd habit of listening to the radio most nights. All they're waiting for is a binary message: if you hear the sequence 3 17 22 you are to make contact for further instructions. That message may come at any time, or may not come for a decade. These days, you would make your contact for further instructions via internet, and sure, it would be more practical to hide the "make contact" signal in the internet too, but shortwave is a longstanding tech with known operating parameters.
  • 437 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    77 Aufrufe
    mcasq_qsacj_234@lemmy.zipM
    Oh well, Apple its time to form an alliance with Microsoft to create the iOS Subsystem for Windows and the macOS Subsystem for Windows.
  • Airbnb Hosting Assistants

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 112 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    128 Aufrufe
    exec@pawb.socialE
    I mean no more live view via the screen
  • 297 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    138 Aufrufe
    S
    This is not a typical home or office printer, very specialized.
  • 44 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    G
    It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.
  • CrowdStrike Announces Layoffs Affecting 500 Employees

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    242 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    51 Aufrufe
    S
    This is where the magic of near meaningless corpo-babble comes in. The layoffs are part of a plan to aspirationally acheive the goal of $10b revenue by EoY 2025. What they are actually doing is a significant restructuring of the company, refocusing by outside hiring some amount of new people to lead or be a part of departments or positions that haven't existed before, or are being refocused to other priorities... ... But this process also involves laying off 500 of the 'least productive' or 'least mission critical' employees. So, technically, they can, and are, arguing that their new organizational paradigm will be so succesful that it actually will result in increased revenue, not just lower expenses. Generally corpos call this something like 'right-sizing' or 'refocusing' or something like that. ... But of course... anyone with any actual experience with working at a place that does this... will tell you roughly this is what happens: Turns out all those 'grunts' you let go of, well they actually do a lot more work in a bunch of weird, esoteric, bandaid solutions to keep everything going, than upper management was aware of... because middle management doesn't acknowledge or often even understand that that work was being done, because they are generally self-aggrandizing narcissist petty tyrants who spend more time in meetings fluffing themselves up than actually doing any useful management. Then, also, you are now bringing on new, outside people who look great on paper, to lead new or modified apartments... but they of course also do not have any institutional knowledge, as they are new. So now, you have a whole bunch of undocumented work that was being done, processes which were being followed... which is no longer being done, which is not documented.... and the new guys, even if they have the best intentions, now have to spend a quarter or two or three figuring out just exactly how much pre-existing middle management has been bullshitting about, figuring out just how much things do not actually function as they ssid it did... So now your efficiency improving restructuring is actually a chaotic mess. ... Now, this 'right sizing' is not always apocalyptically extremely bad, but it is also essentially never totally free from hiccups... and it increases stress, workload, and tensions between basically everyone at the company, to some extent. Here's Forbes explanation of this phenomenon, if you prefer an explanation of right sizing in corpospeak: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/rightsizing/