IQ is an attempt to represent a persons problem solving abilities with a single number. This is bullshit, because intelligence isn’t that simple. There’s different kinds of intelligence. Some people are better at some kinds of intelligence, while others have their strenghts in other areas.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

A person can be rich in many ways. A coral reef is rich in biodiversity etc.

The rich refers to the group of people who are financially rich to an obscene extent.

So the lack of proof is the proof? Bro you have schizophrenia.

Achchchually no I’m not in the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million light-years from Earth.

I’m not sure how you managed to misunderstand, but by disruptions I was referring to precisely the kind of disruptions of the lives of ordinary people that - and I’m sure we can at least agree on this - they have quite successfully caused.

Our two parallel discussions are about the methods of protesting against the use of fossil fuels. Our discussions here exists because of JSO. It got you thinking about what should be done to get rid of the use of fossil fuels, even if this was just for the purposes of making counterarguments.

You do realize that you replied to a comment just now that raised the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, and the effect those have on the price and thus consumption of oil? Just ending those subsidies would already have a dramatic effect.

It’s true that the discussion is currently centered on freedom of speech, most notably because of the most recent developments, but the issue that is being protested is constantly present in the background. I’m betting that after the criminalization of protests stops being news, that issue gets back into the limelight.

Direct action against fossil fuel infrastructure would be less in the public due to a less central location. Sitting on a street works because it’s a nuisance to many, thus generating a lot of interest among the press and that way the message gets amplified. Gaining publicity via industrial sabotage would be difficult unless they did somehting very drastic, which would only turn them from a mere “nuicanse” into actual villains in the press. Especially so if some such drastic measure leads to the unintended death or injury of a worker at a refinery etc. This would also turn the fossil fuel companies from crooks into victims and I’m betting that they’d also try to frame it as sabotage hurting the blue collar workers they employ. All this while affecting the actual price of oil in a miniscule way at most and alienating the majority of their members who don’t accept these acts. Nonviolence is held in high regard.

The process I described unfortunately does take longer than the initial lashing outs of the establisment. A couple of “martyrs” may not be the worst thing either.

YungOnions already provided you with some good articles about why and how nonviolent disruption works. I suggest you read them.

You approach the whole issue as if it were just up to consumers to stop oil by changing their habits. It isn’t. Switching to an EV isn’t a solution when you’re still paying taxes that go into subsidizing fossil fuels. (Switching to an EV for getting around in a city isn’t a solution anyways, use public transit or get a bicycle). Consumers won’t stop consuming oil until the full cost (including all externalities) of it is shown in the price tag. Action is needed at the political level, and that won’t happen unless enough noise is made regarding the issue. That’s what JSO is doing.

Disruptions cause outrage

Outrage sparks discusson

Discussion leads to political pressure

Political pressure leads to action that targets the oil industry

Ok sorry for the snide in that other comment. I think we’re talking slightly past one another. A society without banking or finance is a primitive one, but a society nonetheless. Now, all modern countries are advanced societies, but only current and former colonies started out that way.

I suppose the question comes down to whether the meme is talking about rebuilding complex society, or just society in general. You seem to be talking of the former, while I speak of the latter. I also think the meme was referring to the latter.

I’ll end by saying that while historical precedent is a very solid basis for how societies operate, I think it lacks imagination. Who knows what other ways there could be to build complex societies? I think that this is a powerful part of why people are fascinated with post-apocalyptic stories.

deleted by creator

Societies did exist before the renaissance, and were a prerequisite for it. Societies existed before the Hanseatic league could conduct trade between them.

A very USA-centric comment. While it is true that countries that were former colonies have their roots tied to those imperialist projects which definitely involved finance, this is not the case for countries that didn’t start as colonies. The sweat of the subsistence farmer or the feudal peasant/slave was what built the foundations of most countries.

In a truly post-apocalyptic setting there definitely would not be any need for finance of any sort. Job titles such as the one in the meme above are bullshit jobs that only exist to serve modern consumer capitalism. That is to say, they are not necessary. That’s what this meme is about in my opinion.

Yeah, the best case scenario assuming that the world got its act together tomorrow…

Not an arcus, but what looks to be a series of Stratocumulus volutus. Nice find nonetheless!

Arcus is a supplementary feature attached to a strong convective cloud (Cumulonimbus or possibly a strong Cumulus). This isn’t the case here.

They’re right on this one. This picture here is pretty illuminating about the sizes of the views that Hubble captures:

Image source with additional reading. Zooming into an object a couple of meters in size on the surface of the Moon is in a completely different ballpark.

I’m no astronomer or astrophotographer, but this picture of the moon clocks in at around 320 meter angular resolution. That being said, a lot of post-processing goes into a shot like that, so some detail may be lost due to that. The atmosphere of the Earth is pretty difficult to deal with as its disturbances cause fuzziness and shimmering. Stacking multiple frames can help, but it’s still never perfect. Earth based telescopes sometimes shoot a laser up along their line of sight to get an idea of how the atmosphere is messing with them.

For comparison, The Hubble space telescope gets around 90 m angular resolution for objects at the distance of the Moon.

To build on this: The technology to fake it didn’t exist back then.

You’d need either the biggest space telescope ever that doesn’t yet exist, or a lunar orbiter. The latter is how other space agencies have taken pictures of the landing sites.

I did a two minute internet search and every result says that the Hubble doesn’t have the angular resolution for this. It could resolve a football field on the moon, but not anything smaller.

It was made to look at nebulae and galaxies, and those are a lot bigger, even in apparent size.

Focal distance doesn’t matter when the aperture is so infinitesimally small compared to the distances. All space telescopes are focused to infinity no matter what they’re observing up there.