|
On January 23 2018 21:57 Ghostcom wrote: Why do you need an online alarm? Windows 10 has a built-in alarm clock.
I did not know that... Will try it out, same thing for the kukuclock link from drone. I was expecting the wristwatch jokes . I don't own one- this is like an "emergency" answer until the end of the week then I'll get a phone.
|
On January 20 2018 05:08 Epishade wrote: Why did the send Matt Damon, a botanist, to Mars without any seeds to plant?
In the original mission, they were only supposed to be there for 30ish days. Not enough time to grow plants. They sent a botanist so that he could evaluate first-hand how viable agriculture would be on Mars, for a future mission.
|
Oh, well if it's only for the week I guess there's no point in suggesting you start keeping a rooster then...
Related, anyone have any experience with 'urban' farming? How'd that go?
|
My brother in law does a lot of urban farming in his hydroponics closet that he doesn't let anybody look at
|
On January 25 2018 01:21 Mr. Wiggles wrote: Oh, well if it's only for the week I guess there's no point in suggesting you start keeping a rooster then...
Related, anyone have any experience with 'urban' farming? How'd that go? do 5 pepper plants on a balcony count?. (i do it with/in soil(so no -phonics)
|
If earth's population was spread evenly over the entire land surface of the globe, how many people would die within the first week? Let's say everyone just got teleported right now with whatever they're wearing and carrying.
|
About 60-70% at least, most people will have no clue what to do where they are, or will just have nothing to do anyway.
|
Oh, it is just land surface, so the 2/3 water pitfall is avoided. So I started counting the areas of globe that are outright life threatening ... then I realize that in this scenario, the civilization would just break down, because everything is still crucial dependent on human labor and supervision. Also that most of the people are heavily concentrated (in Asia) and thus also most of the food supply is concentrated. In short, almost nobody would have anything to eat after the teleport. However most people won't die in a week just to hunger. So maybe a simple question would be how many people would die in a year? I'd guess somewhere between 95-99% for sure, maybe even more. It is hard to appreciate how dependent feeding the current super huge population of the world is on things actually working.
But if we focus on the task at hand, with the week limit, it is much more complex. First thing to note is that the land area is 500 mil. km2, so we would end up with 15 people per sq. km. This is actually much denser than I would naively expect, it means that most people would run into someone soon, in open country you could immediately see dozens of people around you in walking distance after the teleport. Then the crucial question is, how would the people be distributed. Would people from the same country end up next to each other or not? In the case of a complete mix, I'd be afraid that some of our less .... cultured co-inhabitants of the planet would just go around mugging and killing everyone weaker than them, so the death toll could be pretty significant in the first hours, not to mention a week.
|
On January 28 2018 20:02 opisska wrote: Oh, it is just land surface, so the 2/3 water pitfall is avoided. So I started counting the areas of globe that are outright life threatening ... then I realize that in this scenario, the civilization would just break down, because everything is still crucial dependent on human labor and supervision. Also that most of the people are heavily concentrated (in Asia) and thus also most of the food supply is concentrated. In short, almost nobody would have anything to eat after the teleport. However most people won't die in a week just to hunger. So maybe a simple question would be how many people would die in a year? I'd guess somewhere between 95-99% for sure, maybe even more. It is hard to appreciate how dependent feeding the current super huge population of the world is on things actually working.
But if we focus on the task at hand, with the week limit, it is much more complex. First thing to note is that the land area is 500 mil. km2, so we would end up with 15 people per sq. km. This is actually much denser than I would naively expect, it means that most people would run into someone soon, in open country you could immediately see dozens of people around you in walking distance after the teleport. Then the crucial question is, how would the people be distributed. Would people from the same country end up next to each other or not? In the case of a complete mix, I'd be afraid that some of our less .... cultured co-inhabitants of the planet would just go around mugging and killing everyone weaker than them, so the death toll could be pretty significant in the first hours, not to mention a week.
I wonder who would have a better shot of surviving, a displaced (significantly different habitat) person from a society already living primarily off their natural surroundings vs a well educated person who's never spent a night without electricity?
|
On January 28 2018 21:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2018 20:02 opisska wrote: Oh, it is just land surface, so the 2/3 water pitfall is avoided. So I started counting the areas of globe that are outright life threatening ... then I realize that in this scenario, the civilization would just break down, because everything is still crucial dependent on human labor and supervision. Also that most of the people are heavily concentrated (in Asia) and thus also most of the food supply is concentrated. In short, almost nobody would have anything to eat after the teleport. However most people won't die in a week just to hunger. So maybe a simple question would be how many people would die in a year? I'd guess somewhere between 95-99% for sure, maybe even more. It is hard to appreciate how dependent feeding the current super huge population of the world is on things actually working.
But if we focus on the task at hand, with the week limit, it is much more complex. First thing to note is that the land area is 500 mil. km2, so we would end up with 15 people per sq. km. This is actually much denser than I would naively expect, it means that most people would run into someone soon, in open country you could immediately see dozens of people around you in walking distance after the teleport. Then the crucial question is, how would the people be distributed. Would people from the same country end up next to each other or not? In the case of a complete mix, I'd be afraid that some of our less .... cultured co-inhabitants of the planet would just go around mugging and killing everyone weaker than them, so the death toll could be pretty significant in the first hours, not to mention a week.
I wonder who would have a better shot of surviving, a displaced (significantly different habitat) person from a society already living primarily off their natural surroundings vs a well educated person who's never spent a night without electricity?
That's obviously an interesting question, but I don't understand why do you pose it after you quote my post which has nothing to do with it and in fact purposefully avoids it.
|
Those people who end up in major cities have the best chances to survive. There is stored food (and other stuff) everywhere, stored stuff, and every major city has a river flowing through it for water. Generally, if the area is now less populated than before, you are probably mostly fine for a short while.
People who end up in areas without enough easy to find water (deserts and others) all die. People who end up in unpopulated areas which are way too cold for their clothings (Antarctica, greenland etc...) almost all die. People who end up in jungles and who are not from that area mostly die from tropical disease and other shit that they have no idea how to deal with.
Actually, i think the best way to estimate your survival chance is by population density prior to/population density after event. There is a reason why barely populated areas are barely populated, and previously populated areas have stuff to scavenge.
|
Oh sorry I picked the wrong number. Land mass is only 150, not 510 (why do the numbers have to be so symmetric!?) so the average density is 50 per km2, so people would end up some 150 meters from each other (as dense as geocaching.com allows caches to be, coincidence?).
I found grided population density data http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v3-population-density/data-download. There are fields with "no data" that I presume to be water. Even if they were some of then land, it just makes the following result an upper bound.
From grid cells with data, 12% have more than 50 people per km2, so (at least) 88% of people would end up in an area that was previously less inhabited than after the shuffle.
|
If I have to get heart surgery, can I ask the surgeons to perform some liposuction on me while I'm put under too? Kill two birds with one stone sorta thing
|
On February 05 2018 09:47 Epishade wrote: If I have to get heart surgery, can I ask the surgeons to perform some liposuction on me while I'm put under too? Kill two birds with one stone sorta thing
Yes and no. If you are paying privately for the surgery, 100% yes, if not then a medical reason will need to provided and it will have to meet the expectations of your insurer.
From the surgeons perspective most of them (many) are sociopaths that enjoy (to the extent they can) experimenting on humans so they are unlikely to care beyond the threats to their license such a circumstance may present.
|
Norway28256 Posts
I'm not sure that second claim is fully accurate..
|
I'll just assume that GH is honoring the thread title literally in a tit-for-tat fashion.
|
On February 05 2018 21:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm not sure that second claim is fully accurate.. Given my experience is limited, I have yet to meet a surgeon who wasn't enticed by the idea of doing typically unspeakable things to other humans.
On February 05 2018 21:41 farvacola wrote: I'll just assume that GH is honoring the thread title literally in a tit-for-tat fashion.
That too.
|
No. Definitively no.
Those are two very different kind of surgeons, and it's absolutely not a question of license (?!) or anything. Keeping you alseep for even longer than a heart transplant requires is way to risky, especially for a bit of fat.
If you offer to make some oil from your fat and give it to him on the other hand...
|
Canada11355 Posts
After watching the superbowl and seeing how little actual football is shown i started to wonder... is there any televised sport with a worse ratio of sport:not-sport?
From the kickoff to start the game until the final whistle the superbowl took 4 hours. A regulation football game is one hour of play time (15 minute quarters) making it 1:3 football:not-football
Is the superbowl the worst?
|
On February 06 2018 08:20 Fecalfeast wrote: After watching the superbowl and seeing how little actual football is shown i started to wonder... is there any televised sport with a worse ratio of sport:not-sport?
From the kickoff to start the game until the final whistle the superbowl took 4 hours. A regulation football game is one hour of play time (15 minute quarters) making it 1:3 football:not-football
Is the superbowl the worst?
I read it wrong...
If you count all non time then cricket is the worst. as in they take day long breaks
|
|
|
|