Come on then, at the very fucking least just state what you think is wrong with the post.

I’ve seen the same kind of visualization made from different sources before showing the same point. There is really nothing shocking or unbelievable in the picture?

It’s fine to be sceptical because it is an estimate. However it is a qualified estimate. Read more from the source: https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/

If you have a better way of estimating the figure, I’m sure they would be all ears.

I do remember reading school books and science articles 30-40 years ago and the estimates then were different, but that’s just how science works.

Again it’s fine to be sceptical, but unless you can provide an alternative figure with better documentation, I really don’t understand why you’re encouraging people to be sceptical.

It’s almost as if you seem to have different motive, so I have decided to doubt your scepticism.

That’s pretty much the point. We could’ve had vehicles that could drive over rough ground, but they opted to make flat roads and rubber tires, both of which are causing issues environmentally and congestion.

My whole thought experiment is : If you were to settle a brand new world, would you repeat the concept of roads and rubber tires?

Early EVs and horse carriers had large wheels because the roads and paths where dirt or cobblestone.

My point is that, if they had simply said “okay, that is the condition that we need to accept, adapt to and solve” like we do today with tarmac roads taking for granted, they could have developed a vehicle to do that. It would probably have larger wheels and soft suspension, but the only reason cars are shaped as they are today is because they didn’t solve it back then.

What happened instead was that low torque combustible engines were subsidized and rolled out on the condition that tarmac roads were also provided by the state. This was largely due to bitumen being a biproduct from petrol production. The oil industry pushed for both combustible engines and tarmac because they could supply both.

My previous rant is basically just entertaining the idea of what we’d do today if posed with a similar challenge. Roads are absolutely taken for granted and tmwe will never be able to undo that. It might be relevant if we ever inhabit another planet, but the last I read was that road planning had already begun on the moon…

Just need to develop suspension instead of developing paving.

Yeah tires is probably one of the worst inventions ever. It spreads microplastics everywhere. The main purpose is traction.

Tarmac is bad too. Roads as a whole is a pretty bad solution.

It’s almost as if railways had everything right from the start.

The following is me ranting about a rather obscure theoretical idea, so please bear with me, or quit while you can.

Now, if we were to reinvent the entirety of transportation. Let’s imagine we rewind time to just before cars, but keep our current knowledge, are cars really the way to solve transportation? No. Just no. Imagine landing on a pristine foreign planet and the first thing we do is to pollute everything just to pave a road for transportation that also requires more pollution to use said road. It is just not right. The idea of "road’ comes from the predecessor of cars, carriages, and people sort of took that idea for granted and developed from there. I don’t even blame them.

Let’s go back to the imaginary planet, and rethink it without the idea of “road’”. How would we solve transportation? By redesigning the wheel. In order to make a wheel that could drive over off-road, we basically need something a lot more solid and durable than rubber. And we’d need engines that could easily and swiftly apply the correct force to the drivetrain to circumvent the uneven terrain. With current technology that would be solvable.

Guess what the first cars were? Electric and with huge solid wheels. The paved road and rubber tires are the result of a push towards combustible engines made by the oil industry. The 1800s electric car manufacturers were actually on the right path, they just didn’t have the technology or money to do it.

Pop() one lever from each set.

Yes, sure it can. Mashed/blended spaghetti bolognese or lasagna are available as baby food.

Baby food products are basically just ordinary food blended and packed in smaller convenient portions. Simply look at the package to see what it contains.

Cat and dog foods are completely different kinds of food, which is often made from animal biproducts and not suitable for human consumption.

Besides proving that postage was paid, stamps also used to function as legal tender, at least where I live. I remember posting stamps as payments of small amounts instead of writing a tiny cheque or requesting bank details.That’s not the case any more. Even the post office can reject to buy back of stamps now, so they don’t function that way anymore.

Contemporary cars are mass-produced and have impractically many special and unrepairable parts. They’re a real patchwork of different technologies that will become obsolete when switching to other fuel sources.

Also stamps and cash. Intricate prints meant to dissuade counterfeiting, which will be replaced by digital technology.

Getting paid for ownership.

A xylophone has wooden bars.

A marimba is a xylophone with resonator tubes.

A glockenspiel is a xylophone with metal bars.

A metal marimba is a marimba with metal bars (or a glockenspiel with resonator tubes).

A vibraphone is a metal marimba with a motor spinning a disc inside the resonators which can create a vibrato and it has a damper (sustain pedal).

You might be able to tune the radio to an AM frequency that picks up the engine interference.

I’m a #4 then. The one who knows all the theory but don’t care about practicing. I can play a lot of different instruments badly.

Now this is not necessarily a bad role, because if you want to perform live it’s absolutely necessary to simplify things in order to ensure that you can actually deliver something and not get thrown off by imperfections or getting bored with certain parts.

Always before.

Source according to this book page 12 (pdf page 8):

htps://alpinevistamusic.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/0/7/23077310/essential_dictionary__of_music_notation.pdf

Union busting is an avoidable cost.

That’s fine. The socks don’t match anyway

Why then are all living things trying to work against entropy?

I am not just talking about human intelligence or behaviour, but every single living thing is trying to organise chaos into a habitable frame for themselves to survive and expand. Survival of the most symmetrical or whatever.

The point is… Why did every atom in the universe arrange to make cells to make organisms to make life to make intelligent life to counter entropy, if it was just entropy happening? Some say that life is just a temporary disease, but then why do these functions even exist, if they’re not “supposed” to be used?

I don’t think “the universe” has a say. Shit just happens, and it doesn’t have an explicit reason to be chaos nor structured. Both are extreme cases of idealistic outcomes. If we assume that either will succeed, we have to ask what happens “after” and also “before” the universe.

I used too many double quotation marks. That’s because quite frankly, I think it’s a contemporary lullaby storyline. We won’t ever know.

The entertainment system in most cars are separate from the actual car computer. You can just turn it off, or only use the radio. I think it’s only Tesla where it’s necessary to use the screen in order to operate the car.

EVs however is one place where it makes some sense to have some software connection to the car, if you want to time the charging to the electricity price or set a tine to preheat and such, that’d be difficult to make with physical buttons. I’d prefer just to have an simple app for it, because I really dislike the proprietary software in the cars.

It’s difficult to find any reliable overview of how much has totally been spent on either side, but as far as I can gather from searching, it appears that even including all the donations for Ukraine, Russia has put about double the amount of money into the war than Ukraine.

Russia recently mentioned options for a ceasefire and basically claiming victory of the “special military operation” with current frontline borders. This is likely just an attempt to win time to restock, meaning that they’re running low.

So while the donations are quite large amounts, it has actually been surprisingly cheap for western countries to let Russia deplete it’s war materials this way.