Been reading some of your latest posts after i read this one and i'm on the same ship with you.
Similarly to someone's reply above, TG used to be fun for me for some time, but first, it slipped into repeating itself and then into outright stupidity.
As for the growth problem, i was worried about this some 15 years ago, as a little Kid (lul) and i thought i'm weird because nobody gave a damn. I'm glad the tables are beginning to turn, although it might be too slowly and too late.
Personally, if i'm going to have to decide, it'd rather have 1 or no children, rather than have more people grow up into the disaster we're diving head-on into.
And to stay on topic - keep up the good LFS work, the pics are looking great!
The sample size does need not be very large to make pretty accurate predictions concerning group opinions. Also, there's usually vote results one can use to have a pretty thorough judgement on the general opinions of a populace in a democratic country.
This is one of these things where you really need to experience it before you judge it. To the people who have tried it, you look a bit silly saying this repeatedly (I'm referring to previous posts where you have talked about VR in negative terms).
The truth is it's a total game changer. It's really an amazing feeling to be IN the game (VR) instead of seeming to look at it remotely through a window (monitor).
I do hear that sales have been slower than expected and that is absolutely fine. The hype was too much in the first place, but that doesn't bother me at all. It's here to stay, which is obvious to anyone who has tried it. For cockpit-based simulator VR is really good, and it's good for a lot of other things too. It can be quite a breathtaking experience to feel like you are IN another world.
I tried the valve index for a couple of weeks. I had some issues on hardware and drivers. Other than that it is a game changer. I did not keep it mainly because I am pretty busy and I should not waste time and cough 1100 euros on that. Something was magic but something was odd (turn head to one side and eyes to other side) playing with a track ir.
VR is pure magic. Really amazing on asphalt and even better going sideways on dirt. I will definitely try again when life permit.
I wish I could try a VR headset, maybe when they become cheaper ( someone sell a HTC VIVE here for like 6 months of salary )then probably more people will jump on it.
But I am still concerned about mention sickness and general health issues around such device,
And developers need really to think about optimizing their games to be playable on most gaming pc's, I mean you need at least an RTX 2070 to be able to maintain stable 90 fps on most VR games ( excluding LFS ).
If you get a chance for it, I recommend trying Full Body Tracking in VR aswell. Basically need 3x HTC Vive tracker pucks placed on feet and torso. Ingame skeleton is then calculated from six tracking points (head, torso, hands, feet) and it seems to work quite well!
Been running 3x Tracker setup on an Index now and it makes games like VR Chat and Beat Saber all the more awesome when you're able to see your feet move in games just like they do in real life.
The massive funding is from those *against* taking action - oil companies and the many rich people who have a lot to lose by converting to a low emission life style.
Climate deniers are being fooled by propaganda and false science produced by these wealthy businesses and billionaires. As I've said before, you only have to open your eyes, and take an interest in wildlife and the plight of millions of people across the world who are already suffering from climate change. You can see the truth.
You have got it all the wrong way round if you think that mainstream climate science is all a big con for someone to make money. That's just silly. The massive action needed to be able to deal with climate change will require a lot of changes in the short and medium term, some of which are quite disruptive and will harm the earnings of the wealthy. But if it is done right it could save nature and humanity as we know it in the longer term.
This is not about making money, it's about saving the surface of the planet as we know it. A lot of very rich people are trying to discredit this but are failing because it's all very obvious, if you open your eyes (and reinforced if you do some research - and I don't mean looking up stupid conspiracy theories promoted by rich people).
Take for example wind mills "so called clean engergy" But nobody talks about the toxic greenhouse gas FS6 thats leaking. (that gas isn't allowed in tennis bals anymore). Anyway windmills can't deliver enough energy and isn't that reliable. Wonder who can pay future energy bills to pay for all those windmills. Think we better plant some trees and keep energy on coal or nuclear as long as we need to. Till we find better solutions.
I know CO2 is greenhouse gas but from all gases thats 0,04% mostly 0,038 prodused by nature. Nature and our crops needs CO2.
I simply can't understand how thats a problem.
I see you're going back to planting trees and burning coal. I'll try to explain again why burning coal and other fossil fuels is bad and planting trees is very temporary. It's a copy of my previous message. I'm a chemist myself so if you don't understand something just ask.
A healthy forest absorbs CO2 and stores it in itself. Even if we don't cut it and let it grow till it dies, after its' death the microorganisms will most likely digest it and transform it into CO2 so the end result of burning it and letting it grow --> die --> rot is nearly the same. It gets transformed into CO2 and then some time later goes back to being tree again (cellulose and what not, basically some form of hydrocarbon). Because of this, there is a cycle so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stays stable.
Now lets think about fossil fuels. The carbon that is in fossil fuels is deep underground. After 100s, 1000s and so on years it will still be underground so the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is not influenced by fossil fuels. Now when we start digging it up and burning, the carbon that was supposed to be deep underground, is being released into the atmosphere and it enters the cycle mentioned above. As it can't go back underground (over a short period of time, not talking about millions of years), it stays in the atmosphere and thus the amount of CO2 increases. As CO2 increases, the earth gets hotter because CO2 absorbs some IR radiation that would otherwise escape to space.
E: Regarding the "small" ammount of CO2 (~0.04%) - it might seem small but it is approx. 30% more than it was in pre-industrial times. Also, even if the increase is small, on a global scale it does make a difference.
I had the chance to try a VR headset a while back (an FPS game, not LFS) and turned it down - I'm scared that as soon as I've experienced it, it'll lessen my ability to get immersion on a monitor setup. I ain't taking that risk until I can afford to get one for myself
@scawen @Sobis Yes I'm not an scientist so I think let our scientist fight it out. But I'm MSN Sceptic and I hate the framing. "U only get to hear what fits the story" I hate it and it makes it impossible to debate
BTW IPCC allready said it's not just CO2. And I think why act as coverments as long as we not sure. IPCC claimed it would be much worse years ago now they are leveling and ajusting.
Just reading that article Scawen I believe it just fits the IPCC propagenda.