There could be more to it than that - like take up ballet.
For the right price, I'd buy them. But they're not the World's panacea - just a medium term fix, not to be over used.
Both would kill us, so it doesn't matter which passes the finish line first. This is what the article warns about - massive engineering projects that affect the climate, whether for the purpose of geo-engineering or not.
Nothing wrong with solar IF we can pump the heat out of the atmosphere, or dodge it in some other way. Which we can't, yet, and a solution to this is not waiting around the corner.
Indeed it doesn't increase the total energy. It converts much of it into energy that our excess CO2 traps - IR. So we must either leave it as visible light, or push technology to convert it into microwave, both of which can escape.
Solar panels appear dark - more so than a 23% reduction can account for. The whole of the other 77% will not immediately turn into heat, but the bulk of it will. Some photons bounce, with a dependence on colour - but what happens to them then? A tiny amount will escape the Earth, with the rest absorbed by objects, atmosphere and eyes - mostly becoming heat. And what happens to visible light when it loses "a little energy"? It becomes infrared - y'know: heat.
Depends: Did you whitewash your roof?
Look! My solar panels are 23% efficient! 😀
And what happens to the other 77%? It turns into heat! 🥵
Thermally conductive liquids on the outside, light, thermally insulating solids on the centre. Otherwise it's more difficult to reduce the temperature.
New clothes have a machining oil residue from the manufacturing process. This gets cleaned off when you wash them. But when you first wear them you're well oiled!
Because it doesn't support the latest formats.
In your first post of Pixeldrain ther wasent an 1.avif file, but one with the extension jxl and a broken image icon. Now you say it’s a simple jpg, which naturally can be opened even with the obsolete paint.
Nope. I never said that. But I did put before you a challenge to open that, perfectly functional, jpg in your browser...the one you've never had problems with when opening images.
I don’t want to download an image or file to see it
Nor do I and I don't. As the second screen capture, saved as an avif, showed you: my Firefox handles jxl just fine due to the add-in. And beta versions, like Firefox Nightly, handle the format natively.
here we speak about image sharing with embed code to insert in Lemmy or other sites, like I do it with the screenshots I make,
Me too. But I found FileCoffee didn't support my first jxl screen capture of the NoScript report of FileCoffee's javas use. A disappointment, when you had said it "supports ALL types of files".
The best compression algorithms are good at this. Look at the size of this Reddit download and compare when you uncompress it.
tl;dr Waititi: Don't believe what our own security says, China is our pal.
The description of the Firefox plug-in explains why. Want a pic of the pic??
Edit: Next you'll be telling me your browser cannot open a simple jpg when, if you download it, decent graphics software will open it just fine. 😏
FileCoffee just refused this picture, citing file type, that shows all the javas it uses. Carbonads; cloudflareinsights; google-analytics. How about pixeldrain.com@lemmy.fornaxian.tech ?
Reactions, more reactions, slow trains, fast trains. It beats a lot of live streams.
