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.

The contradiction is that religious people don't believe in other religions.

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.

It sorts the entire word. 4 is after 5 because FO is after FI.

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.

ORLY?

Please take your evening off to explain to the common man how electrons are distributed without restoring to quantisation.

It is exactly that though.

Irrationel and rational numbers are both real.

Quantum physics is limited to the quantum, hence the name.

Come on then, enlighten the average Joe.

Evolving evolution in a biblical context? My ass.

I went to the doctor with something similar. Stress or whatever, right?

I shit you not, his advice was: "if a whiskey doesn't cure it, come back next week". Then he gave me a book recommendation for some kind of weird male toxic pseudo psychology self help. I never bothered getting the book after reading the synopsis.

The next time I went to the doctor, the doctor had been replaced with a woman who actually listened to me.

I guess the whisky worked.

I've never seen sticky ash. I've seen completely beige and brown nicotine on walls, but never sticky.

This is more likely due to cooking. If the cooking hood/extractor doesn't work right or they just haven't cleaned in a while, the fumes from cooking will cover everything in a thick layer of sticky fat, which is difficult to get rid of with normal cleaning products.

Let's have a look.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number

In mathematics, the irrational numbers (in- + rational) are all the real numbers that are not rational numbers. That is, irrational numbers cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers. When the ratio of lengths of two line segments is an irrational number, the line segments are also described as being incommensurable, meaning that they share no "measure" in common, that is, there is no length ("the measure"), no matter how short, that could be used to express the lengths of both of the two given segments as integer multiples of itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Quantum systems have bound states that are quantized to discrete values of energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities, in contrast to classical systems where these quantities can be measured continuously.

The conclusion is wrong, i agree. That's the joke of the meme.

(Keep down voting if it matters to you. I'm only trying to explain a joke. The top post is in agreement with my statement.)

The definition of irrational numbers is that they are the real numbers that are not rationel. So we need to look at the definition of real numbers. A real number is a number that can be used to measure a continuous one dimensional quantity.

Quantum physics says that reality is not continuous. Particles make "discrete" jumps instead of moving continuously. So irrational numbers can't exist.

But that's imaginary numbers, not irrational numbers.

The issue between quantum physics and irrational numbers is different than the use of imaginary numbers: Irrational numbers have infinite decimals, while quantum physics is quantized.

I already read the article. I chose to comment on the title, because it is misleading.

Good. ICE cars should have high tariffs. They're all subsidized too