Web3 is just an excuse to still shilling crypto while using it as a payment system has not taken off. They need to hype the next empty buzzwords to keep parade going.
Jobs which don' create positive value to the world are not bullshit. Our western economy is mostly based on the meaningless consumption of stupid things. These products have to be marketed and pushed into clients by manufactered believe that they need to buy it.
Other part of this are the zero-sum games. Trick people into buying it by introducting artifcial scarcity.
Value of NFTs is purely fictional and based on some buzzwords with a spice of ponzi scheme on top of it. People who are into NFTs don't care about the functionality and usefulness at all. They are pulled to NFTs and shitcoins by a old get rich quick marketing tactics.
The worrying thing is that mainstream social medias are stopping reading as a form of the content consumption. Videos are becoming shorter and more condensed. It will end badly for brains of the generation raised on tiktok.
Sounds like a normal day in the science journalism. The same case was with the ""earth-like planets"" headlines even though some were unconfirmed and the only data known about them was their orbit, mass to a certain degree and star, which in most cases was small and very active. In the media outlets there weren't any information about the host star and the fact that most of those planets were tidally locked. Besides all of that, they were still calling them earth-like planets.
The reality is that Earth like planets probably exist in great numbers, but we lack the technology to see them since they are small and relatively far from their host star.
Why do you think this is 'probable'? It's certainly possible, no doubts about that, but why do you believe there is a greater than 0.5 probability of it?
A quick Google says that there are an estimated two trillion galaxies, each with an estimated 100 billion stars on average, with an average of 1 planet per star.
That means there's an estimated 200 trillion billion planets.
Don't you think it's incredibly improbable that our Earth is the only one?
It's impossible to estimate a total number, for sure, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that there's at least 1 other Earth-like planet in the universe.
People generally underestimate how hard is to settle mars comparing to moon. Getting there is the easiest part. Entirely sustainable colony on its own have never been achiewed before. Projects like biosphere2 failed miserably. On current nasa budget even 2030's are even out of reach for a self sustaining colony. Hundreds of bilions are needed. It eon't happen without big push.
> Entirely sustainable colony on its own have never been achiewed before.
First, we don't need to have entirely sustainable colony initially. We can send serious amounts of supplies and rotate crews for a long time - ISS, while being vastly simpler, works for two decades.
Second, colonization of islands and whole continents was exactly that - entirely sustainable colonies, at least eventually.
Settlement of islands and continents on Earth had the benefit of an adequate life support system that had far fewer catastrophic failure modes than anything we've come up with right now.
> If the oxygenator breaks down, I'll suffocate. If the water reclaimer breaks down, I'll die of thirst. If the Hab beaches, I'll just kind of implode. If none of those things happen. I'll eventually run out of food and starve to death. So yeah. I'm fucked.
It has to be sustainable enough to survive without relatively immediate access to Earth's resources. The moon is only a few days away in an emergency. Mars is months away. The ISS works because it gets fairly constant supplies from Earth. It is vastly from self-sustaining.
> The ISS works because it gets fairly constant supplies from Earth. It is vastly from self-sustaining.
Right. Analogies only go so far.
> Settlement of islands and continents on Earth had the benefit of an adequate life support system that had far fewer catastrophic failure modes than anything we've come up with right now.
Looks like we agree that "it was never done before" is exaggeration.
> If the oxygenator breaks down, I'll suffocate. If the water reclaimer breaks down, I'll die of thirst. If the Hab beaches, I'll just kind of implode. If none of those things happen. I'll eventually run out of food and starve to death. So yeah. I'm fucked.
True, but. If asteroid meets the Earth, if supervolcanoes will misbehave, if particularly nasty virus will get to humans etc. we're toast. The thing is, all those things don't happen often - even ISS works for decades, with relatively minor glitches.
So - if oxygenator breaks down, as Neil Armstrong would say, we'll fix it. If water reclaimer breaks down, we'll invent a dehumidifier. If the external wall will develop a break, the inner one will serve until the outer one is fixed. We may die - but we also may prosper.
So the biggest obstacle to solving anything about this world is stupidity of the general population. People can't stop choosing the most stupid things with their wallets and attention.
As harsh as I am on humanity, it's not entirely people's fault. We have primate emotions that have been grossly outpaced by our technological development. This is why I've become somewhat anti-technology despite still working on technology because it stretches us to lifestyles that are distinctly inhuman.
Humanity simply does not have the emotional capacity to handle the technology we create. It never has and never will, and it's just that software has greatly amplified this inability. This is why mental disorders are skyrocketing. We're building emotional prisons with technological walls and bars.
My laymen and superficial understanding of the situation is that humans do continue to evolve but our genome is also degrading in terms of building up mutations.
It's fine if everyone is stupid, or most of us choose to engage in stupid things from time to time. I paid $17 to see Transformers. That was pretty stupid, but oh well, no one got hurt.
People want to be entertained and engaged - I do not think they aim to harm. So I think we need to develop alternatives to entertain people - these alternatives can still be stupid, they just shouldn't be harmful.
