Oh it wasnt my intention to make it sound like climate change doesnt negatively impact anything, but “these things get more expensive” is a very different thing than “these crops are going extinct and theres nothing that can be done about it” the way that headline seems to imply.

Even fusion constrains you to the limits of the rocket equation. Laser sails on the other hand, could let you put the bulk of your propulsion system in orbit of the sun or something where you don’t have to carry it with you.

That’s not what that seems to say at all. It doesn’t even look like it says “if we do nothing, we can’t grow these crops anymore”. It seems to be specifically about stratospheric aerosol injection (a specific geoengineering technique that we haven’t even committed to trying as yet), and suggests that if you use it to keep global temperatures stable, there can still be changes in where these crops can grow because changes to things like rainfall and humidity. I’ve not read the entire thing but from a glance at it’s conclusions, their simulations suggest that the crops would remain economically important to their growing regions under all their simulations, just with the viable amount that can be grown and the specific areas for doing it changed per region, and that using SAI to offset warming doesn’t simply result in the same yields as not having the warming would have the way one might otherwise expect.

To my understanding, elements smaller than iron can produce energy in nuclear fusion reactions (like in stars and such), but bigger elements require a net energy input to make them fuse. Meanwhile, bigger elements eventually decay into smaller ones (though many take an extremely long time). So, given a sufficient not quite eternity of time for everything lighter to get fused together and everything bigger to decay, iron is the midpoint everything ends up as.

ah, right, forgot about hornbills

Do any birds have horns? (Rather than just horn shaped tufts of feathers)

It also includes idiots who survive but permanently render themselves unable to reproduce, but I don’t see that counting here either as I think you get disqualified for harming others, so stupidly getting your kid killed wouldn’t count.

To my understanding, she wasn’t determined to have actually committed it, just was accused

A genderino sounds more like something you’d find in particle physics than biology anyway

I see a trilobite and an ammonite in there, did those guys even leave any evolved descendants before they went extinct?

I would want to see an “ediacaran biota” park, though that one would have to be more like a public aquarium than a park I suppose.

When we give life lemons, what is life meant to do?

Why would the universe being a black hole invalidate religion, any more than, for example, the universe being really big already does? Don’t most religions focus more on some entity or entities they think made or govern the universe more than what physical processes are “used” to do that, or what the ultimate shape of the universe is? Even when a contradiction is found, it’s easy enough for a religion to just say “well, that was metaphorical”, or “just the limited understanding given by (insert deity here) to our ancestors” or something along those lines to make it fit.

No? Im saying those factors should be understandable, they just need to do the relevant testing to figure it out before building something the public could visit. Hence mentioning due diligence.

Between the pink color, two arms and rounded face, I guess it does kinda look like one of those human-descended “All Tomorrows” creatures.

I’ve long found the notion that the lesson of Jurassic Park, if a fictional story like that must be taken to have one, should be something like “science/genetic engineering is bad” or “you can’t control nature” to be a bit silly, given that, well, it’s a zoo. With pretty big animals, to be sure, but dinosaurs were animals still, not kaiju or dragons or whatever other fantasy monster, and some genetically modified to be somewhat bigger and lack feathers would still be such. It’s a story about some people building a zoo badly because they didn’t do their due diligence about the animals they had and cheaped out on staff and the systems they had for containing the animals, and somehow people get the take away that “these animals are special and can’t be safely contained” rather than “letting rich people cheap out on safety is a bad idea”.

Were one to write a broadly similar story where someone cheaps out on a park containing elephants and tigers, and they get out and maul some people, it’d be obvious, but give the tigers scales and make them born in a lab and suddenly it’s a monster movie.

“It is imperative that the graduated cylinder not be damaged”

I know albatross are big, but I can’t stop seeing it as an abnormally small man petting an abnormally well-behaved seagull.

Shouldn’t the raptors cancel though?

eh, Id say theres some pretty ugly mammals out there, at least in my opinion. most primates for instance, mole rats, some but certainly not all bats…