Author writes about useful easing concept, happens to use UI element purely for illustrative purposes, HN comment section turns into a 100+ comment jihad over animations in GUIs. Nothing substantial is discussed.
So many people allergic to design and equating bad design with all design. Studies? Experts? What could they know? These guys have opinions on modern software and designers to throw under the bus for them.
I can't down vote this so I'll reply to say that there is still value to be found amongst the noise and complaints, even in this thead. I found iainmerrick's comment insightful and worthy. A place to discuss the value of animations is of value some of time too. There are lots of other threads to participate in.
Yes, and absence of edvidence is not edvidence of absence.
Which is why you need to posit a causal mechanism.
To say current climate models are overly narrowing the problem domain as to exclude purely natural factors (assuming humanity is not part of nature, but that’s an ontological discussion) you would need to provide an alternative one which can predict past and future pathways.
It would also need to be at least as good and not rely on improbable assumptions… which is one reason climate scientists favor the anthropogenic models.
>Prove that the earth has never warmed faster than it has in the last 100 years. Obviously, you cannot, the data lacks that sort of granularity.
This is silly. We know the precise chemical makeup of earth's atmosphere, and by extension its' climate, going back hundreds of thousands of years through antarctic ice core samples, which can be dated to a resolution of less than a hundred years. We are in an absolutely unprecedented time of change right now in the entire history of our species existence.
> During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within a few decades. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean.
So what you're seeing is not a 10-15 degree rise in global temperature, but an oversized effect on Greenland in one direction (while other parts of the world were experiencing different effects in different directions).a
> I posit that any deliberate misinformation by the oil and gas lobby can and will be equally matched by deliberate misinformation by the wind and solar lobby. There's no reason to believe that the former is composed of evil people who mislead for the sake of profit
There is plenty of edvidence to the contrary. See e.g.
“Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”
As for the market argument, it is costly because all historical capacity is in fossil fuel based systems. This is a major cost advantage to fossil fuel based solutions. Waiting for the market to adjust might be too little to late, climate change is path dependent, you can’t simply undo it.
