if you have space in your kitchen an easier solution would be to buy an adapter for the large CO2 tank directly to the sodastream input, 20lbs would last a long time.
It's a really interesting and elegant solution but 112€ for what looks like a very simple device sounds a bit expensive to me. Does anyone know of a similar system but for the Apple watch?
Rick Beato has some videos about how he trained his kids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgFdics3uKo I never tried anything similar nor have a music background but found it fascniting to watch it
I understand parent's point of view. Look at the top 9 richest people in the world who combined have equal wealth to the poorest 4 billion people. You will find on that list (Bezos, Bill Gates and Zuckerberg) and one could say their companies were a startup at some point.
There's no doubt startups create wealth but I'd argue it also creates inequality. When the EU wants to tax bonuses I believe they're efficiently fighting inequality.
Grand-parent made the absurd assertion that startups do not create wealth. Presumably they would prefer to live in a dark world without airplanes [Wright brothers], and the light bulbs [Edison], as these inventions and subsequent industries did not create "wealth".
Wealth redistribution programs have their place in economic policy. Growing wealth inequality in the USA is real problem to social and political stability. [Disclaimer: I am not American] Furthermore, the US government has failed to support citizens rendered chronically unemployable through automation and globalization [e.g. especially middle-aged former auto workers].
However, I will challenge the widely held belief that wealth inequality is undesirable. Effective allocation of capital [including human capital, e.g. gainful employment] is not a given. It's not a given nor immediately obvious how to allocate 1,000,000 highly experienced software engineers into economically productive endeavors. Some individuals have proven excellence at allocating capital [Gates, Bezos, Buffet, Ma], so it makes sense that those people should have access to greater amounts of capital to efficiently allocate said capital.
And for the most part, the wealth of Gates, Bezos, Buffet, and Ma is tied up into economically productive activities.
When the EU taxes bonuses, in SOME instances the EU constricts SOME proven entrepreneurs [allocators of capital] from allocating greater amounts of capital into economically productive activities. Note: I'm in no way asserting that the EU should not tax bonuses, however there is a trade-off and the EU must be careful to both understand the trade-off and careful not to overly tax the wrong people [specifically highly industrious people with a knack for entrepreneurship].
>Personal use of passenger vehicles accounts for a tiny fraction of transportation related CO2 emissions. The overwhelming majority comes from cargo ships and associated logistics.
while this might represent a small fraction of the global total emissions, the CO2 (and other harmful particles) produced by cars is much more detrimental to human health since it will be concentrated in the cities and near humans live.
The cargo emissions should be less harmful as there are not many people living in the oceans and algae effect should also be considered as it produces most of the oxygen we breath.
This is correct. If we ignore catastrophic climate change, the next worst thing is being directly exposed to personal transportation pollutants - amongst which CO2 is pretty benign but there is far worse stuff.
Living next to major roads or highways significantly reduces life expectancy.
Particulates and SO4 are short-term acute pollutants. They are problems, but the problem is localised (shipping routes, ports), and settles out fairly quickly.
The scope is significant -- you can see shipping lanes simply by the SOx emissions, as the Nullschool Weather Visualiser shows, here, traffic between Indonesia and the Gulf of Aden is clearly visible:
But: CO2 remains resident in the atmosphere for centuries or millennia, affecting long-term climate. It's a vastly larger problem.
Moreover, particulates and SOx can be mitigated with improved fuel quality and stack scrubbers, at relatively low (though nonzero) costs. CO2 emissions are intrinsic to hydrocarbon combustion. We either have to stop burning anything with carbon in it, or switch to biomass (present-cycle carbon) rather than fossil-fuel based sources. Which is its own problem, though potentially tractable for shipping using various biomass wastestream sources.
But at this point we need to prioritize, and climate change is arguably becoming more important than direct exposure to personal transportation pollutants.
I've been part of two Toastmaster's clubs. I've found the Toastmasters program for learning how to speak publicly to be thorough, thoughtful, and easy to get started with. I've found the people in both clubs (different eras, different places) to be friendly, creative, fun, and supportive. I'd recommend Toastmasters to anyone interested in learning public speaking.
That's a great paper. Several assumptions I had are confirmed after looking through it such as the importance of countering off-gassing. I don't think people are generally aware of this, they just sort of assume it's a solved problem or a diminutive one. Even natural materials like wood will release formaldehyde.
For a small space having good air quality is very important, I plan to install a selection of plants and rig them up as dual purpose air purifiers as shown in the study, with emphasis on the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom.
It's not expensive and it'll pay for itself many times over with better health! Programmers take note! It is easier for your brain to work if it has a nice supply of oxygen. Rocket science I know. NASA science at any rate.
In general society (opinion incoming) has not paid much attention to closed loop systems in the way we ought to (see no evidence the Slingshot scales up). Especially as a way to introduce antifragility. A house in a truly futuristic suburb would recycle heat from water and reliably convert all black/grey water back into distilled water for household use while using the biomass to power the operation. Throw in autonomous air vehicles and ubiquitous net reach from Google blimps and I'd really feel like I'm living in the future. What is more, with houses spread out (side affect of self driving things on land prices), not laying cables/water/sewer lines and not maintaining roads anymore it would appear that it could be a much more economical future. Without cracking closed loop systems it is out of reach. Google Net Blimps, renewable energy, even autonomous vehicles seem like much more tractable problems in comparison despite water filtration seeming simpler.
