ArcticDagger

joined 2 years ago
[–] ArcticDagger 2 points 2 months ago

Jeg tror, at pointen er to-foldig: du vil gerne kunne isolere for varme, så du kan styre, hvor varmen ryger hen. Og lidt mere teknisk, så vil du gerne have molekyler, der er gode til at isolere, fordi så spilder de ikke en masse energi på at blive varmet op. Lidt ligesom, at du ikke vil have din lampe til at blive varm, men kun til at lyse op

[–] ArcticDagger 1 points 2 months ago

Sandt, der virker til at være skåret lidt hårdt i eksemplet, men allerede ved milliarder er det jo sådan nogle fantasital, hvor de fleste ikke rigtig har nogle intuitiv forståelse for, hvor meget det egentlig er :D

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Men er det ikke til dels derfor man har de her "tripwire defense"? Hvor man har udstationeret en lille styrke, der ikke ville kunne bekæmpe en invasion, men som dog kræver direkte kontakt at overvinde. Har USA ikke nogle styrker i de baltiske lande? Det ville i så fald kræve at Putin går i direkte krig mod amerikanske tropper. Og helt så meget forestiller jeg mig ikke, at Trump kan se igennem fingre med 😄

[–] ArcticDagger 6 points 2 months ago

Det var da det glade vanvid... Men tak for heads-up! Jeg må skaffe mig en hardware nøgle på et tidspunkt

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

MitID virker fint :-)

[–] ArcticDagger 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Men de klumper jo både rygere og brugere af andre nikotin-produkter sammen? Så en anden konklusion, der kan drages af det data er vel, at når prisen på cigaretter stiger, så går rygerne over til andre produkter? Hvilket taler ind i det som artiklen lægger op til (og på en måde det du selv siger med, at folk går over til andre luksusprodukter): vi skal have prisstigninger på hele paletten af nikotinprodukter

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 2 months ago

Den hedder vist !dyr@feddit.dk selvom titlen er Dyrehjørnet. De gør det heller ikke nemt 😄

[–] ArcticDagger 2 points 3 months ago

Awesome, that seems like a great find!

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 3 months ago

Jeg synes egentlig, at det er fint, at myndigheder ikke kommer med normative anbefalinger, men at de lader de voksne vurdere, hvad deres barn er gammelt nok til at se. Det er selvfølgelig ikke lige til da der er et stort overlap mellem, hvad nogle ser som direkte skadeligt og hvad andre ser som blot upassende

[–] ArcticDagger 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)
7
Erfaringer med CO-målere? (self.spoergsmaal_og_svar)
 

Nogle, der har erfaring med målere af CO (kulmonooxid)? I så fald, er der nogle, der kan anbefales? Vil godt have erhvervet mig en

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9969468

From the article:

Risky play is associated with greater resilience, self-confidence, problem-solving and social skills such as cooperation, negotiation and empathy, according to studies by Sandseter and others. When a study in Leuven, Belgium, gave four- and six-year-olds just two hours a week of opportunities for risky play over the course of three months, their risk-assessment skills improved compared with those of children in a control group2. In this study, the risky play took place at school, in a gym class and in the classroom.

 

From the article:

Risky play is associated with greater resilience, self-confidence, problem-solving and social skills such as cooperation, negotiation and empathy, according to studies by Sandseter and others. When a study in Leuven, Belgium, gave four- and six-year-olds just two hours a week of opportunities for risky play over the course of three months, their risk-assessment skills improved compared with those of children in a control group2. In this study, the risky play took place at school, in a gym class and in the classroom.

 

cross-posted from: https://feddit.dk/post/9778976

Abstract

The disparity in environmental impacts across different countries has been widely acknowledged1,2. However, ascertaining the specific responsibility within the complex interactions of economies and consumption groups remains a challenging endeavour3,4,5. Here, using an expenditure database that includes up to 201 consumption groups across 168 countries, we investigate the distribution of 6 environmental footprint indicators and assess the impact of specific consumption expenditures on planetary boundary transgressions. We show that 31–67% and 51–91% of the planetary boundary breaching responsibility could be attributed to the global top 10% and top 20% of consumers, respectively, from both developed and developing countries. By following an effective mitigation pathway, the global top 20% of consumers could adopt the consumption levels and patterns that have the lowest environmental impacts within their quintile, yielding a reduction of 25–53% in environmental pressure. In this scenario, actions focused solely on the food and services sectors would reduce environmental pressure enough to bring land-system change and biosphere integrity back within their respective planetary boundaries. Our study highlights the critical need to focus on high-expenditure consumers for effectively addressing planetary boundary transgressions.

From the paper - definition of the top global consumers:

The global 10th percentile level of final demand is about US$27,000 per year, equivalent to the European average in 2017. The global 20th percentile level is about US$12,000 per year, comparable to the threshold of high-income countries defined by the United Nations in 2017.

 

Abstract

The disparity in environmental impacts across different countries has been widely acknowledged1,2. However, ascertaining the specific responsibility within the complex interactions of economies and consumption groups remains a challenging endeavour3,4,5. Here, using an expenditure database that includes up to 201 consumption groups across 168 countries, we investigate the distribution of 6 environmental footprint indicators and assess the impact of specific consumption expenditures on planetary boundary transgressions. We show that 31–67% and 51–91% of the planetary boundary breaching responsibility could be attributed to the global top 10% and top 20% of consumers, respectively, from both developed and developing countries. By following an effective mitigation pathway, the global top 20% of consumers could adopt the consumption levels and patterns that have the lowest environmental impacts within their quintile, yielding a reduction of 25–53% in environmental pressure. In this scenario, actions focused solely on the food and services sectors would reduce environmental pressure enough to bring land-system change and biosphere integrity back within their respective planetary boundaries. Our study highlights the critical need to focus on high-expenditure consumers for effectively addressing planetary boundary transgressions.

From the paper - definition of the top global consumers:

The global 10th percentile level of final demand is about US$27,000 per year, equivalent to the European average in 2017. The global 20th percentile level is about US$12,000 per year, comparable to the threshold of high-income countries defined by the United Nations in 2017.

5
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by ArcticDagger to c/nyheder
 

"

 

Det ser ud til, at der endnu ikke er godt videnskabeligt belæg for, at forbud mod mobiltelefoner skulle gøre noget særligt godt for eleverne. Men mangel på evidens er selvfølgelig heller ikke bevis for det modsatte

Fra artiklen:

Resultaterne er umiddelbart logiske, siger Jesper Aagaard. Han peger på samme forklaring, som de svenske forskere skriver om i deres videnskabelige artikel: at man i lande som Sverige, Norge og Danmark har digitaliseret undervisningen i en sådan grad, at det ikke har nogen mærkbar effekt, hvis man blot fjerner én skærm, men beholder de andre.

»Det er blevet udbredt at forbyde mobiltelefoner i skolen, men hvad med de laptops, som stadig står lige foran eleverne? Dem kan de vel også bruge til at gå på sociale medier eller til at spille spil med,« siger lektoren

15
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by ArcticDagger to c/nyheder
 

Fra artiklen:

I 2019 samlede elever også plastaffald i naturen. Der fandt de 31,6 cigaretskod per indsamling. I år er det steget til 37 skod per indsamling.

...

»Danskerne bliver ved med at smide skod i naturen. Tallene viser tydeligt, at den bløde lovgivning om cigaretskod ikke virker. Der skal hårdere lovgivning til a la forbuddet mod plastsugerør.«

»Cigaretfiltre har i forvejen ingen positiv sundhedseffekt, tværtimod. Filtrene blev indført i 1960’erne for at øge salget af cigaretter blandt kvinder. Filtrene er plastaffald, tilmed giftigt plastaffald,« siger Kristian Syberg, der er lektor ved Institut for Naturvidenskab og Miljø på Roskilde Universitet.

Og her er et link til den fulde pressemeddelelse fra Masseeksperimentet: https://masseeksperiment.dk/resultater-fra-masseeksperiment/

view more: ‹ prev next ›