So one of my hobbies is fish keeping. I love the satisfaction that comes along with it. I have a small 10 gallon tank I grow fish up in, then they are transferred to a much bigger 60 gallon tank with other, similarly sized fish. I just pulled a 3 1/2" male Gold Dust Molly out of the small tank. That doesn't sound like much, but male wild silver Mollies typically get to 3" or less. This little guy is huge!
Season 3 of The Grand Tour just ended and I'm already excited for season 4. I think i've been bitten by the GT/Top Gear bug
I've been watching the boys now for going on 15 years. It's going to feel so weird seeing them in a non-studio setting permanently for me.
I make good burgers.. --- Post updated --- UPDATE: 3 New on the menu, and a highly satisfied customer..
Fun pointless fact: The Cathedral in that episode is where I graduated Was pretty awesome seeing an area of the world that is close to my heart on the Grand Tour
I didn’t make this one, but I figured I would make your brain hurt once more with another weird crossover.
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/5852916d-692e-4bac-929a-a19a1ff3d415/updates#content_nav_tabs Just found this..... and it needs to happen.
Since they got the licence for MINI they should be able to do that easily. Personally I collect the speed champions but not the medium or large scale stuff, so you can guess what my personal hope is for that.
Oovee released a public beta for the next patch. The comments are lit up with hate from people who still don't know the situation with Focus/Mudrunner. It's kinda funny, though I fear this may start a flood of negative reviews for both games, made worse when Mudrunner 2 releases later this year.
Happy Earth Day! As it turns out, we're not doomed - we just need to plant 1.2 trillion trees, and we have the room to do it. I am cooking up an idea for a massive-scale photosynthesis pond. The way it works is: you have a very large reservoir of fresh water. Underneath that, you have aerators, like you would have in a fish tank, but much, much bigger. Those are powered by geothermal power or something, and they dissolve air into the water. The water is seeded with algae, who suck up the CO2, use the carbon for biomass and release oxygen. Every so often, the water is drained and the algae is scraped out, composted and replaced. Essentially, this is a form of carbon capture technology. Any idea if this could work?
That's much harder than snow flakes complaining about it. They don't want to do anything about it, they just want to complain about it. We are doomed, but not on the ways many of us think.
I don't generally like using terms like "snowflake" to attack people with whom I disagree, because for the most part it has been reduced to a useless ad-hominem by the Enlightened Centrists(TM), but... really, there's no better word than snowflake to describe some of these people. If you're so concerned, get out there and shovel some dirt. If you don't like dirt, run for office and make the energy industry pay for what they've done.
Who's paying for it? Who is setting aside their land for that project? Which nations are giving what percentages towards the cause? Who is giving up their time to do that? Are people willing to deal with the cost of food going up as a result? Its not quite as easy as planting *just* 1.2 trillion trees. And that is before any questioning of whether it would work or not. That isn't to say that planting more trees would be a bad thing, I would be for it, but I don't think its a solution on its own. --- Post updated --- Just as an addition to what I said above: Lets for the sake of argument plant 1.2 trillion trees, each being 2m (approx 6-7ft) apart from each other in a grid formation, lets call that 2 trillion km² *. This is the amount of space you would need: And that would be pure forest. Add in fire roads, and planting around pre-existing infrastructure, not to mention suitability of terrain for sustaining the tree, and it may be easier to visualise how geographically huge that proposal is; or how long it would take. Lets even assume the project costs $1 per tree and has no overhead costs, that's $2.4 trillion. That is about 10% of the entire US deficit. Or about $18,000 per US taxpayer. Now obviously, I'm not going to suggest that the US would take on the issue on its own, it would be a global burden. But it does help to show the financial implications of such a project. A geoengineering project on that scale might even be big enough to actually mess up the planet, rather than help it. *since you can shave 2m² from 2 of the sides, unless you class every tree as being in the middle of 2m² plot. I can't be bothered to think about that sort of stuff, so made an optimistic estimate.
So basically we would need to restore the Amazon rainforest. It wouldn't be too difficult compared to the deserts of the western United States, but it would be super expensive and take a lot of resources.
Lets just say that 2.4 trillion trees, is a lot of trees. Near enough 320 trees for every human on earth.
