noxer

No one even mentioned the oil industry. You're showing your bias here.

I also never said that reducing emissions would kill people. I said the exact opposite: killing people would reduce emissions. This distinction is important because killing people on a large scale is, unfortunately, theoretically possible. Reducing emissions by the same amount without reducing the population is not.

Simply eliminating fossil-fuel-based fertilizer worldwide would cause at least a billion people to starve. And I said "would" because it's not actually going to happen... you cannot convince a billion people to starve. You would have to kill them.

If you think reducing oil emissions to zero tomorrow would result in the first curve on the XKCD image, I have bad news: it would not. There are many sources of emissions that are not related to oil, gas, or other fossil fuels, and the CO2 already in the atmosphere would not disappear if humanity stopped using oil overnight.

Emissions come from human activity. Oil is what enabled the human population to grow rapidly, but oil itself is not the root cause of emissions, humans are.

To stop emissions to that extent, you would have to reduce the population. I have not seen any proposed alternative that doesn't fall apart under even basic mathematical scrutiny. After reducing the population, you would then have to devote a large share of the newly available resources to removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Only then could you, in theory, flatten the curve again.

Setting aside the obvious moral issues, it would also be extremely difficult to carry this out without triggering the collapse of human civilization through wars and eventually global nuclear destruction.

We both know you understood what I meant but you have nothing acctually to say so you point out issue with the phrasing, good job dude.

Who said it makes it better? It's horrible, pretending that there is some kind of "massive action" that we should take, but that massive action would need to be to kill billions of people. If you want to do anything, go ahead, but the only thing we know that would work is killing billions of people within a very short time. Is that what you want to do? If yes, then how? It would need to be done carefully; if the world powers just start nuking each-other, it's not going to lead to the desired outcome.

And no, it's not over, the curve will just not follow the first or second line. That's all. The planet is still habitable at +4°C according to our best models.

That's an assumption based on a multitude of assumption all of which could be wrong to various degrees. It's perfectly possible that birth rates will go down in the future and become negative and population will shrink and together with tech-progress it could eventually reach a sustainably level. Yes, the chance of this happening is not great but it's not zero.

I agree, modern Sony cameras and lenses have much more sophisticated tech in them than any Walkman ever had. Much smaller and more efficient too. The tech is not lost, it's just obsolete. The tiny motors used in a Walkman haven't been used in a Sony camera or lens for probably 10 years. They are loud, weak, heavy, inefficient, unreliable etc. we simply have much much better tech today.

Ofc Sony would need to start from scratch but they could absolutely do it. Assuming they want to keep the outside dimension and material exactly like an old one, they would have to design it kinda in reverse. But the idea that the manufacturing tech has been lost is ridiculous. Sony still make tons of stuff that is electrical and mechanical. Most prominently cameras and lenses. They have tiny motors in them and tolerances are much tightener in these than in a Walkman type device. The real reason why they "can't" do it is cost. They can sell a camera for $3000 USD (or much more even) and a high end lens too. But no one wants a $1000+ USD Walkman.

I have 8+ million rows added daily to a 100+GB DB. There is a limit somewhere but I haven't found it yet.

I have a 100GB SQLite DB in use that gets 8+ million rows added dally. It's on an off-the-shelf nvme SSD in a "server" that I build from 5+ year old parts.

Those are writes not hits so not directly comparable.

As for the DELETE issue the easy solutions are:

-Delete it batches

-Delay between batches

-Preload the rowids before deleteing with SELECT (Select does not block)

Additionally if data was added sequentially primary to the same table the data is likely stored this way in the file and deleting it in this or in reversed order can be faster (depends on storage medium and other factors).

No, its 99% binary equal and there are no rounded corners in window 10 anyway.

I know that no one who uses it likes to reinstall it unless absolutely necessary. Its pointless in this case so what's your argument? That people should waste more time becase they already waste time? Genius /s

So you suggest switch over to LTSC for having the exact same OS because it's better? Make it make sense pls. I'm confident became I have tired it all and LTSC has zero benefit and only possible downsides. All the benefits it once had are irrelevant nowadays because windows 10 is EOL and there are no more annoying updates regardless of which version you use.

Try read maybe? There is no benefit to switch to LTSC because normal windows 10 is EOL there are no updates/no features updates and thus all the benefits LTSC HAD are moot. Its a total waste of time to switch to LTSC. A clean switch needs a full reinstallation.

If you would acctually read the comment(s) then you'd understand that SWITCHING has no upside, all your arguments are irrelevant there is no point in wasting time to switch the OS version especially not if you need a full reinstallation. And whether you like it or not there are bad coded software out in the real world that do not work on LTSC they will just error out saying this is not a supported version of windows. To fix this you have to regedit your LTSC installation to pretend to be a normal installation. A hassle no sane person would recommend for absolutely zero benefit.