this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
6 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16212 readers
2647 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Obelix@feddit.org 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] sober_monk@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Thanks for the link, interesting read! I know that a good paper is succint, but honestly, I thought that making the case for a gigaton-yield nuclear explosion to combat climate change would take more than four pages...

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

wow, and the bomb only needs a yield of 1620 times the largest nuclear bomb ever deployed.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

"Nuclear explosions are inherently unsafe"

Well, he warns about it.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 1 points 6 months ago

I think y'all are missing the point here.

It's really to justify the production and testing of an insanely large planet altering weapon that would create a really cool firework.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Seems half-baked. Well unbaked really. They make a shit ton of assumptions that I’m not sure are true.

For example, why do they assume 90% pulverization efficiency of the basalt? Or is that a number they just pulled out of their ass?

And does ERW work if the pulverized rock is in a big pile on the sea floor? Or would we have to dig the highly radioactive area up and spread it around the surface?

And does the radioactive water truly stay at the site of the explosion? Or will it be spread through the entire ocean via currents?

Cool concept but, like, maybe we should check the assumptions a little harder?

[–] kozy138@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Some people would literally rather nuke the planet than take a train to work...

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The only way that works is if all the oil execs are in ground zero.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I have a similar modest proposal to solving the wealth inequality hoarding problem of billionaires

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Someone needs to work out the inheritance fallout. With our luck it will still fall within the same families, or the government.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 6 months ago

Government is fine. Remember money is just IOUs from the government, if billionaires assets were sold and the money went to government it would be deflationary, all money in circulation would become more valuable

[–] SpaceRanger13@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago

Uh oh. What an apropos American way to go.