Professional nerds in silicon valley and beyond might consider whether they can help, and how.
My understanding from long conversations with a beekeeper who has lost millions of bees, including entire colonies remote from agricultural and residential pesticides and artificial colony technology (which are some of the hypothesized causes blamed) is there is a mix of a) pathogens, and b) global supply chain homogeny distributing the pathogens mixed into various agricultural products eg mulch and soil, and c) environmental factors to include possibly RF which have been observed to destroy previously healthy colonies very quickly and then also scramble or interfere with the colony division/expansion process where a queen starts over. To include in some cases the queens apparently getting lost and/or leading astray their entire swarm of minion bees during the fragile process of relocating. This getting lost is apparently a new puzzling phenomenon.
Anyway, it would be bad if large fragile ecosystems upon which many species including ours depend, were deprived of key pollinators. There is probably some very smart insightful person or team here on HN who could help and profit from helping on a global scale.
I was in such a meeting yesterday where multiple participants were required by law to be each in same meeting from different computers in same room and with their mics and speakers on, and same law prevents use of conference room camera speakers and mic. There was a constant and annoying audio echo for everyone.
Raccoons have been living literally inside of houses for centuries.
One was kept as a pet in Jamestown Virginia in the 1600s. Another lived in the White House in the 1900s. Surely, not a decade has passed between have there been NO domesticated raccoons in the US? If living near humans changes animals, that started at least 25,000 years ago here in North America. Not recently.
My neighbors had a pet raccoon growing up. It lived inside but would come and go.
The people who wrote this article seem out of touch with the topic they chose to pretend to be experts about?
These words all have different meaning. Because they all have different origins. Modern English (say post Shake-Speare, but especially American TV and music that is marketed globally) have grotesquely collapsed these words already.
For example
- Happy means "I'm feeling lucky." Like the old Google search button. You're happy when you say, hit your full house on the river... precisely because what just HAPPENED fulfilled your hope, but randomly and subtley perhaps without agency. This is a Norse germanic word. Its romance synonym is not pleased, rather fortunate. For example a baseball player hitting a home run off the bottom ten feet of the foul (fair) pole is and should feel happy; the same player hitting a home run entirely out of the park having successfully predicted the pitch with skill and agency, this is different. They are experiencing a different feeling. We've just forgotten the meaning of words. For example see Shakespeare "Oh happy dagger..." for a juxtaposition that is already playing with this. Obviously the inanimate object doesn't have feelings. And she is not glad or delighted, she's suicidal at that moment. It's the dagger that has won the lottery of sheathing itself in her tragic bosom?
- Glad means not pleased or happy but rather "bright and shining" or what a third party would perceive as radiant or glowing, even joyful. So Achilles in his touched/trance zone, bride walking down altar? Shakespeare uses it to connote an inside feeling in response to again something out of your control but not, as with happy, having any concept of fortune or luck. Rather like, I am glad of you, seeing you, being with you. It wants a other person and speaks intrinsically to a subject-object interaction: it's about perception and reaction. Happy is about being stoked because YOU were lucky, nobody needs to witness it. Glad requires an other. Notably Neil Sheehan chose "A Bright Shining lie" for his amazing book. This is another very intellectual choice (like Juliet above by Shakespeare) by an author who clearly knows his etymology? It's about the tension between what was really going on (objectively) and what people thought was going on (subjectively).
- Pleased is our first non-Germanic word. Broadly, English from German/Norse origins are a) older, b) shorter, and c) experiential not analytical. Pleasure is not that. It's going to be arriving with the Normans circa 1066 (a few generations before and after, by location in physical geography of the Anglophones ie Bordeaux vs Yorkshire) and the key concept is satisfying somebody's expectations: Pleased means a state of Acceptableness. Your home run above satisfies the expectations of the coach and your fans. That's why they are cheering. Not because you are happy to be lucky; or glad to be on fire; but because you accomplished THEIR goals. It's a technical analytical state of being, eg you should be pleased your candidate release passes acceptance/regressio testing. I hope you don't feel happy or look too glad. Act like you've done this before etc. A football player who puts down the football after scoring without a stupid celebration dance is pleased.
- Delighted is obviously another non Germanic admix word in via the romance languages with the Frenchies. The key concept is your experience of something alluring, charming, seductive, delicious. It's a
.. sensual word but also, like so many romance language words is a bit detached and analytical. Smart guy word for the feeling at the end of a process of getting what you wanted. Unlike happ and glad, which are for... bros verbing/living in the moment? The fact delighted just means "super pleased" or "double plus glad" now is a sign we already live in the collapse you envision. Which is a shame.
Ps you can fix it by reading books that are merely 50+ years old.