I’ve got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it’s a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it’s very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that’s important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, “contrails are completely avoidable”.
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people’s time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
I went to college for English Lit so please don’t lecture me on the virtues of reading. God forbid you stoop to get all the information you can. You are acting like an ass and I’m letting you know. I didn’t get up this morning to chastise you.
If there’s any doubt in your mind what you did:
1: “this video says you’re wrong”
2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
See we’re not strangers anymore. You’re that fucking guy who did that fucking thing.
I gave MY preferences for reading, note the use of the phrase “I prefer”. I did not extoll the virtues of reading. It’s a shame your English Lit exposure in college didn’t extend to education on logical fallacies, because you use them a lot.
1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
1: User actually said “contrails are completely avoidable”. 2: I said that’s factually untrue. My disdain for a youtube link on a comment thread discussion was literally my post scriptum.
You have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who don’t want to watch videos for science news, that’s clear - but I don’t care to hear any more about it. Maybe take a breath and reflect on context. We’re in the comments section on a ‘nottheonion’ news post about goddamn JFK banning chemtrails because he thinks DARPA is secretly impregnating them with experimetnal chemicals. Y’know… wackadoo shit.
Have a great weekend & life, I will no longer respond.
I’ve got no interest in watching even 2.5 minute YouTube videos when I can read the text of the same content in 45 seconds. Instructional videos can be great and valuable, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. There are a wealth of crap pop science videos on YouTube that misrepresent studies.
The study is interesting, but it’s a feasibility study data utilizing a theoretical models - there are a lot of assumptions here. If they or other researchers go on to perform trials using their proposed flight adjustments to the autopilot software and validate it works, great! Until then, it’s very far from settled science. Here is another recent study that proposes the main problem is incompletely-burned fuel which causes soot particles that sustain the contrails in the atmosphere for much longer than contrails from low-soot contrails, which quickly diaperse. This is an emerging field of study with few published studies and varying ideas on how to resolve issues.
Maybe if people want to share emerging scientific information that’s important to them on a written forum they should put in the time to look to more valuable text sources, instead of dropping YouTube links with overconfident assertions that will put off people from watching them, eg, “contrails are completely avoidable”.
You have remarkable audacity for continuing to argue the point while also boasting about how you’ll ignore any information that isn’t spoon fed to you in your format of choice. Sooner or later, you’re going to miss something that way and make an ass of yourself, if that didn’t already just happen in front of our eyes.
God forbid I actually read sources, and prefer reading to taking heads on a video platform that is designed to waste people’s time in endless content crawls.
You call me audacious yet here you are stepping into a discussion to try your best to belittle and chastise an internet stranger with a different opinion.
I went to college for English Lit so please don’t lecture me on the virtues of reading. God forbid you stoop to get all the information you can. You are acting like an ass and I’m letting you know. I didn’t get up this morning to chastise you.
If there’s any doubt in your mind what you did:
1: “this video says you’re wrong” 2: “well I don’t watch videos dahling.” (flips hair, draws on cigarette)
See we’re not strangers anymore. You’re that fucking guy who did that fucking thing.
I gave MY preferences for reading, note the use of the phrase “I prefer”. I did not extoll the virtues of reading. It’s a shame your English Lit exposure in college didn’t extend to education on logical fallacies, because you use them a lot.
1: User actually said “contrails are completely avoidable”. 2: I said that’s factually untrue. My disdain for a youtube link on a comment thread discussion was literally my post scriptum.
You have a massive chip on your shoulder about people who don’t want to watch videos for science news, that’s clear - but I don’t care to hear any more about it. Maybe take a breath and reflect on context. We’re in the comments section on a ‘nottheonion’ news post about goddamn JFK banning chemtrails because he thinks DARPA is secretly impregnating them with experimetnal chemicals. Y’know… wackadoo shit.
Have a great weekend & life, I will no longer respond.
Well said