> And considering the massive efficiency of lighter-than-air transport

What efficiency? You still need to orient it and propel it in the desired direction, unless you don't mind to simply float around on the wind (in which case, yes, we have weather balloons precisely for that and nothing much else).

Slow moving free floating objects are super easy to move around. You can push a 100 ton piece of equipment with your hands if it is floating. That is why cargo boats still beat out shipping efficiency of rail. There is almost no practical size or weight limits, your only real potential loss, and potential gain, is the movement of your floating fluid be it wind or water, which in the case of air is fairly predictable these days, on top of moving in different directions at different altitudes.

> There will always be a strong belief in artificially changing market behaviour by simply throwing money at it and hoping it sticks.

Well, it can be made to work, you know. Late (in the XX century) industrialization stories are like that: competitive (dis)advantages make any such attempts simply unprofittable for any businessman (or even a group of them), but if the government keeps skewing the market for decades... The Japanese car manufacturing has been heavily subsidized for most of the XX century, even after their several disastrous attempts to enter the US market. But it all worked out in the end.

Well, you don't. Everything you do has a carbon footprint, you know, haven't you heard? Everything.

I am fairly certain they teach the gist of all of that in even in school-level textbooks on biology/geography.

Hopefully they never stop.

adrian puts it quite well though.

Keeping that in mind;

>What role, if any, did carbonate mineral formation have in sequestering carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?

Looks like as much as it possibly could.

It was the primary driver until life happened. Then life was, and now they exist in a delicate balance.

I get the idea that the throwaway account was suggesting we can just "do whatever forever" without consequences though, and that's just not true. Most CO2 sequestration on earth is now biological in origin and has been for a very long time.

Cargo trolleybuses? An interesting idea.

> Many filesystems cannot represent empty directories.

Like which ones? And how does mkdir(1) work on such filesystems?

Why did Git decide to have no means to track fully empty directories? Like, I understand that e.g. doing "git rm *" inside a directory should probably delete this directory from the repository as well (although "git rm -r dir_to_delete" exists so...) but why not have a command to explicitly force a directory to be tracked, whether it's empty or not?

Why didn't anyone implement it? And an option to keep attrs, rights, owners, groups etc.

The disadvantage is that a "goto fail" can easily happen with this approach. And it actually had happened in the wild.

Well, unless you're on Windows :D Even on Windows XP Home Edition I could open a million file handles with no problems.

Seriously, why is default ulimit on file descriptors on Linux measly 1024?

Some system calls like select() will not work if there are more than 1024 FDs open (https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/select.2.html), so it probably (?) makes sense to default to it. Although I don't really think that in 2k26 it makes sense to have such a low limit on desktops, that is true.

Eh, generics kinda do introduce a subtyping relation already. It's just that HM's Gen rule of e: σ implies e: ∀α.σ is restrictive enough that this subtyping relation can be checked (and inferred) by using just unification which is quite an amazing result.