Part of it was a Soviet psyop to get Western citizens to oppose West's nuclear weapons. Encourage people to oppose nuclear in general, both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

That's how it looks like in the photos and videos and maps, yes.

https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000012304991.html

https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/miljardeja-euroja-ja-tuh...

https://www.tervareitti.fi/artikkelit/googlen-datakeskus-tul...

https://www.google.com/maps/@64.8361982,26.1427786,6855m/

In this case, it's 3.3 sq-km (or 1.3 sq-miles) of forest.

• You need this permit when the land use changes (from forest to build area)

• The subcontractor might not have known that they are clear-cutting without all permits, or at least they might have plausible deniability

• The decision makers of the town of Muhos want the data center, as it bring jobs and taxable income

• The town building inspector had given a green light for Google to proceed

• Finland is, still, a high-trust society. Punishment for this kind of wrong-doing is likely lenient (some relatively small fines), the shame of having been sentenced in court is supposed to be the main deterrent in itself

• Thus, it might make financial sense for Google to cut corners and proceed faster, even if it means they end up paying some fines

• Unless the bad publicity ends up costing more than the saved project time

Here's a nice low-budget scifi movie about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_Salesman_(2012_film...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgeyHkP6i3g (full movie)

Before quantum computers, the only reason to learn quantum mechanics was so that you could learn to explain the electron orbitals of the hydrogen atom. And after that proceed to understand how other atoms and other matter works.

And for this you need vector calculus, partial differential equations, Schrödinger equation, orthogonal functions (spherical harmonics, Laguerre polynomials) (with hint of the theory of Hilbert spaces).

The idea that someone would like to learn the basic principles of QM without applying it to solve the 3-dimensional probability distribution of electrons around the atomic nucleus, is rather new.

Quantum Bayesianism (QBism): We need to eliminate the interpretational conundrums that have beset quantum theory. A quantum state should not be thought to offer a description or representation of physical reality – instead it represents the degrees of belief an agent has about the possible outcomes of measurements.

Situation: There are 13 major interpretations of quantum mechanics.

https://xkcd.com/927/

"The number of different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, N(λ)dλ, with wavelengths in a small interval between λ and λ + dλ, (dλ means a small interval in wavelength) can be shown to be proportional to 1/λ⁴."

doesn't make sense. It should not talk about a number of wavelengths, but the number of allowed standing-wave modes (number of eigenmodes that a mathematical solution to the electric field in the relevant situation has) in the small wavelength interval.

Apparently not. Fortran 90 standard was published 35 years ago, in 1991. But a majority of comments in this thread are about FORTRAN 77. It's like the last 35 years didn't happen at all.

Of course they new. Even if we exclude what Joseph Fourier (in 1824) [1] and Svante Arrhenius (in 1896) [2] wrote about carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect, after [3] in 1967 and [4] in 1979, everybody who followed this branch of science, knew.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_th...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_ef...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Equilibrium_of_the_Atm...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charney_Report

I disagree.

This is where cutting edge academic research was already 10 years earlier:

[1] 1967: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04...

The above paper even has its own Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_Equilibrium_of_the_Atm...

[2] 1969: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/8/3/1520-045...

[3] 1975: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/warming_papers/manabe.19...

The reports in your link start from 1977 and they are just summaries of public research. They are well done, but lots of people with engineering and/or physics training would be able to read published research and write summary reports.

[4] Let's look at the first one: https://insideclimatenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Jam...

The actual, original science is properly referenced in the end in "Bibliography" (pdf page 15).

I really don't find any "cutting edge research" in those reports. Maybe "cutting edge reading", if we think that being able to follow, read, understand and summarize published research was cutting edge in the late 1970s.

The idea that [4] is "cutting edge research" and comparable in quality to [1,2,3] is just laughable.

"They knew the risks"

Everybody knew the risks. Climate science has been researched at universities and published openly.

If politicians have failed to regulate, and consumers have enjoyed the benefits of (relatively) cheap fuel and energy, why would the fossil energy companies be singled out as the culprits? People wanted the high material standard of living that comes from (relatively) abundant available energy, cheaper and plentiful food that comes from abundant nitrogen fertilizers (made from natural gas). We were all part of this.

Also Andrew Ng 2 weeks ago:

https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/issue-371

He is not an unpaid volunteer.

He's an associate professor at the prestigious Carnegie Mellon University. He is not paid by the journal, but he is paid a salary by the university, and the university expects that a small part of his academic work is to serve as an editor in academic journals.

https://www.amazon.com/First-Contact-Guineas-Highlanders-Enc...

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5whpqs/comment/dea5fl...