California has strict rules about discharge and pollution. And there are desal plants. Their brine — which they don’t want you to call brine btw — gets pumped into a pipe that extends far out into the ocean, and has lots of holes in it so the salinity is dispersed over a wide area.

To dumb it down some more, the CPU tells the GPU to draw a 45 degree line from A (pixel point 1, 1) to B (pixel point 1,000,1,000.)

The GPU puts a pixel at A, then adds 1 to each coordinate and puts a pixel there (at point 2,2.) It repeats this 999 times until it gets to B.

In this case, the math is really simple. X+1, Y+1. Rinse and repeat.

A CPU can do that simple math, but a GPU can do even that simple math faster. The more complicated the calculations are, the more advantage the GPU has, as the CPU is a jack of all trades, while a GPU is a math wizard.

Essentially, desal turns energy into water. You’re right that mass media has this tendency to write stories about breakthroughs, but they’re either tiny incremental improvements, or baloney.

In places that have almost no other water, like Israel, it makes sense. But if you have sources of water that cost half as much, it’s often cheaper to save a gallon of cheap water than it is to generate a gallon of desal water. So in places like Santa Barbara or northern San Diego County, it’s more like a last resort, the last water source they draws upon.

Desal is, at its heart, forcing water through a very fine filter, a filter so fine that it lets little more than water molecules though. The sort of pressure you need to force water through the filter is like pumping the water to a tank on a 1500’ tower. Which is doable, but at the scale of a city of 100,000 people it would be crazy expensive. At least compared to other cheaper sources of water.

There are consumable costs to an RO desal plant too, such as the filters themselves. They have to be replaced after a while and they’re not cheap. It’s great if those costs come down but they’re marginal compared just to the energy required to filter every single gallon of water. And that cost is really set by the global energy market.

Distillation and filtering are both energy expensive. So is electrolysis. If it weren’t we could produce hydrogen gas cheaply, run hydrogen fuel cells to generate electricity, and generate water as a waste product. There’s cheaper sources of hydrogen though, and a fuel cell bus emits just a tiny trickle of water from its exhaust. So if you try to use electrolysis to generate hydrogen to run a hydrogen fuel cell to power your electrolysis, it’s not going to give you free energy. It takes as much energy to break those bonds as is released when you form them.

If rendering were squats: The CPU is the brain, the GPU = the leg muscles.

I asked this question a while back about the effects. It doesn't answer your question, but it turns out that nobody called it a contraceptive until a hundred years after it went extinct. Assuming it wasn't a totally ineffective treatment, it was, at best, a seriously toxic plant that would hopefully kill the baby before the mom.

Chuck Norris?

It’s almost like he didn’t know they existed because they authors of the various books of the Bible didn’t. But I’m sure it just slipped his mind /s

Those nutrients eventually get decomposed down to carbon dioxide and other simple compounds, which enter the oceanic circulation and get back up eventually, although it might take hundreds of years for a single atom of carbon to enter the atmosphere again. Sometimes the nutrients get buried by sediment before they can be completely decomposed, and then they become part of the tectonic plate and only get recycled in volcanoes (or not at all).

Those are dissolved solids in mg/L. Did you notice how the top 2 are literally table salt? Potassium Chloride is NuSalt (a type of table salt), Magnesium Chloride is valued in industry, Flouride is valued in industry (especially dental products).

The only things I see in this list that are problematic are the Strontium and the Bromide, and I'm sure somebody has a use for them. This is really just an entrepreneur's opportunity waiting to happen

There are a couple famous examples. Chomsky’s sentence that often gets used in intro linguistics textbooks is “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” It registers as syntactically correct, a perfectly valid sentence, as opposed to, say, “Sleep ideas green furiously colorless”, which is intuitively much worse. And yet, the syntactically correct sentence is semantically nonsensical. This tells us there must be a mechanism of syntax at least somewhat independent of semantics.

The second example I remember from intro linguistics (or maybe syntax) was the poem Jabberwocky. Almost all content words are nonsense words with no established English meaning. And yet, the sentences work. They read as sentences that should be possible in English. This is because they follow English grammatical rules.

ocean currents or animals that migrate to shallower water at night will redeliver nutrients. over time other nutrients and minerals get reabsorbed with tectonics back into the earth and erupt out of volcanoes

Yes and no. Much of what is taught in schools and passed around between laypeople as the so-called rules is simply incorrect. However, linguistics is a field with many scholars, who, as the scientists they are, observe, experiment on, and model language. There are lots of theoretical debates, especially because linguistics as it stands now is a fairly young field, but that doesn’t mean misinformation is all there is.

Grammarly pluralizes 'e-mail' with an S. I can't trust it as an authority for anything after learning it got that wrong.

You're being down voted for answering an ELI5 on a topic you know zilch about.

And I'm not sure why you're replying to my comment with this sarcasm after I genuinely engaged with your comment and explained what you were pondering

First of all, punctuation is really important. You’re going to get different answers with different punctuation, so please use your commas correctly. To answer your question/EKY5, adjectives make objects more easily understood. Ordering them from ‘more vague’ to ‘more specific’ directs understanding in a clear way our brains can relate to, from vague descriptors with a lot of other additional possibilities, to more specific and precise ones that make the object described more unique. To get to the specific descriptors, we need to get any necessary vague descriptors out of the way, and not double back to them after picking up a slightly more specific descriptor. “The big, brown, brick wall” is less mentally exhausting than “The brick, brown, big wall” because in the second example, we’ve started with something very specific and ended with something very vague. We may as well have just stopped at “The brick wall,” which is more accurate because it is more specific. “Brown” and “big” have become filler words or unnecessary noise.

yes.

The CPU is the brain of your computer. It can do everything.

The GPU is a specialized idiot savant. It can only do one type of thing but it can do it really good.

The GPU is good at a certain type of math problem that is needed to create 3D images.

The CPU can do that sort of math too, but since it isn't specialized for it, it isn't as good at it. The CPU isn't as fast at that sort of thing.

The type of math the GPU does well is sometimes useful for other things too, like mining Crypto or certain types of simulations.

Because back in the day they didn’t consider fish meat, so they’re getting by on a loophole. Much like the string that encircles Manhattan so Jewish people never have to leave the “home”

For orthodoxs, they abstain from any kind of meat (if it walks on the surface) and any and all processed foods. Olives are OK but olive oil not. Milk is OK but cheese and butter not. I think cereals and grains are OK, but I'm not sure, I was too busy eating meat during lent to actually listen to what was allowed or not.

I think they’re justifying not ‘developing a taste’ for it. I never had fish growing up, and I tried probably a hundred different preparations and types before, thankfully, I finally found one that I’m allergic to, so now I don’t have to justify not liking fish to people who are serious fish-eating advocates.

This is the correct answer.

I think the amounts of nutrients are probably trivial against the entire biosphere.

You may find this article interesting if you haven't already come across it.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/13/760664122/what-happens-after-a-whale-dies

That was from memory, but when I google it I find 1 out of 80000 instead.

Curiously I don't find a good source, only almost the exact same sentence repeated over and over, with slight variations, and the same weird grammatical issue/quirk.

This is the sentence: "Apples do not come true from seed. Actually about 1 in every 80,000 apple trees grown from seed is quality factors good enough to even be considered for evaluation."

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Questions about a business or a group's motivation are not allowed on ELI5. These are usually either straightforward, or known only to the organisations involved, leading to speculation (Rule 2).

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.

Please read this entire message

Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

Discussion of religious or political beliefs are not allowed on ELI5. These usually end up being discussions rather than requests for simplifying complex concepts. They also tend to have a large subjective bent.

If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.