@[email protected] @[email protected]

This comic has music… Why do I hear boss music? (“…But what’s this that I can’t see with ice cold hands, taking hold on me?”)

Luckily for the rest of the bystanders, Death is quite fond of the pizza in Chicago. Unlucky day for this guy’s cardiac muscle, though…

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

Have you considered the possibility that, by “finding a bug” and possibly “suggesting” a “patch”, the LLM could be smuggling another bug unbeknownst to the vibe coder(s) and/or smuggling a technical debt?

I say this as someone who’ve been coding since my 8s (now I’m 30), someone who hasn’t the tribalistic anti-AI sentiment (I even use LLMs sometimes, particularly the non-Western ones such as Deepseek and Qwen) but understands LLMs enough to know how the (current, state-of-the-art) stochastic parrots shouldn’t be trusted the source code of any slightly serious project, especially a full browser that Firefox is. Chances are devs are going to blindly trust and obediently stage-and-commit whatever the parroting machine spits out, and this can end up really messy. Given the ongoing pivot to AI from Mozilla, I doubt they’re worried about the consequences of vibe coding, though.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

you didn’t answer my question

Your only question in your earlier reply was “you don’t think oil and gas kills way way more?”, to which I replied with a counter-question about two things being true simultaneously, and then I said “I’m not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary”, recalling my earlier excerpt about things buried by Mother Nature, things of which, if you didn’t catch it initially, are oil (and by extension gas) as well as radioactive minerals (those containing uranium, plutonium, etc).

So yes, I did answer your question.

There’s no need for nuance when cats kill 1,000 times more

So? What do you suggest we do with cats and how the heck could instinctive behavior, a behavior of which is found among species that predates us human, compare to artificially melting rocks and sand merged to mimick the naturally occurring photosynthesis in a very rough manner?

Because I didn’t criticize PV just for the sake of it, I said several times how PV panels could benefit of having a vantablack surface that could absorb the most sunlight possible while reflecting the least specular light possible. Still you seem to be deliberately ignoring those parts from a content you dismissed as a “wall of text” (while you’re curiously accusing me of being unwilling to discuss).

To blame renewables

You just strawman-d a constructive critique of mine about photovoltaic panels (in which, again, I didn’t say “we should stop using PV”, for Goddess sake) to “blaming (all) renewables”, which I defy you to quote and point out the excerpt from my replies where I supposedly said that. If you can’t pinpoint the excerpt where I say something in the lines “we should stop using renewables” or “we should stop using PV”, then I gentle ask you don’t put words in my fingers that I didn’t wrote.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

See my other replies in this sub thread, where I’m explaining the nuances behind this matter.

The thing is, that yes, even windows kills birds.

I agree with you in this regard. Window panes are as reflective as solar panels. But then we humans tend to place solar farms where it used to be the habitat for wildlife because we humans can’t be bothered to have football fields worth of blue mirrors potentially reflecting sunlight towards apartments during specific moments of the day.

Again, I’m not against PV, much to the contrary, it’s the best we have (after all, every type of energy source stems from solar energy under the hood, so why not siphon directly from the source?), but I’m the kind of person who tries to ponder about both sides of the coin, hence why (if you noticed) my initial comment wasn’t without ideas to solve this issue (making the panels vantablack, for example).

You know what kills birds 1.000 times more than all three combined? Cats.

Just like owls kills mice and small mammals with such an amazingly ruthless impetus, and…? Were talking about natural hunters doing instinctive hunting, a situation very different from our artificial apparata doing artificial harms to the environment, an environment of which predates our existence as the Homo sapiens species we are. Solar panels as we crafted these don’t naturally occur in Nature.

It’s an invented “discussion” to blame renewables. You don’t think oil&gas kills way way way way more?

Did you know two things can be true at once? I’m not saying oil and gas are harmless, much to the contrary. Perhaps you didn’t even read my whole comment where I said “some things buried by Mother Nature should stay buried”. I don’t mean to be rude but I suggest you read my initial comment again in all of its entirety.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

By “I don’t know why solar panels have to be this reflective”, I meant PV panels as well. Yes, the article I linked, regarding Ivanpah, refers to a solar thermal, which is worse give the way its designed as a panopticon conjuring a death ray out of sunlight. But solar panels aren’t less unsafe for beings high in the skies:

They’re also mostly falling out of favour, losing out to photovoltaic panels. Which are simpler to make, operate, and are vastly cheaper to boot, while also not being reflective (They are protected by a layer of glass, so there’s a minimum amount of reflection simply because they’re smooth, but they’re not mirrors).

I tend to disagree. The glass coating is still a flat smooth glass, practically similar to that of a mirror. Should the glass coating be rough, it would reduce the specular reflection, but this would likely affect the absorption of sunlight by the PV semiconductors.

On top of that, we’re talking about a pair of eyes seeing the reflection from height, which won’t be the same as if you stare at it standing in ground level. In fact, pilots can get temporarily blinded by solar panels and this can pose dangers to aviation (as per IATA).

If trained humans are affected, you betcha birds are even more affected by having eyes more sensitive than ours. Hence my comment on this regard, because we humans have this annoying bias of worrying more about other humans (because, after all, we’re humans) than worrying about the countless other species who have been inhabiting Earth way before an hominin descended from the tree to play with fire and having a “cogito ergo sum” delusional moment. I’m not saying we shouldn’t worry about other humans, I’m saying we are far from being the only tenant species temporarily inhabiting this Pale Blue Dot.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

That 6000 figure is from a solar thermal plant, not solar PV.

Yes, but PV has a highly reflective coating, which reflects sunlight almost like a mirror. It won’t burn the birds, but then we get to another part of your reply:

Solar panel reflections are nothing like lasers.

Which is correct to a certain extent… but looking at a mirror which is reflecting the sunlight doesn’t seem that nice to the eyes, especially sensitive eyes of a bird looking at it from height (where the sunlight reflection may or may not converge from multiple panels positioned together, hence my analogy to lasers) and possibly mistaking it for a lake (glass panels aren’t something naturally occurring, it’s something we hominids built, something unbeknownst to other species, so the chances are the reflective surface will seem like the surface of a water body, especially in deserts where the bird will be thirsty). This “Siren call from the light” is similar to how moths end up colliding with lamps: they don’t know the concept of “light emitter” so their instincts mistake it for the Full Moon which means mating.

Notice: birds being killed by solar panels doesn’t necessarily mean the panels are directly killing them; rather, it’s the specular reflection from their glass coating rendering the birds disoriented (because, again, the thing looks like a lake but isn’t a lake), which in turn will expose them to unnecessary risks, such as being temporarily blinded (akin to how drivers can get blinded from getting headlights unwittingly blasting at their eyes) and/or colliding mid-flight due to misguided spatial notion and unseen obstacles. Because it’s an avian death indirectly (and not directly) caused by the panels, it’s unlikely to become statistics, it’ll likely look like the bird died of “natural causes”. In fact, many human activities indirectly kill birds, especially when we talk about climate change, and I guess/hope you know how this lack of direct harm doesn’t mean climate change isn’t doing harms to wildlife.

And owls would not be affected because they fly at night…

Seems like you don’t know some of the amazing diurnal and crepuscular owls yet, so here it goes:

- Surnia ulula (Northern Hawk Owl, primarily diurnal):
https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/nohowl/cur/introduction
- Asio flammeus (Short-eared Owl, active day and night):
https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/sheowl/cur/introduction
- Athene cunicularia (Burrowing Owl, one of my favorites, active day and night): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/burowl/cur/introduction
- Bubo virginianus (Great Horned Owl, can be active during twilight): https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/grhowl/cur/behavior

There are others, and as I said in another reply in this thread, there’s the possibility that a nocturnal owl will be disturbed by something (corvids harassing her, or human activity) which will force her to wake up and flee to a safer place.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

What exactly are you referring to? My comment is lengthy and mentions a lot of things.

@[email protected] @[email protected]

lol, why specify both here? Tell me more about these non-bird avians and/or these non-avian birds…

At least to me, an ESL (English as a second language) person, both words carry different meanings:

Birds = Passeriformes, such as corvids, mockingbirds, parakeets, etc…
Avians = everyone else from Aves clade, especially the “larger” ones, such as owls, falcons, eagles and swans, but also hawks and chickens.

In Portuguese (I’m Brazilian) we have “pássaros” and “aves”, which are definitely going to refer to different winged beings, and owls aren’t passerines, therefore they’d be more of an “ave” than a “pássaro”.

Both of these categories, however, have species that are equally going to be affected by solar panels, hence my distinction and inclusiveness.

Aren’t they only active at night, though?

That’s the beauty of Strigiformes: there are lots of misconceptions about owls in what our common sense believes. There are diurnal and crepuscular owls, such as the northern hawk-owl (Surnia ulula) and the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, although she isn’t used to fly as higher as her cousins because, and here’s another common sense belief to be broken, she doesn’t nest on trees and other higher places, she nests underground).

Many owls are crepuscular, active during dawn/dusk when the sun has a lower apparent angle. Depending on the solar panels’ position and arrangement (e.g. solar panels facing slightly north/south), this means a sunlight reflected towards the far horizon instead of reflecting upwards. Given how the sunlight during dawn/dusk is fainter, yeah, it’s not gonna burn the avians/birds, however it’ll definitely blind them if they’re flying towards the solar panels, because they’ll be looking directly at a focused and magnified sunglare.

And even the so-defined “nocturnal owls” may meet the sunlight, either by being faced by danger/annoyance during sleep/roosting (such as corvids harassing owls or evil hominids attacking owls, among other situations requiring the owl to wake up and flee) or (a guess of mine) by getting active earlier during summer (when sunset happens later than usual), then they’ll face the same problem as their crepuscular/diurnal cousins.

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]

Sadly, solar panels do kill thousands of birds/avians.

[…] the largest solar power plant in the world, Ivanpah Solar Plant, located in the Mojave Desert in California, is believed to be responsible for at least 6,000 bird deaths each year, as the birds can suffer severe burns or become incinerated if they fly too close to the 40-foot towers that concentrate sunlight from five square miles of solar panels. These numbers are likely an underestimation, as the sight of birds and insects rapidly immolated as they soar too close to the towers, which can reach temperatures of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit

(Source)

Even when birds don’t get burnt alive, the reflection of the sunlight from the surface of solar panels is akin to pointing lasers at airplanes and ending up blinding the pilots.

And as I’ve been an owl-biased person lately, I’d say owls are likely going to be the most affected because their breathtakingly beautiful deep eyes are larger than most avians, therefore having more surface area for the reflected sunlight to blind them, and because they’re so reliant on their accurate vision to hunt, blindness will definitely mean death…

I don’t know why solar panels have to be this reflective, (yeah, I know, there’s a glass protecting the semiconductor from the elements, still) it even seems counterintuitive because you’re losing lots of energy in form of reflected light. Ideally, solar panels should be akin to a vantablack, totally dark and, therefore, as fully light-absorbing as possible, practically a human-made optical black hole.

Still, solar energy seems gazillion times better than both nuclear and fossil fuels, because some things that were buried by Mother Nature should stay buried, and both nuclear and fossil fuels digs things that Mother Nature have been burying for ages. Should nuclear power facilities need more nuclear fuel, there are currently 12,187 (as of 2025, maybe an outdated number from Federation of American Scientists) potential sources for the carcinogenic hot stone eager to be dismantled by way more sane scientists instead of being used by “M.A.D.” (iykwim) hominids in green garments and boots.