It's odd how on HN you're not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap, but also at the same time you're also supposed be assuming certain doom when it comes to climate change. How about we try to solve the technical problem at hand?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. The paper just observes that outdoor and indoor CO2 concentrations are related, and that high CO2 impacts cognition. Therefore increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on indoor cognition. What is the problem with that? Why is it "flaming crap"?
I'm sorry, English is not my first language. I did in fact read every word in your post, but still don't understand it. Can you maybe rephrase it? I am pretty sure that this discussion here is not about climate change, but about the effects of higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, on CO2 concentrations indoors.
I'm a fluent English speaker, and I'm also having a hard time figuring out your point. And it seems ambiguous what exactly you're calling "flaming crap".
tpmx: I can't respond to your post since it's dead.
There's probably not a way I can convince I'm not lying, but I'm not.
"Not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap".
I honestly still don't know which flaming crap you're referring to. All I know is that it's technical. For all I can tell, it could quite conceivably be OP. Your entire point is lost on me. I don't see any reason not to solve the technical problem at hand. On the contrary, I think that's a great idea.
It's odd how on HN you're not supposed to be negative of anything technical even if it's flaming crap, but also at the same time you're also supposed be assuming certain doom when it comes to climate change. How about we try to solve the technical problem at hand?