That's not what I meant, I meant if all organic life that produces oxygen disappeared.

Photosynthesis is generally so slow at it's job that the current oxygen levels were only built up over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, Rubisco, a key enzyme in photosynthesis, surprisingly, is slow and not very good at distinguishing oxygen from carbon dioxide, because it evolved before there was much oxygen on Earth. Therefore a lot of oxygen was produced at the beginning, most of the oxygen we have today in fact, and then not very much thereafter.

Additionally, the Earth's oxygen levels stay stable due to the release of oxygen trapped in minerals. Over those hundreds of millions of years, they absorbed it. This absorption and release has kept levels stable for well beyond our existence.

At least that's what I got from the PBS video. If you don't agree, go argue with them, I'm no expert. I'm just forwarding what I learned.

I just thought it was an interesting video that challenges what I previously understood about one specific thing 😅 I'm not advocating against the environment, neither is the video, that'd be terrible for many reasons. It's just that the video is from PBS and seems pretty evidence based in why photosynthesis is quite terrible at converting CO2 to oxygen due to the shortcomings of the enzyme Rubisco and how we could improve that. Nothing more than that. Give it a watch, it's not some anti-environment conspiracy video

I love nature, but interestingly apparently photosynthesis doesn't actually contribute all that much oxygen and Earth's levels would stay stable for millions of years if all organic matter disappeared. We'd have many, many other problems, but not that one specifically:

https://youtu.be/DZ_T4zMBx6E

I've seen Electron based apps do this sometimes. GitHub Desktop, for instance

Until an app decides to install in the hidden AppData folder with the confusing sub-folder names, or even the root of the user folder, or god forbid in a folder in the root of the C drive

Just as they say they do not want Sharia law in the UK, we should not support the spread of other extremist religious laws

Rhyutfsnfr

In the first place? We kinda did to begin with, you would phone the operator and say the name of who you wanted to phone.

Introducing phone numbers simplified this, given the operator would have to know or lookup their name, and allowed for the future introduction of automated systems. Such systems were analogue and DNS was far more advanced than them. I guess the telephone becomes so widely used and integrated under that system that it still uses a similar interface today, albeit with a cluster of different modernised interconnected backends

The UK and US have pretty balanced trading, both reprting surpluses. Isn't that the real reason? Tariffs would be really stupid here

Do Americans really have a right to bear arms? It's technically legal, but if police can murder you and get away with it when they catch you with a gun, that sounds like the consequences are a possible defacto death sentence.

They only sometimes murder you for it. But there's plenty laws where I'm from that are only sometimes enforced when the police catch you, and not by death.

The 19020s 😲 You from the future?

Or just "Latin". A word Latin Americans actually use. Really don't need the X.