As someone who early spread Dawkins meme about memes and coined "memeoids" I think "memed up" is an excellent description of what social media does. Thanks!
"Power: Power storage - a zillion ways to store power."
And all of them expensive, typically more than double the cost depending on how much you need to store.
Economics drives all this work. For example, a power satellite study from 2009 came out to around $1.80/kWh, mostly from the high cost of lifting parts with throwaway rockets.
"10-year production contracts at under 3 cents per kWh are the norm. "
Err . . . at night? You seem to be assuming free storage or people not using power at night.
StratoSolar people think they can make power for 3 cents/kWh and stored power for 5 cents/kWh. With the solar platform 20 km in the sky, they can use gravity storage in the form of big weights hauled up when they have excess power and lower them at night.
Power satellites will make 3 cents/kWh power if you can get the installed cost down to about $2400/kW. That seems to be possible using Skylon to get the cost to LEO down to $100/kg. It's a huge project, it would require the aviation industry to grow by about 50%.
To me the most realistic solution would be to convert (renewable) electricity into a high energy density fuel. The conversion losses would be significant, but perhaps not prohibitive.
The conversion loss and capital cost are not bad, we actually make liquid fuels out of natural gas today. The capital cost is around $10/bbl. The killer is the electricity required to make the hydrogen. It's around 20 MWh/bbl. So $10/MWh (which is a cent per kWh) would make $30/bbl synthetic fuel, 2 cents per kWh would make $50/bbl fuel and so on. Off-peak energy from power satellites might get down into this range 30 or 40 years out. Or a lot of reactors, more than we need for baseload.
Nukes can work for cement, which just needs heat for the kiln. But nuclear aircraft? I don't think so. An iron blast furnace uses metallurgical coal (converted to coke), as an integral part of the process. You can't just drop in nuclear as a replacement.
Like TFA says, we need new tech. Business leaders and politicians can't save the world. Only nerds can do that.
Cement is harder than you might think. I agree on aircraft, except if you are making liquid fuels from electric power. Iron is less of a problem, it's not hard to reduce iron with hydrogen and then melt the sponge iron in an electric furnace.
"A successful transition to a future net-zero emissions energy system is likely to depend on the availability of vast amounts of inexpensive, emissions-free electricity;"
These two will scale large enough.
If you are really interested in power satellites, there is a newsgroup power satellite economics.
I think you should turn the question around and ask were some groups of people have the traits you cite. According to Professor Gregory Clark, there was a persistent selection of some population subgroups over 20 generations up to about 1800. http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.ed...
That's the same number of generations and selection pressure that the Russians used to change the personality of wild foxes into tame ones.
Not that selection will matter very much in the not so distant future when we have complete control of our genes.
Not letting the residents take out their belongings is just stupid. The only case I can think of that might justify this is if he was making many pounds of mercury fulminate and the place was contaminated with mercury. But in that case, burning the structure would be totally irresponsible.
I wrote the lead author of the paper. Might as well share it here:
Dear Dr. Lazer
For me the critical passage in your excellent article starts with:
"The United States has undergone a parallel geo- and sociopolitical evolution. Geographic polarization of partisan preferences has dramatically increased over the past 40 years,"
On evolutionary psychology grounds, I suspect that population growth and widespread recognition of limits has tripped human psychological mechanisms that evolved far back in pre-history. If all other causes (such as disease) fails to knock overpopulation back, then war does. The proposal is that a resource crisis trips on evolved psychologic mechanisms that cause the affected population to amplify xenophobic memes. Eventually, this psychs up the warriors for a do or die attack on the neighboring tribe. Win or lose, the local area overpopulation problem was solved.
Our ancestors ran into this problem every generation or two for the last few million years--ever since we became the top predator. It is no wonder that a response evolved.
I also suspect that the modern day trip mechanism is a bleak economic outlook. To keep this psychological mechanism turned off, rising or at least steady, income per capita is required.
I have an unpublished paper on a math model examining the genetic outcomes of starving in place vs going to war. If you want to see it, ask.
Please be careful in "improving." Most of the so-called "improvements" in user interfaces have made them harder to use and even understand. My bank is perhaps the worst, what they have done to make it usable on mobiles have made it much harder to use on a desktop. Skype has become so hard to use that even the people who work the help desk are having the users load an older version. I could go on with more examples, but please don't make Slashdot one of them.
I hope they leave the desktop email alone. My bank (Wells Fargo) changed their interface so you could use it on a phone and the results have come close to getting me to change banks.
So the full phrase hit groups about 2009 where just "open source" went back much further and had additional meanings besides code. I am actually surprised it took that long for the phrase to start being used in the groups. (There is a good chance google is broken. The word "meme" does not show up till 2010 and I know there was a memetics groups earlier.)
I knew Chris Peterson clear back to when she was in MIT. I suspect Chris would have made serious technical contributions if she had not decided that a non-profit supporting nanotechnology development was more important. As you can expect from people who graduate from MIT, she is very sharp.
Some years ago I worked it out, it's in one of the papers I wrote for The Oil Drum when that blog was active.
If you are going to turn the CO2 into wax/synthetic oil, for pumping into old oil formation, it would take 15 TW for 20 years to take 100 ppm out of the atmosphere. While that's a lot of power, there are 3 sources that could scale that big.
From node 5485 at the oil drum:
The area of the earth is ~5.1 x 10^14 square meters; air pressure is ~100,000 N/m2. The force would be ~5.1 x 10^19 and the mass (force/acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2) is ~5.2 x 10^18kg or 5.2 x 10^15 t. One ppm would be 5.2 x 10^9 t and 100 ppm would be ~520 billion tonnes.
It takes ~100kWh to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Removing 100 ppm of CO2 from the air would take 52000 billion kWh or 52,000 TWh, or since a year is about 8700 hours, about six TW years. A TW is about twice the installed power in the US.
It would take a 1000 1GW nuclear reactors 6 years to bring the CO2 level back to the level of 1960 if no new CO2 was being added.
The problem is what to do with the CO2? Liquid CO2 has a density of 1.1. As liquid, this much CO2 would occupy ~470 cubic km. It would cause a real problem downwind if it blew out of storage. We know that oil stayed in the ground for millions of years.
It takes ~50 times as much energy to convert CO2 to synthetic oil as it does to capture it. So to convert 100 ppm of CO2 to synthetic oil would take ~300 TW-years. If we are already feeding 15 TW into making synthetic oil, we could dedicate another 15 TW into making more and pumping it back into empty oil fields. It would take two decades at this rate to bring the current CO2 level back to that of 1960. We might be able to take the CO2 level down far enough to get the earth to go into an ice age (for those who like to ski).
For the details on the energy cost of making synthetic oil see https.htyp.org/dtc
" However, the complete and utter lack of physical evidence suggests that they are purely a psychological effect and not a physical one."
I know from personal experience that is not true in all cases. Long ago, the early 60s, my friends and I flew lights under balloons over Tucson, AZ. We finally got caught. In the late 1990s, a TV show called "Sightings" talked me into flying another one north of Los Angeles. I still have the tape showing how to build and launch one. Perhaps I should put it up on youtube.
About the same time, a close relative was flying almost identical UFOs over Albuquerque, New Mexico. It was independent, I didn't find out he was doing this until a decade or so later.
"A billionaire doesn't maintain a desire to become a trillionaire because of "survival mechanisms","
Actually, they do, at least such traits (often called greed or avarice) were strongly selected in Europeans. http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.ed...
What happened over about 20 generations (at least) was that the upper economic strata reproduced at a much higher rate than the lowest strata. This level of selection gave us tame foxes after the same number of generations.
So it is not surprising that people with these traits crop up in every generation, and more so from people of a certain ethnic background. Incidentally, the Chinese were also subjected to this and other personality selection forces similar to but not exactly the same as Europeans. At least that's the story you can get in Clark's book, Fairwells to Alms.
Sigh. A couple of million years ago, the line that led to us became organized enough that the big cats could no longer hold down their numbers. After that, humans had to become their own predators. The times they do this are known as war. However, it's not in the gene's interest to fight all the time, only when the consequences of not fighting are worse than fighting.
So in good times, the population grows until it has expanded to the limit of the environment to feed them. Then there is a glitch in the weather or something related and the population faces bleak times. This turns on evolved psychological mechanisms where humans spread xenophobic memes among their group to dehumanize the neighboring group. War with the neighbors ensues. Win or lose, the population is reduced and the environment can feed them again. This evolved because the young women of the losing tribe (and their genes) are incorporated into the winning group. It is the story of the last million years or more.
The way to keep war psychological mechanisms from turning on is to keep the income per capita steady or rising. This takes some combination of low population growth and at least minimal economic growth. This happened in Ireland when the Irish women cut the birthrate to replacement. Economic growth got ahead of population growth and with a brighter future, the IRA lost population support and eventually went out of business.
How this might be applied in other places is unclear.
Same thing that happened in Germany back in the 1920 and a million other times through human history.
Back in the stone age (when our psychological traits evolved) a bleak future outlook could always be solved by a reduction in the local population. The bleak outlook was almost always due to population growth that strained the environment to provide enough food. The evolutionary response was for xenophobic memes to be intensively circulated till the warriors were hyped up enough to go kill the neighbors.
Like much else in psychological (or physiological) responses, the perception of a bleak future is relative. It depends on what people are used to. It is also a matter of perception, people are psychologically affected by bleak predictions. This is basic evolutionary psychology. Unfortunately, while EP helps a lot to understand what is going on, it isn't much use to fix things. It's hard to imagine the Arab world dropping to replacement fertility or becoming much more productive. (It's not entirely an Islamic culture thing because Iran has reached the two children per woman point.)
There is lots more on this topic. One place to start is the Wikipedia articles on Azar Gat and Steven A. LeBlanc.
Not mentioned is the effect of improving the productivity of the oceans with iron or other elements.
In the long run, it's required that what we take out of an ecosystem has to be put back if you are going to have sustainable yield.
It would take more work to figure out exactly what is needed to fertilize the oceans, but iron is a big part of it. Requiring fishing ships to replace the iron they are taking with the fish might go a long way toward improving fishing production.
Charles Stross considered the lack of visible aliens in Accelerando. He made the case that the speed of light keeps them near home. If people run their perception faster, this becomes a major problem. Perhaps they just stay home.
We have not seen anything so far that looks like aliens modifying the volume around a star (unless it turns out that's what is happening around Tabby's star).
It could be that technical life wipes itself out. This requires every single alien civilization to take a fatal pathway. This seems unlikely. The other is that we are the first in our light cone. This also seems unlikely, but it's really hard to say which is more unlikely.
You can draw a whole range of expectations from negative data.
"This desire for binary thinking, us or them, is something I believe holds us back as sentient beings."
I make a case that "binary thinking" is an aspect of population response to stress. In the stone age, stress was almost always the result of lower productivity of the local ecosystem. I.e., they ran out of food. The solution that always worked was to kill (or try to kill) neighbors. Typically these episodes happened once or twice a generation. Human psychology was strongly selected for these traits.
The default state of human groups is not engaged in wars with neighbors. Wars are a way to get killed. Unless the alternative (such as starvation) is worse, groups of people don't engage in wars, such psychological traits were not select. What happens is a behavioral switch is flipped by hard times or the prospect of hard times. When flipped, xenophobic memes spread in the group, eventually synching up the warriors of the tribe for a do or die attack on neighbors.
If an economically stressed population is an explanation for the spread of the anti vaccination memes, then, in the long run, reducing the stress on the population would reduce the opposition to vacinations. It's also understandable why such memes would be persistant. In this state, people are being irrational, driven by genes that are (in effect) rational--at least they were in the stone age.
Even understanding what is going on doesn't help me propose a solution.
"Far more than measles does."
It turned out that measles is worse than people thought.
40 years ago there was a discount store, Fed Mart IIRC in Tucson. They installed ultrasonic burglar alarms and left them on during the day. I could no longer shop there because the intensity was so high it was like an ice pick in the ear. When I complained, the people who worked there said they had the same pain for a while and then the effect went away (as they became deaf I suppose).
Slashdot Mirror
" memed up."
As someone who early spread Dawkins meme about memes and coined "memeoids" I think "memed up" is an excellent description of what social media does. Thanks!
"Power: Power storage - a zillion ways to store power."
And all of them expensive, typically more than double the cost depending on how much you need to store.
Economics drives all this work. For example, a power satellite study from 2009 came out to around $1.80/kWh, mostly from the high cost of lifting parts with throwaway rockets.
"10-year production contracts at under 3 cents per kWh are the norm. "
Err . . . at night? You seem to be assuming free storage or people not using power at night.
StratoSolar people think they can make power for 3 cents/kWh and stored power for 5 cents/kWh. With the solar platform 20 km in the sky, they can use gravity storage in the form of big weights hauled up when they have excess power and lower them at night.
Power satellites will make 3 cents/kWh power if you can get the installed cost down to about $2400/kW. That seems to be possible using Skylon to get the cost to LEO down to $100/kg. It's a huge project, it would require the aviation industry to grow by about 50%.
To me the most realistic solution would be to convert (renewable) electricity into a high energy density fuel. The conversion losses would be significant, but perhaps not prohibitive.
The conversion loss and capital cost are not bad, we actually make liquid fuels out of natural gas today. The capital cost is around $10/bbl. The killer is the electricity required to make the hydrogen. It's around 20 MWh/bbl. So $10/MWh (which is a cent per kWh) would make $30/bbl synthetic fuel, 2 cents per kWh would make $50/bbl fuel and so on. Off-peak energy from power satellites might get down into this range 30 or 40 years out. Or a lot of reactors, more than we need for baseload.
Nukes can work for cement, which just needs heat for the kiln. But nuclear aircraft? I don't think so. An iron blast furnace uses metallurgical coal (converted to coke), as an integral part of the process. You can't just drop in nuclear as a replacement.
Like TFA says, we need new tech. Business leaders and politicians can't save the world. Only nerds can do that.
Cement is harder than you might think. I agree on aircraft, except if you are making liquid fuels from electric power. Iron is less of a problem, it's not hard to reduce iron with hydrogen and then melt the sponge iron in an electric furnace.
Besides nuclear, there are two things that could scale large enough to matter, one is StratoSolar, the other is solar power satellites.
http://www.stratosolar.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The science article notes,
"A successful transition to a future net-zero emissions energy system
is likely to depend on the availability of vast amounts of
inexpensive, emissions-free electricity;"
These two will scale large enough.
If you are really interested in power satellites, there is a newsgroup power satellite economics.
I wonder, out of how many of these orders? Thousands?
I think you should turn the question around and ask were some groups of people have the traits you cite. According to Professor Gregory Clark, there was a persistent selection of some population subgroups over 20 generations up to about 1800. http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.ed...
That's the same number of generations and selection pressure that the Russians used to change the personality of wild foxes into tame ones.
Not that selection will matter very much in the not so distant future when we have complete control of our genes.
Facebook has never had a paid version. But Slashdot used to have one, and I used to pay for it. They dropped this option some years ago.
I wonder what Facebook would have to charge if they offered a no ads, no fake news option?
You have no relevant credential or experience in nanotechnology./p>
The closest science to engineering nanotechnology is chemistry.
'Peterson holds a bachelor's degree in chemistry from MIT."
I knew Chris when she was a student at MIT, You could have looked it up, it's not hard.
Not letting the residents take out their belongings is just stupid. The only case I can think of that might justify this is if he was making many pounds of mercury fulminate and the place was contaminated with mercury. But in that case, burning the structure would be totally irresponsible.
I wrote the lead author of the paper. Might as well share it here:
Dear Dr. Lazer
For me the critical passage in your excellent article starts with:
"The United States has undergone a parallel geo- and sociopolitical evolution. Geographic polarization of partisan preferences has dramatically increased over the past 40 years,"
On evolutionary psychology grounds, I suspect that population growth and widespread recognition of limits has tripped human psychological mechanisms that evolved far back in pre-history. If all other causes (such as disease) fails to knock overpopulation back, then war does. The proposal is that a resource crisis trips on evolved psychologic mechanisms that cause the affected population to amplify xenophobic memes. Eventually, this psychs up the warriors for a do or die attack on the neighboring tribe. Win or lose, the local area overpopulation problem was solved.
Our ancestors ran into this problem every generation or two for the last few million years--ever since we became the top predator. It is no wonder that a response evolved.
I also suspect that the modern day trip mechanism is a bleak economic outlook. To keep this psychological mechanism turned off, rising or at least steady, income per capita is required.
I have an unpublished paper on a math model examining the genetic outcomes of starving in place vs going to war. If you want to see it, ask.
Best wishes,
Keith Henson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Please be careful in "improving." Most of the so-called "improvements" in user interfaces have made them harder to use and even understand. My bank is perhaps the worst, what they have done to make it usable on mobiles have made it much harder to use on a desktop. Skype has become so hard to use that even the people who work the help desk are having the users load an older version. I could go on with more examples, but please don't make Slashdot one of them.
I hope they leave the desktop email alone. My bank (Wells Fargo) changed their interface so you could use it on a phone and the results have come close to getting me to change banks.
In google groups,
"open source software" : before:2009/01/01, no hits.
"open source software" : before:2010/01/01, 44 hits.
So the full phrase hit groups about 2009 where just "open source" went back much further and had additional meanings besides code. I am actually surprised it took that long for the phrase to start being used in the groups. (There is a good chance google is broken. The word "meme" does not show up till 2010 and I know there was a memetics groups earlier.)
I knew Chris Peterson clear back to when she was in MIT. I suspect Chris would have made serious technical contributions if she had not decided that a non-profit supporting nanotechnology development was more important. As you can expect from people who graduate from MIT, she is very sharp.
My that was a long time ago!
Some years ago I worked it out, it's in one of the papers I wrote for The Oil Drum when that blog was active.
If you are going to turn the CO2 into wax/synthetic oil, for pumping into old oil formation, it would take 15 TW for 20 years to take 100 ppm out of the atmosphere. While that's a lot of power, there are 3 sources that could scale that big.
From node 5485 at the oil drum:
The area of the earth is ~5.1 x 10^14 square meters; air pressure is ~100,000 N/m2. The force would be ~5.1 x 10^19 and the mass (force/acceleration of 9.8 m/sec2) is ~5.2 x 10^18kg or 5.2 x 10^15 t. One ppm would be 5.2 x 10^9 t and 100 ppm would be ~520 billion tonnes.
It takes ~100kWh to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...
Removing 100 ppm of CO2 from the air would take 52000 billion kWh or 52,000 TWh, or since a year is about 8700 hours, about six TW years. A TW is about twice the installed power in the US.
It would take a 1000 1GW nuclear reactors 6 years to bring the CO2 level back to the level of 1960 if no new CO2 was being added.
The problem is what to do with the CO2? Liquid CO2 has a density of 1.1. As liquid, this much CO2 would occupy ~470 cubic km. It would cause a real problem downwind if it blew out of storage. We know that oil stayed in the ground for millions of years.
It takes ~50 times as much energy to convert CO2 to synthetic oil as it does to capture it. So to convert 100 ppm of CO2 to synthetic oil would take ~300 TW-years. If we are already feeding 15 TW into making synthetic oil, we could dedicate another 15 TW into making more and pumping it back into empty oil fields. It would take two decades at this rate to bring the current CO2 level back to that of 1960. We might be able to take the CO2 level down far enough to get the earth to go into an ice age (for those who like to ski).
For the details on the energy cost of making synthetic oil see https.htyp.org/dtc
" However, the complete and utter lack of physical evidence suggests that they are purely a psychological effect and not a physical one."
I know from personal experience that is not true in all cases. Long ago, the early 60s, my friends and I flew lights under balloons over Tucson, AZ. We finally got caught. In the late 1990s, a TV show called "Sightings" talked me into flying another one north of Los Angeles. I still have the tape showing how to build and launch one. Perhaps I should put it up on youtube.
About the same time, a close relative was flying almost identical UFOs over Albuquerque, New Mexico. It was independent, I didn't find out he was doing this until a decade or so later.
"A billionaire doesn't maintain a desire to become a trillionaire because of "survival mechanisms","
Actually, they do, at least such traits (often called greed or avarice) were strongly selected in Europeans. http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.ed...
What happened over about 20 generations (at least) was that the upper economic strata reproduced at a much higher rate than the lowest strata. This level of selection gave us tame foxes after the same number of generations.
So it is not surprising that people with these traits crop up in every generation, and more so from people of a certain ethnic background. Incidentally, the Chinese were also subjected to this and other personality selection forces similar to but not exactly the same as Europeans. At least that's the story you can get in Clark's book, Fairwells to Alms.
Sigh. A couple of million years ago, the line that led to us became organized enough that the big cats could no longer hold down their numbers. After that, humans had to become their own predators. The times they do this are known as war. However, it's not in the gene's interest to fight all the time, only when the consequences of not fighting are worse than fighting.
So in good times, the population grows until it has expanded to the limit of the environment to feed them. Then there is a glitch in the weather or something related and the population faces bleak times. This turns on evolved psychological mechanisms where humans spread xenophobic memes among their group to dehumanize the neighboring group. War with the neighbors ensues. Win or lose, the population is reduced and the environment can feed them again. This evolved because the young women of the losing tribe (and their genes) are incorporated into the winning group. It is the story of the last million years or more.
The way to keep war psychological mechanisms from turning on is to keep the income per capita steady or rising. This takes some combination of low population growth and at least minimal economic growth. This happened in Ireland when the Irish women cut the birthrate to replacement. Economic growth got ahead of population growth and with a brighter future, the IRA lost population support and eventually went out of business.
How this might be applied in other places is unclear.
"What has happened to us?"
Same thing that happened in Germany back in the 1920 and a million other times through human history.
Back in the stone age (when our psychological traits evolved) a bleak future outlook could always be solved by a reduction in the local population. The bleak outlook was almost always due to population growth that strained the environment to provide enough food. The evolutionary response was for xenophobic memes to be intensively circulated till the warriors were hyped up enough to go kill the neighbors.
Like much else in psychological (or physiological) responses, the perception of a bleak future is relative. It depends on what people are used to. It is also a matter of perception, people are psychologically affected by bleak predictions. This is basic evolutionary psychology. Unfortunately, while EP helps a lot to understand what is going on, it isn't much use to fix things. It's hard to imagine the Arab world dropping to replacement fertility or becoming much more productive. (It's not entirely an Islamic culture thing because Iran has reached the two children per woman point.)
There is lots more on this topic. One place to start is the Wikipedia articles on Azar Gat and Steven A. LeBlanc.
I ran for a decade on Win 2000 and an early version of Firefox.
Win 2000 stayed up between reboots for more than a year.
Firefox back in those days never crashed.
I get Firefox crashing about once a day now, and Windows 7 is lucky to stay up a week without requiring a reboot.
Such is progress.
Not mentioned is the effect of improving the productivity of the oceans with iron or other elements.
In the long run, it's required that what we take out of an ecosystem has to be put back if you are going to have sustainable yield.
It would take more work to figure out exactly what is needed to fertilize the oceans, but iron is a big part of it. Requiring fishing ships to replace the iron they are taking with the fish might go a long way toward improving fishing production.
Charles Stross considered the lack of visible aliens in Accelerando. He made the case that the speed of light keeps them near home. If people run their perception faster, this becomes a major problem. Perhaps they just stay home.
We have not seen anything so far that looks like aliens modifying the volume around a star (unless it turns out that's what is happening around Tabby's star).
It could be that technical life wipes itself out. This requires every single alien civilization to take a fatal pathway. This seems unlikely. The other is that we are the first in our light cone. This also seems unlikely, but it's really hard to say which is more unlikely.
You can draw a whole range of expectations from negative data.
"This desire for binary thinking, us or them, is something I believe holds us back as sentient beings."
I make a case that "binary thinking" is an aspect of population response to stress. In the stone age, stress was almost always the result of lower productivity of the local ecosystem. I.e., they ran out of food. The solution that always worked was to kill (or try to kill) neighbors. Typically these episodes happened once or twice a generation. Human psychology was strongly selected for these traits.
The default state of human groups is not engaged in wars with neighbors. Wars are a way to get killed. Unless the alternative (such as starvation) is worse, groups of people don't engage in wars, such psychological traits were not select. What happens is a behavioral switch is flipped by hard times or the prospect of hard times. When flipped, xenophobic memes spread in the group, eventually synching up the warriors of the tribe for a do or die attack on neighbors.
If an economically stressed population is an explanation for the spread of the anti vaccination memes, then, in the long run, reducing the stress on the population would reduce the opposition to vacinations. It's also understandable why such memes would be persistant. In this state, people are being irrational, driven by genes that are (in effect) rational--at least they were in the stone age.
Even understanding what is going on doesn't help me propose a solution.
"Far more than measles does."
It turned out that measles is worse than people thought.
https://www.princeton.edu/news...
40 years ago there was a discount store, Fed Mart IIRC in Tucson. They installed ultrasonic burglar alarms and left them on during the day. I could no longer shop there because the intensity was so high it was like an ice pick in the ear. When I complained, the people who worked there said they had the same pain for a while and then the effect went away (as they became deaf I suppose).