skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The easiest way to approach this is to "stop burning stuff". Is a material being burned? Then it almost certainly emits CO2. Do you call it fuel? Stop using it or use it as little as possible.

Most personal energy use is for heating living spaces and transportation. EVs are great for transportation, e-bikes are even better. Heat pumps are great for heating and cooling living spaces. Using these one can drastically reduce direct personal CO2 emissions. Sure, you're then buying electricity and part of electricity is produced by burning stuff. If possible, you should then get solar panels, to at least offset the amount of electricity used.

With regard to purchasing one should regard objects that have been over temperature of boiling water as things that took a significat amount of energy to be created: food is cooked, metals and glass are melted, and so on. Is there a way to reuse them, or at least recycle?
Not sure what solutions that group is supposed to be espoucing but they're mostly just a political lobbying group.

Frankly until the shouting and arguing stops and someone who can make a difference comes to the table I'm out.
There is was too much posturing which makes no difference and is bad on both sides from plastic signs complaining about pollution to politicians who travel from ecological disaster to ecological disaster via private jet, and that's even before you realise just how in the pocket mainstream politicians of both sides are to the current status quo.
Thanks.

Just my own view, but I find that highly-recommended PDFs are often vastly more worthwhile reading than much of what is easily found in HTML format.

My preferred platform is generally an e-ink reader or tablet. At 8" or larger, they're quite good for reading most print-oriented material. My own is a 13.3" Onyx device, and I'm loving it.

They're much better for reading, and tend to reduce distractions.
Let's just pray that our feudal overlords invests wisely!
Aurora Exascale System to Advance Dark Matter Research
Blaming "big corporations" for our woes looks pretty unconstructive to me. Most big corporations got big by giving consumers what they want. Trying to reduce emissions through big corporations (AFAICT the focus will be largely on energy, transport and construction) means making their products more expensive, which always triggers responses of regressiveness / inequality, short-circuiting the whole debate.

Put in another way: regardless whether execs at the oil and flight companies are to blame, or their flying and driving customers, a solution must involve large reductions in the amount of fuel burnt (which inevitably requires making that much more expensive than it is now).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism#Criticism
People aren't going to like this take, but it's fairly simple from security point of view given that many companies have to adhere to security standards around "physical security", such as ISO 27001 and SOC 2.

You either go back in to the office, where companies can ensure the security of their networks and environments, or you don't have a job. I don't agree with this, but in terms of security, when people are working from home there are standards that we simply cannot meet, which could potentially cost a small business large contracts.

Scoping is important and these issues will have to be figured out now in the post-pandemic world.
Doesn't necessarily work if you need impedance control for high-speed signals.
I’m considering a switch to GrapheneOS on a Pixel. I’m not sure if it’s an overreaction but I feel like I’ve lost what little trust I had remaining in Apple. It’s really unfortunate as they make quality products, but I guess everything sours eventually.
> Edit, another: Thinking smart wrt transport, haven't used car to get to work since maybe 10 years ago.

The problem is, outside of urban areas there simply is no alternative to owning a car because public transport has never been built or torn down.
Hi, thanks. You can choose language at the top right. Never heard of decideact before, and I'm not sure we are in the same spare.
Please point me to where you believe there are missing chunks, and I will correct it ASAP.
Because they are not popscientist, but a very professional body of scientists that will only go for the most conservative, solid information.

What also plays a role is that before the final report it has to be seen and corrected by governmental representatives.
The BBC has done this a lot, they've projected election results maps on to the floor and the reporter would be walking around the UK.

But it's a bit jarring how obviously fake it sometimes looks, like at 0:45.
Don't know about UK but in France they are now using CCTV to fine not well parked delivery guys for a 2 minutes stop. While I agree vehicle parked anywhere can be a big inconvenience and deserve a fine, I don't think that's a big crime justifying deployment of such a surveillance system.

This totally makes sense, having one cop checking 100+ CCTV is far more efficient than a full team walking in the streets. Once you justified the cost on privacy and managed to deploy such system, it's so easy and convenient to use it for something else.
Also discussed countless times before - see https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Lisping%20at%20JPL&type=story&...
It is. EU has CO2 emissions trading at about 50 EUR per ton and rising.

Even China has just recently established a national CO2 trading scheme.
The Art of Simple Sabotage
I don't think conscious customers can steer the economy quickly enough. If we stop emitting any greenhouse gases today, global warming will still accelerate for more than a decade. (And I don't believe very much in boycotts anyway - when a customer decides to switch to a different product, marginal price changes are likely to cause another customer to switch the other way, simply speaking.)

I think at this point we need an international coalition that slams the breaks and sets a strict deadline for ceasing CO2 emission. If there are not severe shortages, it means we are not strict enough and can go faster. And then let the market work. If a steak costs $100 or you have to wait 3 years for a car, that's sucks, but so be it.
It's a start though. It makes the CO2 use visible and transparent. I reckon so many people would care a lot about carbon in electricity if their itemised power bill included a fat slice of 'carbon'. Suddenly there would be pressure to decarbonise etc. Large companies could optimise their (significant at scale) bill for carbon use. Do the PCs really have to run 24/7 for example?

It's the old 'you cannot improve what you cannot measure'.
Show HN: Advanced Series Generator Tool Added to ValueTools
I'm just curious about something on the theoretical level. I think I can see the beauty of it, but if you take the two extremes:

- a C++ compiler written in C++ in millions of lines of code

- a Perl (PHP, ...) interpreter written in the same language in one line of code (along the lines of `eval $1`)

Given the above the Lisp interpreter written in Lisp is somewhere in the middle and it doesn't really say much about the language. Just that you can use the built-in facilities of the language and write an interpreter that will implement those facilities using... themselves.

In this regard, how is it fundamentally different from `eval $1`?
> Impose a co2 emissions tax and let the market figure it out.

Aka those who are rich will simply buy their way out of having to change, and the poor masses will have to bear the load. Neo-feudalism is not the answer to climate change - the problem starts with capitalism.
In France and in Europe we have online emissions calculator. If you happen to live in France, you can make the simulation on the « Mes Gestes Climat » website.

I don’t know if it exists in USA (since those things are highly country-dependent) but I suppose it may exists. Those are interesting tools to get actionable feedback.
The best way to do that is probably improving the education of girls in developing countries: https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/health-and-education
It could be due to the original source being bound to some usage restrictions.
I misread that, and was put in mind of "spaghetti with metaballs".
pecanproject.github.io
Yeah I should have been more specific. I’m just whining about the open source as a business model type of projects.

My general approach has been, when I’m capable and have the time to, to fix any issues or obvious feature deficiencies that I come across in open source projects that I use. I still do that, but I now only contribute my changes back to projects that seem more trustworthy.
Children are part of the goal. I mean, what's the point of preserving the planet for the future generations if we don't make future generations?

If you follow your logic to the extreme, the most beneficial actions would be things like euthanasia or just plain suicide.
How many doomsday predictions do we need to see not coming true before these people finally give up.
I worked for a call center for a few years, first job once I was done with school. A lot of the people who were hired were simply shipped in by the local unemployment agency. After being unemployed for X days, the government simply offered to pay parts of their salaries for six months as a means to stimulate local employers to hiring more people.

The result was that various firms like Teleperformance and the like placed call centres in areas of high unemployment, and thousands of people were put on the phone lines with insufficient training, made to work under sub-par conditions for six months, before getting promptly sacked for arbitrary reasons just before their probation period was over.

These are just businesses abusing the system. Not accepting the job offers would have meant financial ruin. The people who are subjected to this usually have no other options available, and they're then run into the ground and promptly discarded once they were no longer useful.
I am 100% certain that they employ plenty of dark patterns in hopes of steering customer behaviour for Spotify's maximum financial benefit.
Loki scales very nicely, and is for logs only, so much more lightweight than ES.

(No full text search though, you have to define indexed labels from which to start your search when ingesting)
Flash and Java had the market, but failed, so I wouldn’t be too excited about PNaCL.
Isn’t the open-source, foundation-based standard the selling point of wasm?
The thing with war is, and especially with nuclear weapons - it does not wait for the babies to be grown up. It might have gotten more precise to avoid direct hits of babies as they make for bad PR, but that still happens a lot and mothers with their babies on the run in a burning city is not much better either.
No, you are underestimating the fact that people already understand how average temperature works, especially folks they have ever lived in a modest home with no AC.

If someone's home is 24-26C, and they turn on their oven to cook something for dinner, it will warm up their home, depending on the size of their home and ventilation.

Overall the average temperature increase won't be that much, but they localized temperature increase is very dramatic. Your apartment might not be hot, but that small area that is 200C is having a dramatic impact on everything else in your apartment.

Bonus points for extra comprehension if they have a basement or ground floor that has a substantially lower temperature. Again, the average temperature might be high, but it doesn't mean that it's hot everywhere in the house.

Understanding this isn't rocket science, and the only reason people are ignoring it is because people in power have a vested interest in keeping people ignorant of it by outright lying, obfuscating, or denying it.
Is there some mechanism keeping that from being done through SMS or something equally direct?
> one needs to continue to pay, while the children live?

Can you kill them if you no longer afford the tax?

(any answer to this question should suggest how ridiculous a tax like this would be)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUnGvH8fUUc
You are right, but your premise is probably different. They were indeed wrong. They were too conservative.

Some historical perspective:

1990: 1st Assessment

Little observational evidence for a detectable human influence on climate

1995: 2nd Assessment

The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate

2000: 3rd Assessment

Most of the observed warming over the last fifty years is likely* to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations

* > 66% chance

2007: 4th Assessment

Most of the observed increase in global average temeratures since the mid-20th century is very likely* to to the observed increase in anthopogenic greenhouse concentrations

* > 90% chance

2016

It is extremely likely** that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

** > 95% chance

2021:
It is indisputable that human activities are causing climate change, making extreme climate events, including heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts, more frequent and severe.
You're describing the objective function, but ignoring the constraints. Stop digging up coal - fine. Cut off power to people who have no other power sources? Erm... What about emergency diesel generators for hospitals, diesel use for shipping goods (lowest-carbon-emitting means of transport). It's just not that simple.
Thanks, I have actually never heard of that.
If you don't use iCloud Photo Library or sync photos to the iCloud, none of this will apply to you.

https://daringfireball.net/2021/08/apple_child_safety_initia...
If we are going down that line of commentary-- Large families with lots of children are usually more efficient than small single or two child families, since large families tend to spend less per person and the children learn to make do and be resourceful. Resources are pooled, everything is used, hand-me-downs are used multiple times. Reducing, reusing and recycling are parts of daily life out of necessity. More activities and entertainment are undertaken in the house and less vacations/travel are used. Things like boardgames are more feasible on a daily basis, etc. Home production is also more economical.

The wealthy people with one child lavished with entertainment, travel, and resource expenditure learn to be wasteful and buy every new fashion and gadget.

Of course, I believe we should generally leave people alone and let them go about their business instead of imposing arbitrary government requirements; but if we go down that road, then the poorer families with lots of children should just get a free pass since they are more efficient by nature.
I remember in the UK when a think tank asked do you need a family pet like a dog which lives 10+years which is almost exclusively a carnivore and needs specialist things bought for it.
Turns out over a lifetime that's worse than a 2nd family car for the environment (who's have thought)...

The group was attacked for being heartless. Not to mention that they did mention family size and population growth in the same report without suggesting that be tackled. (They tries to be taken as not a doomsayer)

Then again British policy over the last 2 years has been based on a promise from a liar that 20M+ people will die in Britain alone. So if someone goes to the British govt promising the climate will kill 40M+ over all time maybe they'll listen...
I do not agree. I used to work on a hybrid basis for about 5 years (until Covid). It was approximately 40% from home and 60% on-site but the employer was flexible.

Since Covid, I'm working 100% from home and while it has some advantages (commute time/costs, better work gear), I'm missing the hybrid model.

The entire debate is futile though. Some employees / employers prefer WFH, some don't. Simple like that.

To my understanding, as long as the job is done, up to standards, and within budgets, everyone should be happy no matter WFH or not.
> We’re looking at 100’s of billions in damages per year not simply adding a few AC to community centers.

The US government spends 7 trillion dollars a year. That isn't an alarming number.
> I wish the fed would raise interest rates
...
> The crash is coming.

i have heard it said raising interest rates would actually be the instigator of a huge crunch/crash

reason being that for the last 10 years or so, companies all over have been soaking up "cheap" capital from what is basically basically zero interest loans

these debts are what is keeping those companies floating/alive, and if rates were increased even a bit, it could be devastating by causing a quick succession of bankruptcies (supposedly this was why trump was so angry at the fed for pondering raising the rate)

anyways, im not an expert, but it seemed plausible...
I have this overwhelming feeling that it’s over.

Are there publications and articles or studies etc about how the rich are preparing for the impact of climate change?

Are there large swaths of Alaska being bought up? Farms in California being sold cheap? Mega security mansions popping up in New Zealand? Fresh water supply chains suddenly being consolidated under the same biz? Is this part of the reason why China is getting half of Africa in debt? To secure a food bowl and have a legitimate reason to deploy force when needed?
`eval $1` uses the millions of line you were referring to in the first case.

The few primitives necessary for a metacircular interpreter can be easily implemented from scratch (hence the name "primitives", which clearly does not apply to `eval`).
I believe the EU has an allowance program too, largely handed out on the basis of CO2 emission, so that would be a bit of a wash.
I prefer this post by the author: https://dpc.pw/growing-object-oriented-software-vs-what-i-wo...

There he writes about the OOP book he actually liked.

(edit) The author adds how he would build the system presented in the book in a functional core imperative shell style.

Reminds me of my (and others) favourite OOP language Erlang/Elixir.
Although one should mention that raising that CO2 tax in EU seems to always be an uphill battle against lobbyism and corruption in the EU as well and according to many the CO2 tax is laughably low still. We have a long way to go before we can pat ourselves on the shoulder for a working CO2 tax.
They could start with COVID-19
350.org have done a bunch of stuff — as for plastic signs complaining about pollution. Yes that's annoying, (it annoys me that 350.org's website is incredibly bad for environment https://www.websitecarbon.com/website/350-org/)

If you want to make a difference, do something local. That's where the biggest shifts are happening — and you're unlikely to encounter any real arguments. People tend to only have those arguments when they have an audience, e.g. Twitter, TV
This argument is the problem. If we stopped producing fossil fuels right now, there would be an economic collapse, and starvation, and probably a few wars.

In 50-75 years we will probably be looking back in horror at the missed opportunity to avoid the ongoing economic collapse, the massive famine, starvation, and plagues that will follow on COVID, and the continuous wars as refugees flood from the front lines of climate collapse to places where the impacts aren't as severe and immediate.
10b would be just over 25% more people - therefore even if we manage to reduce per-capita environmental impact by 25% (which is evidently no mean feat), we'd still just be treading water.
Gov to Trial Running UK Fibre Broadband Lines via Water Mains
Huawei phones have always had a high price point. Huawei and Xiaomi have never competed.
I don't think that's true. We know how to produce all the energy we need with almost no GHG emissions. Do that, and put greenhouses everywhere, switch everyone to a purely plant-based diet.
It could also be that MTV were desperate for something to show so they had to resort to old clips that where cheap to license (^_^)
Ah, the Netflix model
It is too late for everything, there are cascading effects that are completely out of control like the permafrost melting and releasing methane. What are you going to do about that?
I'm not sure what rock you've been living under lately but it sounds comfortable.
It's frustrating (though not at all surprising) to see Apple continue to be so tone-deaf. They clearly think "If only we could make people understand how it works, they wouldn't be so upset, in fact they'd thank us."

This is not the case - we do understand how it works, and we think it's a bad idea.
Out of curiosity, who here is trying to make a change? Through either lifestyle or lobbying. If not why?
Well depends what you mean by 'people'. Greta kickstarted a global youth climate activism movement and inspired millions of "people"; meanwhile, other "people" were turned off by her approach.
The people in question are paid for writing papers, not the discovery of true knowledge. The root cause is government funding of research, hence this specific paper talking at the end about the "publish or perish" culture. Governments give researchers money to write papers but then don't read the results, only check that it got published somewhere, meaning anyone who can game the publication system has in effect a license to print (taxpayer) money.

That's why there's no real fix for this problem beyond defunding government science budgets. Any quick hacks you can come up with like running GPT-2 detectors over science papers are just treating the symptoms of the problem, not the cause. The root cause is that when governments eliminate the free market by subsidizing research they lose reliable signals of genuine utility that come from polling the market, so they have to use proxies that boil down to quantity-over-quality. The fix is for them to stop subsidizing research. The people who apply research to create new technologies aren't reading it anyway.
I've stopped buying 3rd party seller items because of this. Now, I'll only buy items sold directly by amazon.

For example, I bought a little portable projector last Christmas. In the box was a big bar of Swiss chocolate and leaflet offering me a tripod in return for a five star review. The projector wasn't as good as the description made out. It wasn't terrible, just not as good as they claimed. So I left a three star review. I started getting texts from the seller asking, and then demanding I remove the review - they weren't offering me anything in return. And the texts came from the sellers name which changed slightly every time, so I couldn't easily block them or reply to them. It took two months for them to give up and leave me alone. I've had similar less extreme experiences with other sellers.

I did complain to amazon, who said they would take action. A few weeks later the seller disappeared from amazon, so I assume they received enough complaints to take action.

But..... the seller reappearance with a different name. They had the same product range and descriptions.

Amazon doesn't care and is totally complicit in all this.

The problem as I see it is that so much commerce is concentrated on to a small number of platforms (amazon, ebay, wish etc), which leads to sellers getting desperate to get to the top in searches. I mean, I can understand sellers doing this when their livelihoods depend on it. It's still not right though and amazon should fix it.
Totally. For me it's a matter of credibility. Nobody wants to listen to the climate activist who flies around in a private jet.
For those interested, here's a link to the report that was released today: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-g...
> 1.5 or 2 degrees do not seem like much

Did not seem like much to me, until I realized that 28 degrees inside the house is "comfortable" while 30 is "too hot".
the third and last working group who has the final words are not scientists

I did a cursory check, and working group III seems to be headed by two academics (one of them a physicist), so not sure what you base that claim on...