skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You've got to make an actual argument rather than dismissing a technology out of hand. I'm put in mind of immortal quotes like "While most companies dumped gasoline in rivers (this was before the automobile was popular), Standard used it to fuel its machines" [0].

I'm not holding my breath, but there is nothing wrong with an energy department facilitating new energy technologies.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil
I just read Sustainable Web Design by Tom Greenwood, one of the makers of the linked site.

One of the points he made was that it's very difficult to sell sustainable design, and much easier to just tell clients it's about performance.

His other observation was that clients care a lot if you tell them their competitor is doing environmentalism better.
https://angel.co/ displays the number of employees that a company has right next to the job listing and generally listings there favor smaller organizations. Otherwise there's the option of manually sifting through results and cross references sources like linkedin to check employee counts. Per the HN Who's hiring thread, there were at least 26 instances of the phrase "small team" this month, but that doesn't necessarily imply the whole company is small, though I guess it's an ok filter to start with.
The day true environmental costs are embedded in every item, is the day capitalism will come to an end. The nature of the system is to underpay for items that are not helping certain groups. Take just the example of food. 90+% of the price you pay go to middlemen. Real producers make close to nothing on each food item. But food contributes to a large percentage of global warming. Suddenly you will have to start paying lots of money to producing countries of most food consumed in the world. And this is just one item of the things we consume every day.
YouTube app on Android. You watch a video you like but accidentally tap on a different one. Try going back to the previous one now...
the difference between "millions of lines" and "a few easily implemented primitives" is quantitative. Thus there is a continuum between the two extremes, which was the point of the OP.
They appear to be suggesting exactly that, if you read the asterisk:

"Cumulative emissions from descendants, decreases substantially if national emissions decrease."

So doing all the other ones actually lowers that one.

And even then it only makes sense if no-one else has more kids to compensate, so it's a personal action that will cut your personal carbon, but like most things in this area not something that works unless we all do it (globally)
If I do all of the things that I can do to reduce my families CO2 output, and I mean really dig into sacrificing our quality of life, how much CO2 will I prevent for all of that hardship and sacrifice? How much CO2 was put out in service of President Trump's endless rallies? How much CO2 was put out in service of President Obama's birthday bash this last week?

As long as the elites, including the goddamn political elites, are living in opulence and emitting immensely more CO2 than my family could ever hope to save with even a barebones existence, I will choose to be damned to hell with the rest of humanity before I make one more sacrifice of my family.

Carbon needs to be taxed and it needs to be fair. There will be no future for us if we continue down this opt in path. That much is crystal clear.
I think the reality is that even parties who take the issue seriously know the solutions are difficult. Making difficult decisions is a great way to get voted out in the next term.

An example from the US:

During discussions for the recent bipartisan infrastructure deals, Republicans wanted to raise the gas tax to help pay for the bill. Progressives felt it would affect the middle class too much so they pushed it out.

Gas tax isn't exactly a carbon tax. But it is close. So here's a case where the party on the Right wanted a "CO2 tax" but the party on the Left scuttled it. (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/us/politics/what-is-in-th...)

I think France saw something similar with the "Yellow Vest" movement. I'm definitely not knowledgeable about French politics, but I think a lot of that protest was around an increase in gas tax.
>and people can stop going on vacations to Bali twice a year.

Who goes to Bali twice a year? Those aren't representative at all, and why count on people who destroy so much to save our planet? We can ignore them and simply ban such spending. There are so many things I cannot buy (e.g explosive) because we know it's too dangerous for society. Why not prevent the very few from neutralizing all the efforts of millions? A Paris-Bali flight emits more than one year of heating and cooling for a whole family!

>taxing actual emissions so that the food suppliers can adapt

Wait. The only way this could have an impact is you make meat/fish so expensive that people stop buying it. Then, what's the point of adding taxes if you just want people to stop buying it? I bet you simply want to have the freedom to continue to do whatever you want only because you expect to have the means to pay this tax. So you'd only want others to change... and you argue that we cannot expect people to change (e.g become vegetarian versus to having the resources to eat meat/fish). But I understand why you don't believe you can get people to change since you start by excluding yourself from this possibility...

Also, can you explain why I've become vegetarian after I heard facts about the impact of agriculture? Facts that are now more and more spread (see OP's story). The money I save from meat and fish goes to farmers (I've since joined a cropsharing group, which is organic, of much better quality than what can be found in markets, and provide far more support to farmers than just paying more for the same quantity). I'm not pushing farmers to be carbon negative, I'm pulling them because I accepted to change and inviting others to do the same. There's really nothing preventing anyone to be vegetarian (or almost veggie) except ignorance and misconceptions.
Mental Models on making a product out of a repeatable service
Idk if this is the right place to post this. I've been struggling with this approach lately.

How would one "Product-ize" something that can be first offered as a service to somebody? How to turn this repeatable service into something that I could build a product out of?
He can convince someone who uses a 2+ ton car for hauling their ass around to stop doing that.
Maybe not straight to war, but taxing cross border trade, embargo, etc. are all effective.
1. Manual Moderation. All comments manually approved before publishing.

2. Identify TLDs and keywords in spam comments and automatically delete those comments to reduce workload for step 1.

3. If it is an English site, delete all comments not in English alphabet or language of site.

I was able to delete ~98% of comment spam through these three steps. I had a custom page that showed all comments that passed through filters. I could bulk delete spam comments from this page and bulk approve real comments. If I notice spam comments getting through, I will add keywords and domains from those comments to my filter subroutine.

It was a cat and mouse game, but worked reasonably well. I made few good connections and friends through comments so I will not suggest to disable commenting unless there is no reason for someone to comment or can make contact through other means.
You are extraordinarily ignorant of the history and design of programming languages to be making such statements.

`object = state` is not a paraphrasing of first order logic; it is a paraphrasing of the english sentence,

"The intention motivating OOP is that the object represents state; the object's API represents changes to its state; an encapsulation ensures those changes are privately managed."

which if you understood any of the context to this discussion, you would have captured -- see, eg., the other commenter who captured this accurately.

I have taught hundreds of hours on programming language theory, and it is what I am doing today; and it is something I have been doing for a decade (not least, programming for two decades).

I take this tone with you because assuming a person cannot /reason/ basically is an extraordinarily arrogant view which presumes you have precisely captured the context of their statements.

In cases of apparent "basic failures to reason appropriately" it is almost always the observer, not the speaker, who has failed to arrive at the correct "propositional model" of their spoken/written language.

You would do well to remember this, and include more humility in your communications.
And then autoplaying an unrelated video on the page to boot.
Isn't it funny how COVID has caused the government-inclined to want more government and the government-disinclined to want less government? Almost as if this complex issue about which we still don't have all the facts has just made people feel that their prior beliefs have been confirmed? I wonder if there's a phrase for a bias like that.
This.

A 200% value-added tax on fossil fuels that rises by 10% every year would provide the capital.

EDIT: To clarify, this is not a suggestion to raise capital from the tax as much as it's to raise capital from the use of fossil fuels. It's a suggestion for an increasingly punitive financial cost to force behavioural changes.
The two things happen in different parts of the world.
Aren’t industrials working to sell things to individuals ?

You are the customer of the transports industry, you live in a concrete and steel building, you buy the devices made with extracted lithium or gold, power generators are running for every one of those … and for heating your house.

The problem is difficult because no one is responsible, but our entire civilization as such is responsible.

Yeah, we could probably make marketing people accountable for over consumerism. But they are just materialization of the ugly side of our civilization.
I also enjoyed 'Ten animals named after mythological creatures' [1] linked at the bottom.

[1] https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/animals-named-after-mythologi...
Do you actually need a phone number to ship? I've literally never had a shipping company call or text me, can't imagine they require phone numbers.
An employee is either performant or not, you can easily just look at the results of their work. Monitoring call center workers is particularly easy - you just record their calls. I have zero idea of how monitoring them, let alone their family visually can add any value.

If somebody insisted to install a camera at my home I would let them and then work nude 100% time.
You smack import taxes on them that correspond to the carbon tax that should have been + 10%. Then they can either do the carbon tax or have their exports made much, much more expensive.
All it requires is education. I'd say a quarter of the over educated I know do not have kids, myself included. After a certain level of education, our society strikes one as no place moral to bring more people.
> stupidity is that state of mind that one may find oneself in before the first cup of coffee in the morning

This is very different than the condition to which the author is referring. I’d call it something like “false transfer” where one reasons about a complex, novel phenomenon using a (previously mastered) mental framework that is unsuitable or inadequate for the task.

Perhaps we could call it a generalized Dunning-Kruger effect?
yeah. obviously mine is a half provocation because shipping "two vaccines" to "one person" isn't feasible considering temperature etc., but if countries had the balls (which they don't) they should take a bit of a U-turn and allow bulks of unused vaccines, perhaps even asking the people "are you sure you don't want to get vaccinated this year? y/n", to get shipped elsewhere once they reach a feasible number.
Jobs are either deemed useful to increasing revenue by the business owner, or are deemed necessary by the government in the name of safety, fairness, accountability or just vote getting but which don’t necessarily add to revenue in the business. Which ones are meeningless ?
ارخص افضل شركة نقل عفش بالقطيف فك تركيب تغليف
The NASA rover has been exploring surface sediments, not lake deposits
I thought the same thing, and was going to link to that same article. The paper giving the BLC self-interpreter is one of my favourite ever.

For anyone interested in the graphical representation of terms like this I recommend To Dissect a Mockingbird: https://dkeenan.com/Lambda/
Each human being emits 25 tons of CO2 per year just by breathing, should the businesses also be taxed based on their number of employees? People often forget the good parts about the little CO2 increase from the past century, I care a lot about environment (I'm a countryside person) but CO2 - many people forget it is the food of the plants that we need to eat - just takes all the place in the environmental debate and what I think are more important matters such as waste reduction, ocean cleaning, recycling, durable/fixable hardware... I'm hoping for people to do a cost/benefit analysis of the CO2 situation and start thinking rationally and work on what is actually bad for us, not just CO2 greenwhashing bs.
Yeah, me as well - buying direct, if possible, or from another vendor. Amazon is not trustworthy. Sure, it merely provides a common marketplace, but one expects a certain beneficial gatekeeping, which seems absent.

It is commonplace to see ordinary items priced many, many times over value: say a pvc elbow for hundreds of dollars. I've wondered, "What happens when some mope accidentally buys one of these?"
Hmm, that doesn't look like content the GP would put up intentionally.
I think this goes to the fact that the people designing, implementing and signing off on development are looking at the UIs constantly - close to 8 hours a day, every day.

This is usually (at least) an order of magnitude more than your users (well unless you're Facebook I guess). I think many people just get bored looking at the same old screen all the time; and so when a designer inevitably proposes something different everyone on the team thinks it looks great and so much better than the old design.

It's hard for them to realise that it's not better, but merely alleviates the boredom they feel.
Why work from home is better for environment than traditional models?
Ask those guys... https://www.accenture.com/gb-en/insights/strategy/whole-brai...
Does it? I thought sCO2 could operate at small temperature gradients. In fact, I thought sCO2 can work for industrial heat pumps.
“Realtime” doesn’t imply faster. In fact often the opposite. It just means certain timing constraints will be satisfied, often making explicit what the costs (tradeoffs) are.
Yet we started the lockdown when most people did not even know a single infected person. Don't extrapolate from the worst examples.
> The greatest hope I see for the future of humanity is the incentive for a brilliant mind/leader to become the next Bezos/Musk via climate change technology

> ...isn't something we can rely on and is a lot more wishful thinking about the state of humanity rather than a sober look at the reality.

I don't mean for this to sound too critical but how do you square these two concepts?

The idea of a great inventor/scientist/theorist is to me kind of obsolete. It existed in a time of much more low-hanging fruit but today most scientific/theoretic progress is slow and the collective result of many groups slow, focused, and methodical work. Even before, even the greats stood on the shoulders of myriad giants.

The idea of hoping for a "great leader" who is solely capable of "fixing" things is to my mind a very concerning and alarming idea.

Even if you may not think that... the idea that "one good idea" is enough to solve our problems immediately, or even just quickly enough, feels like escapism to me. No matter how good of an engineering solution is achieved there will be a slow and painful process of rolling it out fraught with cultural and political questions. It doesn't behoove us to push that off, even if the engineering questions feel more essential. It's an inevitable problem. We should consider it earlier rather than later.
Not nearly fast enough.

Also, the problem countries for CO2 emissions aren't those with the high birth rates.
Scientific article: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/32/eabh2687
With returns to third party sellers so difficult, I'm not sure why anyone would bother buying from them. I've yet to find a better price by a third party. Would like to hear some reasons why they were preferred for some purchases.
Back in the late 90s the BBC had virtual studios. Not as fancy, but given the time difference this was rather underwhelming.

I've seen this type of virtual sets for news at IBC/NAB for years, and always felt they looked fake, just like this one.
Fortran-90 is well constrained for numerical programming and has so much inertia in the scientific community, it’s probably not going away. But C and its derivatives are good enough at numeric work for most users outside of science. Many have tried to dislodge both C and Fortran from their positions, with varying levels of success. Maybe we’ll see it in the next decade as scientists who knew how to code before university dominate and no longer want to use Fortran.
This is not only a question of transitioning to "green" energy. It's also a question of values. For me, humanity is at a cross roads, all possibilities are open, and we need to choose, individually and collectively: short term growth or long term sustainability, consumerist delirium or happy sobriety [1], mission-to-mars escapism or this-planet-is-our-only-home realism.

[1] http://www.lejournalinternational.info/en/pierre-rabhi-inter...
"This page loaded in 5.8 seconds and emitted just 0.49g of CO2" - on a modern desktop. If that's fast and sustainable I don't know..
For the remaining few who have nothing to hide I am willing to make myself available to rifle through your possessions to verify that you do in fact have nothing to hide.
> In fact most of us wouldn't be here.

And everyone, everything would be better off.
In my experience, making a sustaible website means doing more talking, and a lot less coding. You are making less stuff after all.

It's also about creativity, having pride in your work, living your values.
> extreme climate events, including heat waves, heavy rainfall, and droughts, more frequent and severe

None of that is true. Not more frequent, not more severe. Not hurricanes, either, nor floods. Nor is loss of life due to any of those things increasing.
Your individual effect is a rounding error. It's not even measured. Meanwhile, the fact that everyone else buys new laptops/phones/cars/gadgets makes it hard for everyone to individually forgo these things.

On the other side of the table, the choices made by the industrial players have immediate, large scale impact. A single board can decide to shut off some of the operations - stop making a gadget, stop making 100 different models of the same thing to try and segment the market, etc. - and, while they will have to convince dozens of other influential people to approve, if they succeed, the effect will be immediate and greater than a million consumers voluntarily changing their purchasing patterns.
Exactly. He said “collective action” won’t work, then called for “collective action” among governments. In these thought analysis, an self-serving person is a good proxy for how any government will behave.
It seems that Apple does not need to be a co-conspirator, and that it would be sufficient if someone added ‘malicious’ hashes to the NCMEC database.
Pierre Rabhi: respecting the life to which we owe life (2017)
What Linux does is what I meant by "doing something sane like a partial write".
Yeah, I'm not sure when that calculator was made, but somebody needs to make a better one.
No, but it's primarily the US and other rich western countries that need to change. Those countries where few people drive a car to this day aren't the problem.
More science doesn't hurt, but we lack leadership. Scientists are trained to research, report, and expand knowledge, but not the social and emotional skills to influence behavior.

If we want other people to change, we have to recognize that information, however accurate and valuable, and telling people what to do is of limited effect. If we want different outcomes we have to do different things.

Yes, still research, but don't expect it to change people's behavior. There are things that do, more like listening, role models, vision, empathy, stories, images, and what leaders do. I work on creating role models, stories, and vision.

I started my podcast, originally Leadership and the Environment, now This Sustainable Life https://joshuaspodek.com/podcast, to bring leaders and leadership to the environment. Maybe it's for you, maybe not, but it's what I wish was around before I started acting. The first episode https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the-environment/episo... describes the strategy.
The article tells you the answer to your question. Search for "1,000".

Edit: Apologies, I misread the parent's question. I thought they were saying "1,000 what?". Sorry about the unhelpful answer.
>When people get richer they consume more. This is not only about CO2 per se but all resources.

Why would that be inevitable? I mean, you're asking to prevent people from having children! I bet it's easier to ask people to not pollute (even as they get richer) than not to have the family they want.

I, for one, I've become multimillionaire in the last decade (thank you, neoliberalism /s) while cutting my carbon footprint in more than 3. It was much easier to do that than changing my family's plans. By the way, going vegetarian makes you richer but also not flying too, not buying a bigger house and a bigger car, etc.

Being richer does not require to pollute more even if this has been the case until now, but again, we're also having more children so why would you want fewer people polluting more when we could be free to have the family we want and be responsible?
Non of that can be answered just yet. This is basic research in its earliest stages.

It can't even be answered theoretically, because the researchers are in the process of developing the theory that could answer these questions.

So far they only made an observation and need to go on from there.
Isn't any entertainment 'pointless'?
Even last mile delivery isn't that polluting... We're talking things like steel and concrete production, massive ocean container ships, coal plants, the extraction of every type of ressource, etc...

Again, the things you mention are putting the onus on the consumer and are relatively small.

Everything consumers and non-industrial businesses do accounts for only 13% of global emissions. The entire global agriculture system accounts for only 10% of emissions and of that, 80% occurs during the production stage.

By contrast, concrete alone is 8% of global emissions. Forestry is 10%. Steel production alone is 9% of all emissions. Simply producing these base products creates more emissions than absolutely everything consumers do. Energy production is 25% and of that, industrial producers use most of it.
It's true tho. On a world with limited resources and limits to the amount of pollution our planet can deal with, less people means a longer runway.
You illustrate precisely why I'm confident that humanity will never make any meaningful progress on the problem. People will talk about it, but when it comes right down to it they not only won't give up their comfort, they'll think it is ridiculous or impossible to do so.
The Tale of Tiffany