skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ofcom (the UK’s coms regulator) has just announced a review of net neutrality [1]. Which will have some big companies aiming to give themselves more “flexibility”.

Currently however, providers are bound by EU mandates to treat every packet the same (roughly speaking).

I hope it stays that way.

[1] - https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/ofcom-to-review-uks-net-ne...
> They will care when there countries start getting migrants CC migrants?

We had an immigration wave in Germany in the mid-2010's and all it did was help a right-leaning party without much care for climate change gain power.
No, it looks like they have glaring security issues of their website and the site regularly gets used for phishing, spam, etc.

So maybe that only has been an issue for 3 weeks (which is bad enough), but all things considered, it’s possible it’s been like this for years.
> One of the largest contributors to global emissions is large scale factory farming but how many people are going to stop eating at McDonalds?

McDonald's process is likely also one of the most energy-efficient ways of producing these foods - they have incentives set right for that.

This is where things get a bit tricky: people like to paint a dichotomy between factory farming and small family operations, and God knows factory farms are indeed strip-mining the soil. But if we were to suddenly replace them with family operations, how much would we need to still feed everyone? I suspect the answer is, "way too much", and thus any working solution will have to be somewhere in the middle between the two extremes.

There are extreme efficiencies coming from the methods and the scales at which industry operates - we can't, and shouldn't, throw that all away. This conversation begs for being zoomed into, details cry out for consideration. Is industrial farming energy-efficient? Yes. Emissions-efficient? No. Can the former be improved without sacrificing the latter? Probably. Can large-scale farming be done sustainably with respect to soil use, without destroying efficiency? It's possible. Definitely worth looking into.

> Point being: people’s habits need to change across the board, but yet they argue that policy makers have no right dictating what they can/can’t do…

Yeah, that's part of why we are in this mess. I don't see a democratic way out of this; people won't vote for the right things until we're already all falling off the cliff, and marketers can no longer confuse regular people with disinformation.

Currently, I think our options boil down to one or more of:

- Governments getting more authoritarian and forcing businesses and consumers alike to adopt a much less carbon-intensive lifestyle;

- New technologies pop up that allow politicians and/or businesses to have their cake and eat it too - offer less carbon-intensive way of doing the things that are already being done. Renewables and electric vehicles are two examples of this - despite initial troubles and active resistance, they crossed the threshold after which the market wants them, and it's politically safe to mandate them.

That's why I'm very much bullish on all technological projects in climate space, and very angry at the "you can't solve social problems with technology" bullshit - new technology is a tried and true method of solving problems which are economically or politically untenable. New inventions offer new options to politicians and shareholders - which is what we need to have when our combined incentives paint the social process into a stalemate.
Not if you buy the ones with Android One
Their calculator seems to not be working atm ( hug of death), and maybe it's described there, but anyways:

How do they measure this? Do they have the electricity consumption and supply of each datacenter around the globe? Two DCz in Poland, one using coal energy, or another one using only renewable energies; the first one has latest gen servers and networking equipment; the second one 15 year old stuff. Which one uses less CO2?

There can be lots of differences depending on location and specificities.
Only people are final consumers in every production chain, not corporations. (Even if indirectly, say, by driving on a freshly built highway.) So people’s everyday decisions could have a major impact, if collective. Often it’s very hard to understand how CO2 emissions flow along the production chains though.
> with someone that thinks that COVID is "just the flu"

For bonus points play on hard level and try to have a productive conversation on COVID with someone who rejects germ theory:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/deep-dive-into-stupi...
Sometimes you need to know when to let go
Possibly I missed it, but you don't seem to have listed a single technical reason why it's harder than the CFC issue?

When you say something is "much more expensive" you're mostly talking politics since basically everyone agrees it's cheaper to deal with climate change.
The energy usage is very small — as mobile devices are generally very efficient. But the impact it has on battery life is big — and using more battery results in the battery dying sooner and then the consumer needing to get a new phone.

A simple half-way solution to this is just to support a dark mode. People generally prefer it anyway.
In Linux, VLC won't quit. It will just minimize to the tray, but block anything else from being opened. It seems the only option is pkill-ing it.
>The reason that isn't done isn't that you can't raise enough revenue that way

Nah, it's coz any bill that attacks the ultrawealthy can be spiked to attack the moderately wealthy instead (ideal) or as well as (failing that it's better to make them allies).

This is where lobby $$$ really pays off - when tweaking the less overtly visible finer details of bills.

This pairs with a PR campaign of:

* We simply dont have that much money.

* You'd be better off not taxing it because then we wont innovate and then youll be sorry.

* We will leave the country entirely and then youll be sorry.

* You're next on the government hitlist (weirdly this one works even seems to on people who earn, like, $40k a year).
So the govt subsidizes the businesses low wages? Corporate welfare?
The future is WebGL/canvas + WASM, Flash's revenge.
low cost now, high cost for grandchildren. if money is the problem, just print more, it isn't as important as habitability of this moist rock.
That seems much more targeted and specific than the usual right wing talk about taxes causing high income people to work less (which implicitly values that above redistribution). It's also not a result (as in, X% of doctors have cut their working hours) but a plead (we may do this unless!).
How so? The UK's snooper's charter that compels ISPs to save your entire browsing history for a year was only meant to be used to catch pedophiles and terrorists, and now 17 different agencies have been given completely warrantless access to the database, including the UK's Food Standards Agency(??!?!?!?). People have already been fired for abusing access too, so it definitely happens too.

>>The problem here is with you or your electors not with the technology itself

No offense, but this is such a shitty answer, and it's always made by apologists for these incredibly invasive technologies. Like, please explain to me, in simple terms, how can I, an immigrant who doesn't even have the ability to vote, vote to make an American corporation do nor not do something. I'm super curious.
Oxford PV completes build-out of its Brandenburg factory
The site houses the world’s first volume manufacturing line for Oxford PV’s innovative perovskite-on-silicon tandem solar cells with an annual target manufacturing capacity of 100 MW.
"China is particularly troubling since they make up 28% of all emissions (US is 15%) and they have both a growing population and growing emissions per capita"
If you calculate emissions per capita (US 350m - China 1b) then the US still beats China handily...just saying.
Now we know why Taco Bell is so good.
> Unfortunately you are wrapping it in delusional hysteria such as "you will die of a horrible death from an infection without painkillers". So you're getting down voted because you are completely ignoring how things such as subsidies work.

Are you denying that reducing consumption drastically increase the chances of such a scenario? Of course what I wrote is only an illustrating, but likely plausible scenario, one of many ways in which it will increase ecological harshness.
> what would the actual policy

I do not claim to have a solution, I'm simply pointing out where the focus of the conversation should be.

All of the "be friendly to the environment" type solutions to global warning I'm hearing about are all completely naive and simply ignoring human nature and the basic desire humans have for comfort and improvement to their lives.

Barring an amazing technological advance that'll let us control CO2 levels in our environment at planet scale, I believe it's time to be honest about the correlation between population size and global warming and to discuss what we can do about it.

>Are you talking about the genocide of billions for people?

Obviously not.

>I mean, that’s far worse than the crisis we face!

That remains to be seen. The number of people that might suffer to the point of loss of life because of climate change is something that - as another comment pointed out - no one can properly estimate.

>Or are you talking about birth control?

This is an avenue that needs to be discussed indeed. Perhaps not the way China did it, but something more along the lines of what the US did with educating people about tobacco. And also discussing the far reaching economic impact slow population decrease would have on the economy and infrastructures.

>most radical non-genocidal environmental policies.

That was my point. Environmental policies are IMO completely useless in the face of what the population wants. The problem is most acute in democracies where e.g. raising taxes on gas is a surefire way for a politician to commit political suicide. But even in tyrannies like China, I doubt they'll be able to restrain the wants and needs of their people to the point where we'll solve global warming.
Yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28103734
From one of the comments on the article:

Ryan Kennedy
August 6, 2021 at 1:46 am
Our apologies for not making this clear. The photovoltaic
effect was increased by 1000 times compared to previous
output achieved from cells made of ferroelectric crystals,
not from prevailing solar cells made of silicon or other
conventional materials.
A place I worked blocked hackernews bcs of "hacking". Never had the nerve to try to get it unblocked.
Global warming of “under 1.5C” is still catastrophic. Florida is underwater.
The headline figure of "3.8% of global carbon emissions" is currently un-sourced - so I'm very curious to see what it includes.

IEA claims datacenters account for 1% of electricity demand and data networks are another 1%:

IEA (2020), Data Centres and Data Transmission Networks, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/data-centres-and-data-transmissi...

Now, those figures are _electricity_ not _carbon emissions_ - so perhaps the 3.8% figure includes e.g. datacenter construction emissions, or emissions related to producing servers and networking equipment?
Discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28103734
Do tightly synchronized clocks help consensus?
Indeed, I feel developed countries have grown far too fond of brigades that end in legislation that no one understands but it placates the loudest people enough that no one actually checks to see if legislation even worked.

The vocal dissidents will attach their reputation to said legislation and become an apologist regardless of the legislation's efficacy - so we end up with a legislative body that doesn't have to fix anything, they just have to do something noticeable.

Reminds me of when there was legislation put out that blended gas and biofuel would get tax credits in order to increase biofuel (the greener energy) usage - instead paper plants that used exclusively biofuel started adding gasoline to their biofuel just to get the tax credit and no one cared.

It's my understanding that they attempted to close the loophole in 2009, (4 years after the credit was created), but it wasn't actually closed and no one cares anymore.
I got upset about Echelon, almost 30 years ago, and then got further upset with the Patriot Act. The internet kill switch. Etc. Et. al. In speaking with my pastor about these things, he gave me the line, "I've got nothing to hide." Sure, he, personally, is above reproach, and would lay his life bare, but he considers conversations with people he counsels to be sacrosanct. Would he like his text messages and emails published? Of course not. Even he absolutely DOES have things to hide!

My pastor is a superhumanly wise person. Almost everything he has said has turned out to be true. Of the Patriot Act, he agreed that the government probably overreached, but he said these things are like a pendulum, and eventually it would swing back. On this subject, he has been completely wrong. The pendulum just keeps going. The problem is that both sides of US politics are in on it, so I don't know what will ever correct this course. It seems that, eventually, we'll have Chinese-style, socially-scored citizenship, just run by corporations instead of the government.
Yes, they're a bad absolute example but there are others in that list that are still many times more destructive, yet are physically and culturally close to the UK. If we're ever going to sell the idea of investing in the future by sacrificing what we do, we need our neighbours to, too.

Another reply talks about sanctions and I think I broadly agree that tariffs and levies could be applied but I'm not sure how this amounts to much more than "normal" protectionism. It makes everything more expensive locally, and local sacrifice increases.

To ignore public buy-in will only breed another generation of malcontents. I don't want an "ecological Brexit" where half the populations gets swayed into giving up... Sorry. "Taking back control" [from an unelected environment].
Seems this is from 2014
> and utterly, stupidly, pointless

Can you explain your thinking more? I don't understand how this argument differs from: Why ever build a professional studio?

This technology is nice because you build the physical studio once (green screens, tracking markers, integration) and then it is only the cost of developing/building environments in Unreal Engine and you have an instant event specific studio for minimal cost.

No flying an entire crew and support staff around the world, no physically building/tearing down multiple physical sets for different productions.
Handbrake is probably the best I've seen at balancing simple and advanced options.
The race to build Africa’s 5G networks is entangled in US push to cut Huawei
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." —Adolf Hitler
Just have your naked child run around sans diaper and now Apple's software will detect CP. now, will it be you or the employer who is flagged?
Scrape Google Inline Images with Python
I want to return to office. My wife wants to keep working from home. Neither of us are worrying about it much because we are both pretty sure that people are being premature even talking about it. The Delta variant is tearing around america and people here have started wearing masks everywhere again. It's one thing if you just want the excuse to quit, but seriously, we'll all be working from home again by halloween.
The Web Content Writing Checklist for SEO
And BCPL was a cut down version of CPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPL_(programming_language)
Did I say it didn't? Advising against something is not the same thing as forbidding it.

In either case, this "right" doesn't change the fact that the most significant (non) action you can do to lessen environmental impact is to refrain from procreating. No matter how much you argue that this is everybody's "right" (which is ethically questionable other reasons anyway), assuming that your children won't miraculously have a significantly smaller environmental footprint than you do, it is the single action you are likely to perform that will have the largest impact.

Of course, you can say "screw the environment, I want kids". I didn't say you can't. I do suggest, though, that producing more people until we've figured out how to lessen the environmental footprint of each one is incompatible with caring significantly about the environment (including climate). You can lie to yourself and say "but I do other things...", but in the end, those other things will not add up to a fraction of the impact a single (let alone multiple) child has.
Sure, Amazon could stop offering it, and that may be a good thing. However people are not used to the convenience and will stop using them and use Walmart's two day shipping. Or just drive to the store themselves, which is likely even worse for emissions.

Although I am not certain it would be a good thing. It is my understanding that delivery services like USPS, UPS, Amazon, etc. are better for emissions than making little trips to the store. Its dozens or hundreds of deliveries aggregated into a single highly optimized trip that keeps many other people off the road. If you give people the convenience of having it within a day or two, it may actually save entire round trips to the store. Without it, I think you have more cars on the road with more emissions.

There could be some good in more incentives around Amazon Day deliveries. Where all your goods show up on the same day each week. Reduced packaging and potentially reduced emissions. It would actually be cool of they did something and produced routes, where each neighborhood gets the same day, rather than individuals get to pick and change their own. That might make some decent impact. But you still have to convince people to wait a week.

Although that is not getting into the consumerism that Amazon fuels, and the extra plastics and trash that are produced because of it. Which are bad. But that I don't think you can put that entirely on Amazon, that's a society problem.
We bought an expensive washing machine 3 years ago thinking it will last us a long time. It already broke down twice. It's been broken for almost a month now waiting for parts and whatnot. There's a good chance we'll have to get another one.

Does Electrolux/AEG care? No. They don't care about the environment, their only obligation is to their shareholders. But frankly neither do I anymore. Next time, I'll buy the cheapest one and when it inevitably breaks down I'll throw it away and get another cheap one.

It's absurd that in the world where planned obsolescence, cruising industry and fast fashion exist, ordinary people are tasked with saving the planet. This is like trying to improve performance of a program using naive algorithm with O(n^2) complexity by rewriting it in assembler.
> Eliminate the population and problem solved?

Why would we have to reduce the population below a number which is sustainable? Nobody is advocating that.

The actual number could be fine tuned through tax breaks. Give childless couples an X% tax break. Single child families a Y% tax break. 2 child families no tax break. 3 child families a tax penalty. 4 child families a larger penalty.
re your last paragraph, if you expect to have happy grandchildren, you should really start focusing on the future, not on the past. i'm from an eastern eu country, too, and frankly it's disgusting how deep in the past some people live here. it blinds them to future challenges.
Meaning is created by people. It is not universal. To some, cars are bad because they pollute earth.
JavaScript needs more helper functions for iteration, where should we put them?
What assurances do we have that this system will not be used to flag "extremist content" i.e. memes and to send that information to law-enforcement in the future?
Exponential growth of that group in the past year… that’s scary. I’d be curious as to how many of them are flat-earthers too.
I leave off the conditional.
I'm not sure how that would work. One country's power to enforce anything like that would —I think— just look like trade tariffs. This can be effective, but they sometimes just make things more expensive (and in doing so, seem like yet another sacrifice).

But maybe there are enough countries to form a pact, with enough alternative producers available to make this effective.
I'm a little surprised they can't make an exception on a case-by-case basis for people coming into the office every day and with specific hardware needs. Have they told you they can't make an exception?
> I’d call it something like “false transfer”

Ok thanks. But I guess I'll stick to calling it stupidity. If it walks like a duck and all that.
Author didn't write a book, he made a course.
The search for the largest methane sources
Stemming the methane leaks from landfills, oil fields, natural gas pipelines and more is one of the most powerful levers we have to quickly slow global warming.
I think believing that is one thing, posting it on a social media site's comment section that largely exists for entertainment purposes only is quite another.
The language it was based on (BCPL), was originally designed to Bootstrap CPL and that was it, it is an historical accident that it got other purposes.
Everyone always forgets the good part of mass extinction events
The collective actions of governments did nothing there. What happened is we got exceedingly lucky the research was already there for 30-odd years and interested parties pumped money into it like there was no tomorrow.

Most governments since COVID started faffed about endlessly and took really poor measures all around for what it looked like eternity (with a few notable exceptions). Eventually they got around getting it half-right and here we are, massive death tolls that could have probably been avoided with earlier lockdowns, properly enforced mask wearing and so on.

At the same time a lot of countries where education has been and is poor are full with people who eschieve vaccination for the dumbest reasons possible and see in this manifestations of their freedoms (of spreading further a potentially deadly disease).

This pandemic brought the worst out of people and in a few situations the best.

No, human kind cannot rely on collective actions because human beings are way too selfish to do something for the greater good. And we can see it because we are in this point in time with climate change, the final hour - and still there are a LOT of people denying climate change just as there are people denying COVID is a problem.
One fewer doesn't mean 2 -> 1 necessarily, does it? There's no sustainable way to maintain a greater-than-replacement birth rate long term (excepting self-supporting space colonies or something).
I'm not really sure what you're saying applies. Animators in the US make good salaries and a good living in contrast. Japan has an unusually exploitative structure and culture where animators can produce huge amounts of value, but see only the tiniest fraction of it. It's a highly specialized job that takes a huge amount of training and work to get good at. Almost all these animators have university degrees and spent significant amount of time in apprentice roles to even be able to start working.