skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Ideally the poor part of the population should be able to use the roads in the same proportion as the wealthy

Yeah unless you want to give everyone the same income or have some other way of not needing money to travel anymore, that's just not going to be the case. Also today, the wealthy could do road trips much more often than the poor could. That much won't change, I think the best we can hope for is either a slight improvement or not make it worse, for example by taxing heavy use more significantly like GP proposes. I consider myself wealthy but if using 3x the average adds 5x the tax, it's not as if I have unlimited money just like the vast majority of people.
Open source database QuestDB is hiring front end/back end engineers
Creator Platform with Zero Fees
Same functionality as Patreon, but with zero platform fees for life. The caveat is that you have to refer at least one creator, otherwise it will be 3% fees after the first month.
In democratic nations, government actions are collective action, and so they have the same problem. In non-democratic nations those in charge are often the beneficiaries of the status quo. I'm not hopeful for government action either. People want a quick fix with little loss in living standard and few changes. That tells me that either we won't notice the incremental changes enough to act, and we'll ride this to the end, or we'll wake up and suddenly fund a massive but cheap climate engineering project that will work, but have unintended consequences, like iron fertilization of the oceans for albedo impacts. Worst case we go snowball earth and kill everything instead of just ourselves.
Good, cheap phones, but packed to the brim with spyware.
FWIW, I think most of the real complains about legal personhood is that the punitive aspects aren't applied enough. Yes, there is "corporate death penalty", but it's hardly ever given out. And when the corporate veil is being pierced, it often seems the people stabbed are scapegoats placed in front of the blade by those who were truly responsible, and who get to still hide safely behind the veil.
The applications for nuclear under investigation involve temperatures of 550 C to 800 C.

https://www.energy.gov/sco2-power-cycles/sco2-power-cycles-n...

This chart shows temperatures for nuclear applications as low as 350 C, but that's still hotter than today's LWRs.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/01/f19/NEACsCO2...

This second pdf shows the problem: replacing steam means not just building sCO2 turbines, but doing all the incremental optimizations on them that steam turbines already have.
With the amount of processing and lack of awareness of what’s in our food that we accept daily, I think it wouldn’t be difficult for alternative protein sources to flourish.

They just need to be cheaper than the alternative and close to indistinguishable.
Right up there with metal straws in its usefulness and impact.
I'm curious what kind of town you live in. I grew up in a rural area, in which google claims its a 50 minute bike ride to the nearest grocery store, along curvy & hilly country roads with absolutely no sidewalks, let alone bike lanes, and where monstrous pickup trucks are liable to sideswipe you out of spite as much as accident.

My sister lives in a suburb in Florida: better, but the weather is unbearable for half the year. She also has three children, making carrying sufficient groceries in a bike pretty much impossible.

If people can bike, they should. But a lot of people live in these sorts of conditions that are not conducive to biking, enough that "just bike to the grocery store" is not a realistic or achievable goal.
No it doesn't. The 1000x factor refers to the photo-response of the material, not power output, not cost to produce, not durability.

All these are properties of a (prototype-)product, while this research is basic research and didn't create any prototypes. The researchers measured the photo-response by shining laser light onto a sample, they didn't build a panel and measured the power output.
> Where it gets complicated is that nobody expects to earn orders of magnitude less from a product they created than others relying on it.

And this is where the problem basically is. The core philosophy of open source licensing is that the creators who use it don't particularly care beyond compliance with the terms of the licenses (eg. Source distribution for copy left licenses)

If it turns out you *do* in fact care, then Open Source licenses are not a good fit for you. If you still go ahead release under Open Source and then change later, don't be surprised to be called out for bait and switch manipulation.
> How do you know it's 1 billion and not 1 million or 10 billion? Hint: you don't know.

I certainly don't.

That wasn't the point. The point was that this is the conversation that matters, not how much cows fart.

But the downvotes of my comment are its perfect vindication: it's not something that anyone is willing to have honest conversations about.
The difference between idle and load energy consumption of switches, routers, etc
Oj (Ruby) Just Got Faster
Does having colours on your site (such as theirs) increase energy? Should we only have black and white websites since black uses less energy on OLED/LCD?

I am a big fan of sustainability, but this seems a little bit much.
Does UK honor "net neutrality"? If yes, that could be a way to hold them (ISP, whoever it be) accountable.
I found Project Drawdown's Solutions Table quite good:

https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions
> World population is projected to (at least) level out by 2100.

By which time it'll be way too late, so I'm not sure how that helps.
I recently completed Programming languages - Part B, by Dan Grossman on coursera (https://www.coursera.org/learn/programming-languages-part-b). The homework in Racket was a very similar problem. Needless to say it was mindbending and to get the final interpreter work with all those expressions(nested) / lambdas was so satisfying!
Global warming is still the current terminology. As is climate change. Global -- as in at a global scale -- warming is the mechanism that is leading to climate change, even where that can even mean colder conditions at a local level.

There is nothing outdated about it.
And Amazon will stop offering it if people stop using it. It seems to me that people are using this argument to put all the blame on corporations and big industry while ignoring that their own actions are the reason such entities exist in the first place.
The economy is (or used to be) built on creating value and then exchanging it. So any job that doesn't end up creating value for a person somewhere (as opposed to a "system") is meaningless.

I.e. is the total value of the world higher when you finish your work, or is it not? If I am putting parts together to make a car, yes, the car is worth more than the parts. If I am suing someone by abusing copyright law, then no, I didn't add any value to the world.
You do have a point, all these middle class western fuckers unironically calling for more taxes on basics like food and electricity are completely out of touch. Not to mention the upper class, who don't give a flying fuck.

The poor in their own countries struggle, it will come to a point where they've had enough. We can already see it with electing more and more authoritarian leadership that doesn't care about "woke" stuff.

They will rely on the police for protection, but there's only so many pigs around.
Also it's not an insurmountable problem - recently I was paying for something over the phone, and the person said "I'm currently working from home, so in order to take your payment I will have transfer you to an automated system". Done.
7 Days of Bootstraps
The notion that humanity would go extinct from any of this is absolutely unrealistic.

What we are talking about is at worst massive economic damage and loss of life, similar to a very serious war.

Which is horrible, but really not the threat it is made out to be.

Moreover, since these changes happen relatively slowly (compared to bombs and such) much of the loss of life can be mitigated.

So we are talking economic damage and loss of property and infrastructure. Primarily.

Let’s be honest that the most likely course through all this is to adapt to the changing planet. I think that would be so much more refreshing than all the hand wringing.
Amazon Launches Local Register, a Square Competitor with Lower Rates (2014)
One way to look at the world events is to follow the money. Green energy hysteria makes some people and corporations extremely wealthy (pumping money from people/government into pockets of "green" corporations) and also is a new colonial tax for the developing countries. Two birds with one stone.
For now the “proper” Japanese whisky is just too hard to find to make a dent into Bourbon, let alone Scotch. For me at least it’s possible to get my hands on a few very nice bottles, but for the price they’re just not worth it - I can get a couple of really good Scotch or Irish for the price of one bottle of, say, Hibiki Harmony. Many of the “Japanese” whiskies you’ll see that seem available and reasonably priced are simply Scotch whisky with Japanese labelling heavily implying or outright claiming it’s a product of Japan (such as Nikka From The Barrel, distilled at Ben Nevis distillery). The situation might get better - some producers have agreed to label their products more honestly - but there’s still not enough real stuff available, which is a problem when it takes years to mature and your product is red hot at the moment.

I can’t speak for small batch Bourbon, we don’t get much where I am which is a real shame.
Which part of adding a tax to a product or a government investing in stuff are you saying is technically difficult?

I can't really think of anything related to this that anyone has ever said "even if the entire human race worked together on this for 3 decades we dont know how to achieve it" (actually, I've seen people say that a lot e.g. modern civilization isn't possible without fossil fuels because of EROEI, but those people are wrong and/or lying)
> - a C++ compiler written in C++ in millions of lines of code

#include </dev/tty>

This most beautiful program ever doesn't even need to be compiled, it's a JIT compiler in 1 line of code.
Where does the garbage collector come from?
What's 'code red' mean? Did we pass amber? Is purple the next stage? I love our obsession with coloring our alarms. I wanna see indigo on there next if you're listening designer.
Now all we need is a world-government to keep everyone towing that line of thought and not "cheap" out.
> Do you even hear yourself?

The one who seems to be hearing voices in his head is you. I never suggested such a thing as genocide or forced sterilization.

I'm simply pointing out what I believe to be the root cause of the problem, and that if you keep applying ointment to wooden legs, you aren't going to achieve much.

But then talking about overpopulation is taboo, so let's just dig our heads in the sand and wait to get properly baked.
The Nubank app has just been redesigned. While I won't state that it's worse than the previous version, I am certainly sure it isn't any better. The thing is, right now, I can't seem to find anything in the app, since the redesign changed the location of all the things.
It’s 1000x more than some unstated efficiency.
People will joke about the primitiveness of Fortran as long as they are required to preface every module and program with `implicit none`. Also, every time they pick up lapack and need to specify the "leading dimension of A" they will recall how Fortran had it's roots in a language without dynamic memory allocation and how they're still living with that legacy. Fortran's legacy leaks all over the place: you rapidly get a feel that it is something which is old and creaky, even if it is actually old and rock solid. The ergonomics are very much not modern, though, but as with all discussions of ergonomics, that is going to depend on how you like to hold your tool.

Not that other languages which have widespread support also have similar historical mistake leakage. Null vs Optional in Java comes to mind. The python 2 -> 3 debacle was a similar sort of "historical mistake correction" but the breakage of backwards compatibility lead to quite some polarization. Actually, in python 2 -> 3, the python core developers tried to fix a historical defect that fortran still has: print as a keyword vs a function.
This is such a stupid fallacy and it comes up every time something like this is discussed. You don't know if anything is or will be abused you expect it because you expect your elected government to do so. The problem here is with you or your electors not with the technology itself. You want to fix the symptoms but not the problem. As usual.
> Using X costs you Y Using XX costs you YYY Using XXX costs you YYYYYY

And instead of one company or person using XXX, you will have a three small companies using X or one person having three cars in his garage that just happen to each be registered under a different person.

Exponential taxes are a hell of a lot of an incentive to avoid them and you see how far people go to just avoid linear ones. Also, managing the company tax depending on how much the consumer used so far is going to be bureaucracy hell. It's a nice idea, but I highly doubt it will be possible to implement, especially when far easier and straight-forward measures already fail to get through legislation.
You might be interested to learn of Climeworks if you're looking for a more reliable way to remove emissions than planting trees (which is, indeed, mostly not really working as well as too slow).
How Do People Mine Emails from Websites for Marketing?
Obviously there are many other big issues, but the things you've listed don't have a (direct) impact on climate change specifically. There's lots of things going on that damage the environment in various ways and I agree that we should work on those too, but if we can't take action on climate change all that other stuff will sort of take care of itself when society as we know it ceases to exist.
I was reading an article on Nature and noticed their definition of "woman" didn't make sense. Tortured phrases isn't confined to plagiarism avoidance.

> Unfortunately, fibroids are just one of many understudied aspects of health in people assigned female at birth. (This includes cisgender women, transgender men and some non-binary and intersex people; the term ‘women’ in the rest of this editorial refers to cis women.)

The article says it only refers to "Cis women" (presumably "cisgender women"), however the article continues to talk about rugby and brains, in which case the word "woman" would not only refer to "cisgender" women, but also to those people who identify as non-binary or transgender men, as surgery and hormone therapy (if that is undertaken by the individual) won't change brain axons, or the person's physical stature.

The article then talks about "male animals", not "animals assigned male at birth". There's no explanation given why animals are not similarly "assigned" a sex.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02085-6
I'm sure the line is that they need it in case of problems during delivery. Couriers always want it for that, or trying to ensure there aren't problems (for them) like missed deliveries by texting you to say they're delivering today or whatever.

I don't really have a problem with that in general, but yeah I don't want to deal with random third party sellers.

Also in my experience when there's a problem with the item and you need a return/refund, it never gets sorted until you escalate to Amazon. Assuming you're not happy with a 20p partial refund and a complimentary bizarre plastic children's toy (when what you ordered was nothing of the kind).
I feel we need a new, completely separate word for "net emissions", because too often the discussion gets confused around this point.

> Each human being emits 25 tons of CO2 per year just by breathing

In almost all cases we care about net emissions. Breathing is net carbon neutral.

What we really need is to tax the net carbon that's added to the "fast carbon loop" (the biosphere). That is, carbon that's being dug up from the ground.
I'm not sure you'd take the same position if you were one of the people who was going to be immediately and directly affected by the change that's coming. I expect at some point some change will happen which does affect you and you won't like it. That moment has already come for some people, spare a thought for them.
Googling this number gives different answers for respiratory CO2 emissions per person. Various forms of wildlife obviously also emits CO2 and historically, this has not contributed to climate change prior to the last century. This is a moot point.
Not 1000x net output since we are in what now, 10-20% efficiency with current available cell technology? That would not make sense.
> the idea of the MozLink thing is that you reduce the number of clicks it takes to find your website — and so reducing the number of requests made to servers.

And then they send you on a merry goose chase through various blog sites if you want to understand what MozLink is, and how you can improve it. How ironic.
If the Sahara and Grand Canyon once flowed with water before civilization

What makes a paper straw the solution so our polar ice caps have less thaw?

This is a serious question and not denying climate change. What’s our ultimate end goal after everything has gone green if we cannot change the planet’s cycles?
> Even last mile delivery isn't that polluting... We're talking things like steel and concrete production

Right, but reducing consumption has knock-on effects across the board. Less need for ocean shipping when we demand fewer non-local goods, less need for concrete and steel when we build less stuff with it, etc.

> Everything consumers and non-industrial businesses do accounts for only 13% of global emissions.

Until you account for how many industries would exist if there were no consumers for their products. This whole argument stinks of trying to push the blame away from ourselves, just like the corporations are doing. We are all responsible for this, but we're all too self-centered to ever do anything about it because our comfort is much more important to us than the future of the world.
Sure: this is about a slightly different specific of taxation here, but its sums up the arguments the doctors have: https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/bma-says-the-chancel...

Also to clarify - it isn't about overtime. Previously full time (40 hours a week)doctors have switched to part time (2-3 days a week), to avoid hitting the 60% rate.
Wow, nice realistic solution! This will definitely not cause a major financial crisis. You should run for office.
At least he’s honest about it. 99% of the developed world has this mindset but pretends like they want to change.
Believe it or not, western countries have reduced carbon emissions over the last ~15 years, in both absolute and per capita terms (despite a growing population). The only countries that are growing their carbon emissions are developing countries; mainly China, India and Russia.

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.

And it's not that China is producing emissions during manufacturing goods the entire world consumes. Take a look at "China: Consumption-based accounting: how do emissions compare when we adjust for trade?" and you'll see ~90% of their emissions are for consumption [2]

> Annual consumption-based emissions are domestic emissions adjusted for trade. If a country imports goods the CO₂ emissions needed to produce such goods are added to its domestic emissions; if it exports goods then this is subtracted.

2018 had 8.96 bn carbon tons in consumption out of a total of 9.96 bn total tons (~90% consumption)

The good news is that China is good at collective action. The bad news is, they're China.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide...

[1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china
Yes, and this needs to be the top comment, and should be in every article about climate change.
Why not tax it at the point of extraction?
> Does having colours on your site (such as theirs) increase energy?

Only on OLED screens, which still don't have a that impressive market share.
Yes, and it's not a topic they like to talk about. I have yet to meet a person from Germany that isn't outright in favor of abolishing nuclear, the best I've gotten out of one is to agree that it might have been better to do it after shutting down coal plants.
> massive ocean container ships, coal plants, the extraction of every type of ressource

but all these things... serve consumers. Container chips contain goods that people buy, that required resource extraction and transport.
This is what will happen, it's obvious to anyone not emotionally invested in the propaganda theater driving all social interaction.
"booster in the form of a leather thong, called an ankyle, that would set the javelin spinning, getting it to fly further."

Sounds like they just used it to wrap around the javelin to give it a spin like you would a spinning top with a string.
It’s not behind a captcha. The owner of that website doesn’t like Cloudflare, so if they detect you’re using Cloudflare DNS or WARP, you’ll get a fake captcha that looks like Cloudflare’s. Completing it won’t give you access to the site. It’s possible they use the same technique in other scenarios as well.
People did write about it, that's how I found out so much so quickly. I didn't invest, but cake reasonably close. One could call it due diligence, but I can see how easy it is to fall for things like that. I got a lot more sceptical of these ads, even more so than before.
> I don't understand your argument, can a western salary better absorb these taxes?

Yes. And their lifestyle should absorb more of these taxes then just part of the money they produce at present time. We have dozens of nations each with their contribution scheme, it’s not so easy to measure opportunity and lifestyle. My Danish friend pays 60% of his salary in taxes and enjoys a great life, like most of his conationals. In other EU countries, taxes are more lax and personal wealth is maybe higher but the infrastructure holding it together less consuming…

> Sure but how does imposing CO2 tax "protect their lifestyles"? The tax is based on how much CO2 you produce so rich people who consume more also end up paying more.

EVERYONE needs a home. When the EU increases tarrifs on coal and steel without encouraging local production, they are in fact reducing the housing availability for low income people… such as in Eastern Europe. Economically forcing some of us to move westward so we can produce more money so we can afford certain lifestyle options thus building the great pyramid of western economies.

> Furthermore the tax aligns incentives to actually decrease CO2 production by finding greener alternatives.

We have insanely lucrative European Projects that could be used to encourage this. We don’t need taxes to innovate, we need oportunities… which are not as evenly spread out as one might expect.

> Last but not least pointing fingers at each other for past transgressions does very little to actually help the do or die situation that climate change is rapidly turning into.

Neither is imposing taxes on my great grandma that has the CO2 imprint less than my cat. And I wholeheartedly disagree that pointing fingers does not help. Are we supposed to just forget that countries have built their whole wealth on exploiting others and now SHOULD work harder and reduce their lifestyle in order to compensate for the hundreds of years of global resource extraction? A new clean pass? It’s exactly what I find horrendous about this approach.