skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Stop digging up ANY carbon from below ground where it was safely buried.

If a country does this today, they will be at a severe economic disadvantage compared to a neighbouring country which continues using coal. All their manufactured goods will end up more expensive, nobody will buy their exports, and their population and economy will suffer.

Only a few countries have done this to any extent, and they are countries who either don't have many fossil fuels, or whose main exports don't involve energy.

The only real solution is for all countries to agree to limit/stop digging up coal/oil/gas at the same time, and to apply punitive sanctions to countries who do not adhere to the agreement.

There isn't really any other way. OPEC could do it if it had a few more members. The US could do it if they were prepared to threaten sanctions or millitary force. Nobody else can really do it.
This is indeed educational. While I think it is subjective, especially the part about terminology and unrelated issues is solid strategy. Never mind the unending meeting when nobody works.
I believe it has a good chance of failing on level of different EU states. Just try telling a general German citizen that their private communications must be monitored.
> companies are people

They're not
Yes only America and Europe should be wealthy.
Do they like access to cheaply grown food? Enjoy a summer without a 50°C heat spike? Don't want their kids to get enrolled in a war over resources?

If they answer "yes" to any of that, they should maybe care.
I can't be alone in thinking this is really cool, clever, sophisticated, ... and utterly, stupidly, pointless?
Good point, I guess. But what is the consequence of it? Do we allow only some families to have more children, while others are not allowed to have any, to get this effect of more efficiency of resource usage? How do we get there in a fair way?
> which means switching energy sources, which is not something individuals have much influence on

I'm not sure how it is in the US or around the world, but in Germany switching to 100% renewable energy for your home takes about 10 minutes online, by changing contract or company. Sure - if everyone did it there would not be enough supply, but apparently the majority does not despite being able to.
Now we have cyber domain where this is definitely not true.
It's not hard to know what actions impact CO2 production. Like nosianu else said, just stop taking carbon fuel out of the ground. Anything above ground is part of the carbon cycle and is fair game - manure, trees (to a point), etc.

But I think what's hard about this is not understanding what causes CO2 production, but understanding what it means to stop burning buried carbon fuel. It means no more computer, cel phone, cars, no flying, no 2-day shipping for [ANY PRODUCT!], no container ships and planes shipping food and products all over the world. It might mean abandoning air-conditioning and having to hand-wash your clothes. It means abandoning modern comforts (not necessities). It means abandoning a hyper-consoomer lifestyle and becoming more localist, which most of us simply cannot fathom doing.
I wish my site was simple enough to have one of the most complex and important pieces only take two hours of work. That would be the dream.

I think that "And i can tweak anything and everything exactly to the product needs" part is the difficult part. Not so much implementing the "Getting Started" tutorial from Firebase or Auth0.

Nice job on taking on this problem guys
You can say this of just about everything. The problem is that everything needs to be cut down.
Even where besiegers outnumbered the besieged by a huge margin it still often took months or even years to defeat a castle by siege, yet if the same two forces met in open battle it would be over in an hour or less. This clearly shows that in castle warfare the defence has a huge advantage.
It's the cargo ships. They usually use dirty fuel and there are so many of them. Cruise ships are a problem, but there aren't nearly as many.
This has been available for decades already:

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
Oh, you, plague-rat and Surtur apologist, why bring in reason, objective observations and doubt into this scientism Jihad ?
The impacts will be extreme, and it is not alarmism to say so.

The issue is that the impacts (lots of death) will be for generations down the line and will not really affect us today at all.

Personal choice effectively means screwing the future generations, because most people don't actually care about them. But those future generations are never given any choice at all.
You also said "modern". If guerilla warfare predates modern times, it can't be caused by something in them.
If you want to go to jail for many years and screw up your life significantly, possibly never be happy again, perhaps.

Is this supposed to be any kind of counter argument? "Parents could simply kill their children."? Seriously?
The only way you comment makes sense to me is if you talk about male chickens and even then it is not necessary:

When keeping chickens at home like GP suggest you can keep the around and it would still be a net plus in the carbon calculations since you are just using food that would have been thrown away otherwise.

That sides, unless we are going to bring veganism into this there is no reason to do that.
I'm surprised there wasn't more discussion of environmental and industrial change. Some of the examples are closer to pure fantasy, but I suspect there were larger, and more larger, specimens of animals in the sea, 150 years ago than today. Probably greater diversity as well. I know this is true in the areas I'm familiar with, that imagining wild areas 200 years ago is somewhat difficult because there's so many things you wouldn't even imagine because your frame of reference is distorted. Trees were much much larger and more abundant, and there were a lot more, and much larger fish and molluscs, than is the case today. It seems that squid and oarfish might provide similar examples.

I also wonder about the role humans played in that people were probably smaller on average, in smaller boats etc. The same squid is going to be more of a threat if everyone is smaller, on what today would be considered a smaller boat, and those are the limits of the human world.
Amusing aside: I came across this linked in a woodworking subreddit - users were talking about the 'nice joinery' behind the presenter in a freeze frame of some Olympics footage; then someone pointed out it's CGI!
It's easy to be cynical about projects like this but it made me think about how the work I do on a day-to-day basis effects the environment in a way I didn't before, so I appreciate it!
Of course, many problems have fairly obvious physical solutions you ignore all costs of said "solutions". Containing a pandemic is also not rocket science. Just have everybody stay at home simulataneously for 2 or 3 months.
Recently moved to the city and got rid of my car. I now walk everywhere. I feel like this has cut out a fairly significant chunk of my impact.
> Additionally, the US is built on the foundation of personal freedom and autonomy.

What a… onesided view of the world. Do you think other countries are built on the foundation of being under the boot and up for restructuring themselves for someone’s agenda?

Should we stop calling out Saudi Arabia and China because they are built in a certain way? Are we Europeans not allowed to say no to a tax, because we were built on serfdoms?

MURICA!
I wonder if it's not only the "brutal" aspect.

Maybe it's generally an advantage when it comes to exploration, e.g. finding new places to settle. Or maybe it's specifically an advantage when hunting, as in endurance hunting.
>With the US being no where near China and India in CO2 production I think it’ll be fine.

Until you look at per capita consumption.
money is a social construct. as soon as externalities are properly priced in, rebuilding will be cheap.

of course, this may never happen, since it'd be perceived by the establishment as political suicide - but they don't care, since they won't live long enough to witness the real suicide, which happens slowly, then all at once (when it's too late).
You can imagine the drug would help, sure. But that's it – your imagination. But yeah, if we assumed the Modafinil was indeed a proven "cure" against sleeping while driving, and it was given free, then the situation would have a similar structure as the one analyzed by the author. Obviously, they still differ significantly:
a) you would have probably to take Modafinil before each drive – vaccines have a more permanent effect
b) it is easier to track vaccinations than taking a drug, it's much more manageable.

This is not only a risk management game – your simplified "absurd" examples are of the kind: "author wants to bar risky situations, why not bar big cars, they're risky". One has also to weight various social factors/costs. If barring bigger cars from the road would be beneficial for society, then yeah, let's do it, but I wouldn't bet on that. The vaccinations have some added costs (production, distribution) and risks (side-effects), but the question is whether the cost/risk of the longer pandemic isn't even bigger (AFAIR it is). I don't say, that OP is right that people should be forced to be vaccinated, but I don't find it absurd given that we've already sacrificed many other freedoms for the society. It's like @mayewsky writes, we already bar some drivers (because of age/health state/previous offenses against the law) from driving. It's nothing new and it's not controversial AFAIK.
It is not the critic who counts
I asked myself the same -- should I start with APL, J or K? I concluded that APL is the "original" from which the others draw inspiration, and so it felt most natural to start there. Note that wherever you decide to start, the experience you gain carries over to the others.
They literally said “Let's instead get rid of private air travel”, which I interpreted (reasonably I think) to mean private aviation (where you know the other passengers) not public airline (Delta, KLM, British Air, etc.)
HN community was extremely avid about using big tech to stifle its political opponents based entirely on privacy-invading metadata collection over the last four years. They even bent over backwards with a mass addiction to the "Private companies can censor anyone they want" meme. They applauded it every step of the way.

Now that the same tech will be applied to HN's child porn stash, all of a sudden, invasions of privacy are the grand evil.

You people deserve the very worst of what big tech has to offer.
The world collapsed but on the bright side user rob_c managed to uphold their principles
These are good but also poor examples. The solutions to those were much much easier. If carbon reduction were that easy we would have done it already.
Climate scientists are desperate to find contrary evidence. With the scientific method, this won't ever change. So far there are metareports from UN here, and being updated now:

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
Why Graphene instead of Calyx? The later seems to be more user friendly (asking because i'm looking into it)
Sacklers are not to blame for the disaster, their products are not killing people. Those lives were destroyed by a society which seems to believe that drug abusers deserve to die.

Opioid addiction is only dangerous because lawmakers would rather have people dying off of dirty street heroin than having access to clean drugs.
Given the latest IPCC report, I thought it would be worth sharing this site about sustainable web design.

The internet is responsible for around 5% of global carbon emissions. It's difficult to measure, and generally not visible to the public.

The solution however is fairly simple — use less data.

Fast, accessible websites usually produce less CO2 and we already know how to do that. Now we just need to get web developers to do it. This will require:

- educating developers and designers
- smart defaults for web developers
- fostering competition
- making the invisible cost of the internet visible

This is a reletively new dicipline — so anything you have to add to the mix will have a large impact.
While this point of view can be seen as technically valid, I don't see it as relevant because it negates all the specificity of the different paradigms and levels of interpretation. Of course all those runs on the same computer in fine, but how is that what's interesting here? It's a bit like saying that mammals reproduction is not different from plants reproduction because in the end all it is are ADN based cells that work together based on the same chemical mechanisms.
Maybe when it's really dry inside ? But indeed, over 25/26 with central european humidity is unpleasant.
The Lowdown on Agile Product Backlog Prioritization
The exact way climate lag functions is still a very uncertain science. It is communicated, but it can't be communicated we because (unlike how Al Gore portrays it) the evidence around how long the lag is is still very uncertain.

I've done a lot of research into this because I am interested in climate lag.
To be fair, the user profile also changed a lot over the years. What used to be a 'programmer for power user' space, now it's all about minimalism and pretty, dysfunctional interfaces. I can see why one would become jaded and separate themselves from users.

Also another problem that doesn't seem to be talked about a lot is that way too often, the stake holders and the developers have nothing in common with the end user.
I have to say, while you're trying to be inclusive, your comment comes across as exclusive to the specific lifestyle of a career like a young, unattached software developer.

There are a lot of reasons why someone might not be able to move wherever they like. For example, they don't want to leave the area where they grew up, where all their friends and family live, and their kids go to school. Or where their partner can't move because they work somewhere like a hospital.

As for "slightly inconveniences"... maybe for some it's nothing more than that, but for many people it's been an absolute nightmare.

I admire your desire to make work more inclusive, but the irony is that working from home tends to benefit wealthy, educated individuals in highly-paid specialist jobs. We need a lot of other changes if we're to have mass remote working without a huge increase of economic inequality.
It's clearly true: it's cheaper to prevent vulnerabilities than to find and exploit them.
The difference isn't up to trench warfare, machine guns etc. It's that industrialized agriculture had been developed, and thus you could still feed millions of people who were fighting. That's what created the resiliance to prolonged war.
In cultures without industrialized agriculture, losing that many people to war would doom everyone. If you wanted to survive, you'd have to stop for harvest or if you lost too many people, you couldn't harvest fast enough.

The resilience that suddenly was there in WW1, was that there were so many people you could throw into the fire, suddenly.
Wait until you learn about how disingenuous using big tech to "fight Nazis" was
That would require a real-time OS, I suppose.
Which is kind of why democracy got popular - it got rid of leaders, it confined appeals to emotion to the election circus, and replaced energetic leadership with boredom of mind-numbing parliamentary meetings - and in the process removed one of the biggest threat to ongoing peace and prosperity, namely leaders "appealing to emotion, history, cultural background" to get their subjects to do something stupid.

I mean, what you say is true - effective political leaders were/are like you describe. But I question whether we need that kind of leadership, and I'm convinced we should not glorify it. Being effective at manipulating and abusing people at scale is not a trait of a good person.
Because private planes are relevant travel amounts to "cause a pandemic", and "People can go on vacation by train instead" makes sense when talking about private planes (vs "can fly commercial"?)?
‘Don’t steal, the government doesn’t like competition’
The idea I'm struggling to explain, and probably failing to convey, is that the Lisp REPL does not look like Lisp when it accepts the Lisp.

It will be machine code that accepts unicode strings, parses those unicode strings into Lisp, compiles the Lisp into machine code, then evaluates the machine code.

So essentially it's not the same as passing a Lisp variable to a Lisp function inside a Lisp text file.
Ah, this magic shift by reactionaries to "it's over, no point" that just serves the same purpose of the previous deny and delay phases.
"Dial your international access code plus four four, four eight three, four six one, oh sixe one..."

A number I never dialed is forever stuck in my mind.
There is a Taco Bell at the centre of The Pentagon
You're not really disagreeing with the previous poster.

We need to do what you suggest as quickly as possible. That means some things that depend on that carbon downstream should be stopped, replaced with alternatives or at the very least heavily discouraged while a market for substitutes created. But how do we decide which ones to do first? Ideally the cheapest and biggest impact. Our best tool for doing so is probably a well regulated market with a carbon fee.

Unfortunately, the same groups that caused the problem, then tried to cover up the problem, then attacked all the solutions continues to talk about how great a carbon tax will be, while also funding the politicians who will never let it happen.

But, if you want to know what the most sensible answer is then just look at what vaguely sensible countries are doing. What they're doing today is probably what we should all have been doing 20 years ago.

This usually involves putting some kind of financial incentive on electricity producers to move to low carbon alternatives (gas is fine as a short term substitute, but if we'd started 20 years ago we'd no longer need it today) and other CO2 emitters to use electricity rather than fossil fuels (e.g. cars).

Other basic elements are carbon tariffs to stop other countries undercutting your efforts.

It's not rocket science. The whole "this is impossible" stuff is just bullshit from the people who don't want to do it. EVs, Solar and Wind Turbines were all impossible according to the same people. Most of the moonshot stuff is trying to come up with a technical solution to the political issues, and that's hard.
Instead of trying to control people's lives and their very personal decision to have children and how many, we should be ensuring every women in every country in the world is provided at least basic education. A vast amount of benefits including an 'automatic' birth rate drop.

The population in the first world is dropping. Immigration from less wealthy countries is the reason for the growth.
Meat is unhealthy? You may want to take a deeper look at where that notion stems from. I recommend the book The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz for a history primer. Or just look at the lifespan in Hong Kong which is one of the top meat consumers in the world per capita.

I think it's suspect that the USA, the number one polluter and the unhealthiest country in the world now wants to dictate what other people should eat while consuming 10x the gasoline per capita as others. For environmental and health reasons of course.

https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/articles/52/
Not sure if I’ll get voted down as a conspiracy theorist, but some kind of mobile app “passport” or “digital ID” would be a great way of tracking your carbon budget. Especially with a bit of big tech surveillance supporting the whole programme.

I wonder how they could get something like that adopted quickly?
Didn't Germany b decide to dismantle their nuclear power plants?
It isn’t being circumvented. It is intended to work on photos that are uploaded to iCloud. If you don’t use that (via turning it off or via selling everything Apple and switching to Linux) then you aren’t using it.
Staff Augmentation: A Perfect Model to Scale Your Team
IT staff augmentation allows any organization to add employees with the required skill sets, not just those specialized in IT. With this model, you have the opportunity of choosing a suitable candidate and managing them based on your needs.

The IT staffing industry is one of the fastest-growing industries with a predicted growth rate in 2020 to be at $237 billion.

Staff augmentation is a great way for businesses to quickly and cost-effectively fill any skill gaps in their organization. It offers convenience, affordability, adaptability, and flexibility that help make the temporary addition of staff members within your company more convenient; which can save time on training costs as well as provide you with workers who are able to work around emergencies or unforeseen events (such as sickness).

In the IT industry, staff augmentation is more synonymous with skilled human resources dealing with short or long-term projects. The augmenting model has a potentially higher cost than other models such as managed services/outsourcing and it will typically be best suited to shorter term projects compared to longer ones.

The practice also provides an easy avenue into growing your business without having to hire full-time employees when there's only temporary need—it helps companies get through rough patches while still providing skilled personnel where they're needed most!

An untapped resource for any company looking to grow their team and manage employees as they see fit, an IT staffing firm can provide you resources without having them on your payroll. With so many technology companies coming into existence every day, this field offers more opportunities than ever before!

Staff augmentation is a great way to add specialized skill sets or scale your team quickly. When you augment staff, it leverages existing resources and uses outsourced services. Staff augmentation can be flexible, transparent, and cost-saving!
In U.S. law, corporations exist in a bizarro-world state where they are people for some purposes where it's advantageous (to take advantage of free speech, for example), but not people where it's disadvantageous (for liability and punishment, for example; there is the meme "I'll believe that a corporation is a person when Texas executes one!"). I believe that is what GP is referring to.
A) Nice. Good for Bezos.
B) He has nowhere near that much actual money at his disposal. Such arguments are embarrassingly ignorant of how wealth and economics works. If he liquidated all of his assets and actually cashed in all of his net worth, then sure, but his overall wealth is currently represented by hundreds of thousands of jobs, massive operations of server farms, brick and mortar warehouses, fleets of delivery trucks, etc. Anger and outrage (let's be honest, this is all just envy at the end of the day) over the wealth of Bezos nothing to do with caring about the plight of those who make less money and everything to do with ignorance, laziness and lack of any sense of personal responsibility for their own financial situation.
C) Go ahead and push for increased regulation that targets the ultra wealthy and see just how much they profit from said laws at your expense. You do understand that the billionaire class is behind most of the pressure on regulators to tighten market restrictions, right? They work it to their own advantage in order to prevent competition and retain their own economic hegemony. You want more equitable economic conditions? Then abolish market regulations.
The software developer who is WFH can do much worse. But for some completely unknown reason no one seems to be suggesting that they should be heavily surveiled...
Wait until you find out your cherished support of using big tech to "fight nazis" over the last four years was a key part in normalizing moves like this.