skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The internet currently produces approximately 3.8% of global carbon emissions, which are rising in line with our hunger to consume more data.

This is not about "hunger to consume more data". Actual data doesn't take much. Needlessly inflated codebases and excessive video fidelity do.

Most of the people could use a decades-old computer and a <1Mbit/s connection to get and send all the information they might ever be interested in if we didn't insist on using huge JavaScript libraries, fancy design and HD+ video we lived perfectly well without just a decade ago. The problem is we seemingly need ever increasing everything to keep the economy growing.
We used to change the world, like the Hoover dam and the Erie canal. Now we tax the world. And nothing changes because taxes don't solve anything except make people rich.
Poor people don't emit much carbon, this is a problem for the rich rather than poor.

In fact their lives might well get better if the rest of us are forced into using public transport.
This applies only to photos that are uploaded to iCloud. Apple is doing to do the processing on the device though, but only for the photos that are going to be uploaded to iCloud. Like other services do.
WhatsApp is a Facebook property and decided to use this confusion to hit Apple politically with a low punch.
People that should know better prove once again that most people read no much than the headlines and base their conclusions on the tastiest sound bytes they hear.
You do realize that this feature supersizes the impact of price dumping.

Pay 1 dollar less today. Pay 10 dollars more in the future on everything, the second the smaller local store goes out of business.

At this rate why even bother with the pretext or capitalism. As long as price dumping is tolerated those with the most wealth can buy a monopoly.

If you choose the largest and cheapest vendor for something you are failing yourself, your friends and family and your neighbours.

If you let Microsoft do this, you might as well get on your knees and kiss the feet of Jeff Bezos. One company should be enough for everyone.

And then we don't need this feature anymore either, because there will be no choice. We won't even need advertising anymore.
> taxes on usage/consumption could be progressive.

Ideally the poor part of the population should be able to use the roads in the same proportion as the wealthy part of the population. Putting taxes on road usage (which what fuel taxes actually represent) will hit the poor part of the population way harder than the wealthy (or even the middle-class) part of said population.

> You could still get a cheap flight once a year, but you won't be able to fly every weekend.

That used to be one of the few remaining "pleasures of life" for a big part of the lower and lower-middle-classes from Western Europe. It was actually cheaper to fly with your lads from Luton Airport to somewhere in Eastern Europe on Friday afternoon and come back late on Sunday, all this while having lots of fun (from said lads' perspective). Taking this away from them will mean them having to hit the very expensive pubs/bars of Manchester or Oslo and not having the same amounts of fun because the money for purchasing said fun (i.e. alcohol) will just not be there. Unhappy lads may mean an unhappy populace ready to throw stones at the powers that be.

As such, the upcoming football matches from the next few months in the European big leagues will be a very good litmus test, it will be the first time in one year and a half when we'll have lots of young people together ready to scream at things (the opposing teams' players or the said powers that be). We've already had one game suspended this weekend in Montpellier (Southern France) because of fans throwing bottles at the opposing team's players.
> Only 12% of ROAD TRANSPORT emits co2.

Road transportation accounts for ca. 12% of global emissions. Nearly 100% of road transportation emits CO2.
I agree that "C/C++" isn't a good sign, though it was more forgivable when C++ just meant C++98... For speed, nowadays, you use X. That is, many languages can be fast, especially if they have access to intrinsics, the real question is how much special knowledge and herculean effort do you have to spend? It's still true that for many problems idiomatic modern C++ will give a very nice result that may be hard to beat (though be careful if you forgot cin.sync_with_stdio(false) or you may be slower than Python!). But it's also true that C, Rust, Java, Common Lisp, and even JS all do very well out of the box these days, while languages like Python and Ruby have lagged. For this problem, the author had to spend quite a bit of effort in a followup post to get Rust to match some 20 year old unoptimized CL.

If one wanted to optimize Lisp, a simple place to start is with some type declarations, at least with the SBCL implementation. It can even be kind of fun to have the compiler yell at you because e.g. it couldn't infer a type somewhere and was forced to do a generic add, so you tell it some things are fixnums, see the message go away, and verify if you want with DISASSEMBLE that it's now using LEA instead of a CALL. For an example of going to quite a bit of trouble (relatively) with adding inline hints, removing unneeded array bounds checks, and SIMD instructions, see https://github.com/telekons/42nd-at-threadmill which I believe is quite a bit faster than a similar "blazing fast" Rust project featured on HN not long ago. But my point again isn't so much that CL is the fastest or has some fast projects, just that it can be made as fast as you're probably going to want. This applies to a lot of other languages too, though CL still feels pretty unique in supporting both high level and low level constructs.

Your GC comment is weird, since any publications looking at total performance invariable include the GC overhead, nothing is hidden. The TIME macro for micro-benchmarking even typically reports on allocated memory, which can be a proxy for estimating GC pressure, and both SBCL and CCL report the actual time (if any) spent in GC. Why not complain that C++ benchmarks hide the indirect costs of memory fragmentation, which is a real bane for long-running C++ programs like application servers? But I'll admit that the GC can be a big weakness and it's no fun to be forced to code around its limitations, and historically some GCs used by some Lisps were really bad (that is, huge pause times). I've been looking at the herculean GC work being done in the Java ecosystem for years with a jealous eye, and even the newer Nim with its swappable GCs when you want to make certain tradeoffs without having to code them in.
I don't know what scnr means, but yes, B is literally `C--` as you put it.

Basically B was based on BCPL, a really early systems language. Then B was rewritten as C. The next iteration of C was called C++ as a joke because it's C plus 1. Though there has since been another language created as an evolution of C called D

From what I gather, B never really got much use outside of Bell Labs. But I might have missed some reports on other people using it.
The authoritarian impulse is disturbingly common. This is a product of the long decline in societal trust. also, baizuo
It seems like this is a problem that will solve itself, after this article and some more coverage make this well known scores of people will probably order stuff and leave bad reviews to get refunds and maybe even additonal money back. The selles can't possibly keep doing this for more and more fake reviews.
It's not even that simple:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-species_transmission

With pathogens that jump between species, as SARS-CoV-2 has with several populations, including white-tailed deer[1] in the US, you potentially need to isolate all reservoir species from each other as well.

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02110-8
there simply is no alternative

That's what my neighbours tell me when they see me shopping on my bike.
Anyone who claims to be "following the science" knows that there is no such thing as "code red" in science and lo and behold it's not what the IPCC report says but a UN representative. This is a media and ideologically driven narrative and have absolutely nothing to do with reality yet it's used to scare people who can do absolutely nothing and will only be used to push draconian and anti-human decisions on the energy front.

Anyone who wants to actually understand what the IPCC is finding should go read the actual report and they will find just like all the other IPCC reports that things are not even close to what the media and environmental organizations want you to believe, in fact, the IPCC reports are getting less concerned not more and you will find there is a lot more uncertainty with a lot of metrics.

There is no scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we don't know how to deal with today let alone in 80 years from now. Yes the use of fossil fuel have externalities, some of them negative luckily most of them positive.
You'll be able to build a similar community and fully customize it to your liking. You'll have access to management and moderation tools, as well as built-in gamification features like quests, badges, user levels and ranks, animated avatar frames and cover photos, custom reactions, leaderboards, and more!
Craigslist does this for emails with their email relay service. I greatly appreciate the feature.
That's definitely the same idea: http://metaes.org/docs-metaes.html.
Thanks for sharing, I found a lot of interesting information here. A really good post, very thankful and helpful. https://www.mycardstatement.pro/
Fair point, it's blurry

From the top of my head, most cited ones are

Concrete production

Heating / cooling (unless designed to be physically smart)

Beef production

Worldwide transportation (fruits all year long)

Cars

If you eat a Mediterranean die, move by foot or bike and have a well insulated house with no AC you're good
Just wanted to be clear that I think everyone should have the number of children they want to have. I don't think the government should interfere in that decision and it should be up to the couple whether they have lots of children, one or two, or none. Just wanted to point out an interesting point about efficiency of some families as a response to the parent. And I'm not even definitively saying that I'm right, but it is a perspective.

I think even families with only a few children _can_ be more efficient, but it is not the natural thing to do, and people with fewer children often do so because they prioritize higher resource consumption from a perception of quality of life or other factors.

I guess the main point is that these things aren't clear cut, there are reasons for both depending on a person's perception of life and pursuit of happiness. That's the tricky thing, even when we believe a problem is simple from out perspective, it usually isn't.
Theater. Just like the FBI-Apple trial to get data from locked phones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...

I am pretty sure all of Big Tech is in collusion among themselves and with various governments, after what Snowden showed us.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-cost...
The 3D Printing Bridges from China
Almost every open source package has a model where multiple contributors make money off something else. Usually that something else is software or hardware that is built with the open source package.
I went to school in the 90s and we were learning about climate change then. The argument of "we can't stop now" seemed good enough 25 years ago, but we've still not actually made any progress towards making it easier to stop. We need to do that right now.
Yeah? Tell me how you deal with displacement of millions of hungry people and I'll give you a Nobel peace prize. Well, the monetary amount of, we'll do a Fig or something.
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

— Albert Allen Bartlett
It's far easier to educate someone on correct hospitalization rates and death risks than it is to convince someone that covid is real when they think it's a conspiracy and that vaccines contain poison or something. I don't know why would you want to equate those two things, honestly.
Making energy more expensive is going to kill people today.
Gas turbine power plants (specifically, combustion turbines) are actually very cheap. The reason is they avoid heat exchangers. Simple open cycle combustion turbines don't need heat exchangers at all, neither before the turbine nor after it (to condense/cool a working fluid). A simple cycle gas turbine power plant might be as little as $400/kW, vs $10,000/kW for a nuclear power plant.
Tried the ecograder tool on my github hosted single page html just for kicks.

It rated as not mobile friendly (even if I have separate media queries for mobile/tablet).

It ranked negatively on MozRank (how well linked (?) it is from other websites, which I don't understand -- neither does it explains -- how it relates to eco friendliness). At least the main site itself is penalized by the same MozRank criteria.

Seems like a tool to generate leads to Mightybyte consulting services (who developed the tool, a founding organization behind sustainable web design).

About the manifesto I have mixed feelings, to me it feels rather "wishy washy".

Wish them luck with the project.

It also has the same bug I encounter often on full bleed designs where there's extra padding/margin that makes a horizontal scrollbar visible. Which reminds me that even experienced designers still don't have a good grasp on CSS /s
Facebook still sour about Apple blocking tracking mechanisms, hence the low punch?
That's not super helpful to the individual.

Take an individual that bikes everywhere. What other changes can he make in his life that would reduce the demand of "digging out carbon"?

As it turns out, he's relying on rubber wheels for his bicycle, he's relying on synthetic clothing for comfort, and numerous in his life products are made with plastic. What are the highest impact changes he can make?
1. That the planet is warming and we can accurately measure that

2. That we can accurately model the effect of CO2 on temperature and sea levels

3. That we can accurately model increasing levels of 'bad weather' and disasters based on temperature increase

4. That we can translate these climate forecasts into socioeconomic repercussions well enough to make global policy decisions that should be enforced at great cost

My credulity decreases with each successive layer.
There were a study done in Sweden a few years ago that looked at the question about an individuals actions and the corresponding CO2 production.

No car > skipping flight > buy green energy > Get a electric car > diet.

https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/article/four-lifestyle-choi...
I think you're on the wrong side of caution here, if we stop activities and so help to solve climate change, then we can look later at whether those activities people thought were just empty carbon producing were actually supremely beneficial. You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, as the saying goes. Bitcoin/altcoins are certainly not vital to survival.

Cut carbon, then make a case for bringing back heavy carbon producing activities that seem to be of little use.
Asbestos and lead in gas were things that had suitable replacements. What you're asking people to do is give up personal transportation, which is to some their sense of freedom and in some cases the ability to head and cool their homes.

This isn't going to be easy not because it's technically difficult but because you're going to end up asking humanity to give up much the lifestyle it's grown accustomed to over the last 150 years.
Ah, I see, right.

One specificity of Lisp however is that the textual representation already looks like the abstract syntax tree that the Lisp variable which is passed to the Lisp function in the text file contains.

But I can easily admit that this fact can also be seen as some sort of illusion since in the end it is just a sequence of bytes.
Efforts to obtain monopoly rent ("supernormal profits by restricting output and hence increasing prices above its perfectly competitive level."[1]) is a subset of rent-seeking. The problem again, isn't the wealth itself, it is the fact that wealth is being expended to seek monopoly rent at great social cost.

[1] https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/assets/pdf/SER/1995/Alan_Dunne....
Yes, that is one of the reasons I moved away.

But also before moving away, I was subscribed to one of the ones they made exclusive, Gimlet Media's something-science I think it was called. Enjoyable and fairly informative much of the time, but if they are going to create a gated community I'm just not going to be part of making that a success, so I immediately stopped listening & recommending it and unsubscribed.
The Official Aztec C Online Museum (2009)
The propaganda and media cooptation is just staggering. It's extremely suspicious that very little attention is paid to the fact that reducing consumption will likely increase poverty.
If you trace, for example, the supply chain of some medicine you might use, or might depend on in future: The machinery, chemical refinery, transport, sourcing or resources, management, markets, and infrastructure below all that.
All of this will get orders of magnitude more expensive if we reduce carbon emissions. You will not be able to afford medicine if you need it, and possibly die of a horrible death, e.g. from an infection and without painkillers.
In the meanwhile, anyone raising these issues is defamed as climate change denier.
You only need a real-time os if you're guaranteeing maximum latency.
Yes, I think reducing the cost of the non-nuclear part of a NPP is essential if nuclear is to have any sort of future. The problem is sCO2 needs a higher temperature reactor than LWRs, which introduces its own host of problems.
I don't like those responses, because they fundamentally don't address the issue. What if the person is okay with a trustworthy government agent/system seeing them naked, or having a copy of their house key? This way they won't be embarrassed in public, or get robbed, while the government still gets what it needs to "keep them safe".

I think a better response is - what if they did have something to hide? What if they were a government or corporate whistleblower, a human rights lawyer, or a journalist? What if the government changes and suddenly their friendship with a Tibetan sympathizer becomes a liability?

What if they're none of those, but due to their carelessness, make whistleblowers stand out because they're the only ones trying to keep some privacy, making them easy to find an retaliate against?
There's like three major options if you want to run a FOSS smartphone, and I'll sum them up.

Pinephone: Cheap. The device isn't very powerful. With people coming from an Apple device, that's a problem.

Fairphone 3: Fair. The hardware isn't very powerful either, and the device is more expensive, but the product is better for the people who assembled it and the environment.

Librem 5: Open. Even more expensive than Fairphone, but the hardware features killswitches, and there's no binary blobs. Lacks the fair advantages Fairphone has.

Each of these can run a myriad of FOSS OSes from a deGoogled Android (ASOP-based fork) such as /e/ or Ubuntu or Debian/Arch/Ubuntu mobile versions or SFOS (Sailfish) community version (without Android emulation layer!), and each hardware and software has their pros/cons. I use a Fairphone 3 with stock firmware with a Pinephone as back-up phone (and have to use a Samsung flagship device for work). Previously I used a Fairphone 2 with LineageOS + microG (kind of like predecessor of /e/ before that took off).

PS: On the gaming side, I'm getting a Steam Deck. Its a bang for the buck compared to Aya Neo/Nintendo Switch/gaming smartphones). No, it isn't open hardware, but the device runs Linux and you get root on it, plus all the reviews (including Linus Tech Tips) are positive.
> The Delta variant itself rose in India, which has really low vaccination rates.

Sorry, I mixed your comment with somebody else's which used the word "emerged" and argued delta and lambda appeared because of the unvaccinated.

On the rest, not arguing on the mechanics and dynamics of the epidemic.

The only meaningful effort made to systematically track the vaccination effort effects since day one is Israel's 580K control group matched cohort. The UK is not quite at this level of details, let's say. Those two countries are not enough.

Most of the rest which I seen is "let's throw a model at the wall and see what sticks", followed "the study is under-powered but let's publish anyway", concluding with "have clueless random msm journalists and anti-covid-vaxx sleuths misquote the results".

On that account, I don't really trust anybody's observations either way quite yet. We'll have to see the post-mortem in a couple year's time.
> Already cut massively thanks to COVID-19.

i dont think this is true, at least booking.com has very small decrease in numbers
Pretty low quality question. Of course the salary will not adapt according to individuals expenses and neither will it here in Scandinavia. However, the father will of course be obliged to pay child support. The mother will also receive a monthly allowance for each child. She will also likely be eligible to rent support. So children is a special case, but a living wage doesn't involve that.

How did you think this would actually work?
Find smarter Greens and replace your current feel-good Greens with them. For all our sakes.

A strong nation the size of EU nation does not have the resources to fix it. Maybe fight it a bit and try to not make it worse but alone that will not be enough.

US or China might have these sorts of resources, but as we know politicians prefer patches and blame redirection and status quo.
Ok, I partially stand corrected and partially renew my objection. The word "blended" on its own does not mean malt + grain, and leading off an explanation of scotch categorization with that definition is confusing. "Blended" is part of the name of three different categories of non-single-distillery products, only one of which is "blended scotch whisky"; the word itself simply denotes non-single-distillery products.

"Blended scotch whisky" is the term of art that denotes scotch whisky blended from single malt and single grain whiskys, according to the SWR.

Particularly when one's audience isn't experienced in this area, it would be helpful to flag terms of art, and to clarify that you're talking about specific labeling standards. The commenter had said "blended export stuff" which made it clear (to me) that they weren't speaking that technically.
I like living too. I'm 100% confident that if we change absolutely nothing related to climate change, I'll keep living just fine.

On the other hand, I'm also 100% confident that if fossil fuels are banned tomorrow, my life will be much worse.

The choice seems pretty easy.
You do not mention methane at all, isn't that oversimplifying things?
Alternatively, stop making babies. The maths is compelling.
Reading the linked document, why do you think it goes to insurance and rent?

AFAICT, 1/3 is used for renovations and renewables. 2/3 is redistributed to residents and companies. Residents get their share via health insurance companies, though that shouldn't make a difference.
Yes, go on most popular websites, and most of the data consumption is not anything the visitor wants.

This also has the effect of shutting out people with expensive data, or slow networks. Who i'd guess are the same people most effected by the climate crisis.
"Individual action" is a euphemism for changing your lifestyle in the slightest, even if imposed from outside through tariffs/taxes or other regulation. What people want is their exact same lifestyle, except eveything bad has been spraypainted green. It's understandable, I want my wishes to turn things into gold.

Action against companies is an extension of action against consumption, not an alternative.