Hacker News Reader

Isinloron The price of lithium-ion batteries has declined by 97% in the last three decades

In the Perfect Imperfection by Jacek Dukaj [0] has something called "Remy's curve" [1].

On the curve you can find:

- Ultimate Computer is the computer using the best hardware as allowed by the physical constants of our universe. See also physics of computation.

- Inclusions are in essence 'pocket universes'. They are created for specific entities to run hardware in a dedicated universe with physical constants different from ours, allowing for better performance than those in our universe

- Ultimate Inclusion is the inclusion with the best possible set of physical constants in the entire multiverse

Seth Lloyd wrote a paper "Ultimate physical limits to computation" [2].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Imperfection

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_Imperfection#/media/Fi...

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908043

Isinloron “AI promised to revolutionize radiology but so far its failing”

EU seems to have quite a lot of companies offering AI solutions in radiology:

https://grand-challenge.org/aiforradiology/companies/

Isinloron Jeff Bezos will fly on the first passenger spaceflight of Blue Origin in July

When they intentionally deceive. When you promise something without intention of delivering.

In case of SpaceX and Tesla they claim outrageous things with every intention to deliver.

Sometimes they are right, sometimes not. It's up to investors to know the difference.

Isinloron Show HN: Secure sensitive info while recording videos live or screen sharing

Blur can be reverted with deep neural networks. You should not rely on it for hiding sensitive info.

http://yuzhikov.com/articles/BlurredImagesRestoration1.htm

Isinloron Making the hard problem of consciousness easier

So, how does it depend on the virus? When it is when it is not?

Isinloron Making the hard problem of consciousness easier

The notion of boundary is just not helpful in explaining some phenomena.

A virus RNA in nucleus of neurons in your brain is part of you or not? Is that alive or not? Conscious or not?

The same way as an idea of a point particle breaks down in quantum physics, the idea of binary "you" and "not you" breaks down due to nature of reality.

Isinloron Making the hard problem of consciousness easier

There can be one personality that can be split into two personalities. People with multiple personality disorders are not born with the disorder. The same with people whose corpus callosum is severed. It is fluid. The amount of damage to the brain will determine how distinct the personalities will be. If you could transplant brain it possible that one personality could create two fully distinct personalities. The process could be in principle also reverted back again leading to one personality.

Additionally, the process of separating parts of a brain is also continuous in time. People could be experiencing qualia when then brain is being damaged and the process could take long enough for them to register the states in between.

With regard to reports, here:

> He also reported to have grabbed his wife with his left hand and shaken her violently, at which point his right hand came to her aid and grabbed the aggressive left hand.

And here: https://youtu.be/N1Mac4FeKXg?t=124

With regard to definition of personalities - definitions created for an average case are often not sufficient to describe the reality. Quantum physics is a perfect example how reality can break old definitions.

Isinloron Making the hard problem of consciousness easier

I use the same standard of knowing as I do for qualia in general. I listen to what other people report.

> there's a difference between receiving input from someone else's sensors and experiencing their qualia.

There can not be clear difference if you are not able to even fully separate two different personalities.

If distinction between personalities is fluid, then distinction between personalities qualia also has to be fluid.

Isinloron Making the hard problem of consciousness easier

It is not just sharing I/O devices. Brain conjoined twins can also share their mental states. They do experience each other qualia [0].

> Though Krista and Tatiana Hogan share a brain, the two girls showed distinct personalities and behavior. One example was when Krista started drinking her juice Tatiana felt it physically going through her body. In any other set of twins the natural conclusion about the two events would be that Krista's drinking and Tatiana's reaction would be coincidental. But because Krista and Tatiana are connected at their heads, whatever the girls do they do it together.

I also recall examples where one girl does not like eating something and so the other girl can not eat it because the other can feel it.

Concept of an individual is not a fundamental property of the universe. It is an emergent, fluid and complex concept.

There are people with multiple personality disorders. There are brain conjoined twins. There are people with severed corpus callosum.

E.g. here is report about one person [1]:

> After the right and left brain are separated, each hemisphere will have its own separate perception, concepts, and impulses to act. Having two "brains" in one body can create some interesting dilemmas. When one split-brain patient dressed himself, he sometimes pulled his pants up with one hand (that side of his brain wanted to get dressed) and down with the other (this side did not). He also reported to have grabbed his wife with his left hand and shaken her violently, at which point his right hand came to her aid and grabbed the aggressive left hand. However, such conflicts are very rare. If a conflict arises, one hemisphere usually overrides the other.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniopagus_twins#Media [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

Isinloron Making the hard problem of consciousness easier

You can observe, in principle, other people consciousness.

Brain conjoined-twins can do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniopagus_twins

For example, there are twins that can see with each other eyes or feel each other body.

You could try, in principle, to create a chimera from your brain and a brain of some other animal.

Isinloron Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future generations exists

In this case it is just a fairly direct interpretation of the law.

> The objects of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of “national environmental significance”: s 3(1)(a). Section 3(1)(b) states that a further object is the promotion of “ecologically sustainable development” through the conservation and “ecologically sustainable use” of natural resources.

> The principles of “ecologically sustainable development” are given meaning by s 3A which provides:

> (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

Isinloron Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future generations exists

This is just direct a interpretation of the law. You should be upset with Australian legislature for creating this type of laws not with courts that are tasked with interpreting it.

> The objects of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment

> The principles of “ecologically sustainable development” are given meaning by s 3A which provides:

Isinloron Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future generations exists

In this case it doesn't seem to be some creative interpretation of the law, but a fairy direct interpretation.

> EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment

> The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development:

Isinloron Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future generations exists

As far as I can see, the court is not doing here anything else than interpreting the law. Literally, the whole ruling is explaining pieces of the law step by step.

> The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development:

Isinloron Court rules climate change “duty of care” to future generations exists

Where do you exactly see the overreach?

I'm reading the ruling and I see there only interpretation of the Australian law.

Things like:

150 The objects of the EPBC Act include providing for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of “national environmental significance”: s 3(1)(a). Section 3(1)(b) states that a further object is the promotion of “ecologically sustainable development” through the conservation and “ecologically sustainable use” of natural resources. Each of those terms used in s 3(1)(b) is defined. Section 528 provides the meaning of “ecologically sustained use” as the “use of the natural resources within their capacity to sustain natural processes while maintaining the life-support systems of nature and ensuring that the benefit of the use to the present generation does not diminish the potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”. The principles of “ecologically sustainable development” are given meaning by s 3A which provides:

Principles of ecologically sustainable development

The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development:

(a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;

(b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

(c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making;

(e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

Isinloron The Spacefaring Paradox

Musk was once quoting Shackleton supposed Antarctic job ad:

"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honor and recognition in event of success."

Seems like a fair proposition :) .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfg1n7Lh62Q

Isinloron The Spacefaring Paradox

They will have to invest in carbon capture on Earth to build expertise for deployment on Mars.

Personally, I think they will not make Starship reliable enough for passenger flights.

The chances of airplane crash are somewhere around 1 in 10 millions per flight.

For comparison, the Crew Dragon requirement is no more than 1 in 127 chances of loosing a crew.

I would really, really not want to use Crew Dragon to do business flights. It's more kind of climb Mount Everest type of thrill.

Isinloron An utterly crushing day for Big Oil

The EU already implemented Emissions Trading Scheme. EU is putting a cap on the emissions and the allowed emissions are auctioned, so that companies must compete for smaller and smaller pool of allowances. If companies do not reduce emissions there is no limit to how high taxation can go, as the tax rate is market driven with limited supply of allowances.

China is planning to implement similar system. Only USA is doing nothing in this regard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...

Isinloron An utterly crushing day for Big Oil

They don't have a choice. They can die or try to survive and likely die anyway.

The CO2 emissions will be gone by 2050 even if it has to happen on the corpses of Shell, BP or Exxon.

The world needs to shift the production power away from oil into renewables.

> Just the input energy that would be required to build everything would be immense, and I don't think we've got the production capacity for solar cells or the raw materials to do it either.

We can do bigger things than that. We need to create that capacity - grow it exponentially.

I think you are seriously underestimating the capacity of human civilization once we decide to do something collectively.

Vaccines normally were taking 20-30 years to reach market. Due to COVID we started vaccinating the world in less than a year.

If there is a will there is a way.

From MIT report "The Future of Solar Energy"

https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/MITEI-The-...

> There appear to be no major commodity material constraints for terawatt-scale PV deployment through 2050."

> PV modules will become a major driver of flat-glass production at high solar penetration levels, but the availability of commodity materials imposes no fundamental limitations on the scaling of PV deployment for scenarios in which a majority of the world’s electricity is generated by PV installations in 2050.

> Required growth rates for silicon and silver production fall well within the range of historical growth rates, even for 100% silicon PV penetration.

Isinloron Netherlands court orders oil giant Shell to cut emissions

Emissions Trading Scheme is actually a very clever tax that self adjusts. EU is putting a cap on the emissions and the allowed emissions are auctioned, so that companies must compete for smaller and smaller pool of allowances. If companies do not reduce emissions there is no limit to how high taxation can go, as the tax rate is market driven with limited supply of allowances.

I think Shell may be simply in denial of the reality and/or may be hoping that political back channels will preserve status quo.

Isinloron Netherlands court orders oil giant Shell to cut emissions

The point is that Shell is ignoring its obligations.

Apparently future taxes were not sufficient to change their practices right now. It is a fact stated by the company itself and the court opinion.

From the court ruling:

> The RI Annual Briefing 2020 contains the following warning (‘Definitions and cautionary note’), inter alia:

> Additionally, it is important to note that as of April 16, 2020, Shell’s operating plans and budgets do not reflect Shell’s net-zero emissions ambition. (...)

> Since 2016, the Dutch NGO Follow This, shareholder in RDS, has submitted various resolutions with the request to exchange the investments of the Shell group in oil and gas for sustainable energy. The RDS Board has consistently recommended its shareholders to vote against these resolutions for being contrary to the company’s interests. The RDS Board stated the following, among other things:

> “tying the Company’s hands to a renewables only mandate would be strategically and commercially unwise.”

> The majority of shareholders has voted against these resolutions. (...)

> It is also an established fact that RDS has set more stringent climate ambitions for the Shell group in 2019 and 2020 (see under 2.5.18). However, business plans in the Shell group still have to be updated in accordance with these climate ambitions, and a further explanation of its future portfolio and plans is forthcoming. In the court’s view, RDS’ policy, policy intentions and ambitions for the Shell group largely amount to rather intangible, undefined and non-binding plans for the long-term (2050). These plans (‘ambitions’ and ‘intentions’) are furthermore not unconditional but – as can be read in the disclaimer and cautionary notes to the Shell documents – dependent on the pace at which global society moves towards the climate goals of the Paris Agreement (‘in step with society and its customers’). Emissions reduction targets for 2030 are lacking completely; the NCF identifies the year 2035 as an intermediate step (see under 2.5.19). From this the court deduces that RDS retains the right to let the Shell group undergo a less rapid energy transition if society were to move slower. Moreover, RDS has insufficiently contested the standpoint of Milieudefensie et al. that RDS’ planned investments in new explorations are not compatible with the reduction target to be met. The Shell group’s policy, as determined by RDS, mainly shows that the Shell group monitors developments in society and lets states and other parties play a pioneering role. In doing so, RDS disregards its individual responsibility, which requires RDS to actively effectuate its reduction obligation through the Shell group’s corporate policy.

Isinloron Netherlands court orders oil giant Shell to cut emissions

I'm referring to your example where the oil is still extracted. The Netherlands can reduce it's own fossil fuel extraction and reduce the demand for external fossil fuel extraction.

The tax scheme already exists and is implemented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...

The Netherlands is reducing and eliminating the internal fossil fuel extraction. Groningen gas field it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world and the extraction will be stopped in 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field

But this one is actually more due to the earthquakes than just climate change.

Isinloron Netherlands court orders oil giant Shell to cut emissions

Given the precedent the same laws will apply to the new oil concern.

Of course Netherlands will not have power to enforce rules on fully foreign oil concerns not operating in the Netherlands.

But at least the demand from the Nederlands is appropriately reduced.

There is no single magical solution to this problem. Everyone needs to do their part.

Isinloron Netherlands court orders oil giant Shell to cut emissions

The Dutch law allows for class action lawsuits where interests of the claimants are bundled. For example if a company would be poisoning local ground waters the citizens should be able to enforce their rights in the court. In this case the company is changing atmosphere in a way that endangers Dutch residents due to the fact that portion of the population lives below the sea level and climate change is likely to cause rise in the sea level.

> The court does not follow RDS’ argument that the claims of Milieudefensie et al. require decisions which go beyond the lawmaking function of the court. The court must decide on the claims of Milieudefensie et al.30 Assessing whether or not RDS has the alleged legal obligation and deciding on the claims based thereon is pre-eminently a task of the court. In the following assessment, the court interprets the unwritten standard of care from the applicable Book 6 Section 162 Dutch Civil Code on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances, the best available science on dangerous climate change and how to manage it, and the widespread international consensus that human rights offer protection against the impacts of dangerous climate change and that companies must respect human rights.

BTW - In the Groningen, in the north of the Netherlands exploitation of natural gas reserves started causing earthquakes. Even the house I was renting in a town next to Groningen had to be inspected due to the earthquakes. The exploitation will be stopped in 2022 due to the harm. The Groningen gas field is operated by the Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij BV (NAM), a joint venture between Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil with each company owning a 50% share.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_gas_field

> After protests in Groningen because of the increase in induced earthquakes, whose event count shows an exponential growth in time, [5] the Dutch government decided on 17 January 2014 to cut output from the gas field and pay those affected by the earthquake a compensation worth 1.2 billion Euro, spread over a period of 5 years. The ministry said production would be cut in 2014 and 2015 to 42.5 bcm (billion cubic metres) and in 2016 to 40 bcm.[6]

> The State Supervision of Mines has brought forward that the production level should be cut back to 30 bcm to avoid the more severe quakes. Although it is technically possible to reduce Groningen's output to this level and still meet domestic demand, the ministry keeps production high (currently[when?] 39.4 bcm per year). Groningen officials are not satisfied with the measures. As of January 2015, no houses have been reinforced, nothing has been done about many seriously damaged buildings, and the risk of severe quakes, possibly resulting in collapsed buildings, injuries and death, is still too high.[7][8] In June 2016, the Netherlands' National Mines Inspectorate advised the Dutch Government to reduce production even further to 24 bcm per year.[9] On 23 September 2016 Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte confirmed that gas extraction from the northern Groningen gas field will be held at 24 bcm per year for the coming five years.[10]

> On March 29, 2018 the government announced it would shut down the gas extraction entirely by 2030 for safety reasons.[11][12]

> In September 2019, the Dutch government announced a further acceleration of the decommissioning of the field, stopping all regular production in 2022.

Isinloron Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

A total of 173,000 terawatts (trillions of watts) of solar energy strikes the Earth continuously.

That’s more than 10,000 times the world’s total energy use.

We can transition to solar and wind power.

Isinloron Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

> Much like in this case - if Shell leaves, there is nothing that automatically means the new actor who fills that role will offer hydrogen, solar, etc. Least friction means the new actor will just be another petroleum company.

Emission Trading Schemes put friction on another petroleum company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...

Isinloron Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

The court ruling is mature, we need more decisions like that across the world.

We also need to keep pushing and monitoring schemes like European Union Emission Trading Scheme and Chinese National Carbon Trading Scheme.

The goal is for global carbon emissions to peak in 2030 and be gone by 2050.

Hopefully USA will follow too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...

Isinloron Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Tradin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_national_carbon_tradin...

Isinloron Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

That's a hypothetical. If:

a) We will keep on meeting our emission targets

b) China will keep on missing their emission targets

then it does not make sense to import anything from China.

My guess is that CCP is quite serious about climate change and will attempt to fulfill it's obligations.

They are already slipping by targeting carbon neutrality in 2060 vs. 2050.

But we are not doing enough either.

Isinloron Shell ordered to cut CO2 emissions by 45% in landmark climate case

It's not only my crusade. It's also increasingly companies stakeholders. There are trillions dollar investor groups pushing for addressing risks and opportunities of climate emergency. Court cases give a lot of leverage to people inside these groups to apply pressure on companies like Shell.

Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC) manages over $2 trillions

The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) with over €23 trillion in assets under management

Go against states like Netherlands, states unions like European Union, and institutional investors managing tens of trillions worth of assets at your own peril.

And the pressure will only keep increasing as the old generations die and the new take power.