WhompingWindows

There's some percentage of cars out there that are vintage vehicles, which owners don't mind spending the money on to keep going, even though they're emitting diesel fumes and are inefficient. There's a love of these machines, a love which is a hobby and a passion for many car-folks. Giving them some electrification options is a great idea, it needs to happen and it'll create some really fun and zippy vintage cars :)

Scope! You must define the scope of the game from the beginning, and it'll often be the case that your goals far exceed the practical limits of what you can code.

This is OK, as long as you know you're dreaming too big, but then you need MVGs, minimal pieces of the project that are playable games. If you need a giant world just to get started playing, you'll not get started playing.

Those polls don't really tell us how their view of temperature changes are affecting their view of policy and climate. If 67% think that, that's basically covering the West and the East, which is the areas covered by storms and fires. But that last 33% of voters elects a disproportionate number of senators, places like KS or AR have the same number of Senators as California, even though the number of citizens is a mere fraction. I just worry that there's a disproportionate share of power and votes in the hands of individuals who don't think a jot about climate, and maybe the temperature numbers "feel" small to them.

Regardless of the exact numbers, my point is similar to the original article: people don't understand the ramifications here. Even if they intuitively know 3C is almost 2X as much as 3F, they still may not understand the article's points either.

Devil's Advocate, since I agree they should just meet virtually... arguably there are maybe 10,000 people globally that decide most things regarding climate change. If those 10,000 people flew to one spot and agreed to enact policies that alone did 3X more in a decade than all individual choices of citizens could ever do, wouldn't that be worth it? We know what individual citizens do regarding their lights and food and transportation habit is a small, miniscule piece of what the companies and governments actually can do, so I think it's a little pointless to tell billionaire CEOs and heads of countries with billions of people that they can't take flights to go make climate policy stronger. Those few flights would occur anyway, we can't stop them, and meanwhile they may be enacting changes that could clean up millions of future jet flights.

Doesn't it matter if they think it's 1.5 degrees or 3 degrees of warming? Doesn't that 1.67X change their perspective substantially?

I worry that part of the reason some Americans don't fear climate change is: 3 degrees Fahrenheit is only 1.67 Celsius, so Americans might be practically understanding the warming as "half" of what other countries/people think.

The counter-argument: surely Americans are informed enough to understand the phrase "1.5 degrees of warming" means Celsius...I'm not confident average Americans know that. I'm not sure the science education is up to snuff in the USA.

The Americans who don't consider climate change a big deal, generally live in the interior of the country without as many severe weather events. Generally speaking, these folks are misinformed voters and it's hurting our climate policy. They think: Why should they care about "3 degrees of [Fahrenheit] warming", especially because there's no fires or storms near them?

Seems Apple loves to Think Different every couple of years. They make these paradigm shifts so quickly, it's a blessing and a curse.

Renewables paired with batteries can improve grid resilience, actually. Distribution of generators means less loss in the wires travelling, batteries paired with renewables to provide overnight power and load-smoothing, these are good things. Renewables also are very predictable, so you can use a little natural gas to supplement at night while you build out batteries and more wind. Solar will take care of our day-time needs no problem, it's the overnight stretches and the wind-less winters where nuclear would really shine.

Yes! This is the exact reason I drive an old car (2008 Prius with 180k miles!). I could buy a new vehicle like a Black Model 3, but then I'd have to go through the hassle of buying and insuring a new car, and then I'd be nervous about scraping it on a sidewalk or getting bumped by a car door. Or what if the fancy new vehicle has software or hardware problems and I have to send it back to the shop for months?

Why can't we acknowledge the simple fact: some kids are smarter, they learn faster, they remember better?

I went to gifted and talented programs, and even there I felt like the pace was slow and easy for the top kids. If you put those kids into classes with even less academically apt, less focused children, those top kids are going to be bored out of their mind and wasting their time.

Do we truly want to waste the time of our most bright young minds? Do we want to squander their potential when they pick up 1+1=2 in 10 seconds, but it takes other kids 10 minutes? Do we have to force our teachers to make 4-5 different lesson plans, 1 for the lowest, 1 for the highest, and a couple others for the mid-tiers? We're already asking too much of teachers, give them smaller classes with less of a range of aptitude.

1 day vs 1 week: wouldn't that make them a 5X engineer? That's half of the advertised 10X...

Assuming there are multiple breakthroughs on the research, design, and scale-up phase, fusion will only help us in a couple decades, put on the brakes is a 2020/2030s task. Putting on the brakes means slowing down, which means decarbonizing power, transport, industry, and agriculture, amongst other things. We don't need fusion to do that, we need to transform our current system. Fusion could be nice as a future-fuel, perhaps it could power carbon sequestration efforts. But unless we put on the brakes NOW with what we have, this car is going to crash.

Ooooh boy, the islands set-up is super fun! England is mega OP on that scenario, and if you get Great Lighthouse? My god, so broken :)

One thing with the speed of AI turns, you may be able to go into the advanced settings and turn on "quick combat" and "quick movement" settings. These take away the combat movement animations and help speed up the game a little bit (sorry, I didn't run the benchmarks, haha).

Enjoy your naval victories, admiral!

Juniors are beginners, learners, apprentices, and are bound to make mistakes and design things poorly. The issue is there are so few high-quality engineers relative to the demand, and it's hard to prove who is high-quality before they're onboard for a few months. So, if someone is high-quality, you really don't want to lose them, so you promote them, pay them more, try your best to keep them on-board. There's a benefit to elevating them out of the weeds, because often they can glance at the weeds and tell someone else how to clean it up easily, without spending their effort to actually do it.

Furthermore, they can glance at 10 patches of weeds, 10 junior engineers, and find the couple that need more guidance than the others. They can leverage their knowledge through others, assessing their strengths/weaknesses as coders in ways juniors never could.

Wow, tell us how you really feel. How much have you used R and Python? Maybe those data scientists would prefer if you didn't viscerally hate the main data/statistics language and didn't call it useless for things beyond a narrow use-case. It may lead to better outcomes if people hated things less and tried to understand the valid use-cases, for instance the reams and reams of statistics that can be done on R where Python may lag behind, since R is the lingua franca of statistics and research.

The splintering into groups, the otherization of "not us", has existed for a very, very long time. Chimpanzees brutally murder other groups of chimps, females and children alike, and they have even been seen eating their enemies' corpses raw.

For Homo Sapiens with Neanderthals, we suspect they both inter-mingled, shared genetics via sex, as well as brutally attacked Neanderthals. Is it surprising that, along with mega-fauna and easily killed prey, Homo Sapiens seems to have killed many Neaderthal groups as well?

Is this that surprising, then, when Homo Sapiens attacks other groups of Homo Sapiens? When humans have seen those evil "others", it usually leads to violence and domination by one party. Look at colonization of the Americas, enslavement, genocide, justified by religion, profits, "self defense," manifest destiny -- any excuse will do if it's just "the others."

So, from a historical and biological lens, I'd say current echo chambers are not surprising, they're an extension or outgrowth from very ingrained biological reactions.

I absolutely adore Civ V, it's one of my top played games of all time (behind SC1, SC2, and now Dominion the card game). I play an Earth style map, large size, with 10-15 other Civs, and just go to town on Science/Industry. I love to play as Babylon, Korea, Egypt, and Poland, and I love to play on Emperor (Difficulty 6). I've tried playing other Civs and on Other difficulties, but this set-up of "strong civ" on level 6 is a nice mixture of ease/challenge. I also love the raging barbarian and random personality settings, they really add an element of chaos and unpredictability to the AI's and the early-mid game expansion and wars.

One of my all-time favorite starts was as Poland with 4 salt resources next to Warsaw. Salt is such a baller resource because it's a luxury good, but it also allows the creation of a mine which boosts production, and production is super key in Civ. I could blast out wonders and the cutting-edge buildings in 5-10 turns, and my tech lead meant almost none of the wonders were unavailable. Don't you just love having 20 wonders in your capital by the end?

CCP being a more or less reasonable ruling body: where does the Genocide of the Uighurs fit in with them being "reasonable"?

I think the internet evolved around and past blogs. They still exist, but much more entertaining forms of content, which use a lot more data and tech to host, have come to dominate. Think of the percentage internet mind-share web blogs had in 1995 vs. 2021, this seems to be mostly what folks are nostalgic for. Now there are hundreds of online news sources, hundreds of forums and games and billions of hours of video content.

The old Internet, the way it used to be, will survive in its niche, but we can't kid ourselves that 99% of people want to read technical blogs.

And even so, while I'm in that 1%, I find blogs overly simplistic, too focused on self-help, DIY, end your procrastination, here's why my chosen tool/kit/library is the best -- these are profoundly uninteresting. Every time a Paul Graham post rockets to the top of HN, I roll my eyes. Out of all the writing and profundity of the history of civilization, this is what we worship?

This reminds me of the false-positive vs false-negative dilemma faced in medical testing. Either you optimize for low cost and convenience, or for catching true-positives or true-negatives. For HIV testing for instance, if someone does test HIV-positive falsely, their changed safer behavior in the short-term wouldn't harm anyone, and follow-up tests could catch that they're actually negative. But if we falsely say someone does not have cancer, when they do, it could grow a lot in the short-term before symptoms arise and another test is given. They may also use a lot of unnecessary care trying to diagnose the issue after that false-negative cancer test.

What's the right solution? It's case by case, down to a mixture of morality and expertise to decide.

Seems these tech algorithms often generate a lot of false-positives wrongfully, or that's what's posted online afterwards. It'd be interesting to dig into the numbers for various platforms, see if they're falsely negative for spam accounts and bad actors. We wouldn't hear posts on HN about spam bots that cut into FB's bottom line, would we?

The first chart you posted is global emissions. If you break out Europe and the US, you'll see our emissions-reductions efforts are in fact leveling off emissions, and in some countries reducing them. But globally speaking, China and India have energy impoverishment, they're still ramping up coal to provide lighting, A/C, refrigeration, and things we take for granted. This is expected and we can't fault them for providing basic utilities to their people.

Yeah, we're in pretty huge trouble. I'm definitely cynical in the short-term and medium-term, but I see potential for all these nascent technologies to work over the decades to save our bacon by 2100. Technology got us into this mess, but we're enslaved to our technology now, so we're going to just have to make better and better technology while being slightly more efficient and green-minded as well.

I fully agree, I think we could get bigger wins scaling up artificial meats than many other solutions we're spending money on, like hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or nuclear fusion. While those great technologies will be amazing in the future, we're overlooking what we can do now in the hopes of a big win later.

How can any healthcare professional, who has probably had multiple vaccines in the past, not take this Covid-19 vaccine? Isn't this akin to a tech worker using "password" as their PW?

How does the global job vacancy market look? Here in the US, a lot of local restaurants and retail stores are hiring; practically every place you enter has a NOW HIRING sign out front.

I'd say immigration would be a huge boon to many of these small businesses, but when I spoke to one restaurant owner, he bemoaned the labor shortage and a $15 minimum wage. It'd kill his prices, he'd lose customers. Then, in other rants, he's using all the Fox News lines about stealing our jobs, keep them out of our country, caravans, ugh.

He doesn't connect the dots and see how pivotal immigration is to the economy. Either you have more babies, increase productivity, increase efficiency, or you allow immigrants in to make up the gap in the babies we're not having anymore. But no, the color of their skin, the difference of their culture, is enough to make economics less important than identity to the right wing in the USA.

Normal means that there is a bell-curve distribution of how insecure individuals would be; you'll see both more and less self-confident individuals. However, if you barrage the populace with photoshopped, top 1% in beauty, frankly unhealthy bodies, that distribution is going to move to the "right" towards more insecurity. I'd wager anyone susceptible to insecurity would experience a much greater level, than in a poor farming town where young people see almost no sexualized supermodels or celebrities to compare themselves to.

For example, take some 13 year old girl, probably a poor farmer, from Ireland in 1800. She will have seen almost no examples of the female body except her own, her peers rarely, and her familial elders. Then plop her down into today's world, and she'll definitely be barraged by all the most ridiculous images of flat stomachs, huge anatomical parts and tiny anatomical parts, immaculately photoshopped forms: she'll be made to feel less than them.

You don't have a problem with an increased level of emissions relative to other possible scenarios of our food system? Imagine if 50% of meat eaters ate 50% less meat, particularly beef. That'd lead to ~25% less meat emissions, aka ~15% less food-based emissions. It's a substantial step towards neutrality without anyone giving up a food permanently.

Long term, we're going to need lab or plant-based meats, since I doubt we'll ever convince people to give up their cherished food items unless economics makes it incredibly expensive.

Weight is certainly a variable one can point to, but EVs still end up VASTLY more energy efficient than ICE vehicles.

If you account for the hundreds of gallons of fuel inserted and burned by the ICE vehicle over time, much of which is then wasted as excess heat energy, the "weight" of an EV's battery starts to look pretty good.

The cops can decide to do anything with us, yes this is a sad reality of the USA. This doesn't mean we should invite them freely to search our possessions looking for ways to get kickbacks and meet their monthly quotas. Don't give the cops any information, don't give them opportunities to flex their institutional incentives. Just be a calm, boring, silent citizen.

It's just naivete. The man is a military Veteran, he believes in the system, maybe he's a Blue Lives Matter supporter. Does he know that highway robbery via cop occurs all the time? Does he know not to trust cops who get massive kickbacks? Does he know he's not obligated to answer their questions and submit to their searches without cause?

To me, this all says: naivete, a lack of learning. If the cops want to escalate it and infringe on his rights, he can then lawyer up and fight it.

Are you assuming we'd only use SRM and not continue the MASSIVE efforts already underway to lower yearly GHG emissions? And once we go zero, we're already seeing dozens of plans and ideas to handle what we've already emitted. Really, our current playbook is in its infancy and climate change is WAY out in front of us already due to our political and economic foot-dragging. I don't think we should nay-say anything nascent until we've found the most scale-able, economically viable solutions.