Did you see https://www.autohotkey.com/docs/v2/v2-changes.htm?
1,717 karma · joined February 20, 2014
Should the title of this HN entry be updated accordingly?
You're looking at the wrong statistic, my friend. Climate is a global issue, so global emissions matter more than US emissions. Try this graph, from your same source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi...
(Of course CO2 declined in 2020-2021 due to the pandemic shutdown. Unfortunately, 2023 global CO2 emissions will likely continue the prior growth trend.)
Your comment that the proper application of regulation, carbon capture, and nuclear energy would fuel declines is fine and I support all of the above. However, climate deniers and opportunists cherry-pick data and stall needed regulation in the name of politics and economics.
Carbon Engineering-type solutions and generalized R&D into massive climate capture is absolutely necessary, but has little to no business model behind it without a carbon tax or other market-driven incentive. Again, climate deniers lambaste government-funded climate R&D and free-market incentives (i.e., accurately pricing carbon) as either pork-barrel politics or unnecessary and broad overreach. I'm being kind, because people at the extremes use much more dire language.
Carbon Engineering is a fascinating case study and odd place to hang your hat. They are a startup, with 142 employees on LinkedIn and their flagship plant "is expected to capture one million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually when complete."[1] Humans emit approximately 35 billion metric tons of carbon annually, so it would take 35,000 Carbon Engineering plants in production to get us to carbon neutrality. And even then, our atmospheric CO2 is still 100 ppm higher than it was in 1960[2]. Who pays for building those plants? At best-case cost of $94/ton, who pays the $94M/year operating cost per plant, or $3.3 trillion per year?
Actually reversing the carbon impact requires us to massively reduce emissions and massively invest in carbon capture. We're not doing either.
Nuclear is a phenomenal technology, but a political and regulatory nightmare. Thankfully it's being re-thought, but that will take time - as will the process of building them. Significant additional nuclear power won't be connected to the grid for a minimum of 7 years, maybe 10. It's just not enough.
This is why "all of the above" is such an important concept. We need to invest in research, revise regulations, create market incentives, and use wind and solar that are available today to feed our growing need for power instead of building new coal and gas fired plants.
But there will never be the political will to do all of that when people delude themselves to believe carbon is declining (it's not), solutions will appear on their own (they won't), we aren't affecting the climate (we are), and the drive to shift to a lower carbon footprint is because a cabal of elites want to take over the world (they probably are, but that's always been the case and that doesn't mean climate change isn't real).
[1] https://carbonengineering.com/ [2] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Engineering#Pilot_plant...
"they want to flip the economic system..." https://www.butajape.com/comic/conspiracies/
And "of course the climate changes--it always has" https://m.xkcd.com/1732/
What you fail to recognize, or refuse to recognize, is that global conspiracies to take over the world are completely unnecessary to explain everything you mention. Just pretend for a moment that human behavior really is warming the planet and, if continued, will have devastating effect. Some people would freak out. Some would not care because they'll be dead before they feel the impact. And some people would tell others what to do but hypocritically continue to act in their own self-interest.
The harsh truth is that conspiracies rarely pass Occam's Razor.
Meta accounts only require an email address. There is no real name requirement, which they explicitly state in their help page[1] so this isn't a violation of the TOS.
[1] https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/, see "Setting up your Meta account with email" section.
Also: despite the frequent comments by folks here that did not watch the announcement, this is a business-focused device first. It is not targeted towards consumers or gamers. That is the Quest 2, which will continue to be sold.
From https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/#:~:t....
> Email: You can only create one Meta account per email address. First and last name: We recommend using your real name in case you need to recover your account or manage your store purchases, but it is not required.
If you have an old Oculus account, it can be converted directly into a Meta account.
See https://www.meta.com/help/accounts/set-up-meta-account/ and https://www.oculus.com/blog/getting-started-with-meta-accoun....
Note that it will be far easier to convert your Oculus account before 1 January 2023.
What would be the logic that a calm, rational, 3rd party (that could even be using a computer to calculate odds) would use that would justify risking $100K+ on that hand?
Also, don't you think that if someone's cheating they would be careful to play relatively conservatively so as not to cause this kind of attention?
> Global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years. The peaks and valleys track ice ages (low CO2) and warmer interglacials (higher CO2).
Unfortunately, it continues:
> During these cycles, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm. The increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. In fact, on the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present looks virtually instantaneous.
(Note the last dot on the chart in the upper-right corner representing 2021's average value of 414.7 ppm. This corresponded to a time roughly 3 million years ago when ocean levels were 16 to 82 feet higher than today.)
[1] https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
The commenter I replied to said "I’m unsure about if ... the earth [is] finding a new equilibrium point potentially on the order of hundreds to thousands of years..."
I pointed to NASA measurements showing that atmospheric CO2 is increasing linearly and has been for some time. Whether its increase accelerates or decelerates or remains flat depends largely on many unpredictable factors (primarily humans).
Consequently (I tried to answer) - no, the climate will not find an equilibrium ("a state of rest or balance due to the equal action of opposing forces") as long as one of the primary forces driving the system out of balance continues to change (i.e., we keep dumping more CO2 into the air) without some countervailing force changing at roughly the same rate. Today there is no countervailing force, so there will be no equilibrium.
I don't see how your comment ("this equilibrium you're chasing"?) relates at all.
The amount of atmospheric CO2 continues to grow linearly[1] at best. The earth's climate may find a new equilibrium when CO2 stabilizes, or it may not. The resulting equilibrium may be conducive to human life, or it may not. But until that number flattens, we can only expect more change. And, of course, that is only one of the many stressors on the climate.
[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-...
This argues for federal legislation that defines marriage simply as a compact between two consenting adults with some basic legal record keeping.
The /impact/ of that marriage can be both federal and state (e.g., federal vs. state tax laws).
Individual state laws defining marriage could mean your next of kin could change if you die in the wrong state. That way lies dragons.
All three of these are off the charts.
If you can see red coils on your mom's stove under the glass, it's not induction.
I loved that he extended the concept of identity as an individualized pattern of events and activities to the real world: the innovation of face masks with seemingly random but unique patterns to foil facial recognition systems but still create a unique identity.
Like you say, the story itself had horrible flaws (I'm still not sure if I liked it in its totality, and I'm a Stephenson fan since reading Snow Crash on release in '92), but still had fascinating and thought provoking content.
Neil Stephenson covered this briefly in "Fall; or Dodge In Hell." So much 'net content was garbage, AI-generated, and/or spam that it could only be consumed via "editors" (either AI or AI+human, depending on your income level) that separated the interesting sliver of content from...everything else.
Major shareholders don't care who owns Twitter. They don't give permission. They only care about the return on their investments. They often represent limited partners or are part of a stock fund, and have their own fiduciary responsibilities. Or they just want to make their own money.
In this instance, major shareholders would go to the Board and say, "show me your plan to increase the stock price to over $54/share within 12 months." This could be by finding another buyer, having a roadmap to introduce new products/enter a new market, raise prices, or even acquire another company. Shareholders would evaluate the execution risk of said plan vs. the zero risk of "Elon gives me $54/share tomorrow" and decides what is best for them.
The shareholder then weighs in to the board: "I don't believe in your plan, if it comes to a vote I will vote in favor of Elon's offer." Repeat that for all of the major shareholders.
In this specific case, from everything I've read Twitter had no compelling roadmap, no other buyers willing to make an immediate offer, no strategy, troubled leadership, a 10% decline in stock price, and prevailing economic headwinds. No one believed they could beat Elon's offer.
So the board looks at the intent of the preponderance of the shareholders and rapidly realizes that they would lose any battle for control of the company. It would cause huge distraction and possibly open them up to lawsuits for not meeting their fiduciary responsibilities.
The board then goes back to Elon and decides to accept the offer.
Their interests are (generally) aligned with their statements, in that they want to find people who will be a good fit for the school and want to stay there. That means academically and also culturally.
As an aside, my kid got into several schools and was rejected by several others. She chose a small private campus you've probably never heard of that was a perfect fit - and she has thrived like I can't believe. They also gave her a scholarship that made the cost lower than almost anywhere else, including public/state universities.
The real tragedy is people who only look at top 10 schools and feel they're a failure if they don't get in. There really is a school for everyone. And I'm not sure what "government" has to do with it, most universities are either private or run by independent boards of regents or trustees.
The admission officer was describing someone who shows no passion towards anything, and only does it because they're supposed to - which often includes why they're applying to college, because they're supposed to. Is it an idiotic bias to think that someone without passion in a subject area will be less successful than someone with passion and direction?
In case you missed the earlier part of the comment, kids with high GPAs, test scores, etc. - the "grinder" you describe, regardless of race - fit into a different category of a likely successful student that they also look for. To elaborate though, there are lots of "grinders" and differentiation still matters. Are they grinding in math and CS, and also have a Github and contribute to OSS and are applying to the college of engineering? That's better than someone with super high scores but nothing else, because there are probably lots of other applicants with even higher scores. Competing on only one axis is hard.
Like it or not, in a limited resource like seats at a competitive school, admissions officers are looking for small signals. It may seem unfair, but it's what I was told.
And as for the evidence, I'm merely passing on the information I was told by the people making the decisions. They hold the evidence (if it's even an evidence-based decision) not me. Feel free to have your own discussions with them if you'd like, I've generally found admission officers to be extremely friendly and open about their criteria.
I recently saw one child into college, and have another on the way. I've spoken to many admissions officers, counselors, and similar folks making admissions choices for public and private universities.
To a one, they all claim to be looking for two things: (1) students who will succeed at their university, and (2) a diverse range of students to avoid a monoculture.
This means they try to look at the "whole student." For some students, that means academics and test scores to show academic prowess. For others, it's working summers to pay for their college to show it's a personally meaningful step for them. For others, it's being a primary caregiver to siblings or parents while still meeting college requirements to show grit and determination. For others, it's demonstrating consistent progress in pursuing a passion (e.g., volunteering or music or art) with a trajectory that continues through college.
Admission officers say they want a student body comprised of all of the above, and that's how they get the diverse range of students to create a dynamic learning environment.
Some of the least interesting students are "box checkers" who have a bunch of disconnected extra-curriculars that don't show passion, direction, or a proclivity towards success. If a student defines "success" as "getting into college," then what will they do once they get there? Probably flounder.
Test scores can be a useful data point towards determining collegiate success, but it certainly won't be the only one used. Nor will extra-curriculars or any other single factor.
The single biggest piece of advice for any applying student: create a narrative that shows how your activities (whatever they are) demonstrate why you will be a successful student that achieves your major-related goals. Your grades, scores, work life, home life, interests, and personal experiences should all be connected to show you are thoughtful, motivated, driven, and have your shit together. Do that, and you'll have the best chance of success at most admissions offices.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/05/17/us/fbi-hacker-flight-computer...
> During FBI interviews in February and March, the document says, Roberts told investigators he hacked into in-flight entertainment systems aboard aircraft. He claimed to have done so 15 to 20 times from 2011 to 2014.
> He also said, according to the document, that once he had hacked into the systems and then overwrote code, enabling him to issue a “CLB,” or climb, command.
> “He stated that he thereby caused one of the airplane engines to climb resulting in a lateral or sideways movement of the plane during one of these flights,” the document says.
If orbit is a marathon, two billionaires have made it to about the 10 mile mark, while the third one has run 112 successful marathons in a row.