bin0

This is a good idea in theory, but I want you to think about how much difficulty we have with passwords all ready. Not confident this is workable.

Dividing household total (according to the EPA calculator: https://www3.epa.gov/carbon-footprint-calculator/) number of people, about 5.7 tons/person/yr. This is less than the American average. This is also considering that people in said household are required to drive long distances for work (I'm talking 300-mile distances several times per month). We do, however, drive mostly diesel. None of us are willing to give up our jobs. Transportation is most of our emissions; AC is the runner-up.

How about you?

> Look at what the world would look like if climate change is not prevented

I think global warming is over-exaggerated by alarmists who seek to push a political agenda. I'd say it's reasonable to say there's an issue, but certainly not of the magnitude many pretend. I hear 97% quoted a lot, but believe many are simply afraid to contradict the narrative blasted at every one from all major media outlets. 97% it may be, but it wouldn't be the first time the "scientific consensus" was wrong.

> You are in denial

Nope, see above

> we can't individually give up on our beef sandwich

I don't want to, and even if I do, someone else will feel like he is now able to emit more. As I said, tragedy of the commons. And I just don't buy the idea that our living spaces will "become uninhabitable". Why the predictions of a global desert? Greenhouses tend to be damp and flourishing.

> privileged people

I don't eat a ton of beef, but no, beef is relatively affordable (at least in America). But I do eat a lot more chicken, and not a ton of beef. With that said, I want a good steak once every few months and a burger once a week. More importantly, I don't want the government saying "thou shalt" about my beef consumption, nor do I want people finger-wagging at me about it.

America can sustainably raise cattle. She has requisite land. It seems that people are saying that because everyone else can't do it, we need to change.

This is also the tragedy of the commons. If I emit less, others will feel they can emit more. I refuse to be "the sucker" that loses this game theory problem. With that said, I don't emit that much (all things considered). My biggest carbon outputs are driving (which I have to do) and air conditioning (I will not give this up; come live in hundred-degree Texas summers without it and then tell me to give it up). So I don't consider myself to be a catastrophic contributor to any thing. Besides, would money not be better spent curing cancer? I'm not sure that I believe the "impending doom" stuff about global warming. Humans are the most remarkably adaptable species on the planet; we will adapt to a hotter earth if need be.

I agree it's a much better standard, but it's not a minor sacrifice for every one. There are a lot of old things which will be discarded and contribute to e-waste, though that may be somewhat offset by one connector. I wish people didn't go quite so scorched-earth on one port, especially apple. Just offer both for a while.

Yeah, but for now, I need something other than just USB-C. I don't want to replace all my peripherals, nor do I want to carry dongles.

Please give it real ports. Not just USB-C. And please make it not catch fire. And the keyboard not break. And the CPU not thermal-throttle terribly. And Nvidia GPU option. And a screen that has a reasonably-durable ribbon cable. And a keyboard that's not trash.

Cattle likely won't change. I'm going to keep eating meat. And deforestation may not change due to exploding population. However, that doesn't mean we can't capture carbon. I've seen numerous promising business ideas to capture carbon and convert it into useful materials; I think it's more feasible to do that than to force veganism on every one.

Malthusianism more or less espouses an equilibrium - short on food, people die, more food available, people have more kids, cycle repeats. Not that all the humans need to die. There's also a great deal of difference between "I believe there may be a lack of food" (but not passing a value judgement on the situation) and "I believe people need to die" (claiming the "greater good").

"In the North Korean capital city of Pyongyang, Western news articles reported that a hidden camera was placed to catch citizens with improper hairstyles. This was part of a television programme broadcast at the same time as Let's Trim Our Hair in Accordance with the Socialist Lifestyle. The offenders would then be interviewed by the presenter and asked to explain themselves. Their name, address and workplace would be announced to deter others from being embarrassed and ostracized."

From the article. Also, this comparison is like saying that Soviet Russia producing propaganda was a sign that the gulags didn't work.

Jesus Christ, you're not serious, are you? How evil can you get? The ends do not justify the means.

> cannot be fixed without the entire planet committing to it.

And if the entire planet will not commit as you desire? Then what will you do? War is the ultimate extension of any policy; will you personally go kill other people because they burn oil?

I've got nothing against renewables, but don't like this kind of absolutist rhetoric.

> rapid depopulation

What exactly do you mean by this, and how would you accomplish it? Assuming, that is, that nuclear doesn't work (for whatever reason), as you've drawn a dichotomy.

> The only way this is happening is if the planet gets depopulated of humans rapidly.

Please don't tell me you're one of those "earth would be better of were we all dead" people. I can't stand that kind of post-modernist, nihilistic garbage. I'm not mister optimist, but still, that's way too far.

Also, that kind of rhetoric is going to end up being a justification for some one very evil doing some thing very bad.

> The only way to fix this problem is to stop using fossil fuels. There is no politically viable way for this to happen.

Eeh, wrong. The fact that we're not there yet doesn't mean we can't get there. At some point, pulling energy out of thin air will end up cheaper than doing expensive drilling operations.

Post-modernists are the philosophical equivalent of the kid who gets mad when he loses at Monopoly, flips the board, and walks away.

It's about darn time. Regardless of the whole "nuke" situation, Iran has been a thorn in the side of companies for years. Between them and North Korea, civilian operations are regularly crippled and data stolen. I even know a company that got ransomware twice, both times from the North Koreans (company paid the first time, so they went back after them). Most of the time, companies don't widely disclose this (except to affected parties), so you don't hear about it, but it's very much out there and widespread (according to the FBI agents involved in this case and what I have heard). China and Russia do it too.

The FBI classifies such things as acts of terror, yet we have done nothing to protect our own companies. If Iran wants to keep attacking our nation to compensate for lost oil money, it is about time we start crippling their infrastructure until they simply have no way to send a packet to the outside world.

Proud firefox convert. I used chrome for quite a number of years, but their quantum update convinced me to move (though I've seen other posts mentioning it was seriously buggy at first, I didn't switch right away). As others have mentioned, containers are a bit of a killer app. Plus, firefox is going to keep ad-blocker support. It's not perfect, and chrome is probably more stable. I've gotten memory leaks, crashes (mostly on mobile), and one weird resize issue on i3. However, none of them are critical, and I'm willing to put up with them to avoid google's cancerous garbage.

Also, I never thought I'd say this, but good on Apple for maintaining webkit. It's a darn good engine, and I'm happy to have a third player. Plus, it's easier to wrap it with your own custom browser (see surf).

There's one piece of feedback; I wish people could do with firefox what they do with chrome. Maybe then the next cool browser could be based on firefox.

Yikes. I'm not that old... right? Right?

Site got slashdotted. Wayback machine copy: http://web.archive.org/web/20190622083122/https://noageismin...

Also, can some one explain the "diversity link" on a bunch of these?

> all people

Really? All? And if not all, are we back to the ADA reasonable accommodation standard? What bugs me about the "accessible or bust" people is that they will deprive 99% of the population of something because 1% can't have it. There's some on-going case about university courses in California of some sort being publicly released but "not being accessible". So now, no one can access it because they got taken to court. It costs zero dollars (or very few) to publish existing material to the world; it costs quite a bit more to add stuff to it.

Maybe a great OS should be available which can run quickly without accessibility features, but slower if they are explicitly installed by an end user. Like it or not, it's a balancing act between how much we're willing to give up and for how few people.

Probably because most personal assistant people are female. Women are perceived as more helpful and less threatening, largely because we aren't wired to have to fight them. This was tested by Amazon and Microsoft when creating their respective assistants; consumers prefer women as assistants.

You can say this is a bad thing, but very few people want their voice assistant to finger-wag at them.

Any chance you can provide more information? Linode customer as well; slightly concerned.

Companies make unenforceable claims all the time. That's why we've got courts. Theyr'e almost certainly never going to take any one to court, because if they did, it would get tossed out. They can't pull the same "it's a license to a product" bs media services do. Though they still try with the driver. I think for now, they've just run the numbers and figured out it gives them slightly higher datacenter card sales.

I used to use google photos. But then, I found that it was building facial profiles of every one in my pictures, and creating "albums" thereof. I didn't ask for that, and it's creepy as all get-out. Good-bye, google photos.

From what I understand, whale oil is still one of the best choices in many machine applications (including cars) and wasn't really killed so much by synthetic lubricants as by the Endangered Species Act.

Some one quoted a number that you need about $1mm in income to be in the top 1%. You know what's perverse? "Qualified investor" mark is at $1mm net worth. The best way to make money is to invest what you have, and this blocks people out.

From what I understand, it might be possible to set up a partnership which does investments, and pool money from about 50 partners. That would allow a decent angel investment group with a few-thousand-dollar buy in. Why don't more people do this? It's very doable to learn about how to read a business plan, read financials, etc. Though it's a risk, it might be helpful to allow the middle class to make informed investments to grow wealth.

From what I understand, the helium shortage is mostly due to current price. Price will go up, more plants will go up, and there is plenty in natural gas deposits. The feds have just been dumping at artificially low prices. Prices are already increasing, and NASCO just put up a new plant a few months ago.

Random, only slightly-related question: has any one used suckless' surf? I've seen it recommended by the hyper-minimalist nuts, but am more looking into it so I can tweak it easily. I figure it would be a lot easier than trying to slog through webkit, gecko, servo, blink, etc. as it is so much simpler.

Let's say he takes you up on that:

* closes all canadian offices

* shuts down all canadian datacenters

* moves everything back to America

What will canadians do? Easy, keep using Facebook with slightly higher latency. He'll put up a bunch of servers right across the border; done. Unless canada wants to pull a China and start censoring the traffic of her citizens, she'd be out of options.

Not sure that this would be legal in many countries. Not showing up is not a crime. Besides, were I Facebook, I would put my best men to work on anti-censorship technology posthaste. Airlift in slips of paper with tor bridges written on them; I don't care. They would figure something out.

> If every single little country was calling on them all the time, then yeah maybe, but this seems like one of those "pick and choose" situation where you should send the CEO and Founder.

So legal authority is determined by the size of the nation? Or the number? They either can or cannot compel him to do so, regardless of size or number.

It depends, are you trying to say a head of state is better than an American citizen? Does not every man have equal intrinsic worth? Are you trying to imply that some foreign underling ought to have power to summon a sovereign American at his beck and call?