581 karma · joined December 24, 2008
[0] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/
[1] https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2018/11/26/epis...
[0] https://www.passwordstore.org/ [1] https://github.com/passff/passff#readme
And where do you stop? Are all doctors working for big pharma related to opioid crisis complicit? what about people working for firms related to the financial crisis? engineers working for any company that suffered data breaches due to lax data security? what about engineers working for companies that haven't suffered data breaches yet but might have lax security? scientists working to certain biotech firms related to GM? engineers working for car manufacturers that cheated emission norms? engineers working for telecom/internet service providers that cheat users by throttling/net neutrality etc. etc. etc.
Typo, and HN doesn't allow me to update it now. Anyway, my point was that in the past 4 years we achieved 20GW and we expect to achieve 80GW in the next 4 years.
We don't need reporters anymore because we have the internet? :)
I won't engage further. You're free to believe what you want, but here's what I would like to say - You can interpret the current situation however you want, but others might disagree. And, anyone that disagrees with you or criticizes the govt, isn't necessarily the opposition or the enemy. - The govt is not a victim of opposition's hate, opposition and press are free to and supposed to criticize the govt, and they always have.
2018: 138
2017: 136
2016: 133
A good rule to follow, formulate an opinion after you gain enough facts to argue the other side, else you'll keep seeing only what you want to see.
> There have also been tremendous investments from the government in green tech, like solar.
The goal setup was a 100GW of solar capacity by 2022. It was about 2KW in 2015 and is about 20KW in 2018. We are most definitely not going to achieve the goal, perhaps not even get close. Lofty goal, sound familiar? I am sorry, I take lofty goals and promises of the Govt. with a pinch of salt until I see some actual implementation.
Now, here's where I disagree. The effects of extinction perhaps seem more pronounced with some species, rather than others. For instance, take coral reefs and how these could trigger a cascade of events affecting a bunch of species like small fish all the way up to human industry and life. Same with say bees, where they potentially can affect agriculture and humans in a huge way considering they are instrumental for pollination.
I suppose people don't like the idea of incurring the cost of efforts to prevent a species from extinction when they think its simply a moral thing to do, but in reality I suppose everything from climate change to saving endangered species is all just an effort towards self preservation for humans, perhaps simply branded differently.
Sure, we can call it save the planet and feel important but say if the ecology balance is broken down, food chains are broken up, its humans who get adversely affected, with perhaps lot of other species but there are going to be lots of species that will do just fine, some will perhaps even thrive. In other words, life goes on, without humans, no one cares.
Disclaimer: Few ideas borrowed generously from George Carlin's take on save the planet. Funny but wise, I think.
Surely there are things like latitudinal gradients of biodiversity, historical context of the same European countries colonizing and stealing wealth from all these other countries not too long ago. And, of course there's also the fact that European quality of life is perhaps better now, in 2018, move the needle back or forth by like few hundred years (that's a microsecond in scale of ecology) and see how things change.
For e.g. lets consider hunting or poaching, if a species has a population of a few thousands, and even if we kill a handful a day, we will wipe out every one of the species in a few months. And, sure, you might argue a species I never knew existed went extinct, why do I care? Well, simply because the at the this high rate of change, this is equivalent to simply eliminating a species from the ecology overnight, and that has consequences in food chains, ecological balances and frankly, consequences that we can't completely foresee.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but since you invoke a corporation example, protecting endangered species is like anti-trust laws. One species/company has dominance, power and greed, but we make laws to level the playing field for the currently weaker/smaller species/companies, which in turn benefits all ecology/consumers/markets better.
This is perhaps just one use case but it's hardly surprising that people now want to go back to way it was before. I still use my smart phone because it makes my life a lot more convenient in many other ways but I definitely understand if someone would find it compelling enough to stop using a smart phone.
But, it does make me think, if I just want to connect to the internet, play music/podcasts, click a pic once a while etc. do I really need a device that's GPS enabled, bluetooth enabled, has NFC, accelorometers, face recognition, multicore processors etc. and costs a fortune ;)
I suppose its a good way to test one's position for consistency for such subjects. Apply the same argument of freedom/regulation to subjects like free speech, guns, privacy laws, drugs, throw in any other issue that's close to you etc.
This is off topic. How can one get into that line of work/volunteering? Any particular organizations? Any particular skills ? How can one get started with this kind of work/volunteering?
And, I don't share the same sympathy for the doordash drivers. I was already charged a delivery fee and a service fee separately, why is it still my responsibility to make sure the drivers get paid enough and not doordash's. Besides, the idea of tip for me is that I pay extra if I am happy with the service, and now I am expected to mindlessly pre-pay a tip before knowing if the service is going to be good or not. A reason why I prefer ubereatz, its a rating system but after the delivery.
For instance, there's a a particular dish served at a local restaurant that I like, and I recently noticed that it is $11.99 at the restaurant but in doordash it's priced $13.99, delivery fee of $4.99, service fees of $1.88 and optional but pre-selected tip of $3.81. And, of course taxes in addition to this. At this point in some cases, its perhaps more economical to take an uber/lyft to the restaurant and back.
A model based on a training set of 12, surely encompasses all biases accurately of a population of 10s of millions.
India is a huge country with a huge population and a rapidly growing economy and a domestic market. Even if it was true a decade or two ago, should we still keep assuming that anything that affects the Indian IT industry is caused solely by the outsourcing industry.
Surely HN can stop having the same conversation every time anything regarding India and IT comes up. A claim like - All engineers/engineering effort/R&D in country X is obviously substandard based on my anecdotal evidence - followed by a discussion treating it as a valid argument.
The more I look at diversity and evolution of life on Earth, it seems like "intelligent life" as we know it is just a inevitable consequence of evolution, given enough time, perhaps.