1,468 karma · joined January 2, 2016
Glad the author sees into that very clearly.
* Could be an interesting art game tho as someone pointed out below
Everything that you're saying is true but they are incremental changes. I would put a bet that within 10-20 years massive market regulation + carbon tax will be forced onto industries across the world - that will be because climate change will be such a huge multiplier of horrific things we'll be forced to. But by then it's likely too late for 1/2 of the world's population to escape unharmed.
In fact I increasingly suspect that climate change is already causing horrific events around the world that we are ignoring because we are in the first world. It would be interesting to go around agricultural areas in the hottest areas of the world and see if food insecurity is increasing. I would bet that we're already seeing huge changes, but because we're insulated from it, we're ignoring it.
Basically we're looking at the same facts, but I think you are a huge optimist.
I don't think all prevailing narratives in the media are false. The idea that most of our industry benefits from climate change being considered an "externality" is true. Anyone who benefits from this unpriced "externality" has full interest in keeping it that way. And that's probably 90% of economic activity.
I have little doubt that the innovation will come from industry, but the issue is that as long as we consider all of this an externality the market has no forcing function to change.
On the Davos crowd who goes around talking about climate change while jetting around, that is a PR effort that's to be expected. In the end it doesn't matter. Since it's an economic externality to heat up the planet, we all benefit and get destroyed by it at the same time. A billionaire can be making great talks about climate change but it is impossible for him to achieve net-zero when so much of our economic activity relies on pricing climate change at 0$. The exception to this is literally 1 billionaire, who's invested humongous amounts of net worth into Tesla.
Either way, there is 0 ways for the market to solve climate change when it is obvious that climate change is not priced into economic activity at all.
Cargo cults are antivaxx, anti-climate change. Things that are obviously not true, but that many people want to believe so they do. The issue is that this kind of thinking is actually default, which I've grown to understand recently. IE many people who are in favor of good things don't really have a deep understanding of why that is - they've just adopted an opinion that sounds good to them. This is particularly pronounced in ie economics and politics, where understanding is extremely shallow.
Also Netflix's obsession with 4K is slightly anti-scientific and counterproductive imo. They are really boxing in their content creators at times, plus 4K can't be resolved in a reasonably large television at a moderate distance from a couch anyway. 4K is the dumbest thing. There's one cinematographer who said for viewing even 1080p was pretty good, and hardly distinguishable from 4K - for CINEMA screens. HDR is cool tho.
That's an overwhelming majority. The 'doubt' is media-created FUD being replicated to pretend to be an issue. The issue is not the population, who overwhelmingly agree this is a problem. The problem is the ruling class does not want anything sudden to be done that would endanger their investments, and rapid change away from fossil fuels and other climate-change causing investments is a danger to their interests.
A huge amount of issues in the world are manipulated to look like issues by the media. Don't fall for it!
Even black and white films, if you see an old nitrate print that’s been well preserved, it will be incredibly sharp. And I’m talking about stuff from the 1920s - 1930s. You might not know about this because the digital/tv versions of these films might be lower quality. But film capture technology has been sharp for 100 years.
The exception to this is ofc stuff that was shot for television on video since its invention. But that would be mostly television shows or live broadcasts.
Liverpool clearly lost interest in the World Heritage state and decided to go in another direction. Have the cake and eat it too.
I remember this happening at the time and my impression was that it was happening without a doubt. Particularly when they announced the results a few days after the election.
My thinking at the time was inside Pfizer the idea of turning an election on this data was deemed too controversial - they would forever be associated with Trump if he won again. That might cause issue with the Dems.
No idea but unless there’s proof of something shadier? That would be my guess - just an American corporation making sure it doesn’t piss off half the country.
Let’s not forget they were the single most important player in the whole VR Revolution. Oculus took the huge improvements that were made inside valve in VR and took the team to FB. But pretty much all the major breakthroughs were done at Valve, not oculus.
Im 31 and working in the field I’ve just been enjoying the first few months of professional stability. In my career. Yes it’s great that I can finally do that, but like someone else said I wouldn’t recommend the first 10 years to anyone.
You can do this using cryptocurrency that's being loaned out to you under the protocols of a decentralised application. No centralised control, everything is automatic, and there are no central servers - you can do all this just by running code as smart contracts on a blockchain.
It’s better because instead of transfer wise controlling the money from point A to point B and taking a percentage as a fee (0.1% or whatever) you have 10 000 people who build a liquidity pool where the money gets transferred from point A to B. All those 10 000 people share the 0.1% fee. Maybe less, in an extremely competitive space.
Basically all the centralisation, the app takes a fee bullshit goes away, and instead you get 10 000 or 100k or 1mil people all sharing their money and receiving part of the fee.
The dev can also write into the smart contract that he gets paid a percentage as well. Boom, you have a transferwise competitor with 100 mil in liquidity within days with 0 server costs. You can do this right now with a few days/weeks work on a decentralised application. You don’t think that’s big? Any app that “takes a cut” in exchange for having written a few thousand lines of code and maintaining server infrastructure will be challenged by decentralised alternatives.