throwaway-1209

Kinda obvious, though: it's not like Obama could realistically pledge more. He entered into this agreement unilaterally as it is, with no vote of Congress (treaties do require 2/3rds majority), so pledging the "fair share" would be politically risky at the time. The strategy was to get HRC elected, and get democratic majority in the House/Senate, and then pony up the funds. None of those things quite worked out the way establishment was hoping it would.

So now the only avenue available to address the issue is re-negotiation of the agreement. Assuming the world leaders do actually want to save the climate, and not just bilk the US out of $100B/yr, they have no choice but to negotiate.

NATO mandates that members of NATO spend at least 2% of their GDP on their own militaries. The vast majority of them do not, they just count on the US stepping in for free if shit hits the fan. The point of NATO is that countries keep up their militaries to the acceptable standard so as to lend a helping hand if the need arises, not that they contribute equally to the NATO's doughnuts budget.

That's some weird set of numbers you got there. But I got a better one: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-c....

>> That doesn't mean we should just roll over and give it all to them.

Unless you run an ad blocker and/or EFF Privacy Badger, that's exactly what you're doing. Your consent is not required. There are literally _dozens_ of companies that do this, Facebook and Google are just two of them. There were some initiatives in some states to apply a stiff tax to companies that trade in user data, but I don't know if they went anywhere. That's one tax I'd be in favor of, even though I'm not in favor of more taxes in general.

If by "citizen" you mean a "silicon valley yuppie", then sure. But then it's also considerably more than that. I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of people in this country are struggling as it is. You don't see them or hear from them, but they do vote. This is the direct result.

You guys need to pick which figure to quote. Here's a number from 2015, from NPR: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/12/459502597/....

Quote: "To help developing countries switch from fossil fuels to greener sources of energy and adapt to the effects of climate change, the developed world will provide $100 billion a year". And further: "Developed countries won inclusion of language that would up the ante in subsequent years," Chris explains, "so that financial aid will keep ramping up over time."

Or straight from the agreement: "Agreement shall set a new collective quantified goal from a floor of USD 100 billion per year, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries"

While that's $100B/yr from the "developed world" as a whole, we all know by the example of NATO what that _really_ means.

As a taxpayer in one of those states, I'm more worried about whether they plan to pony up the $100B/yr that the US was obliged to under the agreement. If they do, I'd like to know where it'll come from. And if they don't, then what exactly will this alliance do?

Further clarification, my bad: 0.3 degrees _greater_ warming if the US withdraws. Not 0.3 degrees total. The climate is warming, no one is disputing that. It's not warming anywhere near as quickly as models from 10 years ago predicted, though.

That's if _everyone_ withdraws. That's not what's happening. 0.3 degrees is if the US withdraws but everyone else proceeds as planned. But we aren't even withdrawing per se. Immediately after announcing his decision, Trump also announced his willingness to re-negotiate the accords on better terms (by which I think he means not spending $100/B a year on something that other countries aren't even legally bound by).

And climate models predict things just fine as long as you pick the ones that are somewhat accurate in retrospect. That's not what prediction is. Prediction is when, like Al Gore, you say that in 15 years we'll all be underwater, and it doesn't happen. If you bet your money on the accuracy of the current models you will lose.

Pros: the US was signing up for a _minimum_ of $100B/yr in foreign aid to help others implement the accords. When you're up to your ears in debt that's kind of stupid.

Cons: estimates say that the climate will be warmer by 0.3 degrees Celsius by 2100. Assuming estimates are in fact right (which they historically haven't been) this could have devastating effects elsewhere in the world.

Ballsy move. I strongly suspect this could jeopardize the massive federal subsidies that keep Tesla afloat (and probably Solar City, too). $7.5K per car (which essentially amounts to a 10% per-unit discount out the door) times 84K cars is $630M.

Your activity is being tracked irrespective of whether or not you have a Facebook account. Google and Facebook will track you anyway and then correlate your browsing patterns with those of other people (about whom they know more) and infer everything there is to know about you.

Thanks for the suggestion, just from the screenshots it looks pretty good. Will give it a try.

I can tell you exactly why I'm not using FF: due to extremely poor support for switching between multiple profiles. Oh, it's possible, but compared to Google's seamless support for the same, its very awkward, even if you install an extension (which is only available from a third party).

The US is the same way. A significant fraction of US population thinks everything was invented here, and the US single handedly won WW2.

Is it just me or the "trillion dollar" figure is completely unrealistic? I mean, even if there are no price wars (and they are inevitable), there isn't any realistic possibility to capture all of IT spend. With price wars in the picture, we'll see a race to the bottom which will erase much of the margin, and make some of the "table stakes" capabilities unprofitable to some of the players, further cutting into the profits.

Standard strategy. Google has the info, they data mine this to death on a yearly basis only to find that when confounding factors are accounted for there's no "wage gap". That's not something you can publicly say though, if you don't want to be lynched by an angry mob. The only gap they could find was that women are less likely to nominate themselves for a promo, and they've been encouraging them to self nominate for many years. Not a heck of a lot the company can do if you don't want more responsibility though.

I'm not talking about Go. Google fibers are C++.

I wish Google would open source / standardize their implementation of green threads ("fibers" as they're called internally). You basically write linear programs with those (with proper stack traces etc) and they're cooperatively concurrent in user space, possibly over a fixed size preemptively concurrent kernel thread pool. Very nifty and simplifies things a lot. Never seen anything like it on the outside.

Dude lasted less than a year at Google, and the only thing he produced was a huge google doc containing a diatribe on how wrong Google's approach to software development was. Googlers had a good laugh and then carried on as before.

No, athletes don't train "30 hours a week". With proper intensity, anything over 2-3 hours a day is detrimental. This time includes stretching and warmup.