149 karma · joined May 3, 2021
Currently doing final polishes on adding support for making it simple and easy to run agents and review the code remotely over ssh.
I think we are underestimating all the derivatives we use from oil and gas here.
I think this is all very optimistic. I think not having oil and gas would have been a major setback to global progress I dont think it would have made us more advanced within batteries or electrical cars than we are today. And especially not even close to overall general global progress we have reached today.
solar, wind and semiconductors all require a very advanced petrochemical supply chain. You simply couldn't produce any of this without products derived from oil and gas.
EVs in scale would have maybe happened sooner, but they would have give us much less value, and I think in the end reaching current EV tech would most likely have taken longer than it did with oil and gas, just due to industrialization and technological innovation would progress much slower without oil and gas...
I think advanced green tech in general would have taken much longer time to develop also on an industrial scale when limited by coal only. Not to speak of human welfare would also have improved much slower.
You must not be very much exposed to the environmental movement, or be much online, if you havent seen this.
The first EV an the first solar panel are second order effects and only possible because of the industrial revolution driving massive human innovation and growth. Good luck reaching the levels of industrialization and tech required to mass produce solar panels by using wood. Producing 1 ton of charcoal from wood, requires 4-7 tons of wood. To smelt a single ton of iron you then again need multiple tons of coal. Good luck industrializing without turning the whole planet into woodchopping and wood planting farm. It was all made possible by fossil coal, oil and gas.
Everything is essentially downstream of industrialization enabled by coal and subsequently the superior oil and gas.
And saying that oil and gas was breaking our planet doesn't make sense, if anything these are great replacements of coal.
You are also diminishing the brutal life of pre-industrialization times. Staggering high child-mortality rates, low life expectancy, and an high amounts of deaths caused by starvation and extreme weather events, like droughts and floods.
Solar plus battery takes many years to be paid back. If this setup is actually cheaper, industrial scale solar+battery would be huge. Solar on its own is a great cheap pairing with stable energy sources like hydro, gas and coal, which is partly why china is doing this.
People do actually adopt green tech when it makes financially sense, just look at the huge boom of adoption of AC and heatpumps around the world. Because it massively reduces electricity cost of heating and cooling.
Its not because people cant do math.
100 years later is an immense amount of extra human suffering, not to say that reaching current level would most certainly take much much longer than 100 extra years.
Im sorry but this whole tirade is just delusional. Its cheaper and better to replace all use of fossil fuels with renewables? Why are we not doing it? Waiting to here your grand conspiracy as of why people are not "doing it".
Why did china build over 50(78GW) new large scale coal plants last year when they could get so much cheaper renewable?
How is this short therm value for people using them? They are drivers of the most fundamental stuff in our day to day lives. Either enabling billions of people cheap efficient transport, efficient agriculture producing cheap food, cheap and efficient global shipping of goods, a great portable and ajustable source of electricity.
I think as of now its a question on how much you are willing to sacrifice human welfare over preserving current nature/environment. Extreme weather has largely been solved for humans, the trend is still less death and starvation caused by extreme weather, we are immensely adaptable and resilient.
Im not sure our current pace of reducing emissions is that horrible. There are reasons to why it takes time. I might be too optimistic, but I think we will largely solve human issues. Nature as you point out, im worried about, although I know less about. And its hard to quantify what the value is for us.
Its more about being self sufficient. This is something that can easily be weaponized against us. E.g. Russia using Europes own money to finance their invasion of Ukraine.
I think the right way to go about this is to tax consumption of fossil fuels in countries where we can afford it and use the money to subsidize green tech/industry.
Becoming reliant on countries you dont want to be reliant on, and pretending we dont desperately need this to get the wheels turning is a strategic blunder.
Higher global fossil fuels costs have strong negative effects on peoples welfare, especially in poorer countries. Whenever we get high oil/gas prices, we get price jumps on artificial fertilizer, food, transport and energy. Everything gets more expensive. Its straight up national emergency when something threatens supply of oil and gas in many of these countries when we get events like closing of the hormuz strait.
Regarding "the most subsidized industry worldwide", this wikipedia article does not mention any tax revenue and taxation of these companies. Which are stil very often government cash cows and often pays much more taxes than other corporations. The subsidies are straight to citizen's gas tanks and heating bills.
"Subsidies are mainly on consumption,[3] such as a lower sales tax on natural gas for residential heating; or subsidies on production, such as tax breaks on exploration for oil."
In my country Norway for example, we have tax breaks on exploration to incentivize investment in exploration, but you have to take into account that these companies have an 80 corporate tax rate! In many petro states they are straight up nationalized companies.
The transition is moving ahead, it just takes time, and we need more technological breakthroughs and innovation. Trying to attack production instead of solving demand, can cause serious consequences, in which the poorest countries in the world would suffer the most.
Why are we pretending that fossil fuels dont provide an immense amount of value for humanity, and that its horrible to invest or support building out any fossil fuel production whatsoever.
Lets not do produce it ourselves, lets just instead outsource it to the gulfs and Russia…
A simple organized desktop "IDE" for running lots isolated parallel coding agents without having your brain exploding. That was at least what I was trying to do when I started.
Its freemium with all features included for working on 4 concurrent worktrees at the time. No accounts or signup.
Baton is also more git-aware. Instead of just showing raw diff line counts, you see commits ahead and behind your target branch, so you can tell at a glance how far each workspace has diverged and shortcuts for resolving it in the matter you want.
One thing I think is unique is the built-in MCP server. It lets agents spawn new workspaces programmatically, so you use an agent to launch agents in new isolated workspaces.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/2000-federal-agents-se...
It's impossible to stand alone and still have access to all top tech in todays world. US will obviously rely much more on china without EU trade.
EU is currently dependent on US for software/cloud.
US is dependent on EU in advanced machinery, precision tooling and high end manufacturing equipment.
The US imports massive amounts of chemicals, drugs and vaccines from the EU.
Both regions would look to china for replacements probably.
A major downside and risk for Europe is that they would have to get the share LNG from the US from elsewhere, as it's not self sufficient energy wise, but this would most likely not come from China.
This is incredibly damaging for the USs reputation and alliance with the rest of the western world. A lot of European leaders are now one after one posting on X that Greenland belongs to Denmark.
Not excluding taking Greenland using military force would never have happened without Trump as president.
In fact the US has closed dozens of bases on Greenland since the 40s.
The president says Greenland needs to be a part of the US, and he wont rule out using military force.
The wife of one of his cabinet members tweets a picture where Greenland belongs to the US and captions it "SOON".
How is Denmark supposed the respond when the president is actively threatening them?
You have been acclimated to having a president who says crazy things. This is not normal.
I think almost nobody sees it actually happening, but just the fact that he is saying these things is insane.
I also think there is no way this is actually going to happen, but its obviously big news in itself that Trump and people in his circles are not willing to rule it out and are actively hinting at it.
Its kind of ridiculous that we’re all just supposed to make our own interpretations when the president is just talking shit again or being serious.