Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | teknopaul's commentslogin

Covid proved this generalisation is not a truism.

USofA was probably the only place that actively resisted the global effort.

I think people do want a better world. Greed is not universal. Most countries that grow a middle class find most people prefer to stop work. I.e. there are not that many infinitely greedy humans. And they can be taxed.

Despite neocon economic theory, most people aren't selfish. And those that are, are often happily rewarded with a plaque in their honor or a medal.

Just look at the length Trump goes to for an award.


COVID didn’t cost anyone anything in terms of improved standard of living. Curbing emissions growth would do that.

People aren’t “greedy,” but my family in Bangladesh absolutely wants to live like my family in America, or at the very least like my family in Canada. They don’t consider that “greedy” and if you tell them it is they’ll laugh at you.

The country’s CO2 emissions per person have increased by a factor of 5x since we left in 1989, consistent with per capita GDP going up by 10x. Even on an efficient development path it’s going to go up another 5x in order to increase the country’s GDP per capita another 10x, which will put it at the level of a poor eastern european country like Hungary or Croatia. That’s the earliest anyone is even going to listen to you about CO2 reduction.


> COVID didn’t cost anyone anything in terms of improved standard of living. Curbing emissions growth would do that.

We live in a horrendously inefficient way. We ship everything from half way around the world in diesel ships, trucks, and trains, we buy shitty single-use plastic items packaged and shipped in single-use plastic packaging, we replace our phones instead of our batteries, our clothing and shoes degrade within a couple years, our restaurants and grocery stores throw away half the food they purchase, our agricultural system spends nitrogen and pesticides like they're free to grow corn as an industrial chemical component. I don't know exactly how much meat there is on that bone, but there's a whole lot of emissions we could remove that wouldn't negatively impact our lives and would probably improve them.


Forget how we live. Take the per capita CO2 output of Norway—which already generates 99% of its electricity using renewables—and somehow halve it. If the Indian subcontinent increases to that level, the added CO2 output alone will be double that of the entire EU currently.

And that’s the steady-state number. It’s impossible to believe that these countries can become twice as efficient as Norway, which already has a fully renewable grid, while building a ton of housing and infrastructure that Norway doesn’t have to build because it’s already built.


Maybe with nuclear power? Are you already factoring that in under "an efficient development path"?

> USofA was probably the only place that actively resisted the global effort.

Really? China, Indonesia, Iran, South Korea, Italy, UK, Brazil, Tanzania, North Korea, etc.?

Making the COVID response sound like one global cooperative endeavor is some serious retcon'ing.


The is one trick that doesn't require political will. If you can make the microeconomics work it can be made to scale it self.

E.G. Make CO2 extraction so cheap it's worth everyone doing it and say, make a market to sell the CO2 to farmers. Then make burying inedible bits of plants so cheap it's done on a large scale.

Then you just wait. Microeconomics takes over.

They did this with plastic clean up. By building a machine that makes plastic into fuel & construction pellets. Then stuck such a machine on a plastic poluted island and waited.

For this trick. All you require from your políticans is that they don't lie or bomb the place.


Buried plants make methane…

This is true, but can be mitigated if the plant parts are first converted to to charcoal. It’s doable, but not trivial enough for farmers to do it without some other incentive.

Methane is valuable byproduct, which is easy to capture, store, and use at winter.

I think OPs point is this tech is good only if you sink it after.

I. e. Collection is half the problem.

Collecting it in a way it's cheap to get it back again is potentially just less than minus half the problem.


Did a bit of searching: fizzy drinks companies sometimes go and get stored CO2 to put in drinks or make it.

Any atmospheric extraction has a net positive compared to that.


Economic * need dwarfs problems like an overloaded electric grid.

*greed.

We are well past the point that any economic growth at all is anything but a distribution of income problem.


Fire fix usage went from I forget what but really significant down to the level people don't build site for it anymore.

Pretty sure it's because they made security changes that broke the Intranet.

What you want una browser is that it t works. Not some security pop-up telling it doesn't work. Especially if you wrote the website.

Still annoying evert time https://127.0.0.1 is flagged as insecure


#6 in hacker news ChatGPT images announcement doesn't work in Firefox Android as a perfect example.

https://openai.com/index/new-chatgpt-images-is-here/


Bit harsh.

That was probably a node / npm thing, because they had no stdlib it was quite common to have many small libraries.

I consider it an absolute golden rule for coding to not write unnecessary code & don't write collections.

I still see a lot of C that ought not to have been written.

I'm a grey beard, and don't fear for my job. But not relying on AI if it's faster to write, is as silly as refusing a correct autocomplete and typing it by hand. The bytes don't come out better


I don't understand how yous can be ignorant of this. In the USofA you get advertised at continuously by drug companies.

Do you really think they spend that money advertising, and that you can then not buy the products?!?

Sure, you need a corrupt doctor. But the amount of advertising tells you exactly the amount of corrupt doctors that can act as drug dealers for you.

If someone is advertising something at you, it's because you can get it and you are potential market.

Not rocket science.

Somehow the whole country has collective blindness to this fact that is scarily obvious to anyone from outside the USofA that drops by.

Drugs adverts for prescription drugs should be illegal: because there is no legal justification for them.


I just don't see any harm from taking these drugs. It hurts nobody, hence my skepticism of the "malicious" characterization.


>If someone is advertising something at you, it's because you can get it and you are potential market.

>Not rocket science.

Yep. I see adverts for Psoriasis and so, of course, I developed Psoriasis although I never had it before I saw the adverts. I see adverts for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and, of course, then developed it because I am a "potential market."

Even better, I see adverts for tampons, sanitary pads and "feminine' deodorants. As such, I underwent gender reassignment surgery so I could then purchase said products because I'm a "potential market."

Yes, the above is satirical. And no, I don't purchase products because " they spend that money advertising"

If I show you an advert for brassieres, are you then forced to purchase them because of all the money spent on such adverts? Are you even slightly tempted to do so?

If I show you an advert for literal snake oil as a cure-all, are you then powerless to stop yourself from purchasing it?

I hate to break it to you, but we Americans aren't slaves to, or required to spend money based on, consumer advertising.

Heck, I don't drink Coca-Cola or Budweiser. If what you say were true, I'd literally be drowning in that garbage.

Please take your ridiculous stereotypes elsewhere.

Edit: Fixed typos.


What they get is amphetamines, legally.

38% of stanford kids taking or selling drugs, legally, because they are rich kids: and the poor kids get jail time for buying it off them.

Go USA.

Wierd that no-one on this thread seems aware of it.

There are two standard treatments for adhd: met & dexies midnight runners.


Taking the drugs legally, maybe; it is very much illegal to sell the kind of amphetamines used to treat ADHD. Ritalin, for instance, is a schedule II drug, and it is a felony to sell without a prescription.


There are non-stimulant ADHD medications. Maybe they should try going on Intuniv instead.

(That one reduces anxiety a lot, which would be good for students, but it also kinda kills your sex drive.)


Oh and the fact that in USofA, Big Pharma in cahoots with corrupt doctors and a broken police/judicial system let you legal amphetamines if you have adhd is, of course, nothing to do with this.


22 years in the same Corp, targeting Linux systems since day one, and only in the first two years, and this year, have I been permitted a Linux desktop.

+2 years slugging in a vm.

Developing with out bash is just unnecessary work.

My productivity has more than doubled. easily. I manually type passwords half as much and when I do that is to access Microsoft services.

2fa wastes a huge amount of time.

Because nothing that needs 2fa is scriptable.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: