Correct: Bloomberg's reporting is lagging real events, but Apple & Amazon haven't come up with a better explanation of why they switched hardware at that time.
They cancelled their plan to work with China though. They thought about it, did a bit of prototyping to see what it would be like, and decided it was unethical.
That is quite a spun re-telling of what actually happened.
I'm all for reducing emissions (I'm a solar+pebble beds guy, myself), because it makes sense to reduce emissions to have clean air.
But my point, simplified beyond the ability of the greens to notice its wisdom, natch, is that entropy increases, and it's not possible to reverse it. If it took centuries to DO it, it is going to take at least DOUBLE that to get back to whatever the utopian ideal carbon emission is.
I'm all for reducing emissions (I'm a solar+pebble beds guy, myself), because it makes sense to reduce emissions to have clean air.
But my point, simplified beyond the ability of the greens to notice its wisdom, natch, is that entropy increases, and it's not possible to reverse it. If it took centuries to DO it, it is going to take at least DOUBLE that to get back to whatever the utopian ideal carbon emission is.
If we're being intellectually honest, an increase in global GDP will always have waste heat. That's a law of physics.
And if we continue to be honest, the only thing we can actually do is adapt civilization to higher temperatures. Pretending we can somehow move the heat which civilization generates somewhere else is not going to solve the problem, because the problem is one to which we have to adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
So then we're left with an important question: Why did Amazon & Apple dump Supermicro at around the same time?
The problem with that idea is that China fucking with the supply chain is not an outrageous claim.
I'd love to see your moral calculus on this. Maybe Bloomberg is wrong, but it's not because they're trying to murder their political opposition.
Correct: Bloomberg's reporting is lagging real events, but Apple & Amazon haven't come up with a better explanation of why they switched hardware at that time.
See Slashdot's Project Dragonfly story from less than 2 weeks ago. Don't expect me to engage AC's much.
Security Karaoke
Nice. Stolen.
They cancelled their plan to work with China though. They thought about it, did a bit of prototyping to see what it would be like, and decided it was unethical.
That is quite a spun re-telling of what actually happened.
33 Celsius warmer today? That is SOME Ice Age we missed!!
California doesn't have the authority to do this.
The authority to license businesses in California?
;
Tmen shì zhèyàng; n bù dú zhngwén ma?
He's talking about all resources (education, healthcare, clean water, no militias-in-the-street), not natural resources.
The word being searched for is "parasol".
Wow, you really are a literalist, eh?
Let's reset: Does entropy increase? If so, would human activity, an organizing activity, increase entropy?
Let's reset, because you completely missed the point of what I said, and instead attacked what I had not said.
Did I say that "waste heat is the problem"?
The only reason it went down in 2010 to 2016 is due to a recession.
This is in line with what I said earlier and was completely misinterpreted by the greens.
Right? What a dumpster fire.
Its like refusing to use the brakes to stop your car when it's hurtling toward a cliff.
No. It's much more like an aircraft than a car.
Want to know who has power over you? That person you dare not criticise.
Lol, like the greens? Who did you mean?
Ohhhhh, I see, you were aiming at me.
I'm all for reducing emissions (I'm a solar+pebble beds guy, myself), because it makes sense to reduce emissions to have clean air. But my point, simplified beyond the ability of the greens to notice its wisdom, natch, is that entropy increases, and it's not possible to reverse it. If it took centuries to DO it, it is going to take at least DOUBLE that to get back to whatever the utopian ideal carbon emission is.
So pack some canned food and a shotgun.
"Entropy increases"? You skipped that?
You don't know me. Come at me with some words that form a position with which I disagree and you'll find out which of us is a coward.
Please note I didn't say we shouldn't be reducing emissions. Please attempt to argue with what I said.
It's not an experiment. This is where we live.
I'm all for reducing emissions (I'm a solar+pebble beds guy, myself), because it makes sense to reduce emissions to have clean air.
But my point, simplified beyond the ability of the greens to notice its wisdom, natch, is that entropy increases, and it's not possible to reverse it. If it took centuries to DO it, it is going to take at least DOUBLE that to get back to whatever the utopian ideal carbon emission is.
So pack some canned food and a shotgun.
Cool, now convince me that attempting to engineer the atmosphere *consciously* is going to go exactly how you plan it.
As a result, around 90 million people will now have to log back in to Facebook
Or, y'know, they could not do that.
If we're being intellectually honest, an increase in global GDP will always have waste heat. That's a law of physics.
And if we continue to be honest, the only thing we can actually do is adapt civilization to higher temperatures. Pretending we can somehow move the heat which civilization generates somewhere else is not going to solve the problem, because the problem is one to which we have to adapt.
It looks smaller in Celsius!