It doesn't all have to be bullshit. It's probably just a slightly optimized truth, especially in this part:
2-3x higher energy vs. current lithium-ion
Terms like "current" and "higher energy" leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is "current"? Probably one of the less energy efficient but more economically interesting options in use today. And what amount of that "higher energy" is actually available in practice? And at what cost? Without having an actual product, they're free to cherry pick aspects about their technology, which may very well not be aspects of their actual product. If you read this stuff like a lawyer would, then it's not bullshit. It's just meaningless:p
I don't think this should be about lines of code written. A more interesting approach would be to also count all dependencies, counting things like libc a gazillion times. Even more interesting would be to count what's actually executed.
I don't know the Reddit mechanism, but I can imagine Slashdot may provide a much better mechanism for picking moderators that have proven that they are also capable of making a valuable and civilized contribution to a discussion. Obviously, that selection begins with moderation, but thanks to this mechanism, it has had the chance to grow a culture of pretty OK moderation and pass it on to the next generation. Also, random selection of moderators helps tremendously here; this way, the culture of the group determines moderation as opposed to the individual moderators.
So, no, I think Slashdot is completely different. In fact, it is probably unique.
I think the main problem is something else: proper agile requires buy-in from just about any organisational layer above the agile team. Usually the time, attention-spam and understanding to achieve this is almost impossible to achieve. Agile requires trust while company hierarchies are usually organized around distrust; agile requires doing things together while traditional company hierarchies demand clear separation of responsibilities. Agile requires thinking about what to do next while companies revolve around yearly planning. Agile requires accepting uncertainty inherent to software development while companies revolve around containing such uncertainties, usually in a superficial way. Those kind of things make achieving true agile in a commercial organization next to impossible.
Human nature is easily controlled through prices. Because that's human nature. Poor people (relative to what the earth can sustain) already eat less meat. We should just make more people effectively poorer by making their meat more expensive by making the land it is grown on more expensive. Easy.
I don't think that's true; our planet could sustain loads more people. They shouldn't all be eating as much meat and using as much energy as we do now, but that's not needed at all. The real problem is that we do not charge for using our planet like we should. We should tax land use and taking stuff (oil, gold) from the ground. That way, problematic consumption patterns become more expensive and they will change. It really is as simple as that. We're just too collectively stubborn, stupid and egoistic to actually do this.
(In fact if we'd tax the use of our planet properly and sort of make everybody a shareholder of our planet at birth, we've have a real proper basic income in the form of dividend. We wouldn't even have the utterly useless discussion we have now about financing basic income from tax yields, like most approaches propose.)
What you have learned may not be as universal as you expect it to be. A quick glance at countries like the nordics indicates that in those countries, even at the lawmaking level, it is clear what you just learned:p
Nature is just what happens. This includes fires. Whether they are good or bad is only relevant in the human mindset, but I'm pretty sure the plants that grow in the aftermath of a forest fire are quite happy with the additional sunlight and nutrients they could otherwise not get.
Given enough time, any forest will eventually catch fire and burn down. Lightning occurs everywhere and spontaneous combustion can and will happen everywhere. So if we want to let nature do its nature thing, we should just let it burn. Any intervention would instantly transform nature into culture because now we decide what can and cannot grow instead of mother nature.
Making plastic is significantly less energy and thus CO2 intensive than glass, paper or metal, especially when recycled. Usually if it's cheap, it's also good for the environment. The only reason to ban plastic would be because consumers behave like idiots.
I regularly transport marijuana in my car (I'm not in the US). Non-smokers with a good nose would immediately smell it's presence, even if properly packaged. The delicious smell of good fresh marijuana is almost impossible to hide. So if there was marijuana (there was) and it hadn't been lying there untouched for a week, it's highly likely the cop could smell it.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep more for themselves, nor is there with being a libertarian. The real problem is that people fail to understand that the vast majority of their propery, income and quality of life simply would not exist without a joint effort to create a properly organized safe and efficient country. Among western countries, the US already takes quite an extreme position in this w.r.t. health care, crime prevention, homelessness, unemployment and fossil fuels (where the ignorance even affects the rest of the world).
Your brother just wants to add education to that list. And perhaps infrastructure. He fails to understand that his income, like just about all incomes, fully depends on other people spending money. This simply works best if these people are healthy, safe, educated and able to move from A to B.
Most somewhat smart animals (e.g. ravens, dolphins or rhesus monkeys) understand this concept naturally because in the long run, altruism benefits groups as a whole. Humans show altruistic behavior out of the box as well. Unfortunately, our society has become so complex and impersonal that our natural tendency and ability to show altruism fails miserably. Our brain simply does not recognize it if it hides behind taxes and people you've never seen. Likely, your brother would naturally understand the value of contributing to society as a whole if it were about real tangible people. But it isn't.
I consider claims of the kind of "I need to go through it because I want to get on the other side" kind of more valid than "I want to go through it because it is faster and more comfortable". You can get from A to B on earth's surface just fine without using airspace at all. Try to leave the earth's surface without using a little airspace and things get quite difficult.
Embedded systems like MRI-machines that still run such old software should either not be networked (and thus not be updated so they're not affected by this move) or they should have been designed in a way that would easily allow upgrading any Pentium 3 to something not entirely ancient.
We've become so used to backwards compatibility that we expect it as default. But in reality it's totally ridiculous that 8088 software still runs natively on my CPU. Even car tires aren't that backwards compatible....
I think that's quite a logical assumption because we need to take CO2 out of the equation. Simply transforming it back into what will eventually just be combusted into CO2 again does not solve the problem we need to solve.
Also, whether C and O are useful isn't really that interesting; there's no shortage of C or O whatsoever so it's not their availability that counts, it's the extraction costs. Also, you'd need to put more energy in to split CO2 into C and O than you'd ever get out of it. Since splitting CO2 practically only makes sense if you're going to burn it again, that's simply a waste of energy; why not use the energy available directly?
Non-burning applications of C and O are merely a fraction of what we use C and O for.
We already knew the long-term cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This hypothetical possibility merely introduces an upper bound to what we can tax CO2 producers while it is not at all an upper bound to the costs. Even if we'd go full scale, there'd be accidents, leaky reservoirs and eventually us running out of suitable reservoirs, meaning that the long term cost of removing or dealing with excessive CO2 would be much higher than the cost of this technology.
We don't need a competitor at all. We don't need centralized video services at all. We already have the Internet. All we lack is an open, decentralized solution for sharing, commenting, related stuff, subscriptions and censorship. Then we could just host our own video's and be done with it. It works for email and it can work just as well for any other social thing.
A humongous amount of jobs these days revolve around marketing and sales. Apart from the small minority that actually brings some fun to our lives (I'm talking about you, Red Bull) or actually provides some useful information about innovations that I might like, they are utterly pointless. The software they use is pointless and we have thousands of marketing software packages with overlapping features. All pointless.
Then we have the vast majority of software engineers that work on making and integrating these useless solutions. All pointless, just like the people maintaining their offices and sitting at the desk in front of it.
That's what capitalism is. Practically nobody does anything because it is useful. They do it because they can make some money. The alternative is communism, which trades pointlessness for inefficiency.
There used to be some jobs that were less pointless. They still exist, but they're a monitory. Those are the jobs that provide us with homes, food, fun, care and knowledge. The rest is all pointless. Or maybe they all are, because what is the point of humanity anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't all have to be bullshit. It's probably just a slightly optimized truth, especially in this part:
2-3x higher energy vs. current lithium-ion
Terms like "current" and "higher energy" leave a lot of room for interpretation. What is "current"? Probably one of the less energy efficient but more economically interesting options in use today. And what amount of that "higher energy" is actually available in practice? And at what cost? Without having an actual product, they're free to cherry pick aspects about their technology, which may very well not be aspects of their actual product. If you read this stuff like a lawyer would, then it's not bullshit. It's just meaningless :p
I don't think this should be about lines of code written. A more interesting approach would be to also count all dependencies, counting things like libc a gazillion times. Even more interesting would be to count what's actually executed.
It's so sad/funny to know that the top comment describing the one and only right thing to do will just remain here, hidden in the comments section.
I think that's exactly why it works: no single individual has too much of an influence specifically thanks to those limitations.
I don't know the Reddit mechanism, but I can imagine Slashdot may provide a much better mechanism for picking moderators that have proven that they are also capable of making a valuable and civilized contribution to a discussion. Obviously, that selection begins with moderation, but thanks to this mechanism, it has had the chance to grow a culture of pretty OK moderation and pass it on to the next generation. Also, random selection of moderators helps tremendously here; this way, the culture of the group determines moderation as opposed to the individual moderators.
So, no, I think Slashdot is completely different. In fact, it is probably unique.
I think the main problem is something else: proper agile requires buy-in from just about any organisational layer above the agile team. Usually the time, attention-spam and understanding to achieve this is almost impossible to achieve. Agile requires trust while company hierarchies are usually organized around distrust; agile requires doing things together while traditional company hierarchies demand clear separation of responsibilities. Agile requires thinking about what to do next while companies revolve around yearly planning. Agile requires accepting uncertainty inherent to software development while companies revolve around containing such uncertainties, usually in a superficial way. Those kind of things make achieving true agile in a commercial organization next to impossible.
Human nature is easily controlled through prices. Because that's human nature. Poor people (relative to what the earth can sustain) already eat less meat. We should just make more people effectively poorer by making their meat more expensive by making the land it is grown on more expensive. Easy.
I don't think that's true; our planet could sustain loads more people. They shouldn't all be eating as much meat and using as much energy as we do now, but that's not needed at all. The real problem is that we do not charge for using our planet like we should. We should tax land use and taking stuff (oil, gold) from the ground. That way, problematic consumption patterns become more expensive and they will change. It really is as simple as that. We're just too collectively stubborn, stupid and egoistic to actually do this.
(In fact if we'd tax the use of our planet properly and sort of make everybody a shareholder of our planet at birth, we've have a real proper basic income in the form of dividend. We wouldn't even have the utterly useless discussion we have now about financing basic income from tax yields, like most approaches propose.)
What you have learned may not be as universal as you expect it to be. A quick glance at countries like the nordics indicates that in those countries, even at the lawmaking level, it is clear what you just learned :p
So did the Linux distro's that did accept this license modify their kernel to disable the BogoMIPS feature?
Nature is just what happens. This includes fires. Whether they are good or bad is only relevant in the human mindset, but I'm pretty sure the plants that grow in the aftermath of a forest fire are quite happy with the additional sunlight and nutrients they could otherwise not get.
Given enough time, any forest will eventually catch fire and burn down. Lightning occurs everywhere and spontaneous combustion can and will happen everywhere. So if we want to let nature do its nature thing, we should just let it burn. Any intervention would instantly transform nature into culture because now we decide what can and cannot grow instead of mother nature.
Making plastic is significantly less energy and thus CO2 intensive than glass, paper or metal, especially when recycled. Usually if it's cheap, it's also good for the environment. The only reason to ban plastic would be because consumers behave like idiots.
It has been done several times but is really difficult to Google.
Nevertheless, here's one report: https://www.scmp.com/news/worl...
If you English speaking people can call peanut paste "peanut butter" then I don't see why you couldn't call stuff that resembles milk "milk" ;-)
(Note in Dutch we call it peanut cheese :p)
I regularly transport marijuana in my car (I'm not in the US). Non-smokers with a good nose would immediately smell it's presence, even if properly packaged. The delicious smell of good fresh marijuana is almost impossible to hide. So if there was marijuana (there was) and it hadn't been lying there untouched for a week, it's highly likely the cop could smell it.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep more for themselves, nor is there with being a libertarian. The real problem is that people fail to understand that the vast majority of their propery, income and quality of life simply would not exist without a joint effort to create a properly organized safe and efficient country. Among western countries, the US already takes quite an extreme position in this w.r.t. health care, crime prevention, homelessness, unemployment and fossil fuels (where the ignorance even affects the rest of the world).
Your brother just wants to add education to that list. And perhaps infrastructure. He fails to understand that his income, like just about all incomes, fully depends on other people spending money. This simply works best if these people are healthy, safe, educated and able to move from A to B.
Most somewhat smart animals (e.g. ravens, dolphins or rhesus monkeys) understand this concept naturally because in the long run, altruism benefits groups as a whole. Humans show altruistic behavior out of the box as well. Unfortunately, our society has become so complex and impersonal that our natural tendency and ability to show altruism fails miserably. Our brain simply does not recognize it if it hides behind taxes and people you've never seen. Likely, your brother would naturally understand the value of contributing to society as a whole if it were about real tangible people. But it isn't.
So what exactly did you tell them when you explained why they shouldn't watch it? :p
equally valid moral claim
I consider claims of the kind of "I need to go through it because I want to get on the other side" kind of more valid than "I want to go through it because it is faster and more comfortable". You can get from A to B on earth's surface just fine without using airspace at all. Try to leave the earth's surface without using a little airspace and things get quite difficult.
Embedded systems like MRI-machines that still run such old software should either not be networked (and thus not be updated so they're not affected by this move) or they should have been designed in a way that would easily allow upgrading any Pentium 3 to something not entirely ancient.
We've become so used to backwards compatibility that we expect it as default. But in reality it's totally ridiculous that 8088 software still runs natively on my CPU. Even car tires aren't that backwards compatible....
Given the timing, this must be some sort of viral advertising by NordVPN - just can't go anywhere these days without seeing their ads :p
That's irrelevant. It makes sense to sequester CO2 regardless of whether we're still extracting hydrocarbons or not.
I think that's quite a logical assumption because we need to take CO2 out of the equation. Simply transforming it back into what will eventually just be combusted into CO2 again does not solve the problem we need to solve.
Also, whether C and O are useful isn't really that interesting; there's no shortage of C or O whatsoever so it's not their availability that counts, it's the extraction costs. Also, you'd need to put more energy in to split CO2 into C and O than you'd ever get out of it. Since splitting CO2 practically only makes sense if you're going to burn it again, that's simply a waste of energy; why not use the energy available directly?
Non-burning applications of C and O are merely a fraction of what we use C and O for.
We already knew the long-term cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. This hypothetical possibility merely introduces an upper bound to what we can tax CO2 producers while it is not at all an upper bound to the costs. Even if we'd go full scale, there'd be accidents, leaky reservoirs and eventually us running out of suitable reservoirs, meaning that the long term cost of removing or dealing with excessive CO2 would be much higher than the cost of this technology.
We don't need a competitor at all. We don't need centralized video services at all. We already have the Internet. All we lack is an open, decentralized solution for sharing, commenting, related stuff, subscriptions and censorship. Then we could just host our own video's and be done with it. It works for email and it can work just as well for any other social thing.
A humongous amount of jobs these days revolve around marketing and sales. Apart from the small minority that actually brings some fun to our lives (I'm talking about you, Red Bull) or actually provides some useful information about innovations that I might like, they are utterly pointless. The software they use is pointless and we have thousands of marketing software packages with overlapping features. All pointless.
Then we have the vast majority of software engineers that work on making and integrating these useless solutions. All pointless, just like the people maintaining their offices and sitting at the desk in front of it.
That's what capitalism is. Practically nobody does anything because it is useful. They do it because they can make some money. The alternative is communism, which trades pointlessness for inefficiency.
There used to be some jobs that were less pointless. They still exist, but they're a monitory. Those are the jobs that provide us with homes, food, fun, care and knowledge. The rest is all pointless. Or maybe they all are, because what is the point of humanity anyway?