GravityLab

No, it’s about making it easier for users to use useful software and for developers to produce useful software at web-scale.

I love that you love it so much. I put about ten hours into it to see what the hype was about a while back and had to stop…because otherwise I would’ve put in way more lol.

We need to maintain paper-based systems of information storage and retrieval. People should be familiar with a physical map. If we are too dependent on the technology, that is a risk.

Make more Internet. It is an unlimited supply. :)

The correct PR is the one that solves the problem the best. The correct PR's size has nothing to do with the # of lines it is. Tracking time to merge is not that meaningful because merging code does not in itself say anything about the value of that code in production. That is the type of metric that may become a target for a scrum master or project manager despite it being fairly divorced from the reality of moving the right code into the production environment.

This is awesome news. Sounds like we not only have more runway than expected but also obtain more than expected with every tree and shrub we plant.

We could easily get to net zero much, much sooner than 2050 by planting a lot more trees. It would be fun and planting trees has many other benefits besides capturing CO2.

That's a neat idea. It'd be cool if they also had a school garden as well, then everyone can learn to appreciate growing their own fruits and vegetables as well.

And I love your pun! :D

The prime mover in any small community is an individual!

I am glad to hear that it rains and is green in that corner of the desert, my friend. That is a beautiful image indeed. I am really excited about the possibility of reforesting in deserts, although deserts are beautiful habitats in themselves so we should definitely keep deserts around too.

I think people just feel defeated as individuals because they read only doomer content on climate change and as a result they feel overwhelmed unless some larger entity takes on the fight on their behalf. They've come to underestimate the impact individuals can have in effecting great change. I'm optimistic that little by little things can improve and that people can enjoy having a fun time contributing to the fight in positive ways as individuals.

Plant more trees! Don't underestimate the impact that planting even just one or two trees as an individual can have. It's also a lot of fun.

1. The average tree's lifespan is a lot longer than 5 years. It's more like 300-400 years. I've not seen any sources saying that half of all planted trees are dead within 5 years. Even if that is true, 5 years is enough time to keep replanting and maintaining the total number of trees much higher. People can tend to the trees they plant.

2. I got my number for CO2 capture per tree from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Arbor Day Foundation, and the European Environment Agency.

3. I don't think the wildfires materially impact the calculus.

4. There is a lot of land available for reforesting. This is not the same as saying that we should take back land that is used for farming. I would say that agriculture is going to innovate too, with vertical farms and more efficient usage of land where land is still necessary. We can start with land that is already available for reforesting rather than starting with squabbling over land that is now already used as farmland. Making farmland more efficient and innovating with vertical farms will let markets take care of inefficient and unnecessary land usage.

5. Planting trees for CO2 capture is a temporary solution. Eventually machines will sequester CO2 far more efficiently. Planting trees in general is nice for many other benefits too, not just the carbon capture. But yes, planting more trees is not the only thing we need to do.

There is already enough land available to capture enough CO2 to bring us down to natural levels if we plant those trees.

There are also other uses for captured CO2. Better concrete, carbon nanotubes, etc.

There is already enough land available for enough new native trees to capture more CO2 than is emitted into the atmosphere each year. This is before considering recovery of additional brownfield sites, becoming more efficient with industrial and agricultural land usage, and setting more land aside for planting additional trees.

With the full potential unlocked, we'd be able to plant so many trees that they'd capture 2x or more of the total CO2 emissions (total emissions, not just the airborne excess) which means we'd start capturing the past excess emissions as well.

Yes it can. The number of trees that could be planted are enough to capture airborne excess CO2. I'm glad there's technology via pipeline but it needs to mature more. We need better solutions than really long and disruptive pipelines, and planting a lot of trees buys us a lot of runway.

The amount of trees that could be planted would capture more than the airborne excess carbon, which means they would be capturing previous excess too. Since we're really close to peak global CO2 emissions, this means the new trees would be a carbon sink that keeps capturing excess carbon for at least decades, until far better capture solutions are created than long disruptive pipelines.

This can be accomplished by planting trees.

https://logtrees.com/blog/the-simple-math-behind-planting-tr...

Congratulations Tesla! Really cool that you opened up the standard and it's now being adopted by others in the space. This is great.

How has the size of the average home changed? In terms of square feet. I’m curious how that affects the price increase rate. We definitely need to build more housing, that’s for sure. I’m very hopeful that the huge investments into renewables and modernizing the grid will produce a huge growth in worker compensation and another economic boom.

They offset that much co2 each year. It’s not a one time thing. Over the average tree’s lifetime, it will store 25-45 kg of co2 per year. So it’s not just a single year of co2. It would be decades to hundreds of years. Throw in renewables, fusion, nuclear, electric cars, co2 sequestration machines, etc, and it’s definitely a game changer.

Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848

We could also set aside more land for reforestation as well.

Finding labor is easy.

This is an easy problem to solve, we just need to build up the knowledge that it is possible and then execute on it. Right now most people have never even considered things this way because they’re only exposed to doomer talk whenever climate change gets discussed. :(

Nah, leave shaming in the era of the Salem witch trials. We don't need that. Here's what we need:

- global amount of co2 emissions per year

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi.... - average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates)

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve... 37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion

Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848

Given the above, we could plant this many trees in a year or two if we really tried. Couple that effort with more renewables, more investment into fusion and co2 sequestration machines, more electric cars, etc, and it's taken care of. I would question the character of any person who wants to be the one doing the shaming or thinking we need shaming for this. This is an engineering problem.

Google these things:

- global amount of co2 emissions per year

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi....

- average co2 sequestered per tree - 25-45 kg depending on species (google for estimates)

https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2015/03/17/power-one-tree-ve...

37 billion metric tons / 25 kg = ~1.48 trillion

Amount of land available for reforestation as of 2019 is enough for 1.2 trillion native saplings.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aax0848

Trees would be replanted as they die, and the dead trees would be used for products. It's a constant process or cycle, not a one time thing. Also, by the time you plant enough trees to cover the entire landmass hundreds of years will have already passed and by then we're sequestering co2 with technology and firing it into space or using it for something else, with large reforestation projects ongoing because it's beautiful to have trees.

From a climate concern point of view, trees as carbon sinks work.

Source? I think you need to check your math. To sequester all of the co2 that gets emitted per year, you’d need about 1.6 trillion new trees. This assumes no other improvements in anything. This is because 37 billion metric tons (global co2 emissions) divided by an average of 22 kg of co2 sequestered by the average tree gets us around 1.6 trillion trees.

Trees are a great co2 sink and large reforesting would result in a lot of runway, on the order of hundreds of years of runway, for technological co2 sequestration to develop further.

Trees are great carbon sinks. Especially the ones that live for hundreds of years. If more trees get planted, then soon they’d be giant carbon sinks for hundreds of years. That’s more than enough time for artificial co2 sequestration tech to catch up with more effective permanent solutions.

> violence (in the short term) is the only thing that can stop the car going over the cliff.

nah that’s just what ideologues say because they care more about their top-down control agenda. If climate change was fixed tomorrow, they’d be disappointed because they wouldn’t be able to exact control over others in the name of climate concern.

Plant more trees. Invest in renewables.

Do you think it's possible in 20 years?