biglenny

Wow I really hope I did not come off as defending sexual harassers in any way. I think many might have thought this because of my last paragraph which seems troll-like. I can assure you I don't defend that behavior and am not trolling.

I am simply saying that your statistical analysis was flawed, because perpetrators can have multiple victims, and you had suggested, statistically, that one man fired means one woman harassed in one instance.

Also given low rates of sexual assault reporting, it is likely that by the time a report is made, and even more-so investigated, that the perp has been involved in multiple instances of sexual harassment.

I'm curious why you think I am making this up. Testosterone is linked with higher levels of aggression. Anyone who is employed to write code and work with computers works a sedentary job.

I don't think it is a ridiculous notion that your average Googler will be nerdier or smarter than the average man. And I hope that just because "low-testosterone" is used as an insult by alt-right losers, you don't associate me with that group or characterize my comment as troll-y.

You are comparing perp w/ victim stats. You are also comparing female victimization rates w/ Google's population (only 30% female, even less in higher levels where most of these 48 get dismissed from). I also think there are ~90K employees.

One dude can harass lots of women (as is usually the case). These 48 could have very easily been responsible for 20+ incidents each. And there are probably many more perps who have gone unpunished.

That said, male Google employees are probably less likely to sexually harass. They tend to be more nerdy, introverted, and less masculine(lower testosterone, less aggressive).

Edit: I shouldn't have used a word like masculine, whose definition is largely debated. I meant masculine in the hormonal sense.

Thank god this guy got laughed out of his boardroom. Not even Sauftbank would pay that much

I think you'll find that most people who dislike ICE do so because they are opposed to the acts they are designed to carry out (i.e., deportations). In this very thread, you have declared opposition to deportations.

And regarding AWS, the technology will allow ICE to carry out it's job more effectively (i.e., more deportations). This is clearly upsetting for some.

In this thread, you seem to be equating the infrequent overstepping of legal boundaries with an act that is fundamentally illegal, without exception.

What's Python without Lisp?

Pyson.

Because most CO2 emissions are from industry, not humans, per capita statistics mean very little (especially since these industries ship their products globally). Per capita statistics are championed by industry because they shift blame to citizens and paint the false picture that citizens are entirely responsible for the nation's output.

This means it is more effective to use a metric like CO2 emitted per $1000 GDP because it reflects how polluting industry is in each country. See link attached and sort. It is also important to remember China and India (especially) are far from industrializing, and Western nations' emissions are dropping (they peaked 10-15 yrs ago).

In reality, some combination of CO2/capita and CO2/$1000GDP is the most effective for determining how polluting a country is.

Environmental policy is dictated at a national level. And this is why I put pressure on the Chinese state (again, NOT the people). A bigger portion of their emissions are caused by industry than in most countries). The Chinese state and only the Chinese state has the ability to reduce industrial emissions in their country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

That study starts with the ridiculous assumption of a 3.6 -7.9% leak rate in fracked gas. By their own admission, the data they used was spotty for leak rates during drill completion, and transport. Study is also outdated (2011) with regards to technological improvements of frack wells.

I don't think anyone in their right minds believes that fighting CC is going to be a profitable venture at all. The point is it will take co-operation and investment by governments worldwide.

It's also important to note that the geological formations necessary for sequestering CO2 are a lot more common than those required to _potentially_ be stores of crude.

In addition to all this, countries around the world will have to be willing to take an economic hit, something I'm worried the biggest polluters won't do (China/India in particular). This makes me wonder if it is futile for developed nations to be stifling their own economies with carbon taxes because China, India, and Africa don't keep up. In any case, we probably will be far off the IPCC recommendations and will have to resort to geoengineering.

Carbon Engineering should be focusing on capture and sequestration, not this synthesized fuel BS.

Air-To-fuel is not and will never be their moneymaker. The synthesized fuel is not in demand and probably was thought of by a board member who heard of the word "value add" for the first time.

The ONLY in-demand product of CCapture is the CO2 itself - whether it's the gov. who pays for it to be sequestered or an O&G company who pays for it to be used in enhanced recovery. Even the O&G demand is insignificant compared to the amount of money they'll get in sequestration contracts from the government, or by proxy, the FF producers who'll be required to implement them on site.

It's important to note CCS is required to meet emissions targets - so I hope CE doesn't get distracted with less important/profitable goals.

Yeah - no.

Coal CO2 emissions are almost double natgas' [1]. While it is true that natgas is mainly CH4, a highly potent GG, its atmospheric lifetime is about 8 yrs. Further, the only way the methane would be getting into the air is via leaks in upstream/midstream processes. Today, hardly any of this leaks (EPA estimates leak rate of 1.4%).

Now addressing fracking, the drilling and fracturing process are the cause of little to no environmental impact/damage. The culprit is wastewater injection. This is the unknown, and while the EPA found no evidence of widespread or systemic pollution of water resources due to the fracking process (which includes WWI before the well is capped), it did highlight the potential in several stages of production for contamination to occur.

Now that said, the damage natgas causes, from E&P (especially) to burn, pales in comparison to coal's at any stage.

I think it would be beneficial for HN users to spend some time in the energy industry before making baseless claims.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11

Reminder to be civil during dialogue.

Thanks for the recommendation.

But pls don't use the word "space"

Please remain civil when discussing certain groups of people who identify with certain beliefs.

The whole field is full of dogmatists. The timeline of human history probably looks a lot different than the one we have written in textbooks.

_But_, take any of Graham Hancock's claims with a spoon-full of salt. He's not from a scientific background nor has he published any scientific work. It's easy to be lulled by the grandeur of the tales he tells on JRE.

Good - the smell is nasty and a nuisance for both tenants and the general public.