dominicr

My children had whittling knives from age 5, built their own fires when we went on walks, could explore into the small woodlands on their own soon after and walked home from school at age 7. None of this would have been socially acceptable in a UK city but was pretty much standard in Oslo. Our children still feel safe and also feel confident doing things themselves. Our level of stress about our children seems to be lower than my friends elsewhere, who have a risk avoidance mindset, living in a society that highlights any potential risk as to be totally avoided and bad parenting if a child is exposed to any risk.

Occasionally you hear stories from the US about parents being arrested for letting their children walk down the street alone or play in the local park by themselves and that seems crazy to most of the rest of the world.

I'm hesitant to share it as I know it's quite buggy and a bit too simple at the moment. I've not tested it with enough variety of APIs and use cases. Plus the whole UI needs deleting and starting all over again, but built properly! With all those caveats, it's https://apiarchive.com/

With working from home and schools closed, I don't have much extra time, but the restructured day does mean I have pockets of time where I'd usually be out and about but can now be used at home.

The 1960s especially saw a lot of terraced houses put a small kitchen out back so they could knock through the 2 rooms downstairs and remove the old ceilings and fireplaces. In the 2000s those properties that didn't modernise in the 60s now fetch the higher prices.

The results are always the same: his die-hard supports believe him, and reality is altered; his opponents point it out and wonder how anyone can think he's not maniacal; and the Republican party sighs and repeats the mantra "you dance with the one that brought you".

Edit: just tried it, I can downvote your original comment but not your replies to mine.

If you really want to, compare the past 150 years with the previous 2000: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2

Variations in local climate, populations booms & busts, freak weather events: these are all things that happen regardless of any global level climate change. A population fall or damage to a localised ecosystem can recover naturally. Nature is resilient and it is sometimes accurate to say that nature to return to what's typically normal for a localised ecosystem (reverting to mean).

The concern with climate change is that these events are more common and "normal" is harder/longer to return to due to a long term change in environmental variables. More storms means less time to recover; higher temperatures mean some species won't thrive where they used to. In this article there does not appear to be a strong claim that this bloom is directly casued by climate change, but the long term climate change might be making it harder for the ecosystem here to recover.

Just as a cold winter doesn't mean global warming is a myth, a localised ecological event doesn't mean that effect is permanant or signifier of how things will be elsewhere. A local view point (from the poster above) is useful in understanding this situation. For a global view, you need experts to take long term views at much lager scales than this article covers.

I don't understand this argument as the fossil fuel industry is worth many trillions of dollars, so the argument is much stronger in favour of them being the ones not wanting to change. The climate protection industry is small in comparison. Industries like green electricity generation, resource use reduction and recycling also have benefits beyond climate alone, so are becoming the right choice even without that consideration.

There is also a big "industry" working now and historically on the link between tobacco and smoking. Do you think that they were just doing so to make money and there is no actual link? Who you believe is an epistemological issue: none of us can research everything ourselves so we choose who to believe based on our influence and internal desires.

Anyone remember the global cooling scare? Or the nuclear war scare? Or the acid rain scare? The threat of nuclear war and acid rain were very real, they just got solved (almost). It's like the Y2K bug: people love to say it was a lot of nonsense and a non-event, but it was so exactly because a lot of work was done to avoid it. Nuclear war is no longer a threat due to diplomacy; acid rain is severely reduced due to international treaties & technological solutions. These problems are perfect examples of a real problems being solved by concerted international action.

From my reading of this, the study does not say that sea-level rise won't happen, it's just saying one theoretical mechanism for RAPID sea-level rise might not be correct, so it'll be slower than some models predict.

The study relates to ice cliffs on land and the theory that if the ice shelves in the sea break apart, then the ice cliffs on land will break apart rapidly, contributing to rapid sea-level rise. Ice already in the sea doesn't raise sea-levels but ice currently on land would. The study uses modelling to demonstrate that runaway event is unlikely, so the sea-level rise from that even should be removed from estimates.

There's another paper about this from February_:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0901-4

Some quotes from the papers:

- "We’re saying that scenario, based on cliff failure, is probably not going to play out. That’s something of a silver lining. That said, we have to be careful about breathing a sigh of relief. There are plenty of other ways to get rapid sea-level rise."

- Ice cliff collapse... "is not required to reproduce sea-level changes due to Antarctic ice loss ... without it we find that the projections agree with previous studies (all 95th percentiles are less than 43 centimetres)."

A couple more things:

- Both papers still agree that sea-level rise will happen, but maybe not so fast and not so much. (Whether your house is under one foot of water or two doesn't make much difference to if you can live there.)

- If your discussion point against climate change is based on the models being wrong/inaccurate/too varied, then you have to discount this evidence, as it too is based on modelling.

- MIT's press department need to write better headlines.

The minute any implementation of this hit the real world it'd fail. Teenagers are very good at working around technology, whilst anyone other than the average caucasian is likely to get an incorrect age assessment.

A better way of describing the problem from the original article is that infleixible & homogenous teams make it harder for people who don't fit a personality type to contribute to the work & work culture.

I think what's slightly more common is homogenous teams within companies that form an overwhelming culture, rather than entire company cultures. Teams do form their own ways of working and their own cultures, and this is fine: it's human and it can be positive. Healthy teams adapt to new members and vice versa.

But I have occasionally seen teams develop an impenetrable culture and reject anyone that wasn't a perfect fit for their existing culture. They also tend to reject any company-wide initiatives for change & improvement, not even engaging with the process or contributing to the discussion. Typically the way to solve such a team is to rebuild it by removing at least half of the members, after which everyone usually goes back to working normally.

If you want to hang out with your friends and wrestle to decide coding patterns, then that's all well and good. But the second that it becomes a company that employs people it should be more mature, equal and accepting. Work is indeed not always only about output and skills, it's also about respecting each other and collaborating with different people and their opinions & experience to produce the best outcome.

Anecdotally, I have worked at a company whose unofficial hiring mantra was "hire people you'd go drinking with". It did not go well! Luckily some adults got hired and the company started functioning better.

Sort the table by Renewables as a percentage of generation. There are countries with flourishing economies running with a majority of renewable power generation.

The intermittency problems for some renewables are being overcome as more solutions are invented and improved. Most new technologies have problems to overcome, so it'd be unrealistic to expect instant & perfect solutions. The speed of innovation here is impressive enough to already be delivering real world solutions which provide energy to communities and countries.

This is such a crude, reductionist view that falls very short of reality. You know, it might just be you and minority that think this way.

Luckily reality shows time and time again that people in general (definitely excluding you here) have better motivations and take better decisions which consider other people.

1. A lot of the discussion at the moment is about action within the USA, Europe, Brazil and China. These are not poor countries. Brazil isn't doing great but is a significant economy. China is taking a lot of action already to move to greener tech. There is an acceptance amongst most that the richer nations should be doing most to tackle climate change, as well as helping other nations.

2. Green does not necessarily mean expensive. Look at the levelized cost of energy in different countries and green options are often cheaper or comparable to fossil fuels, even before the indirect costs are considered.

3. Green is often also the most practical solution for developing countries. In many, solar and wind are used as the infrastructure for power distribution does not exist, is incredibly unreliable and/or very expensive. For a lot of these countries localised green energy generation is a key factor for development.

Yes, it usually boils down to selfishness.

> That's a strong statement for what it is at best a discernible correlation. It's a strong and very valid statement, supported by a wealth of science. In this instance it's not really possible, or wise, to run multiple randomly controlled experiments on our own planet to conclusively prove the point. Instead, we have a lot of observations and modelling that allow us to run those experiments, and the weight of those say we have a problem.

> We absolutely have to drop everything and start cooling the planet? The majority consensus is not to drop everything but to continue making substantial changes to human activity to reduce warming. You personally do not need to become an eco-warrior, just more aware of the effect you're having on the planet and try to reduce it. Cooling the planet is now beyond expectations. The aim now is for it not to warm up too much.

> Until the next ice age, when presumably we'll have to warm it? That is a terribly big false equivalency! First, yes, I expect so. Second, it's totally different! Ice ages take multiple hundreds, if not thousands, of years to get going. The next ice age is not going to affect the next generation, global warming is.

The benefits to ecological improvements and the risk of climate change vastly outweigh the costs. Less pollution related illness, our limited resources will last longer, etc... The risk alone is enough to make me think that ignoring the problem is the morally wrong choice, the benefits double the equation.

Or do both. Let's make the world less hostile to live in for billions of people, whilst also providing technology & resources for them to survive.

About your graph: historical global temperature changes are not the same as anthropomorphic global temperature changes. Past periods of high CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 leads to higher global temperatures. Indeed, it confirms that there is a strong relationship between the two.

There are other sources of temperature change so you can't use one indicator to prove there is no effect. What climate scientists have done is look at ALL the possible drivers of climate change and ruled out all of the natural causes as contributing to the current very sharp and ongoing rise in temperature. Everything that's left is caused by human activity.

On the right of that graph, there is a vertical red line. That's not an axis or a border, that's the recent rise in CO2 levels, and it's unprecedented. The overwhelming majority of evidence shows that human activity, mainly greenhouse gases, is causing climate change. Misrepresenting one graph does not change that.

Quite a few packages cover basic functions, such as type identification, array handling, etc... which have only a few lines of relevant JS code but are used by many other packages. That seems to unnecessarily increase the risk to my project of the module disappearing or becoming a security threat. There's something to be said for rolling your own helper functions.