itcrowd

What made me convince friends is the following (using 3 cards, one red and two black):

- Let them pick one card of three

- Offer to switch their card for the other two (closed!) cards. Most people take this deal, in my experience everyone takes this deal.

- Then, show the "goat"/useless card of the two remaining cards

- Offer them (again) to switch their original choice of card for the remaining card.

If they accept to switch, let them explain why (this is when people get it). If they don't switch, tell them that one of the two cards they could have switched for must have been a goat, so I could always show them one goat between these two.

After this, most people (all my test subjects, anyway) understand that in the long run, they're best off switching to the "two card" deal. They now understand that one must be a goat but that the probability of the "car" being among the two-card offer is twice as likely.

N<10 so YMMV

> My conclusion from these data is that I shouldn’t bother with Facebook.

I would say the opposite. You have 2k page followers on Facebook (1% of your traffic) and 148k on Twitter (20% of your traffic). That means you need ~7.5k followers on Twitter vs 2k on Facebook to get 1% of your views. Thus, Facebook followers are 3-4 times better for your conversions. If you focus on Facebook, you'll get bigger audiences quicker.

(Assuming everything goes as it has gone so far, etc etc)

As of 2nd quarter 2019 [1] rougly:

32% Energy, water and waste services

24.5% Agriculture, mining, industry, construction

12% Other services

13.5% Transport

18% Households

This is a major challenge (not only in the Netherlands) because it appears there is no one "bulk emitter" that must be tackled.

[1] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2019/39/uitstoot-co2-hoger-i...

I am glad you're willing to educate yourself. I hope to give you at least a starting point and will try to address the points you made.

1) Regarding the correlations: The reason why you don't "see" the correlation (i.e. the lines don't perfectly overlap) if you plot CO2 and average global temperature is because there are other effects that obscure the correlation. For example, on the scales of 500 million years, the power coming from the sun (solar luminosity) has increased [1]. Milankovitch cycles are also important over longer timescales. Albedo changes of Earth's surface, etc. I have already cited the principle control knob paper. If you don't agree with the results, we can discuss that but, if so, please give some arguments instead of "I don't believe it".

2) "CO2 lags temperature": this is true in some cases. Vostok ice core is often cited and indeed the authors point to a ~1000 year difference between CO2 and temperature [2]. A more recent analysis [3] goes into more detail on a global sample. They find that on average, CO2 leads temperature but in the southern hemisphere, temperature leads CO2. This lag can be explained by ocean circulation changes.

3) "multiple periods of warming and cooling in the last 1000 years, that were just as bad or worse as what we're in now": A landmark paper was released this year reconstructing the global temperatures in the last 2000 years [4] and they concluded the current warming is global and warmer than ever. Other warm periods in the last 2000 years were simply a) not as warm AND/OR b) not global. One image says it all [5].

4) Record cold not reported? I get a lot of search results from mainstream outlets when searching [6]. Of course, one cold/warm year does not disprove/prove global warming, but you know that. Also, weather and climate are different but you also know that. Popsci did an article explaining how this cold can be interpreted [7].

[1] For a short explanation, see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity

[2] "CO2‐climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: a re‐examination based on new measurements and on a re‐evaluation of the air dating", https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1034/j.1600-0889....

[3] "Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation", https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

[4] "No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era", https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2"

[5] Image from [4] https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/...

[6] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=record+cold+2019

[7] https://www.popsci.com/cold-weather-climate-change/

Just to give some numbers:

The Dutch greenhouse horticulture sector has emitted 6-8 megatons of CO2 per year between 2000-2015 and emissions are expected to decrease to ~4 megatons of CO2 per year in 2020 [1]. 7 megatons is approximately 4% of national emissions [2].

[1] pdf, https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/c/e/c/f827af2c-9ae6-4bb5-bb47-9...

[2] https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2018/37/co2-uitstoot-in-2017...

1) Your meme-image does not show there is no relation. In fact, the source of one of the lines in the image is by Berner [1] which states (p. 201): "This means that over the long term there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature, as manifested by the atmospheric greenhouse effect." The source of your image directly contradicts your claim.

2) RE "unlikely that [...] there would be only one control knob": I never said there was only one. I said it was a control knob. And it is in fact the most important one (but not the only one) [2].

3) RE "I've seen all of potholer54's videos.": I think you need to watch them again.

[1] "Geocarb III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time ", http://www.ajsonline.org/content/301/2/182

[2] "Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature", https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

[3] As a side note: your image has no x- and y-axis scales. If you want to spread misleading images, at least use a better version (for instance, https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/no-lo...)

It was my mistake to link to the summary, I was actually referring to the full report in the comments before.

As for your quote, it needs to be read in the context of the full paragraph. Its written sloppily, but a better phrasing would be: "We don't see the worldwide acceleration observed by Nerem et al. (2018) in the Netherlands' coast area, within the 1993-2017 record". I.e. they are saying the global trend is not the same as the local (Dutch) trend. Perfectly reasonable.

> I must say I'm currently on the fence about the role of CO2 in global warming.

Well, I could imagine your doubts about sea level rise because they are difficult and uncertain. But there is absolutely no scientific doubt about the role of CO2 in global warming. In fact, CO2 as a control knob of the climate is the only way to explain climatic variations observed in (at least) the past 500 million years. What is uncertain is the predictions because they are influenced by action taken to curb emissions etc.

There is a great video series on YouTube by "potholer54" that shows the scientific evidence for it better than I can. The first video is only 10 minutes and addresses the general points rather well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8e...

The climate news needs to be looked at with extreme caution, I agree. Newspapers tend to spin scientific reports in a specific direction (both "alarmist" and "denyist"). However, in general the scientific literature is very cautious, and presents models, measurements and conclusions along with their uncertainties and assumptions. The interpretation of these uncertainties and assumptions is often lost in translation when presented to the general public, which is a shame and should not be endorsed. From a PR perspective, it may be nice if the Meteorological institute(s) would give some public interview or explanation when doubts are cast on their work. The discussions get political really quickly, which leads to a blurring of the lines between what the facts are and what (politicians) suggest the solutions should be to curb carbon emissions. This needs to end. Unfortunately, we are still in the situation where people outright deny the human role in climate change and politicians on the "denier" side of the spectrum abuse this to continuously cast doubt on whether any action is required at all.

That being said, you claim: "the satellite measurements had to be corrected, an action which was explicitly rejected by the recent Deltares report I referenced" but I couldn't find it in the report. The report (section 6.9) says [rough translation]: "The trend between satellite measurements and tide gauges [in the Netherlands] shows some agreement, along with their standard errors." and later "[..] satellite data are a less suitable source of deriving sea level rise". Note that this last quote should be interpreted in the Dutch sea level context, not the global context.

> It's the alarmist media that blow it up to huge proportions.

Agreed. That needs to stop.

> I'm noticing strange patterns, in for example picking starting dates for graphs

This, if true, is bad and needs to stop. It is the same behavior as the "deniers" have used for years (for example, the "no warming since 1998" meme).

Thank you for expanding on your thoughts. I now understand what you mean, however, I do believe you are wrong. Look at source [3] above. Sea level rise is accelerating globally. The effects are different locally.

Very cool work. The paper is open access, the code is open on Github and he actively invites other researchers / interested laymen to participate in finding better materials. Terrific job of putting your money where your mouth is: "We are sharing the code so that you can work with it and improve it and I can’t wait to see what the new discoveries will be."

This type of openness in research should serve as an example to many more!

Also, this guys CV is seriously impressive [pdf] https://mabessa.github.io/Documents/CV_MiguelBessa.pdf

Maybe I'm confused with what you're saying, please correct me where I misinterpret what you mean.

On a global scale, the sea-level is rising [1] and the sea-level increase is itself increasing (i.e. accelerating). This can also be seen in [1]. That does NOT mean that the change is uniform over the globe. You can check your locale here [2] (and confirm that Sweden's sea level is getting lower, the Netherlands slightly rising).

Globally, sea level rise IS accelerating [3].

Coming back to your claim that "if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere". Please explain why there could not be some (the Netherlands? hypothetical?) place where the the sea level rise does not increase even if more water is added to the system? This IS possible but the water must go somewhere else, i.e. the acceleration will be stronger in other regions (for example, Manilla).

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[2] https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

[3] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-se...

See my sister post for link. The difference between ice and water is that water can freely move over the Earth's surface while massive icebergs cannot.

Yes, here's a link: http://sealevelstudy.org/sea-change-science/whats-in-a-numbe...

edit: the video in the link also provides an animation of the effect

> if sea level rise is accelerating somewhere on the planet, it should be accelerating everywhere.

If you mean "accelerating upwards" then it is completely wrong. Sea level gets lower near large icebergs (e.g. the arctic). As the ice from the pole melts, the gravitational pull of the ice mass decreases and water is displaced to areas further from the pole.

As for your Sweden comment, I don't see how it is relevant. Please explain

You need to read the report more closely. First, it describes only the Dutch sea level rise, not the global sea level. Second, the most important reason that the sea level rise is that "the Netherlands is located in one of the least affected areas [of sea level rise] in the world. 9cm/century [of sea level rise] has not influenced the Netherlands, but has been observed around the equator" [1, from the summary]

[1] The report is here (in Dutch) https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2019/03/faq-zeespiegelmo...

> I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming

Well, here's one under prediction:

Hansen made 3 scenarios in 1988 (A, B and C), of which A over-estimated the warming, B was almost spot-on and C was under-estimating the warming.

[1] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

> Don't the icebergs already displace as much water as they would contribute?

Yes, this is Archimedes' principle. However, large icebergs have a gravitational influence on nearby water. Effectively, large icebergs attract water meaning the local sea level rises and elsewhere on the planet the sea level becomes lower. When the iceberg melts, this gravitational pull disappears and the melt water is spread more evenly across the surface of the Earth. The sea level across the rest of the world thus slightly increases.

Modeling this effect is quite complex, but the above is a summary of the effect of melting (large) icebergs.

You are being downvoted because you are spreading lies and misinformation. No AGW nightmare scenarios have been spread for "hundreds of years" (except maybe a biblical end of times, which is not scientific) and the "global cooling" of the 60s/70s meme has also long been debunked.

Please read up on climate science before making outrageous statements like you do (and provide sources for your claims). Maybe you can start learning here: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-o...

Great article!

I suggest re-naming the submission to "First randomized controlled trial performed in 1835 in Nuremberg" (or something to that extent). The HN submission name currently ("The OG Nuremberg Trials") is not an accurate description of the events and the article does not have anything to do with what is most widely known as the Nuremberg Trials (which is a fascinating study case, but unrelated).

Comments from Solitaire's author, Bruce Schneier:

> I don't talk about it much, mostly because I made a dumb mistake that resulted in the algorithm not being reversible. Still, for the short message lengths you're likely to use a manual cipher for, it's still secure and will likely remain secure.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/more_cryptana...

Ok, updated the phrasing to remove that part. I am not convinced there is anything to worry about for consumers. There may be some safety precautions that need to be taken for maintenance / installation of cell sites (in addition to the current safety measures).

5G safety is a long story, but the tl;dr is that it's not something to worry about. I tried to explain this a while back in a long thread here on HN. I tried to cite many scientific articles with more details. Please refer to that if you'd like. Maybe I'll write a blog post some day.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20454375

> if it were to become economical and reliable overnight, there'd still probably be a few decades before it replaced enough existing infrastructure to be the primary energy source

Well, hypothetically if nuclear fusion is solved, wouldn't that be the one of these three with the largest incentive to fix overnight?

Solving climate change for the whole world, not just a problem only some niche groups are interested in would seem more pressing than the other two issues (as serious as they are!).

> Now this was my first time in europe,i was shocked to see people were doing stuff outside of tech

I don't know where you're from but regardless, there are young folks working jobs outside of tech literally everywhere. Unless you work, sleep and spend your spare time in Google's HQ or something. How is this shocking?

Original URL (business insider simply copy / pasted): https://www.profgalloway.com/mdma

Tiny previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21163923

How To Win Friends and Influence People (1937, from memory) is a great book to read. It's recently been updated to get rid of the most antiquated situations and some more modern ones have been added.

The book is not focused solely on sales, but many of the applications discussed in the book are sales-related. I think the book holds up very well after 80 years.

Well that is an option. Progressive income taxes are a good thing, I think. I also like VAT as a supplementary method.

We disagree, I guess.

Some costs (e.g. waste management) increase with each sold item.

That's fair and you're entitled to that opinion. Maybe you can propose a solution by filling in the blank:

I understand why it’s appropriate to tax [fill in blank] in order to fund emergency services.

> progressive income tax

European countries have this.