ptkd

iMessage is a legitimate significant value add to my life. Such a high percentage of my associates have iPhones that having an android is a legitimate harm for interactions (makes you less likely to be added to group chats)

I’m speaking as someone who has used both full time as well

have you ever used an induction stove? They are like an order of magnitude better. Easier to clean, much faster to heat stuff

Okay, wow -- I had no idea Shatner was 90. He looks fantastic for his age

I mean on some level i agree with you, but since skepticism about climate change is likely leading to a massive humanitarian crisis it’s pretty reasonable for people to be angry at those who say “well actually according to MY research…” when there is such an overwhelming body of evidence pointing to disastrous climate change consequences.

Perhaps not? You clearly are not well versed on climate change. To take something that is already happening and is very bad: massive yearly wildfires in California. I grew up in Washington, and NEVER had a “smoky summer”. Now it’s a yearly occurrence. It’s at best naive and at worse actively evil to be promoting this “oh it might actually be fine” narrative

Grid-level batteries will likely be made of something else -- check out form energy who does iron-based batteries.

> Can we transfer power between countries

Certainly possible, but requires infrastructure build out. Most countires can also provide a lot of their own solar/wind

Okay, I will give you a genuine answer: it will have almost unequivocally negative effects.

First, I'll address your asymmetry comment, with a couple of example points.

> crops

This is a common misunderstanding I see. Crops aren't solely viable because of climate -- a large portion of crop-viability is due to soil quality, which is built up over many many years. As areas that have traditionally been extremely cold become potentially more viable, crops are much less effective because the soil has not historically had a lot of fertilizer-producing flora/fauna.

> decreasing the probability of disasters

As far as I understand climate change, this is not expected anywhere. A disaster can be considered an event that goes dramatically against the norm. For example, flooding [extreme rain], drought [extreme lack of rain], fires [extreme heat], crop freezes/cold snaps [extreme cold]. Climate change essentially results in increasingly extreme deviations from the norm, so "disasters" go up. There's nowhere in the world I'm aware of that is going to get more consistent from climate change.

> make people want to move in

Even if climate were a zero sum game, and some places got better while others got worse, forcing everyone to move would be pretty awful. Further -- it's not a zero sum game, as mentioned in my last point.

The final point I'll make around climate change is that it's very likely to lead to geopolitical instability. As some areas become unlivable, famines, wars and refugees become more and more frequent.

source on this? The most important thing right now is definitely reducing emissions, but carbon capture certainly has a significant role to play

I think this is basically a play by big oil to try to keep their business alive. We actually are pretty much at the point where the only thing standing between us and MASSIVE emissions reductions are special interest groups. Solar/wind are now the cheapest energy in the US, and the move is starting already

high level there's a two pronged path:

* Clean electricity generation (solar, wind, hydro with some sort of grid storage/distribution mechanism to handle when sun isn't shining/wind isn't blowing) and

* Electrification (EVs, non-gas heating)

> Can we have planes

Yes, at some point. Electric planes are being explored but have difficulties with battery weight. Another possibility is green hydrogen or perhaps some other yet-undiscovered energy source. Planes account for a relatively low percentage of global emissions (maybe 2% right now?) so this is not a priority

> Boats?

Yes -- electric pleasure crafts exist already. For long haul/shipping I'm not totally sure what's being worked on, but it certainly will be possible

> Clothing

Another space I'm not super familiar with. Again, it's important to remember that we need to focus on the heavy hitters, which currently are dirty electricity production (ie coal plants) and transportation (gas-powered cars)

It's not either or, we need both. It will never be more efficient to pull CO2 from the atmosphere then it is to just prevent it from getting there in the first place, so cutting emissions is still the bottleneck

Wow, "fracking helped the environment" is certainly a take I haven't seen before.

I think it's ridiculous to say Biden and Trump are the same on climate. Biden is pushing through a bunch of climate stuff on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and hopefully will get even more in the reconciliation bill.

Words _do_ matter, because the threat of serious climate legislation makes companies shift in a direction where said legislation won't completely destroy them. Read this piece to see more: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/06/climate-...

I see this take a lot, and it’s kind of misinformed. The primary drawbacks of nuclear are: 1) incredible slow to build. A typical plant takes ~20 years from decision to productionized 2) extremely expensive, with a massively frontloaded cost. By contrast, solar and wind are fast to install and now cheaper.

> wind power can be zero at some parts of the day

There are a few solutions to this actually. First, having a more nationalized grid can amortize variant weather conditions (very unlikely it’s not windy everywhere, for example). Second, there actually are long-duration battery solutions coming out. Look up “energy tower” for a very weird one, and “form energy” for a more traditional model.

Finally — I will agree that nuclear is probably some piece of the pie in the future. But analysts think we can get to 80% renewables with currently existing tech: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2012/0...

Some really compelling points here, nice

I think it just sets up some pretty weird incentives for employees, especially when you consider that cost-of-living calculators are often wrong. I don't think this model will work in the future.

Let's fast-forward 5 years and assume many companies have taken on this model and are now remote first. COL adjustments will have occurred, and COL is a very reasonable proxy to "desirability of living location", because as you mention these cities are based on supply and demand. When there's a high demand, COL goes up and as such so do the salaries of the folks living there.

So now employees are basically at a junction where they can live wherever they want. However, their employer will cover the expenses of living somewhere better (if we take this high COL = desirable line of thinking). So employees will go to these places, effectively costing the employer money!

The fundamental outcome of this change is employers are offering a giant "live somewhere expensive" stipend that can only be cashed if you choose to live somewhere expensive. It's just odd. I know for a fact if I was at one of these companies I'd move to wherever I could get the most money, because I think COL often overrates how expensive cities are.