sachdevap

I am sure they are. But a leap from combines to decentralized sensing using drones is a big one, and I'd want to see some numbers to verify this.

I am not at all denying the benefits of technology, or that companies are working in it, but I am skeptical of how widespread it is right now. Therefore, I would want to see some numbers to verify such a claim.

And on what scale is this actually happening?

Fun of you to assume my bubble. What are these biggest computers that you refer to that are not connected to the internet?

> If your machine isn’t on the internet

I don't think there are many such machines anymore. I am not seeing this as a common case at all. And in the present context of the Linux memory controller, they would never sacrifice general kernel security for performance.

Is this a serious comment? I'm genuinely uncertain whether you mean this seriously.

I assume parent meant that if you work at a company, it is your responsibility to know whether the company will last for the time you intend to be there. Without knowing the risks involved, if the company goes under and it is clear that it's a scam, you losing your job is partially your responsibility.

This is BS. The Indian government is notorious for using the nation's resources for propaganda. I wouldn't trust these numbers until audited by an independent body.

Have the courage of your convictions to argue the facts and not the account name maybe? This is a new kind of ad hominem attack.

There might be a slight bit of exaggeration, but 97% is not that far from 99, for this purpose.[0] [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Very much this. Ugh, so much ignorance in the name of "skepticism" in this thread!

If you think that the government under Obama didn't do anything for improving quality of air and water in the US, you are just trying not to see the facts. And if you haven't noticed, there is a whole oil lobby that has been pushing money into the GOP machine trying to discredit climate change for decades. US is (for the better) a federal structure, and nothing happens by fiat forever.

Could the democrats have done better? Definitely. Are they better than the republicans in responding better to these issues? You have to be obtuse on purpose to believe otherwise.

More incorrect statements labeled as "facts".

#1 🇨🇳 China 9,839 27.2%

#2 🇺🇸 United States 5,269 14.6%

#3 🇮🇳 India 2,467 6.8%

India's total emissions are a fraction of US and China's. You are guilty of the same hyperbole you claim to be fighting from the other side.

"Per capita" is not a narrative. It is a measure of how much room there is to reduce emissions while maintaining quality of life. It's not like you can just go to war with India and China and clear this up. You can't bring them to the negotiation table claiming moral superiority.

What you are suggesting is not a strategy for efficiently negotiating our way out of this deep hole, but rather a dictatorial approach which can only be enforced by a dictatorial regime across the world.

If that bugging you is the best you can take out of all the climate change discussion, you need to change your mindset on how to read important topics. There will always be sensationalism around something as big as climate change. Of course there are going to be people shouting anything to grab your attention. Focus on the problem, not these fringe philosophical issues.

And have you seen the per capita emissions of each of these countries? India's emissions per capita aren't even a drop in the bucket. (Numbers in metric tonnes CO2)

1 China 6.4 2 United States 15.0 3 India 1.6

2.5 times China and almost 10 times India. Countries that are already rich enough to invest heavily in pushing renewable energy and nuclear energy need to aid countries trying to get people out of poverty. You can't do that by providing direct energy cause that is not how energy works. So you do it by allowing emissions to these countries while reducing your own to fall given that you already use so much more per capita.

You want to see hypocrisy? How about the US's hypocrisy in stopping solar subsidies to build local solar industries? This discussions is not about who is entitled to more emissions. It is about a pragmatic approach to reducing emissions. While you dish out "facts", also care to read about policy and arguments.

ICE, not CBP. Don't conflate the two.

I didn't say education failed in general. I don't believe education works in dissuading addictive behaviors. Education isn't helping people pursue better diets, it is not dissuading people from binge drinking, and it is not going to prevent people from vaping.

I am not denying them their choice, nor am I in favor of the ban (I don't think bans work).

I am saying that education does not dissuade addictive behaviors.

Measuring the outcomes of education regarding smoking with life expectancy is a big leap. The biggest difference is diet, and that is not reinforced in their education system, but just a part of their culture.

> I'd rather plow more resources into educating members of society of the consequences of their actions.

And how has that worked for smoking levels in Japan, South Korea - I would say they have pretty high levels of education, with no dearth of information on bad consequences of smoking.

Edit: I think people are assuming I am for the ban. I am not for the ban. I don't think bans like this work. But plowing more resources into the education system is just not particularly effective at preventing addictive behaviors.

And just about everything that Blue Apron or any of these other companies package comes with similar invisible packaging, so the delta is still the same per amount of veggies. Or is your point something different that I missed?

Also note that the delta is a big big percentage of the base packaging, and I am willing to bet it's over 100%, if not 500%, just cause there are so many packages made from few large boxes.

I think his point is slightly different. GIMP is neither basic, nor obvious for simple editing.

> I don't get why blood pressure is relevant for heart energy expenditure. Animal bodies are full of blood, it's not like hearts pump blood up there, they just pump it into movement.

No, blood does not get pumped in your head with just movement. You don't swing your head below your heart to replace blood in your brain. Somehow the blood needs to be replaced with fresh oxygenated blood.

> I also can't imagine how that long neck evolved (and stayed there) without a huge competing advantage. The and usual advantage of large necks is feeding high, so I distrust the claim that an animal with a long neck couldn't keep his head up.

It is common consensus that Giraffe necks did not evolve just under competitive advantage, and the best proof for that is the fact that their necks are much much longer than any other species. If it was only competitive advantage, other species would have displayed similar trends. Sexual selection is a more likely explanation.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/animals/why-giraffes-have-...

Right away in the first paragraph too. So much hypocrisy. Right alongside "I hate clickbait, and here are 10 reasons you should too."

You can see an example of population shrinking in Japan, and yet urban centers are getting denser, so I don't think reduction in population is a solution.

From the comment above, to which I was responding:

> pretty strongly engrained habit

An ingrained habit and market share are different things. Market share is dependent on price point among many other conditions. I never said or implied that ride share services, and Uber in particular, don't have strong market share. They do at the moment.

And has done so by running its business at a loss, with waves of protests erupting across the world against their anti-labor policies. A quick google search will tell you all about it.

Do you believe that when Uber stops bleeding money, and pays an ultimately somewhat acceptable wage to its drives, it will still be able to compete at the new prices set by these changes?

I sure don't.

Ubiquity of Uber/Lyft is a phenomenon across the world, but not all the markets are as flexible on the price. I question the premise that the markets will respond mildly to a significant price increase in most places. The valley just has a high density of high earners who are willing to pay the sort of price Uber would have to set for competing successfully with drivers making decent pay.

> but Uber/Lyft is probably a pretty strongly engrained habit for many at this point.

Might be true in the valley, but I see no reason to believe that this is true in many other markets.