spangry

But even that uncertainty aside, tech folk are not the primary target audience for this app. The general flying public are. I'm not sure all of this would be immediately obvious to them. And hitting yes to a dialog that sounds as if it's asking for permission to track your every movement sounds kinda scary to me...

Admittedly I don't fly that much, maybe once a year. But I still don't quite get some of these 'frequent flyer point' schemes. Do you get them as a reward for flying? Or, as in this case, are they always 'disney money' that buy flights?

This is not a rhetorical question btw. I just want to get some insight into what the 'average American' thinks about Snowden.

Although it probably doesn't come across this way from my previous post, I'm actually pretty relaxed if someone innocently/accidentally interrupts me. I'll usually do the whole 'no please, after you' thing. But I can see how I might be creating a rod for my own back if I do this in the wrong situation...

So thanks again for the advice: I need to stop conditioning others to interrupt me. I'm assuming I'm not allowed to go in the complete opposite direction with this though: immediately applying aversive stimuli when it happens. It might be a little unprofessional :)

Yeah I figured out the confrontational thing a couple of years ago... after not realising it was an issue for about the first three years of my career. When I'm discussing an idea or an opinion, I tend to view it as totally separate from myself. So I really don't mind if someone attacks 'my' idea or opinion, and I'm generally pretty happy to jettison it if it becomes clear that it's wrong.

For those first three years I just assumed other people saw things the same way. Nope. Was pretty mortified when I realised that I'd probably been upsetting or offending people when I thought was we were just having a really interesting and vigorous discussion.

Have you ever taken a Myers-Briggs test? INTx? At any rate, thanks for the advice. It's a timely reminder that I need to put more conscious effort into improving here. It's all too easy to just lapse into misanthropy...

On the tax complexity, at least on the bright side the only direction is 'up' from here :)

Personally, I've always liked the idea of a 'standard deduction'. People with a steady paying job for the whole year, and simple tax affairs, don't have much of a reason to fill out a tax return given how much data our Tax Office pulls in from other sources (e.g. your bank interest gets pre-filled). The longest part of the whole exercise is claiming all those little work-related deductions here and there. For most people I don't think this ever exceeds $1000 total.

So if the government just gave everyone a default $1000 deduction, combined with pre-filling, filing a tax return for most people would be a simple matter of looking at the summary and hitting 'agree'. You could even take it one step further: if you don't fill out a tax return the government assumes you agree that your default return is correct.

We almost had this in Australia [0]. It was a measure in our 2010-11 Federal Budget [1], but we didn't go through with it for.... reasons...

[0] And there's good reason to believe it would have radically simplified things. I recall 'tax agents' really hating the idea for some strange reason.

[1] http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp2/html/bp2_revenu...

The chart shows that from about 2010 onward, manufacturing output has been growing, but at a steadily declining (but still positive) rate. So manufacturing output was still growing until it hit zero growth in 2014 and started crawling along the floor, roughly at a steady-state.

So between 2010 and 2014, manufacturing should have been consuming more electricity (in absolute terms) from one year to the next. I suppose if manufacturing became less energy intensive per unit of output over that period then they could have contributed to reduced energy usage. Since I'm just some random internet dude reading a chart (who doesn't live in the US) I have no idea if that's the case.

Um, you wouldn't happen to know by any chance? :)

This is what I mean by 'making room'. I'm not expecting people to ask me what I think, or for everyone to take turns or something silly like that. But I do think that if other participants are incapable of 'playing nice' then the senior person in the room, who's essentially 'chairing' the meeting, should jump in at some point. Or maybe my contributions aren't as valuable as I think. Who knows.

I really don't know how to deal with this kind of situation on my own. I've tried everything. The only thing that has ever really worked is the hyper-aggressive "excuse me, I wasn't finished", spoken at a volume slightly louder than the person interrupting (so basically shouting).

I don't want to do that sort of thing. Sure, it works, but it also makes the rest of the meeting very uncomfortable and unpleasant for all involved. And I suspect if done more than a few times I'll end up with a pretty bad reputation (not to mention an enemy or two, for little gain). Believe me, I'm not a timid person and I'm not afraid to speak my mind. If I have to make an enemy to get something important done, I will. But, if given the choice, I'd strongly prefer that adults speak to one another in a civilised manner.

I pretty much just avoid meetings now, if I can.

I think that's rather unfortunate. It means that your company/division/whatever is missing out on roughly half the good insight and ideas collectively held by their workforce. I don't see it changing any time soon either. Every big change that I've seen in 'the way we work' always seems to favour the preferences of extroverts (bullpens, open-plan offices, hot-desking etc.).

It seems that the world is run by extroverts, for extroverts.

Although the very last recorded quarter could be the start of a trend reversal... Regardless, you're correct on your original point: a reduction in energy usage would not be due to an output decline in manufacturing (which is the most energy intensive sector in most modern economies).

I want to kill myself. I've wanted to end my wretched life for a long time now. But I know that if I did this it would destroy my family. I love my mother, father and sister and I don't want to do this horrible thing to them. So, in my mind, my only option is to limp onward.

It is 100% my decision. I've decided to make the less selfish choice.

On cheap abundant energy, I come at it from the other side of things. You're probably right that those is 'first world' countries (like myself) could be more conservative and less wasteful in our energy usage. And we've already got more than enough 'stuff', and having a little less is unlikely to hurt us. My concern is more about developing countries, particularly large ones like India and China that are rapidly industrialising. It's not that people's lives in developing countries will be worse if they halt this process, it's more that they will be condemned to living significantly poorer, and shorter, lives because of a problem they're mostly not responsible for (and that other countries have gotten rich from).

The latter two in particular have rapidly growing energy consumption, and, to be fair, they are making some attempt to generate energy from viable non-co2 sources (for instance, both are strongly pursuing nuclear fission programmes). That said, the overwhelming majority of their current increases in generating capacity comes from constructing new coal-fired plants.

Asking people in these countries to lower their energy use seems extremely unfair: it's like asking the poor to eat a tax-hike to repair the budget. I suspect they'd find it quite intellectually insulting if we were to suggest that instead of continuing to make material improvements to the quality of their lives, they should instead pursue 'spirituality'.

Cost of energy is a significant cost in most mass-production processes (particularly in manufacturing). So, prior to the imposition of a carbon tax, when faced with the choice of purchasing one of two identical widgets, a 'co2 indifferent' consumer would choose the cheaper one. All other things equal, if widget manufacturer A can externalise some of their production costs (by polluting for free) and widget manufacturer B can't (or won't), widget B will likely have a higher price, even though their total social cost of production is lower. So there is more incentive to be a polluter.

The situation is reversed if a tax is levied on co2 pollution, with the rate set to internalise the cost of all external harm. Now the 'co2 indifferent' consumer will purchase co2 free widget B, because it now has the relatively lower price (prices are now more reflective of total social costs of production because the global cost of polluting has now been internalised).

I guess the other approach, that sidesteps this whole argument, would be to implement a 'cap and trade' scheme (my personal preference). The government auctions or allocates, say, 100,000 one-tonne permits: each permit allows a business to legally emit 1 tonne of co2. If a business needs to emit more co2, and what they produce is more valuable relative to what some other permit holder produces, then they can buy additional permits from this other 'less productive' business (and all businesses like it).

Under this latter scheme there's a hard cap on emissions. So people can feel as entitled to pollute as they like; they'll still be breaking the law if they do so without owning sufficient 'pollution permits'.

Might the latter sort of approach (cap and trade) address your concerns?

We seem to have established that, for 'many', there's no relationship between material wealth and spirituality (although the people replying to you appear to disagree, but I'm going with your notion). And I think the original post was suggesting that climate change is a consequence of a lack of spirituality.

If we take all the above as true, wouldn't this all logically suggest:

(a) We're doomed regardless of how many solar panels / wind farms we build, because the root cause (lack of spirituality) remains unaddressed; and

(b) To avoid being doomed, we should devote the bulk of our finite efforts and resources towards general public achievement of spiritual enlightenment? And only after this has been achieved, only then might we be able to stave of climate change?

Or is something else being suggested?

Just my opinion, but I'm not so certain that there's either (a) no relationship between 'spirituality' and material circumstances, or (b) that there's an inverse relationship, as is suggested below (i.e. poor people are more spiritual). I can't see how either of these propositions are self-evidently true. The latter is a nice thought, I guess ("oh, he said the meek! oh isn't that nice!"). It's a similar idea to that of the 'noble savage' I suppose.

Going with your notion (i.e. no relationship): I think catastrophic climate change would significantly diminish material resources, in practically every respect. Even 'empty space' will be in shorter supply, due to mass migrations towards relatively unaffected geographies. IMHO, these sorts of 'material privations' (and I don't mean your voluntary weekend fast, here) would bring out the worst, most desperate behaviour in most people, particularly if experienced en masse. I don't think these would be people freed from petty material concerns, and therefore able to pursue 'spirituality'. I suspect they'll instead be people doing whatever it is they need to do to increase the chances of their family's survival.

IMHO, the social dislocation caused by catastrophic climate change is one of the few things I could see leading to a violent breakdown of social order, or to the next global scale war. I tend to think these sorts of adversities would lead one away from spiritual enlightenment (unless dying counts as spiritual enlightenment).

Would you contend that people were generally more 'spiritual' during the Great Depression? Were they more spiritually enlightened during the world war that followed? Or does one thing have nothing to do with the other?

At the macro level, it's a classic collective action problem - the tragedy of the commons [0]. There are many well-known and efficient solutions. So I guess the real problem is a lack of political will. The US and China are mostly to blame for the lack of global action. Yes this is probably 'unfair', but it still happens to be the case. Everyone comes to the bargaining table when those two are there. Heck, they could easily enforce a bilateral agreement on the rest of the world if they really wanted to.

And at the national level, there's so much well-intentioned yet nonetheless sub-optimal, or frankly stupid, policy responses to this issue. Targeted technology subsidies, target abatement schemes, 'renewable energy targets' (i.e. picked winner targets, or 'cap and trade' without the trade) etc. It makes me want to scream.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

That's madness. The same madness, IMHO, inherent to most 'targeted' energy generation subsidies. Although, it's a little hilarious that they've managed to get themselves into a situation where their own subsidies will be competing with one another (i.e. subsidising some other non-nuclear generator will reduce wholesale electricity prices, forcing them to pay out more because of their guaranteed 'strike-price' for Hinkley).

However, just reading that Guardian article, there's some pretty questionable thinking going on at the NOA if their quoted statements are representative:

Supporting early new nuclear projects could lead to higher costs in the short term than continuing to support wind and solar. The cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening as wind and solar become more established,” according to the report, titled Nuclear Power in the UK.

I don't understand this fixation on short-term costs (and yes I do understand that money has a time-value). Given climate change is a long-term problem, and we're probably going to be generating electricity well into the future, why are short-term costs in any way relevant? Also, despite being depressingly common, weasel phrases like 'the cost competitiveness of nuclear power is weakening' really have no place in a government report on a matter of this importance. Is the financial case presently stronger or weaker for nuclear? And which option maximises net social welfare? Those are the only relevant questions in my mind.

“The decision to proceed with support for nuclear power therefore relies more on strategic than financial grounds: nuclear power is needed in the supply mix to complement the intermittent nature of wind and solar,” it added.

Meaning it is a financial issue? No matter how you choose to solve the intermittancy problem, they all cost money. Very sizeable amounts of money. Pumped-hydro plants and HVDC lines don't exactly grow on trees.

Brookings seem to have made a fair effort (best I've seen thus far). It makes sense that combined-cycle gas turbines would pip nuclear power (in most scenarios examined) as they produce highly dispatchable electricity (i.e. their output levels can be changed very rapidly in response to fluctuations in demand for electricity). You can forecast and 'plan ahead' with nuclear, but the ramping times are currently too slow. So you either overbuild, rely on a limited amount of grid-level storage or throw a more responsive form of generation into the mix (i.e. gas turbines).

Most of the cost of nuclear is in building the plant, after which the variable cost of generation is tiny (i.e. you just run it full-bore all the time, since oversupplying doesn't carry a high cost). Coal probably has a similar cost profile (maybe with slightly higher relative variable costs), although on a smaller scale and in a relatively under-regulated market: the WHO estimates pollution from coal-fired generation, not taking into account climate-change, kills ~1m people per year, whereas nuclear containment buildings must be built to withstand a plane crashing directly into it.

But the really big take-away for me is that, if we want to mitigate climate change efficiently (which I'm starting to think is the same as saying 'if we want to mitigate it at all'), we really badly need to place a price on carbon emissions (and their equivalents). It sucks that both extreme sides of the debate don't seem to want this: vested interests will obviously oppose it, and 'extreme greens' seem to think it's some sort of immoral conspiracy designed to allow financial markets to make money off climate change (if we're talking 'cap and trade').

Those who don't like market-based mechanisms such as 'cap and trade' should consider the other side of the coin: it creates the opportunity for direct action on your part. You could buy emissions permits on the open market and then sit on them, permanently lowering the emissions cap. You can finally 'put your money where your mouth is'.

I think it's noble and commendable to act ethically, and promote ethical behaviour. However, I don't think "people acting ethically" is the thing we want to be relying on when we're trying to avoid self-extinction. By a large margin, people are usually selfish and will act in a self-interested manner, so it's probably safer to harness this particular aspect of humanity. I'm not saying it's pretty, but it sure beats self-extinction.

And I'm less sure of this, but I've heard that they cause far less soil erosion compared to cows, as their weight is spread out over a much larger area (i.e. they have big feet). Their populations in some parts of Australia have also reached unsustainable starvation levels, to the point where some State-level governments have initiated culling (i.e. licensed shooting of kangaroos, in a country with very tight gun-control laws).

I've noticed a few older, more experienced 'intelligent-rational' types who have developed techniques to deal with emotivists. For instance, they tend to couch criticism or disagreement in words like "Now it's probably just because I'm not as well acquainted with this issue as you are, but..." To my ears, this sort of language sounds disingenuous and insincere (and talking this way doesn't come naturally to me). But it's hard to dispute the results. I'm constantly amazed at how effective this approach can be.

I suspect this approach is effective, even though it feels like it shouldn't be, because people who are tied up in their own emotions don't pay close attention to what others are saying, and how they're saying it. The way the language 'feels' doesn't activate their heuristic-defensiveness and usually manages to slip past.

The insane optimist in me tends to think that as we develop cost-effective methods of generating electricity without the co2 we will also have greater capacity to aid economic development in third-world countries. So on the upside, there seems to be a 'virtuous cycle' in here somewhere.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society.

Scale relative to what, or when? I mean, yeah, we are certainly 'off the scale' for supermarkets, iPhones and planes compared to, say, the ancient Romans. But in fairness, they've got us well and truly beat on the ignorance, slavery and infant mortality scales. How do we rank in 'spiritual' terms relative to the Romans?

But taking your assertion as a given, what specifically do you suggest we do about this problem? My concern is that, in the near future, we may find ourselves climbing down a few rungs of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, leaving 'self-actualisation' / spirituality way out of reach.

- Here are my numbers on German solar & wind capacity factors (nuclear generally achieves 90% by comparison): https://gist.github.com/anonymous/f1a6d064890d67fbfc98d66dbd...

- Sketchier numbers for India: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14085871

- The view of the Brookings Institute in 2014: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/...

Their base-case assumption is a $50 per tonne price on co2 emissions, and they use a 'costs avoided' methodology so that things like cost of system stabilisation (e.g. grid batteries due to intermittent generation) are factored in as well. The paper concludes:

Assuming that reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are valued at $50 per metric ton and the price of natural gas is not much greater than $16 per million Btu, the net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants. Wind and solar power are very costly from a social perspective because of their very high capacity cost, their very low capacity factors, and their lack of reliability.

For example, adjusting U.S. solar and wind capacity factors to take account of lack of reliability, we estimate that it would take 7.30 MW of solar capacity, costing roughly four times as much per MW to produce the same electrical output with the same degree of reliability as a baseload gas combined cycle plant. It requires an investment of approximately $29 million in utility-scale solar capacity to produce the same output with the same reliability as a $1 million investment in gas combined cycle. Reductions in the price of solar photovoltaic panels have reduced costs for utility-scale solar plants, but photovoltaic panels account for only a fraction of the cost of a solar plant. Thus such price reductions are unlikely to make solar power competitive with other electricity technologies without government subsidies.

Wind plants are far more economical in reducing emissions than solar plants, but much less economical than hydro, nuclear and gas combined cycle plants. Wind plants can operate at a capacity factor of 30 percent or more and cost about twice as much per MW to build as a gas combined cycle plant. Taking account of the lack of wind reliability, it takes an investment of approximately $10 million in wind plants to produce the same amount of electricity with the same reliability as a $1 million investment in gas combined cycle plants.