Rather, for all the other time when the power is working, you can use your generator for transportation!
312 karma · joined November 6, 2019
I guess that depends on your interpretation of "invest." I don't know of anybody who claimed to save money on eggs by raising their own chickens. It's more of a lifestyle decision than a financial one.
These might not be very common, but they're still not really rare in society either.
New vocab word, thanks. The word's been around for a while, so I guess there's some solace in knowing that this isn't the first time. Hopefully this is just a speed-bump to progress, and not a long-term decline.
I think there are a lot of people who would love to have a smaller form-factor for when the phone is in their pocket, with a large screen for when it's being used. The current state-of-the-art might not be very good for foldable phones, but the demand is there, and that's what drives innovation.
Which is precisely why it's so short-sighted to try to solve your problem by "wiping out the entire Amazon jungle and replacing it with a world class high technology industry." If you're going to have a magic button to solve problems, then why not use it wisely, instead of propagating the spiral towards destruction?
> The simple reality is....
True -- there are no magic buttons. The reality is that people with wealth and power use them to take finite global resources and leverage them to ensure they they stay wealthy and powerful. That is implicitly not sustainable, as well as being questionably moral. It's not possible to avoid being part of the system, but you don't have to actively make it worse. You can advocate for fairer alternatives, or at least not wish for the destruction of entire major global ecosystems.
I used to think this way, but I've come to realize that it's very short-sighted. It's not sustainable, and we're already seeing how unchecked industrialization over the last couple centuries is leading to unintended/undesirable effects on our health, and indeed the suitability of the environment we need to live in. Sure, those problems can be pushed onto future generations, and so far (maybe) we've been able to solve them. But if we care at all about humanity's ability to thrive, we need to be more careful.
In developed countries, nobody has to struggle anymore just to stay alive, which is a far cry from the way it was 200 years ago. Advancements now are along the lines of increasing entertainment, or quality of life. But enjoying a good life doesn't have to be a zero-sum proposition, and I think society should put a higher cost on the ability of wealthy people to use up irreplaceable natural resources for their own benefit.
As a degreed engineer myself, this was a bit jarring to me when I first entered the workforce, seeing co-workers who had never been to college calling themselves engineers. But fortunately I got over it.
From the article:
"Our analysis of road segments in California and Virginia revealed that the number of segments with observed HBEs was 18 times greater than those with reported crashes. While crash data is notoriously sparse — requiring years to observe a single event on some local roads — HBEs provide a continuous stream of data, effectively filling the gaps in the safety map."
So we don't have to wait until an accident actually occurs before we can identify unsafe roads and improve them.
Maybe that was never a way to whatever ideal solution or policies might be possible in the future. But the only possible benefit of the current administration is that people's eyes get opened to the lunacy that's possible, resulting in a sort of mini-revolution that enacts changes that prevent the collusion and grift that are happening now.
The Trump administration doesn't have any real government improvements in mind. They're only play is to destabilize the current status of whatever's in their sights, blame Democrats or whoever else is convenient for the mess, and profit from the confusion. Example: The Republican party has always had financial conservatism as a main goal. When was the last time the national debt or deficit improved under Republican leadership? Another, healthcare: For all of the complaining that Republicans have done about Obamacare, why haven't they replaced it with something better yet since they've had full control of the government? They've shown that they don't actually care about good government.
What we got in the current administration wasn't any kind of secret before the 2024 election. People voted for it anyway because they're susceptible to the kinds of misinformation they were being fed. Trump's latest comments on his lack of commitment to peace, the cost of housing, and the well-being of the general population (just to name a few) make it clear that he doesn't consider them important; and Republican's fealty to him show the same of them.
There is no easy way out. The oversight to ensure that governments do what they're expected to without corruption costs real money. We haven't yet figured out how to balance good government with fiscal efficiency; but it would at least be an improvement if people could be educated on the actual cost of properly implementing a law before it gets voted on.
As usual for cases like this, the only chance for a person to force compliance is to have enough money/resources, putting it out of reach for the general population.
I'm having a hard time imagining the alternative. Do junior developers not take any pride in their work? I want to be sure my code works before I submit it for review. It's embarrassing to me if it fails basic requirements. And as a reviewer, what I want to see more than anything is how the developer assessed that their code works. I don't want to dig into the code unless I need to -- show me the validation and results, and convince me why I should approve it.
I've seen plenty of examples of developers who don't know how to effectively validate their work, or document the validation. But that's different than no validation effort at all.
When the services that a company provides gets to this level, it starts becoming like a public utility. If it's not possible to participate in society without using such a service, then the services should be governed like utilities are.
I wouldn't be opposed to having actual government-provided services for things like e-mail, text message, and discussion forums at a very basic level. Then (in the US anyway) we could apply the government restrictions on privacy and freedom of speech, with laws governing the oversight and implementation. Of course there would be major details to work out to prevent misuse, corruption, etc.; but it could solve the problem of losing your essential on-line identity -- as long as the government has any interest in you at all for something like expecting you to be able to send/receive an e-mail in order to pay your taxes, then they wouldn't ever cancel your account. 3rd-party services would still be possible, but then they could do whatever their business model supports, and caveat emptor. How people can expect businesses services like Facebook to comply with their personal expectation of free speech is beyond me.
This claim always seemed bizarre to me. What kind of drugs do you think a layman would think you were on if you showed them a typical Perl program and asserted how "human-like" it was? Even if you tried to follow-up and explain it: "No, no, see this bit means open whatever file stream is specified in the command line, as long as it starts with a letter between 'A' and 'F' that can be either upper or lower case, and is followed after any random characters by at least 3 digits in a row. Then this next character means.... See? It's just like I'm describing it to you!"
Not just not care, but don't they have incentive to report higher traffic?
I wish we lived in a world where it was good that others do the same things that we do; where leaders led by example, and encouraged others to do it better, so that when the inevitable change-over occurs, we're all better off.
> California is so far using forty per cent less natural gas to generate electricity than it did in 2023
> total carbon emissions in China had actually decreased
> kept the country’s coal use flat and also cut the amount of natural gas used during the same period in 2024 by a quarter