The suggestion seems to be for api changes where the api is generated from an idl. So proto or something. If my service was built several versions prior to that value being added then I by definition don't care about it. The catch all is fine. If other services care that I don't care, they can file a ticket. You could be nice and leave out the catch all and then the deserialization will panic or throw and error. And the mect CI pipeline where the new IDL gets used will fail to compile. Both ways it is a runtime error at first. If you don't require exhaustive at all, that just lets you persist the situation without migrating my old service to the new api... Non exhaustive is the one option I can't agree ever makes sense.
35% of greenhouse gases are released by China and Russia. These are not democracies. They have killed their people to remain in power.
Another 8-9% is from India which while still classified as a flawed democracy is borderline.
And 11% is in the US which I guess we will find out if it is a flawed democracy or hybrid regime over the next few months. But at best it is paralyzed by polarization on the issue. And also due to lobbying/bribery from oil producing nations and states. The electoral system enforces two party rule which caused this problem in many nations, most of which are no longer classified as democracies.
These are also incidentally the nations best poised to solve the engineering issue of maintaining modern QOL while reducing emissions. The US has certainly contributed and China is working the issue very aggressively, largely out of a need for energy independence. But both of those contributions are fragile. The polarization is affecting it in the US and if China secured sources of energy that were cheaper but emitted, they would not hesitate.
> 35% of greenhouse gases are released by China and Russia
And we all import tons of stuff from China. Stop importing from China if you want to reduce their carbon footprint. Instead of paying them to build cheap stuff and then complaining because they build stuff for you.
Aren’t they essentially Leninist? Like if they weren’t burning coal to make Nikes and iPhones they’d be burning it for something else? So what’s the point of my choices here? I’m not even complaining, but from a problem-solving standpoint, seems kind of irrelevant.
> if they weren’t [...] they’d be burning it for something else?
"If I wasn't selling cocaine to kids, someone else would be doing it (from the statistics I just made up in my head to feel better), so surely it's not bad if I do it"?
As I said, they are aggressively contributing to the engineering side of emissions reductions. Probably the worlds most effective contributor in that regard. They are also the worlds largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Both are true. My final point is that those contributions are not altruistic, and their motivations could change if the entire oil production of Russia gets piped to them, they achieve naval dominance enough to secure malacca etc.
You have completely failed to take into account population.
Unless you can make a good case that some people have some kind of natural or divine right to a bigger share of whatever planetary CO2 budget we decide we have, shares have to be allocated per person rather than per country.
Any other systems leads to absurdity once you take into account that groupings of people can change.
Sure, per capita makes sense and that pushes some middle eastern countries to the top, with china and india way behind the us in emissions. But the post that started this was about voting to fix the climate. My whole point was that all the countries that are producing the majority of emissions aren't very democratic (us, india), or aren't at all (china russia), so voting is really quite irrelevant.
The number of plants is irrelevant. What is important is how much coal they use. That is going down because most of these new plants are built to just run at times when the renewables cannot handle the load.
Why coal when the peaks exceed what renewables can offer? The same reason the US builds natural gas plants (and is building more of those than anyone else in the world)--it is their fossil fuel that is the cheapest and has the most secure supply.
What point are you making, that China is doing it right, pay no attention to China? They produce the most emissions, and are not amenable to international plans to reduce emissions, making everybody else's efforts futile. Want to see the ourworldindata graph (again, probably)? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-share-of-co2-emiss...
Oh yeah well your country produces more emissions than Vatican City. Since absolute emissions are bad, no matter the size of the country, your country sucks too. Every country that isn't in last place for emissions sucks! Get your emissions down to Vatican City levels otherwise you're just as bad as everyone else /s
> are not amenable to international plans to reduce emissions
Please tell me more about this. They're actually flattening or reducing emissions. They signed the Paris agreement.
> Want to see the ourworldindata graph (again, probably)?
That graph tells me North America and Europe combined produce the nearly the same as China. That means if they go 0 carbon tomorrow, it's like taking out one China's worth of emissions. Is that futile?
North America and Europe have also emitted way more cumulatively than China. Historic emissions are the cause of problems today.
If you tell me "historic emissions" don't matter then I have to ask, where is the line? Do China's emissions yesterday also not matter? That's historic too, right?
What? The country that is in first place for emissions is causing most of the emissions.
> They're actually flattening or reducing emissions.
Reeeeally. Not reflected in the graph yet. Which of those is it anyway, flattening out, at a third of global emissions?
I've heard "historic emissions" before. You haven't reached for "per capita" yet. "Lump all the other countries together and blame it on them" is a new one. But what are you doing? Trying everything not to blame China, why?
> Do China's emissions yesterday also not matter? That's historic too, right?
That one doesn't even work, I could just agree that it's all about today's emissions.
You're trying everything to blame only China. Why?
> I've heard "historic emissions" before
And you think they don't matter? What do you think is warming the planet right now?
> You haven't reached for "per capita" yet.
Hey if per capita isn't important then get your country into last place. Until then it sucks just as hard as every other country not in last place. That's what you're saying, not me.
The reason I blame China is because their 32% is within the control of their authoritarian government, while the rest of the world has to wrangle awkward agreements between many countries, and political will in any individual country is sapped by awareness that only a small fraction of total emissions would be affected anyway, which wouldn't actually stop e.g. wildfires, so participation in a grand global plan is the only persuasive policy, but those grand global plans, such as they are, include agreement that China will carry on as usual.
Yes, I think who did what in the past is irrelevant to solving a problem now. What's that for, punishing sinners? Not the goal. We can decide that it's not morally China's fault (ha), but they'd still be the ones doing it, and it would still be hot (in the future, the only controllable part).
I can't comprehend this "last place" stuff. I think your idea - or ideology - is that the West is responsible (as in having agency) and blames China as a distraction. This flies in the face of the plain facts of where emissions come from and which entities have control over that, specifically the CCP and the CCP.
> The reason I blame China is because their 32% is within the control of their authoritarian government
And you believe this government will be able to order the population to stop burning fossil fuels, go back to living pre-industrial lives? Heck no.
That government was however able to order far-seeing investments in solar panel and battery manufacturing (done for national security, not climate, but who cares).
Even if China went 0 carbon, it wouldn't solve climate change because the other 69% of emissions would continue. Existing emissions will go on causing heating. Everyone has to make a change.
China for its part has done a ton of heavy lifting with its 31% of emissions. It manufactures abundant panels and batteries which make the transition cheap for everyone.
> Yes, I think who did what in the past is irrelevant to solving a problem now
You may think so, probably because you live in a rich country. But the people in developing countries asked to sacrifice in solving the problem do not.
If you move into a shared house with existing housemates, would you accept that you have to clean the already-disgusting bathroom prior to moving in because you have IBS and would use the bathroom more after moving in? You'd say "fuck no the people already living here messed it up".
That's what convincing developing countries to abandon fossil fuels at great personal cost is like. Make it cheap for them and they will do it. But if they see Westerners driving SUVs and flying everywhere, it's the same as your average Westerner's resentment of Elon Musk's private jet.
> they'd still be the ones doing it, and it would still be hot
Only 31% of it. Not even most of it. It would still be hot if they stopped.
> I can't comprehend this "last place" stuff.
It's the same as your "first place" stuff. If "most emissions" is terrible and everyone else is blameless, then "least emissions" is unalloyed good and everyone else is to blame.
> that the West is responsible (as in having agency) and blames China as a distraction
I think everyone is responsible and the West blames China as an excuse to do nothing (probably China does the same internally, I have no idea). Most emissions happen outside of China and are very much within the West's power to affect.
> asked to sacrifice in solving the problem do not.
So you mean that China wants the west to make some emission reductions, and then China will cut back on industry. I'm inclined to think they might be happy just with the first part and not bother with the second.
I think their 32% is instrumental to the rest of the world's political will, so I'm pretty much saying the reverse of what you're saying. This might indeed be a "you first" sort of situation, but there's no credible dialog about it anyway, Paris Shmaris.
No I mean all developing countries including China. For example, India's emissions are rapidly rising and people in the West love using that as a secondary pretext for their own inaction.
> So you mean that China wants the west to make some emission reductions, and then China will cut back on industry.
Now if you're intent on blaming solely China regardless of the facts, I really can't help you. You should examine your blindspots and biases before continuing the discussion.
> I'm inclined to think they might be happy just with the first part and not bother with the second.
I'm not. China is more exposed to climate change than most Western countries. And also PV and batteries are legitimately cheaper than burning coal. So they might just race ahead on sheer economics while we bicker.
> I think that 32% is instrumental to the rest of the world's political will,
I really don't think so. They'll just pick on India or some other poor country trying to haul themselves out of poverty. Because "political will" was never about what China or India do. It's about protecting the fossil fuel industry and its cheap energy.
A ton of carbon is a ton of carbon. It doesn't matter who reduces their emissions. Since we both agree on that logic, then the question is "who reduces emissions first?".
To me it's obvious: the richest countries first, because they have the most money to do it. This is where our views diverge.
In the west, people don't like various heatwaves and storms and fires, and they'd get behind a persuasive plan. What plan, though? They also like cheap energy. The reason why they vote for that is because they'll probably get it, while they won't get a cure for extreme weather. That's where international agreements, and the obstructiveness of the specific obstructive country in question, come into it. If your international agreement doesn't really do anything, the cheap energy has more persuasive power.
Why is "trying to haul themselves out of poverty" an excuse for causing climate change, by the way? That's a good trade-off, you imply? Being a poor underdog means you can have a dirty industrial revolution, because it's only fair that you should get a turn at burning a load of coal, is that the idea?
You say "China is more exposed": do they - anybody influential in China - actually express any concern about it? I don't know either.
> Why is "trying to haul themselves out of poverty" an excuse for causing climate change, by the way? That's a good trade-off, you imply?
It's a better reason than "I like hamburgers and steaks, big cars, and jet travel". Do you imply the West's choices are somehow nobler? Or is it ok because those "sins" as you call them are grandfathered in?
What are a poor country's choices? Stay poor, climate change happens anyway, and now they don't have any money to deal with it. Or get rich and have a chance of surviving.
> Being a poor underdog means you can have a dirty industrial revolution, because it's only fair that you should get a turn at burning a load of coal, is that the idea?
They would happily use free or heavily subsidized solar panels and batteries instead. Rich countries could easily fund this and tariff anyone who still burns fossil fuels. Why not do that instead of going "It's useless to do anything because China blah blah"?
> do they - anybody influential in China - actually express any concern about it?
They have targets to reduce carbon emissions, energy consumption per unit of GDP, particulate pollution, non-fossil fuel energy in total energy consumption, and increase forest cover in their current and previous 2 5-year plans. I didn't go back further than that.
its very interesting, because the US and India will suffer strongly from the effects of climate change.
Russia not so much, the melting of the perma frost might even enable agriculture in some regions previously impossible.
China will also suffer strongly, they know this so they are investing heavily also in resilience measures. anti desertification measures in the green wall, Water management, even geo engineering (which caused some tensions with india about raining off clouds before the water drifts away)
The overall yield of grain crops in Russia is expected to decrease by 17% by 2050
we are talking about economic effectrs that might convince a trump/putin to take action. So biodiversity loss will likely not convince them. neither will indigenious habitat loss.
> So biodiversity loss will likely not convince them.
Well "biodiversity loss" doesn't sound too bad. The "biodiversity loss" problem we are facing right now is a mass extinction orders of magnitudes faster than the one of the dinosaurs.
The day we cannot produce enough food anymore, won't it have an economic effect?
Well, you did qualify it with "in the" US but the US military is a bigger polluter than many nation states; number one source of carbon emissions in the world
Soooo yeah, Murica. As your vanity demands; all the attention is on you.
I and the rest of the world look forward to the US objectively failing to meet the moment.
That's why it was so important for the US to lead when it was the superpower that had the authority, respect and most influence over institutions of international cooperation. We're in the process of throwing all those accomplishments of the 20th century away. We used to be the good guys.
The less-bad guys maybe? Good guys are pretty hard to find in any honest history books. The moment is gone in any case. Emissions reductowould no longer be sufficient even of we had any confidence they would occur. Engineering solutions need to start focusing on climate engineering in parallel to clean energy. Both will definitely be needed to mitigate the losses to human quality of life.
> Engineering solutions need to start focusing on climate engineering
Or not? Maybe we just focus on mitigating the loss of quality of life?
Climate is extremely complex. I'd rather we did not screw it up even more with climate engineering. But that's not all: even if we somehow managed to safely do climate engineering, it would only have an influence on the climate emergency. We have an energy problem and we have a biodiversity loss problem.
We are currently, measurably living in a mass extinction. It is happening orders of magnitudes faster than the famous one of the dinosaurs. And it is completely unrelated to climate change (but related to human activity of course). Of course, climate change makes it worse! But if we fixed the climate, we would still be living in a mass extinction event.
Climate engineering doesn't solve that. The solution to that is to do less of what humans are doing. And ideally do it better, so that it mitigates the impact on our quality of life.
Human nature being what it is, we won't hit the 2 degree target either. We could! We won't. The likelihood we get into some of the nastier feed forward events seems near 100%. Yes, we could build masks, then suits, then huddle in domes. Or we could build a thermostat into the place. Human nature is fine with spending trillions to fix a problem that billions would have avoided. But it wont do the avoiding. It is just how we are.
> Human nature being what it is, we won't hit the 2 degree target either. We could! We won't.
Agreed, we're pretty much screwed.
Still, I find it more rational to try to bet our survival on what we understand (we have to cut our CO2 emissions) rather than stuff we don't understand ("look 'ma, if I put this in the atmosphere for a few minutes, it has this effect locally. Let's assume nothing will go wrong when we do that for years at a global scale. After all, if it goes wrong, we're just dead... could be worse, right? Right?").
I think the benchmark game was really useful. It wasn't a which is better, it was what are the tradeoffs. Some of that was provided subjectively by curating it into safe and portable vs hyperoptimized categories. But there is also memory footprint etc. It was also a gauge of which languages people who care about performance preferred, as those got rapid updates.
While I get your point, there is obviously a middle ground between eastern block communism and unregulated anarchocapitalism that many nations can and do inhabit. Antitrust is a good example. The free market can't solve everything, and monopolies are bad for innovation despite what Thiel says.
That is a dangerous game, especially when affecting food supply. Widespread cyber attacks on critical infrastructure are deemed grounds for nuclear response in most national doctrines. This obviously is way out of scale, but concerted widespread efforts by decentralized groups could end up triggering ww3 by accident. Not when they try to play a game of chess, but when they shut down a water treatment plant, and some other unrelated group shuts down gas pumps, and suddenly there are millions of people with no fresh water and no fuel to get it to them...
No, but cbp could have a k9 at any bottleneck they want and those dogs read their partners body language, so if they are a racist idiot it might alert on excessive melanin providing probable cause. Assuming they didn't just train it to alert on command. And if it alerts yeah they can demand to search your phone. I don't hear about it getting used, but that could be because they are careful not to use it on anyone who might start a case that could get it ruled unconstitutional. They openly use it where they think there is actually smuggling.
The law makes it clear that the rules are only suspended in the customs zone of the airport and within 100 miles of the airport. They seem to follow that. The checkpoints you see in Washington state or down near the border with Mexico do not show up around denver or dfw. The reality is bad enough we don't need to exaggerate it. And they can't just grab every phone as they walk around LA either, they have to signal their dog to alert on you to give them probable cause...
The rules are not suspended within 100 miles of the airport, it’s only land and sea borders. (Look it up.) The person you were responding to is wrong and we need to push back against this becoming accepted “folk wisdom” or it will lead to more rights violations.
It's 100 miles of land & sea borders. Plus the airport zone. The airport does not create a new 100 mile zone.
For example, ATL is not within 100 miles of a sea or land border, so the CBP zone is just the airport, not the 100 mile circle around the airport. But, ORD and LGA are both within 100 mile zones.
Of course, it's all kind of a moot point, as the current administration seems happy enough to deploy immigration forces nationwide and Congress is spineless and incapable of pushing back.
Any standard that claims the entire city of Chicago to be a border zone is an absurd standard, just laughably overreaching if it were ever put in front of a fair court.
Yeah, it's pretty laughable, given Lake Michigan is fully within the US. But CBP considers all the Great Lakes as basically one giant international body of water.
DC also, because of proximity to the Chesapeake Bay. Austin TX within 100 of the Gulf of Mexico. And on and on.
As noted in a sibling, the 100 mile zone captures about 2/3 of the population.
The baltics have even more vivid memories of soviet life don't they? And nato trip wire troops so any attack would be killing french and uk soldiers (nuclear powers). Trump was talking about taking Greenland by force right up until the trip wire forces arrived. It is an odd job as a soldier to be a hostage I think, but it seems to work. It would be more reliable for Poland to obtain its own nuclear deterrent, along the lines of the buffers vs dependencies argument in the post. There has been talk, but that seems difficult.
The more likely hyperbolic step would be to blow up outgoing pipelines and apply secondary sanctions. Or, as threatened, blow up power and water treatment plants killing large swaths of the civilian population. Nukes wouldn't be necessary to cause mass death.
reply