Furthermore, yes, getting to the point where we're no longer starving and in thatched huts did require fossil fuels, but now we know what they do, and that they're actively having an effect on the environment, and clearly us, are we so stuck in our ways we can't change our actions to secure a life for those that come after?
What difference does it make what they're referencing?
I'm glad we agree that fossil fuels were necessary. It has nothing to do with "shareholder value" -- it has to do with minimizing human suffering.
Also, it's noteworthy that US emissions peaked in 2007. We're down ~20% since then. The world is absolutely addressing climate change, and the worst case scenarios have already been avoided. Faster would be better but we're moving reasonably fast.
The reason other countries are able to move so much faster than the U.S. is because parties that have power in the U.S. push back with economic concerns. The distance between "shareholder value" and "stock market performance" is miniscule.
What is this obsession with "shareholder value"? Moving away from fossil fuels too quickly will hurt normal people. It will increase the cost of everything (energy prices determine the cost of stuff), make it harder to heat/cool people's homes, etc. You'll also see people burning more wood, which is far worse for air quality and may be worse in terms of CO2.
Consumerism is the problem. If fossil fuels were used on necessities sure. Single use plastics, individually packaged consumables, planned obsolescence are examples of things that are not necessary. These examples have all to do with shareholder value.
Consumerism is not the problem. Human beings don't stop wanting to improve their lives once they have the bare necessities and there is nothing wrong with this.
We can have our cake and eat it, we just need to transition to cleaner forms of energy. Which we are doing.
Interesting that this question didn't warrant a response.
Anyway, here's new research demonstrating the near polar opposite of the original claim, in case anyone digging up these old threads was also wondering if slibhb's foundational arguments held up: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389855619_Global_Wa...
That's the right chip. The other comment shows off the article. I forgot that it was called the "sensor hub", that's why I couldn't find the post showing how it works.
There is literally no legal vehicle to uproot it, so, sure. If the law gets in the way of arriving at a functioning government, then breaking the law is what needs to happen. Not that I think what we have now is "functioning" either, but the act of subversion itself is not a big issue for me. Trump's stupid actions are an issue for me, but not so much the legality of them; if he were illegally improving the country that would be welcome.
To summarize, they rejected Nvidia's offer because they didn't want one outsized investor who could sway decisions. And "the company was also able to turn down Nvidia due to its stable finances. Hugging Face operates a 'freemium' business model. Three per cent of customers, usually large corporations, pay for additional features such as more storage space and the ability to set up private repositories."
> However, I sold it all in June 2024 at $25 a share as they started to pull in military contracts (and lots of them). These FDEs were too damn effective. Not a fan of military contracts but I guess thats where the money is. Nevertheless, morals first.
Yeah, I don't know about this. Imo, from as soon as you decide to invest in the stock market, you're signing away your ability to call morals as a rationale for any further decision. Where does the line start and end? Would you sell MSFT because of their involvement in Gaza? Sell a broad market index because a company there is doing something 'immoral'? No matter how you invest, you should automatically assume the company is doing something awful.
My opinion though, to each their own. An interesting article!
> Would you sell MSFT because of their involvement in Gaza?
Yes.
> Sell a broad market index because a company there is doing something 'immoral'?
Honestly, this is a lot harder to do. It depends on your definition of immoral but there are some smaller indexes and ESG funds that vet individual stocks before inclusion.
You need to use both the style controls and custom instructions. I've been very happy with the combination below.
Base style and tone: Efficient
Answer concisely when appropriate, more
extensively when necessary. Avoid rhetorical
flourishes, bonhomie, and (above all) cliches.
Take a forward-thinking view. OK to be mildly
positive and encouraging but NEVER sycophantic
or cloying. Above all, NEVER use the phrase
"You're absolutely right." Rather than "Let
me know if..." style continuations, you may
list a set of prompts to explore further
topics, but only when clearly appropriate.
Reference saved memory, records, etc: All off
It's glorious. The year has finally come. It's nice to feel excited about tech sometimes, especially when the company isn't completely horrible, and more competition! Great! Microsoft's move really, Sony and Nintendo are doing pretty okay!
Yep, we're not! (From a hc'er). Zach announced that slack has gifted us half a decade of enterprise+. Whilst slack's behaviour is worrying, it probably wouldn't make sense to cut all ties. Either way- another 5 years to migrate! :-)
No, it doesn't, because it's not alive.