The archive link given by another poster works for me.
What matters is the pessimistic conclusion of the article:
> "The uplift in prices is anticipated to persist for as long as the AI supercycle lasts. “I think we’re still in the sort of early stages [of price increases],” said Dhillon, adding that “there’s a lot more to come in the pipeline”."
The only real problem with Finder is that it doesn't show the current path anywhere. If it showed that, then it would be trivial to understand where to find your file later. Of course this is an option, hidden in a menu, so it is never used by the people who need it most.
To be clear, not being allowed to possess the eggs, feathers or any other part of a protected species is probably a good thing? Not being able to pretend you “found them on the ground” is probably better stopped than the problem of children really finding things on the ground.
Laws based upon speculation that you may act dishonestly are wrong. I've seen lots of police statements about arrests and detentions where the officer basically says, "We didn't know that he was not going to do something illegal."
Putting somebody in a position where they have to prove a negative is plain wrong. The prosecution needs to prove a positive, unless you're in Plymouth, Massachusetts where the prosecutor is required to disprove all defense assertions about mental illness, or the jury will acquit.
I read about this story on Reason.com a few days ago. The mother is getting her law license and is now worried about the repercussions of her having a criminal record.
> Not being able to pretend you “found them on the ground” is probably better stopped than the problem of children really finding things on the ground.
Oh, I thought "Innocent until proven guilty" was concept known even in US, but apparently it didn't arrive there yet.
Software devs absolutely live in their own little world. Regular people don’t even know what an OS is. All the details of computing have become so abstracted away from the user that they’re completely unaware.
"the assumption that higher efficiency tires are worse gripping" This is fact not assumption. Ironically you are the one who made an assumption here. People who don't understand a topic should not attempt to regulate it based on assumptions.
There is currently a multi-billion, if not trillion, dollar industry (advertising and marketing) that is convincing everyone to behave the opposite way, i.e. maximize consumption with no regard to negative externalities. If we simply curb them, or better yet, use those same mechanisms to propagate a more rational message, yes, that that's all we need to do.
Granted fossil fuels are much more ubiquitous than CFCs and comparatively more difficult to replace, but we have prior art for changing industrial practices in the interest of improving climate conditions.
That was an awful lot simpler, int aht we (or rather governments) just had to lean on a small number of manufacturers and tell them to find alternatives for CFCs in their products. Nobody was up in arms saying 'my hairspray isn't the same without CFCs' or whatever. I'll bet the majority of consumers never even noticed the difference.
My memory was that once satellite imagery of the ozone hole became available and it suddenly became something you could actually plot on a map the serious debate suddenly ended and complaining about 'they took our CFCs' became a kook issue. But looking up old media coverage, I see that dissatisfaction entrepreneurs like Rush Limbaugh aggressively milked the issue and then recycled successful tropes in other contexts.
We couldn't have stopped using fossil fuels heavily until nuclear power was widespread and implemented, around the late 70s or 80s.
We could have traditioned our grids off of fossil fuels but we also depend on them for fertilizer to feed the world and for transportation which, until very recently, didn't have a viable alternative.
Nuclear was also kneecapped by FUD and astroturfing, and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s? Setback after setback, all self-inflicted, people pretending we have these insurmountable hurdles all over the place. Pathetic for an empire that prides itself as a champion of industry.
The fertilizer thing is a perfect example. We don't need to extract, refine, and burn nearly as much fuel as we do to get the fertilizer we need. People make the same empty argument about the cheap plastic shit that dominates the economy as if the world didn't exist before cheap plastic shit and couldn't exist after.
> and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil.
The world is a lot bigger than the US and they've all followed pretty much the same trajectory the last two decades. A slow long term investment in R&D/manufacturing techniques, followed by increased adoption when it became economically competitive. Combined with varying levels of government incentives and measured regulation, to ease transitions so it doesn't destroy the economy which we still depend on for everything else.
These major shifts always happen slowly then start exponentially growing once it's demonstrated to be practical.
I agree the US isn't the only country but I believe at that time we had the resources and clout to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes. We were still a global leader at the time both politically and technologically, especially where energy was concerned. And the world certainly took notice and set back the movement when the largest polluter per capita repeatedly signalled it had no interest in joining the rest of the world in a green future.
> to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes
China won there because they can build things, they are also built 60+ nuclear reactors over the past decade. That's the main difference between them and the west. It's not a lack of government grants for green R&D.
They made renewable energy affordable for both themselves and others... by allowing industry to operate efficiently and affordably.
Tesla couldn't build a Lithium Battery plant in California for their electric cars because made it impossible via environmental air regulations. But now the west is benefiting from Chinese production.
Really? California represents the entirety of the US's technology R&D capacity? Ironic that I'm supposed to read that as an indictment of California's governance...
Definitely true. But you see the blame placed on the public fearing nuclear from these events. There was some fear, but also astroturfing to make sure nuclear stayed dead.
> a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so.
To be fair to past humans the deliberate lies and misinformation didn't really start until the 1970s, the oil crisis of that decade, the coming together of the UN to recognise the issue following the geophysics papers of the 1960s that nailed the CO2 problem against oil consumption, etc.
That's the period in which Koch money started flowing to think tanks and agencies that spun hard against smaller cars, public transport, integrated rail in cities, etc. The push for bigger cars as freedom.
Arrhenius' 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect didn't exactly have enough bite to kick of anti-prop in 1926, the world had other pressing issues.
Also worth noting that Three Mile Island was an earlier stain on public perception that kicked in a power station slow down well before Chernobyl.
You right. 50 years or so. I was trying going back far enough to include the discovery of man-made climate change and not necessarily starting right at the plugging our ears portion of the timeline.
Regarding the nuclear FUD, I'm not backing down. We'll never know how much the fear of nuclear was grassroots and how much was turf, but we can know for sure that someone didn't want Americans to have energy independence.
Fear of nuclear weapons was backed in as part of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction stand off doctrine - rather hard to achieve when pushing the Atoms For Peace warm fuzzy alternative.
Didn't help that nukes didn't make good civil engineering tools or help conquer space by farting out tiny bombs.
Even Carl Sagan was pushing the nuclear should not be used primal back brain reaction by over hyping (?) nuclear winter for a disarmament argument.
To pick one example: Once Studebaker decided to branch into self-going car territory, they were selling electric cars[1] nearly a century before GM's EV-1 project started delivering vehicles.
They were reasonably-reliable and they plugged into an outlet at home to recharge. Easy-peasy. But the range sucked: 40 miles is useful, but is just not very good for a lot of things that don't require any imagination to realize.
They did a lot better selling gas-fired cars than they did plug-in electric models[2], and this happened without requiring political conspiracy.
Anyway, it's 2026 and the range problem is solved well-enough for many folks. :)
From a western european perspective, I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy. Sure, until the early 2000s or so, it was all a bit nonspecific and seemed expensive, but latest by the 2013 paris agreement with falling renewable prices everyone knew what the solutions were going to have to look like for at least electricity, heating, and intracontinental mobility. Surely there'll be other examples too, but the USA is also the only country that both sits among the top emitters and easily had the resources to address their share. I have a hard time believing that "nobody really knew for sure" is what'll go down in history books as the underlying cause for most countries' inaction
To be totally clear, I'm not trying to absolve Americans of our responsibility. Americans are remarkably stupid and basically feral (I'm obviously exaggerating but that's how it feels living here). I have had shocking conversations about climate change and domestic energy policy. About half the country, especially older people, were very eager to hear comforting lies about how the lives to which we've grown accustomed need not be adjusted in any way. Despite it now being quite undeniably knocking on our front door, a solid portion of older Americans still don't think climate change is man made and still resist any hint of a green transition. It's fucking crazy town over here.
But if trusted leadership told everyone that we were roasting the planet instead of telling them we weren't and that roasting the planet is un-American, you can bet your sweet ass we'd have some green and nuclear energy going by now.
>I can think of only one country where misinformation appears to have been a relevant factor for climate policy.
I can think of a lot of countries where it wasn't a factor, maybe because if you are a rational economic actor trying to decide to throw money and messing with what people believe you can concentrate on just the biggest country that everybody does what it says. I mean what would be the point in convincing a large part of the Danish population that climate change wasn't real? It seems like it would be inefficient.
on edit: rational in this context is just using money in a way that maximizes the result one gets while minimizing the expenditure, in case anyone was getting ready with a clever rebuttal.
Most people agree on basic values. It's really not that big a stretch to appeal to such common values, seeing as rapid global warming would cause mass relocation, suffering, adaptation costs for those who can stay put, etc.
Considering how current world powers are heavily increasing military spending as well as the heavy rightward shift in many governments, I'm no longer convinced we'll do the right thing. It feels more and more like poor countries will be left to fend for themselves, so the "developed world" can plunder the remains to prop ourselves up just a bit longer.
Bit of an easy claim without concrete examples as I gave. Would hold more water if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value / wants to cause any of the things I mentioned such as forced relocation
> if you'd tell us which local or global culture does not have basic decency towards each other as a value
Look around the thread at how people are treating each other, and then keep in mind that HN is probably like 99th percentile for civility on the Internet in this regard.
Look at what happens in threads about any other politically charged issue, for that matter. Heck, look how far the discussion will veer into politically charged off-topic matters, whenever the OP is about some meta-level "how to be convincing" "how to argue fairly" etc. point.
Do you believe half the human population should have the same rights as the other half? I'd say this is rather basic, yet the subject of much disagreement.
Not really the topic here but I actually think most people agree on most things; everyone wants to do right by them and theirs. We just focus on the areas where we differ in opinion on how to get there and have things to discuss
You said “the DoD is the single largest consumer of fossil fuels” (emphasis mine). That is a very different claim than what the article says, which is that the DoD uses “more oil than any other institution in the world." Oil is just one type of fossil fuel; natural gas and coal are others. I would also contend that an institution is a very narrow class of consumer.
What you said is much more vague and could be reasonably interpreted to mean “the DoD uses more fossil fuels than the entire country of China,” which seems intuitively false.
Most "user generated content" is no longer user generated, or at least not in the traditional sense. It is mostly advertiser generated these days. There are multiple competing ad agencies that poison the well on sites like this with content that is designed to look like word of mouth, but is actually an ad.
The em dash in the subject was a sign of an llm generated post and the community avoided it? Now reposted in a technical manner and getting community reaction /s, maybe
I don’t believe that, there’s probably some missing data. Outside the techno echo chamber that HNers live in, most people use the defaults. I see people using adware browsers that were installed without their knowledge. Computers are just too complex for most people to notice details like what web browser they use.
Until they inevitable use Google, and it shows a big popup saying something like "Hey there you should use Chrome its way better and faster, click this button to get it" and then they end up with Chrome. Its basically how Chrome got such a large share of the market despite default browsers like Safari and IE/Edge.
Didn't Chrome also come bundled with other software like torrent clients? That is, unless you unchecked a checkbox in the installer for these software, you ended up with Chrome installed? Unless people were careful to pay attention to every checkbox on every installer, Chrome could end up installed without their knowledge.
Here in Canada you're not allowed to 3d print a modded grip for the rifle you're not allowed to buy, but in the USA you can get OPIOIDS at a GAS STATION! ... things are definitely different down there.
reply