What I want to say is: atmospheric carbon capture is not the deus ex machina that one might be tempted to believe it is after seeing news of startups like Climeworks doing it.
I responded to a comment implying that if there is a philantropist like Bill Gates camping out in the desert sucking CO2 out of the air, we won’t need a massive collective effort.
Maybe this will be a somewhat effective solution one day for areas where fuel energy density is important (e.g. flight), but that’s about it. Carbon neutrality will still need a distributed effort as point source capture is massively more economical where feasible.
Did you get 750-800 out of the box with a Pi4 and USB ethernet? Asking because mine was around 300 and needed some manual tweaking (see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27231705)
I think it's really just more of the ruthless pragmatism that makes this place so efficient and a consequence of land scarcity. Housing is limited and leaving it up to the free market would exacerbate wealth inequality. Therefore the government steps in with subsidized housing, which almost by definition will have more demand than supply. Prioritizing young families makes sense as the birth rate is below replacement.
> There is no better way that a developer can earn outsized riches than blockchain and cryptocurrency. You are solving tough problems in difficult, constrained environments and are rewarded extremely well for doing so by a global group of investors involved in this alternative financial system.
You are not rewarded for "solving tough problems" or anything else related to creating actual value. It's FOMO driven gambling, scams and enabling organized crime that gets money into the crypto ecosystem.
For people who are of the opinion that expensive preparation for low probability events is untenable for elected governments because it would be seen as wasteful:
My home country (Switzerland) has a conscription army. ~160k people, each with either a pistol or an assault rifle at home, receiving regular training for a few weeks a year while the government compensates their employer for the loss in productivity. There are tanks, fighter jets and massive alpine fortifications. It's expensive. Most countries have an army and they are usually sized for an unlikely worst case scenario.
One would think maintaining a stockpile of PPE that would allow the authorities to recommend (and even provide) masks for the general population without risking a shortage in health care would be a relatively minor expense compared to that. And yet, all over the western world, PPE is in short supply, and that is without the general public wearing masks like they do in many asian countries.
Yes, that wasn't my point. I find the term "synonymous" when used for unambiguous numerical values that are off by 1% strange. But i'm not a native english speaker.
Roughly 1% of people born in the 17th century were not born in the 1600's.
I responded to a comment implying that if there is a philantropist like Bill Gates camping out in the desert sucking CO2 out of the air, we won’t need a massive collective effort.
Maybe this will be a somewhat effective solution one day for areas where fuel energy density is important (e.g. flight), but that’s about it. Carbon neutrality will still need a distributed effort as point source capture is massively more economical where feasible.