What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans • Hacker News Board

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#151

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 2:00 PM UTC

ge96 wrote: post #150

adrianN wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Data centers use a lot of power. Make data centers more efficient, for example by improving GCC or the Linux Kernel, and you can save a chunk. Don't write your billion-user apps in Python, use a more efficient language like Rust or Go. Don't make 10MB webpages where 100kb would also suffice. But I think useful change can only be made using political means. Write your representatives and tell them how you feel. Vote f…

I was walking one night and I noticed streetlights are always on. Why aren't they proximity detecting/linked to each other so they'd anticipate you moving to the next one. Also same with stop/go lights. I realize infrastructure. Edit: I was thinking about lights, I don't know far away sensors maybe? Not helpful if the lights are always being used (lots of cars). Liquid salt thorium reactor haha

I'd guess several reasons, or rather aspects of the issue:

- proximity detector is another potential point of failure; including it raises both installation and maintenance costs

- when you're walking at night, you'd like to see further than the distance between two lampposts; this would require the proximity sensor to trigger several lamp posts arond you (totally doable, I guess, but again extra installation and maintenance costs for having the lamps wired together in the right way)

- in the past, streetlights were using sodium-vapor lamps, which have a significant warmup time

- now lamps are switching to LEDs so warmup time is not a concern, but I wonder how constantly turning them on/off impacts their longevity

Wearing my optimist hat, I think city planners are comparing costs of the issues above with potential savings. But pessimist in me tells me that it's mostly because electricity is cheap and incentives to optimize streetlights aren't strong.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#152

Post by wu-ikkyu » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 2:16 PM UTC

andrei_says_ wrote: post #58

anotherturn wrote: post #10

It's not really enough to read and upvote, but I'm at a loss as to what I can personally can do about this. So in the spirit of the askhn "how would you turn around Twitter" - let's apply the same thinking to this: "how would you fix the oceans "? There must be some practical steps that one or many of the hn audience can execute?

Elect people who are willing to take science-supported reality in consideration when creating policy.

Petroleum is a multi hundred billion dollar industry in the US alone. Attempting to vote our way out of this problem is in vain when considering the influence/ownership of the oil lobby on the political system.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#153

Post by Asooka » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

anotherturn wrote: post #10

It's not really enough to read and upvote, but I'm at a loss as to what I can personally can do about this. So in the spirit of the askhn "how would you turn around Twitter" - let's apply the same thinking to this: "how would you fix the oceans "? There must be some practical steps that one or many of the hn audience can execute?

We're just pawns in the game of life played by the few thousand members of the global ruling class. Nothing you or I do can have any impact whatsoever on anything of importance. Consume as much as you can, because nobody who can do something will do anything until the sky is literally falling.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#154

Post by wu-ikkyu » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 2:20 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #56

danvdragos wrote: post #42

Reading this struck me: What is the difference between primordial volcanoes and human pollution? During the dinosaur age it was a lot hotter [0] and there were really extraordinary organisms. Further reading seems to go down a rabbit hole [1],etc. [0] http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/07/11/what-geology-has-to-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/ice...

The difference is that during primordial times, we did not have all our infrastructure built out across the globe. Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine. It's been through worse. Global warming is scary because it's bad for human societies. We built our cities and farms and national boundaries in certain places based on the climate we have had.…

>Although global warming is often talked about in "bad for the Earth" terms, really, the Earth will be just fine

In the wise words of George Carlin:

>The planet is fine. The people are fucked!

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#155

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 2:27 PM UTC

nkoren wrote: post #148

TeMPOraL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the detailed response. That's exactly the kind of things I was looking for. Of course none of those points are something a single individual can tackle, but what I'm thinking about is to: - identify broad areas in which changes / development could meaningfully help with the problem (like you started doing with this list) - rank them on impact potential - subdivide them into smaller areas - use that as a re…

In reverse order: Thanks for asking about Podaris! Yes, there are a handful of planners using it. We soft-launched a little over a year ago, and since then have been working with a small group of planners from my personal network. They've done some good things with it, and it's gratifying to seen them now spending several hours every day in the software, so we're clearly addressing some kind of need. However up until…

Great to hear positive news about Podaris! I wish you success, and if you have an interesting testimonial or story, don't forget to post it here :).

RE list, thanks for the link, I didn't know about this work. I'll try to dig through it after work today.

Thanks for pointing out the issues with subdividing systems innovations and knock-on effects. I guess I've assumed that building a comprehensive list would be easier than it is. Still, something is better than nothing, and even by just looking at the HN discussions, I can see that there are many people with skills who would like to quit doing bullshit jobs, but don't know where to look for impactful work matching their skillsets or interests. This is an area I believe needs improving.

In this subthread I asked for ideas to start a rough list. If such a list was to be turned into a kind of reference for people, it would need to be continuously maintained. As you pointed out, you often can't predict which innovations will turn out impactful or not. The landscape constantly changes. But if we can't predict things well in advance, the least we can do is to try and track them and keep revising best guesses about their evolution.

I'm trying to understand what your other company does. From what I can tell from the website, you're selling some kind of framework for collecting and collaboratively sorting/annotating documents, and for on-line surveys? Is there any less business-speak overview available somewhere?

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#156

Post by sporkenfang » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 2:28 PM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #36

sporkenfang wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly, I think outright banning fossil fuel refinement and usage would do more. Being an only child seems to be a bit psychologically damaging. I could conjecture for pages here, but suffice it to say I believe one is better off having 2-3 children or none at all. Sure there can be situations like being raised closely with cousins or friends that are similarly beneficial, but kids absolutely must have close companion…

I agree with your first assertion, but would need to see some science on the second. I don't recall ever reading about negative outcomes for only children. On the contrary only children often have many advantages. More parental attention and time. More resources, all other things being equal. More money for college. More money for medical care (braces, eye care, etc.). More money and time for hobbies like sports or m…

Having more advantages is exactly the problem talking about. People, especially kids, need to scrabble a bit and fight for resources in order to learn how to treat the resources themselves and the other parties who might need them respectfully.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#157

Post by sporkenfang » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

seszett wrote: post #65

sporkenfang wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly, I think outright banning fossil fuel refinement and usage would do more. Being an only child seems to be a bit psychologically damaging. I could conjecture for pages here, but suffice it to say I believe one is better off having 2-3 children or none at all. Sure there can be situations like being raised closely with cousins or friends that are similarly beneficial, but kids absolutely must have close companion…

> This is only the opinion of one person, take it however you wish. As someone who is supposed to be unable to be empathetic, I kinda wonder how you came to have this opinion.

That's pretty polarizing. I think I said something to the effect of not developing the same, not "failing to develop any empathy at all". I and many of my friends have kids. They don't come into contact with each other more than occasionally, but the ones who are only children are much less willing to create something out of nothing and, say, play with the one toy that was available. Social situations, like having very close friends or cousins help, but something like preschool isn't 24/7. From observing the little guys, the ones who pitch screaming fits when their mum leaves them and I'm dropping off my kids are not the ones with siblings. And they're losing resources they haven't learned to share yet. I wouldn't say it's impossible for only children to learn empathy, just that it happens later, differently, and maybe doesn't achieve the same end goal of having a human being who's always had to share things 24/7.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#158

Post by ogrisel » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 3:05 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #110

arnoooooo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The compounded impact from multiple people is not negligible.

Of course it isn't. But the marginal impact is. That's the difference between "go vegetarian" vs. "convince millions to go vegetarian". I'm asking for things a skilled individual can do that would have larger marginal impact that changing one's own dietary habits.

You first need to go vegetarian to convince others to do the same.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#159

Post by 6d6b73 » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 3:24 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #77

anotherturn wrote: post #10

It's not really enough to read and upvote, but I'm at a loss as to what I can personally can do about this. So in the spirit of the askhn "how would you turn around Twitter" - let's apply the same thinking to this: "how would you fix the oceans "? There must be some practical steps that one or many of the hn audience can execute?

I see people mentioning things like "become a vegetarian" or "bike to work", but those are easy and neglible-impact things. Sure, they'd have a huge effect if half of the population suddenly adopted them, but that's not going to happen - so just going vegetarian yourself and calling it a day is not really helping anything. What I'd love to see is a list of high-impact work one could use their skills to help with. May…

What we need is to begin working really hard on creating a new society. A society where every human life is priceless, where there is no space for "race" or "sex" on the application because it's not needed.Where the environment is cared for and not exploited. Where science is respected and not just used to push someone's agenda. Where people are supported and helped whenever they need that help, but they also understand basics of being responsible for their own actions.

While it seems impossible (and most likely it is), there is only one way to find out - try.

I don't know about you, or anyone else here, but I bet there are thousands, if not millions of people here who don't give a ff about having the newest phone in their pocket, newest social app, etc. but would give all the time and money they have to create a better world if not for themselves - at least for their children.

"How do you propose doing that?" most people will ask - a very good question with a very simple answer - I don't know, but I'm sure that it's not something that few like minded people could figure out. We would possibly fail, but so what? Either way, it seems like we're doomed, so we have nothing to lose.

Re: What fossil fuels are doing to our oceans

#160

Post by nkoren » Thu, Mar 02, 2017, 3:48 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #155

nkoren wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reverse order: Thanks for asking about Podaris! Yes, there are a handful of planners using it. We soft-launched a little over a year ago, and since then have been working with a small group of planners from my personal network. They've done some good things with it, and it's gratifying to seen them now spending several hours every day in the software, so we're clearly addressing some kind of need. However up until…

Great to hear positive news about Podaris! I wish you success, and if you have an interesting testimonial or story, don't forget to post it here :). RE list, thanks for the link, I didn't know about this work. I'll try to dig through it after work today. Thanks for pointing out the issues with subdividing systems innovations and knock-on effects. I guess I've assumed that building a comprehensive list would be easier…

Yeah, the messaging around both companies needs to get a lot better.

Futurescaper is a tool for collaboratively creating and analysing crowd-sourced systems maps. The purpose of doing this is to better understand the dynamics of a complex problem domain, where many different perspectives are required to get a complete picture. It's not really about annotating documents; more about getting people to tell stories in ways that can be converted into causal graphs, which then can be combined with each other to produce a detailed map of the possibility space, which can then be inform strategic planning. If that makes any sense!

Our biggest customer is the United Nations, which uses it for projects like this one: http://www.la.one.un.org/media-center/publications/252-un-su...

The advantage of doing in this way is that it explicitly encourages the people who interact with it to take more of a systems approach to their thinking, helping to surface hidden root causes and predict unintended consequences or emergent knock-on effects.

It's a bit of an odd company, but happened kind of accidentally: just a weekend coding project (to assist a friend's dissertation on crowdsourced scenario planning) which spun badly out of control.