Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oh, 2022

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 557 posts

Re: Oh, 2022

#461

Post by scatters »

Houshalter wrote: post #356
scatters wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK is not under any real level of restriction, and the (own-currency) debt taken on is not of a form that would harm growth. Compared to its peers the UK is doing abysmally; the distinguishing factor is Brexit.

So far as I have heard, the UK went way harder into lockdowns and other measures than the US. And from what I saw, what happened to the US was insane. Everything was closed down for months (or longer depending on the industry.) Supply chains were incredibly disrupted. The government went deeply into debt and inflation is skyrocketting. There are still shortages of many things for the forseeable future. Unprecedented…

The UK did lockdown somewhat harder than the US (but not some US states), but that mostly only affected hospitality and entertainment, and home-based activities made up for that to an extent. The debt is inconsequential (for now), and inflation is still nothing compared to the '70s.

US GDP is around 2.5% below pre-covid trend; the UK is far behind that. UK exporters (and importers) have taken a huge hit from the new trade barriers.

Re: Oh, 2022

#462

Post by dave_sullivan »

cstross wrote: post #78
gmuslera wrote: post #19

Should be be worried that the author of Accelerando complains about things going too fast? Future is complex, and not only "good" developments happens and start changing everything faster than ever before, bad ones does too. And we aren't rational enough to avoid the bad ones. Anyway, I'm more worried about the consequences of climate change that are not the slow rise of the global sea level than about COVID. That is…

I wrote Accelerando from 1998-2004. That's a third of a lifetime ago. It's normal to slow down as you grow older!

Would have loved to read more in this universe. Like, what is economics 2.0? What were the Vile Offspring like?

But really, accelerando was a great book, wish there was more in the genre but maybe I just haven't been looking hard enough.

Re: Oh, 2022

#463

Post by throwaway0a5e »

theshrike79 wrote: post #445
elihu wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think EVs will quickly overtake ICE vehicles once they're price competitive and battery manufacturing scales up to the levels needed, but that's a separate issue from government bans. My point is that several governments now have policies in place that say they're going to ban the sale of new ICE vehicles after a certain date. But they aren't going to disallow the use of ICE vehicles in their country or on their ro…

I agree, there won't be any "bans" for ICEs per se. But there WILL be higher congestion charges and maybe even localised bans for ICEs in city centres. No one wants a smoking diesel truck idling under their window if they have the option to replace it with a quiet EV.

Disagree. Jurisdictions that (though mostly happenstance of economics and demographic distribution) wind up with most ICE users being economically marginalized or a political minority will enact bans. It's a great way to win political brownie points so it'll be done.

Re: Oh, 2022

#464

Post by saalweachter »

supperburg wrote: post #360
CamperBob2 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you could probably choose worse sources, as many people have. I also suspect you could choose better ones, but what you really need is more sources. (It's also possible that you misunderstood him, or that he didn't do a good job expressing the point.) What's not debatable is that the fatality rate is not 0.02%, or anything close to it. The numbers don't work. If that's what he's saying, then he's telling you…

He seemed to have plenty of hard science to cite in his hours long conversation with lex fridman, MIT alum and lecturer. It’s available for anyone to watch. If later on it becomes clear I was spreading wrong information then I’ll own up to it.

So at the end of the day we're both just referencing different authorities here.

Why do you trust this guy's assertion on how many excess deaths there have been over the last two years, and their cause, more than the CDC's numbers?

Re: Oh, 2022

#465

Post by tm-guimaraes »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #196
elihu wrote: post #123

> "Looking further afield: it seems likely that the end of internal combustion engines will be in sight. Some countries are already scheduling a ban on IC engines to come in after 2030—electric cars are now a maturing technology with clear advantages in every respect except recharge time. Once those IC cars are no longer manufactured, we can expect a very rapid ramp-down of extraction and distribution industries for…

From the comments on Charlie's site, and not by me: Wyvernsridge | January 9, 2022 19:06 | Reply 8: I love these kinds of posts! I would, however, caution about thinking that the end of ICE car manufacturing will be dictated solely by government diktat. It will most likely come earlier and more chaotically because of manufacturers being unable to source parts and components to continue making those cars. The auto ind…

ICE cars are still needed because battery tech is not good enough.

There are plenty of studies showing that an hybrid car is much better for the environment on the long term than the current state of lithium battery electric cars. Long range EV are a pest. Lithium mining is way worse for the environment than people believe, and there is the whole other issues related to mining in general.

We still need ice cars

Re: Oh, 2022

#466

Post by obiefernandez »

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #391
mjmahone17 wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly we even have the technology to do it now just limited will if things ever get real bad that would change very quickly. COVID tells me that’s highly unlikely. We literally have a movement rejecting known-to-save-lives technology for non-scientific reasons. If things get real bad people will dig deeper to try to protect their own lifestyle right now, even if that means screwing things up 10 years from now. A…

> COVID tells me that’s highly unlikely. We literally have a movement rejecting known-to-save-lives technology for non-scientific reasons. COVID is different because you need a massive majority, 80%+, to follow certain guidelines (vaccine, masks, etc). For carbon it just needs to happen, anyone can do it. If the tech gets cheap enough Bill Gates will just setup shop in the desert and start sucking.

See "Termination Shock" by Neal Stephenson (his latest novel) for a close variation on this scenario.

Re: Oh, 2022

#467

Post by imiric »

rektide wrote: post #314
ninkendo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does anyone owe you their eyes and ears? If somebody doesn’t want to read what you have to say, it’s fine that they block you. It’s fine. Stop worrying about it, it’s not “cancel culture”, it’s just human beings being overwhelmed by the number of people that piss them off.

It's pathetic beyond words that there's no other moderation systems available. To take remorseless, infinite action against someone who may be having a bad day, or who may feel strongly against something: it's a drastic drastic overreaction. But we have literally no choice; on most sites blocking/muting are the only options available to us to de-espouse incoming comments. This is a technical fault, heartlessness is b…

Humans never had the capacity to communicate via text with hundreds and thousands of other humans until very recently. We're just not wired to take in random thoughts from inanimate blinking lights. This is partly why social media is such a shit show, where civil discussion is next to impossible, and platforms are ripe for abuse by anyone who wishes to influence how entire segments of society think and act.

So, no, blocking accounts is not only acceptable, but the only line of defense for someone who still wishes to engage in honest discourse on those platforms.

Re: Oh, 2022

#468

Post by mekkkkkk »

speedgoose wrote: post #395
jeffbee wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lifespans of cars have been elongating rapidly. The median car on the road recently passed 12 years. Especially sensible cars with medium-displacement engines making little power through a CVT, these will go a million miles with ease. The long tail of model year 2030 Honda Civics is going to be almost impossible to eradicate without controlling the supply of fossil motor fuels.

I don’t know. I think that few people would prefer to drive an old , slow, non responsive, smelly, inconvenient, and expensive to drive Honda by 2050. These cars are already unloved in Norway. A classic American muscle car or an Italian supercar yes of course, but the Honda Civic will be recycled IMHO.

Who cares about Norway though. What about India, China, Brazil etc.? Are they mainly going to scrap their old functional ICE cars and buy brand new, fresh smelling EVs?

Re: Oh, 2022

#469

Post by speedgoose »

mekkkkkk wrote: post #468
speedgoose wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know. I think that few people would prefer to drive an old , slow, non responsive, smelly, inconvenient, and expensive to drive Honda by 2050. These cars are already unloved in Norway. A classic American muscle car or an Italian supercar yes of course, but the Honda Civic will be recycled IMHO.

Who cares about Norway though. What about India, China, Brazil etc.? Are they mainly going to scrap their old functional ICE cars and buy brand new, fresh smelling EVs?

Why would the (most likely) first world power drive shitty cars ?

Re: Oh, 2022

#470

Post by ninkendo »

rektide wrote: post #314
ninkendo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does anyone owe you their eyes and ears? If somebody doesn’t want to read what you have to say, it’s fine that they block you. It’s fine. Stop worrying about it, it’s not “cancel culture”, it’s just human beings being overwhelmed by the number of people that piss them off.

It's pathetic beyond words that there's no other moderation systems available. To take remorseless, infinite action against someone who may be having a bad day, or who may feel strongly against something: it's a drastic drastic overreaction. But we have literally no choice; on most sites blocking/muting are the only options available to us to de-espouse incoming comments. This is a technical fault, heartlessness is b…

I would recommend deleting your twitter account. In all sincerity it seems to be having a negative effect on your mental health.
Post reply on HN