181–190 of 239 posts
I went through a similar process and came to the same conclusion, although with a slightly different twist. The project became the point and I almost stopped noticing the data towards the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think was the purpose of the comment? Do you think that comparing someone's CO2 emissions with the average and pointing out that it is much higher is value-free, just a totally neutral observation for no reason? That the commenter is fine with it? Or even that it's a good thing?
No, it does not mean the commenter is fine with it. Regardless of their feelings, the commenter had the good sense not to include any shaming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it does not mean the commenter is fine with it. Regardless of their feelings, the commenter had the good sense not to include any shaming.
So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that everyone alive today and in the future is footing the bill for that indifference. It's nice that you don't care, but it's not something I'd brag about.
Is the OP flying a private jet or something? Unless he is, it's a useless metric. The people flying private are responsible for a 1000x a regular persons emissions. It's offensive to suggest regular salaried people are supposed to be "doing something" in this CO2 effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
What is the purpose of your comment? Are you neutral? No judgement?
But I'll also respond to your questions: my purpose is to show that your claim that the original comment was "free from judgement" is wrong. I'm not neutral, I'm attempting to show that your claim is obviously false, that it's not plausible at all. Of course I'm trying to judge a comment that seems wrong.
So now that I've replied honestly to your questions, will you reply honestly to mine? Repeating:
> So you think the commenter was neutral? No judgment? Again, what was the purpose of the comment then?
Because if the purpose wasn't to shame the person for their carbon footprint, I can't imagine what else it possibly could have been.
A simple back of the envelope calculation shows that Felix causes between 70 and 110 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year just from flying. Paris accord says 1.5t per person per year, from all activities, Felix's flying alonre is ~10-15x current European yearly per person emissions and ~50-75x those compatible with +1.5C.
If you want to reduce air travel for environmental reasons, then tax it more. Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful. Air travel works for people if the benefits outweigh the costs. The only thing that changes behavior is to change the costs. And even if costs were 10x there are still plenty of people who will fly tons, because it would still be economically productive. There are always going to…
Bravo. This is my dream and also my nightmare. I was super into the quantified self movement a while back, before Apple Watch, writing Withings Scale API wrappers in Ruby and Fitbit days. Every time I try to seriously track metrics of my life, the excitement of the insight gets worn away by the friction of recording and managing. I expect LLMs can help reduce the cost of this by an order of magnitude but then, as you…