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

536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 365 posts

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#211

Post by pmiller2 »

ci5er wrote: post #114
pmiller2 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what sense have we “recovered” from supply chain disruptions? I go to the store and still routinely see empty shelves where TP should be; have experienced meat shortages in recent days; and stores are still rationing things like hand sanitizer (when you can find it), canned goods, meat, and rice.

IDK where you live (and I won't ask! because I respect privacy and stuff), but in central Texas (Austin) and most of the urban markets I have been to (HEB, Central Market, Randall's, Trader Joe's, all the regional BBQ joints), I don't think I have seen any disruption in anything the whole time, except TP, briefly hand-sanitizer and a pop in the price of milk. I'm guessing the first two (at least) were because of peop…

Well, I will tell you, because it's already on here! I live in the SF Bay Area. East Bay, more specifically.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#212

Post by ci5er »

pmiller2 wrote: post #211
ci5er wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK where you live (and I won't ask! because I respect privacy and stuff), but in central Texas (Austin) and most of the urban markets I have been to (HEB, Central Market, Randall's, Trader Joe's, all the regional BBQ joints), I don't think I have seen any disruption in anything the whole time, except TP, briefly hand-sanitizer and a pop in the price of milk. I'm guessing the first two (at least) were because of peop…

Well, I will tell you, because it's already on here! I live in the SF Bay Area. East Bay, more specifically.

"On" means that the shelves are fully stocked?

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#213

Post by pmiller2 »

ci5er wrote: post #212
pmiller2 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I will tell you, because it's already on here! I live in the SF Bay Area. East Bay, more specifically.

"On" means that the shelves are fully stocked?

Oh, no... I meant where I live is already in my comment history on HN.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#214

Post by [deleted] »

aksss wrote: post #192
seph-reed wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: This post is angry. I say my words more clearly below. > living a better life today than someone of your station would have lived 300 years ago > We (as human consumers) never had it so good You couldn't possibly understand how much better community and and a sense purpose is to the life we're living. The fact that we become more and more isolated, more and more lied to, more and more defeated and yet: you thin…

I think you're mistaking my statements for a personal religious dogma. I'm just telling you the way the world is. We may or may not agree on the prescription for the world's ills, but it's irrelevant. You're assuming consumption and community are mutually exclusive. They are not. Plenty of examples to be found to show they are not dependent (10, 01, 11, 00). You ask why any of this is necessary to get these goods. I…

[deleted]

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#215

Post by ci5er »

pmiller2 wrote: post #213
ci5er wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On" means that the shelves are fully stocked?

Oh, no... I meant where I live is already in my comment history on HN.

Oh! Fair enough! :-)

I don't think I have ever spent time going through comment or tweet histories, but I understand that that is a thing. (Sounds like a dull hobby)

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#216

Post by tryauuum »

pfdietz wrote: post #196
sethammons wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is not to avoid black swan events entirely, it is to have pockets that are missed by a given event. Earth goes cold? Well, good thing the moon base can preserve technology and knowledge for a hundred years. Solar flare? Good thing we have the under-ice base on Europa. Europa explodes? Good thing that we are still on Earth. Now if they all happen at the same time, like the sun dying, then that is why you want…

What event would leave the Earth less habitable than the Moon already is?

grey goo

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#217

Post by ClumsyPilot »

aksss wrote: post #132
seph-reed wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund and spending it on cocaine Not usually a fan of us vs them mentality, but your use of "we" here feels bad. Surely, it's all of us that use these resources, nobody on HN is self sufficient (please be the exception). But at the same time, most of us aren't getting much of the "cocaine" here, at least relatively. It would almost be reasonable to say " They are e…

You kidding me? We're all getting the coke. Just because you're not Scarface doesn't avoid the fact that all of us are awash in plastics, silicone, rare earth metals, concrete, steel, precious metals, alloys, goods from far flung lands, industrial agriculture and many assumptions about available services that rely on the same and ravenous upstream fossil fuel consumption. We (as human consumers) never had it so good,…

This is a xomolete misinterpretation of today's economic and resource situation. The real tragedy is that all this is a conpletely unneccesary wanton destruction. Thrre is no coke, it serves no purpose.

Pick amy product on a supermarket shelf or on Amazon, and you wil find that raw materials account for maybe 20% of its final price tops. They are called commodities for a reason, and its production of those raw materials that does the lions share of pollution. You could replace all manufacturing with a combonation of nuclear power and reneables, and youd hardly change the price of the final product.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#218

Post by rabidrat »

koheripbal wrote: post #198
chadlavi wrote: post #11

The worst year to be alive _so far_

Yep. Personally, I think the steady proliferation of nuclear weapons is going to snap at some point with some nut using them. God help us all. Humans are stupid. We think that because we survived the Cold War, that it won't happen. ...but if you read the history - it very nearly did happen a couple of times. ...it's only a matter of time.

OTOH nuclear weapons decay and we're rapidly losing the tacit knowledge required to make new ones (at least here in the US). If the Test Ban stays in place and is enforced, it may only be a few more decades until we as a species would have to do another Manhattan Project to rebuild them. This takes about 4 years of concerted effort within military and industry, and the only shortcut is the tacit knowledge that nuclear weapons designers can pass on. Maybe WW3 will actually be an "aw hell no" response to some country trying to develop nukes after they're we've lost them.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#219

Post by ClumsyPilot »

aksss wrote: post #134
kortilla wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, you know, just use nuclear.

I mentioned nuclear. It is secondary to the conversion from coal to gas though in terms of near-term realized benefit. Nuclear requires a lot of dereg and testing that will be decades out if we start today. This assumes the barriers of popular rejection can be overcome. China might pull it off, but I don't see the US radiating enthusiasm for it. But yeah, since few places on earth can take advantage of hydro, I don't…

It does not require dereg, it requires investment. Just lile renewables do.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#220

Post by fomine3 »

pfdietz wrote: post #209
yongjik wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany and Japan had nuclear plants back when global warming was nobody's priority. It was competitive with fossil fuels then. Now that nuclear power is fallen out of favor, they went back to fossil fuels, instead of renewables, because it's cheaper for them. So apparently the advances in renewables didn't just make renewables cheaper: it also made nuclear more expensive than fossil fuels! Or, maybe, nuclear is now…

Continuing to operate their existing reactors would certainly have been cheaper for Japan. So the decision to replace them with fossil fuels (now LNG + CC, not the fossil fuels of decades ago) wasn't driven by economics.

After 2011, nuclear plants in Japan need to be audited that means plants must be stopped near the future. It causes massive power supply crisis so power companies built power plant as fast as possible. IIRC LNG power plant is said fastest plant to build and start operating.
Post reply on HN