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

Mourning Google

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 485 posts

Re: Mourning Google

#461

Post by Grimblewald »

sojournerc wrote: post #296
marcosdumay wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

O2 levels are not set that way. Just think where all the new CO2 is coming from.

Much of it is coming from the carbon in fossilized remains of a time when there was much more O2 in the atmosphere because there was so much flora and a warmer planet... what am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen

when we burn long carbon chains, these are broken up and combined with atmospheric oxygen to form CO2, so any CO2 we produce through burning carbon sources we dig up actually reduces O2 availability. However, a CO2 boom might free up oxygen from other molecules in an indirect way. CO2 dissolved in water forms carbonic acid, this increase in acidity is good for species like Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, which will help recover much of the oxygen trapped in complexes like iron oxide.

Or everything goes to hell in a handbasket and earth looks like mars in a few thousand years. Who knows.

Re: Mourning Google

#462

Post by Grimblewald »

marcosdumay wrote: post #425
sojournerc wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of it is coming from the carbon in fossilized remains of a time when there was much more O2 in the atmosphere because there was so much flora and a warmer planet... what am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen

Ok, now tell me where the O2 in CO2 comes from. And where it goes after a plant captures the carbon. Now read the original comment again. Did you notice the problem? That wiki page is surprisingly unhelpful. The O2 on the atmosphere mostly doesn't come or go anywhere, but on geological timescales it is mostly created from water and absorbed by rocks. The phenomenon that entire page is about stopped billions of years…

Much oxygen also gets trapped in the oxidization of things. Its pretty prolific, and part of why antioxidants in our food are considered so important. While some species of microorganism exist which might be able to help recover much of this oxygen with the right environment (e.g. the hot CO2 heavy and thus acidic water heavy environment we're creating) it might not be a realistically useful amount over time, or in time.

Re: Mourning Google

#463

Post by Grimblewald »

LoveMortuus wrote: post #81
Grimblewald wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

building on the dino thing, we've currently hellbent in creating a new dino age it seems. Hot ass planet high in the CO2 required to create thriving lush jungles.

While humans might not survive, the nature will. Should the worst happen. But I'm optimistic that humanity won't let things get this bad.

or humanity begins changing with its environments, becoming smaller to cope better with the extreme heat and humidity and in a few millions years sentient lizards complain on a forum over a bucket of RFH (rogars fried humanoid) about the terror of global cooling and how it's coming for them all.

Re: Mourning Google

#464

Post by dralley »

Apocryphon wrote: post #437
dralley wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox wasn't "bloated", it had a whole ecosystem of browser extensions that HN types loved which by the nature of the extension model ran synchronously with the UI and often stepped on each other's toes, broke on updates, and led to terrible memory leaks. They were then screamed at for being insufficiently "complacent" when they tried to fix those issues by changing the extension model.

Wasn’t FF getting long in the tooth by 2008, slow and dated? I didn’t have any extensions besides uBlock and Firebug and it didn’t feel as fast as it used to be. Wasn’t that the whole point of project Electrolysis?

Firebug was one of the worst offenders, despite being a very nice tool.

Re: Mourning Google

#465

Post by coldtea »

closewith wrote: post #194
coldtea wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, a Google existed then, and a Google exists now. Has Google always been the same, so that we can attribute any note of it changing, to "aging and seeing things differently"? This is a kind of gaslighting ("Google was always the same, your experience of it in a previous state is irrelevant, you see things that never existed because you're older"). Tons of real world changes have happened to Google, the people, th…

Nobody's claiming nothing has changed, but that's not the source of the OP's grief.

The source of OP's grief is the changes he writes about.

Or do you have some unique mentalist-style access to the "real source" that drives him?

Re: Mourning Google

#466

Post by coldtea »

acdha wrote: post #131
sweettea wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* How one retires at 25 when working at Google which is way past IPO and the 100x return on stock option which is only possible at the earliest stage? levels.fyi reports a L4 averages $270k/yr at Google. Can sock away a whole lot of that pretty fast.

$270k in the Bay Area is not retirement at 25 money unless you’re that Googler living in a van in the parking lot, or your retirement plan is living simply in a poor country. It’s a fine living, to be clear, but in a high cost of living area you’re paying high rent until you can buy an expensive house, etc. and the American healthcare system alone means you need to have millions saved as a buffer against illness over…

>It’s a fine living, to be clear, but in a high cost of living area you’re paying high rent until you can buy an expensive house, etc.

You don't need to live in a high cost of living area, except if you're competing American Psycho style.

You could live where the other 95% of people working in the Bay Area live.

I'm pretty sure that the baristas serving those Googlers in cafes outside the Googleplex don't make $270K a year, and still get to work in the same area.

If that means more commuting, that's always an option. People commute 1-2 hours per direction too, to make $50K, I'm pretty sure a 20-something making $270K can handle it.

Heck, even a daily two-way Uber would be totally doable, and other expenses added, they'd still get to save over $150K per year still.

Re: Mourning Google

#467

Post by horns4lyfe »

herval wrote: post #445
pjlegato wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism rewards psychopaths even more than capitalism does. In that system, the psychopaths quickly become the ones who define what those "guardrails" are, for their own personal benefit; and then use the full weight of state enforcement power to prevent any dissent. At least under capitalism, the decentralized free market eventually erodes the ability of a corporation run by psychopaths to continue to operate, if…

Erhn… you’re saying the government of Vietnam has more psychopaths than a big corporation? I sincerely doubt it. No upside for them.

The psychopaths in a government have a monopoly on violence, though.

Re: Mourning Google

#468

Post by herval »

horns4lyfe wrote: post #467
herval wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erhn… you’re saying the government of Vietnam has more psychopaths than a big corporation? I sincerely doubt it. No upside for them.

The psychopaths in a government have a monopoly on violence, though.

You mean the cops. Yes, police force has a large number of sociopaths and psychopaths: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

Government official roles likely tend to attract those types too, although I don’t think the president of Portugal or any nordic country are more of a psychopath than the past presidents of the USA for instance (like, all of them) “because socialism hurr durr”

Re: Mourning Google

#469

Post by ruszki »

disqard wrote: post #438
aquova wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is really the issue. When I was in graduate school, I was in a group for some project. Before class had started, I was showing off another group member some little personal thing I had worked on over the weekend, some game or demo or something. The third group member, having seen this, was shocked that I was spending my spare time programming things for fun. I recall being perplexed by this, as it was pr…

You bring up a good point, and it elicits the question: Once a company is overwhelmingly infested with folks who are cashing-in-till-they-bounce, should you stick around anyway, even though that'll hurt your career?

The problem is that not just the company, but the whole software development world seems to me overwhelmed with such people.

Re: Mourning Google

#470

Post by throwaway22048 »

ephemeral-life wrote: post #364
behnamoh wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what it is about leaders like Steve Jobs that makes them popular despite how programmers working for them know the guy in charge has never written a line of code. Is it charisma (whatever that means)? Is it vision? Is it luck and being at the right place at the right time? Is it a few devoted loyal programmers who spread the word about how amazing the Führer is? I often think it also has to do with the perso…

> I wonder what it is about leaders like Steve Jobs that makes them popular despite how programmers working for them know the guy in charge has never written a line of code. People want to believe in the genius that conquered the world, because it gives them the impression that success is a function of individual agency. It is much less impressive to hear that some world changing product was made by hundreds of engin…

How do you resolve that with the fact that the same hundreds of engineers doing boring engineer stuff nearly bankrupted the company before they brought Jobs back?
Post reply on HN