511–520 of 884 posts
Why was the link changed? 3 hours ago it linked to this: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-used-to-not-worr... Now it links to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o
The new one the admin switched to is some people yelling. A "comedy" sketch.
Why was the link changed? 3 hours ago it linked to this: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-used-to-not-worr... Now it links to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o
Thank you for posting the original link. The new one the admin switched to is some people yelling. A "comedy" sketch.
Why was the link changed? 3 hours ago it linked to this: https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2024/01/i-used-to-not-worr... Now it links to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCo3XwTRg9o
@dang Is it just my impression that HN is drifting rigtwards on this topic? I remember HN being more in favour of proactive action against anthropic climate change. This thread feels dominated by attitudes reflecting inaction.
Im not dang but I would like to share a hypothesis why this maybe isn’t so terrible. The thing that always stood between the world and climate action was the fact that fossil fuels were the best energy source. Since a few years, the tables have turned and solar seems to be marching towards absolute dominance. So there isn’t much to do in terms of political climate action, since the incentives are now mostly economica…
> The thing that always stood between the world and climate action was the fact that fossil fuels were the best energy source.
> Since a few years, the tables have turned and solar seems to be marching towards absolute dominance.
> So there isn’t much to do in terms of political climate action, since the incentives are now mostly economical.
If we could put climate change on hold for 50 years we would probably be in pretty good shape, because in 50 years we will probably have enough renewable energy that we can just decide to stop burning (most) oil.
But in the real world, in 2024 we haven't actually reduced emissions at all yet, and the possibility of cutting down emissions in 50 years isn't enough.
It's true that in that sense we aren't that far from a scenario that "isn't so terrible" but that seems more like an ironic fact than something that should be comforting.
Because of the way climate change works, the future possibility of reducing emissions simply isn't enough if we aren't actually currently reducing emissions when we would really need to be at approximately zero right now to fix the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new video is however a spot on commentary on people who didn't worry about climate change but now do. Very sharp swap, IMO.
I saw a few seconds of people yelling and turned it off. What is this crap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new video is however a spot on commentary on people who didn't worry about climate change but now do. Very sharp swap, IMO.
I saw a few seconds of people yelling and turned it off. What is this crap?
If there's a point they're making, I wasn't able to hear it unfortunately :/ Can't imagine what a hard-of-hearing or deaf person would have to make of the auto subtitles...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new video is however a spot on commentary on people who didn't worry about climate change but now do. Very sharp swap, IMO.
I saw a few seconds of people yelling and turned it off. What is this crap?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Salary comparisons without accounting for cost of living is entirely useless and means nothing.
Meh, you can come up with twenty different methodologies and they all point to coming out way way behind in Finland. SF -> Finland immigrant, took approximately 70% pay cut, and enjoying the 80% marginal tax rate. The health of democracy is way better than the US at least.