Windchaser

7 ms·

1.
by Windchaser 22d ago
>4C by 2100 is pretty far outside of the model projections. I'm not saying it's impossible - we all know there are some long tail uncertainties to climate projections - but for the most part, it's contraindicated by a lot
2.
by Windchaser 22d ago
> US emissions has declined in real terms since 2000, and has plummeted rapidly on a per capita basis. And yet we still have some of the highest per capita emissions in the world. Nearly tied with Russia for "highest per capita emis
3.
by Windchaser 22d ago
> The more realistic climate scientists think we will blow past 2c by roughly 2035. We are on track to 3c by 2050 I keep hearing this, but not from the climate science community, but from laypeople. I don't understand it. I haven&#x
4.
by Windchaser 22d ago
Sure. But again, compare our current GHG emissions per capita. Or set aside new electrical energy capacity, and instead look at other GHG sources: automobiles, agriculture, concrete. Are we doing well there? Mostly, no, not great, and we
5.
by Windchaser 22d ago
> You are making a disingenuous attempt at shifting blame onto the west. What makes this disingenuous? I thought I was pretty clear and honest about my belief that the West is to blame for a huge portion of the warming so far -- and this
6.
by Windchaser 23d ago
> The biggest lie we're being told in the west is that we have a hand in climate change. If you look at total historic emissions to date, the US is responsible for 25% of all of them, and the EU is close behind at 22%. China is at 1
7.
by Windchaser 23d ago
And when the Earth was 3C cooler, NYC was nearly under an ice sheet. The current estimate is that we're heading for +3C warmer, which is gonna have some big impacts.
8.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
I can still read it; it’s just been downvoted afaict. But it does seem like a bad comparison if what the other commenter said is true. I mean, here we’re talking about a lot of legitimate research being cut for absurd reasons.
9.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
Well, we'd still expect CO2. (Do the SO2 and NO2 get scrubbed? And - what else?) Edit: read the wikipedia link someone gave below. Yes, SO2 and NO2 and particulates are scrubbed. Older incinerators released a fair amount of dioxins, bu
10.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> The problem is that the statutory fines need to be setup so that they are actually a deterrent rather than a cost of doing business Out of curiosity, how high are the fines now? > Why 100%? Because they should be effectively put out
11.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> I dont understand how this one comes up thay often. It just sounds like the most useless thing ever. These literally make me suspect I am only one who cooks here while others kind of imagine what it might be like or something. I cook a
12.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> What is _your_ default assumption re: use case? I honestly can't think of any use cases (outside of very niche a11y uses) that are not in some way offensive, though perhaps not 'perverted'. Hmm, here's a few that co
13.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> You're not allowed to sell illegal drugs on the street? ... Or that police should look the other way bc it's too heavy handed to just detain the few dozen ppl that do this until they stop. I don't think you need to arres
14.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
Man outlines how hardened criminals take down Flock cameras, detailing it step-by-step: https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1v78ihu/...
15.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? People selling handbags neither threatens my dignity nor makes me indignant. When I think of "terrorize", I think of things like.. y'know, people strapped with explo
16.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> "filth and crime" checks, it's "people selling untaxed marijuana" Yeahhhh, we have radically different ideas about what constitutes "they're terrorizing my city". Casual use of heavy-handed law e
17.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
The "goal" here, not in the sense of what AI scientists are shooting for, but in terms of "goal", "goalpost", and the idiom of "moving the goalposts", would be to invalidate the current argument. Typi
18.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> this is not a research paper from a startup or a public frontier lab, it is just PR from a corporation If they're publishing the solutions to these 10 problems, then this is, essentially, the announcement of 10 research papers. Ye
19.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
And a lot of condensed matter physics. Type II superconductivity is a well-known one, but there are a lot of more less well-known ones
20.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
> If we didn't move the goalposts, then by definition we already knew exactly where we were headed at the beginning, and we very clearly did not. To me, the goalposts were already defined by the person you were responding to. "
21.
by Windchaser 1mo ago
The unified position which many folks deny is "AI is powerful" or, alternatively, "AI will be powerful soon". (I'm personally still skeptical about this, but I'm being pulled towards accepting it). "AI is
22.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
Reading both your comments, I don't see them suggest that only human brains are capable of experience. Not even "only animal brains", for that matter.
23.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
> The question of whether they reason is meaningless. I'd disagree. Reason is the most reliable way we currently have of drawing conclusions (fewest false negatives, at least), so if we want to build AI that can draw similarly stron
24.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
Recursive self-improvement only takes off when the improvements are large enough. We could set an LLM loose on itself now, self-improving its own code, but it's going to only make small improvements, and those will quickly peter out. I
25.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
I think it applies to non-biological Von Neumann probes as well. It'll apply to any system that can mutate, even if that mutation is just cosmic rays flipping the bits on a hard drive.
26.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
> It does zero good "for me" but hopefully someone thinks twice the next time before expressing such a dumb incorrect opinion. Well, I doubt it's going to change anyone's mind if it violates the community guidelines a
27.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
Not ethically better, though. At least in the US, 99% of all pork is factory-farmed, and in much of that the pigs live their whole lives in a stall too small to turn around in. Pigs are as smart as dogs, and have personalities and emotions.
28.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
You can view the guidelines here, at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I don't think you need to attack someone personally, even if you believe they are promoting products that harm people's mental
29.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
Hacker News guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, plea
30.
by Windchaser 2mo ago
The article hardly mentions "oppressed peoples" at all. Much of the focus is on the benefits gained to the empire by the diversity therein, with brief forays into the historical and geographical layout of different parts of the ea

More ›