peacetreefrog

7 ms·

1.
by peacetreefrog 6y ago
So the only misleading thing is "keep 99% of what you make", it's really "96.1% of what you make - 30 cents" or "keep 99% of what you make after payment processor fees". Still cool, though obviously depend
2.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
All else equal, being in an area susceptible to climate change related flooding lowers value about 7% on average according to some research: https://www.axios.com/sea-level-rise-costing-billions-in-hom...
3.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
Full table of contents: https://ltcwff-toc.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ltcwff_toc.pdf
4.
Show HN: Learn to Code with Fantasy Football (eBook)(fantasycoding.com)
3 points by peacetreefrog 7y ago|1 comments
5.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
I think this is seriously naive.
6.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
Does anyone else view this as good news? I had heard speculation that the large insect die offs were due to climate change, but this seems much more treatable.
7.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
The profit is all based on lumber sales too. If profits really were that high it seems like capital would flow in until there were so many of these trees that prices would go down (though I'd imagine they're a small part of the gl
8.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
Agreed. Though it's tough to square the fact that bad things happen sometimes with desire to do something. The Onion actually had a good video on this a few years ago: https://politics.theonion.com/truck-accident-that-
9.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
The problem with that is there are a lot of transaction costs to individuals selling their personal emissions. Like the comment one higher up mentioned, one way to get around that and do effectively the same thing would be to split the reve
10.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
I don't think it's a straw man. Look at the two examples I cited. This is the first thing that comes up when you google 'green new deal': "A Green New Deal is a big, bold transformation of the economy to tackle the
11.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
The government is already is regulating carbon. California has a cap and trade program, for example, and this court case in 2007 forced the EPA "to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants." https:&
12.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
Well, depends what you mean by "at fault". I agree it's better to believe in global warming than deny it exists, but I agree with Cochrane that many of the attempts at at fixing it so far are basically "worthless value-
13.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
We need a carbon tax stat IMO. Economist John Cochrane had a good blog post about this recently (I actually posted to HN a few days ago but it got buried): https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/05/ip-on-carbon-ta
14.
by peacetreefrog 7y ago
From the article: "To my climate-skeptic friends: Given that the government is going to regulate carbon, this is the way to do it with least damage. To my green-warrior friends, if the government is actually going to reduce carbon, not
15.
John Cochrane on Carbon Taxes(johnhcochrane.blogspot.com)
2 points by peacetreefrog 7y ago|1 comments
16.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
Good comment, I agree with most of the spirit of it (though not sure it's realistic to expect people to have a coherent story on this just yet -- part of the reason it is alarming is because no one really knows what will happen). I tho
17.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
I meant non-tech like non-programming, start ups, Rust etc, the stuff you usually see on HN.
18.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
It's interesting to me how often this story shows up on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=insect&sort=byPopularity&prefi... Edit: a lot of down votes, I'm not saying it's bad that it's frequently
19.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
Pithy, but wrong.
20.
Cowen, Andreessen, and Horowitz: Annotated(hackernoon.com)
3 points by peacetreefrog 8y ago|0 comments
21.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
Agree, it's minor but I find the headline annoying.
22.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
They used it in June for a statewide race and they're using it today for the federal congressional races.
23.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
Maine voted on using this system for some elections in 2016. It passed, but -- perhaps not surprisingly -- many current, established politicians weren't happy. Maine's governor called it "the most horrific thing in the world
24.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
Luckily, you can decorate your own house/apartment however you want.
25.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
I have some sympathy for people being kept up late at night be noise, although it seems like there are other, more direct ways to deal with that (i.e. cracking down on the people being too loud). The rest of it seems like another form of NI
26.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
Agree. It's the same with anything, when push comes to shove and it means getting by or laying off writers etc the NY Times is going to fall back on basically the same behavior these cough drop or chicken noodle soup or whatever co&#x2
27.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
Good. More and more, reducing GHG gas emissions politically or through any sort of international agreement looks like a pipe dream. I think Kyoto is a good example. Take (liberal and environmentally enlightened) Canada -- their Kyoto targe
28.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
I happen to agree with all of these, on some level they're even obvious, to the extent that 99%+ of all environmental economists would support it. However, it's naive to think anything close to resembling this could happen politic
29.
by peacetreefrog 8y ago
"... stupid to contemplate while we're still increasing carbon emissions." Ok, let us know your plan for reducing carbon emissions and when and how we can expect it to happen.
30.
Ask HN: What's with all environmental disaster stories on HN?
1 points by peacetreefrog 8y ago|0 comments

More ›