Now I know exactly how late I am.

Interesting time geek link to the first true atomic wristwatch.

http://leapsecond.com/pages/at...

Quick Google search. 36 billion tons of CO2 emitted, 3 trillion trees worldwide, 30-40 trees per ton of CO2 removed, global GDP 100 trillion.

So to solve the problem with trees at the 10 billion ton per year target (less than a third of emissions) you need to plant 300 billion trees per year at a cost of 800 billion dollars per year and also reforest the world at a rate of 10% annual increase.

To "solve" it with direct capture (Capture one third of emissions) you need 10 trillion dollars per year. Or 10% of global GDP every year.

So forecasting that the market might hit 250 billion per year means we will not come close to solving the problem with carbon capture, and looking at the numbers it's hard to imagine that it would even be physically possible.

just buy a house. Problem solved.

You can do active learning on laptops, but the default is probably passive learning. You can do passive learning on paper, but it's maybe a little easier to do active learning on paper.

I don't think so, the whole point of EcoTank printers is to do away with cartridges.

I'm pretty happy with my ecotank printer. It sidesteps the whole printer cartridge experience. You still have to deal with the anticonsumer company that makes the printer, but at least you can dump whatever ink you want into it.

Sure, but what do they add to the mix that you can't get by building your own 4.3L mini-itx desktop or buying someone else's 4.3L mini-itx desktop? The value proposition is pretty obvious with the laptops. I guess at some point they want to grow beyond the upgradeable laptop demographic, so I can see what they get out of it. Maybe they will differentiate based on quality. They seem to be positioning it against Apple products, so I guess it's more upgradeable than those. I really like what they did with the laptops. I'm just not sure what niche they want to fill with the desktop. On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with building another desktop. Maybe there is no big idea. I can go along with that, it just struck me as strange for them to come out with a desktop machine.

Not sure what the play is there. The initial reason for framework to exist is to improve on the abysmal modularity/upgradeability of laptop hardware. Desktop hardware is already modular and upgradeable. Not only that but they ended up soldering the memory to the motherboard and using a "semi custom" power supply. I assume they have a target demographic in mind. I just can't imagine who it is.

I guess cross platform compatibility is nice for the developers. Not needing to make three or four versions of your software. For instance, OnShape seems to be a pretty good web-based CAD solution. I'm not a professional, but for hobby stuff it seems well put together. It also allows for easy collaboration. The part I don't like is the need for a new account with every online service. It gets annoying. Of course, you are likely going to need to create a web portal account for new desktop software these days too, so there is that.

I'm a little surprised that her whole statement is about AI deepfakes and she glosses over the rabid antisemitism. Not sure what she means by "takes accountability". Has Kanye taken accountability for what he said? It's my impression that he has simply doubled down multiple times. I would have expected the reverse. "Not OK to deepfake me, but 100% F$&* you Kanye...etc., etc."

"All" wasn't meant in the absolute sense. It was meant as a generalized statement to describe the average person in the group. Of course there are individuals that truly live a zero carbon footprint life. They are the exception, and nobody really points to them and says "That is the way to live". I don't see climate activists parading their personal sacrifice in the media. I don't see personal carbon footprint even really being talked about other than to advocate "small and simple" changes you can do to help. It's always at the level of slight inconvenience. If an alien were to visit your home and observe your behavior, would they conclude that you were in existential panic over the climate crisis, or would they conclude that you were a conscientious environmental steward with no real immediate concern?

It's not about logic. It's about human nature. The way a person spends their time, money and effort will tell you what their priorities and beliefs are far better than their words will. The actions of climate crisis believers show me that the crisis is about a level 2 out of 10 threat. Worthy of small inconveniences and slight life adjustments but not worthy of severe economic or personal sacrifice.

For instance, some personal finance advocates live on less than half of their income and save/invest the rest. They show that they are truly committed to the concept of living frugally to build wealth and financial security. They are admired by like-minded people that see their commitment as a badge of honor. Many thousands of people read their blogs and aspire to achieve their level of commitment. I don't see any kind of similar movement in the green crowd. The green heroes are people who go around the world talking about stuff. No one seems to be leading by example.

That's generally what I would assume most climate activists do. You have taken some steps to reduce your carbon footprint, and that is laudable. You have made some lifestyle adjustments that rise to the level of inconvenience.

This is exactly what I would expect of a good person that truly believed they should do their part to help improve environmental conditions in a world where climate change is a small and distant risk to humankind. I think your personal actions are well calibrated to the threat level.

You may be right, but that's not the narrative. We must all turn down our air conditioners, eat bugs, wipe with one square of toilet paper, ride public transportation. Meanwhile as soon as you point out that the ones demanding individual actions don't actually walk the walk they will immediately switch to "The global warming problem is not going to be solved by individual actions."
On the other hand, most greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation and electricity. A good chunk of that is industrial but a lot of it is going to individual households. Individual actions could make a large difference. If you truly believed global warming was an existential threat to humans in the near term (Your lifetime) as many will claim, then you would be taking all of the individual actions you could, while also calling for collective action. If you won't take significant individual action without government coercion, then I'm not sure I believe you when you tell me it's an existential threat.

It's worse than that. You can expect a politician to speak out both sides of their mouth. But climate scientists and activists don't take it seriously either. They all still have cars (gas or electric) or ride bus/train rather than ride bicycles or walk. They all have as much house as they can afford. They all set their air conditioning to their comfort level. They all consume up to the level of their salary. I don't see anyone living their lives as if this were an existential crisis. Actions speak louder than words.