In that case the government should pay incentives when purchasing an electric car. That way the electricity being produced on sunny days can be stored and used when it is cloudy. Electric cars will also be spread out geographically, quite in line with solar panel installations so that solves for regional and network issues too. And as an added benefit we use less oil (less combustion cars) and less gas (we charge when it is sunny and not when we produce electricity with gas generators).
By using less oil and less gas we reduce CO2 emmissions, save money and are less dependent on other regions far away.
I wonder if the excess energy could be used to do things like run carbon capture (although I've read that this is very much a pipe dream, that it'll take several magnitudes more carbon capture facilities to counter what we're currently producing).
Most countries postal service offer a postal box service. You give out the postal box number and postal code and you piuck up your mail/packages there.
The problem is fixing the bug and not only fixing the code, but applying the fix in production in a timely manner and without interrupting the business.
What they say is not the same as what they wrote in the ToS you didn't read.
If they stole your stuff and used in to train their model, what does it help if there is a lawsuit some years later which you most likely have no benefit from?
Have you read their ToS? It's not that hard. This feels like this nihilistic 'law is witchcraft and the big company lawyers always have you screwed in the fineprint' when it generally is pretty comprehensible with not that much work.
> If they stole your stuff and used in to train their model, what does it help if there is a lawsuit some years later which you most likely have no benefit from?
The point is that if someone accuses you of leaking data you can sue them for not abiding by contract, not that the data is not used for training
I think this talk about 1.5C or 2C degree increase is confusing and make the issue look less alarming.
Firstly this is a global average, including both land and ocean temperature. The land temperatures will increase much more than the ocean temperatures and the oceans cover a higher surface. So with a 2C incease on average globally could mean 6-8 degrees more on land on average. And we are also talking about averages and globally at the same time. So at specific instances and specific places it will get even warmer, say 10-20 degrees during days or weeks.
So GIEC, researchers, magazines and others should more clearly describe what this means and stop talking about these 1.5C and 2C degree increases and instead talk about how much warmer it will be on land or some other more useful measure.
It has always existed (that we do what others say or do), the difference now is that it is at a much larger scale. It's global and spread to millions and millions in seconds. Earlier it was a news paper or magazine or a TV show. It was national or regional and local. And it was slower. It took days and weeks to spread using magazines and TV and word of mouth. Today with social media it is global and it takes seconds.
Newspapers, magazines and TV shows had editors to curate content, reputations to uphold, and were liable for things they published. Social media has none of those things.
Agree. Today a dude in their underwear can compose whatever they want from their bedroom without any team discussion, no accountability, no responsibility and nothing to lose.
> that correlation is very strong; just compare Luxembourg, which is much wealthier and more polluting than surrounding nations
Well, your theory does not hold at all if you look at Switzerland which pollutes 1/4 of the US per capita. CO2 pollution is not and does not have to be correlated with standard of living.
The reality is obviously more complex, and many countries have already managed to somewhat decouple economic growth from CO2 emissions (very good!), but as a crude approximation: More money => everyone gets more stuff => more CO2 emissions (producing and running that stuff).
If you want meaningful CO2/capita comparisons, you also have to be very careful with countries that get ("free") hydro power opportunities for electricity because that distorts the picture massively (same for e.g. Norway).
Big producers of hydrocarbons, on the other hand (like the US) have to work hard to resist the allure of cheap & convenient fossils.
Switzerland is so far ahead in this comparison because they get a lot of CO2-free hydroelectricity (>50%), have to import most hydrocarbons (=> incentive against) and also save massively on transportation because density is much higher.
How much of that "decoupling" is actually just "exporting"? Not being glib or dismissive, I think it's an important distinction and I don't know enough about Europe to know how the two compare.
By using less oil and less gas we reduce CO2 emmissions, save money and are less dependent on other regions far away.
reply