I mean, they’re on FB, so ya, they probably thought something like that, if their thoughts even went beyond the words themselves.
It’s like imagining what a lizard thinks about you, it’s easy and fun to project your intelligence on it, this is what you’re doing here. You’re projecting your intelligence and logic on others apparently without that capacity. Those FB people didn’t think about what their words meant any more than a lizard wonders about your nature.
I did what this guy did, works really well.
The only carbon sequestration that makes any sense is small-scale, on-site or local (so you can avoid transport) biochar production via retort.
–> Biochar if you’re not familiar is similar to charcoal, it’s a form of “carbon black” that is elemental (isn’t going to decompose or oxidize and contribute to climate change) and when added to soil helps plants (by acting as a sponge for water, nutrients, bacteria) while sequestering carbon for millennia in the soil.
For example, a landscaping company that burns it’s waste to fuel a biochar retort and then using the resulting biochar to amend the soil used in the landscaping operations. (Think in cycles)
–> A biochar retort is form of furnace or fire pit that uses the flammable gasses produced by pyrolizing organic materials to fuel itself.
–> Pyrolysis is decomposition of organic material with high heat and no oxygen. It produces gases like methane which are burned in the retort producing particulates, CO2 and water (and that carbon does go back into the cycle) and leaves behind large amounts of elemental carbon black that is not going to contribute to climate change.
Sequestration by millions of backyard gardeners and little landscaping companies doing a little is better than trying to do it on a large scale because the large scale requires (as you note) resources. Hundreds of engineers and architects and workers driving to work for years so they can design and build a large device made of metal (that had to be mined, smelted, and shipped) and likely has an accompanying parking lot and office building would take years to break even sequestering as much carbon as it took to design and build it.
Sequestration as I describe here doesn’t require much. For example, I make biochar using coffee cans in my fire pit .
Q: But won’t burning some of the waste in the retort to heat the biochar contribute to climate change?
A: Any carbon in landscaping wastes, unless sequestered, is going to decompose into carbon dioxide (e.g. composting). Burning doesn’t add any extra carbon, it’s just that burning is a faster reaction than composting (but both burning and composting are part of the short term carbon cycle, biochar is not) . But because this burning is done to fuel pyrolysis it’s part of an efficient process.
The real danger from burning the waste is particulate pollution, but that could be controlled with common scrubbers tech.
Maybe they were talking about Gaza? He seems to be crushing them.
I think the key would be to not use any additional resources to grow, harvest, etc.
This could be done for example by landscaping companies that put their waste through a retort (which could be anything from a stove made of mud bricks, to a mobile trailer that does on-site pyrolysis and use the resulting biochar to fertilize their customer’s plants. Farms could put their waste through it, innoculate the biochar with animal waste, and use it as fertilizer.
I make biochar from my backyard waste in my firepit using a can like this guy.
Any other method of carbon capture I’ve ever heard about makes no sense. Having hundreds of engineers and workers drive to work for years to engineer and build giant metal and plastic factory/machines with parking lots that require staff that has to drive and park there, etc is nonsense. And even if they work, what would they do with the carbon? Biochar provides a cycle that is accessible to everyone, can be done on-site, uses no fancy technology, nothing is patented, and doesn’t require all this nonsense.
Biochar (created in a retort) is how you sustainably sequester carbon for the long-term using trees (and similar biomass).
True but people need to know to look to the documentation, it’s not something we’re born with. People learn to ride a bike, to drive a car, use their TV, etc without reading much documentation. We should educate people on how to figure things out rather than shame them for not knowing as much as you.
Don’t assume everyone can learn as easily as you can or has a background that would facilitate their grasping of the topic. Here you are casually saying “just read the man page” and referencing gcc, it would take my mom a week of education to get to the point where she’d be able to understand what gcc even is and why it has a man page.
And if you don’t want to help them, ignore the noobs, don’t push them away.
Nope, been thinking about what it would take to make one though.
So only the lucky unfit sperm destined to produce one who wears a red cap will be able to successfully fertilize the egg?
It’s time to return to human curated directories.
Seriously: I don’t think the cost benefit is there to intentionally make a maneuver like this.
You might be right
They can’t let short-term greed get in the way of long-term greed!
lol
So are you saying that they suffered from a filesystem bug that caused deletion failure? I’d imagine they use standard filesystems on their backend, I haven’t heard about any bugs like this.
If you ask me, what’s more likely, that a company known for shitty behavior lies about deleting files so they can continue to use that information to profit, – OR – that they are experiencing a filesystem bug on their backend, I’ll choose the former.
But clearly the data is not overwritten and this was intentional. How do I know? Because that would amount to a massive amount of data, if it was de to a bug in Apple software or underlying filesystems, it would be detected in monitoring systems “Hey, we’re using 10x the data we should be, maybe we should look into it”.
The mistake was in the flag code that was supposed to fool us.
Nothing sinister, we just don’t delete what we say we delete. Instead we keep it in your profile to feed the algorithms and set the “deleted” flag to make you think it’s gone.
Then there’s the temperateur, controlling the thermostat in France.
They lost dream job status for me when I realized I was facilitating some evil shit. Like “oh! great job in genomics! I can help cure cancer!” Then realize it’s “oh, help China build population scale genomic sequencing, wonder what they’re gonna do with that?”
And “oh, edge computing, sounds cool”, then realizing “oh, edge computing is mostly useful for facial recognition, wonder what people will use that for?”
These are great ideas and should be implemented, but at best the push the issue of population down the road. These are temporary band-aids to a worsening problem.
A species that grows beyond it’s bounds and kills itself is not intelligent, it’s merely a clever tool user. Let’s prove our real intelligence by being the first species on our planet conscious of the physical bounds, with understanding we have the capacity to to go beyond them to our own demise, and wisdom to actively choose sustainability. Let’s be smarter than bacteria on a Petri dish.
The goal of our species shouldn’t be to fit as many humans as possible on the planet and make everyone sacrifice for it.
But I want to clarify, I’m not in favor of authoritarian limits on reproduction (I’m an anarchist). I suspect, looking at the timing of the human population explosion on the scale of thousands of years, that exploitative economic systems and the ability to cheat the natural energy balance by using prehistoric sunlight energy (fossil fuels) are the drivers of this explosion and if we can eliminate or control those things the population would naturally contract.
Every time we’ve run into issues, we’ve innovated our way out of it.
Is that right?
We’re currently wiping out the Amazon, causing the 6th great extinction, unsustainably using fossil fuels. Billions of people are dependent on very complex supply chains that require massive polluting and ocean life harming ships to get them to you. You can’t even talk about your favorite camping spot without it getting overrun and damaging the ecosystem. Many people can’t afford to see their favorite artists because with a massive population and popular artists that supply and demand is way out of whack. Same with Disneyland etc. We don’t have enough housing, and if we build more we’re going to wipe out even more ecosystems and use even more resources.
Las Vegas? Those solar panels and air conditioners are produced using fossil fuels. Also, the desert is not wasteland, just because desert species may not be your favorite doesn’t mean it’s ok to wipe them out to build more housing tracts.
There are so many aspects of overpopulation, producing enough food, water, and housing are just the tiny tip of the iceberg. These things I brought up are what came to my mind in 2 minutes before I had my coffee.
By saying technology is the way past our problems is to set up a race condition between technological advancements that are not guaranteed (and most likely to exacerbate the rich vs poor gap) and civilization ending destruction that is.
The job of CEO seems the far easier to replace with AI. A fairly basic algorithm with weighted goals and parameters (chosen by the board) + LLM + character avatar would probably perform better than most CEOs. Leave out the LLM if you want it to spout nonsense like this Amazon Cloud CEO.