gian

Can you possibly post where to find the original image ? Too small to read anything other than some number.

Yes, I really do think that changing the behaviour of those people who are producing 15% of global emissions will have an effect on global emissions.

And how this 15% is calculated ? What is included ? What is excluded ?
Are you sure that you are not targeting this 1% only because it is more simple to just say “is someone else fault” ?

There are two things: The amount of CO2 produced by private jets is not “near nothing”, it is quite significant and produced only by a small number of people

Quite significant of what ? If the total CO2 produced by the aviation industry is the 2% of the total pollution, even if the private jets produce 50% of this quantity it just is the 1% of the total. And I think that commercial jets are way more and fly way more than private jets so the quantity by which you reduce the pollution is negligible.

Again, it is not to be ignored but maybe it should not be our first target.

We need to get to net zero in order to save the planet and therefore we can’t afford a “it’s only a small amount” way of thinking.

Then maybe we could start to focus on thing that have heavier impact, like cars or industry, instead of focusing on niche things that would not make a difference. But ok, I get it, after all the rich are the cause of everything.

And we can already see how this behaviour of the super rich is tipping opinions against environmental protections.

Let me ask a question: do you really think that changing the behaviour of the 1% richest people would change anything on the pollution problem ?
Not that we don’t need to take also them accountable, but I still fail to see how reducing (or stopping) something this marginal can help.

I’m sure you have seen this whole “Taylor Swift is flying everyday and we have to drink out of paper straws”-meme

Yes, and I found it always stupid while looking at the cars lines on a random morning in every big city in the US.

The problem is that we are trying to solve climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions regardless of who is causing them and why.

It is not really important in my opinion to know who or why

That is leading to a world where some rich asshole in his private jet is flying to Monaco to watch the Formula One, and other people can’t afford to heat their homes.

So we “punish” the rich people without doing anything for the other people. Let’s assume that you ban rich people to fly to Monaco, now what ? The amount of CO₂ produced by air travel is reduced by an amount that, on a global scale, is practically negligible, what good it do to the people who cannot heat their homes ?

That doesn’t work and the current backlash is exactly caused by that. You are forced into the office by those rich CEOs and their private jets and the gov is telling you to drive less and is increasing the taxes for your petrol.

The current backslah is caused by idiots who cannot read and understand facts. As i said flying generates about 2% of the global CO2, how much do you think a group of rich people would generate annually on a global basis ?
Moreover these idiots are the same that if you plan to build a new railways to reduce the cars on the road (and conseguently the pollution) protest just because with variety of stupid reasons, not last the NIMBY aspect.

Now, I agree that every reduction in polllution is good but we should aim for the bigger target (which, normally, is the impopular one) instead of the smaller that make the idiots feel good but does nothing.

What I wanted to say is that there are totally fine reasons to fly or move around, and reasons that are not so great and should maybe be avoided. Our current setup is not reflecting that because it’s simply based on your ability to pay.

You are targeting what, on a global scenario, is a niche in a niche. It make no sense if you want to solve global problems.

You mean “flying” here.

Obviously

Flying frequently generates excessive amounts of CO2. That is killing other people. Killing other people for one’s own fun or comfort is not OK.

Everything we do affect other people, in a way or another, we cannot think otherwise.

Now the next person will come and say, that’s not an individual problem, but a collective or societal one. But lifting the decision to a collective or political level, doesn’t change the fact by one iota that frequently flying generates lots of CO2, and lots of CO2 kills people.

Flying generates only about 2% (against a 72% of the cars for example) on a global basis (%3 if you consider only Europe) of the CO2.

I agree that even if relatively small it is not to understimate but we can probably have better results if we choose to attack other aspects.

The only collective solution can be to have collective boundaries about that.

Or maybe ask for solution that benefit everyone instead of “punishing” only someone, like work from home for everyone who can. Or maybe to just stop to have a NIMBY attitude for everything (be a new solar field, a new railways or a wind turbine farm). Or maybe ask to make it easy to install solar/wind power generation plants for domestic usage.

There are a lot of things we can colletively ask to make thing better for everyone instead of saying that someone else should be stop to do something.

It really depends on the charge/discharge conditions that the particular test is using.

True.

You can do testing in the lab that is way harsher than typical usage or you can make it easier. In terms of this cycle testing for Li-ion I would say that typically the lab testing would be harsher than real world primarily because lab testing is done between 0% and 100% depth of discharge constantly where most people are charging their batteries much before then and only cycling them at high rates periodically.

You are right, but we should see what they want to demostrate in the lab test: that the tech works or to have a way to make a sensational announcement based on some data ?
If you put that battery on the market, the 6000 cycles still stand or they are only a lab result ?
Aside the harsh or easy charge/discharge cycles, what other condition they tested ? A battery on a bench has different problems than a battery on a car on the road.

That said, if the tech works really has announced, it would be great.

a violent neonazi will show up at 3 am at your address with a balaclava. throw a molotov cocktail through your bedroom window and leave before the police arrives.

A balaclava don’t save you if I know who you are.

The point is that all these supposed “violent neonazi” are what they are because they think that they are “anonimous” on Internet but they have not the balls to do it in the real life, else there would be way more attacks you describe, after all there are a lot of people who already expose themself against them in the real life.

The problem is that 6000 cycles in laboratory are not the same than 6000 cycles in real life scenarios.

It would be interesting to put that battery out in the field and to see how it perform in real life conditions (assuming that they are cheap enough to be produced in large volumes)

If they are really that good you are right, but there are always a lot of revolutionary advance in lab that never leave it.

And this is so problematic. First of all, there’s really a chilling effect going on with putting your real identity to your online posts. I’m not sure if I would be posting on here if everybody could link my profile here to my real name. There is a reason why people are not discussing depression, drug use, or marital problems with their work colleagues or neighbors. And people really would not like if prospective employers could see everything they are writing online.

I think that the big problem is that more than putting your real identity to your post there should be a way to identify you in case it is needed, anonymity cannot be a free pass to commit any kind of crime.
Online you are not really anonymous anyway, your provider know where and when you go to a site, it would not be difficult to trace back to you if someone is willing to do it.

I don’t know how this problem could be solved btw.

There’s also a chilling effect on political debate. You really do not want your home address being available to violent Neo-Nazis, Hamas supporters, Covid-deniers and other idiots. That will lead to harassment and this will lead to people stopping discussing certain topics.

Well, if anonymity is removed also the violent Neo-Nazis (or whatever) is exposed, maybe he would think twice before doing/saying something stupid knowing that nothing stop someone else to make him the victim of harassment or to be treated like an idiot or ignored at work (or any other real life situation) because people find his social accounts and simply decide to not interact with (if not totally boycott) him.
Yes, maybe not the first time, but in the end people like these will return where they belong, in their small circle of idiots.

That is a problem that is hard to solve. Many people do not need to move but want to move for reasons.

I hope you don’t imply that people should never leave the place where they are born.
Yes, people want to move for some reasons and that’s ok. I don’t see why they should have limits on this.

You do not need to fly to Mallorca in order to get wasted on cheap beer. You do not need to fly to Paris in order to start a shopping spree. You do not need to fly to Barcelona to watch a soccer game or fly into Vienna to catch a Taylor Swift concert. People are doing that. They like it, but it’s totally okay if they are not able to use airplanes for that.

I don’t agree.
Or better I agree for the reasons you cited, but you can go to the cities you list also to just see them, I think it is fine.

It’s also okay if the business class is going back to relying on online calls and meetings like they did during COVID. There’s no reason for someone to fly to London just to present a power point.

That’s a stupid point.
It is not the single flight to London the problem, but that lot of us are forced to go to the office to do a work you can do from home. You want to fight pollution ? If you mandate remote work for every possible worker that can use it, the number of people on the roads will drop significantly and the ones that need to go to work (production for example) have a better public transportation system as a collateral effect.
At this point the single time you need to fly to London to present a power point (because sometime you need to do it in person) is offset by the large quantity of pollution you avoid letting people to work from home.

But there are also reasons why people might want or need to fly, for example to visit their family in a far away country. And that is really hard to balance in our current setup because rich people will be able to fly to Mallorca to get wasted on champagne, while your poor migrant will not be able to afford to fly to Turkey to visit their grandma for the last time.

People fly also to avoid to spend a lot of hours for a trip with a train that can be just a couple of hours flying.
An example: if I want to go to Sicily (Catania to be exact) from Milano I have the option to fly there (2.5/3 hours considering the time to reach airport) or to use a train (a little less than 15 hours with two train transfers). Or if someone want to visit their parent living on some island and the only alternative is the ferry (slower and more expensive).

In the end for every example that you can do about people that could choose to not fly, I could make an example about people that cannot choose to not fly, so maybe the real problem is not that.

Do you think that people can’t move without flying?

No, only that sometimes flying is better that other alternatives.
In France some connection was terminated because train was better (less expensive, overall faster) than flying and that’s ok, but it is not always true.

are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ?

Yes. Including arranging one’s life so that you don’t need to fly.

Ok, but you should ask why people need to fly and I am sure you are not impling that people should never move from the place where they are born, be for work or any other reason.

But I am intrigued by what can be your solution for people who live on islands or has not other alternatives other than using a car/bus instead of flying in the case they cannot/don’t want to spend 8 hours traveling by car or train instead of a one-hour flight.

Under this angle, a few airports for short distances and airlines going bust is not really that bad, is it?

Aside that people still need to move, are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ? And what can be used as an alternative ? Bus ? Trains (for which you should probably build the railways) ? Cars ?

True, but to design a barrel for a gun is way more difficult. Even now you can have a barrel made from a metal shop (or with a relatively cheap cnc mill) if you really want.

You think we are at a endpoint with 3d printing technology? As technology improves the ability to make better parts will keep increasing.

No, we are not at a endpoint even if I don’t think there is much more to be done that can improve the tech in some revolutionary way.

Nah, if you’re right, you should also ban the sale of any type of bench milling machine (manual or CNC): anything I can 3D print, I can probably mill just as easily

If the firearms industry think that a 3d printed gun is good enough to compete with them, they are selling shitty products.

It is more plausible that they want to control the 3d printed guns because they are not able (or willing) to stop the people who want to commit some kind of crimes and cannot buy a gun from building one (since, as I understand, to buy the components it seems you have not to undergo a backgroubd check).

They seems to be some kind of JST connector.

Electronics and models shop should have them.

As last resource, Amazon has them in bulk

Because jailing a container is even harder than jailing an application. “But a container is already jailed” you’ll say - I don’t trust any jail that I can’t choose & configure myself.

Fair enough.

How about: document the requirements for the execution environment (in industry this is called an interface definition document), based on which the gaming community can then generate their own container configs if they like, but no one has to run stuff in a container.

Also a good solution but you will end up in a container anyway once the requirements will become too old to be satisfied on a current OS.

Physical coupling and emergency decoupling of a fuel tube in flight due to engaging or having to land and take off from an air carrier seems necessarily more slow and risky than beam interrumpion or nor having to land/take off at all.

Refuelling could be slower, I agree, but I am not sure that is more risky, wireless recharging simply has a different set of problems.

Current batteries have not been under the same amount of research than fuel deposits, so I think that being matture enough, contacless repowering seems a great asset in any scenario.

True, but as far as you can advance contactless recharge, I am afraid physic and air are not on your side.

But as I said, I am curious about the development of this technology, leaving aside the fact that basically you cannot deploy it anyware if not your home county (or allied) and that in my opinion is a way bigger limit to it usefulness.

I firmly disagree that this would be a good use case.

Why ? Any technical reason beside your dislike for containers, in this specific scenario ?
Remember that we are talking about software that probably is built with older version of the OS as target, using older version of tools and libraries. The source code could not be compilable anymore without a porting, which can be not that easy.

Allowing this kind of container shenanigans would introduce more incompatibilities than it solves.

It depends on your objective.
If the goal is to be able to continue to play a game which require a server, having the publisher to release a container solve your problem, you just run it and you can continue to play the game, which if I am not wrong is the ultimate goal of all the Stop Killing Games initiative.

If the publisher only give you the server binary (and all the dependencies) there is way to be sure that the next OS update does not break something, assuming you are able to run it in the first place.

The source code you say ? Fine, when the copyright end, after 70 years, they will release it in the public domain, until then… good luck, laws are on their side.

Hmmm… no. The defense “the machine decided” and “but the drone does the killing” will not fly in any sane system (which exclude the US).
Someone decided to use the machine|drone, this someone is responsible.