graeme

Agree on all points. The trouble is if some countries stop the price goes up and there's an incentive to find more oil in countries which didn't stop.

Markets are powerful. No real solution other than making market competitive alternatives such that the desire to dig up oil is simply lost. This may or may not be feasible.

That's a rather misleading statistic. Some is absorbed by oceans, where it acidifies. For land based carbon sinks (trees, soil, etc) any new carbon being deposited is competing with existing carbon in the carbon cycle.

If your stat had any sense then atmospheric carbon levels would rapidly plunge in a few centuries without humans burning carbon. They plainly don't do that.

Global co2 emissions are at an all time high.

Co2 parts per million are a stock, like the level of water in a bathtub. Annual emissions are a flow, like how strongly the water is flowing in.

The tub is fuller than ever before AND filling at the fastest rate ever.

The problem is that carbon energy is useful. So unless something globally beats almost all use cases then somewhere marginally it will be worth burning vs not burning it.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

The physical act of smoking itself is harmful. Not just tobacco specifically, burning and inhaling anything.

In the UK it's commonly said, and the Guardian is a UK paper.

Though you've noticed a real thing: for some reason during and after the pandemic publications outside of the UK started saying it too and I don't know why.

Yes that's correct, thank you, I see my comment implied otherwise.

There had also been Iranian strikes on desalination plants and near the end strikes on Saudi Arabia's red sea assets. I believe these were very convincing.

The US didn’t stop its offensive because of Iranian weapons.

I would say they did. Gulf countries ran out of missile and drone defenses and a lot of infrastructure was getting hit. Long run loss of capacity here would be worse than temporary strait closure and there were a lot of assets left to hit.

I'm fairly sure my old ipad did, maybe the ipad air 2. My current ipad pro doesn't seem to work this way. I could be mistaken, perhaps I used or charged it more.

Is it only the dose?

I think they meant, for humans, the dose makes the poison. We would have to eat a very large amount of warfarin to have trouble. Rats get hurt from a small amount.

Poison is dose dependent, but the actual dose dependency is different between species.

I read this as saying a new Kobo in 2026 uses Adobe drm software that has css rules stuck in 2013.

Sure but then what is the point of such a statement other than vibes? You're withdrawing from all argument of the underlying claim.

This isn't true at all. If all of the global rich immediately became carbonless monks....we would cut only a portion of emissions. And continuing to emit increases global warming. Even if you estimate that the top 1% use 70% of our carbon (implausible) that still just pushes threshold back a few decades.

And if industry stopped producing with carbon billions would starve. Industry makes stuff for people. Energy is useful, we aren't just taking oil, coal and gas and burning it in factories for fun.

The crazy thing is that we have basically everything we need right now.

Have you travelled? This doesn't describe most of the world. Most of the world would need to increase carbon emissions to live the way you're describing.

You aren't describing a zero carbon lifestyle, you're describing a lower carbon lifestyle. And we still use carbon in building the things in your scenario: the building, the car, etc.

Lower carbon lifestyles can slow the speed of the increase in global warming, but as long as we're emitting any carbon we're increasing global energy forcing.

By all means choose lower carbon lifestyles, but fundamentally we need nuclear or renewables + battery or all of the above such that we don't face a tradeoff between energy use and getting stuff people want.

Energy is extremely useful.

This then that makes the argument very hard to respond to.

"No I didn't mean this [virtuous example]. I meant the vast majority of [unnamed nefarious actors] which I don't need to elaborate about as their existence is obvious."

Once you say it's just hyperbole and you don't mean it literally, then the only way to prove it is a statistical argument.

"The overwhelmingly share of company founders and companies are bad and don't earn their money." is a big claim that requires more than vibes.

Interestingly this also appears to affect corporate partners who had access to Mythos before the wider Fable release.

But Apple's position here is actually really wild: Apple claims to protect user privacy all the time. But they can't offer a product in a major jurisdiction that has actually meaningful privacy laws? Didn't they consider that while designing the product?

The DMA isn't a privacy law. In this case, the DMA would appear to require Apple to open up all user data to any AI agent. That removes the ability to provide privacy protections.

You can argue Apple should do that, but you can't in the same breathe argue for privacy.

Economics talks about externalities constantly, but nobody listens to them because people hate thinking about externalities.

I teach the LSAT and one of the passages is famously about this mania and contends that it was actually rational. You paid a high price for a tulip bulb, planted it, and then sold the descendants which paid off the original price.

The narrative from this article seems to be largely based on Thackeray's book from 1841. Wikipedia suggests the LSAT passage is modern scholarly received wisdom at least in some quarters, but does anyone have better knowledge of the state of our understanding of the history of tulip prices?

Edit: the top comment provided what I had been thinking of. My account above about profits wasn't right, because the trades were never fulfilled. When prices went too high, people didn't honour their contracts and that was that. No one went bankrupt. And as the bulb owners had bought at lower prices they also were fine.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48322546

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/there-never-was-real-...

It's not clear to me from this announcement. The articles make it sound like all searches now go to ai mode and no more blue links.

But Google's description seems more minimal, like easier to get to ai mode, search box can expand intelligently based on input. Is there any clearer description of the magnitude of the change?

I am confident that if a gold mine existed, and their wholesale purchaser went bankrupt, someone else would buy the gold.

That doesn't change the fact that there isn't enough demand for canned peaches. If there were enough demand for peaches the farmers would sell the peaches, rather than destroy the peach trees.

Another chilling aspect of drone warfare is that you don't get to surrender. No prisoners are taken.

This isn't true, you can surrender and there are videos of people doing so.

You've perhaps seen videos of drones loitering, waiting a bit, and then moving in when the soldier does nothing. This is often waiting for a surrender sign.

Normally the soldier in these videos is Russian. Why don't they surrender? First they may be shot by their own side if they try to follow the drone.

Second, Russian soldiers have generally been recruited with large bonuses and even larger bonuses paid out in the event of their death, paid to their families. However, if they try to surrender and are shot for desertion there is no payout. Whereas if they stay still and die the Russian government gives their family money.

It doesn't generate power by burning carbon and is a grid replacement for carbon sources. Grid cost rise sharply on 100% solar.

Taking china as an example they currently build solar, coal and nuclear. No country is building only solar/batteries.

Further if we build more nuclear we'd be better at it and it would be cheaper.

You're arguing that the action had some positive effects and therefore it was ROI positive. That doesn't remotely follow.

And most companies did NOT make the choice to be as accessible as Apple, which rebuts your theory that this was done only for the ROI.

Effectively you're so cynical that there's nothing Tim Cook could say or do that would convince you he was ever acting sincerely. It is comfortable to blame and rage but it is hardly good analysis.

Texas zoning isn't nearly as permissive as Japan's. Setbacks are a big added requirement. Minimum parking requirements too though that is changing.

But it would not be legal to build japanese neighbourhoods in Texas.

That is sadly the original title but the article is much better than the title. Authors don't get to write their own headlines.

The thing about arguments like this is they're usually used in service of blocking housing. As in we shouldn't do what Austin did because it won't fully solve the problem. We should instead stick with the status quo, which gets much worse than Austin.

Thank you! Sounds like a fantastic setup. Are the claude code agents acting autonomously from any trigger conditions or is this all manual work with them? And how do you manage write permissions for documents amongst team members/agents, presumably multiple people have access to this system?

(Not OP, but have been looking into setting up a system for a similar use case)

Fantastic advice

intervening Siria for protecting some jew friendly faction inside Siria, a la Russia protecting russiansnin Ukraine

It was the Druze and they were actually being killed.

"The friend of my enemy deserves to die" is not an attitude you have to adopt, even if you disagree with the Israeli response to the killings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2025_massacres_of_Syrian...