loverofthings

True.

NOx is also the biggest product of animal agriculture. It also has an effect on climate change. Global warming potential is around 300 times larger than CO2. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential#Value...

I thought candy was delicious CO2 intensive food. Not a complete lifestyle.

Although, food is just one part of the equation. I've never said diet is the only change necessary to make. A person in the first world would do more by not using AC and heating than switching to a different diet, so one might optimize there. Although, not many want to optimize there, so it's easier to change the diet if they wish to lower their footprint.

It might also be hamstrings. For example, while sitting on the chair try lifting one of your legs so you make L shape with your torso (without flexing your lower back).

I can't do that, my leg can't stretch fully. This prevents me from squatting properly.

I've been slowly stretching the hamstrings but I'm still not there. I remember having the same issues when I was a teenager.

My lower back arches severely if I do it, which I regard as not a proper squat.

I can't do that squat. My hamstrings aren't flexible enough due to too much sitting in the first world.

Vegetables are expensive because subsidies are small. There's no free market in agriculture.

I'm not exactly sure how candies are causing climate change.

So do vegans have a workflow that makes their diet convenient. The thing is, one has to start somewhere, and no one starts anywhere because they see the change as inconvenient.

I'm not sure that many people do that.

A good comparison would be FOSS. Richard Stallman inconveniences himself to the point of absurdity, but I'm pretty sure barely anyone does anything close to it.

I changed my diet, I live in good housing, but when I put the numbers on paper, I'm not doing much at all, and could do much more.

In similar ways, majority of people that believe in climate change do nothing (or barely anything) to fight it. No one is reducing their heating/cooling, no one is changing their diet, no one is measuring their heating patterns and trying to optimize it (by no one I mean barely anyone).

People still want their 24/7 AC, their steaks, their huge cars, their big heat inefficient houses, their plane flights etc.

No one does a thing.

Believing in climate change, or not believing, when reflected in the actions of people, is in my eyes completely equivalent.

Well, monad transformers make things easy but the abstraction impacts runtime performance :(

Maybe plastic waste in the long run imposes a bigger cost?

Just like overconsumption of cigarettes, alcohol etc. imposes a much bigger cost in the long run (in welfare countries).

Yep. No more California beef too. Water there is too expensive and there's no free-market in agriculture there.

Poaching for what? It's palm oil, the delicious Lays.

Nothing better than palm oil and legume-fed beef, pork, chicken and fish.

No one is going to build nuclear reactors in the West for cryptocurrency mining. Just like no one is building nuclear reactors for powering christmas lights or Amazon servers, or Internet servers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out

Reactors are being built primarily for heating and cooling, and eventually vehicle charging.

In the grand scheme of things (context being the carbon footprint of humanity) it is insignificant, just like Denmark's carbon footprint is.

Let's optimize the real stuff, not some trivialities (like the Christmas lights in the USA pointed out as a reply).

There's 24/7 AC in USA and China in the masses. There's Brazilian and Argentinian agriculture removing rainforests to grow food for the USA or EU that grows cattle. (EU takes unbelievable amounts of rainforest grain/legumes to feed its livestock, an absolute travesty and hipocrisy)

The footprint of these developments is insanely large, yet somehow coin mining is an issue.

We could then jump to optimize the Internet infrastructure too, despite being 1-2% of CO2 equivalent footprint.

Yes, I understand coin mining seems a bit useless but I'm pretty sure heating and cooling is wasted in magnitudes more amounts, being applied in badly designed buildings, or cooling the streets of Las Vegas.

Compared to heating and cooling, and a bunch of other stuff it is negligible.

I guess you could complain about the usefulness of mining.

Well, people do a bunch of useless stuff that has magnitudes bigger carbon footprint than mining.

Let's not optimize things that are insignificant.

2nd Edition was published 10 years ago.

I'm pretty sure there's a handful of those that find meaningful work. Then a handful of those that find it in AI.

It's amazing how judicial system works fast in the USA. In my country both companies would go bankrupt and would still be suing each other due to sunk cost fallacy.

Some stuff does not work easily with non fossil fuel based engines. What better way than to refine current tech instead of inventing a whole new one?

The moment fossil fuels get more expensive you'd like a more efficient engine.

Bioaccumulation of pesticides in animal tissue is a serious problem.

I do not think you can ever consume the same amount of pesticides by eating plants if before that you ate nontrivial amounts of chicken, chicken eggs, beef, milk etc. Cow eats several tons of plants in its lifetime. I'm pretty sure human comes no where close. The bioaccumulation happening there is a serious issue.

That stuff is filled with bioaccumulated pesticides.

Well, let's ignore the reuse of the seeds, let's focus on generating random numbers in a range 0-N using a uniform random generator that gives numbers from 0-M where M >= N.

Code snippets shown use modulus (x % (N+1)) to accomplish that. This will result in the numbers not at all uniformly distributed.

Of course, the differences in probability aren't that huge but the contracts are mathematically not fair.

    import numpy as np
    n, m = 2, 20
    binc = np.bincount(np.random.randint(0, m, size=20000000) % (n+1))
    print 1.0*binc/sum(binc);
    [0.3501464 0.3497516 0.300102 ]

Animal tissue unlike plant tissue accumulates stuff magnitudes more.

Bioaccumulation of harmful substances as we rise through the food chain is a known issue.

Using our best antibiotics to produce 60 billion chickens per year is a state financed suicide and not at all a free market mechanism.

Now, the question is, which industry sector cuts the largest percentage of trees. Now, answering that question, is there a way to do the same thing without cutting trees?

Answering that question and then executing a business plan is probably worth billions.

Planting trees to combat 6 billion trees lost every year is a pure expense, no profit to be made at all. At least not if you won't cut them down a few decades later.

I guess seeding is like proof of stake. Although who knows what is the currency.

I eat about 60-70% of calories in carbs. Would that be high carb? Most of my carbs come from legumes, I get no sugar spikes, am T1 diabetic and need insulin mostly to replenish it every morning, not after every meal.

There have been cases where acupuncture combined with some "proven" treatment does better than that proven treatment. IMO, that just puts doubt into the efficacy of that proven treatment.

Any serious disease, like cancer, skin burns, severe pain, there is no evidence it's better than placebo.