pl-94

scaleway?

I motivated my Cursor-colleagues to switch to tmux+nvim -- they don't use it all the time, but they enjoy the vibe. Claude is running on some tmux pans. Much nicer than VSCode!

I just read the Wikipedia page, and it does not seem to fit your analysis. They present the origin on the term, what it means, and then disclose that a consensus among scholars is to reject the term nowadays. They disclose also that some recent scholars have found it appropriate and cite one of them.

On the other hand, Grokipedia seems very biased to me. “This historiographical tension underscores broader tensions between romanticized medievalism and data-driven assessments of civilizational trajectories.” What a pejorative criticism! If you don’t think that dark age is an appropriate term, you are not data driven and you are just too sensitive??

On subject that I don’t know much about, I am quite happy to know the scientific consensus. Discussions on Wikipedia do an amazing job to help me figure out what’s going on.

Argile. Contact me on LinkedIn!

I am a CEO of a young French startup in France (bootstrapped to 6 employees) and I hold a PhD in AI. But overall I have limited knowledge about partnership breakdowns.

I would recommend to compute the worth of your equity not based on a startup valuation but on how much money would you have made if you would have been a consultant.

Indeed, the hard work on the startup has not been achieved yet. It takes a lot of times, energy and lucks to go through all stages.

The best scenario for you (in terms of satisfaction and experiences) remains that the company succeed.

The name is surprising. First time I’ve seen a pyxxx that is not a python package

Hard to say as the green transition is poorly defined. However, lack of transition is much easier to define and to evaluate. According to a recent French government report [1], the cost of non action is significantly higher than transitioning to a net zero GHG economy by 2050.

[1] - Rapport Pisani-Mahfouz https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/publications/incidences-econom...

No one is claiming that 100% of our final energy should come from biomass.

In France, the research institute Negawatt has computed numbers when using biomass to fill the gaps when solar panel and wind turbines are not producing electricity. They show we could replace nuclear power only by using current farming wastes (no need to allocate more area to bio fuel). (But they also assume a serious reduction of our current electricity usage)

Micro services: Traefik + Docker

Web stack: nextjs, symfony or fastapi, netlify

Monitoring: Matomo, metabase, signoz, prometheus.

Even the special report on 1.5 degrees is super scary. I stopped taking the plane and became vegetarian just after reading it in 2019.

A little known fact is that we likely already crossed 1.5C.

Latest IPCC reports a likely cool down due to aerosols of 0.4C. But aerosols are a serious health issue (responsable of several millions premature deaths). And most of aerosols come from incomplete fossil fuels (hopefully we'll get ride of them), whereas their lifespan is less than a few years. So their cool down effect is only temporary.

Also, it's quite unknown that Europe has already at +2C. Far from Equatorial + being in a continent are factors for warming faster.

That's not correct. At a scale of a century, economic growth has been a zero sum game https://ourworldindata.org/economic-growth. Only recent abundance in cheap energy sources has allowed a HUGE economic boost.

Your point is invalid because it would require an exponential growth of the sun power (the derivative of an exponential is an exponential). While the sun power is exponential around a billion years, it is a constant over a year. So you would reach at most a linear GDP growth.

The GDP is itself exponential. A growth of +2% a year is an example of an exponential curve. Sure there are "limits to growth" (see Meadows et al.) but it's not clear whether those limits are reached yet.

Having waste on specific location on the ground is not equal to having waste on the atmosphere. There are so little constraints to landfills that we might not go to recycle wind blades in the future :

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09213...

How could no one mention the environmental issues?!

So, I'll start. I believe that the loss of biodiversity is the most terrible threat to our societies.

I believe it, because the loss is incredible fast (80% insect masses disappeared in the last 30 years in Europe), while no one cares about it (who knows what is the Ipbes?).

I believe it also because diversity life is providing a huge list of necessary services (e.g. cleaning, fertilizers, protection against ground erosion) to our society, that we don't take into account.

That is not exactly true. You can't put electricity for all of the major sources of co2 consumption. For example, the chemistry for building cement is emitting co2. Also, steel requires so much heat than electricity is 10x more expensive than coal for this application.

Why do you think it is good thing we waited so long? The carbon budget to not go over 1.5C is now pretty much used. Without aerosols, it is even likely that we have already overshoot 1.5C. Adaption and reduction would have been so much easier if it were better anticipated.

Your points are fair and it is always a healthy situation to be suspicious of ominous news. At the same time, it is important to keep looking for answers to our misunderstanding on the climate change. The good news is that the IPCC did a really great job for pointing all the resources in their executive summary. The main answer to your counter intuitive observation is that the internal variability of the climate is huge. For example, the European countries might know no warming during 10 years and then a sudden rebound in a few years. So it is important not looking at the small scale but only at the global scale. It is difficult to summarize the internal variabilities on a single comment, but you will easily find a lot of explanations about it on the iinternet .

Right but running a heat pump or burning biomass is also a preferable choice for heat production.

The purpose of making fuel out of thin air is to reduce the burden on logistics (how to transfer large amount of fuel on isolated locations?).

However, their process obviously require a lot of energy (they did not provide any number but everyone would do it if it were cheap). So how do you transfer this energy in isolated areas? The purpose of fuel is its high power capacity, making it easy to transport.

By the way, with or without nuclear power, the FitFor55 proposal sounds completely unreasonable to me. 1. It projects a 35% increase of energy efficiency in 10 years. You might achieve it in virtual lifes, but not in the real world (ask a cow to burp less!?) 2. It concerns domestic net emissions. Meaning that the policy is incentiving to de-localisation of industry in China (which already explains most of the progress achieved so far).

No we can't deny that oil reserves are strongly diminishing [0]. It doesn't mean that one day we will completely stop using oil. But the cost of extraction will always be increasing, inducing a reduction of its consumption.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Other than that you might not be aware of the risks we'll face related to the climate change. The topic is surely complex and long to explain. You can dig into Wikipedia, but I think it is worth to read the last IPCC executive summary.

Um it's related to 2 threats: climate change and limited ressources. Overall oil reserves are diminishing, not because of climate activism, but because of physical laws. The Wikipedia page about oil peak is worth reading it.

One way or the other, we'll have to learn living without oil and gas abundancy in the next decades. The question is more: are we going to be prepared for it?

The area on which is cattle ranching is better than nothing is a very small portion of the world. People loves to bring this argument, but it is order of magnitude lower than area destroyed by cattle ranching (farms for feeding beefs lead to deforestation, badly managed water leads to desertification).

Let's not forget that electricity represents only a third of total electricity consumption. China, by with its energy intensive industry (steel, cement), will remain de facto one of the largest greenhouse vases contributor

I know you'll hate what I say, but us, engineers, we are basically useless for the climate change. Maybe just harmful.

We are trained to build a carbon intensive world. Our tools, our philosophy and our expectation require ssomehow more clusters hidden on a fancy new cloud architecture. Our optimization will be not compensated by the rebound effect.

Personally, I am totally a part of it. My neural networks require 64 V100 GPUs to be trained. And that's the optimized version!

I think we should seriously reset our way of life and create a new fun life that is sustainable and inspiring.

I believe that the agriculture is the area with the highest leverage effect. So my plan for the next 3 years is to sell all the shits I invested in, buy a farm, grow vegetables without chemical fertilizers, and invite my friends in joining this journey. What not adding some visual based monoriting tools or, some small robots, to automatize and scale this permaculture approach. That's fun and I am not so bad at it.

Also, removing beef consumption would increase consumption of other foods so the emissions reduction wouldn't be as drastic.

Well, since you have a factor between 10x (cereals) and 100x (legumes) in the CO2 emissions between beef and vegetables, yeah it does drastically decrease emissions.

Objectively, chicken and pork have much lower emissions than beef. Right. However, pork is mostly fed with cereals, inducing a high level of CO2eq/kg + land use + loss of diversity.

The planet is not a risk. The problem is first about human societies in the middle term perspective (before 2100). And then about human life in the long term (after 2100).

But no the planet will always survive. It cares really little about its parasites.