
Planet enlists machine learning experts to parse Amazon basin data - robinkraft
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/20/planet-enlists-machine-learning-experts-to-parse-a-treasure-trove-of-amazon-basin-data/
======
senorjazz
Unfortunately, the Amazon won't be saved unless the rest of the world puts
their hand in their pockets. It is a resource for those countries to elevate
themselves out of poverty and develop their countries.

Europe did the same. The US did the same. To tell these poor countries they
should not cut down the forest because it is a resource for the world is a bit
rich.

Yes there is a problem with the mega farms / ranches that seem to be a problem
in some areas of Brazil, but also the small holdings where peasant (I don't
like to use this word, but it does differentiate from the typical wesstern
usage of the word farmer, but I don't intend to use it in a derogatory way)
farmers eek out an existence by chopping down a few hectares for pasture land
for a couple dozen head of cattle which they can sell.

Ecuador tried a novel approach a couple of years ago and went to the UN asking
for $4 billion to not extract oil from a particular life rich area of the
forest (the oil was said to be worth $8billion). They got pledges of $32
million (pledges which do not always translate to payment).

So now oil roads are being built, where the road goes, small holidings sprint
up all along and more of the forest gets cut down / polluted.

------
geff82
I live so much in the bubble that whenever I read "Amazon Rainforest" I think
about what new cloud product by AWS that is...

~~~
noway421
Same. I thought article is about how AWS machine learning platform found a big
customer which would help the revenue growth

------
ontouchstart
[https://www.kaggle.com/c/planet-understanding-the-amazon-
fro...](https://www.kaggle.com/c/planet-understanding-the-amazon-from-space)

~~~
robinkraft
Thanks @ontouchstart

------
wdroz
Do you get extra rewards if you score well with random forests ?

~~~
fenwick67
Or if you use AWS?

------
Danihan
Does anyone else believe that chopping down massive swaths of rainforest is
the primary cause of global warming?

I mean, these are the planets largest carbon sinks and they are being
decimated.

~~~
scarmig
Definitely not the primary cause of global warming.

Speaking terms of carbon flows, the Amazon as a whole only absorbs two or
three times the carbon emissions as the UK.

However it's approaching saturation anyway--it can't absorb an infinite amount
of carbon.

In terms of absolute numbers, the total carbon locked up in the Amazon is
definitely large, but I'd guess it's at least an order of magnitude less than
human carbon emissions since the start of industrialization. Trying to figure
out how to get the exact figure.

~~~
BurningFrog
> the Amazon as a whole only absorbs two or three times the carbon emissions
> as the UK.

The Amazon probably doesn't absorb any net amount of carbon, unless it's
growing.

Let's demystify this: The carbon trapped in the Amazon _is_ the plants. When
plants consume CO₂, the C part _becomes_ the plant. In a forest in
equilibrium, growing plants do capture carbon from the air, but rotting dead
plants release an equal amount.

So when you chop down a forest, and for the sake of example burn all the
plants, you're releasing a large one-time amount of CO₂, but then the whole
damage is done. And if you then leave the area alone, the forest will
regenerate over the next 50-100 years, reabsorb the same amount of CO₂.

If you chop down the forest and build lasting structures from the wood, you're
actually _removing_ net CO₂!

~~~
foota
I wonder if we could come up with some sort of fast growing plant that we
could then use as a replacement for sand as a filler. This would reduce the
sand crisis and capture carbon, if it's possible.

~~~
BurningFrog
There is a sand crisis too?

Is it the one caused by dams?

~~~
DanBC
Between 2011 and 2015 China poured more concrete than the US did in the entire
20th century.

Sand is one component of most concrete.

[https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/feb/27/sand-
mining-g...](https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/feb/27/sand-mining-
global-environmental-crisis-never-heard)

~~~
foota
See
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13789108](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13789108)

------
tomc1985
$60,000, that's it?

~~~
Danylon
Resulting models will likely be released as open source, and the techniques
published in open journals.

The big money is in productionizing and running it on bigger datasets.

Kaggle competitions are not a data-science-product-for-hire kind of thing,
like some kind of logo design contest. It is a sport. Super GM chess
competitions see smaller prize pools.

Mediocre people, including me, would compete for free (just to get access to
interesting data like this). The really talented people are not driven by
money, but by competition and fame.

Increasing the prize money is more of a marketing move and only attracts more
low-to-mediocre people trying to get lucky in a lottery: It won't increase the
quality of top 10 solutions. And no computer vision PhD/professor is going to
drop everything he/she is working on for a small chance to win 400k.

~~~
tomc1985
If it's as you say, then OK.

But it did look like a fishing expedition for ideas worth far in excess of
$60,000, which smelled exploitative

