This was really good. The Hassan version was “better.” It picked up the background behind me and commented about how cool my models looked on the wall, and mentioned how great they looked to spruce up my workshop. We had a conversation about how they were actually LEGO, and we went on to talk about how cool some of the sets were.
Glad you had a good conversation :) The Hassaan version has a lot more background filled in- actually my entire website is it's context, so he has more interesting things to say!
I believe they want a minimum order of $1000 and only allow me to print it in a single color. Honestly, providing a physical good is a whole other set of issues with which I have no experience at all.
Completely agree. I can't imagine being lead on a wild goose chase looking for a loved one only to be told by police that said party lied to me. I guess there's a lesson here: talk with nurses. I'm sure some would toe the line but if something smells fishy, I'm sure someone will crack. Then again, maybe only one nurse would know the truth so it's may not be easy.
It's worse than that, it's like burying a double or even triple lede:
- it's not just that the hospital told her family totally the wrong thing for a day or a year...
- or even negligently cremated or buried her in a pauper's grave...
- but they also mishandled the corpse, which IIUC is a misdemeanor (corpse desecration, which is a felony, might not apply), by shipping her decomposing body to an off-site warehouse morgue.
- and failing to timely issue a death certificate or do an autopsy prevents determining whether there had been medical malpractice associated with her death.
I hire crypto bros all the time. One of my partners advises porn companies.
Who you are and whether you can do the job, matters more. If you’re sleazy, I probably wouldn’t hire you, but that is a personality trait rather than your employment history.
I have a unique unpronounceable first name. I got passed over for interviews all the time. I took it as “if they’re that type of person, I wouldn’t want to work for them anyway.”
Are you saying your first name is actually unpronounceable(I’m thinking similar to Elon Musk’s child’s name) or merely hard for most people in whatever area you’re in to pronounce?
I get that this stings, but honestly, outside of the brief outages when I'm trying to deploy for the millionth time, it's been a dream to run on Fly, with instances close to my users.
It's too bad the closest region to Dubai is Romania, and Africa/SE Asia are a bit uncovered, but that's ok for now. I'm really enjoying using LiteFS and globally distributed instances for each customer, making it really easy, fast, and scalable. As the sole dev on the team right now, this is fantastic.
I wish Upstash Kafka was a bit more baked, but I ended up just signing up with them directly. I had trouble using the built-in-to-Fly version, but that's fine.
The runoff argument is a good one. That’s an externality that’s easily forgotten.
However, if Denmark stops exporting pork and tells everyone to grow it itself, what happens when those countries stop exporting products that Denmark doesn’t make? Is Denmark going to produce its own computers?
I understand the frustration and the argument. Maybe there’s something else Denmark can and should export.
> I understand the frustration and the argument. Maybe there’s something else Denmark can and should export.
Like pharmaceuticals? Or aerospace, robotics, high end machinery (Grundfos for example), or sea freight?
Before COVID the Danes also produced massive amounts of fur from mink, they've been culled due to the pandemic and nothing much has happened.
> However, if Denmark stops exporting pork and tells everyone to grow it itself, what happens when those countries stop exporting products that Denmark doesn’t make? Is Denmark going to produce its own computers?
Trade wars due to a country's economical decisions about what they prefer to produce or not is not a reality. Or if it is I'd like to see some examples.
I'm not against exports in principle. I'm against the destruction of my local environment for the profit of a group factory farm owners which as far as I know number in the hundreds. 0.5% of this country is wild nature - again 50% is pig feed! - and we need more wilderness and more forests both to maintain our biodiversity and capture carbon to reach our 2030 goals. This cow tax is actually part of a larger deal that also sets aside money to buy land back from farmers to achieve that.
And if you're asking me whether I think it's fair that we can buy computers from Asia for around the price of the raw materials and labour, and not have to worry about the environmental devastation of both the production of them and the handling of them when they're discarded, the answer is a firm no. I want environmentalism both here, in China, and in Africa. Production should be sustainable, and if I then have to eat less meat or make my computers last longer, then that's just how it is. Just because I want something doesn't mean I have a right to it when what I want has such a profound impact on others.
Other countries would import their pork from somewhere else, or produce their own pork, while still selling their computers to Denmark because that’s good business?
Could you explain which externality this is? I know they produce a lot of methane which is more of a GHG than CO2, but as far as I know, that methane is a part of the carbon cycle so it should be a net neutral contribution.
The problem isn't the cycle, it's the delta of total emissions in the cycle. By your definition, literally everything is part of the carbon cycle, as we are just putting the carbon of old plants in the air, which will slowly be consumed by plants. The problem is if we put all that carbon in the air all at once, we have problems.
The biomass of livestock is 14x larger than all other mammal apart from humans[1], so it makes sense that, even if their carbon cycles is short, it's still a massive amount of effectively permanent GHG that exists in our atmosphere that wouldn't otherwise be there... about 15% of all emissions[2].
Not counting livestock as emissions because they form a decades long closed loop could be fine when we are carbon negative, but we are dealing with the very real problem of total emissions right now, not just unsustainable growth of emissions.
I think a big part of it is that we have so many more cattle than the earth could naturally support, and the number is only increasing as the world gets more developed. As it stands, even without any other sources of carbon emissions cattle would be enough to cause significant climate change on their own. [0]
I don't know if it's by gross weight or calories, but the number I've heard is that feeding plants to animals is 10-20 less effective than just having people eat the plants. Or mostly eat the plants. So, in the case of Denmark, where 50% of the surface area is used to grow food for pigs, we could instead use 3-5% of the surface are to grow food for people and come out at something resembling the same amount of food, at least if we're just talking "food needed to survive". And given some of the other talk we see on this site, (or used to see a few years ago) about how indoor farming is an absolute necessity because we're running out of land due to rising populations, I think that seems quite significant.
BTW, I am not a full-time vegan nor interested in becoming one, but the average meat consumption in Denmark is as far as I know measure in the hundreds of grams per day. Maybe there's room for compromise?
Cows don't eat plants that people can derive appropriate nutrition from. They also don't generally use land that is appropriate for crops. Also, from what I understand, the emissions from the animals isn't significantly different than seasonal die off from natural grasslands they graze on. Beyond this, most of the calculated water consumption "used" is rainwater on said grasslands.
Cows in America derive most of their calories from corn. And while most Montana cows generally live on land unsuitable for crops, Montana only has a small fraction of American cows.
And I believe that your comments are even less true in other prominent cattle producing countries than America.
Grass doesn't grow on hills, or soil with lots of stone/rocks that would be prohibitively expensive to turn into cropland? Not to mention that cropland using regenerative farming, or anything actually sustainable, should include grazing animal rotation.
I'm not a climate scientist, presumably the Danish government has consulted some of those though. My understanding is that livestock farming, in particularly beef and dairy cows, contribute significantly to the Co2e(carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions of the farming sector, which itself is a major overall contributor. The negative externality is this emission, which is not accounted for in the price of beef and dairy products
Given a constant population of cows [1], the cows do not cause an increase in green houses gasses over time.
This is because the methane from the cows has a half life of between six and eight years [2]. Given a fixed population cows, the amount of GHG going into the atmosphere is the same as the amount of GHG coming out of the atmosphere.
The problem with run away climate change is oil. Given a fixed consumption of oil, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere increases over time.
perhaps some kind of financial incentive to curb and eventually reverse the artificially inflated population of cows whose emissions, while part of the closed carbon cycle, increase the greenhouse gas effect of our atmosphere during their half lives, would be a simple and effective step we could take towards increasing the odds we survive the next few centuries that is not at all at odds with also tackling our reliance on fossil fuels?
This is a factual matter. Why be snarky when you can instead lookup the answer? The population of cows in the EU has been relatively constant with a slight downward trend. [1]
Maybe I’m using the wrong term but my understanding is that the carbon comes from the feed, which itself pulls it from the atmosphere. Thus, it came from the air, and goes back into the air.
The fossil fuels did the same but on a grander scale and longer timeline where the carbon becomes sequestered. Carbon taxes on that make sense.
From what I understand carbon comes from the soil as well as from the air, and it's supposed to be "stored" back into the soil by various means but our agriculture and more generally human activities tend to accelerate release of carbon from the soil and refrein the storing process. And that provokes a climate disimbalance.
There was a good video on the relation between carbon cycle and massive extinctions throuhout history (1h long) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxTO2w0fbB4
It has a short half-life (years) in the atmosphere though, while CO2 has a very long half-life (centuries or more). Methane in the atmosphere gets photochemically oxidized into CO2 and H2O, but more slowly than when it's combusted.
> I don't really know what you mean by it being part of carbon cycle
Plants breath in co2 from the atmosphere and bind the carbon in their structure. Cows eat the plants and turn some percentage of the bound carbon into cow meat, the rest they poop or fart or breath out. Eventually all that carbon ends up back in the atmosphere where plants again can bind it. This is the carbon cycle. Thus the point is that cows existing do not increase the carbon in circulation. (As opposed to digging up coal or drilling for oil/gas which liberates carbon which used to be in circulation but become bound in fossils.)
reply