Really, I'd be more worried about the total amount of emissions from all the cars/flights from people going to her gigs. That's got to dwarf her own total.
Not sure if this is what GP meant, but one funny thing about carbon credits is that energy producers that produce no emissions but don't do carbon capture (e.g. solar farms) can earn still carbon credits which they can sell to carbon emitters (e.g. steel mills). Zero is not a negative number, so the entire world can one day be "carbon neutral" following this funny accounting and physics won't care.
They are in many cases. I was trying to show she at least seems to care enough to try to counteract her own impact. That likely means the tried to minimise the number of fights too.
Easy Fix: Use part of the generous amount of taxes that Taylor Swift pays, to fight against climate change, remove pythons from Florida, or fund a panda refuge in Montana. We consider this acceptable for each big company since decades
All this people carefully registering the journey of some random famous and shaming them online, should better stop, think, and use their time in this planet more wisely. Scapegoating and witch hunts online that try to blame climate change on some famous target are extremely stupid.
Even worse, they waste our time gossiping chasing ghosts, instead to act. Even small steps would really make a difference but we still are distracted hoping for a magical fix-all solution appearing at the last minute to put us out of the pan; This is very unlikely to happen, no matter how much soup we'll trow to the Mona Lisa. Is time to accept it.
I agree that with enough wealth, we can reverse the climate change we're causing via greenhouse emissions, but the mechanism is anything but easy.
Every study I've read that examines activities companies undertake in order to become "carbon neutral" has found that the results aren't actually environmentally neutral. A panda refuge, for example, requires a climate without too much warming, but it doesn't result in one. Bold geo-engineering would definitely convert dollars into a cooler world, but with undesirable and not fully understood side-effects.
FWIW, I don't like the jet tracking (for Taylor or Elon or anyone), but for different reasons. Transparency on climate emissions is fine, but disclosing the location of vehicles of famous people in real time is real security threat. If Jack Sweeney just delayed his posts by a week, they'd be pretty much indefensible. That wouldn't grow his following on X as fast, though...
A main problem with this claims is that the value provided is clearly wrong (oversized) but nobody wants to see it. This is lying with maths basically.
A Google search got me the tail number. ADS-B data is easily accessible, there are APIs. Seems like some bigger sites like Flight Aware are already redacting info for her tail number, but it took me a few minutes to find another site that didn't seem to.
I think you can credibly make the argument that when these protocols were invented, the intent wasn't for the data to be this public or accessible, and that we could perhaps update the protocols to avoid something like this.
But from a technology point of view, saying that flight data is somehow private is like saying that if I set up an FM radio station and someone buys an FM radio and listens in they're somehow snooping on my radio station.
Aircraft make use of the air space above a bunch of people's random property. They could (in theory) also come down on top of you.
I think it makes sense for that data to be public. If you don't like it don't fly.
Also you can't prevent this sort of thing. Airplane ADS-B squawks ident info for collision avoidance and to help ATC (Air Traffic Control). The signal is simple for reliability and compatibility. Anyone can receive that data.
This whole thing about her carbon footprint is also nonsense assuming those jets are ferrying her crew and equipment that would just have to travel by commercial jet otherwise. Unless it's a lux jet just for her it makes as good as no difference in CO2 emissions whether her jet emits them or she pays United to do it.
What I mean is if she has a luxury jet outfitted with a bedroom, living room, studio, etc that only she (and maybe 1-5 other people at most) fly in that would make having a private jet bad for carbon footprint.
But if the jet is configured to carry a decent number of people and is a substitute for buying her + crew (dancers, musicians, assistants, tech, etc) commercial tickets then the entire complaint about emissions is nonsense.
I've been wondering, how much does the average YouTube viewer generate in revenue by watching ads? $0.1 a month? $0.25? $0.5 if avid viewer?
Given that I'm not an avid viewer and I do not care at all for YouTube Music, I just find the monthly cost of YouTube Premium too high.
I don't know what the right price should be, but by comparing with other digital subscriptions I have, I think I would be OK with paying something like $5 a month.
It could be like a lighter version of Premium. Just ad-free and none of the other "benefits".
It looks like the average revenue is $1/user/month. However, the "average" isn't very interesting because the typical person that signs up to this would likely be far above average--no one is going to pay $5/month if they watch a single video, but if you watch 2 hours/day that's a great deal. So it's hard to say what a "fair" price would be.
Others in the thread have pointed this out, but they did have a lite plan that wasn't rolled out broadly for some insane reason. They axed it this month:
I did some napkin math on this and I think 5 USD will not replace the ad revenue or even half of it. Keep in mind that this is the price only in the developed world and in the developing world both the YouTube premium price and ad price are very low and generate little revenue.
It's not just Google Maps. It's any webapp from Google. Youtube and Gmail run very poorly in Firefox compared to Chromium browsers. I don't use Google docs, but I'm willing to bet it has the same issues.
It's not very noticeable if you have a beefy PC, but on the mini PC I'm currently using, the difference is quite significant.
Even on a very beefy pc, whatever is going on in the firefox runtime can't keep up. My machine was built last year, high performing i7, 32gb ram, 3080ti, etc. Can run any new game at max settings without shuddering but maps and other google properties fall apart.
I'm not sure whether the problem is in the firefox runtime or in the way google optimizes for Chrome (and maybe even "accidentally" slows things down on firefox)
> Furthermore, if one of Google's proxy servers is compromised, the threat actor can see and manipulate the traffic going through it.
> To mitigate this, Google is considering requiring users of the feature to authenticate with the proxy, preventing proxies from linking web requests to particular accounts, and introducing rate-limiting to prevent DDoS attacks.
Who are the "users of the feature" here? The users of the Chrome browser?
How will they authenticate? Using their Google accounts?
