3D25157725

>> i've noticed that anyone who no longer does that thing is typically quite vocal and negative towards said thing.

Well ya? Is that not self-evident?

See, there's this thing I enjoy very much, but I was forced to stop because of evidence of the negative consequences. Now, since I am a kind person, I can share the knowledge of those negative consequences so may be you could avoid them, too.

Said another way, if I were not negative to said activity that I enjoy, I would still be doing it. And if I were indifferent to the well-being of others, I wouldn't be vocal/share.

I agree.

Also, when viewing/listening remotely, I will record the session -- especially if they're assigning a complex task or series of tasks. This allows me to playback and get things exactly right.

In person, I would have to smuggle in a recorder and it's often awkward or infeasible.

Nomenclature aside, they're somewhat predictable in the sense that if the most dangerous rogue waves will typically happen in or near low preasure systems, and especially around strong currents, where you have wind-over-tide type nastiness.

So in the sense of trying not to die, avoid the Gulf and Agulhas currents, especially when a low blows through.

This coming from an amateur sailor. I believe freight shipping etc just plows through most weather systems in order to avoid delays.

No I don't recommend -- and I am a daily vim user for years. I program mostly in C, sometimes C++. I use i3 on my desktop and tmux when remote/ssh'd into a vm. Inside vim, I use the bare minimum of plugins to reduce dependencies/complexity. I use ctags for getting around, as well as the built in features. gdb in a terminal window next to my vim window source. It's fine and snappy and does everything I need.

I live in a terminal except for the browser. Of course my xterm bindings are always vi-mode and tmux too. I have key bindings to unite all my i3/tmux/vim 'getting-around' keys and also fought that fight to unite the clipboards, even across VMs etc.

Getting back to why I say 'no' is because once you're used to the modal, and getting around with the usual vim motion keys, it makes using anything else near impossible and clumsy. I have great difficulty composing text in browser (like right now) and also emails, etc. And if any editor online allows vim keybindings, you must make sure that you are used to defaults otherwise the vim-mode won't do you much good. Like escaping with CTRL-[, or delete word with CTRL-W, which closes the tab in the browser (firefox and chrome and I never found a way to turn that off, so I lose a lot of work that way). For instance godbolt and leetcode both had vi-modes but there's enough of a difference, even though I try to use nearly all defaults, that I still end up composing any code/english in another terminal window.

I am completely hopeless using a mouse or arrow keys. If I have to go to on-site interview and have to use something other than vim, well it makes me look like I haven't sat down at a computer in 15 years. I am a hostage now to my habits and am very wary of hopping over to VSCode/CLion/jetbrains whatever else because I will be a fish out of water.

> For a given heat, a well insulated room is as comfortable as a badly insulated one - but with less energy input. A modern computer is as useful (more so) than a Pentium 4, but with less energy input. An LED bulb provides as much light as an incandescent, but with less energy input. When energy becomes expensive, it makes energy saving worthwhile, which makes the return on investment higher, which draws in R&D money.

You're right, and I think these are compelling examples. And climate change need not even be considered for these to support a carbon tax.

Thanks for the response.

To your first question, yes I think it does. Government coercing my decisions is negative ( individually, not necessarily society/humanity ). In the same way, if government policy mandated televisions to be twice the cost because they deemed it hindered education, that would make me worse off as a consumer of televisions.

To your second question, I suppose I would argue that it lowers my standard living now, but _may_ raise the standard of living for posterity, since obviously climate change time scales are vastly greater than the effect of a tax now. However you could rightly argue that by UK citizens reducing their carbon footprint now, 3rd parties downwind directly benefit now by being less harmed by UK pollution, yes.

Thanks, great points. I hadn't at all considered replacement of other taxes. That changes the calculus a great deal, I agree.

Right, and I agree to both. This also lowers their standard of living.

My question was probably too vague. Maybe more directly, is raising costs across the board as a matter of policy more effective in our fight against climate change than other interventions? Like subsidizing research into renewable energies, etc. Have we given up on those?

I am far from qualified in judging the effectiveness of alternatives, I just wonder if these taxes are draconian, and if so, have we given up hope on these alternatives.

This was besides the point the parent was making, however, so I am regretting my digression now.

>> In many ways, high energy prices are a positive thing for society (in the long run).

If you don't mind, I wonder if you might expand on this? For me it seems a bit blithe. For instance, we know that higher energy prices cascade into many, if not most, consumer end items, and so I think it follows this decreases the standard of living generally.

I understand the important consideration of negative externalities, and how fossil fuels negatively impact 3rd parties (the world generally/climate change). I think the economic argument that there should be a carbon tax to account for these externalities is quite right. This is true regardless of climate change. So let's assume for arguments sake, we're going to tax above and beyond that to account for climate change as well.

Are we hoping then, by hiking the cost, it ushers in a new discovery of lower cost energy, with fewer externalities? And if this turns out to be the case, then these austerity measures if you like, turn out to be transient, and the temporary lower standard of living sacrifice is made for the betterment of posterity. Or is it simply we must accept a lower standard of living permanently lest we allow climate change to continue unabated, as it were?

Sorry if this distracts from the main point you were making.