Recent submissions

Comment · 6 years ago
That’s ridiculous people are not made out of plastic
Comment · 6 years ago
The only Zen 3 chips are desktop class, so Apple’s first generation ultra book oriented processor is trading blows with the best line of desktop processors. That’s a pretty big deal!
Comment · 6 years ago
And that bonus is only on the first 50k.
Comment · 6 years ago
While I do like the developer centric features, that interest rate is pretty terrible. Macquarie and Volt are much better in that respect.
Comment · 6 years ago
> But then we use that drinking-level standard water to (1) water our landscape and (2) flush the toilet.

Doing otherwise would require a massive duplicate water distribution network for non-drinkable water.

> There's a community outside of Taos, NM that experiments with what are called earthship designs. (There are actual people living for years inside these earthships). These earthships are designed so that waste water cycles through the system three times before feeding a leach field, using landscaping plants to clean the waste (carbon cycle). By that I mean, clean water for drinking and washing gets reused as grey water, cleaned by plants, and then reused as toilet flushing water.

There are more scaleable to recycle water, but I am generally in favour of the concept.

> That integrated greenhouse is also a part of a passive heating and cooling system that keeps the inner environment a comfortable 70 - 80 degrees, with vents that can adjust the temperature. It maintains that temperature range in a high desert. In addition to temperature regulation, greenhouse provides supplemental food, part of the water purifications system.

That sounds labour intensive and non-scalable. How big would this green house/ water recycling solution need to be to power a single apartment building? How many people would be required to keep it up and running? What’s keeping this green house warm?

> Our medical system is very good at treating acute problems, but very poor at treating chronic issues. It is generally not holistic, and there are blinders in the paradigms that prevent researchers from looking into effective treatments. Furthermore, in the US, medical care is in a runaway feedback loop between insurers and providers, significantly increasing costs

I wouldn’t use the American system as a basis for a critique of modern medicine. Every other developed country is able to avoid the mess you described.

> But the main thing is: sustainability is _not_ enough. That is essentially saying, "do less harm". Baked into that paradigm is that the harm from our current practices is inevitable, so we should strive to do the least amount of harm with that inevitability. > Instead, we should be looking at regenerative practices, and one that is not anthropocentric. It requires a different way of seeing. We don't have to "regress". We can do a lot better.

You are going to have to be more concrete than that. Every living creature consumes resources from their environment and every creature will destroy their native environment unless held in check by predators or some other external limiting factor. Humans are the only animals to understand this, so we have the ability to moderate consumption.

Comment · 6 years ago
Lovely stuff, our society may be imperfect, but our material well-being is not something to be dismissed. Our secure food supply, sanitation, clean drinking water, medicine, and ability to adjust the climate to a comfortable level are absolutely marvellous achievements and dependent upon resource extraction. I’d hate to think anyone would suggest we should regress a millimetre away from that.

We need to find ways to satiate our hunger for resources in a sustainable manner (or find a way to import them from a nearby object in space), but we shouldn’t be ashamed of the progress we’ve made.

Comment · 6 years ago
> If I emit a ton and pay credits to offset a ton, a ton is still out there

The basic idea is to allow companies to ramp down their emissions by releasing fewer credits each year.

I could see a compromise being that one carbon credit is worth a tonne of carbon emissions, but two tonnes of sequestered carbon. So companies would have to pay for the removal of some factor of what they produce.

Comment · 6 years ago
> If you want to really take meaningful action, choose taking CO₂ out of the air over carbon credits. Even if we reduce to zero tomorrow there is still an excess of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere today.

Why not both? Allow companies to buy additional carbon credits from co2 sinks? Allow companies to decide between stopping a harmful industrial process or paying for its externalities.

Comment · 6 years ago
Even if it were only 5-10% of internet traffic, that’d be huge! Think about how much the internet has exploded in use since 2009.
Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
I see the topics of biased information and neural input bandwidth as unrelated as the current rate of bandwidth is sufficient. As you mentioned, humans have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to whip themselves up into a frenzy throughout all of recorded history. So it’s a bit strange to suggest we shouldn’t adopt a technology on the basis that it might encourage us to do what we are already doing.

Also filter bubbles in media have generally been created by quite basic algorithms that only meet the definition of AI when you really stretch it. You might argue that a more advanced AI might create more toxic bubbles, but it seems to me that our society has just about perfected toxic bubble creation and any further advancements in the field would suffer severely from diminishing returns.

Comment · 6 years ago
I disagree with the premise that the fact that I can see my living room in my peripheral vision reduces the influence of my media consumption.
Comment · 6 years ago
I disagree, Humans already have a neural interface with AI via the visual cortex and the auditory nerve. You are forming a neural link with an AI when you have a conversation with your Google Home.

I imagine a electrode neural link would with much the same way, but faster and less disruptive. Humans would off load tasks like: information discovery, complex mathematical calculations, and making arrangements for holidays to their AI companion.

Comment · 6 years ago
Comment · 6 years ago
> A phone and neuralink could work together and figure out when I'm holding it and unlock automatically and then lock it when I stop holding it.

I mean, maybe, but I feel like you’re missing the potential of this device!

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton