tomsyouruncle
Joined 12 years ago
Joined 12 years ago
Personally I find it super helpful to discuss stuff back and forth: It takes a view, explores the code and brings some insight. I take a view and steer the analysis. And together we arrive at a conclusion.
By that point the AI’s got so much context it typically does a great job summarising the thought process for wider discussion so I can tweak and polish and share.
So my scope 1 emissions can be your scope 3 emissions if I emit carbon to make something that I sell to you… but the “real” emissions are always _somebody’s_ scope 1. Interesting stuff!
[0]: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/briefing-what-are-scop...
In my scenario, CarbonCruncher bought the lignin I stopped using and made a road out of it. Crucially, in doing so they claim to have a negative carbon impact because they'd trapped that carbon in the ground. But I already claimed that impact when I stopped buying and burning it myself and switched to a zero-emission energy source.
So my (genuine) question remains: we can't _both_ claim the benefit, so who's right?
If I run an industrial plant that's currently fuelled by burning waste lignin from the paper industry, and I decide to stop that and install some solar panels instead, it seems reasonable for me to claim that change is carbon negative (i.e. I've reduced carbon emissions).
Now if CarbonCrusher comes along and buys the lignin I no longer need, uses it to build a road, and claims the same carbon saving as I did, we end up double counting.
Which of us is wrong?
You can’t really talk about “Australian developers” (or indeed any other nation’s) and ignore 90% of the distribution !
It’s a bit absurd to say you’re not using the mean because you’re worried about the effect of outliers and then instead choose a statistic that largely focuses on outliers! Why not use the median?
“I personally found that this sequential approach captured sales dynamics much more effectively than traditional classification models.”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.23303