3 ms·

Sure, but in this case all the elephants are still left standing in the room. And it seems pretty clear that buy-in from the general public is not an infinite r

Sure, but in this case all the elephants are still left standing in the room. And it seems pretty clear that buy-in from the general public is not an infinite resource, so these kinds of changes with minuscule impact but significant public perception of the downsides might not be the way to go. I mean, would you be happy about a 0.3% speed improvement for your compiler at the cost of requiring every source file to be < 4 KB? Especially when the compiler doesn't even inline functions yet? (Disclaimer: I have nothing against paper straws or reasonable speed limits. But I know that other people do.)

dataflow 5y ago
OTOH you can see it as a litmus test (or "foot in the door") for whether people would be willing to make larger sacrifices. Every time there's a discussion of something with a bigger impact, people shut it down because they don't like the personal sacrifice required of them, even when we're talking about their elephant contributions. Yet when you try to start small people still object because the impact is too small on its own and they purportedly want larger changes. I see it unfold right here on HN on almost a weekly basis now. I don't know how to have hope for this planet but it's pretty depressing to watch.
- peytn 5y ago
  Perhaps that is a signal that the personal sacrifice route is a nonstarter. Maybe focus energies on developing more attractive alternatives?
  - dataflow 5y ago
    I don't see any reason why that would be remotely sufficient.
rndgermandude 5y ago
There are far more effective "low hanging fruit" to tackle than lowering the speed limit when it comes to reducing emissions. - Transporting goods by rail instead of truck or plane. And while we're at it, cargo ships are huge polluters because they can save money when using low grade dirty fuel. Disallowing that practice would have a big effect, but that would require the global community to act (good luck with that). - Increasing the use of public transport and other ways to lower the need to even drive a car, like (partial) work-from-home schemes, and political incentives driving their adoption. - Increasing the efficiency of roads, first and foremost by getting smarter traffic flow control that reduces congestion (nothing in transport is more wasteful then a car just idling in a traffic jam). But even the quality of the street and type of pavement you use in roads can have a rather significant effect on fuel efficiency (regardless of whether the fuel is stored in a gas tank or a battery). Reductions of emissions is one important piece of becoming carbon neutral, but not the only piece. Renewable energy sources and other technologies that will take carbon out of the atmosphere again play another important role in the complex solution that is needed. And e.g. with renewable sources Germany might not look too bad internationally, but we're greatly lacking behind our own goals, and mostly for political reasons.

dataflow 5y ago

OTOH you can see it as a litmus test (or "foot in the door") for whether people would be willing to make larger sacrifices. Every time there's a discussion of something with a bigger impact, people shut it down because they don't like the personal sacrifice required of them, even when we're talking about their elephant contributions. Yet when you try to start small people still object because the impact is too small on its own and they purportedly want larger changes. I see it unfold right here on HN on almost a weekly basis now. I don't know how to have hope for this planet but it's pretty depressing to watch.

peytn 5y ago
Perhaps that is a signal that the personal sacrifice route is a nonstarter. Maybe focus energies on developing more attractive alternatives?
- dataflow 5y ago
  I don't see any reason why that would be remotely sufficient.

rndgermandude 5y ago

There are far more effective "low hanging fruit" to tackle than lowering the speed limit when it comes to reducing emissions. - Transporting goods by rail instead of truck or plane. And while we're at it, cargo ships are huge polluters because they can save money when using low grade dirty fuel. Disallowing that practice would have a big effect, but that would require the global community to act (good luck with that). - Increasing the use of public transport and other ways to lower the need to even drive a car, like (partial) work-from-home schemes, and political incentives driving their adoption. - Increasing the efficiency of roads, first and foremost by getting smarter traffic flow control that reduces congestion (nothing in transport is more wasteful then a car just idling in a traffic jam). But even the quality of the street and type of pavement you use in roads can have a rather significant effect on fuel efficiency (regardless of whether the fuel is stored in a gas tank or a battery). Reductions of emissions is one important piece of becoming carbon neutral, but not the only piece. Renewable energy sources and other technologies that will take carbon out of the atmosphere again play another important role in the complex solution that is needed. And e.g. with renewable sources Germany might not look too bad internationally, but we're greatly lacking behind our own goals, and mostly for political reasons.