4 ms·

Due to the private nature of these projects, some parts of the projects have to be developed and tested in a secure area. They need the best talent for these pr

Due to the private nature of these projects, some parts of the projects have to be developed and tested in a secure area. They need the best talent for these programs. To attract the best talent, they can't require a whole family to live in a secure facility. So, they have to bring in the talent from a non-secure area. The most sensible way to do that is by air. The carbon footprint is not something that is ever going to factor into this arrangement, at least not until there is a very green plane available. I'm all for reducing carbon footprint, but there are about 100,000 flights/day so these two flights (there/back) make up 0.002% of daily air traffic -- it's a drop in the bucket from a carbon footprint standpoint.

jupp0r 4y ago
I agree 100%. It's the same as public outcries about world leaders flying government planes to climate summits. It's not controversial at all to me, but it seems to be to a vast number of people out there for some reason.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Jennifer Government has a hilarious example of what can happen if someone were to try to “fix” this problem.
- prepend 4y ago
  I think it’s different because there are other options for world leader climate summits (eg, make them virtual) where as there is not a replacement for physically needing to be in a secure test location in the middle of the desert. I’ve read more about celebrity attendance and private jets and the replacement for those photo ops seems similarly not relatable to this example.
  - jupp0r 4y ago
    The overarching point is that it doesn't matter in the scheme of things. It's outrageous as an example but it misses the point that industrial regulation and society wide incentives are needed to tackle climate change, not individual behavior changes of an extremely small group of people.
  - Diesel555 4y ago
    Even the world leaders need to meet in person. When you have people with that level of impact on policy - virtual meetings just do not have the same effect. They need to meet in person, talk, have side-bars, read body-language, get a drink together, do human things while solving human problems.
mistermann 4y ago
> Due to the private nature of these projects, some parts of the projects have to be developed and tested in a secure area. They need the best talent for these programs. To attract the best talent, they can't require a whole family to live in a secure facility. So, they have to bring in the talent from a non-secure area. "Have to", according to the opinions of the people working on this project, who were not elected, and whose initiatives have not been signed off by the citizens of this "democracy". > The most sensible way to do that is by air. According to some people's opinion. It is surely more convenient though for the subset of people who benefit from such programs. > The carbon footprint is not something that is ever going to factor into this arrangement, at least not until there is a very green plane available. If the country was more democratic, what "factorsd into" various things may change dramatically. But as luck would have it, the truth of what going on here is a secret, and most citizens are not just ok with it, but seem to consider it a very good thing. > I'm all for reducing carbon footprint, but there are about 100,000 flights/day so these two flights (there/back) make up 0.002% of daily air traffic -- it's a drop in the bucket from a carbon footprint standpoint. What other flights and harms happen as a consequence of this research is causally related, but the unknown tends to appear as nonexistent (and thus "is" "nonexistent").
- prepend 4y ago
  > area. "Have to", according to the opinions of the people working on this project, who were not elected, and whose initiatives have not been signed off by the citizens of this "democracy". Precisely. And that’s as good as it gets. There won’t be another group able to make the decision. The initiatives were signed off in that citizens elect representatives, representatives vote on and allocate funds to programs, programs make decisions. There is legislative oversight. It’s also top secret though. There’s no way for a citizens panel to evaluate these kinds of details due to their secrecy. One way to improve it would be something like directing the entire portfolio to reduce carbon by 10% or something. But that would probably result in planting lots of trees or something.
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Precisely. And that’s as good as it gets. There won’t be another group able to make the decision. As long as those running the show in this "democracy" continue to have their way...which I suspect is the case as long as people run on a cognitive model where they are unable/unwilling to distinguish between predictions about reality (for example: the future) and reality itself. > The initiatives were signed off in that citizens elect representatives.... The election of representatives is not an agreement with all the subsequent decisions made by those representatives, but if the minds of the public can be conditioned appropriately, it can cause it to appear that way to them (and: they will typically defend this clearly false belief passionately, if the conditioning is adequately powerful). > There’s no way for a citizens panel to evaluate these kinds of details due to their secrecy. I agree that there is no current way, but that was true for many current human capabilities prior to humans figuring out how to achieve them. But if you never even try to figure something out, there's a decent chance it will never be figured out. > One way to improve it would be something like directing the entire portfolio to reduce carbon by 10% or something. But that would probably result in planting lots of trees or something. Agreed. And I suspect there are many, many more opportunities for improvement. A plausibly decent way to come up with a shortlist of ways of more: utilize the human mind's capacity to think, ideally: free from all constraints (conditioning, censorship, etc). Easier said than done perhaps, but the true difficulty can only be discovered if one tries. If we continue to refuse to try (or even think about trying), then we may be stuck at this local maxima forever.
alistairSH 4y ago
To attract the best talent, they can't require a whole family to live in a secure facility. Los Alamos started out as exactly that. A secure lab, with a secure town built around it, housing all the engineers and scientists working on the bomb.
- bradknowles 4y ago
  And that technique doesn't scale to something the size of Area 51.
Beldin 4y ago
> they have to bring in the talent from a non-secure area. The most sensible way to do that is by air. Not disagreeing, but adding a few steps: The most sensible way to bring in talent from a non-secure location is to construct the secure facility right next door to a fantastic place to live for that talent. The second most sensible way is to locate it within a commute-able distance of such a place. When neither of those are options, then the sensible thing is to facilitate the commute.

jupp0r 4y ago

I agree 100%. It's the same as public outcries about world leaders flying government planes to climate summits. It's not controversial at all to me, but it seems to be to a vast number of people out there for some reason.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Jennifer Government has a hilarious example of what can happen if someone were to try to “fix” this problem.
prepend 4y ago
I think it’s different because there are other options for world leader climate summits (eg, make them virtual) where as there is not a replacement for physically needing to be in a secure test location in the middle of the desert. I’ve read more about celebrity attendance and private jets and the replacement for those photo ops seems similarly not relatable to this example.
- jupp0r 4y ago
  The overarching point is that it doesn't matter in the scheme of things. It's outrageous as an example but it misses the point that industrial regulation and society wide incentives are needed to tackle climate change, not individual behavior changes of an extremely small group of people.
- Diesel555 4y ago
  Even the world leaders need to meet in person. When you have people with that level of impact on policy - virtual meetings just do not have the same effect. They need to meet in person, talk, have side-bars, read body-language, get a drink together, do human things while solving human problems.

mistermann 4y ago

> Due to the private nature of these projects, some parts of the projects have to be developed and tested in a secure area. They need the best talent for these programs. To attract the best talent, they can't require a whole family to live in a secure facility. So, they have to bring in the talent from a non-secure area. "Have to", according to the opinions of the people working on this project, who were not elected, and whose initiatives have not been signed off by the citizens of this "democracy". > The most sensible way to do that is by air. According to some people's opinion. It is surely more convenient though for the subset of people who benefit from such programs. > The carbon footprint is not something that is ever going to factor into this arrangement, at least not until there is a very green plane available. If the country was more democratic, what "factorsd into" various things may change dramatically. But as luck would have it, the truth of what going on here is a secret, and most citizens are not just ok with it, but seem to consider it a very good thing. > I'm all for reducing carbon footprint, but there are about 100,000 flights/day so these two flights (there/back) make up 0.002% of daily air traffic -- it's a drop in the bucket from a carbon footprint standpoint. What other flights and harms happen as a consequence of this research is causally related, but the unknown tends to appear as nonexistent (and thus "is" "nonexistent").

prepend 4y ago
> area. "Have to", according to the opinions of the people working on this project, who were not elected, and whose initiatives have not been signed off by the citizens of this "democracy". Precisely. And that’s as good as it gets. There won’t be another group able to make the decision. The initiatives were signed off in that citizens elect representatives, representatives vote on and allocate funds to programs, programs make decisions. There is legislative oversight. It’s also top secret though. There’s no way for a citizens panel to evaluate these kinds of details due to their secrecy. One way to improve it would be something like directing the entire portfolio to reduce carbon by 10% or something. But that would probably result in planting lots of trees or something.
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Precisely. And that’s as good as it gets. There won’t be another group able to make the decision. As long as those running the show in this "democracy" continue to have their way...which I suspect is the case as long as people run on a cognitive model where they are unable/unwilling to distinguish between predictions about reality (for example: the future) and reality itself. > The initiatives were signed off in that citizens elect representatives.... The election of representatives is not an agreement with all the subsequent decisions made by those representatives, but if the minds of the public can be conditioned appropriately, it can cause it to appear that way to them (and: they will typically defend this clearly false belief passionately, if the conditioning is adequately powerful). > There’s no way for a citizens panel to evaluate these kinds of details due to their secrecy. I agree that there is no current way, but that was true for many current human capabilities prior to humans figuring out how to achieve them. But if you never even try to figure something out, there's a decent chance it will never be figured out. > One way to improve it would be something like directing the entire portfolio to reduce carbon by 10% or something. But that would probably result in planting lots of trees or something. Agreed. And I suspect there are many, many more opportunities for improvement. A plausibly decent way to come up with a shortlist of ways of more: utilize the human mind's capacity to think, ideally: free from all constraints (conditioning, censorship, etc). Easier said than done perhaps, but the true difficulty can only be discovered if one tries. If we continue to refuse to try (or even think about trying), then we may be stuck at this local maxima forever.

alistairSH 4y ago

To attract the best talent, they can't require a whole family to live in a secure facility. Los Alamos started out as exactly that. A secure lab, with a secure town built around it, housing all the engineers and scientists working on the bomb.

bradknowles 4y ago
And that technique doesn't scale to something the size of Area 51.

Beldin 4y ago

> they have to bring in the talent from a non-secure area. The most sensible way to do that is by air. Not disagreeing, but adding a few steps: The most sensible way to bring in talent from a non-secure location is to construct the secure facility right next door to a fantastic place to live for that talent. The second most sensible way is to locate it within a commute-able distance of such a place. When neither of those are options, then the sensible thing is to facilitate the commute.