7 ms·

This merely gets 4 comments son HN whereas a 100th nail in the coffin of privacy by Google gets 300+. I really wonder what kind of people HN'er are sometimes.

by wiz21c 3y ago

megous 3y ago
Climate change is also a well beaten horse...
- timeon 3y ago
  Still, impact is different.
- Fricken 3y ago
  It would be a more interesting conversation if we were actually doing something about it. As it is we've been rehashing the same talking points for 30 years while global emissions reach new heights. https://youtu.be/ee6-sI9rdtA https://youtu.be/ee6-sI9rdtA
ThalesX 3y ago
I gave my, rather contrarian perpective and got downvoted pretty fast. So much for conversation on the topic. I guess HN'ers are not immune from "downvote === I don't agree" and from groupthink.
- hef19898 3y ago
  Down voting is a normal thing on HN, even mentioned in the guidelines...
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I'd mostly wear it as a badge of honor so long as you were sincere in your message, it mostly means you went against the grain. In other words, you participated and ruffled some feathers...good for you.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  You're setting up a strawman argument between continuing to burn fossil fuels and 'degrowth' and keeping the industrializing world in poverty. People are downvoting you because there's a third option which just gets aggressive with renewables like wind and solar because they're the cheapest. The whole idea that there's this inevitable tradeoff between staying on fossil fuels and having to tighten-our-belts isn't relevant any more.
  - ThalesX 3y ago
    What are you even talking about? I'm talking about focusing on innovation and technical solutions, of which 'renewables like wind and solar' are part of, instead of tightening our belts... It's wild that you'd get this: > You're setting up a strawman argument between continuing to burn fossil fuels and 'degrowth' and keeping the industrializing world in poverty. from what I wrote, when I'm arguing for exactly the opposite.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      > Emissions are never going to be cut to net zero. We have billions of people that still need to industrialize. People are not just gonna roll over and turn into cavemen. You're arguing that "cutting emissions to net zero" means "billions of people not industrializing" and "rolling over and turning into cavemen". You're getting downvoted by all the people who don't view "net zero" and "growth" as contradictory (like you're asserting they are). And the fact that you just assert like it was as obvious as breathing, that there's a dichotomy there between economic growth and zero emissions means people don't want to bother engaging with you.
footlose_3815 3y ago
And the rest of the comments are brigading in denial. One guy did a "fuck you I got mine" saying that owning an air conditioner makes all of this okay. There are people still in such denial, and they are working together to brigade any mention of a list of hot topics they've been taught on. We are in the misinformation age.
iinnPP 3y ago
If this wasn't a thread 8 times a week it would get more attention. Additionally, it feels like threads about this subject are not open to discussion unless that discussion matches the HN crowd. Further, look at the headline and content of the article. It's a non-stop fear campaign that has two main reactions: 1. Fear that, could be argued, crosses into terrorism. 2. Ignorance because the government has gone above and beyond to signal that they only care about their own power and the power of their families. Now at the bottom I will mention that I have not created garbage in almost 5 years. I don't use gas and I have adapted my diet to use far less meat. I pickup recycling materials that have become litter so they don't reach landfills. I use less water for anything I can. I avoid harmful chemicals. I don't buy junk that breaks if I can help it. I fix things. My code is unreasonably efficient. I have used my talents to force positive environmental changes from billion dollar corporations using the letter of law. I get called a right wing bigot all the time in threads like this because I disagree with the methods that are being used. They are clearly ineffective. Of course the only solution that will be proposed is that of the removal of freedom. My freedom to do the right thing isn't going to save me from this fact. Maybe all the devs at HN can stop writing slow, gross, and overengineered slop. No more 100mb websites that spin up fans to handle a paragraph or less worth of text. What is the deal with 2030 anyway? We won't make it, what's plan B and when is 2030 too close for plan A to work?
- aaomidi 3y ago
  Every single subsequent plan after we miss the deadline of the last one is going to require more and more disruption into our personal lives. If you don’t like the loss of freedom now, you definitely will not like what the solutions to climate change are going to be if we don’t take the actions now.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    What actions? One thing I never see is a list of everything that must occur to reach the 2030 goal. It's much like the article of doom and gloom and 'the only solution is to vote for Party A, B, C, or D.' We have Party C in Canada right now. Capable of gaining approval for anything using a coalition of Party C and Party A. Yet, we do nothing to combat carbon. Instead, we offset our footprint by having it outside of the border. The people in power, from all parties, are incapable of making the important decisions. This is by design. These politicians are there mostly for power. Going to your voters with a statement like "you have to modify your diet" is opposite of what these elected/placed individuals will do. I propose an immediate and strong response from a party with the power to do so. If you happen to have power in Canada, perhaps you read this and actually do something? Kill the meat subsidy, Let's start there. Move it to a vegan alternative or move it to better sources of the removed nutrients. Create a program for mini homes (that are carbon neutral by design) Tax excessively sized vehicles instead of gas (which harms the poor and increases waste [unproven theory]) Fix recycling. Charge for garbage collection. Build road-free cities. There's a whole lot of low hanging fruit that could be tackled in a matter of weeks in Canada. Same with California.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

This merely gets 4 comments son HN whereas a 100th nail in the coffin of privacy by Google gets 300+. I really wonder what kind of people HN'er are sometimes.

by wiz21c 3y ago

This merely gets 4 comments son HN whereas a 100th nail in the coffin of privacy by Google gets 300+. I really wonder what kind of people HN'er are sometimes.

megous 3y ago

Climate change is also a well beaten horse...

timeon 3y ago
Still, impact is different.
Fricken 3y ago
It would be a more interesting conversation if we were actually doing something about it. As it is we've been rehashing the same talking points for 30 years while global emissions reach new heights. https://youtu.be/ee6-sI9rdtA https://youtu.be/ee6-sI9rdtA

ThalesX 3y ago

I gave my, rather contrarian perpective and got downvoted pretty fast. So much for conversation on the topic. I guess HN'ers are not immune from "downvote === I don't agree" and from groupthink.

hef19898 3y ago
Down voting is a normal thing on HN, even mentioned in the guidelines...
ChatGTP 3y ago
I'd mostly wear it as a badge of honor so long as you were sincere in your message, it mostly means you went against the grain. In other words, you participated and ruffled some feathers...good for you.
lamontcg 3y ago
You're setting up a strawman argument between continuing to burn fossil fuels and 'degrowth' and keeping the industrializing world in poverty. People are downvoting you because there's a third option which just gets aggressive with renewables like wind and solar because they're the cheapest. The whole idea that there's this inevitable tradeoff between staying on fossil fuels and having to tighten-our-belts isn't relevant any more.
- ThalesX 3y ago
  What are you even talking about? I'm talking about focusing on innovation and technical solutions, of which 'renewables like wind and solar' are part of, instead of tightening our belts... It's wild that you'd get this: > You're setting up a strawman argument between continuing to burn fossil fuels and 'degrowth' and keeping the industrializing world in poverty. from what I wrote, when I'm arguing for exactly the opposite.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > Emissions are never going to be cut to net zero. We have billions of people that still need to industrialize. People are not just gonna roll over and turn into cavemen. You're arguing that "cutting emissions to net zero" means "billions of people not industrializing" and "rolling over and turning into cavemen". You're getting downvoted by all the people who don't view "net zero" and "growth" as contradictory (like you're asserting they are). And the fact that you just assert like it was as obvious as breathing, that there's a dichotomy there between economic growth and zero emissions means people don't want to bother engaging with you.

footlose_3815 3y ago

And the rest of the comments are brigading in denial. One guy did a "fuck you I got mine" saying that owning an air conditioner makes all of this okay. There are people still in such denial, and they are working together to brigade any mention of a list of hot topics they've been taught on. We are in the misinformation age.

iinnPP 3y ago

If this wasn't a thread 8 times a week it would get more attention. Additionally, it feels like threads about this subject are not open to discussion unless that discussion matches the HN crowd. Further, look at the headline and content of the article. It's a non-stop fear campaign that has two main reactions: 1. Fear that, could be argued, crosses into terrorism. 2. Ignorance because the government has gone above and beyond to signal that they only care about their own power and the power of their families. Now at the bottom I will mention that I have not created garbage in almost 5 years. I don't use gas and I have adapted my diet to use far less meat. I pickup recycling materials that have become litter so they don't reach landfills. I use less water for anything I can. I avoid harmful chemicals. I don't buy junk that breaks if I can help it. I fix things. My code is unreasonably efficient. I have used my talents to force positive environmental changes from billion dollar corporations using the letter of law. I get called a right wing bigot all the time in threads like this because I disagree with the methods that are being used. They are clearly ineffective. Of course the only solution that will be proposed is that of the removal of freedom. My freedom to do the right thing isn't going to save me from this fact. Maybe all the devs at HN can stop writing slow, gross, and overengineered slop. No more 100mb websites that spin up fans to handle a paragraph or less worth of text. What is the deal with 2030 anyway? We won't make it, what's plan B and when is 2030 too close for plan A to work?

aaomidi 3y ago
Every single subsequent plan after we miss the deadline of the last one is going to require more and more disruption into our personal lives. If you don’t like the loss of freedom now, you definitely will not like what the solutions to climate change are going to be if we don’t take the actions now.
- iinnPP 3y ago
  What actions? One thing I never see is a list of everything that must occur to reach the 2030 goal. It's much like the article of doom and gloom and 'the only solution is to vote for Party A, B, C, or D.' We have Party C in Canada right now. Capable of gaining approval for anything using a coalition of Party C and Party A. Yet, we do nothing to combat carbon. Instead, we offset our footprint by having it outside of the border. The people in power, from all parties, are incapable of making the important decisions. This is by design. These politicians are there mostly for power. Going to your voters with a statement like "you have to modify your diet" is opposite of what these elected/placed individuals will do. I propose an immediate and strong response from a party with the power to do so. If you happen to have power in Canada, perhaps you read this and actually do something? Kill the meat subsidy, Let's start there. Move it to a vegan alternative or move it to better sources of the removed nutrients. Create a program for mini homes (that are carbon neutral by design) Tax excessively sized vehicles instead of gas (which harms the poor and increases waste [unproven theory]) Fix recycling. Charge for garbage collection. Build road-free cities. There's a whole lot of low hanging fruit that could be tackled in a matter of weeks in Canada. Same with California.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]