cmehdy

27 ms·

301.
by cmehdy 6y ago
Actionable items list + ownership. Even if it is simply to have one person (or very small team) spearhead the item, it gives accountability and makes it clear to everyone that the issue isn't just up in the air.
302.
by cmehdy 6y ago
1. Social media is opt-in 2. You are compensated by accessing an incredibly complex system and network for free where otherwise you would have to maintain or pay for some kind of infrastructure. (I am playing the devil's advocate here
303.
by cmehdy 6y ago
Nielsen ratings[0] have been a thing since the 1930s, so in a way people's attention has indeed been commoditized for a while now - only with an increasing granularity that has now reached some of an individual's metrics (and we&#
304.
by cmehdy 6y ago
At a "lower" level, I've done something a bit along those lines when starting at my last job: I picked a bunch of people from each team at the company and reached out to them to schedule a one-on-one about them, the way they
305.
by cmehdy 6y ago
And I'll pre-emptively add that I've mentioned about 3 or 4 times already that there's a scenario that involves the possibility of exclusively banking on renewables, and that scenario is the de-growth mentioned in my very fir
306.
by cmehdy 6y ago
There is enough surface to put PV panels in many places, and the reason why I don't just say land is because enthusiasts will also consider rooftops (which aren't optimal in terms of tech and output as you surely know - the signif
307.
by cmehdy 6y ago
[1] Aeons ago means litteraly nothing. You can contemplate gradual improvements to the EROI, but they don't change by an order of magnitude despite the metric truckton of money we've been throwing at the problem. The order of magn
308.
by cmehdy 6y ago
Renewables are emitting CO2 in their making AND in their maintenance AND when they need to migrate due to climate patterns being unpredictable, and I mentioned that again in another post. In a world transitioning away from fossil fuels, tha
309.
by cmehdy 6y ago
There's not a single metric to take but many, first of all. The initial cost in CO2 is absolutely part of the measurement, but if you want to look at finer metrics then you can look at the ratio of estimated CO2 costs over the life of
310.
by cmehdy 6y ago
First, let's get back to the very beginning: my first message gave an explanation to what was pure antagonizing of the "pro-nuclear" people, and I mentioned that it's based on physics (which it is). You're stating a
311.
by cmehdy 6y ago
I would consider it a failure to use a crapton of non-renewables to get to the point where we have unreliable, un-controllable renewables, which continue creating CO2 emissions due to how badly we store energy and in the best of cases still
312.
by cmehdy 6y ago
As a reply to your "edit": You don't know how to bloody read. Claiming renewables emit CO2 in their construction and maintenance is not saying that they don't decrease emissions in comparison to gas-oil-coal, only that t
313.
by cmehdy 6y ago
You're completely right. I replied to the post because it mentioned nuclear but the problem is much bigger and energy consumption is only one aspect of it. We're going to need pretty much every aspect: improvements or changes in h
314.
by cmehdy 6y ago
On a much longer timescale but still within habitability of the Earth (theoretically..), Saturn's rings will also disappear[0]. (300 million years) [0] https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/794/nasa-research-revea
315.
by cmehdy 6y ago
I'm making the claim because it is painfully obvious that unless you're making calculations about spherical cows there's nowhere near enough resources, surface, and specifically predictability to have renewables be more than
316.
by cmehdy 6y ago
I'm not even sure what fight you're trying to pick here, because I'm all for renewables and energy. It's painfully obvious that no, renewables alone do not have the ability to cover at a low-CO2 footprint and continuous
317.
by cmehdy 6y ago
I can't help you if you don't even understand the scale of renewability of resources such as oil and gas, the ratio of energy extracted to energy put into the various kinds of machines that produce what we need to keep our energy
318.
by cmehdy 6y ago
I'll alleviate your concerns: it is not due to a big nuclear conspiracy aiming at making Big Nuclear fill its pockets, but by people who look at what physics dictates and notice that with our energy consumption things just don't a
319.
by cmehdy 6y ago
It is a difference in features indeed, and I believe the region settings can also be found when using google - they're just 2-3 clicks away in a menu and force you to reload, where DDG has them right on the homepage. Basically Google a
320.
by cmehdy 6y ago
Six minutes in and nothing for me, for what it's worth. Thanks for sharing though.
321.
by cmehdy 6y ago
I have the opposite: I'm in Canada and from France, but if I search for anything in French on ANY google (.com/.ca/.fr) I get Quebec stuff, whereas if I put the "France" filter on DDG I do get actual results for Fra
322.
by cmehdy 6y ago
Engineers don't have a say in whether things get built or not. Politics do, because politics are expressed through representatives of the people and people do. Yes you can make any problem a problem of politics because that's EXAC
323.
by cmehdy 6y ago
So you're thinking "buildable" in terms of short-term market when nuclear power is the kind of thing built to operate on the scale of a century (and really gives financial returns only when you look over many decades), ESPECI
324.
by cmehdy 6y ago
The person I replied to said they're not buildable. This is logically false because we've been able to build them. There's no dichotomy here, just an invalid argument. And science isn't just a game of randoms. We know fu
325.
by cmehdy 6y ago
The cost is upfront for nuclear and that's what doesn't align with society's immediate goals. France is no exception to that (and in fact if you know more about the state of research in France for example you can see that lon
326.
by cmehdy 6y ago
You're telling me there is "zero chances that future cell phone swill be easier to repair", I just proved you wrong. If you don't want to put your money where your mouth is (or if your mouth isn't there anyway) that
327.
by cmehdy 6y ago
Agreed. I seem to see this sort of narrative of users being stupid as less and less prevalent (as opposed to 5-10 years ago) but it seems to still remains in some people's minds, although I'd like to think not in the majority. If
328.
by cmehdy 6y ago
Am I misunderstanding the title there or is it simply made to be catchy but wrong? The actual beginning of the article says this: "Researchers have shown why intense, pure red colors in nature are mainly produced by pigments, instead o
329.
by cmehdy 6y ago
That depends on what you mean by "cell phones": all of them? Some of them? Because Fairphone[0] is 7 years old and is proving you wrong, showing that AFTER the advent of smartphones a company emerged to drive things in the other
330.
by cmehdy 6y ago
However, unlike those companies I personally don't have a decent PR budget to shift your perspective in your daily life. I only have my words and my own actions. I get my information from websites and articles and journals and classes

More ›