There are times when I want to argue that the solution is to make the question one of truth rather than guilt or innocence, but any solution runs up against human nature, my first experience of which was when playing sports and being told by my team mates that I should state that the ball fell on the side of the line which was advantageous to the team, rather than where it actually fell.
This looks LLM-written. Also, it doesn't match the writing style in your other comment history. However, It could be the difference between an effortpost and a quick thought.
I have also been accused of a robotic writing style, so I don't want to judge too harshly.
It's an understandable mistake to make; culturally an engineer is defined by the building of physical objects that have extremely high reliability expectations. But "engineer" originally referred to someone who used their ingenuity to build or do things in a manner not routine or primarily physical [1]. Basically an inventor who produced. The main engineering accreditation body in the United States adds the requirement of a professional education, but it is more or less the same [2].
For an environmentmaxxer, eliminating upper-middle class jobs is extremely effective, as this group consumes the lion's share of resources and bears the greatest impact on carbon emissions. Remember that the majority of industry is upstream of consumption.
Not endorsing this world view, just noting that the wealthiest 1% of people in the world (encompasses most US citizens) have an enormously outsized impact on climate.
The "upper middle class" is not strictly defined, but they are pretty clearly the folks below the wealthiest 1%. You can't be in the middle without something on either side.
They certain consume far more than the poor, on account of having resources, but they also consume far less than the wealthiest 1%.
You are almost certainly in the global 1% of the wealthy [1]. Compared to developing nations' residents, we have an order of magnitude greater impact on the environment.
>Remember that the majority of industry is upstream of consumption.
People forget this. Oil companies may have dug up the oil, but they did so because we paid them to, so we could use the energy for good and useful things.
Climate change isn't 'evil billionaire companies are ruining the world', it's 'these things we did to improve our lives turn out to have side effects'.
Mac OS comes with the purchase of the hardware. For mobile and tablets, yes, there is a strict walled garden. But I've been programming on Mac OS for longer than the age of this HN account, and even longer on Linux. In practice there's not much beyond the window manager and containerization that are impractical on Mac for every day programming compared to mainstream Linux distros.
The family computer is set up to boot into Ubuntu; booting into Windows 11 is the exception (games, iTunes).
Not giving Apple money means no Apple hardware. I've gone decades doing it and haven't regretted it once. I've turned down work because it involved having to work with Apple devices and software. It's really, really easy to not give them money.
Pirate everything if you have to, but stop feeding the companies that are making everything awful.
It's not rational to expect owners to discard equipment long before the end of its service life, especially when the operational costs are not an order of magnitude lower.
Without time travel or CCCP circa 1955 property controls, a 100% EV ownership benchmark is unreasonable.
It's not a fully consensus view, but a majority of sociologists agree that high severity deterrence has limited effectiveness against crime. Instead, certainty of enforcement is the most salient factor.
Correct. We also have evidence both from cheating in sports and in academia that stiff punishments do not work. Many people hold the false belief that if it is easy to cheat then the punishments must be extremely severe to scare would be cheaters. It just does not work. Preventing cheating is way easier said than done.
> We also have evidence both from cheating in sports and in academia that stiff punishments do not work.
Maybe so, but there is evidence that lack of punishment also don't work.
Neither extreme "works". Just because terminal punishments do not prevent the worst cheating does not in any way imply that slap on the wrists reduce incidents of cheating.
Are you claiming that one of the extremes "works"? That the "light punishment" route reduces cheating? Or maybe has no effect on cheating?
There are two extremes; I am not arguing that the one extreme (terminal punishment) reduces cheating, I am saying that the other extreme (light punishment) does not reduce cheating!
You say that stiff punishments have no effect on the cheating rate, right? Compare to what exactly? Compared to no punishments? Compared to light punishments? Compared to medium punishments? Compared to heavy but non-terminal punishments?
Now that I've reread your comment, I'm extremely skeptical that terminal punishments have no effect on the cheating rate compared to light punishments or compared to medium punishments.
It's an extraordinary claim, so I want to see this "lots of evidence"; the evidence should basically show no correlation between cheating and punishments.
That's not true. People still pick up USB sticks from the street, people still fall for scam phone calls and people still click on links in mail.
Just because a method was successful once does not mean it was 'burned', none of these people will be checking each and every future pdf or passing it through a cleaner before they will do the same thing all over again and others are going to be 'virgin' and won't even be warned because this is not going to be widely distributed in spite of us discussing it here.
If anything you can take this as proof that this method is more or less guaranteed to work.
Yup, precisely this. Doing something bad is rarely a rational commitment and cost of benefits. Likelihood and celerity of getting caught seem to be the driving factors.
It makes honest people feel rewarded, valued and acknowledge. It teaches people who wish to follow the rules and conform to social norms what those norms are and where we actually draw the line in practice.
Looked at slightly differently, given a split between high trust and low trust preventing conversions from high to low is similarly important to inducing conversions from low to high.
If you can hoof it all the way to Fairfield (2.5 hours from Y Combinator HQ in SF; Muni->BART->Amtrak->taxi), you can get a 7 year old Model 3 for $14k tomorrow.
It's a myth that EV charging requires an upgrade to a 100 amp connection. Scheduling charging to times when you're not using appliances will still result in a charged vehicle by morning.
The Youtube channel Technology Connections has an interesting video where it describes a successful transition to a fully-electric house while remaining on a 50 amp electrical connection. (it requires a smart circuit breaker)
We have a F-150 lightning, and charge it on a 12A, 120V charger. It’s fine for 6-10 trips a week. If I commuted in it to an office without a charger it wouldn’t be fine, but a smaller commuter car would be. (The truck gets 2.5 miles/kWh, commuter cars are at 4-5).
I’m sure we are outliers, but still.
Put another way: growing up with incandescent bulbs, I remember light switches that would turn on 6-8 lamp track lights. That’s half the current our EV charger draws. We had a space heater that drew more than our EV charger currently does.
Houses and neighborhoods are still built with electrical systems provisioned for pre-LED, pre-induction/heatpump workloads. They certainly have enough slack for everyone to plug in a level one or two charger simultaneously.
I wonder if the household share of grid power has gone down faster than total power has gone up, and that's why people are worried about EVs taking out the power grid even when everyone's individual house seems to handle it easily enough.
That's true enough at the level of individual households. If the whole neighborhood switches to EVs, the power grid in general might not be built to handle it.
(Personally I don't expect this will be that big a deal, since switching to EVs is something that happens one household at a time over many years. So, it shouldn't come as a sudden shock, and its something the utilities can make long term plans about. It just means power utilities need to be on the ball about not putting off infrastructure upgrades, and it means somewhat higher electricity prices for residential customers.)
reply