H0vis

H0vis t1_j8eltxe wrote

This is what it looks like when the GPU manufacturers fuck over the entire industry.

​

Arbitrarily increasing the price of a PC build by several hundred dollars/euros/pounds whatever has meant that untold thousands of planned PC builds will have been shelved worldwide. Especially in this economy.

6

H0vis t1_j7ickyu wrote

It's not the spending too much money, it's finding illicit ways to spend money and refusing to cooperate with investigators.

It's a different sport but refusal to cooperate is why Saracens rugby team got relegated from the top division, rather than the other wrongdoing.

It's in the league's interest to bring heavy consequences for the non-cooperation. Teams need to make their accounts available to the league.

3

H0vis t1_iyxh9pq wrote

We'll see, said the Zen Master.

​

I don't trust the regime, but I don't trust what we're told about the regime either. That recent story about the fifteen thousand executions for example was fabricated.

It's possible change can happen. Change has happened in Iran before. A government spawned from revolution, that had to ride out the Arab Spring, is probably going to respond to protests or it's going to fall.

1

H0vis t1_iunpo2c wrote

If all those measures are necessary then they will happen, or I guess we die trying, but you're right they are a much harder conversation.

The question of food is a big one and you're right it's going to probably be the hardest to swallow. The key will probably be in the economics of it. Ending factory farming as a viable business model by appropriate taxation for the land use and emissions will send meat prices through the roof, but that's kind of where they have to be. People tend to be more willing to accept the idea of 'I can no longer afford this thing' rather than 'this thing is banned'.

The benefit is that it will actually be easier to feed everybody in the world if we're not also trying to feed billions of livestock animals as well. Big efficiency saving.

1

H0vis t1_iunf9jz wrote

I mean, it is an overhaul, but in a good way. Ten thousand people die to air pollution from cars in London alone.

High speed rail it depends on the country, most places have railway infrastructure, it just needs updating.

I never said this would be easy or comfortable, but to be clear this isn't a choice any more. Modern life is going to change whether we want it to or not because of climate change, so we might as well make some changes ourselves on the off chance that kids born right now don't die in a desert.

​

It's like, the scientists have been saying we can take maybe one or two degrees more temperature increase before we basically kill everything on the planet. And even now, where I am in southern England for example, temperature records were smashed in summer, we effectively haven't had an autumn in terms of the temperature dropping, and according to the weather forecast it's going to be at least a week into winter before we see the temperature drop below ten degrees Celsius.

Point is, it's already way too hot. If this is how the weather is going to stay (let alone if it gets worse) then that represents an overhaul of lifestyles either way, because everything is going to be on fire.

3

H0vis t1_iun0nzo wrote

That's the neat thing, we don't shift to electric cars. Not en masse anyway.

Cities go to cycling. There's decades of work been done showing how this is done, and it works, it's proven tech. Won't be a one size fits all, won't work as a copy/paste of Amsterdam everywhere, but a majority of cities can make that switch and will be much better for it.

Intercity travel goes high speed rail. More freight to rail as well. This is how it used to be done before freight was handed off to trucks.

Maritime shipping, we just have to eat the pollution on that side of things, offset it as much as possible with more localised manufacturing, but its here to stay for now. The good news is we're not going to kill the planet just with container ships. Ditto medium/long range passenger aircraft.

The planet can take a certain amount of abuse, we don't have to turn into a planet of blue Avatar weirdos overnight to beat this thing.

4

H0vis t1_ium80ve wrote

Neither does abandoning fossil fuels, or at least minimising their use. Not now we have the technology for renewables anyway. Thing is there are millions of dollars being spent every day to convince everybody otherwise.

​

Fundamentally making the shift could be done in a very short amount of time if the political will to do it ever overwhelmed the lobbying effort to stop it happening. All the necessary technologies already exist.

9

H0vis t1_iuluufv wrote

Yeah because there isn't a huge lobbying industry backing the use of CFCs.

There are, and have been since the existence of global warming was confirmed in the 1970s, armies of lobbyists fighting tooth and nail to preserve the fossil fuel industry. It has been almost impossible to make any significant progress against them.

The tide might turn, but it might be too late.

36

H0vis t1_iudq4ev wrote

Bret Stephens has shit for brains and it boggles my mind that the NYT would hire him for anything more complicated than sweeping the floor.

​

And I don't mean that as a sleight against the cleaning staff, who are almost certainly better informed and more rational than he is. I just mean that with some training and support, he could eventually do their job almost as well as they do.

1