Different sides of the same coin. The reliance on marginal suppliers has massively increased, which has pushed up prices for the whole sector, which has resulted in massive profits for everyone.

If your really need X barrels of oil and a marginal supplier can squeeze you for those last few barrels well… suck it up because that’s the new price of oil. There is nothing else that can be done; your demand isn’t elastic. Demand has to be killed with declining economic activity until we are back to balance.

The other answer here is just bad. From experience (and I have quite a lot) the 20% quoted in the article does not seem inflated. Attrition is much higher, and women are not well represented in management (particularly senior management), but that is a problem broadly in tech.

Women in ML are not unicorns; I work with them every day.

Absolutely, I would not go out that way. We have figured out systems for elective euthanasia, but it isn’t obvious to me that they are better than diy. Failure is definitely a concern, but low risk methods exist

Generally they lose the ability to swallow correctly. This leads to food aspiration which leads to infection. This becomes a cycle. Eventually (perhaps the first infection) families will choose not to treat and they will be kept on morphine as everything shuts down.

You could make more and more drastic interventions but at that point there is nothing of the person you knew remaining and there is no “better” way for them to die on offer. You will have a few days notice for loved ones to say their goodbyes and keep vigil if they want.

Unfortunately we don’t know how to do non-voluntary euthanasia. It’s just not a system we have figured out as a society/species. “Family consent” is hiding a lot of cost/complexity/trauma under the surface. The “decision not to treat” is effectively a soft form that offloads a lot of the complexity. So you need to present a cost/benefit analysis of how to move that date up and by how much. A much more traumatic process that only speeds things up by a few months probably isn’t worth it, but the earlier you aim for the more of the person remains.

Each of those “dollars” of input to do the carbon capture are coming from a system that releases carbon. The materials to build the plant, the transport of those materials, the transport for the people to run and maintain it, the clothes on their back, the food on their plate, the bank where their salary is deposited, the studio that makes the movies they watch etc. All those processes release carbon.

You can’t just look locally and say “well, I have green energy capturing carbon so this must be a net positive” because a lot of the carbon cost is externalized. You need to reduce the carbon footprint of a dollar of economic activity.

Otherwise you will be sitting there confused why atmospheric carbon is still increasing despite you building more and more capture systems.