Imagine I send my friend a password for something. If I put the password in a text message, it will probably still be sitting in their text messages for the next several years. A copy of the password will be on their phone, their text provider’s servers, and maybe various middlemen servers, I don’t know. That information could be accessed by a hacker, rogue employee, or third person who is using the friends device (or a court!) not just when it’s sent, but years in the future.

If I send a link like this proton one, the link itself will have the same problems as a plaintext password would. The difference is that I, the user, retain control over whether that link leads to anything. I can turn off the link so even though some adversary has it, it’s useless to them.

What this does not protect against is if the intended recipient misuses the sensitive information, but that’s a different problem.

Do you use an ad blocker or privacy extension? I’ll just throw out there I don’t think it’s right, but I’ve had to disable adblock to get some banking site stuff to work

None of the events on the show are real, it’s all the bridge crew fucking around in the holodeck pretending to be in Starfleet

Would love to hear an expert talk be about this more. It’s an interesting idea, but seems like it would be limited in usefulness to small adjustments.

That’s an interesting take. What about a scenario where the nation as it stands doesn’t meet the requirements you outlined, but there’s clear indication the invading country would be worse?

Thanks for your thought. What about a situation where you know everyone won’t be killed, but the defeated country will no longer be democratic/open? In other words, you’ll live, but the quality of life will be much worse for the foreseeable future

So if for example every person’s name goes in the hat, and then conscripts are drawn at random? I only clarify because in a situation where every able body is fighting you’ve already lost, there needs to be logistics, maintaining utilities, growing food, etc

I’m saying it does matter. When you go to a business and say you can buy a widget for $1000, or for $500, and they both do the same thing, the business will choose the cheaper one. Sure, lobbying will get businesses some favors, loosen some regulation, get some subsidies, but at a certain point it’s not enough, the economics take over.

You’re right that people have been thinking about and working on renewable energy for a long time. However what’s only become true very recently is that it’s cheaper to generate energy using renewable sources than to use fossil fuels. That’s a massive milestone because when a new power source is built it will more likely than not be renewable.

People making sacrifices is important, but what if you weren’t only giving people the opportunity to help the environment, but also to improve their bottom line? Makes the pitch a lot easier and helps us to build momentum in the right direction.

I don’t agree with you, but also if I did, what then? If we don’t believe it’s possible for things to get better do we just lay down and die?

You’re right, we’ve got to get rid of fossil fuel. As one example, the article talks about how energy storage has reduced the need for gas peaker plants. In California in April the power required from those plants was half what it’s been in April the prior three years.

Still plenty of progress that needs to be made, but what’s notable is that it’s now cheaper for a business to turn to green energy and storage to solve a problem. There’s not an incentive to build new polluting tech. So while the impact of climate change is going to get worse (because those emissions and warming are already baked in) the business argument for fossil fuel is no longer viable.

Yes, we need more storage and generation. The author didn’t say we’re all good and nothing more needs to be done. What’s noteworthy is that renewable energy is cheaper than CO2 emitting, and battery storage is cheaper than peaker plants. (And grid battery can come from things like salt, sand, brick along with better known components like hydro storage, doesn’t have to be rare earth elements)

It’s ok to acknowledge when good things happen while also recognizing bad things.

With respect, I think you’re projecting a discussion with a different person onto this article.

You’re right, the climate is going to get worse before it gets better. You’re right, the impacts of climate change will disproportionately affect poor and underdeveloped areas. We can’t make that go away with positive thinking, and it’s not enough for humans as a species to survive, we need to focus on reducing suffering while we’re turning the ship.

What I took away from this article is that the market forces for cheap renewable power and the means to store it are now stronger than the forces for CO2 emitting power. And those forces are moving faster than predicted. That’s good, and it’s ok to talk about something good when it’s true!

People who have been paying attention and care about others have good reason to be wary about the narrative “oh, everything is going to be fine” because that’s what industry and politicians have been saying for a long time instead of taking needed action.

We’re at a point where most people recognize climate change is real, and they can see it’s effects. We’re also at a point where many people don’t have hope for the situation. It’s dangerous to tell people “shit’s fucked and there’s nothing you can do about it” because they might believe you and do nothing.

Yes, I view the time loop trilogy as groundhog day, edge of tomorrow and palm springs (good. Andy Samberg)

“yeah…no” isn’t an argument.

To be clear, I’m not saying the basilisk is a real concern, and I’m not saying we’re anywhere close to being able to transfer consciousness. It could be a thousand years or a million years. But we don’t have any basis to say it’s impossible. It’s not saying anything new to announce we can’t do it currently. Obviously!

(Also the book “A City on Mars” by Kelly and Zach Weinersmith does a great job addressing why trying colonize Mars right now is a bad idea. Which isn’t to say it’s impossible or we won’t ever colonize it. Just that we need more research and capabilities before doing it)

Just because we don’t have the ability now doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Consciousness isn’t fully understood, but unless we want to introduce magical concepts like an immortal soul, our brains operate on cause and effect just like everything else.

Something else they (and a lot of other coops) do is set a max ratio of executive income vs lowest paid worker income. So for example I think at Mondragon an executive can’t make more than six times the lowest paid worker.

I think market based mechanisms for calculating pay would be very hard to get away from.

That said, Mondragon (worker cooperative) has a base pay rate and then all positions are assigned a multiplier to determine an individual’s compensation.

That’s a good visual

I’ll tell them