It takes a long time to reach that equilibrium and something can disrupt it along the way. Inevitably what happens is, as the amount of dead wood increases, so does the fire risk, and when it burns its all returned to the atmosphere. This is compounded by the fact that wildfire impact appears to be increasing significantly as the climate changes. Alternatively, humans cut it down because theres lots of large dense wood to grab.
Agreed, "all" is an unfair word. Thanks. It's more accurate to say the majority of it is returned to the atmosphere. Less than 1% of burned fuel typically becomes organic carbon, but also not all of the biomass exposed will actually burn either. There's also trace amounts of other content and a lot of particulate matter (which one may or may not consider as carbon 'returned to the atmosphere' I suppose)
For that <1% left as carbon, comes >75% released as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which needs to be recaptured. Tree capture by itself is already too inefficient -- you need to cover roughly the entire area of new mexico with trees to account for just one year of America's emissions. If you're only sustainably capturing 1% of that capture, we're nowhere near the order of magnitude necessary to be impactful on a global scale.
Further, even if we didn't face the issue of running out of land, we don't appear to be able to actually plant trees fast enough and well enough (many of the "millions of trees" planting projects, especially in developing nations, have had tree survival rates of under 10%)
Forests help and are part of the strategy, but fundamentally not moving the needle.
Not that this solves it but we could easily cover a whole state in trees. Have you seen Indiana and Illinois. Those states are entirely made out of corn. At this point it isn't an engineering problem it's just an economic one.
Not every company is a unicorn. For bootstrapped companies that might never sell, multiple classes of stock can be extremely useful for a variety of legitimate accounting and dividend purposes. One of the local law firm's company setup packages uses a de facto _six_ share classes.
I agree with your concerns re. transparency but I don't think eliminating share classes would fix that.
* Class A - voting shares, founders / controlling parties, etc. Typically small fixed share count (e.g. 100), not issued dividends directly but used to represent percent of controlling interest.
* Class B - non-voting shares, early stage employees, advisors, supporters, etc. Used to issue dividends.
* Class C - Same as class B but reserved for future issuance through more formal programs like ESOP when you're ready for that
Then you might have some preferred shares for investors, say class D and E for two investor groups and then a Class F for convertible debt (even bootstrapped companies can have owner / friends / family / seed / etc money, plus may want to not rule out raising at some point).
This is obviously a lot of classes, but by doing something like this you can separate control from economic upside, create different terms / stock agreements for different classes, keep room for future planning (things like ESOP), facilitate investor needs (they almost always want preferred shares), have more flexibility with fundraising or convertible debt, etc.
I'm not actually trying to argue that exactly six classes are necessary or optimal, but moreso that its common to want not just one single share class. Practically speaking I imagine that firm does six because they're trying to give a template that'll work for many of their companies and reduce the amount of per-customer customization. My company has less although more than one.
Ah, I'm thoroughly familiar with the idea of multiple share classes (although I must commend your excellent explanation and examples here) - I was actually particularly interested what their six choices were to cover the bases as a lowest common denominator etc. No worries at all if you can't say though, I get that.
> The only thing that we seem to agree on, is that any sort of beverage containing sucrose is bad for you.
Oooh, I guess I get to throw the wrench in that one. Endurance athletes benefit from the intake of large amounts of sugars during activity. Most sports drinks are primarily a mix of maltodextrin and fructose but the science is increasingly pointing toward something closer to a 1:1 glucose:fructose ratio being optimal at large carbohydrate intake -- in other words sucrose!
Ingested in an appropriate context, it is an excellent and easy to digest fuel source. You get to throw a couple hundred grams of table sugar into a sports bottle and call it healthy.
I agree. It should seem obvious that chain-of-thought does not actually represent a model's "thinking" when you look at it as an implementation detail, but given the misleading UX used for "thinking" it also shouldn't surprise us when users interpret it that way.
I'm just an outsider here but it seems very obvious to me that someone could both 1) support the (stated) mission of saving taxpayers' money and reducing the US national debt, and 2) disagree with a specific cut
I think you could make a reasonable argument that their actions aren't actually effective at implementing their mission. I'm not really in a position to judge that, personally. I was just saying I don't think it requires any great cognitive dissonance for GP to agree with their mission but disagree with a specific cut, as was sort of implied by the reply above.
I generally like my own government but I similarly think they've made some serious blunders at times. I don't think that's a huge contradiction (I'm not American FWIW...)
I guess it's the "Stated" mission that I find impossible to believe is the truth. DOGE clearly is not supposed to be about "saving tax payers money" when they include DEI reviews as well. So even your definition removes the baggage of the racism/transphobia/homophobia/misogyny by focusing only on the money when DOGE has not been focused solely on money in the slightest.
Anyone who trusts the "stated" mission of DOGE is a simple child who hasn't followed project 2025
I'm sometimes stressed about something stupid and come here out of muscle memory; just trying to fill my brain with another thing for at least a few minutes. Every now and again there's a post like this one that reminds me the thing I was trying to avoid is actually a problem someone else might be happy to trade with me. It usually makes me turn back toward my own problems with a little more gratitude.
This sounds like something that works until it doesn't, and then you have this massive codebase you're responsible for that doesn't work, and you don't understand why or know whether it can even be fixed.
AI promises a lot of creative destruction. There are a plethora of historical examples where elites have restricted technological development because they thought it was a threat to the status quo and therefore their ability to extract wealth from that status quo.
For example: Queen Elizabeth refusing to grant a patent for the first knitting machine, the Qing dynasty forbidding large-scale ship building, or the Ottoman Empire outlawing the printing press.
I'm not sure that this is what is happening here, but it's occurrence is not impossible.
You don’t even need to dip into the historical record. The government set back atomic energy research for decades out of fears of that technology being shared among the people of the world. And what do you know, the fossil fuel industry just happened to reap heavy benefit from that decision.
I think you misunderstood me to be talking about just the politicians. Mark is claiming the gov is going to limit new entrants and give an effective monopoly to the large, established entities with political power.
When the US applied arms export restrictions on cryptography mathematics during the cold war, they gave exceptions to companies like IBM.
After you get to the cryptocurrency it's basically game over, you can earn over a million during a few market cycles, and the speed you can do it it raises (almost) exponentially. Stocks are similar, but much slower.
During my 20 minutes I noticed stocks and crypto seem to always fluctuate within a given range. So if you buy in the low end of the range you're guaranteed to see an opportunity to sell at the higher end of the range.
Crypto is just stocks with a wider range and more volatility.
Ha, thanks! I was wondering where that post had gone as it wasn't showing in my replies. I imagine it was a confusing statement on a post about yahoo pipes.
This made me think "wow, maybe the universe isn't so big after all", and then I remembered there are somewhere between 200 billion and 2 trillion other galaxies out there.
a billion billion stars is the same order of magnitude scale as a billion billion seconds, which is about the age of the universe. Or, a
billionth billionth second (one attosecind), which is the amount of time it takes for an electron to change orbitals, and also the speed of light across the diameter of a Hydrogen atom.
"which is about the age of the universe"
The more I think about the big bang the more it doesn't make sense because it would mean that the universe came out of nothing.
100 billion is the only number in cosmology you need to remember: stars in the milky way, galaxies in the observable universe, and age of the universe (in dog years).
reply