Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise per year is fairly small. The largest portion comes from loss of land-ice like mountain glaciers and snow pack. Mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet is also substantial, contributing about 2.7 mm/yr to sea level change. Groundwater withdrawal is a measurable component of modern sea level rise. Aside from these mass-transfer mechanisms, there is also ocean warming (water generally expands as it get warmer) and salinity changes that don't affect the amount of water in the oceans, but do affect its volume. Loss of sea ice (which floats on top of water and is not supported from below by solid earth) does not contribute to sea level change, as the sea ice is already displacing an amount of water equal to the amount of ice doing the displacing.
That 2015 Jay Zwally paper should not be taken as truth, as there are substantial reasons to doubt the impact of the findings. In that paper Zwally uses a set of satellite laser altimeters operating over different epochs and neglects to co-register the different platforms in an intelligent way. There was actually major hubbub around that paper and most glaciologists recognize the claim that "Antarctica is gaining mass" is probably incorrect.[0] Zwally has a pretty big ego and was happy to get the publicity anyways.
Greenland does not contribute that much to global sea-level rise: "The cumulative ice loss from Greenland from 1992 to 2015 was 3,600 Gt and contributed to global sea level rise by approximately 10 mm" -- that's less than 0.5 mm/year. [1]
Where did you get that Greenland contribution rate?
Has tox matured into a usable system? I last tried it about two years ago and had too many problems with setting it up to suggest it to friends. Looking for a good non-centralized encrypted video chat.
This article discusses the benefits of having a 'pure hobby' that you perform for personal enjoyment (not necessarily to turn a profit). Whether your chosen employment enables you to purchase a home (as a single individual?) seems completely tangential to the point of the article. I rent and have non-hustle hobbies. They give me something to do during my evenings and an outlet for personal expression. Also the results of my hobbies are usually suitable as gifts to friends and family. I am not trying to monetize them for the same reason as what is mentioned in the article: the hobby becomes work; stress increases & enjoyment goes down; you lose the positive influence the hobby had on your life.
There will always be capitalistic and opportunistic people who view every moment of their life in the framework of "how can I profit off this situation?". Those hustlers aren't going away. The flip side is there are also people who recognize the value of internal alignment and seek that instead of capital/wealth growth.
The insecurity of many of the popular package managers (pypi, npm, crates) and the wholesale reliance of so many software systems on these managers seems like a massive security risk. While I appreciate the simplicity of getting an up to date environment through these managers, I always have a tinge of fear in using them. Whether it is backdoors, information theft (like this article), or filesystem destruction, they all are simple to implement and simple to hide. I let so much arbitrary code run on my computer when I import a python module. Maybe the breach isn't in a popular top-level library, but some dumb little dependency. It's even more dangerous because most eyes aren't looking at that dependency, presumably.
I am tremendously naive to infosec and security in general, but I can predict that the big companies have measures in place to mitigate these risks. Containerization seems like it could help limit the scope of the damage, but the popular containers seem like they are more at risk (usually downloading the latest releases) to encounter these attacks.
What is the likelihood that some actors (state-sponsored or otherwise) could bring down some major systems? Not Google/Facebook/Visa/Netflix major, but widespread across many smaller platforms.
Blackhats and Whitehats out there must be collecting information on:
Which dependencies/libraries could be targeted
Which authors/publishers are vulnerable (regarding password safety, lib deployment mechanisms, ...)
Which systems/libs to compromise to affect classes of targets
I feel like this is a likely cyber attack vector over the next 10 years. How haven't there been more of these that are successful? Is someone building the intelligence in preparation for attacking? Are these systems actually secure (if you successfully avoid maliceful users)?
auto types really don't have anything to do with dynamic typing, in fact I would argue type deduction is an important tool in making static typing more attractive. An example of dynamic typing in C++ would be std::any (although you're still limited by what you can do with the contained object of course, for better or worse).
The runaway effects are exactly the concern. Check out research on methane clathrates in the Mesozoic. Methane is 24x as potent a GHG than CO2.
When you see the gas flares in hydrocarbon production fields it may look like a waste (it is), but it has to be done because the alternative of releasing methane into the atmosphere is worse.
It looks like this isn't FOSS ($50 for a single website per year). The hosting structure is the same (self-hosted/you are on your own). Compared to Matomo this seems to work on SQLite in addition to MySQL.
Antarctica's contribution to sea level rise per year is fairly small. The largest portion comes from loss of land-ice like mountain glaciers and snow pack. Mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet is also substantial, contributing about 2.7 mm/yr to sea level change. Groundwater withdrawal is a measurable component of modern sea level rise. Aside from these mass-transfer mechanisms, there is also ocean warming (water generally expands as it get warmer) and salinity changes that don't affect the amount of water in the oceans, but do affect its volume. Loss of sea ice (which floats on top of water and is not supported from below by solid earth) does not contribute to sea level change, as the sea ice is already displacing an amount of water equal to the amount of ice doing the displacing.
That 2015 Jay Zwally paper should not be taken as truth, as there are substantial reasons to doubt the impact of the findings. In that paper Zwally uses a set of satellite laser altimeters operating over different epochs and neglects to co-register the different platforms in an intelligent way. There was actually major hubbub around that paper and most glaciologists recognize the claim that "Antarctica is gaining mass" is probably incorrect.[0] Zwally has a pretty big ego and was happy to get the publicity anyways.
[0] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-believe-i...