no. Unless the tree vaporizes or burns, none of it gets back into the air. It is for all intents and purposes a permanent lock up. Mankind is the gatekeeper of whether to unlock this carbon prison in our choice to burn oil or wood.
Trees aren't the complete solution and the reason why has nothing to do with the tree dying and releasing the carbon.
What's going on here is that plants are converting CO2 into mass. A tree that isn't growing isn't creating new mass and therefore isn't lowering carbon in the atmosphere.
I don't agree with this article but it is not perplexing at all. Dead ends exist. The universe is highly, highly limited and everything eventually has a dead end. The question is, are we there yet?
For certain things yes, for other things no. But to assume there is never a dead end and that everything can be overcome through incremental development and research is patently a false assumption. There are many examples of dead ends within research and development.
Thus in short his proposal is likely wrong, but it is not a perplexing proposal. Nor is his proposal guaranteed to be wrong and there is a possibility he may be right. For example Elon predicted self driving will be a finished problem in a year. Guess what?
I actually sort of dislike this whole "perplexing" attitude that some people have. It's like yeah his opinion seems wrong or his opinion is not the norm, but there's no need to treat it as if it's "perplexing." It's like you observing animal behavior in a lab and your so "perplexed" on how someone can have a differing opinion.
People can have differing opinions and sometimes these opinions can be right and overturn an existing paradigm.
Instead of saying you find someone perplexing or strange, just say you disagree. It's more civil and it respects the underdogs of the past who fought against overwhelming odds to change entire schools of thought and bring our knowledge closer to answering the ultimate question.
So perplexing how some people are so rude nowadays. See what I did there?
I actually find this technique used a lot on HN. They disagree with someone but they want to insult them without violating HN rules so they treat the person as if they're some kind of lab experiment and observing how they're behavior is so "strange" or "perplexing". The admins likely fail to see just how insulting these kinds of comments are.
Perplexing is when someone jumps off a cliff while detonating a stick of dynamite. Someone with a differing opinion is NOT perplexing.
"I find it so perplexing that someone would think that... despite that... " and so on.
Really people should call it out. It's rude and manipulative.
It's possible they are actually perplexed. At least in my experience, there are a good number of people who can't hold in their head different perspectives on a topic. They just can't. The world is simple and black and white in their mind. And they aren't necessarily just plain old dumb, and they aren't uneducated. They just see black and white everywhere.
The world is full of gradients but also binary (aka black & white) systems. Charge is binary, computers are binary, life and death are binary. Systems can be either binary or gradients if one person believes something is binary or discreet that's his opinion and it's not automatically wrong.
This assumption that gradients are everywhere/ubiquitous/superior is not correct.
No wait let me reframe what I said.
How is it that someone can exist that can't comprehend the fact that many things in the universe aren't gradients and that they are in fact black and white? That is SO perplexing. It's baffling to me how someone can think like that and basically walk up to someone and examine them like some sort of sub human and announce that this other person is so perplexing because they don't think like them??
Like how come these people don't announce these things in public? They don't go to someones face and tell them that their opinions and behavior is so baffling? Why? Maybe it's because most people are aware that saying something like this is offensive. So they save it for HN where they can announce this garbage all the time without retribution from the other party.
It's just so perplexing to me how you, daniel, are unable to comprehend this. You say these "black and white" people are everywhere. Do you walk up to them in real life and tell them how "perplexing" you think they are? No. You don't. But you probably do it all the time on HN. So baffling this behavior.... I mean your not necessarily just plain old dumb and you aren't uneducated... yet you still do this on HN and can't see that it's an insult on HN just like it is in real life. So baffling that a human exists that thinks like this. I am truly perplexed.
This conclusion was arrived at because you found it perplexing that someone had a binary opinion on a topic and refused to consider a gradient.
Why would someone having a binary opinion on a topic be perplexing? Binary things exist. Thus it would only be perplexing if you felt that binary things didn't exist. That's the logic derived from reading your statements. Nothing is assumed here, it is a logical derivation.
Of course, reality is far more nuanced than that. You are fully aware that binary things exist. You're not stupid. But than again neither is the person you're "perplexed" about. He's fully aware that gradients exist as well. Nobody is actually so stupid that they believe binary things don't exist nor is anyone really so stupid as to believe gradients don't exist. Such a belief is completely ludicrous. We ALL know this. There is nothing to be "perplexed" about here.
The true nature of what's going on is that both of you only had a difference of opinion. But instead of discussing it in a civil way you decided to call anyone with a differing opinion than you "perplexing." Your opponent was OBVIOUSLY not someone who sees the world in black and white, just like you are OBVIOUSLY not someone who only sees the world in gradients.
But it gets even more nuanced then that. I'm willing to bet you weren't even aware you were being insulting at the time.Let me make this more clear. You don't suffer from brain damage, so you're also 100% aware that calling someones behavior "perplexing" to their face is insulting. Whether it'd be on HN or in real life.
You know this, you're aware of this yet at the very moment when you called someones behavior "perplexing" on HN you lost all awareness. The human mind is biased and contradictory. It lies to others and to itself to justify things such that certain actions can be taken at certain times.
Your brain was too busy constructing a retort to use against an opponent that you never were able to see the hypocrisy within yourself. Would I call that perplexing? No. It's actually normal. Lots of people use the "perplexing" tactic on HN, and likely all of them have the same hypocritical blindness to the rudeness of such an action. It's not you who was biased it's always your opponent who sees everything as black and white. People are ironically biased towards always seeing other people as biased rather than themselves.
In fact, the people who are the least biased aren't the people calling out others, the person who is the least biased is the person who is aware of their own biases.
Well. Now you're aware. And hopefully you'll wise up and be less rude. Instead of asking me to re-read your content, why don't you re-read my content. The whole point of the example is to illustrate the hypocrisy and unreasonableness and rudeness of the "perplexing" tactic. Yeah, I'm fully aware you're not so stupid as to think the world is never black and white, the whole point was to illustrate how you're likely fully aware that your opponent isn't so stupid as to think the world can never be a gradient.
everywhere is in my sentence. Some people see black and white everywhere. That's perplexing. Given the word everywhere is there, I'm going to guess that you can now see that your derivation isn't logical.
It's an internet forum, so no big deal, but you've gone on quite an accusatory rant without actually reading my comment properly.
Yeah it isn't a big deal. That's why your able to call someone perplexing to their face on an internet forum. You're clearly not doing this in real life.
>Some people see black and white everywhere.
Very unlikely someone is actually like this. We see gradients with our physical eyes with brightness and saturation, we hear gradients with sound for volume. Our human bodies are tuned to analyze and perceive gradients. It is fundamentally impossible to see black and white everywhere.
These people only see black and white in certain topics you are discussing with them, and it is not automatically "perplexing" that they disagree with you on those topics.
People like you are everywhere as well. What type of person are you? Someone who accuses people who disagree with you as people who see things only in terms of black and white.
>It's an internet forum, so no big deal, but you've gone on quite an accusatory rant without actually reading my comment properly.
Not only am I accusatory. But I'm accusing you of something that is 100% true. And I would tell you this to your face in real life. Think about it.
In men, high levels of endogenous testosterone (T) seem to encourage behavior intended to dominate – to enhance one's status over – other people. Sometimes dominant behavior is aggressive, its apparent intent being to inflict harm on another person, but often dominance is expressed nonaggressively. Sometimes dominant behavior takes the form of antisocial behavior, including rebellion against authority and law breaking. Measurement of T at a single point in time, presumably indicative of a man's basal T level, predicts many of these dominant or antisocial behaviors. T not only affects behavior but also responds to it. The act of competing for dominant status affects male T levels in two ways. First, T rises in the face of a challenge, as if it were an anticipatory response to impending competition. Second, after the competition, T rises in winners and declines in losers.
Why isn't the person I responded to replying to what I wrote? Probably because he's been dominated.
This post serves to win the game and lay out ammunition for others to use in the future.
Every culture and conversational arena has rules that must be obeyed when playing the dominance game. By pointing out how someone is violating the spirit of HN etiquette I dominate the other party by elucidating how the other person isn't playing by the rules. I can link to this thread in the future for anyone who wants to call someone "perplexing" in the future.
You should note that dominance games exist in both men and women. Everybody flexes sometimes but most people are never self aware about it.
You should also know that relating gender to behavior even though it's scientifically valid is a cultural no no. Expect to lose the dominance game should you ever go this route as you'll be labelled as sexist or people will become incredulous. "Are you literally implying men and women can behave differently? That's preposterous!!"
There's a subtle veiled insult here when you called me a woman. It's also a little off topic, but whatever. The obvious move would be to call you sexist as the rules of our modern culture say it's an easy win. I can also just be silent and you automatically lose as others vote you down. But you aren't technically wrong about the differences between male and female behavior. So I won't take that route because it's cheap.
Either way you are completely off. I'm a dude. I'm a heterosexual male doing what heterosexual male humans typically do in the wild. I seek to dominate ass holes who call others perplexing. I dominate by being fucking completely right and not by using cheap conversational tactics. This entire post was the typical male testosterone fueled maneuver. I'm curious as to why you weren't able to see that? Maybe it's because you're female? Go read a psychology book on gender. Maybe that will help you understand the male mind better.
For people voting me down who don't know any better. Tony agrees with me and even himself calls it a great mistake:
Speaking at a software conference in 2009, Tony Hoare apologized for inventing the null reference:
"I call it my billion-dollar mistake. It was the invention of the null reference in 1965. At that time, I was designing the first comprehensive type system for references in an object oriented language (ALGOL W). My goal was to ensure that all use of references should be absolutely safe, with checking performed automatically by the compiler. But I couldn't resist the temptation to put in a null reference, simply because it was so easy to implement. This has led to innumerable errors, vulnerabilities, and system crashes, which have probably caused a billion dollars of pain and damage in the last forty years."
You would think that a logical statement standing by itself and alone would lead to a logical reaction, but no. People respond to authority not to logic. So instead of listing why null is bad here, I just reference tony himself.
So yeah even Tony wouldn't like null listed there as an achievement.
He did many great things, most of which were not terrible at all. Null, however, was terrible. Glad to see I get voted up for referencing Tony saying the EXACT same thing I said while I get voted down for saying the EXACT same thing Tony said.
The difference is that you provided a warrant for your claim in the second case, but the first claim was unwarranted (had no support). People voted accordingly.
A claim that is correct is voted down because it has no warrant? A better way is to ask for a warrant rather then voting based off of your gut and assumptions as people are doing now.
People don't like being told they are wrong.
Why don't read most of the threads here. Most claims are unwarranted. People vote based off there gut and whether they agree with it, it has nothing to do with substantiated evidence.
Most people here don't know how bad the concept of null is so they voted based off of that, never knowing that the inventor of null dislikes the concept himself.
Also keep in mind, Tony's claim itself has no evidence. He never lists why null is bad. His claim is unwarranted, but his reputation precedes him. You as others do vote based off of emotion and are unable to admit it.
So? I said Tony would not like it listed as an achievement. I never said the OP listed null as an achievement (Which is True).
Let's not get too pedantic. The way I said it obviously implies that the OP listed null as an achievement. Similar to how the OP listing null alongside an achievement can imply it's an achievement.
Literally. He called it his own billion dollar mistake. But if I say the exact same thing. People vote me down. It's an example of human psychology at play here.
People don't vote based off of correctness. They vote based off of emotion. Emotion tells them I don't have the authority to say negative things about Tony. Even though I said nothing negative, Tony agrees with what I said.
You should see the opposite of this. Where every module of code is unit testable with zero mocks and just a small subset of untestable IO functions packed in a neat corner.
Mocks mean your code is too tightly coupled. You should be able to unit test your code by creating only fake data.
Things like dependency injection increase coupling to the point where you have to mock. Avoid dependency injection and other complexity within complexity features.
Nothing should ever be mocked. Period. If you don't agree you likely don't understand many things. Think about why mocks exist in the first place. Mocks exist for things that can't be tested. What you are doing is creating something completely new in place of that thing that can't be tested and testing that new thing instead. Utterly pointless. If it can't be tested, you can't test it period. It's like saying drugs can't be tested on humans, so you create a plastic dummy in the shape of a human to test the drug on instead. Come on man.
There are books, there are experts, there are people with years of experience who think they know what they're doing but the minute I see a mock in a code base which is probably 99% of what's out there I already know that the people who designed the system don't know what they're doing.
Nothing. Ever. Needs. To. Be. Mocked. Many of you are thinking you know better. You don't. Mocking is bad. Allow me to explain.
There are two parts of your code. Code that can be unit tested and code that can't be unit tested.
Code that can't be unit tested is simple. Any code that has to touch IO can't be unit tested. Period. Any code that doesn't touch IO can be unit tested. It's that simple.
Why do people mock? Because people write systems that are too tightly integrated with IO.
Imagine this function:
function addTwo(x: socket) -> number{
return socket.get_one_numer() + 2;
}
Now you have a function that adds 2 to a number. But in order for it to be unit tested you have to Mock the socket. The socket is a parameter polluted with IO. If you have that parameter touch any part of your code then all of that code cannot be unit tested anymore and you have to mock that socket if you want to regain unit testing functionality.
What's the simple way to fix this? Easy Keep ALL IO segregated from the rest of your code. Keep IO functions and methods super small. Do not inject IO polluted objects into other parts of your code. It's trivial:
function addTwo(x: number) -> number {
return x + 2;
}
function getNumber(void) -> number {
return socket.get_one_number();
}
There. No mocks. addTwo is a function that can be unit tested and getNumber is an IO function that can NEVER be unit tested. That's it. No need to mock it.
There are two types of IO functions. Input and Output. Inputs have void parameters. Outputs have void return values. These are the functions that can't be unit tested. If you keep these functions super small and tiny, guess what? Most of your code can be tested with unit tests and you're golden.
Instead what you'll see throughout your career is typically this garbage:
class RandomObject(int param1, Socket paramSocket, IOService paramIOService, LogService logService){};
or some other overly complicated, over engineered structure that necessitates Dependency injection or some other garbage pattern that forces people to mock things to test.
Think about it. Every single method you put in that class cannot be unit tested. By using this stupid pattern you pollute that entire class file with IO and nothing can be unit tested unless you mock the socket and/or the IO service.
The problem is, this pattern even though it's so obviously detrimental is used practically everywhere because the complexity of the pattern makes it seem modular and "advanced" when really it's just bad.
Additionally I neglected to mention that it's not only IO. But overly complicated logic sometimes is mocked as well. To that I say it's the same problem as IO. If you find yourself mocking overly complicated logic to test some portion of your code it means that portion of your code is too tightly integrated with the rest of the universe. You need to loosen the coupling.
It's very simple. If I'm the owner a plastic factory not only will I fight any product that can potentially replace the product I make, but I will delude myself and pay to delude others into thinking the replacement product is inferior.
No system is perfect and one of the negative side effects of capitalism is that short term individual interests often overpower long term collective interests.
Short term is relative though. Is it short term relative to a couple years, a human lifetime, or the life times of generations?
Two good examples of industries that historically only looked at short term interests: Oil and Tobacco.
These companies fought and tried to change reality as we know it. They tried to spin a narrative that said global warming was fake or that cigarettes are healthy. The long term effects of global warming will ultimately harm everyone including the companies that make these lies. However, the detrimental short term effects arguably happen after the span of one or two human lifetimes, that's why it's hard for companies to see beyond this horizon.
What about nuclear power? The fallout from the waste spans generations. The price of building these plants now could be paid by our distant progeny.
> Yes they fought through the means of consumer choice, the least oppressive means in history. And they lost.
They lied and deliberately used biased scientific research. These execs even swore on oath IN a congressional hearing before congress that tobacco was healthy even when internal documents leaked by a whistleblower told the exact opposite. This is the new way to oppress people. Lies, deception, omission and obfuscation. It's insidious.
>Nuclear waste doesn't have fallout. Coal today is causing more radiation deaths than nuclear.
I should correct myself, Radiation. Not Fallout. Either way this is the current mantra followed by a minority of educated people who harp this endlessly. You're not wrong and you're more informed than most but you're not looking at the full picture.
There's no numbers on what this waste will do 24,000 from now. There's literally no data and no science on building structures that can encase that stuff for that long or even longer. Nobody knows. So in essence you don't know what will happen in the future. You have no clue yet you support it blindly, why?
That is my point. You don't know and you don't give a shit. The long term effects are irrelevant to you. 24,000 years in the future is not something anyone gives a shit about. Just like how the long term effects of making plastic are irrelevant to the owner of the plastic factory.
Additionally I would like to know your background. Sorry for getting personal, but background influences bias. You seem to be a guy who's super rich and an owner or shareholder of big business.
Hi, shadowlight! Your comment here is a bit out of place. HN is a nice place where folks come for interesting news and conversation. In order to keep this place civil there are guidelines in place, which you can find at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and review at your leisure.
I've included some here for your reference:
Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
Except I'm not doing ANY of that. Your comment is deceptively insulting and your tone is overly polite and fake. Case in point: "Hi shadowlight!".
Look, I remained impartial and neutral and civil in my comment. Read it carefully there is no violation of the rules, I've been here longer than you for sure so I know the rules and I know what constitutes a violation. This is NOT it.
No seriously, it's like a murderer accusing a nun of killing somebody. There is absolutely NONE of what you are claiming is going on here. It's almost an outright lie, I'm curious if you're just biased or if you're a liar.
Additionally who are you? Are you impersonating an admin? You're obviously NOT dang.
It's not written in the law nor is it in the the HN rules but walking around and pretending you're a cop is sketchy and strange. Especially when you're not even remotely qualified to do the job AND you're executing the directive incorrectly.
I'll help you differentiate between snark and no snark. This reply has a bit of snark because I'm talking to a vigilante HN cop, the OTHER reply was completely impartial and civil. That is the difference.
Look in the link above, another example of this guy trying and failing (he literally got scolded by dang) to enforce the rules when he's not even part of authority. I suggest you back off and use the tools given to you to moderate. Use the karma. Get to 800 and you can vote me down if you disagree.
That is completely civil. It is just to the point and adamant rather than fake and simpish and overly polite. Whether what I stated is true or untrue, the nature of what I said was not derogatory or insulting.
I specifically stated that the person supports something, and in my opinion, blindly. I also stated he doesn't care about something and I ALSO implied most of the population of the world doesn't care EITHER. Those are words that are forceful But civil.
You are totally not comprehending the difference between civility and servitude. Learn to put force, power and truth behind your conviction while being civil and not being afraid to harm the other persons precious feelings.
>Calling them "precious" feelings sort of belies the idea that you're just talking facts in a forceful way.
Feelings shouldn't be precious. They should be disregarded. When communicating a point, if disdain is felt it should be presented. If it is not felt then it shouldn't be presented.
>If you struggle to separate your disdain for people who disagree with you then that's a chance to grow, or a chance to dig your heels in.
I hold disdain for certain people. But not for all people who disagree with me. Clearly what you're saying is completely false.
Growth to me is not the ability to separate disdain from disagreement. Growth is the ability to not hide your disdain. To express it when it's required.
To you I am not expressing disdain. You only perceive it as such because you disdain what I am saying. The reality is, I'm the same as you. I'm quite well off. The difference between us, is that I don't twist reality or morality to justify my sins.
I knew you were rich and well off, because I am rich and well off. Why would I disdain someone like me? The only difference between us is that I don't lie to myself.
> Sorry for getting personal, but background influences bias. You seem to be a guy who's super rich and an owner or shareholder of big business.
I'm not any of those things; my family grew up with our Dad maintaining 2 30-year-old cars to keep costs down. I would advise a) keeping any biases in check and b) realising that even if I were wealthy, that would in no way affect the relative safety issues between different power generation methods.
They are in check. I said you seem like a rich person. I didn't say you ARE rich. I would still wager a guess that although you grew up poor you currently are quite well off compared with your past.
What is influencing my reasoning is not bias. You support free market policies that encourage wealth inequality. This benefits those who are rich. Hence my guess is you must be rich because than this would benefit you.
It had nothing to do with power generation but more to do with how you're stating the corporate interests of companies like big tobacco/oil were fair because of "consumer choice."
That is a logical deduction of the situation to formulate hypothesis. It is not a hypothesis derived from bias.
> They are in check. I said you seem like a rich person. I didn't say you ARE rich. I would still wager a guess that although you grew up poor you currently are quite well off compared with your past.
>
> What is influencing my reasoning is not bias. You support free market policies that encourage wealth inequality.
The fact that your first guess is that free markets allowed me to lift myself out of poverty may mean you're more pro free market economies than you realise :)
I'm not against the free market. That's the problem with people like you. It's an either/or thing and you completely fail to see the nuance behind the issue. The free market is an example of a system with many upsides and many downsides. If I call out the many downsides you assume I'm against the free market.
Any normal person can literally see both. It's completely obvious that capitalism has upsides and downsides and currently the upsides out weigh the downsides. However normal people know that we have to keep the downsides in check.
The people who tend to be unaware of all of this are people how are rich because the policies that seek to temper the bad side of capitalism disproportionately effect rich people. That's the main issue with capitalism. Wealth is not distributed fairly, it concentrates in the hands of the few and those few using the money they gained use it to create lies about tobacco/oil and manipulate the public in ways a normal person never would. Hence policies are directed to temper the bad sides of capitalism; but it has limited affect because rich people themselves can influence public option and use their money to perpetuate policy in their favor as well.
How do men justify such evilness? Well of course he lies to himself saying he does no evil and that everything was a consumer choice. Hitler like all other evil men are unaware of how evil they are, these people need to rationalize their actions with excuses.
I'm willing to wager a second guess, in that whatever made you rationalize and justify the actions of Big Tobacco and Big Oil started in an action of your own doing that benefited you majorly. You needed to justify an action that you took of your own free will and that justification changed your view of the world such that it also validated the actions of Big Tobacco and Big Oil. That action or actions(s) is likely responsible for how well off you are today.
Whether the justification itself is valid is besides the point as our biases will likely never agree on that fact. But I'm sure we can agree that the event I mentioned above has happened to you, as no normal person supports this aspect of Big Tobacco or big oil, it literally takes some heavy introspection to reverse this logic and create an alternative world view.
Please don't pretend you're a serious, rational debater when you say things like this. You keep inventing things I must be and insulting them. You should be addressing the points made instead.
The topic of this conversation is two things. Free markets, and your background in relation to your opinion on free markets. If predictions I make about your character are wrong then just say it's wrong and tell me why.
Instead one of the first things you did was deflect. I said you were well off, you said when you were a kid you were not well off. I stayed on course and said that your past has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are currently well off and that's why you have such opinions about the free market.
I highly doubt you'd support the free market policies you do now when you were poor. Likely you never thought about these policies until you became rich. That is my point. The whole point is that your wrong about the free market and evidence is that your foundations for supporting such a thing have more to do with your circumstance than it does with reality.
Defeating your argument involves getting personal because personal reasons are the foundations of your argument.
If I'm wrong it's easy to point out that I'm wrong. All you gotta do is tell me exactly the inflection point in which you developed this free market logic. Was it when you were poor or when you were rich? I'm simply saying they came about when you were rich.
>Remember that the vast majority of capitalism is little businesses like your local veterinarian or florist, not FAANG.
That is the vast minority. Corporations dictate much of the business in the states and the world. It's really easy to see this without resorting to statistics.
What is the ratio of your friends who work for corporations vs. the amount that own/work for small businesses? The anecdotal percentage here is a good indicator of the real percentage of economic output produced by corporations vs. small businesses.
You will find that as how most of your friends direct their own economic output in service of corporations so does most of America.
I believe it, I remember reading an article saying that there were 3 times as many small businesses in the 70s than there are today.
It makes sense. There are many requirements and licenses for to start hair salons, barbers, wanting to garden, etc the system is set up to support the established elite today. At least IMO.
Trees aren't the complete solution and the reason why has nothing to do with the tree dying and releasing the carbon.
What's going on here is that plants are converting CO2 into mass. A tree that isn't growing isn't creating new mass and therefore isn't lowering carbon in the atmosphere.