You really should include more expensive as a consumer inconvenience. Given the same budget, that means something gets cut out. (If you don’t like money, that all works in terms or raw resources or labour, too)

Unnecessary single-use packaging is a point that could be improved for the same (overall) price, and policies about that are gradually coming in where I live. The thing is that reusable packaging tends to be a lot more emission producing, and many people don’t actually reuse it properly. It solves waste footprint, more than carbon footprint.

There are other things that would solve the problem for a similar or smaller price, and that hopefully will happen, but they amount to a significant change of lifestyle. Mass transit instead of cars, denser cities, plant-centric diets, long-lasting, repairable, but fewer and less impulse-buyable household goods and clothes. You end up with people living a lifestyle that, while still fine, is a bit more like they would have in the past, or in middle-income countries.

Ah, right, the drying. Green wood is, like, mostly water. You can season wood outdoors, but it takes many months, so then you have the cost of the space as well. Usually they just use a drying kiln for lumber, in modern practice.

I think about this stuff fairly often, so I was pretty sure about the chemistry. I wasn’t trying to argue, or undermine you, there. Sorry if it came across that way.

Without sacrificing consumer convenience? Well, that seems pretty ambitious. The typical Western lifestyle is just carbon-intensive.

But yes, everyone trying to solve it on their own isn’t really fair. Policy would be needed. Unfortunately, that seems to be hard to set up, as well. (There just isn’t much uplifting to say here, unfortunately)

Okay, so how do you meaningfully do that IRL?

It sounds great, but you get one inch towards the practical end of things, and all the sudden there seems to be a not a lot on offer.

It’s also not quite right. If you’re burning wood thoroughly for power you get pure ash, which is just carbon neutral. You get charcoal in campfires because they’re inefficient, and even then it’s mostly ash. Carbon neutral is still better than fossil fuels, though!

I think the most discouraging about this for me is that even though I’ve seen countless headlines about climate change, I’ve never really bothered to be curious about it until now. Now I wish I knew how to tell this to other people without sounding like alarmist.

FWIW, it makes me feel better that there’s people like you out there, who just didn’t know the whole story yet, and who could still change and improve. Way too many people don’t want to know inconvenient things.

It’s also energy intensive to make; you need a heat source that’s not going to produce CO2, ideally, and cut into the benefit that you’d get by sequestering carbon in the first place

Wait, isn’t charcoalisation an exothermic process? Am I remembering that wrong?

OP’s figure would include their share all the industry that exists to make them things.

Biochar is a totally valid way to fix carbon, yeah. There’s not enough trees in cities to make a dent, but if you think bigger, there’s potential.

However, nobody wants to personally pay for that, so there’s no way to employ people doing it. It’s kind of the same answer to every climate change inaction question.

It’s not even a money problem. In whatever non-market economy, there still wouldn’t be the will to divert resources to it, because 90% of people just don’t care that much.

I’m sure Japan would prefer that. Of course, we have priorities besides satisfying Japan.

Good luck with that. It’s enough of a struggle to get people to stop putting actual kids in porn, and the entire concept of stepsiblings is ruined.

They say only death and taxes are certain, but everything getting sexualised has to be up there.

To be fair, there might still be human math not as we’ve known it. The first people documented as being replaced were hand-weavers. When the mechanical loom came along, they became the original Luddites. People still do work in textile production, though, even if the job of a mechanical loom operator is totally different.

At the very least, someone has to be able to verify the proof assistants are correct, in order to be able to verify that the proofs they verify are also correct. There’s also the task of training people in mathematical understanding for reasons other than proving theorems, which might include reverse engineering the goofy AI proofs back into something comprehensible.

Some hay has been made out of the fact the AIs which solved the Clay problem were fed a human mathematician’s approach, so I guess there’s prompt engineering, as well.

Interesting.

It sounds like Russian trolls in general are still getting online, like you’d expect, being spooks with government resources. But maybe Yandex was (tangentially?) involved in whatever astroturfing Musk was using.

Except access got turned back on for Ukraine and not Russia for a while, using a white list. It’s the same story unfolding again separately.

Ah yes, the FBI, always asking for casual conversation about anything with random members of the public.

Not pushing obvious political buttons, which always goes into I-wanna-revolution places on Lemmy. Or something that would filter out the 0.1% that aren’t total armchair revolutionaries, which is what they actually spend their hours on.

Depends what you’re doing. For the lighter side of coding, you’ve probably nailed it. You’ll never keep up, writing boiler-plate frontend code by hand.

For, like, kernel or scientific coding, it’s probably more subjective. Of course, anything in meatspace is beyond LLMs entirely. AI is waiting on a whole new technology for that one, and so, timelines for AI electricians look barely different they did just before the LLM arrived.

Being a math person, human mathematics as we’ve known it is looking kind of doomed, now. Not because LLMs are super great at it, but because you can rigorously verify if every step works with conventional algorithms. With enough shitty lemmas thrown at the wall, if they’re all correct, you can eventually go somewhere.

In math, we’ve been replaced. Feels bad, man. (I’m not changing any takes now that it’s my field, though!)

Yeah, this probably belongs in AskLemmy.

Go there, I’ll happily answer!

So yeah you can fire a bullet so many different ways, a rusty nail and hammer will do the trick.

Well, there’s also the not-small matter of aiming, or firing again if the first shot didn’t put a satisfactory hole where you wanted. Or just getting the bullet going fast enough to do damage, without a barrel to channel and contain the blast.

It’s not like the whole history of firearms after the cartridge was invented was a waste of time.

You can make guns easy peasy

Ehhh… You can make guns. Metalworking in general is beyond most people, though. And, if you want to rifle a barrel, it’s not clear if standard machine shop equipment will be enough (that’s a pretty small, tight space for a lathe tool). Easy peasy is a bit of a stretch.

but ammo is much harder to manufacture and easier to regulate

People can and do reload their own ammo. I don’t know if anybody DIYs their own smokeless powder, and that would probably be highly illegal, but I’ve heard of people making their own black powder.

Hmm, okay.

Too much freedom to look however you want has been a bad thing, that can be said for sure. You let a random servers render whatever they want to the user, and you get the cancerous slop-clickbait sites that are everywhere now.

Oh man, it’s been so long since I’ve seen an imagemap. Or at least one that’s obviously an imagemap.

I’m kind of nostalgic for it now.

Not knowing much about web design: is it just for more flexibility?