I think most developers are lucky to make it to 1/2X most days.
I certainly feel that way, even though I do think I'm pretty good at this job.
I have 10 hours of meetings a week and they feel perfect sprinkled throughout my calendar to ensure I never get enough time to sit and think about my work.
Have you heard of the castle doctrine [1]? It's resulted in some really crazy (and imho horrible) situations where private citizens are allowed to use deadly force and literally murder people in cold blood.
This guy wasn't even on his porch. Stand your ground laws essentially allow gun owners to claim they were frightened for their lives so that becomes "their castle". Wouldn't be very hard to repurpose this kind of weaponized law to actually defend your household.
btw - castle doctrine was intended to apply within property lines. If someone is on your doorstep, they are likely already clearly on your property.
All of this is theoretical but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this is used for exactly what you said it shouldn't allow.
According to the zimmerman trial, if you look into it at all, Zimmerman claimed that he was being attacked, got knocked over on the ground, and then while the attacker was on top of him, yelling that he was going to kill him, he defended himself with a gun, at that point.
And there was some physical evidence and injuries supporting this narrative.
You can say that his statement is a lie, or that you don't believe his testimony.
But, if that testimony is true, Shooting someone who is on top of you, assaulting you, yelling that you are going to die, while you are on the ground, is a much different situation than shooting someone who just knocked on your door.
I would really recommend you look up that case more, if you thought it was in any way similar to "just shooting someone, at your door".
> Zimmerman chased down Martin and threatened him.
> He put himself in danger for the sole purpose of being able to use his weapon
Possibly. That doesn't contradict my statement though.
It is still completely irrelevant to the idea that a person could just shoot someone, who is at their front door.
A more accurate comparison, would be if someone was at your front door, and then that person gets on top of you, yells that they are going to kill you, starts punching you while being on top of you, and causes verifiable head injuries and head bleedings too you, and then you shoot them.
So, at the end of the day, the comparison is still irrelevant to a situation where someone merely knocks on your door.
Whatever. Coming into someones house to make threats is very stupid idea.
One day I came into my kitchen, there is my wife crying, and three big threating guys I do not know. I ask them to leave, instead of heading to door, they are aggressive and surround me. What do you thing is going to happen?
Some projects are pumping CO2 underground to reduce global warming. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Maybe we could use some of that money and equipment, to pump water underground!
The amount of water in the air is almost impossible to change because the evaporation and condensation keep the balance "constant". It actually depends on the average temperature and other factors so it's not a real "constant", but unless it's possible to cover all the seas it's impossible to reduce it.
The amount of CO2 changes more slowly, plants and cyanobacteria and some minerals absorb it, but it's a slow process. Natural decomposition, fires and fossil fuel power plants release it, but it's a slow process.
So it's easy to modify the CO2 amount in either direction. Burning fossil fuel to produce energy makes a lot of money. Carbon capture requires a lot of money. So you can guess which one is wining now.
My understanding is it is the other way around, that in equal concentrations water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. However for physics reasons the atmosphere does not hold much water vapor.
In fact if I understand correctly this is the mechanism for a runaway greenhouse, that is, something like what happened to venus. Warmer temps allow for more water vapor in the atmosphere, due to it being such a good greenhouse gas, temps then build out of control as more and more water is vaporized.
> However for physics reasons the atmosphere does not hold much water vapor.
The atmosphere is currently ~422 ppm of CO2, and an average of ~5,000 ppm of H2O, with humid tropical areas having up to ~50,000 ppm of H2O.
Water vapour makes up ~half of the greenhouse effect. It's not a 'good' greenhouse gas, it's just that it's very unevenly distributed, with a strong bias towards having a lot of it in the parts of the world that get a lot of sun - the tropics.
I am definitely not an expert on the subject. But doing some basic web searches and I note how much more of the infrared spectra is absorbed by water vs the relatively narrow band that co2 absorbs. As a infrared emission blocking gas water vapor is several times more effective than co2. this is fine, we don't want earth to be a freezing ice cube. but add the excessive amounts of co2 and you start to get an alarming condition.
It may be still more efficient to pump water underground. Isolating CO2 is very energy intensive, for the same amount of energy we may isolate 100x more H2O. Sometimes it even condenses spontaneously!
There is also huge amount of natural CO2, single vulcano eruption... It is about reducing green house gas emissions generated by humans. And there are many artificial lakes, fields and forests that generate huge footprint on water vapour..
Clippy: It looks like you’re trying to turn Earth into Arrakis. Would you like some help with that?
More seriously though, as the effects of climate change intensify, I think it’s all but inevitable we’ll have to seriously look at manipulating whatever environmental factors we can in order to counteract the worst of them. Maybe we can’t do much about the sea level rise, but maybe it would be possible to moderate storm and drought/flooding intensities. As you pointed out, water vapor levels may be one of the easier things we could manipulate, as least on a local or regional scale.
Ignoring all the other problems with that, there is also nearly 100x more water in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, and roughly 10000x more water in the oceans than the atmosphere. Do you expect sequestering H2O to have a significant impact on the amount in the atmosphere before you dry up the oceans, whence it is evaporating?
> clouds can have either cooling or warming effects
Just in case anyone is wondering... one of the simplest interactions has to do with daytime and nighttime cloud cover.
Daytime cloud cover causes shade, which _can_ lower temps below the clouds. At night, heat from the ground radiates up and clouds can block the radiated heat. This is why cloudless nights during winter are colder, and cloudy summer nights can be stifling.
At this point you can replace professor and university with ChatGPT. For well documented topics (like math, languages..) it gives pretty good explanations. I use it to study new programming language and AI!
It is not a calculator, but can explain concepts in math pretty well. It does not lie about well documented facts, such as basic university course. It needs a lot of training data.
And if student can not recognize their teacher is bullshiting them, there is a bigger problem.
The same indicators they would use with teacher?
Studyig is about reading books, comparing sources. Not copying notes.
At university if you discover teacher is lying, you may get prosecuted, expelled, and loose $100k on student loans.
Edit: response to your other comment, I am being rationed by HN
As I said, ChatGPT is good at answering and explaining questions. It can replace teacher as "explainer", not as some sort of dogmatic source of truth. Text book does not answer questions, ChatGPT does! If some section of textbook is too vague to understand, you may ask questions to get better understanding!
If it's the case where you're going to other sources, why use ChatGPT at all? It doesn't source its information so you can't actually confirm without reading other sources which do source their information. Why would I care to learn German from ChatGPT when I could use a textbook that has had editors and subject matter experts vet that it won't lie to me? What is unique and useful about ChatGPT that's not also a weakness?
> At university if you discover teacher is lying, you may get prosecuted, expelled, and loose $100k on student loans.
Sorry, you're saying that the student will lose that?
This is my response to your edit:
> As I said, ChatGPT is good at answering and explaining questions. It can replace teacher as "explainer", not as some sort of dogmatic source of truth. Text book does not answer questions, ChatGPT does! If some section of textbook is too vague to understand, you may ask questions to get better understanding!
But if the explanation is lies and you need to go to a source to verify that ChatGPT just didn't lie to you, how is it of value?
I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from doing this. But there's some cachet to having your name on a book cover compared to being an unsung writer of docs. (Self-published vs. through a publisher is another more complicated discussion with both pros and cons on both sides.)
Also no lighters on plane, because they know in practice they will be used in lavatories. They will find a lighter, or even just a spring from a lighter that fell apart a long time ago. Beijing airport security is quite impressive actually. They probably won't notice the knife you accidentally left your bag, however.
> And most over-ear headphones are already pretty fixable. Most brands provide spare parts for like 20 years.
Please, point me to the bluetooth/wireless noise-cancelling over-ear headphones that are pretty fixable at a level comparable to that of the Fairbuds here?
Note, it must meat ALL the criteria I listed. Missing anything makes answer worthless. e.g. If it offers everything except for bluetooth or noise-cancelling means it's worthless in this context, and cannot be considered.
There is also risk of someone taking project and undercutting your income. Like with Elastic and cloud.
I have opensource project under very liberal license, but never published build script and unit tests. Most people do not even notice, they just check license.
I will take blame over accountability. Being accountable is a lot of work, that is rarely rewarded. And blame usually does not have any real consequences.
In some cases, it’s true; taking some blame in the short term can be better in the long run than dealing with the reactionary processes and solutions of “accountability.”
Problem being, any wage growth in Moscow caused prices to appreciate, because real estate is most/only reliable vehiche for long term worth storage in middle class. If you have spare cash, you buy an apartment.
Indeed, the great amount of constructions works to limit this effect.
I have 4 bosses, they all fully own my time and schedule. It is all about managing expectations, there is no such thing as 10x or even 4x developer :)