That is both completely right and completely wrong.
It is right because all the planet cares about is the amount in the atmosphere.
It is completely wrong because whatever total amount X of CO2 emissions we decide we need to limit humanity to, we have to somehow allocate that CO2 emission budget to people.
Unless you can make a good case that some people have some sort of natural or divine right to a bigger share than others the only way to do it is for every person to have the same share. (Maybe on top of that there can be some system of trading, so that people whose emissions go toward things that the world finds more useful can trade for a bigger share, but it would still have to start from everyone is equal).
Since it is countries that would be the ones actually enforcing whatever the limit is, the country effectively ends up as the entity in charge of the shares of all its population, making the allocation at the country level equal on a per capita basis between countries.
Another way to see that anything other than per capita is nonsense is that anything else would allow groups of people to manipulate their allocation by splitting the country into multiple countries or merging multiple countries into one.
> the only way to do it is for every person to have the same share
That is not a very good idea.
Think about it, just breeding more people would give humanity a bigger share.
Much better to let every square mile (or some other arbitrary region) have a share and divide that among the people living there. Higher population density would translate to less shares per person.
Under per person the amount per person is the total amount we decide is acceptable for humanity to emit. Breeding more people doesn’t change the total. It just reduces the amount each person is allowed.
> A more fair metric would be Co2 emissions/person and I’m getting
We don't care about that notion of "fair": the cold hart truth is that China has 1.4 billon people.
Another way to put it: China has one billion more people than there are in the US.
Or another way to put it: 4.1x more people.
Which means China is emitting nearly 3x more Co2 than the US.
Our only hope is that China is using coal and fossil fuels only has a mean to sustain its insane growth while they transition to solar and nuclear (which they also do, at an amazing speed).
Hillbillies and redneck with their gigantic pick-up trucks in the US are really the least of worries.
Solution to save the environment: China should separate out Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia as separate independent countries. Hong Kong and Macao too. And then split north-south so that Shanghai and Beijing become their own capitals. Continue this process and eventually the population and emissions of each individual country will be low enough that they can be ignored, thus solving the problem once and for all.
That is the opposite of what GP said. The point is only the total emissions matter, the climate does not care about "fair" allocations over either people or nation-states.
That's a pointless point, because any system to actually control emissions requires allocating them to nation-states, because it is nation-states that actually enforce things on people.
If using simple metrics like GDP growth, I'm more in the camp of Paul Krugman's argument[0] that such comparisons with simple naïve metrics are insufficient to analyse it.
I agree the USA has grown more steadily than the EU and the American software/tech industries have a leg up but the devil is in the details.
I travel a lot for work to the USA and I do not experience what this GDP growth has brought to the US in the past 10-15 years: infrastructure in general is worse (worse airports, worse roads, etc.), urban life is worse, rural life is worse, quality of food is worse.
The history section of the book price index is incredibly america-biased. History of america, american natives, japan after ww2 and vietnam in the last century.
And the irony of it is that the U.S. is actually quite history-poor, when compared to Europe, North Africa, Middle-East, Persia, China, Central Asia and India.
We’re an early stage blockchain startup building the next generation of decentralized financial infrastructure. Our novel architecture provides more than 10x better performance than competitors while completely avoiding any centralised party (or leader) having an edge over other participants, eradicating MEV issues and enabling more fair markets.
Backed by a16z crypto and 1kx.
Hiring: Backend Engineer (with trading systems experience), Business Development Lead, Content & Growth Strategist
I just went down the rabbit hole of reading this post and the entire thread. As someone who has been looking for a junior job, it's probably the most depressing thing I've ever read. I've been on the market for over 6 months, I've sent countless resumes out and tried various techniques, but I'm not even getting a nibble.
I guess technically it's passed the reference to the string right, so if I say a = "stringA" there is a reference to "stringA" and that is assigned to a if I then say a = "stringAA" there is another reference created for "stringAA" and assigned to a, while "stringA" is sitting around somewhere waiting to be garbage collected in a few milliseconds - that's way complicated to think about and not sure if I haven't messed it up.
Easier to just say pass by value and forget about it. OR make all your variables consts and then it don't matter.
No, thats not correct. Value and reference assignment behave the same way for = (well, reference is hiding the fact that it’s not the literal string/object but a reference to it, a number is just the number).
Where it matters is in passing arguments to a function call. If you pass 42, it’s not mutable so incrementing, or doing anything, will not modify the original variable you passed-in. For a reference, using = will assign a new value (not change the original) but modifying the referenced object like, say a.b = 5 WILL change the original object.
It’s not really “pass by reference” that a C/C++ developer would understand but it seems to be the term that has stuck.
>= (well, reference is hiding the fact that it’s not the literal string/object but a reference to it, a number is just the number).
>For a reference, using = will assign a new value (not change the original)
what I wrote was regarding only strings, so I'm not understanding - it seems you are saying the same thing I said? But maybe I'm wrong about how the actual strings are stored.
Sorry to get a bit nerdy here, but in JS, neither pass by value nor pass by reference make sense as it’s not defined by the spec and much less followed by the implementations. Strings can be pointers to buffers or ropes, numbers can be values (NaN-boxed or otherwise) or pointers depending on a number of conditions, it all depends. However, from what’s observable in the language, all variables are pass by value. There’s no way to pass anything at all by reference, primitive or not, i.e. you can modify a field of an object you were passed but you can’t change the object.
Wikipedia: "Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control or workers' self-management of enterprise".
Which is not "...characterised by government giving handouts".
But isn't that implied by 'social ownership'? That means, society owns production and thus decides who shares in it? That's where they get conflated, I think.
Yes, but the intention of the text isn't to explain what Dao is and how to live according to Dao. It clearly says that's impossible, and even calling the concept 'Dao' is counterproductive to a full understanding.
So the text is meant to do something else, like help others start thinking and learning for themselves.
I felt the english version was ambiguous so I read the original finnish version. It says that press reports that the trial is aborted earlier than planned is false, and for the time being there is no decision to extend it.
Yea, it does seem interesting looking at the differences. And it isn't like I know Finnish, I used google translate but even just the bolded intro is different
English: There have been incorrect reports in the media about the Finnish experimental study on a Universal Basic Income. The experiment will run until the end of 2018 as planned.
Finnish[1] (in English): In many international media, information has been published that Finland is going to suspend a baseline experiment. However, the experiment will continue according to the original plan until the end of 2018.
A more fair metric would be Co2 emissions/person and I’m getting
USA 14.3 t, China 8.8 t, EU 5.5 t, India 2.2 t