$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cable from North Africa

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by mohamedattahri on Thursday March 09, 2023 @06:25PM (#35088324)

I disagree, because I think the scale is relative to the size and complexity of the ecosystem you're touching, not the size of your influence. They're unpredictable and unexpected, and that's why we tend to refer to them as unknown unknowns.

But like you said, they're not necessarily catastrophic or cataclysmic.

Back to the context, I just don't think someone can say for sure that changing the very nature of a thousand square miles piece of land in the middle of some of the least studied terrain types will be great and won't have any bad consequences.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by yamazakiwi on Thursday March 09, 2023 @06:32PM (#35088393)

I didn't say that the scale wasn't relative to the size or complexity. I'm saying that any amount of change in an ecosystem isn't necessarily "bad" as you appear to be stating in your previous post.

Contextually, I can see why you're a skeptic of this amount of land changing having an undeniable "good" influence, but the size could absolutely not be a factor as much as you believe it to be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:$22B project to provide 8% of UK energy via undersea cabl... by anigbrowl on Thursday March 09, 2023 @06:47PM (#35088537)

This is valid, but have to use some sort of heuristic or things will continue to get worse as we struggle to assign probabilities to the manifold possibilities.

[ Parent | on HN ]