3D25157725

Well ya? Is that not self-evident?

See, there's this thing I enjoy very much, but I was forced to stop because of evidence of the negative consequences. Now, since I am a kind person, I can share the knowledge of those negative consequences so may be you could avoid them, too.

Said another way, if I were not negative to said activity that I enjoy, I would still be doing it. And if I were indifferent to the well-being of others, I wouldn't be vocal/share.

Also, when viewing/listening remotely, I will record the session -- especially if they're assigning a complex task or series of tasks. This allows me to playback and get things exactly right.

In person, I would have to smuggle in a recorder and it's often awkward or infeasible.

So in the sense of trying not to die, avoid the Gulf and Agulhas currents, especially when a low blows through.

This coming from an amateur sailor. I believe freight shipping etc just plows through most weather systems in order to avoid delays.

I realize it's not exactly what the article is discussing, but it's certainly relevant for all the same reasons.

This is during the Q&A of his lecture "The Economics of Medical Care", given to the very people who would most object to his ideas:

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWlk9HreE7U&t=2279s

I live in a terminal except for the browser. Of course my xterm bindings are always vi-mode and tmux too. I have key bindings to unite all my i3/tmux/vim 'getting-around' keys and also fought that fight to unite the clipboards, even across VMs etc.

Getting back to why I say 'no' is because once you're used to the modal, and getting around with the usual vim motion keys, it makes using anything else near impossible and clumsy. I have great difficulty composing text in browser (like right now) and also emails, etc. And if any editor online allows vim keybindings, you must make sure that you are used to defaults otherwise the vim-mode won't do you much good. Like escaping with CTRL-[, or delete word with CTRL-W, which closes the tab in the browser (firefox and chrome and I never found a way to turn that off, so I lose a lot of work that way). For instance godbolt and leetcode both had vi-modes but there's enough of a difference, even though I try to use nearly all defaults, that I still end up composing any code/english in another terminal window.

I am completely hopeless using a mouse or arrow keys. If I have to go to on-site interview and have to use something other than vim, well it makes me look like I haven't sat down at a computer in 15 years. I am a hostage now to my habits and am very wary of hopping over to VSCode/CLion/jetbrains whatever else because I will be a fish out of water.

You're right, and I think these are compelling examples. And climate change need not even be considered for these to support a carbon tax.

Thanks for the response.

To your second question, I suppose I would argue that it lowers my standard living now, but _may_ raise the standard of living for posterity, since obviously climate change time scales are vastly greater than the effect of a tax now. However you could rightly argue that by UK citizens reducing their carbon footprint now, 3rd parties downwind directly benefit now by being less harmed by UK pollution, yes.

My question was probably too vague. Maybe more directly, is raising costs across the board as a matter of policy more effective in our fight against climate change than other interventions? Like subsidizing research into renewable energies, etc. Have we given up on those?

I am far from qualified in judging the effectiveness of alternatives, I just wonder if these taxes are draconian, and if so, have we given up hope on these alternatives.

This was besides the point the parent was making, however, so I am regretting my digression now.

If you don't mind, I wonder if you might expand on this? For me it seems a bit blithe. For instance, we know that higher energy prices cascade into many, if not most, consumer end items, and so I think it follows this decreases the standard of living generally.

I understand the important consideration of negative externalities, and how fossil fuels negatively impact 3rd parties (the world generally/climate change). I think the economic argument that there should be a carbon tax to account for these externalities is quite right. This is true regardless of climate change. So let's assume for arguments sake, we're going to tax above and beyond that to account for climate change as well.

Are we hoping then, by hiking the cost, it ushers in a new discovery of lower cost energy, with fewer externalities? And if this turns out to be the case, then these austerity measures if you like, turn out to be transient, and the temporary lower standard of living sacrifice is made for the betterment of posterity. Or is it simply we must accept a lower standard of living permanently lest we allow climate change to continue unabated, as it were?

Sorry if this distracts from the main point you were making.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVMl0LgdnOU [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Rosenberg

Biomarkers of aging and epigenetic clocks[1]

Description: The biology of aging, rapamycin, and other interventions that target the aging process.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukGZpByD1RQ

‘… life expectancy in the mid-Victorian period was not markedly different from what it is today. Once infant mortality is stripped out, life expectancy at 5 years was 75 for men and 73 for women.’[1]

[1]-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/

[2]-https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181002-how-long-did-anc...

[3]-https://www.sapiens.org/biology/human-lifespan-history/

Edit - sources ordered incorrectly.

For example, I will often read cancer patient message boards, or family members that have watched their kin succumb to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Or watching old videos, re-mastered with color on youtube from the turn of the 20th century, and contemplating how their entire lives have gone by. Or the uncovered skeletons of people that died from the bubonic plague in the 14th century, and reflect on how they likely had very important personal matters and concerns. But now there they lie, and the world has long since forgotten them. Their names and stories are long gone.

As a recent example, I stumbled across a young women who died of leukemia almost 10 years ago now. She was a local news reporter, and had a youtube channel[1] and twitter account[2]. She unkowningly documented her demise online with her twitter updates. She even interviewed a cancer survivor in one of her youtube videos and said, "how scary it must be when the doctor tells you that you have cancer!". How very soon she would find out herself. Her videos have about a dozen views, and her tweets went largely ignored. She seemed like such a genuinely sweet woman.

It's both morbid curiosity and a grim reminder of indeed how short life is. What was their mindset in their waning time, and why is mine much different? As fast as time seems to go by, am I all that different? Why wait until your death bed to consider your mortality? Maybe it's right around the corner, or maybe not.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxd-4RKaIP0&t=7s [2] https://twitter.com/jeanniehayes

(Apologies if I have veered too far off-topic)

Could you elaborate, please? It was my understanding (perhaps mistakenly) that because so many foreign entities, be they countries, corporations etc, depend on the USD and it functions both as a reserve and for international trading, the U.S. Federal Reserve can be more aggressive with "dovish" policy.

Or stated another way, if fewer people/institutions held USD abroad, the risk of inflation would be much greater.

It was a hoax.