There was a report a few months ago predicting 4°C by 2080. It came to this figure by selecting the most likely emission scenario and warming scenario from the GIEC report.
In particular, it is hard to be optimistic on the emission scenario nowadays. So the report opted for emissions starting to drop around 2040, if I remember correctly.
That's my new baseline. Sorry I cannot find the report anymore. I am pretty sure it was posted on hacker news though.
Protecting kids and other vulnerable people matters to everyone, so why not the government? What would think of a country where, let say your mother cannot go out without fearing getting robbed or raped? Same for kids. Maybe you do not have kids and you do not care. Anyway being a parent does not mean being behind your kids at every single moment. I hope you have not spent your childhood under constant supervision of your parents. So at some point everyone is concerned about protecting kid, and not only there own ones
If the kid knows how to buy a certificate from a shady website, then probably he his old enough to watch porn and other disturbing content. That does not mesn the system should be thrown away as a whole.
I did not say it should be thrown away. I said that it can’t be done while preserving privacy the way advocates claim. It’s totally plausible that the trade-off is reasonable, but I also don’t think we should pretend that the trade-off isn’t there.
There is something which always made me uncomfortable with informal proof by contradiction (by informal I mean "with pen and paper"). So OK we reach a contradiction, and then immediately "oh yeah, that is _this hypothesis_ which is wrong". Erh, well why exactly this one? All we know is we started from an inconsistent state.
The article enters this territory at the last paragraph and simply concludes "This can be difficult questions to resolve to student's satisfaction", without even trying to answer it.
I sometimes wonder, what is real and what is a concept in physics: is that force , energy, ...?
There are often two ways to solve physics problems: one describing the problem with forces, the other reasoning with energy. So they look like the two faces of the same coin. Hence the question: which one is actually real?
Some quick arguments for and against
Energy:
+ converts between mechanical, chemical, thermal, radiative types, and even mass
+ quantum particles, when interacting, exchange energy
- looks like an integrative quantity (in the sense of mathematical integral)
Force:
+ feels very real, when you receive a ball in your face
+ we talk of fundamental forces, not fundamental energy
+ explains momentum, deformation well
- my physics teacher used to say "nobody ever saw a force"
- force is undistinguishable with acceleration
- at the quantum level forces are actually particles interacting
- at the quantum level, the uncertainty principle makes the newtonian force pointless (pun?): seems like we could know the vector's origin or the direction but not both
I still have not found my passion nor encountered the big project if my life. I am interested by too many things and have too little agency or perseverance.
In the small town were I lived as a teenager, there was a successful garage owner who had a Ferrari. It was during the early 90's. One evening after a dinner at a restaurant with friends, a young woman insists to come back as a passenger in the Ferrari. They were later found dead in the crashed Ferrari, which took fire. The woman was in the driver seat. So it seems the woman later insisted to drive the car.
The cautionary tale seems rather to be: if you have a Ferrari, _never_ let anybody else drive it.
In particular, it is hard to be optimistic on the emission scenario nowadays. So the report opted for emissions starting to drop around 2040, if I remember correctly.
That's my new baseline. Sorry I cannot find the report anymore. I am pretty sure it was posted on hacker news though.