Germany is more or less on track for the 2050 net zero target assuming linear progress. Realistically, that means with how adoption curves go, it might be possible to hit it well before 2050, but even then actual zero (not just net zero) fossil fuel usage sounds very very difficult.

That said though, currently around 3.9 GW of Germany's electricity generation at any given time comes from biogas, so I guess if all that usage (and all other fossil fuel usage) is displaced by renewables, it'd be possible to store all that biogas, and potentially even convert it to other fuel forms for certain hard-to-decarbonize sectors.

Forwards mode AD (and finite differences) tell you how much wibble of the inputs corresponds to a given wobble in the outputs.

Reverse mode AD tells you how much wobble of the outputs corresponds to a given wibble in the inputs.

If you have more inputs than outputs (such as in optimization), it's cheaper to calculate the wibbles given a wobble, than the other way around.

Literally even 4chan has moderation.

Nobody, not even 4chan users, want an actually unmoderated space.

In fact, I wouldn't call the latter "moderation" at all, rather it's mods abusing their power to push political propaganda, but they do it through moderation in terms of action.

Thankfully this is extremely rare on the major platforms. "This news story is fake as fuck and is causing trouble such as people going to throw Molotov cocktails at random mosques" is the common scenario.

It made me wonder how unlikely or impossible an event has to be before it would no longer be considered a real threat by whoever or whatever flags posts like that. Firing billionaires into the Sun? Hmm, probably too close to home. Sending them light years away to fire them into a black hole?

That one can only do it within reddit is of course merely a technical limitation. The idea can be implemented much more broadly.

That alone shows that the hyothetical "you" is the last person who should be allowed to moderate anything.

If someone is doing that, it's classified as either a true threat or an incitement, both of which have been clearly established as not covered by the 1st amendment by SCOTUS and thus illegal - and can be stopped for no more reason than the fact that it's illegal.

On the other hand, online content moderation rules often get politically weaponized to silence dissent that is inconvenient but fully legal (and perfectly fine, for as much as you might disagree with it / hate that others get to hear ideas you don't like).

Going from "I voiced my opinion on the internet" to "people are inciting gassing the jews" is quite the stretch, crosses a well defined line, and is just nonsensical.

Giving an anonymous rando the power to censor my conversation is abhorrent. And it's absurd that most people are ok with that.

If 4chan didnt have spam filters, the users would be begging for it almost immediately because the website would become unusable.

What I was trying to point out is that there are a lot of users of these 'edgy' sites that would like to post content that the site owners don't want them posting. So the site owner censors and removes CSAM and piracy so that the site isn't immediately in a legal black hole. The site owners remove content that at least some of the users would want be a use they find it morally or legally objectionable. Spam is kinda orthogonal to that point, since neither the site owner or the users want to see it.

There are forms of moderation that we often dont even think of as moderation or 'censorship' because its removing content that "nobody" wants to see. One may argue that the spammers are users of the site who are being censored.

Also, this is a side note, but I'd assume that the overwhelming majority of even 4chan users are in favour of CSAM being banned from the site, even if there are some users who want to see it (i could be wrong about that, it's not like i even have anecdotes to back that up)

For the two categories mentioned above that are plainly illegal, I think, ironically, you can probably just keep AI classifiers running and wait for calls from NCMEC or DMCA emails, exploiting safe harbor clauses and/or by pointing at reasonable measures you've taken. If you have a large post volumes and short public log retention(private logs will probably have to be kept), that would help keeping the pressure low for those.

Yes? Moderation is a form of censorship with a different connotation (the one you agree with vs the other you don't). I don't see how it's controversial

You may agree or disagree with the ban, but surely you agree that we should be aware of such Overton window enforcement?

> At the very least, what we are building right now is not a seasonal game.

Electric busses and trains can have quite powerful and good air conditioning systems.

The problem with this in Houston is the disgracefully stupid urban layout that makes it very hard to effectively serve the city with public transit.

As a planned city the downtown urban area was ideal for all kinds of transportation, with streets wide enough not to be obstructed by double-parked wagons, and suitable for streetcars to be installed just about anywhere when they arrived. Much more amenable to public transport than SF or New Orleans, even though horses were the primary consideration to begin with.

The problem was always overpriced real estate downtown, and it got to be too late for newcomers to afford, so anyone that could then started or settled in nearby communities at different distances outside city limits.

With unbridled growth, the city gradually annexed or enclosed these "suburbs", some of which are inside the 610 loop. Pretty much part of the urban area now, but not originally connected by more than one trail usually, which must have left some residual bottlenecks to this day. And that's inside the loop, where people once commuted in from the western suburb of Bellaire, or the close-in location of the Heights.

Just outside the loop to the southeast, people used to consciously depart from Houston and drive "all the way out" to Pasadena. When public transport was on the rise in the county (far too late) about 50 years ago, Pasadena voted not to pay the extra 1% sales tax which was earmarked for Metro, simply because they did not want innumerable people in the big city who couldn't afford cars to descend on their much smaller industrial suburb so easily.

I guess without intervention, stupidity trumps planning if growth is excessive or too accelerated.

For me, I'm just fine on a bike in 100 degree heat with (life-giving) humidity to boot, but I'm probably not the average senior citizen. The homes I like best were built specifically for this climate before A/C, and have more than enough windows to open, and I prefer not to use A/C when driving alone either.

I came from Florida so this is Northern Living to me, if I didn't like it hot I wouldn't be here :)

Do we really need to turn this into a discussion of lost causes? Yes, you monumentally fucked up urban design in many parts of your country.

Yes, fixing it is theoretically possible. No, it can't be done in any reasonably small time scale.

The development and building of newer, more efficient electric vehicles does not preclude the investment in more high speed electrified rail and busses. That complaint is a non-sequitor.

EVs might be fun for drag racing, but if you want to drive on a circuit ICE is still the better option for now.

I guess I haven't taken any corners agressively enough to really notice the problems you describe with weight.

I will say though that at least for non-racetrack scenarios, the extra weight isn't always as noticable as you'd think because the centre of mass tends to be extremely low relative to an ICE vehicle.

Maybe it'd help me understand if you said what sort of ergonomic things you find are missing.

I was particularly frustrated by the promises of composability not translating into practice.

I was also stricken by the same npm/Rust-like pathological dependency trees where I had to pull 200-plus packages for some function.

I see. Well, for what it's worth, I think the language server and static analysis have made tremendous progress since the 1.6 days.

The regular language server has improved a lot, but there's also the very exciting https://github.com/aviatesk/JETLS.jl which uses the JET.jl static analysis machinery directly in a language server. JET.jl is super useful, JETLS.jl is maybe not quite ready for prime-time yet, but it's under active development, and is getting pretty close to being ready to be the default choice IMO.

There's also the JuliaSyntax and JuliaLowering work that's been happening in the core language itself which have have been improving code providence a lot, which improves static analysis.

Regarding debuggers, I can't really comment on that since it's not something I use much, but I do know that JuliaInterpreter.jl has had a lot of improvements, and I assume that those improvements have knocked on to Debugger.jl.

> but I confess it has been a while since I made a serious effort to use it.

Totally fair!

I don't think you are under any obligation to follow this stuff in order to share your experience, but I would at least push back against claiming that this hasn't been a priority.

> I was particularly frustrated by the promises of composability not translating into practice.

Mhm, this is a hard topic to have an overview of. I think composability has improved since the 1.6 days because we now have package extensions and weak dependencies which allow us to better glue together packages. I think the community has also been doing a better job of trying to identity and fix edge-cases in package composability, but it's hard to say how much this has improved or not (very vibes-based, hard to have data).

> I was also stricken by the same npm/Rust-like pathological dependency trees where I had to pull 200-plus packages for some function.

Mhm. Not sure I can comment much on this. Personally, I find our package manager quite good, and maybe it's a sign that our package manager is good that there's such a large proliferation of packages that you can pull in, rather than massive monoliths, but I also understand the concern and downsides.

Static typing makes it easier to do RL targeting the sorts of things that static types encode, but it doesn't help at all with things that aren't really type constrained, like for instance writing accurate numerical programs.

Still though, faster GC, lower startup latency, better interrupt handling, new REPL features, and faster package mangement are all great things. I'm especially happy that the `[sources]` section of a package is now applied recursively when you `add` a non-registered package.

I think it is perfectly fine that Julia folks take their time as well.