Hmm... You can run different CTF environments i to a VM, wouldnt take much to stream input back and forth to both machines. I just saw another item featured on HN for piped keyboard streams between multiple users on the same shell.
To be perfectly clear, most addicts understand that their addiction is killing then, but caring about that pales in comparison to the addictive urge to continue using. It's not some cerebral choice- once addicted, you are no longer in control of your body, or it's urges.
With that said, we as a society do have a responsibility to protect children - free access to heroin (for instance) would be incredibly harmful to children, who have not formed the ability to properly assess risk. Allowing for unfettered access to heroin for adults is much more complicated. Given how easy it is for most adults in America to access the drug, I would argue we are already contending with many of the complicated factors of unrestricted access already. How to deal with those problems is something I don't have many good answers for.
We're all irrational actors, though. Various life events drive people towards drug use. It doesnt have to be a rational decision: a split second moment of desperation is all it takes. And heroin is just _that_ addictive.
As a person who lives in an area known to have Lyme, and as an avid hiker, it is not hard to do tick checks periodically. Ticks don't embed immediately, and generally there is a window of several hours up to about half a day where you can remove a tick safely with little to no danger of infection. Even then, not all ticks carry Lyme, and not all Lyme infected ticks will pass on the disease.
If you do find an embedded tick, monitor the site after removing and disinfecting. Talk to a doctor. Getting treated for Lyme the moment symptoms become apparent (the characteristic bullseye) is going to be much better for your health (and everyone elses) than preemptively guzzling Amoxicillin every year.
Also punching above my weight class here: isn't observation a function of time as well though, so a local observer would notice no difference in their perception of the passage of time? It's only across distance that the perception of time would change per relativity, so obseevation of self would remain the same while observation of distant objects would appear to experience time faster, while an outside observer would perceive their own time constant and that of the infalling observer to slow through time.
It is much more effective to do more with less. There will always be a need for air conditioning in some cases, but having 10 million single window units blasting walls of heat into a crowded city very quickly becomes an arms race where nobody wins (except perhaps the AC manufacturers).
Finding efficient ways to use our energy matters just as much as finding efficient ways to produce our energy. Keep in mind as well that many of the current methods of manufacturing green technologies only end up exporting their carbon to the global south.
Due to the Jevons paradox making air conditioning more efficient will most likely increase energy consumption.
Whereas if you increase the price of energy (e.g. carbon fees) then you will reduce consumption and incentivize more efficient air conditioning as a side effect.
Unfortunately while the former is counterproductive the latter is politically unpalatable so we'll end up either doing nothing or making the problem worse.
Absolutely. More efficient technologies will make life more pleasant for many people. On balance I think this is a net win for humanity and am in favor of ongoing work in this area.
However, I should have been more specific when I said making air conditioning more efficient is counterproductive. I solely meant counterproductive towards the assumed goal of decarbonization in response to the prior comment's claim that "finding efficient ways to use our energy" is a viable strategy to address climate change.
Without pairing that efficiency with real solutions like putting a price on negative externalities, increasing efficiency is significantly more likely to increase overall energy consumption than to decrease it.
The bitter lesson is that, actually, quantity usually beats efficiency.
Increasing efficiency has a brutal difficulty that is constrained by thermodynamics whereas the universe is almost limitlessly full of energy, space, and mass.
> having 10 million single window units blasting walls of heat into a crowded city very quickly becomes an arms race where nobody wins (except perhaps the AC manufacturers).
Is this more or less energy than would be used for heating, in an equivalent city that seldom wants A/C? Remember, with the exception of heat pumps (hardly universal and less efficient at low temperatures) A/C is usually much more efficient at changing indoor temperatures, and also that 100F -> 72F is a smaller temperature difference than 32F -> 72F.
In this particular case it's a question of putting a lot of concentrated heat into one area, compared to thinking about the overall energy budget.
Part of the problem with heat is that above a certain threshold you basically just die without recourse. Whereas with the right survival equipment, humans can tolerate a surprising amount of cold for a surprising duration, with a wide range of sophistication from "a blanket because you're shivering" to "full-body survival suit because the wind will instantly freeze your skin". That is, you can survive fairly cold temperatures without "burning" anything other than calories, if you have the right clothing. But above a certain heat and humidity threshold, there's no recourse and you automatically die without external energy input.
It would be pretty interesting to do some kind of analysis on the total energy expenditure on maintaining human homeostasis in a hot climate compared to an equivalently cold climate. But you have to take that threshold effect into account, that people can tolerate being cold for a while, but cooling becomes a strict requirement sooner than heating becomes a strict requirement, so you actually might need to pump around more total energy in the hot climate case compared to the cold climate case, even though cooling is more efficient than heating.
I spent a few days recently in Vermont where it was hot but the wind was able to blow straight through the cabin and no A/C was necessary. No matter how many window fans I use in my apartment it doesn't come close. Buildings are not designed to do this, they're designed to pack humans together. I'd say that we need more efficient buildings but then we would also need to tear down what we have. That's more carbon!
Part of the concern with climate change is that you could start seeing literally uninhabitable hot temperatures in more and more parts of the world, which passive cooling are unable to save you from. You can get pretty far with warm gloves and weak fire in Vermont winter, but if the summer heat conditions are right, you just die no matter how tough you are and no matter how much air flow you have. That's not exactly a problem in Vermont yet, but people already die of heat stroke in the summer in the Northeast, and that's going to get worse as the climate gets warmer, with the disparity of course being along socioeconomic lines.
I mean that we wouldn't have to crank the A/C and create more carbon emissions if buildings were designed for natural airflow. Now that it's heating up you are correct that this becomes more difficult.
Certainly not, but one wouldn't need to catch every satellite launch for space weapon- one or two would be enough evidence to go public and warrant further scrutiny. There are a number of extremely savvy amateur astronomers across the world that track suspected military launches and publish their findings:
https://sattrackcam.blogspot.com
It won't be permanent sequestration, though, or even necessarily long term. When these units are retired, their contained volume of CO2 will be reintroduced to the air, one way or another. In terms of scale, even several kgs of CO2 per person taken as a sum would still be a rounding error.
I suppose technically you are correct: a vanishingly small amount of CO2 is captured temporarily in units like these. It just doesn't matter for the issues where we need it to matter.
Well assuming we don't find anything better than heatpumps then homes will have a heatpump forever, so while your current heatpump might not sequester its co2 permanently, your heatpumps and your childrens heatpumps will effectively sequester co2 permanently.
An LED bulb saves ~5kg of CO2 a year v an incandescent. Is switching to that led bulb worth it? or is it too small to matter and not worth doing?
Sounds like glorious chaos.