All this praise around China's buildout is just encouraging others ignore a problem to sell the solution. When the major nations started coming together to reduce emissions it was agreed that they would all aim to reduce emissions. However China did the opposite and purposefully scaled coal at record rates for nearly a decade and implemented no environmental regulations so as to outcomplete the nations who were transitioning and to be the ones to sell the solution. So now that its 2025 and they are finally starting to deploy some solar and wind im just not impressed. Its a dirty move and going forward I doubt we will see global trust in tackling these kind of problems again.
>it was agreed that they would all aim to reduce emissions
No, it was agreed during Kyoto that developed nations would reduce emissions, and developing nations (aka PRC, India) would not. Developing nations could keeping scaling fossil to industrialize until Paris where all countries had to submit climate plan (again not explicitly to reduce), and PRC's was to peak emissions by 2030s, which they're on trend to do early. PRC did what was legally permitted / agreed upon, and if developed nations want to cope / be butthurt and label following the agreement as dirty and not cooperate in the future global projects because they're not financial beneficiaries then that's on them. Also "some" solar and wind is ~ROW combined, which surely is very unimpressive.
> sell the solution
Selling solution to problems is solving problem, selling solutions to problems cheaply is solving said problem faster. As if developed economies did not decarbonize by selling clean tech solutions... which btw PRC bought. PRC simply doing globe a favor by selling real climate solutions at cost and scale that makes global difference, instead of scaling retarded paper solutions like carbon credits from countries that primarily scales spreadsheets.
>The 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP) aims to cut energy intensity by 13.5% and emissions intensity by 18% by 2025 from 2020 levels (Xinhua News Agency, 2021) . As of November 2025, China is unlikely to achieve the targets, as emissions intensity is projected to decline by only 16–17.
1% off according to dashboard analysis for 2025 5 year plan target. There's study from Q4 that PRC emissions has been stalled/trending, i.e. peaked for past 18months. Functionally they've peaked emissions before 2030 NDC commitment.
Are we any better for the impacts of social media and closed platforms? The owners of said platforms are richer, but I’d argue society is often worse off.
I think youtube has been a net good. The content today is far greater than the content in 2005 or 2008 mostly due to the financial incentives.
The barriers to advertising have been lowered and we've seen a ton of small business growth from social media platforms like instagram, tiktok. Sure there are some cringe trends but to me they pale in comparison to the millions of people that have been enabled to make a living doing what they genuinely love.
I always hear this "AI solved a crazy math problem that no math teams could solve" and think why can it never solve the math problems that I need it to solve when they should be easily doable by any high school student.
Because what it really means is "we directed the AI, it translated our ideas into Lean, the Lean tool then acted as an oracle determining if anything as incorrect, doing literally all the hard work of of correctness, and this process looped until the prompter gave up or Lean sent back an all clear"
I usually explain it in english. Usually more complicated but phrased the same as this example "Give me the per captia rate for a population of 10000000 who hold $100000 each etc. I think in hindsight it might be because they're searching the web for an answer instead of just calculating it like i'd asked.
Agreed, I subscript to random Mozilla products like VPN and Relay to pay them but I dont need those and would hate to have them waste extra development time on improving those services. I would rather fund the browser directly.
There is no "GenZ rejection of the digital world" thats a marketing narrative. Gen Z is overwhelmingly online and the handful that do reject it are no more than a rounding error.
Using it because you're practically forced to use it, is not the same as not rejecting it intellectually. While that's probably still a minority, it definitely seems larger than just a rounding error to me.
I've seen, though rare, other people with dumbphones, for example. And more people who would like to have one.
I think that people often say they want things they dont actually want. Like living in the woods and we can only look at their actions to judge their actual desire. We know people dont want to live in the woods because when they have the money and freedom to choose ot live in the woods they buy an apartment.
Its even easier with dropping social media because the cost is actually so low and yet people still dont even attempt to.
No, its not misleading it says right there in the private policy.
Apple isnt suddenly private just because they have enough data about you that they dont need to link to 3rd party data. They do exactly what 3rd party sites that are considered privacy invasive do. They serve you ads based on your private data like what you watch, what you read and what things you do on your device.
It doesnt say that they only store all this information on device. Apple is only using a random identifier when its sharing information about your habits and personal data on its ad platform, that info btw is shared with 3rd parties. But dont worry that data suddenly becomes non personal because they used a random identifier.
His policies were tempered, image-wise and often in substance, by his affinity for Joe Manchin alongside his disdain for Bernie Sanders. Balanced alongside the middle eastern foreign policy, he comes across as centrist despite the BBB.
reply