The Yangwang U9 is a production car. This is a boosted version, the 9X Track Edition.
The regular 9X costs about US$236,000 before Trump tariffs. About half of a Ferrari. Also jumps potholes, can do tank turns, and has some autonomous capability.[1]
There's also the Yangwang U8, which is an hybrid off-road SUV. Does tank turns, and floats.
It's really a promotion for their other cars, but these things are sold in the UAE, Kuwait, and China, at least.
Why present an opinion as a fact ("simple reality that we're unable")?
I agree if you opine that the high income countries won't adequately do it, and the low/middle income countries have bigger problems, but it is a choice (and mainly our choice, if I'm not mistaken about HN's predominant NA+EU demographic)
I'm not sure most high-income people (globally speaking, so like the richest ~billion) are consciously making that choice, or at minimum aren't aware of the cost-benefit situation. Pretending there is no choice doesn't seem like the right way to go about this, considering that every euro spent on prevention significantly outweighs adaptation options
Cost of fuel is not the whole picture if they don't have the infrastructure to consume it
Maybe they'll do decades-long investments to set up new oil infrastructure after we've moved away from it, but even then: it isn't a 1:1 exchange. What we reduce doesn't simply pop back up elsewhere because, evidenced by our moving away in this scenario, there's economical alternatives. Even if it came back 100% in another country a few decades later, buying time really does help us here because we can take more and more preventative and adaptative measures. It won't prevent any and all issues, but a +3°C world in 2200 is still vastly better (and more predictable) than a +5°C world from accelerated oil use
Rather than buying and re-burying oil, you're probably getting a higher ROI (lower climate change adaptation costs) by spending those euros (that you'd otherwise spend on burying oil) on helping everyone (including oneself) not produce greenhouse gasses
> every ton of CO2 that the west has reduced in the past decade China has produced three tons of CO2.
This is a really bad statement.
Reason 3:
This year China installed more renewables than the rest of the world combined [1]. In China, 50% of new cars are electric. Their per/person emissions is much less than USA. Meanwhile, we are putting up tariffs on Chinese EVs, etc.
Instead of blaming them, realise that they are taking climate change seriously and we are not.
Reason 2:
Look at your graph, ‘we’ have like 15% reduction in CO2.
You could divide by any growing economy and the result is the same, because we suck at ‘our job’.
Reason 1;
Lastly, we outsourced our emissions by moving production to China and then importing the products. That’s not much of achievement.
>> Instead of blaming them, realise that they are taking climate change seriously and we are not.
China's annual CO2 emmissions have been exponentially increasing for the last 50 years and are currently nearly three times as high as the US's and continuing to exponentially increase. There has been zero decrease in emissions over the last 50 years, only increase.
The US's annual CO2 emissions have been linearly decreasing every year for the last 20 years and is now a third of China's.
An average American produces 14 tons of CO2 and an average Chinese person produces 9. Of those 9, he produces 3 at work, building TVs that are then bought by US consumers.
US/Canada/Australia have the worlds highest emissions per capita, except oil states like Kuwait. They have no moral high ground to lecture anyone about climate change.
If you disagree that we should consider population size when we compare emissions, I am open to that idea.
In that case we can make similarly absurd comparisons, between USA and Slovakia.
It is only thanks to China that we have affordable batteries and solar panels at all. And without China there would be no hope of green energy transition whatsoever
I think that's the sane opinion, we haven't reduced emissions, we don't have the ability to reasonably reduce emissions at this time. But we can look at available solutions and make what incremental progress we can and cheer on and celebrate the progress that has been made while encouraging more.
But I don't think societies elites (the highest educated portion of the population) has taken the same perspective. I think they've instead chosen to approach humanity (themselves excepted of course) as evil, greedy stupid and belligerent and have taken a hostile attitude to most human and human endeavours (especially commercial ones)
Wanting to do something about climate change is great. Salivating over human suffering or insulting or looking down on people outside of your elite circle for not doing or caring more...
Whatever it is I think it's an even bigger problem than climate change. The rhetoric of the climate movement is disturbing. We can't progress as a species when a large portion of a our species hates us, looks down on us, and wants thd worst for us
When did the climate change movement become the anti human movement? is this just a politically correct way of attacking poor and less educated people
I was of the same opinion till last year actually still am as I think the world has passed the point of no return when it comes to global warming.
But the tech is there just not the political will or finances as it hurts economies and people's chances of winning elections.
China is likely to hit it's peak oil because of ev's and peak coal in the next 2-3 years because of renewables and batteries. Although China is mostly going electric for economic and energy security reasons it will be interesting to see what happens when it is no longer using carbon based energy for it's growth.
Money is fake so we can print as much of it as we want. The problem is that innovation can't be bought with money. Newton did not invent calculus because he wanted to get rich, he invented calculus to understand the universe. Money is not the issue.
Probably nothing will get us out of this mess, but technology is really the only thing that can help. Solar power, wind power, electric cars, heat pumps. All technology. All helping.
Given that diamond has an incredibly high thermal conductivity, I think that might not be feasible. Only issue I could see with using diamonds for housing.
I honestly think that we are. The reduction might be extreme say 90 to 99%. But that still leaves 80 to 800 million humans living some sort of existence. Might not be same as now, but I am almost certain humans won't go extinct.
I guess that's why everyone is in a rush to develop AI, artificial wombs, genetic engineering, and robots but given the scale of the ecological damage I'm not sure what exactly the survivors are going to do with the entire mess.
In theory, wet bulb should be used by weather reports on hot days, but for some reason it's not. IIRC it's hard to measure or to universalize - that is, it's hard to produce a consistent, meaningful, clear metric.
Yes. My point is that there isn't a consistent, reliable method to define, measure, and communicate that. And without such a method, authorities like the CDC can't make recommendations that may affect life and health.
I'm gonna say his analysis of the groups is just wild guessing.
> Mostly married with low credit limits and high utilization rates. These customers may benefit from tools and programs to manage their credit usage.
> Mostly single women with low c redit limits and high utilization rates. Offering credit management tools and financial literacy programs could be valuable for this group.
At that point it doesn't matter whether the voting system is centralized or left up to localities. If the election comes down to a few thousand key votes in one or a few localities you are left with a very small number of election systems to keep a close eye on whether that's the central one or a few local ones.
Its also worth noting that just because the central government could run one standardized election process doesn't mean that the election is easier to secure. Ultimately polling places would still be local. Maybe it helps a bit if everyone uses the same system, but that's more about consistency than security.
The point of voting is to kick people out of power when they piss off a clear majority thus keeping the system honest.
As such getting the count absolutely correct isn’t necessarily as important vs more systemic biases like gerrymandering or voter suppression. The vote may be rigged before people started casting ballots, but that doesn’t make voting useless. It’s the strongest signals that are most important and that’s still preserved.
> getting the count absolutely correct isn’t necessarily as important vs more systemic biases
History lesson: The 2004 Washington state governor's election was decided by a mere 129 votes, and only after multiple recounts and repeatedly "finding" boxes upon boxes of supposedly uncounted ballots in the weeks following election day kept altering the totals and overturned the original result. The election was extremely controversial and not decided until two days before Christmas. Due to these irregularities, many people did not accept the results for years afterward.
>and only after multiple recounts and repeatedly "finding" boxes upon boxes of supposedly uncounted ballots in the weeks following election day kept altering the totals and overturned the original result.
The explanations given in the wikipedia article seem pretty plausible.
I don't see how it's any different what happened in the 2020 election, where Trump appeared to win at first, but a bunch of mail-in ballots (which were counted later) turned it around. While I can see why it might seem superficially suspicious, such phenomena is inevitable if the pool of mail-in (or other forms of voting liable to get delayed/incorrectly rejected) ballots lean one side.
> While I can see why it might seem superficially suspicious, such phenomena is inevitable if the pool of mail-in (or other forms of voting liable to get delayed/incorrectly rejected) ballots lean one side.
God help us that Pennsylvania mandates mail-in ballots can only start being counted on election day.
> The point of voting is to kick people out of power when they piss off a clear majority thus keeping the system honest.
This is also a good argument in favor of decentralized voting management, as much of a shitshow as it may be. Centralizing the management of voting under the authority of the people voting intends to kick out of power is potentially self-defeating.
How are you going to have 5 digit numbers of fraudulent voter registrations ready to deploy in all of the critical areas, but also ready to enjoy intense public scrutiny before and after the election. Voter registration databases are public, more or less, so you need to figure out how to fool the people running the election as well as the third party watchers, statisticians, academics, journalists and the veritable army of people who could have their entire career made by uncovering fraud.
Giertz did live in her native Sweden until 2016, but she now lives in these United States.
Her citizenship is not mentioned in Wikipedia, so her health insurance coverage may be a matter of private, personal funds, because she probably has neither Medicaid nor FTE with benefits.
I got the impression that she had the surgeries in the US and that she was employed at Adam Savage's Tested at the time.
Therefore, I had always supposed that her employment would have involved health insurance.
If she had gone back to Sweden to do it, the surgery would have been free but she would first have had to reestablish herself in Sweden and then struggled with waiting time for her first doctor's appointment and possibly multiple referrals before she would have been put on a waiting list for surgery ... during which time her condition could have worsened. (I live in her old home town and have gone through something similar...)
If she had been diagnosed at a hospital in the US she would already have been in its system and would probably have been put on its priority list right away.
Her American accent always amazes me. You'd never guess she was making Swedish content in Sweden until only a few years ago.
I would hope she has health insurance. Whenever I was self-employed I still made sure I had a private plan of some sort, and she has a whole company with employees, so it would be pretty easy for her to get a group plan.
> The video decode itself is accelerated, but each frame passes through JavaScript to be composited
I don't think that's true, and it's even less true once DRM video is involved - it becomes very difficult to get other software on the machine to even see the video, at least on Windows. You can very occasionally see bugs where the hardware accelerated playback ends up in a different place to where the browser thinks the video should have been put, too.
What does happen is the video data gets reassembled in Javascript (e.g. Video.js) because the native player doesn't support HLS. Not quite the same thing. It's just reformatting MPEG-TS to the similar but not identical MP4. Oddly, the browser in my LG TV does play HLS video natively, and I think Safari does?
> not usefully true with most videos on the web today
> The only time video is fully hardware decoded is when it's a simple video element to a static video file.
These seem in disagreement to me. The vast majority of videos on the web are simple video elements going to static video files. It is not usual for each frame to pass through JavaScript before being displayed.
Most of the things you think of as static video files (say youtube) are actually video segments operating more or less exactly the way live streams work.
I think by "JavaScript" here you mean rendering—that's partially true. In macOS and Windows these days (also I think Linux with GTK4 on Wayland, though only in a limited way), the window manager is itself composited and a window can send a small display list to that window manager for it to composite. In that case, it's possible to actually have the video decoding to happen entirely in hardware and never have the browser directly interact with decoded video bits. That said usually the window manager compositor is pretty limited and the browser will only do this when the stars align. The sort of things that can break it are any kind of weird clipping, transparency, or effects applied to the videos.
