> I used to do software dev without meetings. It worked just fine. I would send whatever I did once it was done, and get direction on where to take it next.
You didn’t collaborate with other engineers? Or what if the spec you were given was unclear in places? Forgive me, but the style you describe sounds incredibly collaborative, super transactional.
Funny story actually, there were a few other engineers but not very much collaboration. They were resistant to sharing source code or algorithm details, so I had to essentially reverse engineer how their other products worked. I was good enough at it that I came up with several features they didn't know were possible. They eventually ended up letting me go and cloned my design, which I thought was weird, but it was developed for them in the first place so not a big deal.
To be fair, it's a very secretive industry, and betrayals are quite common. Worse, a lot of those betrayals are done on pure impulse without even thinking through the consequences first, so you can't actually build incentives against it because they'll just be ignored.
Well, it does. Which is the problem. We essentially have three choices: one , we walk the knife edge which is our current-day thinking, where we hope that we somehow enable some magical thing--in the future, always in the future--that solves climate change without making life even a little worse for anybody. Two, we do nothing and adapt to climate change however it comes. Three: we do something unpleasant. Four is "go and make colonies in space" but for most folk that's the same as three.
I mean, the most likely outcome is that we vaporize 80% of humanity in a nuclear war that lasts a few minutes, and then global temperatures end up cooler for a decade thanks to nuclear winter. I guess that falls under "we do something unpleasant", but it's unpleasant in the sense of being life-ending for a majority of humanity and then civilization-destroying for the remainder.
The following come from beef, chicken, fish, eggs, and you don’t get from plants: Vitamin B12, EPA and DHA omega-3, Vitamin D3, Creatine, Taurine, Carnosine, retinol.
Plant provide, but less efficiently: iron, zinc, choline, calcium (some tofu provides, but depends on coagulant used), iodine.
On the flip side, plants provide fiber and numerous phytochemicals that meat, fish, and eggs lack.
Irrelevant amounts come from diet, adequate amounts come from sun exposure. Everyone should be supplementing this.
>Taurine, creatine, Carnosine
Irrelevant, synthesized by the human body.
>Retinol
Best consumed from carrots, sweet potatoes, etc. Only relevant animal source is organ meat (liver), which most people aren't consuming.
>B12
Even meat lovers get deficient on this, dietary intakes are usually inadequate. My mother and sister are rabid meat eaters and supplement it, everyone who has the means to should.
Omega-3 comes from seaweed and kelp, that's where the fish got it in the first place. You can get vegan Vitamin D3 capsules where the source is lichen. B12 is available in nutritional yeast (nooch) in very high amounts, it's also in many energy drinks. None of this is a serious issue.
Clean energy hardware meaning clean electricity generation, energy storage, or energy management and arbitrage hardware that reduces the need for fossil fuel-derived electricity.
It’s not always possible depending on where you are.
Actual real reasons like possibility of continuous dark cold windless weeks in the winter and then the more common/real one. Politics.
Also if someone wants to build nuclear why would you not let them? More production in general is better as long as the public money put into it is the same per kWh produced as wind/solar/whatever why would I care?
They suggest gas peaker plants to cover such climate scenarios (long cold windless winter weeks). Literally their solution for zero carbon is “build gas power plants”. And this isn’t just a coupe but several GW worth and also they only run during those week to two so price is in euros (not cents) per kWh.
Also their listed cost of nuclear power is a lot higher then actual real cost (TVO lists these publicly but every study still uses numbers that are much higher)
Edit: and again if someone wants to build (and pay for it) let them. Electricity production here (Finland) isn’t some single system where someone has control over all the investment but a free market where everyone is free to compete. If you think that you can compete with your solution (and can convince the investors/banks) why should we be saying no you can’t? In electricity production where there is actual cost for CO2 this actually works.
For the record I am against the government giving some guaranteed tariff price (or any other direct subsidy like that) to any production method. If new nuclear can’t be built without such subsidies then we should not build it.
You didn’t collaborate with other engineers? Or what if the spec you were given was unclear in places? Forgive me, but the style you describe sounds incredibly collaborative, super transactional.
reply