I think it’s a matter of degree. If you share it behind closed doors, with a few friends, it wouldn’t turn any heads (mostly because the target is unaware).
If you share it with the entire class? In the school building itself? It becomes impossible for the target to not be aware.
What if you share it with one person, and that person shares it with one person, and so on, until the whole class sees it? Has no crime been committed?
Blind people would be fine as they wouldn't be wearing the glasses. Being physically unable to see the ads and purposely hiding them, are two different things.
Yes, if you count the emissions for the stuff manufactured in China for (not only) european customers.
If you look at consumption-based emissions[0], China is at 7 t per capita, which is 8 t less than the US, 2 t less than Germany and about par with Denmark, Slovakia, and England.
This is per capita data again, which makes the argument circular. In absolute terms, China emits more than twice as much CO2 as the next producer, and only a small fraction of that is exported.
Per capita data makes sense. CO2 emissions don’t change if we cut giants countries into many smaller ones. If China was 25 different countries you wouldn’t be pointing the finger to them.
Why shouldn’t the highest emitters not be the ones to reduce most?
Because we're not having a moral argument but rather a practical one. The fact is that China emits much more CO2 than other countries, even after you account for exports (ie, CO2 emissions "offshored" from Europe and North America). Moreover: while emissions in the west are falling, the are rising in China and India and the developing world, as they must, because they track rising standards of living.
I don't understand the "25 smaller Chinas" argument. China sets statewide emissions policies. That's a reason we pay attention to country borders here, rather than considering an undifferentiated mass of humanity as a map scatterplot.
Ultimately, the reason to point out the gap between China and Europe or North America is that if you concentrate climate mitigation strategies on the west, you won't actually do much to solve the crisis. Fair's got nothing to do with it.
Only in the most abstract sense, because the real debate is over prioritization; if you suggest that equal effort be put into both of these projects, reasonable people will argue that you're misallocating effort.
There is no known polynomial time algorithm for TSP. AFAIK there are quantum algorithms for TSP with quadratic speedup in comparison to the brute force method (still exponential though).
The one thing quantum computers are (currently and theoretically) able to solve efficiently is the factorization problem, but are very much limited by low qubit number, i.e. engineering problems.
Big companies offer packages when laying people off, n weeks of full salary once you are gone with m weeks before of time to find a new role internally or externally. This does not happen when you are fired for cause.
Most people have a notice period so that’s normal. If you are ‘lucky’ you have garden leave so you can’t work/need to go to the office during this period
