Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | wishpishh's comments login

The sense of self-entitlement in this thread makes me depressed. Intelligent, educated adults react like children when you tell them they can't have all the toys.

> But I like living in this kind of excess!

Sure, and I'm sure you deserve it. As do we all. But guess what? In the hard cold reality that we live in, it's not sustainable or feasible for everyone to own a huge hulking gas guzzling vehicle just to enable your yearly road trip. Wish it was, but it isn't. Not even close.

> How preposterous, I certainly don't live in excess!

Oh yes you do. On a global and historical scale, if you can afford a car, then you live in excess. I'd bet that all of us that read this website do. You need some perspective.

> But I pay for myself!

No you don't. If the planet is failing to even sustain civilization from this lifestyle, clearly somewhere there are costs that aren't covered. The market has no solution for the external costs that most things in our lifestyle incur.

> But the alternatives would mean a slight inconvenience to me! I would have to adjust and re-evaluate things I've grown used to. They're not the 100% optimal solution for me personally!

Well, I'm sorry that the freaking possible end of future civilization causes an inconvenience in your modern life of abundance. Actually no, I'm not. If stopping and waiting at a charging station those three times a year you make an 8 hour trip is what it takes to ensure a healthy life for future (and even current) generations, then I'm saving my concern for more pressing matters. Heck, I'd even argue that renting an ICE car on those occasions might be a reasonable price to pay, no matter the (in the grander scheme of things) slight inconvenience this means.

Grow up, people.


> If stopping and waiting at a charging station those three times a year you make an 8 hour trip is what it takes to ensure a healthy life for future (and even current) generations, then I'm saving my concern for more pressing matters.

The meaningful changes we would need to ensure a healthy future are way, way harder than getting used to electric vehicles. The fact we cannot even do such a straightforward transition is beyond ridiculous.


> it's not sustainable or feasible for everyone to own a huge hulking gas guzzling vehicle just to enable your yearly road trip.

"everyone" doesn't own a car in the first place, and owning one to go on family trips is not contingent on "everyone" owning a car.

Sustainability is a moot point. We're undergoing an aggressive shift to renewables in the West, including with vehicles, as a matter of policy. Issues pertaining to climate cannot be abated solely with a reduction in emissions.

Notwithstanding, "degrowth" is just demanding that people in developing countries not be permitted to improve their quality of life, that Westerners race to an arbitrary bottom to worsen theirs, and put lives at risk. The rise in emissions year over year stem from demand in East Asia.


> "degrowth" is just demanding that people in developing countries not be permitted to improve their quality of life

I did not know that "degrowth" people are for banning quality of life improvements for all economic strata. Do you have any sources because this just sounds like a giant strawman.


> I did not know that "degrowth" people are for banning quality of life improvements for all economic strata.

Now you know.

> Do you have any sources because this just sounds like a giant strawman.

https://brankomilanovic.substack.com/p/degrowth-solving-the-...

"If one wants to keep world GDP more or less as now one must (A) “freeze” today’s global income distributions so that some 10-15% of the world population continue to live below the absolute poverty line, and one-half of the world population below $PPP 7 dollars per day (which is, by the way, significantly below Western poverty lines). This is however unacceptable to the poor people, to the poor countries, and even to degrowers themselves.

Thus they must try something else: introduce a different distribution (B) where everybody who is above the current mean world income ($PPP 16 per day) is driven down to this mean, and the poor countries and people are, at least for a while, allowed to continue growing until they too achieve the level of $PPP 16 per day. But the problem with that approach is that one would have to engage in a massive reduction of incomes for all those who make more than $PPP 16 which is practically all of the Western population. Only 14% of the population in Western countries live at the level of income less than the global mean. This is probably the most important statistic that one should keep in mind. Degrowers thus need to convince 86% of the population living in rich countries that their incomes are too high and need to be reduced."

Noah Smith also wrote about this several times.

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/degrowth-we-cant-let-it-happen...

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/people-are-realizing-that-degr...

If you familiarize yourself with the degrowth perspective as is most popularly employed, you can't in good faith contrive that this is a strawman.


The quote doesn't even support your claim. Clearly, alternative (B) does not ban economic growth across _all economic strata_. Unrealistic as though it might be, still.

Also, you're equating "quality of life improvements" with economic income. Which is troublesome in many ways, especially if the economic income incurs major (huge) environmental problems that even jeopordizes the future of civilization as we know it. Or at the very least leads to _massive_ health and quality of life issues on a global scale. Then "income" is a worthless "quality of life" metric.

Anyway, your original reply comes off as very arrogant and/or hypocritical. You express concern for the developing countries, and at the same time acknowledge rich countries' rights to a lifestyle that you yourself acknowledge isn't sustainable if adopted by everyone. So as long as only the rich (us) have cars, it's ok?

Also, your claim that westeners are not the biggest emitters is factually incorrect. Check this out as a starting point: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capit...


> Clearly, alternative (B) does not ban economic growth across _all economic strata_. Unrealistic as though it might be, still.

My claim is that either it does, or B is the alternative. Neither is realistic.

> Also, you're equating "quality of life improvements" with economic income. Which is troublesome in many ways, especially if the economic income incurs major (huge) environmental problems that even jeopordizes the future of civilization as we know it. Or at the very least leads to _massive_ health and quality of life issues on a global scale. Then "income" is a worthless "quality of life" metric.

In the first place, growth need not lead to such catastrophic problems (see the Noah Smith links), in the second, that has no bearing on whether lifting a country out of poverty improves their quality of life; it clearly does.

When immigrants move to the West for a better life, what makes it better is easily be qualified: houses, vehicles, electricity, gadgets, consumption in general, and better jobs. It's not for the healthcare. Those things are made possible, or imply, higher income.

> Anyway, your original reply comes off as very arrogant and/or hypocritical.

Stop projecting. That is arrogant.

> at the same time acknowledge rich countries' rights to a lifestyle that you yourself acknowledge isn't sustainable if adopted by everyone

I did no such thing. It isn't unsustainable. Unsustainability would have to imply global population growing in perpetuity. Not only are we nowhere near lacking resources, global population growth is projected to stagnate.

What's more, between innovation and aggressive transition to renewables, we more efficiently use resources and can expect diminishing global carbon emissions in the near future.

Western fertility is already stagnant. The only reason we grow is a matter of federal policy: the immigration rate. And immigrants come because of quality of life.

> your claim that westeners are not the biggest emitters is factually incorrect

Again, I made no such claim. I claimed that the *growth* in global emissions is primarily driven from East Asia.


1. No, you claimed that any degrowth strategy is equivalent to banning quality of life improvement across all economic strata, which is clearly not the case as one strategy that you yourself quote offers an alternative that clearly does not prohibit an increased income across all economic strata. The realism of its success comes down to politics, not economic or technological factors.

2. Our current model of economic growth is clearly and demonstrably catastrophic. There's no sign of turning it around in any kind of relevant time frame.

3. A nation's economic growth is not equivalent to improved quality of life of individual people living in poverty. GDP as a measure of quality of life is deeply flawed. You need to look at income distribution, costs of living, availability of basic services such as healthcare, human rights etc etc. Sure, lifting an individual from poverty through a raised income raises quality of life but that is a very simplified picture of what is actually going on. And of course, most relevant for the discussion at hand, you also need to look at the long-term effects of the growth model that is driving the economic growth. If you look a few decades ahead, our current model doesn't work. It's starting to fall apart even now.

4. I apologize for commenting on your personality, of which I know nothing.

5. That is a very narrow point of view on sustainability. Why are you defining it as perpetual population growth, or lack thereof? Clearly, if we are consuming resources at a rate much higher than they are reproduced, it's not sustainable. Regardless of what your techno-optimistic hopes for future miraculous technological breakthroughs might tell you. They aren't coming. It's over.

6. You are clearly dismissing the content of even the article you're commenting. Which is of course well within your rights to do. There's no aggressive transmission to renewables happening in the transportation sector. It's not even close to happening in a time frame that's relevant. It would be interesting to see what data you're looking at that suggests otherwise.

7. I apologize for misinterpreting you. But either way, the West is still a far greater emitter per capita. So again, going back to your concern that we shouldn't limit developing nations from achieving the same wealth we have, we have no right to point any fingers.


> which is clearly not the case as one strategy that you yourself quote offers an alternative that clearly does not prohibit an increased income across all economic strata.

I wrote : '"degrowth" is just demanding that people in developing countries not be permitted to improve their quality of life, that Westerners race to an arbitrary bottom to worsen theirs, and put lives at risk.'

This is meant to be an and/or for the first two. I hope that's clear.

> Our current model of economic growth is clearly and demonstrably catastrophic.

This is a mantra or truism, but there's no reason to believe this. It's also why "degrowthers" themselves are pivoting in their messaging. GDP growth does not scale 1:1 with resource extraction. Between technological innovation and the aggressive pivot to renewables, blaming "the model" stops making sense.

> A nation's economic growth is not equivalent to improved quality of life of individual people living in poverty.

Improved quality of life for impoverished countries depends on it, which isn't the same as saying they're equivalent.

The percentage of people on earth living in extreme poverty as defined by the UN has been diminishing for decades. This is because of growth.

> You need to look at income distribution, costs of living, availability of basic services such as healthcare, human rights etc etc.

If a country is poor as fuck, these are all a moot point. The bottom rung of countries will have worse quality of life regardless of distribution scheme.

> Why are you defining it as perpetual population growth, or lack thereof?

Tautology. Lack of sustainability by definition implies a scenario, not unlike the Malthusian argument, that there is a perfectly linear upward trajectory for land encroachment, resource extraction and emissions (which will lead to exhaustion of one resource or another, or ecological collapse).

The reality is it's a curve. The upward trajectory is temporary, there's zero reason to believe in some scenario where resources and land are completely exhausted; no prediction model suggests that.

We need short-run solutions, surely, because climate is an imperative problem in the near-term. That's what the shift to renewables and investment in innovation is for, and the Green New Deal spin from re-grouped degrowthers is starting to sound a lot like that anyway.

> Regardless of what your techno-optimistic hopes for future miraculous technological breakthroughs might tell you. They aren't coming. It's over.

lol emissions are a solved problem, there's no miracle necessary.

The lingering issue will be climate, not strictly speaking CO2 emissions.

> There's no aggressive transmission to renewables happening in the transportation sector.

Large transport is more difficult to abate, but that is still happening, yes. Hydrogen and nuclear.

> greater emitter per capita

Total emissions matter most. Canada has high emissions per capita but it has a population a fraction of the size of the US, and very spread out, so per capita tells you very little.

> we have no right to point any fingers.

I argue that developing countries are within their right to increase emissions to improve their quality of life.


> I wrote : '"degrowth" is just demanding that people in developing countries not be permitted to improve their quality of life, that Westerners race to an arbitrary bottom to worsen theirs, and put lives at risk.'

> This is meant to be an and/or for the first two. I hope that's clear.

No, that was not clear to me. Especially not as you replied to someone else and confirmed that yes, degrowth means preventing improvement of quality of life across all economic strata. But let's not make this a "I-said-you-said" argument. Fair enough. We all seem to agree that degrowth doesn't necessarily imply degrowth across all economic strata.

Either way, note that nowhere did I even propose a "degrowth" strategy. I was merely saying that going on defense and conjuring all kinds of emotional arguments for why you personally can't dispense with your huge gasoline truck for reasons that are really quite trivial in the grander scheme of things, is very immature and selfish. Also very short-sighted, even from a selfish perspective. Nowhere did I suggest that you can't at least shift consumption from CO2E-heavy goods to less CO2E-heavy goods. That would in theory not require any degrowth whatsoever, merely a shift to more sustainable consumption even if the level of total economic consumption stays the same.

> This is a mantra or truism, but there's no reason to believe this. It's also why "degrowthers" themselves are pivoting in their messaging. GDP growth does not scale 1:1 with resource extraction. Between technological innovation and the aggressive pivot to renewables, blaming "the model" stops making sense.

Again, I don't share your narrow view of sustainability as equivalent to "resource extraction". Clearly, if the model induces external costs that threaten to end civilization as we know it and the economic models or at the very least radically decrease quality of life and incur huge economic and human costs in the foreseeable future, it is not sustainable. Sustainability, by the definition I know, means that you can keep the system or behavior unchanged. It doesn't matter if we have the potential to keep extracting fossil fuels in the current rate for millennia, if a side effect is a civilization-ending environmental catastrophe. The amount of resources is irrelevant. Unless you factor in "livable climate and environment" as valuable resource, it doesn't work.

> The percentage of people on earth living in extreme poverty as defined by the UN has been diminishing for decades. This is because of growth.

That model has obvious flaws and has been criticized by many. For one, the available data is lacking and hand-picked. Secondly, there have been many instances where GDP has risen alongside with poverty, if measured on a national level. See India for example.

> The reality is it's a curve. The upward trajectory is temporary, there's zero reason to believe in some scenario where resources and land are completely exhausted; no prediction model suggests that.

Really, there's no prediction that suggests that the current trajectory of emissions is catastrophic? Well, if you're gonna dismiss all climate models or predictions, then this whole discussion is irrelevant and I have nothing more to say.

> lol emissions are a solved problem, there's no miracle necessary.

> The lingering issue will be climate, not strictly speaking CO2 emissions.

> Large transport is more difficult to abate, but that is still happening, yes. Hydrogen and nuclear.

You are way too technology-centered. It doesn't matter if there are technological solutions on a lab table somewhere. You have to factor in rates of adoption, political incentive, scale, regulations, economics, etc etc. Given that, there's absolutely no indications that we are anywhere near on track for deploying technological solutions on a time-scale that is relevant. I'd love to see your data if you think otherwise.

> Total emissions matter most. Canada has high emissions per capita but it has a population a fraction of the size of the US, and very spread out, so per capita tells you very little.

Of course total emissions of a specific nation doesn't matter most. Total global emissions matter. It doesn't matter for the climate if people are spread out - it only matters for the local environment which is a different issue. And from a fairness perspective, of course you need to look at per capita. Why should you or I be entitled to a lifestyle that we acknowledge would not be anywhere near feasible if adopted by everyone?


> In the hard cold reality that we live in, it's not sustainable or feasible for everyone to own a huge hulking gas guzzling vehicle just to enable your yearly road trip. Wish it was, but it isn't. Not even close.

It actually is. The only impediment is neurotic busybodies who are obsessed with making everyone poor because they've fallen for the current strain of doomsday millenarianism.


A very small percentage of people living in rural areas are actually in food production.


Would you want to remove all unnecessary humans from rural areas just to get rid of cars?

Completely shut down tourism to areas of natural beauty and other recreational outdoors activities too far away from the prison-city?

Except for the elite who of course get to keep their private jets and superyachts...


> Except for the elite who of course get to keep their private jets and superyachts...

Judging by your comments, you seem to be of the opinion that environmentalists mostly love rich people and want to exempt them from climate taxes while allowing them to continue enjoying luxuries that produce as much carbon as dozens of middle class lifestyles.

I have to say that in my experience with environmentalists, nothing could be further from the truth. They are, largely, middle class to poor (in U.S. terms) themselves, and overwhelmingly blame consumption by the rich and corporate practices encouraged by externalized costs under our present economic system.

That's not to say that there aren't some activists and scientists who fly to conferences. But they tend to be more aware of this conflict than you might think. Some scientists, for example, refuse to fly. And there is some credibility to the idea that the work they are doing is vital, whereas luxury vacations clearly are not.


I'm simply stating the fact that just because food production happens outside of cities doesn't mean that most people in rural areas live there for that particular reason. It's a very common counter-argument, that cities need the countryside for food production. Which is true. But cities don't need the vast majority of people living in rural areas for food production, because they have nothing to do with food production in the first place. So it's a bad argument.

As to the other strawman arguments, it's besides my original point, but no I don't think we should forcefully move anyone. But it's just a simple fact that rural living and suburbia are heavily subsidized by the economic engines that are cities. And, accounting for economic production, cities have a much smaller environmental impact per capita.


If you are willing to spend your younger, healthier years grinding just to (potentially, there are so many things that are outside of your control that can go wrong no matter your work ethic) get a few more years of retirement at the end of your life - then sure. Grind away.


These interviews are not designed to require "spending your younger, healthier years grinding". They require grokking a fairly small set of concepts and being comfortable using them to problem solve under time pressure. That's it.

Hearing some people, you'd think they ask you to memorize chess openings or something.


That's because it is memorizing chess openings, or basically the same thing.

Most Leetcode Mediums fall into the category where the type of solution is obvious (sliding window/graph search/etc), and the code isn't hard to write, but there's a "trick" embedded in the problem and if you don't already know the trick, you're never going to figure it out in 30 minutes.

So the best strategy is to find a "Top N Leetcodes" list like Blind 75 and just memorize them. Of course you can't expect those exact questions to come up in every interview, but having a few dozen solutions already memorized should let you do some pattern recognition and lower your cognitive load while you're trying to figure out what that problem's trick is.


> Most Leetcode Mediums (...) there's a "trick" embedded in the problem and if you don't already know the trick, you're never going to figure it out in 30 minutes

I am sorry to say, this is just not true.

> but having a few dozen solutions already memorized should let you do some pattern recognition

Chess opening memorization is pure "remember the moves, play the moves" that's it. No thinking or pattern recognition involved.

If this is about being able to solve problems by generalizing from having seen a few dozen solutions, then I don't think "memorizing" is the appropriate term here, at all.


Do you have any evidence that isn't true? How often do truly new problems come up? Nearly every problem I see is after someone gets an an algorithm named after them.


While it is true there are many factors outside of our control I'm still going to prepare the best I can for the factors that are in my control. FAANG salaries allow someone to retire decades earlier which is the significant amount of time


You can work 80% and still earn more, so you have more time your whole life.


I don't see how that is "punishment". A team is a group of people helping each other to achieve a common goal. Sometimes other team members will screw up and you will step in and do what you can to help the team overcome this. Other times that member is going to be you, and then your teammates will (hopefully) step in to cover your ass.


TLDR: YAGNI


Does that really add up? If the people who rely on public transportation are not the ones who will be able to afford the new services, how would the new services move money out of public transportation? Are you talking about the people who are currently spending their money on public transportation, but could in fact afford to spend it on some other, more luxurious transportation mode if they so chose? If so, isn't it likely that if they still choose public transportation, out of ideological concerns presumably, they will continue to do so in the future?

I'm not qualified, but I'm guessing that the money will mainly be moved from private car transportation to these new transportation services.


I kind of mixed up two arguments. My main argument was that there is definitely a need to invest into "yesteryears" public transport systems, because the new services are not affordable for anybody.

and the other argument is that new "high class" bus services take money out of public transportation, which is badly needed there, but as you said, this may not add up to much. (However I could see myself switching from public transport to self driving cars, so they can also be included in this argument)

But both arguments go in the same direction - that public transport is definitely necessary and will remain necessary in the future but is often neglected and in a really bad condition.


I find the exact opposite. Sure, in a very small town you'll constantly recognize people and be constantly recognized. But you don't have a choice. There's little chance you'll find anyone who shares your interests, and there will be little chance of spontaneity. Everyone either does know you or will think they know you when they don't. There's a lot of social cohesion and apprehension. I find this really suffocating. In an urban environment I find it easier to socialize because I know that whoever I talk to doesn't have a lot of preconceptions about me.


Thanks for your feedback.

Regarding reading, I find there's simply too much to read to just leave it to chance what to read. I want to strike a balance between reading the best stuff on the fundamentals while at the same time keeping up with recent trends. Whenever I start following too many blogs or check in too frequently to link aggregators such as HN, I find that my reading becomes too shallow and my attention span just gets ruined. What I want to do is find the best fundamental stuff that is still relevant, and keep reading stuff that is slightly above my current skill level. At the same time I want to read the most recent trends that are more than just indulgance in buzzwords or every single new framework or whatever.

I also need to find a way to strike a balance between reading and coding. Maybe doing the exercises in the books is a good thing. But I also want to try it in side projects like you said. I just don't want to get stuck in side projects with needless detail that doesn't really move me forward as a programmer.


You know that posting irrelevant information or bias just to be controversial in order to raise attention is called "trolling", right?


It's not irrelevant. Female programmers were hindered and the story focuses on those female programmers. The goal is not to be controversial but to raise awareness.


The story focuses on programmers. It uses gendered pronouns, but no more than if the article were about the sanction-beleaguered for-pay wifi down at the bazaar and the IT guy who owns the business.


These studies just show that there is a difference. It doesn't say it's mainly caused by innate biological differences between the sexes. These differences could for all we know be the effect of the different social conditioning that we all get from birth. In reality it's probably somewhere in-between - both social conditioning and innate biological differences play a role but if I was to guess I'd say that the social conditioning is the largest factor of the two. But neither has been shown in these studies.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: