Or retooling the overall transportation infrastructure?
Yes, pollution is bad. Diesel trucks are a highly visible form. However, there are too many unknowns for these sweeping statements about 'true' costs to be taken seriously. It is another example of the economic calculation problem.
Try as they might, researchers can't sit in a bureau and come up with figures to plan an economy with.
>California has outlawed new diesel truck sales after 2036, and other states aren’t far behind (you can drag the stragglers along).
When the new fuel is cheaper and suitable for consumer's needs, there will be no need to "drag" them along or prohibit choices. I believe this is what the comment was referencing.
You could ask people how much they’d pay to keep chocolate or coffee, bananas, pineapples, or mangoes. Most of Florida’s coastline, about half of California. There are things that specialists disagree about, but all have no doubt that all those crops will not be cultivated (outside) if we stay the course. Florida and California are now seeing insurance companies bailing out, so we are moving from scientific certainty to economic reality.
Naturally, there’s more: most people think that Cajou nuts, açai berries, passion fruits, agave, prickly pears, should be on this list (because of temperature) but if we start looking at that, then people think pollinator collapse or opportunist infection are going to be there first… So I tried to make a conservative list.
Typically the answer to the question “What would you pay to keep those (chocolate, coffee, etc.)?” is that whatever cost to save those things is worth it. You can try to find numbers, but the US famously started wars to end democracies in several countries to grow just bananas (that gave us “Banana Republic”), so we are closer to amounts where it’s less money measured in many billions and more state-sponsored violence.
All that long rant to say: whatever is the cost of not destroying those, that is the “true” cost.
2. The cost of CO2 extraction and storage
With current rock-bottom electricity prices in Iceland, ClimateWorks research facility can extract CO2 for a bit more than $3,000 per ton (depending on accounting for research costs; that number is just OpEx IIRC).
To convert that to the cost of transporting goods, you can apply a ratio of 50 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometer [1]. A 40-ton truck will have to pay $600 to compensate for every 100 km.
That sounds like a lot, even without considering the cost of storage.
ClimateWorks hope to lower the price by an order of magnitude [0], which specialists think is unlikely. In truth, much cheaper electricity makes electric trucks that much more appealing. You will never save any money by burning fuel and then spending energy trying to re-capture that CO2 at low concentrations. It’s engineering nonsense. A better idea would be to have trucks carry a balloon with their emissions and that’s obviously a clownish idea. All that, again, before we even have a scalable solution for storage. A cousin works on that project for Statoil. Sure it might work (with the right salt cave) but it’s nowhere ready to scale to handle emissions from trucks all over the world.
So we will never be even close to making ICE trucks a sound idea if we consider the environmental impact.
The EU, Russia, even Quebec has its own passenger aircraft industry. Kind of trite to frame this as China vs. the West. Is it because the narrative fits in better with the current newscycle?
Don't undervalue the less developed countries. Your cost of living may be lower than the property taxes + utilities on a similar house in a developed country.
Consider building sites, apps or other forms of recurring revenue. If you have the tech basics, your next step might be exploring sales.
>Osmakac was the target of an elaborately orchestrated FBI sting that involved a paid informant, as well as FBI agents and support staff working on the setup for more than three months. The FBI provided all of the weapons seen in Osmakac’s martyrdom video. The bureau also gave Osmakac the car bomb he allegedly planned to detonate, and even money for a taxi so he could get to where the FBI needed him to go. Osmakac was a deeply disturbed young man, according to several of the psychiatrists and psychologists who examined him before trial. He became a “terrorist” only after the FBI provided the means, opportunity and final prodding necessary to make him one.
>But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.
>Some experts agree. "The target, the motive, the ideology and the plot were all led by the FBI," said Karen Greenberg, a law professor at Fordham University in New York, who specialises in studying the new FBI tactics.
>In March 2011, Osmakac left his job in Tampa and traveled overseas in an attempt to fight the United States and its allies. Osmakac stated that the trip was “his idea” and left abruptly, without telling his family or packing proper clothing. Osmakac originally hoped to go to Afghanistan “and fight the oppressors,” as he described “America and [its] Nato allies.” Osmakac first flew to Turkey and then to Turkmenistan, on Afghanistan's western border. However, Osmakac was denied entry into Turkmenistan because he did not have the proper travel documents. Osmakac then returned to Turkey and tried unsuccessfully to enter Iraq. Osmakac attempted to reach Iraq by crossing through Syria, on Turkey's southern border, but failed to gain entry into Syria. Following this failure to get to Iraq, Osmakac returned to the United States. Osmakac called his family from overseas in order to get money for his return flight.
>Osmakac told the mosque leader that he was “kuffar,” or an infidel, and that Osmakac was “allowed to kill [him]” and take his “women and [his] money.” Osmakac repeated his threats before two board members of the mosque, stating, “[y]ou are kuffar, you're supporting him against us as Muslims and, you know, we're going to kill all of you
So, in summary, a man had a conversation with people at his mosque where he claimed that whatever position that they were taking on some issue was anti-Islamic and punishable by death (according to his interpretation of Islam.) However, he didn't hurt any of them or anyone else. He also left the country to join with other fundamentalists, but never managed to get to any and had to beg for money to get back home.
>in summary, a man had a conversation with people at his mosque where he claimed that whatever position that they were taking on some issue was anti-Islamic and punishable by death (according to his interpretation of Islam.)
I suppose that's one way to summarize "we're going to kill all of you".
>As of 2021, the U.S. gold reserves total 8,134 metric tons. The next highest holdings were Germany's, whose gold reserves were 3,364 metric tons.[43] As of 31 July 2020, Fort Knox holds 147.34 million troy ounces (4,583 metric tons) of gold reserves with a market value of US $290.9 billion, representing 56.35% of the gold reserves of the United States.
Most other countries hold USD for this purpose, but of course the US can't do that.
Note that this has literally nothing to do with the ability to repay debt, and that the Treasury bills market is larger and more liquid than the gold market. The US holds like 600 B$ worth of gold. There are like 30 trillion dollars in outstanding treasuries. Even if all the gold was liquidated at current market value without slippage, it would only be enough to pay back 2% of the debt.
It is it not also true that the hypothetical family would never go bankrupt if we assume they could pay in debt instruments indefinitely?
Instead of balancing a checkbook, they could simply buy groceries with IOUs. Of course, in an emergency scenario those IOUs would be heavily discounted by creditors seeking to make good on the debt. In this scenario, the price of gold as denominated in discounted IOUs would be much higher.
The entire exercise and the term emergency illustrates that there are indeed limits. This is the reason why they claim to hold gold.
It hurts the language. People who could help improve and advocate for the language think twice before getting involved.
People want to feel good about their language of choice, see this use something else.
The conference used to offer different viewpoints, even if those viewpoints weren't the "official" ones by the Rust organization. It seems like they're changing this so only endorsed viewpoints will be represented in the conference, possibly leading to a stagnation of innovative ideas.
Time will tell what will happen, but when opposing viewpoints starts being hidden away, things tend to get relatively boring quickly.
On the other hand, as a conference attendee, I expect that the keynote talks reflect which direction Rust is going.
If they know that the person's point of view is totally different than the most likely outcome, having this speaker as keynote speaker is not a good choice.
(With all that aside, they should have thought about it before inviting this person, and not after)
It doesn't and shouldn't. The people in the Rust project will come and go, but the language will continue to be developed. Many contributers are not project members
