While I can’t speak for GP, I had a similar reaction - though admittedly I wouldn’t describe it as “relieved,” more of an “okay, good to know this isn’t anywhere near the top of the priority list” feeling.
Essentially, in comparison to the other potential/likely effects of climate change I’m aware of (mass deaths of pollinators causing a collapse of the global food infrastructure, large percentages of the world’s arable land becoming non-viable leading to mass famine, heat waves bringing lethal wet-bulb temperatures to large populated areas, collapse of the AMOC, increased wars and global conflict due to space pressure, large-scale droughts and water scarcity, etc) it just doesn’t seem that bad. It’s awful and terrifying, to be clear, but it doesn’t really compare to some of the other effects we’re going to be dealing with over the same timeframe.
Fair enough. My point in penning the article was simply: "sea level rise to date has been not much, sea level rise yet to occur is a lot". I don't disagree with your argument, that "a whole lot more sea level rise" may be the least of our problems. Although, sea level rise is interrelated with many of the other effects that you mentioned. It will result in a loss of land (duh). A lot of that lost land will be once-very-fertile land. So it will be a big part of the food insecurity picture. Increased salinity will be another bad one, and most of that extra salt will come from the risen-up sea getting into fresh water tables. And that in turn will be a big cause of fresh water scarcity. So, sea level rise is about much more than just "millions of houses (and some entire countries!) will be under water".
I'm using a janky CUDA miner that's getting around 6GH/s on a 3090. My code is kind of bad though since I hacked it together in a couple of hours last night, so I wouldn't be surprised if a proper/competent implementation got 2-3x the hashrate mine does.
Getting into the top ten is still not too hard at this point, if you wanted to. I hacked together a super basic parallel CPU miner quickly before diving into CUDA, and the CPU one still gets a value that beats #7 within a few minutes.
Assuming hashes are random (which is a reasonable assumption, considering it's sha256), every extra leading zero cuts the probability of success in half, meaning double the candidates searched to find a matching value. So each additional leading hex 0 would take on average 16x longer than the last.
There’s not really any viable options other than Nvidia for GPU compute, despite AMD’s efforts on ROCm. If you want to do compute tasks, you need an Nvidia card with Nvidia drivers, and Wayland won’t support your usage.
The problem is that there aren’t enough digits of precision to represent the answer. The exact answer would be 999999.0000001, but let’s say you only have space to store six significant digits. The exact answer is way more precise, so you need to round it to the nearest representable value, 999999.
Floating-point rounding issues are the same thing but with binary digits instead of decimal ones.
The “oh, just don’t buy a GPU from NVidia” point is one I see made a lot when discussing Wayland’s failures, but it completely misses the fact that CUDA is currently the only viable option for GPU compute in many situations. If any significant part of your desktop usage involves such compute, that’s not a solution - or rather it’s a solution that renders your system less capable than it was before.
Though in a sense that’s consistent with Wayland’s general “you’re holding it wrong” approach of shifting blame for any problems onto the person reporting them and concluding that anything that doesn’t work well isn’t a valid use-case anyway.
I want to be able to justify using Google Cloud for projects, but the fact that it’s a Google product is the main obstacle to that.
If history is anything to go by, relying on Google products and services seems like a great way to set yourself up for major problems down the line. Either the product you’re using is shut down on short notice or some automation flags a false-positive and you’re left screaming into the void trying to get yourself unbanned.
Thank you for this recommendation - I'm planning to switch platforms in a few weeks, and blocking YT ads was one of the big open questions I still had.
On the contrary, there's no reason to believe the exorbitant initial cost would change at all. If anything, this would make it worse.
The reason textbooks can cost as much as they do is that demand is very inelastic - students don't have any real alternatives to purchasing textbooks (in most cases.) As a result, there's little downward pressure on textbook prices.
Without any reason to lower prices, publishers would absolutely take this opportunity to maximize profits by raising secondhand prices and taking most or all of the difference. Students will be forced to buy them anyway, so why wouldn't they?
There are plenty of reasons to believe it. Publishers are already "renting" printed textbooks to students for a term for a dramatically lower price. I'm sure they would love to do the same with digital copies.
Essentially, in comparison to the other potential/likely effects of climate change I’m aware of (mass deaths of pollinators causing a collapse of the global food infrastructure, large percentages of the world’s arable land becoming non-viable leading to mass famine, heat waves bringing lethal wet-bulb temperatures to large populated areas, collapse of the AMOC, increased wars and global conflict due to space pressure, large-scale droughts and water scarcity, etc) it just doesn’t seem that bad. It’s awful and terrifying, to be clear, but it doesn’t really compare to some of the other effects we’re going to be dealing with over the same timeframe.