As far as carbon neutrality goes, you’re drawing a conclusion about the value based only on the first derivative. If you hold livestock numbers constant (they’re increasing, alas, but let’s not worry about that yet) then there will be a rough equilibrium. However, the gas is in the atmosphere for some time until it gets fixed back into the soil, and continues to have a warming effect in the meantime.
Any carbon tax has to punish emissions. Net zero emissions isn’t enough anymore.
Actually, they're not increasing. I looked it up. The number of cattle in the world has held steady (about one billion) since the 1970s. Given that the population has from about 4B to 7B in that time, and incomes have increased substantially as well, it suggests that beef consumption is level (which means per-capita consumption is shrinking).
And given a 9 year lifespan for methane, it's probably been stable for a long time.
Now, if you're taking the position that "net zero emissions isn't enough" as justification for a carbon tax, you need to focus on the goal. Is it carbon reduction, or puritanical punishment? Need to ask that, because there's a lot of people who want the latter but claim the former.
If the goal is carbon reduction, then a carbon tax is only a means to an end, and we have to ask if it will be effective. Can we carbon-tax beef enough to see a major reduction in its consumption, leading to a major reduction in the number of cattle? (Oh, and you'd better carbon-tax dairy while you're at it.) Does this seem like a reasonable conclusion? And if people aren't eating beef, what else will they eat instead, and what are its carbon costs?
I'm not rejecting the position, but I'm trying to think it through.
For estimating emissions, a better proxy is probably the mass of all the cattle in the world.
There might not be more individual cattle, but they've been engineered to grow bigger - and, by extension, eat bigger meals, poop bigger poops, and fart bigger farts.
Looking more into this, it seems to me a carbon tax is not an effective approach at all. Instead, we should be looking at the cattle/feed lifecycle. Encourage totally or mostly pasture-fed beef, and discourage corn feeding. That could be done in part by more strictly limiting use of antibiotics, which are used to make cattle tolerate the corn-feed diet without it completely wrecking their digestive systems.
This would raise the price of beef, sure, but more importantly, it would help break the use of farmed (and heavily subsidized) corn, and the use of antibiotics, which are problematic for reasons that have nothing to do with beef. This gets us to actually solving the carbon problem, not just blunt-object punishment.
It’s both. I know banking and insurance companies that offered relocations last year, but IMO that’s to save effort hiring for the EU offices rather than moving existing jobs. Moving an entire department isn’t practical.
Practical forgery attacks against an arbitrary client are hard, but configuring a public WiFi AP to intercept your favourite repeating-digit DNS server is trivial. Lots of people use public WiFi!
In such a scenario a VPN is a more secure answer than DNS-over-TLS, but this isn’t a realistic answer for the average user. It has to be something that is free and easy to enable.
The two most common scenarios in my 3 years of experience are fan-in and first-error (executing stuff for their side effects only). It’s easy to mess up the latter, but golang.org/x/sync/errgroup is usually what you want.
There aren't many games that fall into that category. For example, look at Direct3D 12. You can count on your fingers the number of games that require D3D 12, and it's supported by graphics cards made in 2011 (although not all of them).
Just look at the new API features we've been getting, they aren't really the kind of things you'd rewrite your engine for, with the exception of Vulkan / D3D 12 / Metal / etc. But Vulkan / D3D 12 are really just API changes that don't reflect underlying hardware changes.
On top of that, a large percentage of games are made on top of engine middleware with good support for mediocre hardware (like Unreal and Unity, both of which run on phones if you want).
Regarding the leap second bug, I suspect this is an example of perfect being the enemy of the good.
It appeared to me that the golang devs believed so strongly in the superiority of leap second smearing that waiting for everyone to adopt it was better than compromising their API or the implementation of time.Time.
