Strange timeline indeed but Stripe is a big backer for climate solutions and climate research, including a $2B carbon dioxide removal initiative called Frontier: https://stripe.com/climate
Reading Frontier’s website it’s very unclear how much they’re going to remove and how they’re going to do it - though there’s a lot of mentions of biomass
Trouble with techies is they tend plumb for techie solutions like carbon capture aka ClimeWorks rather than low tech options like trees or seagrass
Trees and seagrass don't really address the sequestration side though, do they?
The carbon they latch onto and temporarily hold onto is still within the land / sea surface +/- a few metres layer.
The current largest scale carbon capture projects are catching a small amount of vented CO2 from LNG projects and pushing that back into the subsurface fields - they only capture 10 ton by releasing over a 100.
We're in need of readily powered true air capture of CO2 then sequestered deep underground.
Things like www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036031992602269X have promise.
Trees and seagrass can address the sequestration side.
You can find examples here on Frontier's site of companies that are taking biomass (plant stuff like tree waste) and sequestering it in mines or other storage deep underground.
When thinking about sucking carbon from the sky, I find it useful to separate how I think about grabbing on to carbon dioxide from how to store carbon dioxide, rather than thinking of it as one step. I find it's easy to get lost and either over or undervalue things otherwise.
Plants and trees are excellent at grabbing on, for example, and with a good process they can lead to very cheap methods to store/remove carbon dioxide for a thousand years.
I appreciate the response and note that it's precisely because I already separate both the acquisition of CO2 from the sky and direct acquisition from industrial processes well apart from the storage side that I correctly stated trees and seagrass aren't storage methods.
How it's stored (and the energy used to store) matters. As you know - there's not much to argue about here, just a nod that it's best to be careful with words.
As a further question, what's the most effective Direct Air Capture method actually working on your books so far, in terms of greatest tonnages, and where is that captured CO2 being stored.
Let's say I take it that whatever post you're referencing is slimy, built on disaster capitalism, and downright bad. And your being jaded is totally understandable.
To that I remind you: "All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing"
What could you do to do drive the world in a different direction? (see my other posts for projects if you want help out with our El Niño Ready dashboard)
This does happen every El Niño this years is pretty wild. Every local forecasters is saying "IDFK" and they are right. The the great Atlantic conveyor also starts to die this year we are in for evolution!
If 4-5 degree temperature jump comes true it will be an extinction for many species in tropical and sub tropical areas and millions of people will die as those will hit wet bulb temperature ie it will be to hot and humid for mammals
yes and Apple does it for the 30% lock-in. Apple does it to protect their ecosystem. Apple also does not care about their customers, their developers, their suppliers or their employees. Closed systems do not help the populous. This is about money, captive audience and subscription revenues.
what does the license say? provide source when asked or publish source?
OSI is not clear on this either. ("Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, [...]")
Google became one of those OEMs that drag their feet and make it a hassle to publish the source code. This happens because they are not interested in open source Android anymore
Alas, the licences have become outdated and we haven't kept up, because most have played by the spirit of the rules up to this point. There is an expectation that source code will be readily available using modern tooling, like a version control system, but that's not what the licences actually require.
GPL requires that source code be in the preferred form for making modifications. If you use source control for your own modifications, then that's obviously the preferred form and you must distribute the source in that form.
That’s an ambitious interpretation. The preferred form for making modifications to the Linux kernel also involves having a build cache, but that’s clearly not required to remain GPL compliant.
I hate to be that guy but publishing source online for free theoretically involves unbounded distribution costs that can't be recovered. That isn't the issue here but it should be considered before changing a license.
Google has servers inside ISP networks that distribute YouTube videos. They pay nothing for the distribution costs, I think they don’t even pay for electricity/cooling. If they wanted to distribute Android source code, they wouldn’t have to pay a dime.
Regardless of whether these costs are zero (I doubt they actually are), these licenses apply to EVERYONE who uses them, not just very wealthy companies. It would not be right to essentially require unbounded free hosting or use of specific online tools/platforms, just to be able to comply with the license.
Let not forget that google heavily relies on opensource software.
The Linux kernel being the obvious one in this discussion, which they make extensive use of.
It's a generic license that doesn't say "by the way, if you've got a market cap above X then you have to host and distribute the code FOR FREE"... Putting such garbage in there would hurt small developers who made popular, nonprofit projects and probably anyone who isn't flush with cash. Imagine being legally obligated to host files in the middle of a DDoS attack, and pay the resulting AWS bill or whatever.
Not from my perspective. I get free mapping anywhere on earth, with traffic information, and can route plan walking, cycling, driving, or public/private transport and likely journey times. I can search the world's web-published information. I'm using a powerful, relatively affordable mobile phone. I can watch anything anyone with a camera uploads to YouTube across the world. I can pay from my phone with a thumbprint verification only. I can take a photo of something and get back what it is and some information about it.
Having worked at places with GitHub Enterprise, that isn’t much of an improvement. You could host something else, but almost everything in this space isn’t great at scale.
Im definitely not referring to GHE. Im talking about real self-hosting infra. It wasnt that long ago that this was possible, and cheaper and more reliable. It's a pay me now or pay me later argument. Everyone now is complaining about the pay me later part of these 'deals'
This doesnt stop it. That what a lot of people dont understand. If you never had a FB, Insta, Whatsapp, etc... account, you STILL have a FB ad profile. It's worse than what people think.
Yes, I am very aware of FB shadow profiles and such. And believe me, it troubles me more than I can say. [This was known in 2015-2017 timeframe, afaik.] That, and the fact that one can't do much about that.
What one can control is not paying attention to the damned site. [Many more added to that list, btw]
It stops their most direct way of influencing you. There are always others (e.g. they can lobby politicians) but that is irrelevant to the question of you should let them into your home voluntarily.
> Facebook is the ad network and serves its own ads.
Well, it certainly replaces valuable data like how long have you looked at a given ad with either nothing, or random noise (e.g. if you draw a rectangle over them).
We are no longer living in 2013 where people posted about everything they do. Sure, plenty people do so still, and our interactions with that (even implicitly like how long we looked at it) is plenty of value in and of itself, but I disagree with the general notion.
The effectiveness of ads is that they can just throw stuff at you and "see" what sticks, without you ever telling a word.
I think the obvious answer is, that you are the product, and you are worth $$$$, possibly $$$$$, even $$$$$$
When did you agree to be sold without representation and a contract, again? Something about malicious contracts nobody reads? Pretty sure that behavior remains...criminal.
Not only is this not really correct (obscuring pertinent legal information on purpose is a crime, e.g. such that it cannot be recalled), it isn't even applicable.
Its been long documented that these systems are attempting to monitor you, even if you did not sign up for the service or interact with it.
reply