Most of the current plans for wealth taxes start in the region of $5-$50 million, taxing wealth above that bracket (like other progressive taxes). Do you expect to save $5 million, let alone $50 million? If not, you won’t pay any wealth tax.

Many plans also exclude your ‘family house’ from that, so you could have a $3m house and $4m in the bank and still pay no wealth tax - you’re rich, but not filthy rich.

Most of the seriously proposed tax rates are also in the 1-3% range, maybe 5% on the very high end. Again, of wealth above that threshold.

There is also some argument about hoarding that $200k (again, more like $20m) you saved rather than using it. If you spend it eating out, drinking, getting your house renovated, flying somewhere - then you end up paying tax and spending money and there’s some trickle down. If it sits in a bank account or in stocks or real estate, less so.

The ping is a bit meh. I need to figure out how to get the 4G card in my laptop to work on linux.

This is capped at 50Mb/s to be a bit cheaper.

One of the big arguments is to tax wealth, not just income.

NZ has similar.

It is basically a plastic milk bottle that has pancake powder at the bottom.

You add water up to a line printed on the label, shake it, and now you have a bottle of pancake mix.

There’s a difference between a market and a significant market.

Cost-to-benefit analysis, sure. But you still need a realistic comparison of the costs side of the equation to do that.

People were whining about the energy costs of regular data centers long before AI came along.

That invites a lot of questions like is it lower carbon to have a zoom call than fly out for a meeting? Do the travel emissions of an imported tomato offset the heating emissions for a local out-of-season hothouse tomato? If I’m going to make one personal sacrifice, is it more effective to give up red meat, bike to work, or make my next holiday less far away?

Intentionally ignoring evidence is just dumb; decisions made purely on vibes are often going to be wrong.

So your alternative is what? Just say a tonne is a tonne?

It’s adequate for the purpose at hand.

Lots and lots of math and analysis.

My understanding is it is fairly well settled on a chemical & lifespan basis. I am not sure of what impact initial altitude has.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Anaerobic bacteria produce methane. When oxygen is present, the aerobic pathway outcompetes anaerobic because more energy is available, producing CO2 instead.

GHG are usually measured in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GWP) where methane is about 80x as much warming as the same mass of CO2 over a 20 year period, or about 25x as much warming over a 100 year period.

This is also what’s going on in the steady replacement of various refrigerants with lower-GWP alternatives.

40% thrown away does not necessarily imply all others are better.

Normally imperfect produce goes to processing plants (juice, cans, pies etc.) but I’m not sure if there’s any significant market for banana chunks/puree.

But all of those are net emissions?

Desire-to-die is potentially a reasonable way to describe 15 hours in an economy airline seat, or stuck in/as traffic.

I.e. so fed up with this that you’d rather be dead.

I feel like the axes need better labeling. Putting the labels on the negative is confusing.

A lot of the emissions from food are not things that are already in the carbon cycle.

• Deforestation to turn forest into farmland.

• Fossil fuels for equipment and to manufacture fertiliser.

• Methane from animals is significantly more potent than if that same carbon was released as CO2.

Pushing up the price of oil and stopping production could actually be carbon negative.

Aluminium is cheaper and lighter.

This seems to suggest that the metal-air transmission is virtually identical between the two, and cites some sources: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/255731/copper-or-aluminum-heatsink

Is that not because the copper holds more heat, so stays hot for longer at the same dissipation?

Copper has more mass, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity per litre.

Is aluminium actually more effective as a dissipation surface? I hadn’t heard that.

Cycling and rowing machines are probably the only practical options for that - they both have intentional friction brakes to dissipate energy, because they are actually efficient enough to need them.

Treadmills still need to put power in because of the friction, and most weight or spring machines rely on you absorbing the energy you just put in (unless you drop the weights…)

If we expect to be remotely large, sorting by new only is infeasible.