Alpha3031 t1_jdqs8d2 wrote

A program playing at the "2 dan" level is essentially crippled and would have exploitable flaws that are magnified to the point that much weaker players with nothing better to do can find them. This is why advice is pretty much the same as chess, playing engines limited to human level play is essentially useless for improving arfter a point. Basically, the ego massaging is usually entirely unintentional on the engine creator's parts, but limiting an engine to a consistent human difficulty is hard.

The bragging is still dumb though.


Alpha3031 t1_jdqox8n wrote

I mean, sure, cutting back on meat is great (and tbh for budget reasons alone...) and it's kinda nice to have something incremental to work on where every step has the same effect instead of all or nothing, it's less stressful IMO. But how many Americans would you have to convince to cut meat by 30, 50 or 100% to reduce emissions by 1 Gt CO2e? Or even 200 Mt? Versus how many it might take to swing a national election? (Scale as necessary if working with a smaller country) Government action is essential too, and if that action cuts emissions in sectors that are easier to cut that just means we get things lower sooner.


Alpha3031 t1_jdqm51m wrote

Actually, in the US least-cost pathways with adequate transmission capacity show much less deployment of diurnal storage (about half), solar and nuclear compared to the scenario where transmission is constrained. Sufficient transmission capacity to minimise cost is about 2 to 3 times current levels (compared with up to about 20% increase for constrained), and results in close to double the deployed wind substituting for the ~30% decrease in solar.


Alpha3031 t1_jdqkmy8 wrote

Yeah it is pretty interesting hydrogen depletes the same hydroxyl pathway that naturally eliminates CH4 and reduces its 100 year GWP vs the 20 year. Conversely, I wonder if (after we've successfully moved emissions on to a sharp enough downward trend of course) enhancing the same pathway might be a especially effective method for fast short term remediation. I see there is some research on this but I guess it's still early days.


Alpha3031 t1_jdqiizn wrote

I believe what /u/whyzantium is saying is that preindustrial working patterns are sufficiently different to be incomparable (or at least difficult to compare) but arguably less onerous*, and the change you point to has a starting point that was post–industrial revolution, circa 19th century, and took a century of activism after that to achieve.

* See for example excerpt from Schor (1993).


Alpha3031 t1_jdn7uly wrote

The good news is that the US, and to a lesser extent China and the EU have improved their policy since COP26. Bad news is the rest of the world on average went backwards. Good news though is that on net we still get about half of the overall effect, and that's going to be a reduction half a billion tons of CO2e per year in 2030. Bad news is that it still isn't enough to limit things to 2 °C. Good news is that if we really implement all our pledges we might make it.

Even better news is that it's evident that action by any one of those blocs (US, EU, China, India) is going to be substantial. Of course, if all of us worked together that would be even better, and just because they're like half the world's population doesn't mean the other half won't have any effect.


Alpha3031 t1_j8lykw7 wrote

Well, they hydrogen doesn't go away when you use it as energy storage (it's not a fuel source because you get less energy out burning it than you put in unless you have some pretty advanced fusion reactor, it's like million times harder than deuterium fusion) so when you burn the hydrogen again you get water back.