> Not sure what the point of the website is

I think it's just informative. I found it interesting at least. I formed my own conclusions from it.

Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid?

Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?

I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

I saw complaints that amounted to “it’s more expensive to build out large industrial facilities in bay area than in Reno”

okay what’s different in Reno hmmm I could be like the website and try to imply it’s only environmental regulations… or I could acknowledge that land price and availability is drastically different and also labor costs…. But then that wouldn’t help my contrived argument that it’s all the pesky regulations.

Again, without apples to apples comparisons to other areas, wha are you actually able to conclude from the website other than stoking confirmation bias?

It's providing a single geographic data point to you, for free. You're welcome to do your own research if you want a complete picture.

We can't do without garbage trucks though

- have less garbage

- collect garbage more frequently in smaller trucks

taiwan has very cute small garbage trucks and they have a ice-cream-truck like song signalling for people to bring whatever trashbags they have out to the truck, so you don't even have piles of garbage outside for days waiting for the weekly truck. quite nice.

Having less garbage is a whole other issue. Small utility vehicles makes a lot of sense but doesn't seem to be the way it's done in NA. Maybe it’s a labour cost thing. But even the long haul trucks are huge here compared to the rest of the world. They haul the same amount but the cab and engine are enormous. Maybe because the roads are wider they can just make everything bigger.

For every scientific discipline that is well represented across modern corporate labs there are a dozen that are not. Most "serious" research is not directly connected to making money.

Not per capita. The US is still the worst large country. If you account for offshoring manufacturing then the US looks even worse.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

The climate doesn’t care about per capita obviously.

I guess partisanship blinds even otherwise intelligent people to logic and makes them repeat nonsense.

The climate "cares" about cumulative emissions. On that score the US is by far the leader. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions It's not even close.

Pretend China is 20 countries. Each country now has lower emissions than the US. Anyone can play that stupid game. Give up the games, think about solutions. China is working hard. Are we?

Climate doesn't care about political borders either.

But per capita is more informative when thinking about policy for curbing emissions, which is how we actually change our effect on the climate.

The rest of the world produces more than china. Checkmate.

Because per capita is the only thing that makes sense.

If China were to split into 10 countries each emitting 10% of what they do now it'd be the exact same emissions, but according to you it would be much better.

Similarly if the EU would become one country, that country would be high up on the list, much higher than member countries now! Oh no!

Looking at per capita emissions is much more fair.

Anyway, China's emissions are falling since last year ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... ). What's the US doing?

It can't realistically be solved at a per capita level though

Individuals can of course make choices to reduce their emissions, Americans more than most since they're starting higher. Buy less new stuff, eat less meat, fly less, etc.

But policy is where real change needs to be made, and the effects of policy still scale with population in most cases.

Maybe we should start trying before we conclude that.

If country B splits into countries C, D, E and F, all of which emit less than country A, has it found an effective way to reduce emissions? Should all countries adopt the Monaco lifestyle to defeat global warming? I guess if you want to find a fair way to measure administration of land you could emmisions per hectare or rainfall.

China has a declining population, and had a one-child policy for many years.

Also, you don’t want all the low-population countries to each start contributing as much to global warming as the US.

Because some countries pay others to pollute in their stead?

We're going to need to become a lot more creative about what and how we test if we're ever to reach dark factory levels. Unit tests and integration tests are one thing, but truly testing against everything in a typical project requirements document is another thing.

The team I saw doing this had a fake Slack channel full of fake users, each of which was constantly hammering away trying out different things against a staging environment version of the system.

That was just one of the tricks they were using, and this was a couple of months ago so they've no-doubt come up with a bunch more testing methods since then.

I dread to imagine tbe state lf the code, there are some antipatterns that LLMs come back to again and again.

I do VIU in Canadian Dollars to help balance my other "global" ETFs that are over-reliant on US.

VIU: Vanguard FTSE Developed All Cap ex N Amer Idx ETF

I'm not dumping US, but since Trump got back into power, all new investment goes into ex-US funds to help balance what was previously a portfolio over-reliant on US stocks. I'm based in Canada.

Same. Changing out VXC for VIU.

> You can't prompt 99.95% uptime on Black Friday. Neither can you prompt your way to keeping a site secure, updated, and running.

Uh, yeah you can. There’s a whole DevOps ecosystem of software and cloud services (accessible via infrastructure—as-code) that your agents can use to do this. I don’t think businesses who specialize in ops are safe from downsizing.

Yep - exactly. Ops isn't immune to LLMs stealing your customers. Given that most of the "open source product with premium hosting" models are just reselling hyperscaler compute at a huge markup, the customers are going to realize pretty quickly that they can use an LLM to setup some basic devops and get the same uptime. Most of these companies are offering a middleman service that becomes a bad deal the moment the customer has access to expertise they previously lacked.

I also think he's glossing over the fact that one of the reasons why companies choose to pay for "ops" to run their software for them is because it's built by amateurs or amateurs-playing-professional and runs like shit. I happen to know this first hand from years of working at a company selling hosting and ops for the exact same CMS that Dries' business hosts (Drupal, a PHP-based CMS) and the absolute garbage that some people are able to put together in frameworks like Wordpress and Drupal is truly astounding. I'm not even talking about the janky local businesses where their nephew who was handy with computers made them a Wordpress site - big multinational companies have sites in these frameworks that can barely handle 1x their normal traffic and more or less explode at 1.5x.

The business of hosting these customers' poorly optimized garbage remains a big business. But we're entering into an era where the people who produce poorly optimized software have a different path to take rather than throwing it to a SaaS platform that can through sheer force of will make their lead-weight airplane fly. They can spend orders of magnitude less money to pay an LLM to make the software actually just not run like shit in the first place. Throwing scaling at the problem of 99.95% is a blunt instrument that only works if the person paying doesn't have the time, money, or knowledge to do it themselves.

Companies like these (including the one I work for currently) are absolutely going to get squeezed from both directions. The ceiling is coming down as more realize they can do their own devops, and the floor is rising as customer code quality gets better. Eventually you have to try your best to be 3 ft tall instead of 6.

If you have pre-commit hooks it should do this last bit automatically, and use your project settings

Yes, I do. But it does not always use them when I change contexts. I just get in the habit of saying it. Belt and suspenders approach.

It’ll also save time on both sides. My experience is that companies can be open to it but there’s no way to know without getting into the interview process