Really nice idea and product. Does it update and cache changed schema for the target API? For ex. an app makes frequent get calls to retrieve list of houses but API changed with new schema, would Superglue figure it out at runtime or is it updating schema regularly for target API based on their API docs (assuming they have it)?
Yes, it does update and cache changed schema for the target API. At runtime. The way it works that every time you make a call to superglue, we get the data from the source and apply the jsonata (that's very fast). We then validate the result against the json schema that you gave us. If it doesn't match, e.g. because the source changed or a required field is missing, we rerun the jsonata generation and try to fix it.
I guess you could regularly run the api just to make sure the mapping is still up to date and there are no delays when you actually need the data, depending on how often the api changes.
> Spraying a form of sulfur from a plane is incredibly cheap. A full programme would cost less than $20b per year. That’s much cheaper than carbon removal ($600b per year, to remove just 10% of annual emissions @ $100 / tCO2).
It is 30x higher both in time and cost to capture carbon. At $20B/yr geoengineering the atmosphere can be done for 50+ yrs. In 50yrs, carbon capture would need $30T vs only $1T for spraying sulfur. Carbon capture as a long-term solution doesn't make sense. Also, how much carbon you can capture in 50yrs? At 10% of annual emissions, you can probably reach 30% by the end of 50yrs. Carbon capture is still leaving 70% carbon in the environment. It's a make believe solution build to give us false sense of action for saving climate.
Among other downsides, spraying sulphur in the atmosphere doesn't remove any Carbon at all. It just tries to balance one pollutant out with another. I'd rather have the sunshade, honestly.
I'm not a physical scientist, but I'd imagine that the amount of Carbon you can capture is fundamentally proportional to the energy you can use on Carbon Capture. That's why I believe a large expansion of Nuclear Energy would be needed.
Alongside a continued reduction in emissions, this is a practical path forward. Throwing new curveballs at the earth, while not addressing the present level of Carbon, is not.
That's not the point the author is trying to make. What he's saying is, whether you like it or not, it's cheap enough that somebody will do it, either a desperate government or an individual American technocrat.
If I did my back of the envelope math right, direct air capture (DAC) at the currently commercially feasible efficiency, powered by nuclear power could capture annually about as much CO2 as we emit annually if powered by around 2300 large nuclear plants.
It could also be done with roughly a million km^2 worth of solar panels.
I'm curious...do we have the resources to build either that many large nuclear power plants or that many solar panels?
In the United States I strongly suspect that at least one major political party's reaction to sulfur spraying would be to try to increase the production and use of coal and oil.
I suspect that this reaction would not be confined to the US.
We could end up in a situation where greenhouse gas levels in 50-100 years are massively higher than they are now, with heating being held in check by continual sulphur spraying.
It would then only take for something to disrupt the sulphur spraying for a year to have sudden massive warming.
It would make more sense to save sulphur spraying for after we are firmly on the road to zero emissions and have reached the point where it is not economically feasible to revive coal and oil. Then sulphur spraying as a temporary measure to lower temperature until our falling emissions make it unnecessary might be safe.
> “Of course the AWS S3 Express storage costs are still 8x higher than S3 standard, but that’s a non issue for any modern data storage system. Data can be trivially landed into low latency S3 Express buckets, and then compacted out to S3 Standard buckets asynchronously. Most modern data systems already have a form of compaction anyways, so this “storage tiering” is effectively free.”
This is key insight. The data storage cost essentially becomes negligible and latency goes down by a magnitude by making S3 Express as a buffer storage then moving data to standard S3. I see a future where most data-intensive apps would use S3 as main storage layer.
Mindless money that's being poured into carbon capture projects, would help grow and maintain forests for at least 10yrs. A recent example like Heirloom that just started its facility and would only capture 1000 tons per year. It took them 4yrs and $50M+ to build one facility. Even if they somehow were to build 1000 facilities annually, they would only capture 10M tons of carbon. Also think about the carbon they would release by building those facilities. We need to remove 2 billion tons of carbon per year at current levels of pollution. Carbon capture projects are just another type of climate grifting like carbon offsets etc.
I read that story as well, and while the company does promise increases in efficiency, the whole thing seems like a very expensive way to do very little.
Based on light googling, a mature tree can capture about 50lbs of carbon a year [1]. Assuming a few hundred trees per acre [2] you could get, let's say, 5 tons per year in the steady/mature state. Small numbers, but it adds up. Leander, TX is a suburb of Austin that sprung up in the last 50 years. It's a useful measure for me as 1) I have some intuitive comprehension of the size (37.5 sq miles) and 2) it was an area slowly developed over the last 50 years. If it were reforested (you wouldn't want to do this because, you know, people live there), we might get 100kton of capture a year (guesstimating). Repeat that 170,000 times and we can get back to the net emissions of the year 2000 - a 17gigaton reduction per year.
Of course, that would require planting an area double the size of the United States.
I looked up the world consumption of lumber in 2018 (pre-pandemic stuff). ~ 2.2billion cubic meters, a cubic meter of wood is ROUGHLY(really depends on species) 0.55 tons.
So If we doubled lumber production (which would help housing/construction and a lot of other sectors) wed at least offset the carbon created by roughly half.
Still wont come close to solving our CO2 emission issues but interesting because we could "get something" from the lumber vs just storing CO2.
Assuming 100% carbon capture into wood weight which is not realistic but I think it's a good thought exercise.
So converting mature trees into lumber is essentially locking out the carbon capture more dramatically, especially if used in long term uses like housing etc. Being turned into firewood would be drastically bad for CO2 capture.
What am I missing that makes you think I don't understand?
For multiple reasons we need actual foresters to build ecosystems, not just plant a bunch of trees. They also need to be built to maintain themselves, not be reliant on continued investment. Bonus points for building ecosystems that support a small amount of logging.
Best solution is reducing drastically our footprint, our consumption, instead of helping to grow forests, subsidizing gree businesses, why not heavily tax plane & car industry/usage, incentivize low-footprint lifestyles, educate?
No, because this solution to environmental problems is "our impact on the environment is going to cause a global depression and catastrophe due to changing climate! we must try to stop this by causing a global depression and catastrophe ourselves by drastically reducing consumption!"
Consumption that dumps carbon in the air needs to be replaced by consumption that doesn't. Power needs to be solar/wind/nuclear, cars need to be electric, things which are done cheaply with hydrocarbon sources need to be replaced with more expensive things with sustainable sources.
Trying to make people significantly lower their standard of living with fear of future consequences will not work. It just won't. In two ways... one: a lot of what's happened has already happened and is inevitable, there's no turning back from a few degrees of warming, oceans rising, and climate patterns changing; two: people won't do it.
Trying to chase the line of solving environmental problems with consumption reduction is pissing into the wind. You have to try to do things which will actually have effects instead of trying the impossible.
It's very easy to divide by 2 one's footprint, without a loss in "comfort", my lifestyle is even 1/20 of the average, and I'm totally fine, but definitely not asking average people to go that far, it's just to show it's possible
If that's done large scale, it's as if the world population were divided by 2 instantly
Reducing our footprint would help a lot tree to grow (they don't really like pollution and climate changes), but obviously we should still help forest to grow and migrate north (in north hemisphere), it's just not where the big win is currently
Trees grow by themselves above all if we reduce our footprint (and stop nonsense things like swimming pools, oversized houses, tennis courts, concrete everywhere, ..), Focusing on reducing footprint has such a big impact, it's easy to cut by half one's footprint, and if that's done largescale, it's basically as if the world population is divided by 2 instantly
Maybe "the world" needs to pay to countries with large forests (like Brazil) to maintain them, instead of paying them for cutting them down (lumber, agro, resources)
The opposite, "the world" needs to put trade sanctions and large tariffs on countries which have exports which are cheaper because they abuse the environment (deforestation, fossil fuel powered, etc.) and while they're at it: labor (wage slaves, child labor, unsafe practices, actual slavery).
Don't pay corrupt countries to be less corrupt, charge them a fee that makes bad practices more expensive than good ones.
This is a game. Dictators and developing economies are good at taking incentive payments and pocketing them.
They spent money here to put up boxes with special moss in around here.....
And when you think that they put carbon into greenhouses to make the plants grow more.. I reckon extra carbon just means extra growth in plant life. Ie the plants are a natural balancing mechanism.
There is no such thing as a carbon neutral human. We're ~20% carbon by mass.
I do agree with your point about money though--economic activity is the primary cause of our excessive carbon footprint. We need to change how we practice money such that "number go up" type thinking correlates with progress toward agreeable goals instead of correlating with the consumption of nonrenewable resources.
Every 15 people is a ton (on average). And while we can't remove 20 billion people, 6 billion or so would make a nice dent. Additionally, those people consume energy. Once their consumption drops to zero, we see additional savings.
I think I really have stumbled upon a solution here. The planet will be better off for it. What's wrong with this idea?
An increasing number of countries have declining birthrate. This slowly, steadily gets us in that direction but not without demographic problems and significant economic disruptions. Let's try keep it peaceful...
but ants are like a human who doesn't spend money, or like a bird, they are sustainable, no need to remove them
but no even need to be extreme/binary, 8 billion humans who live like a 3rd world country-side human and spend a little money is totally sustainable without any issue, because that's equivalent to less than a hundred million 1st world humans
This makes sense as Ford just adopted Tesla's NACS (North American Charging Standard) and GM would logically follow. We can now assume that the charging industry is disrupted by Tesla's NACS. Existing EV charging companies for ex. EVGO would need to upgrade all their chargers to adopt Tesla's connector.
Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas. The worst thing of this all Tesla would start selling chargers to networks and only moat existing charging companies have is the 10-15 years leases they have on charging sites.
Another thing I haven't seen mentioned in comments is that CCS standard is owned by BMW and they charge $50 patent fee on each connection.
> Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas.
100% Wrong
I can plug my Teslas into any J1772 charger with a dongle. I don't even use a Tesla charger at home. It's the same protocol, just a different plug shape.
I didn't buy the CCS adapter for my newer Tesla because there's a supercharger everywhere I want to go, and they're much more reliable. (That's also why I haven't paid to upgrade my older Tesla to be CCS compatible.)
> Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas.
They all work with Tesla models that support CCS. In North America it means buying a dumb adapter. In Europe everything is on CCS type 2 Combo so no adapter is needed and all brands of charger charge all brands of EV.
None of the reports around these NACS deals talk about which protocol will be used. They may end up using the CCS protocol with Tesla's plug.
Ultimately this is all the continued failure of North America to pick an EV charging standard. Incompatible infrastructure is a stupid outcome that's bad for everyone. It sounds like there's still years to go for North America to catch up to Europe.
> Ultimately this is all the continued failure of North America to pick an EV charging standard. ... It sounds like there's still years to go for North America to catch up to Europe.
Doubtful. I suspect that the US will standardize on NACS soon.
Then Europe will be playing catch up because it has a bulky charger connector compared to the US and China.
> I suspect that the US will standardize on NACS soon.
"Soon" being years away. So slow. The US is years behind as is.
> Then Europe will be playing catch up
What on earth are you talking about? All brands of charger charge all brands of EV in Europe. It's one of the reasons the European EV market is bigger than the North American market. There's been more common sense applied to infrastructure.
Europe will be stuck with a clunky CCS plug when the US has a lighter and easier to use plug.
Once these things get established, they are hard to change: In the US our 120 volt household wiring really limits appliances. "Instant" teakettles are common in the UK, and don't require special outlets. In the US, an "instant" teakettle would require a special outlet.
That's what happens when a country standardizes too early: The US had domestic electricity first... And picked a worse standard as a result.
> Europe will be stuck with a clunky CCS plug when the US has a lighter and easier to use plug
It isn't clunky. That's a bizarre claim to make and plainly not based on any practical experience with the CCS type 2 combo plug.
Europe has simply done EV infrastructure better than the US. The European EV market is bigger. The European charging networks are better, faster, and growing every month.
Feebly attempting to argue otherwise is childish. The proof is in the field and internet theorizing doesn't change that.
> In the US our 120 volt household wiring really limits appliances.
Wot, you mean like how Tesla chargers are 400 volt which limits 800+ volt EVs from charging at their maximum kilowatts? Plenty of CCS chargers already support 800 volt cars. It will take a number of years for Tesla to roll out upgrades to get all their chargers up to spec.
This makes sense as Ford just adopted Tesla's NACS (North American Charging Standard) and GM would logically follow. We can now assume that the charging industry is disrupted by Tesla's NACS. Existing EV charging companies for ex. EVGO would need to upgrade all their chargers to adopt Tesla's connector.
Currently none of the existing chargers, if it all, work with Teslas. The worst thing of this all Tesla would start selling chargers to networks and only moat existing charging companies have is the 10-15 years leases they have on charging sites.
IMO this effectively ends any CCS1 DC fast charging network.
There is an adapter for any tesla (except the OG roadster) to use CCS1 DC Fast charging plug; it's $450 for the elderly original model S cars to be updated to support the CCS1 protocol and you also get the big chonky plug adapter as well.
Apparently the new supercharger kiosks support 'ccs1' protocols with an adapter, so if you've got a CCS1 plug car you can avail yourself of the super new superchargers with that plug.
There's also an adapter to let you use L2 (AC "normal") chargers -- I think you get the adapter when you buy the car; it's just a passive adapter.
But this effectively kills all DC fast charging networks in the same way chademo is dead; there will be some population of cars to use it but it'll plateau and shrink and evaporate.
Good riddance to CCS1 -- the charging experience is astonishingly hostile compared to "drive up, plug-in, get coffee, come back, drive away". I can only imagine that there's a memo somewhere to the effect of "make DC fast charging so bad it drives people away from EVs"
