This is why social media ToS are typically concise and clear: "License agreement: We spy on you and sell your information to anyone that's interested, press accept to continue".
Agreed. "Selling user data" is just a nice catchphrase thrown around by people who didn't look into how FB ads really makes money and how they really work.
Just at a cursory evaluation, it makes no sense, because if Facebook sold the data directly, why would advertisers even need Facebook after that? All of those questions can be answered by simply playing around with FB Advertising UI for less than an hour. But hating on FB is fashionable now, regardless of whether the reasons are justified or not. Given how there are plenty of legitimate issues with Faceebook, it really annoys me when people throw around these types of questionable accusations against FB without even looking into the subject matter first, because it just weakens legitimate criticism of FB.
Back to the topic at hand, you are totally on point about the billboard analogy. If you are a business, you don't go to Facebook and say "give me the data of these users", you say, for example, "here is my ad, show it to users who are in this geographic area Z between ages X and Y who are into surfing and indie music". And then you get to see stats about interaction of those users with your ad, like "users who are closer to age X than age Y are more likely to click on your ad", so you draw a conclusion that your ad doesn't seem to appeal as much to the upper boundary of your target age range, maybe you need to tweak the ad or split it into 2 separate ads (one for users between ages X and (X+Y)/2, and another for ages between (X+Y)/2 and Y). At no point you get any additional info on the users, and neither do you get any individual user info, just anonymized aggregates.
Hey guys, I just wanted to say that it looks completely natural that a short sarcastic post about social media in general gets followed by two suppressing posts that very specifically defend Facebook, completely have each others backs and also delivers a little ad hominem.
If you are trying to imply that I am shilling for FB or a FB employee, you are welcome to DM me, and I can send you an email from my work address as a proof (which is another known big tech company, one of those that don't have their own ad platform, so I literally have no horse in this race).
Did you find anything factually wrong with what I said about how running FB ads works? Because you just accused me of being a shill, but you weren't able to provide a counterpoint to any factual things I've said in my original comment.
Also, I am not defending FB. I literally said they have plenty legitimate things to be criticized for. But with baseless accusations about FB like the ones higher in the thread, they just cause legitimate criticism to get washed out and get lumped along with baseless accusations.
The words "Team", "Hero" and "Action" are conspicuously missing from the acronym MOBA.
Given that the phrase "multi-player" traditionally didn't say anything about playing on the same side, I'd say that Starcraft fits the bill just as well as League.
Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*" (I can't find the double asterisk footnote) until 2050, it seems unreasonable that a ~250EJ "blue team" (hydro, nuclear, other renewables) could plug a ~500EJ hole created by the "red team" (coal, oil, fossil gas).
We need a magnitude more clean power and all the wind, solar and wishful thinking in the world aren't going to cut it.
> Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*"
I don't know where these figures come from, but the IEA underestimating the deployment of renewable energy, as well as cost reductions, has become a running joke among people who model energy or study the electric grid.
Renewable energy is a growing and profitable field, and if you're concerned about not having enough clean electricity to power carbon removal, there are many opportunities to work full time on expanding renewable energy.
>> Even assuming the forecast 5x increase in "renewables*"
> I don't know where these figures come from /../
There is a link to a well respected statistics site right above the line you are quoting, so if you don't know where the figures are coming from, that says a lot.
The data don't come from "statista.com", that's just where the graph is hosted. Clicking on the "sources" link, to see where the data actually came from, brings up a paywall.
So, no, it is not clear where these data actually come from, it's not straightforward to find out without paying, and my point, about the IEA being very, very wrong in its projections about renewable energy for more than a decade, still stands.
The source is available without paying, you could have had asked.
"I don't know where these figures come from" isn't a question, it's the start of a bad faith argument.
As for your claim about the IEA, you're welcome to post some source to back that claim, other readers may be interested.
> carbon sequestration [will] likely require energy
Yes, but that doesn't mean we won't need it.
Take air planes. We can't just put batteries in there: too low energy density or something (I'm no physicist, but they won't fly very far is what I gather). But by capturing the CO2 (at exhaust, or atmospherically) that they put out, we can have both airplanes and a stable climate -- assuming it's all done right.
Who wants to have a wind turbine in their back yard? A nuclear power plant? Who lives near that hydro plant in the middle of nowhere? We could instead capture CO2 away from people if power is cheap, before sending the rest down a slightly lossy transmission path.
Driving regular passenger vehicles electrically is definitely less energy intensive than capturing the GHGs that a combustion engine produces, so it would obviously be counter-productive to use capture technology for those sorts of things. But we can use it for other things like chemical processes that produce a GHG as a byproduct where it's hard to capture (new buildings using concrete, for example) or when we don't have the technology to get rid of the emissions.
Right now, the quickest wins are from emission reduction. This capture technology is something we need to have ready for the next phase of keeping our natural habitat stable.
I went to a wind turbine some time because I was curious how loud it would be. It doesn't seem that loud actually. Maybe it's more the looks? (Personally, it's not that terrible and, well, we don't have a choice so define some nature reserves and for the rest go ahead.) Either way, I meant it more in the proverbial NIMBY sense rather than that literally everyone feels the same way about them.
One of the more exciting things in green aviation is "air to fuels". There are companies working on converting atmospheric carbon into hydrocarbons for storage (using renewable energy). Those hydrocarbons can then be used as jet fuel, so it's isn't carbon-negative, but at least it's carbon-neutral. Any hydrocarbons left over that are stored are carbon-negative.
Ack, I know of those. Isn't that the same thing as carbon capture? It also uses more energy to capture the carbon than the fuel will produce after burning. Just that the output is usable fuel (yay put it back in the atmosphere ^^' but better burning circular than burning fossil fuels) rather than rocks like Climeworks and Olivine output.
I never actually saw anyone compare the options. Anyone know if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) per ton of CO2 to turn atmospheric CO2 into rock and continue using fossil fuels for another century until oil really starts playing hard to get, or if it's cheaper (or less energy-intensive) to use this air-to-fuel technology?
And geo-thermal - that is currently being used in Iceland by Carbfix + Climeworks.
Also worth noting that a lot of these technologies do thorough lifecycle analysis to make sure that despite the energy usage required they are still carbon negative.
If you know ahead of time that you need a massive amount of power, and you have no location constraints, then first you'd buy up all the 'free' power from hydro stations that don't have enough transmission capacity.
Next you'd probably build geothermal power stations at a huge scale in iceland or a similarly volcanic places. That power is still cheaper than solar or natural gas by a decent margin.
Nuclear is a contender only if you can find a place willing to let you skip all the red tape and build rather unsafe 1970's designs...
All of these systems are going to require radical construction of hundreds and hundreds of nuclear reactors.
This has economics of scale benefits, and I expect reactors such as the ones discussed in this video: https://youtu.be/7gtog_gOaGQ
to be produced on a factory line extremely quickly.
> Our network cards need PCIe 3.0, so that disqualifies 5 chipsets right away: only the A520, B550 and X570 chipsets remain.
No, the linked Wikipedia page only shows the PCIe lanes connected through the chipset and doesn't account for PCIe lanes provided directly from supported CPUs. X470 supports CPUs which have PCIe 3.0 and a board with x8/x8 mode like the ROG Strix X470-F https://www.asus.com/microsite/motherboard/AMD-X470/ should work just fine (and has no fan).
California does not consider hydro to be renewable, so according to California law Costa Rica has not been running on renewable energy. This is to point out California needs to redefine hydro into a renewable resource.
Most implementations of hydroelectric power involve cutting off and severely degrading the habitat of aquatic life, both upstream and downstream. Societies depend on these resources so it's hard to justify calling hydro power sustainable in a general sense. To those negatively impacted by the dam, it rightly feels like a ruthless power grab by outsiders coming to steal water and energy without any thought for the livelihoods that are destroyed.
Of course hydro power can be done correctly, assuming the collaboration of all the stakeholders in the watershed and careful tradeoffs. How many dams were built with such an equitable process?
Given hydro power's well-documented negative impacts, and our arsenal of other truly renewable energy sources, damming new rivers should be a last resort. In the US at least there is a strong trend of dam removal - many ill-considered hydro projects are costly to maintain, an economic loss to society as a whole, and a detriment to the environment. Quite far from any feasible definition of "renewable resource".
California is already using as much hydro power as is available for it to use. That use all happens upstream from the agricultural use; they do not compete. Agricultural use competes with wildlife and fishery, instead.
California also generates a really large amount of its power geothermally. We don't hear much about the many mature geothermal projects.
Because of ecosystem and water footprint impacts associated with dams, in conjunction with the operational requirements of power generation. Dams obviously convert a river into a lake and impede/alter natural migratory patterns. Less obviously, hydroelectric power generation dictates a pattern of water release that is at odds with other demands on water usage, for human and natural usage purposes. (You can imagine that downstream environments might benefit from water flow which is more steady, or which follows natural rhythms; this is in conflict to some degree with grid demand for power.)
How is it fraud if they actually deliver a product, but late? Wouldn't fraud be never delivering a product after taking money for it? Granted, the IF in the first sentence is still looming over them.
I hate super positve PR propaganda too, and a skeptical eye should always be applied. Fraud is still used when talking about Tesla, yet they clearly have developed products. Yes deadlines were missed. I'm willing to give Boom a bit of leeway.
Delivery time is a feature of the product you are selling.
Say I'm looking for a bike. Person A is selling one I like and promises to deliver after two weeks. Person B is selling one I like a bit less, but promises to deliver after one week. I might now choose to buy from person B, even if I like the bike a bit less.
If I buy from person B and they deliver after three weeks, there's a problem. Why did it take three times as long? Did they ever intend to deliver after one week? Should they have known they wouldn't be able deliver after one week? They got the order based on a feature they didn't deliver. If that was intentional, that's fraud.
