I agrée with this and have ripped claims about the pollution here on HN before, but there is SOME pollution, and it is necessarily worse for EVs vs ICE for the reasons above.

My definition:

A person who writes software that is closely bound to the operating system interface and/or hardware for reasons of performance and/or functionality.

I think its more of a person who builds "systems" for other programmers to use and work within

That's a valid broader definition but in practice I find it too broad to be very useful.

Suggesting one, using source repository analogy :

Below system level you can harmonize (merge) branches of the same system (repository). At system level you would harmonize repositories - might involve politics I guess

Tree vs forest (more than one root)

Beyond systems level would be organic (system of systems)

Does that make sense ?

Penrose looks pretty good:

https://github.com/penrose/penrose

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23430282

I was surprised the blog post did not mention Modes of Persuasion, which were codified in 4th century BCE by Aristotle.

Ethos: appeal to authority

Pathos: appeal to emotion

Logos: appeal to logic

I found the post's added description of more recent psychological studies interesting though.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

A lot has happened since 4kBC. Not sure if you noticed.

plus ça change...

It can be used either way, e.g. the word "century" means 100 years.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/centi-

Update: looked into this more and the "centi" part of the SI system comes from the Latin word "centum" which means 100, not 1/100. Definitely seems either usage is acceptable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/centimeter

Yes, Latin centum means 100; hence century, and the prefix centi was invented during the French Revolution, meaning 1/100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centi-). For hecto-, they took inspiration from the free ἑκατόν (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecto-)

(They did the same for 1000 and 1/1000, deriving milli from Latin millum and kilo from Greek χίλιοι, but used Latin for both deca- and deci-, and used Greek for both giga- and micro. So far for consistency)

I don’t see how it follows that either usage is acceptable.

That’s like saying risky and riskless can be used interchangeably because the both come from the word risk.

Edit: I don’t know why I even reached for an analogy, it’s exactly like saying hundred and hundredth are interchangeable.

No it's like saying biannual can mean twice a year or once every two years.

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. Language evolves.

Maybe, but in Europe, you'll finish off your 33 or 50 centilitre beer in a sitting and possibly a few more.

Lots of people have been working on this for a long time. But it's a very hard problem.

See for example

+ https://www.salk.edu/harnessing-plants-initiative/

+ https://www.slcu.cam.ac.uk/news/wood-modification-boosts-bio...

+ https://news.mongabay.com/2023/07/genetically-engineered-tre...

+ https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/science/genetically-modif...

> Are trees the plants which capture most CO2 per hectare?

I'm struggling to find exact numbers per hectare, and it's only one of several important metrics (e.g. speed of capture, longevity, ecosystem effects).

From my readings I believe a combined strategy of species-diverse reforestation and algae breeding (perhaps GM, though I don't know enough) would be optimal.

Edit: as noted by others below, wetlands preservation and extension would also be great.

A better wording for the title:

Reduction of sulfur emissions from ships has reduced masking of global warming

The word 'cause' in current title seems wrong.

Your suggested title is both vaguer and probably more wrong too: the thread claimed that cloud literally reflected the sunlight, causing less heat to go to the sea surface, there is no "masking" involved.

The current title is precise, the tweet chain is about sea surface temperature and the cause-effect of sulfur emission on the temperature. While it is related to global warming, and there might be other causes to sea surface warming as well, that is not what was discussed.

In terms of total global heat content sure. In terms of surface ocean temp, I'm not so sure you have a point. It's a pretty indirect path for greenhouse gasses to heat the ocean, and they can't push the water above the temp of their air.

Less shade however can cause solar heating well above air temperatures.

I don't know that you've considered the effects of more vs less ice covering the ocean.

Your rewording is inaccurate. There is no masking, it was actually reflecting energy away from earth, reducing warming. This is important because, turns out, we unintentionally ran an ethically dubious climate engineering experiment, the results of which can now be used to inform future possible climate engineering efforts.

This is newsworthy because the bacteria can function at lower temperatures (15 C) than previous bacteria discovered.

Haldane's four stages of acceptance:

1. This is worthless nonsense.

2. This is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.

3. This is true, but quite unimportant.

4. I always said so.

Stages 1 and 2 are approximately denial, stage 3 is the skepticism you mentioned

Quite a lot of people are researching this. For a Starting point, have a look at the 'harnessing plants' initiative at the Salk Institute:

https://www.salk.edu/harnessing-plants-initiative/