There are rarely laws that say you may not kill another person. There are typically laws that lay out the consequences if you are found guilty of murdering someone, through a designation (eg if it's a felony offense, and what type of felony).
Whether you're guilty of murder or not is of course established after the fact. And you can do nothing wrong in the act of killing someone and still get screwed by a jury. Just ask the political left what they think of Kyle Rittenhouse being innocent.
You can certainly follow the law and go to jail regardless.
It's insufficient - there's a cap on how much carbon we can stop emitting, and maxing that out will not be enough to halt climate change. Agreed though, in the sense that we should fully fund the cheap options while also funding research on going carbon negative.
+0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths.
Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction, but both are moves in the right direction.
> +0 tonnes is not equivalent to -1 tonne of C02 emission, because maths.
Right, but we're talking about -1 tonne (reducing emissions) vs -1 tonne (taking carbon out of the atmosphere) and last I checked, -1 tonne is equivalent to -1 tonne.
> Reducing current C02 levels is more difficult and expensive than just reducing C02 output, and has a greater impact on overall reduction
It makes sense to me that it's easier/cheaper to reduce C02 output (at least as long as there is lots of low-hanging fruit), but it doesn't make sense to me that one would have a greater impact than the other.
If you look at "reducing 1 tonne" of emission as -1 to the current emission output, sure. But if you see it as +0 to the current C02 levels, it's different math.
-1 tonne (active output) is not equivalent to -1 tonne (overall C02 levels)
It's splitting hairs over what we consider to be better. Either is an improvement that I am happy to see.
Pretend we have 5 tonnes of co2 in the air. If I have an emitter, say someone wanting to burn a forest. That would emit 1 tonne. Or I have a sequestration process that would remove 1 tonne.
I can pay $X to either #1 or #2. In #1 case I stop the addition, e.g. 5 tonnes total. In #2 the forest gets burned so I'm up to 6 tonnes, but I've pulled down 1 tonnes so back to 5 tonnes.
As mentioned by other posters, there are a _ton_ of side benefits of the different approaches (burn forest for agriculture) vs other benefits of forests. But it seems like from a pure CO2 in atmosphere the two approaches should be similar?
Nimbus Sans was designed to be a complete lookalike for Helvetica. I'm not sure how they got away with it, except that the IP laws protecting fonts are rather weak.
The GPL version was produced to be included with Ghostscript, which itself is GPL, so that wasn't an issue. I'd be very wary of using it with any other project.
Noto. It feels like having access to an entire professional foundry as a FOSS download.
Though the sans is humanist and not neo-grotesk like Helvetica.
Hell, Noto Sans is available in more weights than Helvetica Neue LT Pro. I've actually found myself wishing that Helvetica Neue LT Pro had a real demi instead of jumping from medium to bold. Noto solves that problem.
1) If I click a different period in a chart, it should show me the different in price over that period as a %. I want to be able to see the chart for the last 6 months and be told what % the price changed.
2) It needs options chains.
Some small tweaks would also be nice:
1) The news line length is basically unreadable.
2) Font size is too small. Really hard to read the site.
Because Sidewalk has avoided answering those questions. If you go to the meeting all they will say is that "we don't know" The meetings have been a giant waste of time.
I went to the first meeting and felt they did a pretty good job responding to concerns. There were some protesters outside before the event, expressing concerns about affordable housing, but by the end of the meeting, after a bit of back-and-forth in the Q&A, it looked like even they felt they were being taken seriously.
