- 0 Posts
- 31 Comments
Yes. But what if the world was 1/3rd Linux, 1/3rd windows, 1/3rd OSX?
The 1/3 running macOS (they haven’t called in OS X in many years now) wouldn’t have to worry, because Apple provides kernel event access for security tools running in user space. The CrowdStrike Falcon Sensor driver on macOS runs as a System Extension, and runs 100% in user space (“Ring 3” in Intel parlance) only — so if it misbehaves, the kernel can just shut it down and continue on its merry way.
The problem with Windows (and to a certain extend Linux) is that Falcon Sensor needs to run in kernel mode (Ring 0) on those OS’s, and if it fucks up you lose all guarantees that the kernel and all of the apps running on the system haven’t been fucked with, hence the need for a full system crash/shutdown. The driver can (and did) put these systems in an indeterministic state. But that can’t happen on modern macOS with modern System Extensions.
They are, but you still need baseload. Solar and wind are great — when it’s daytime and/or the wind is blowing. Coal (and natural gas, hydro, and nuclear) can provide more scalable power on demand. These fill in the gaps for times when solar and wind production are lower.
But China isn’t likely to convert existing coal plants to natural gas. If they wanted to do that they could do it already — they have an LNG pipeline from Siberia. But instead of replacing existing coal power plants, China keeps approving new ones — it was reported last year they were approving two new coal fired plants per week. So even if they increased their LNG imports (they’re looking to open a second pipeline with Russia on the western side of the country), those coal plants aren’t going anywhere — with the rate they’re building new power plants, they’re not likely to be “upgrading” any coal plants to LNG anytime soon — they’ll just build additional LNG plants (and likely further coal plants) alongside those existing coal plants instead.
This is how the LNG argument typically goes: if we build up LNG capacity, we can ship it to China who can use it to replace coal burning power plants which emit significantly more CO2 than LNG fired plants do.
That sounds nice — but do we have any_ commitments from China that this would actually happen? Or is it more likely that they’ll just build more LNG capacity on top of their existing coal capacity?
To me, the latter seems more likely than the former.
A big reason for that programme was to try to take some of the most polluting vehicles off the road (either due to age or being in poor repair). There is no need for such a programme in a world of electric vehicles, so I doubt there would be any incentive for a government to run some a programme again.
It’s mostly improved chemistries and manufacturing processes. What we call “lithium ion batteries” aren’t the same today as they were even just in the 2010s. We have newer chemistries (lithium cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide, lithium iron phosphate, lithium manganese cobalt, lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide, etc.), newer solid state battery technologies, better cell packaging, and overall better manufacturing processes.
Will these cells still have 100% capacity after 15 years? Likely not — but even if they’re only at 80 - 90% of their original capacity that’s still quite a lot of driving capacity for most EVs.
Here is one non-peer reviewed study on Tesla battery deterioration, which shows that at the ~10 year mark, battery capacity loss is at around 17%. However, it’s worth noting that cars that hit the 8 through 10 year marks were more likely using older battery chemistry and construction techniques; newer cars at the 7 year mark only showed a roughly 7% battery capacity loss.
Time will tell, but the situation is significantly less bleak than naysayers (and the oil industry) want you to believe.
The batteries on modern EVs doesn’t wear anywhere near the rate that people think they do. A properly cared for battery (which doesn’t require much care other than keeping it charged properly) will easily last 15+ years — and likely beyond the lifetime of the car they were installed into. Manufacturers already offer 8+ year battery warranties on new EVs, because they know they can easily beat that (barring a manufacturing defect of some kind).
(In Japan, Nissan has been taking cells out of old Leafs that have at least 80% remaining capacity and are making them into home power packs. The Nissan Leaf was one of the first EVs and used an older battery chemistry — and even there, the batteries are typically outliving the cars they were originally installed into).
It’s a little difficult to say with certainty what the lifetime of an EV battery is going to be like right now, as EVs with modern chemistries aren’t yet 15 years old (they’re more like 5 to 7 years old at most). Anecdotally, those I know with EVs in that age range typically have less than 1% capacity loss (and ODB-II reader can typically check this for you, so it’s not difficult to determine).
Now of course it’s possible that someone has abused the hell out of their vehicle in ways that reduce the battery life (like routinely driving it to completely pull-over-to-the-side-of-the-road empty before recharging) — but as mentioned above an ODB-II reader will quickly show what the battery capacity is like. Hopefully used car sellers would check this themselves and provide it to buyers — but if not, ODB-II readers on Amazon aren’t terribly expensive to buy to check for oneself.
Battery wear concerns are going to be more for “classic” EV collectors in 30+ years time, and won’t be for your typical EV driver.
The levers available to the Federal Government in this area are few; the Provinces hold most of the cards when it comes to housing, and it disgusts me that all too many of my fellow Canadians have so little clue as to how the system works that they blame the Federal Government (and/or “Trudope”), while letting their Provincial leaders (the majority of which are Conservatives) off the hook.
Just today we’re seeing the Premiere of Alberta attempting to halt some of the Federal Governments deals with the municipalities to enhance housing supplies — purely because if they let the Feds provide assistance they won’t have a cudgel to hold against them anymore. It’s you don’t do enough to help and we won’t let you!
The only policy solution to the current housing woes is more housing supply. And that’s ultimately in the hands of the Provinces.
Truly “poor people” (to use your words) typically don’t buy a lot of new cars in the first place. People on the lower end of the income scale are the main drivers of the used vehicle market.
Incentivizing EV purchases and infrastructure ultimately helps everyone. It will bring efficiencies to the supply chain, and will drive investment into resources that should help drive prices down. At the same time, within the next 5 years or so you should see growth in the used EV market, which as more stock becomes available and used EVs become more normalized should make them more economical to purchase (as they’re already more economical to run and maintain).
More new EVs now means more used EVs down the road, which will allow people to get into a better car for less money.
That stat borders on being somewhat dishonest.
The three most populous Provinces in Canada (Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia) each have over 90% green power generation, either via hydroelectricity or via nuclear power. Manitoba likewise produces 97% of its electricity from hydroelectric sources.
Those four Provinces have a population of roughly 31 million people. Canada has a total population of just over 39 million — meaning “most provinces actually” only accounts for 20% of Canadians. 80% of Canadians get their electricity from 85+% green sources. By total capacity, nearly 70% of all electrical generation in Canada is from green sources, and thus “electric heat” for the vast majority of Canadians is not from coal and natural gas.
Agreed — I think replacing coal with natural gas is just a half-step that mostly benefits those with natural gas to sell, and just delays the overall transition.
But of course the people arguing for natural gas don’t care about that, so it’s easier to challenge them on the fact that they’re also inventing some pipe dream without evidence that if we could get gas to China that they’d suddenly be all for converting (or shutting down) coal fired plants — when there is _no evidence for that anywhere, and where they could be doing that today if they really wanted to.
There is always more that can be done, but the effects of the carbon tax go well beyond it being a “tax on life”.
Take for example Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie Ontario. They’ve been undergoing a major transformation from using constantly-burning coal to an Electric Arc Furnace — and they specifically call out carbon tax savings as one of the projects drivers.
That’s but one story of industry putting the investments into greener technologies to save from having to pay the carbon levy. I wish the media spent more time talking about such projects, because the levy is working.
You know what I love most about the levy? It’s effectively optional. I can’t opt out of making an income (not being born rich and not wanting to live under a vow of poverty), but I can opt out of generating carbon. We’ve been having the carbon discussion for 30 years now (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change came out in 1992!), and at least some of us were paying attention and made a plan to decarbonize our lifestyles during the last three decades. And for everyone who has, the Carbon Levy might as well not really exist. If you don’t burn, you don’t pay. Simple as that.
As I mentioned in another post on this topic, that “might” is doing a TON of heavy lifting in Higg’s argument.
AFAIK, no countries have stepped up to say they’d shut down coal fired plants if only they could get hold of more natural gas. China usually comes up in this conversation, but they already have a pipeline with Russia that supplies natural gas, and AFAIK it isn’t even at capacity yet. If China really wanted to replace coal with natural gas, they’d be doing it now with Russian gas, and wouldn’t have to wait the decade-plus it would take to get the infrastructure built to ship Canadian natural gas to them.
If Higgs draws a dick on his forehead I might give him $100. I probably won’t, and have never discussed any plans to do so, but who knows? I might!
Honestly, I hate these memes. As an old school hacker/programmer who has been doing this for many decades, I can usually just start thinking in code and start dumping out everything I need from my brain through my fingers to the keyboard. I never copy-and-paste code from online for something I’m coding (I don’t count something like copying a script to do a quick shell task of some-sort; for something like Amazon’s directions for installing Corretto I’m not going to type all that out manually; and I don’t really consider that “programming”).
But as a tech manager (and former University comp.sci instructor), I know this happens more often than I’d prefer. But some of the worst code I’ve had to review has been copy-and-paste jobs where the developer didn’t understand the task correctly and jammed in something they found online as a quick solution. I get that I started in a generation where you had to understand the problem and code the solution from scratch (because the Internet crutch wasn’t what it is today) — but the fact that so many younger developers revel in the fact they copy-and-paste code on the regular makes me sad.
Truth being spoken here.
Yes, housing is expensive in Canada. The primary villain here? The Provincial governments. But they’re getting away with it scot-free while idiots blame “Trudope”.
Similar with the Climate levy. The biggest complaining Provinces have had years to put in their own carbon-pricing schemes to get out from under the Federal backstop, but decided to do nothing. Indeed, Alberta and Ontario had their own systems, but scrapped them because apparently they thought it was better to “blame Trudope” than to actually help their constituents by implementing carbon pricing schemes that would work for their needs.
And voters are letting the get away with it. And their lives won’t improve under Pollievre, because their Provincial leaders will keep pulling the same crap, and voters will continue to let them get away with it.
A day later, Higgs and Smith put forward similar ideas — arguing that if Canada exported more natural gas, it might be used to displace dirtier coal power in other countries.
That word might is doing a whole lot of heavy lifting here.
Do we have any actual evidence that China (or anyone else for that matter) would actually offset any coal plants with Canadian Natural Gas, instead of just burning that natural gas in addition to coal? Retrofitting a power plant for natural gas isn’t free, and China can already get lots of natural gas from Russia if they wanted (the Power of Siberia pipeline can handle 61 billion cubic meters per year, but only delivers about 23 bcm/year). Nothing is stopping China from moving from coal to natural gas — but there appears to be no real will to do so.
This argument from the two Prairie Premiers sounds a whole lot more like wishful thinking than actual policy.
If I were purely greedy, I’d wish my Province (BC) used the Federal backstop programme most of the rest of the country is using. You guys don’t know how good you have it. I don’t get any rebate cheques from the BC Government — and as someone who was paying attention for the last 30 years I’ve done a lot to decarbonize my life, so the Federal rebate would be nearly 100% pure profit in my pocket.
Arbitrarily and suddenly destroying all apps built with a certain tech stack…
Except they aren’t. Sure, PWAs may be slightly more disadvantaged on iOS/iPadOS than they are now, but they haven’t been “destroyed”. And they continue to work exactly as they did with the prior iOS/iPadOS release in all the rest of the world.
Everyone seems to think Apple is playing some sort of 4D Chess to kill off PWAs — but if Apple wanted to kill off PWAs they could just disable the functionality completely globally tomorrow, and they’d likely face no repercussions for doing so. They don’t even need an excuse to do so.
I’m not claiming that Apple is acting honourably here; merely that if they actually wanted to kill PWAs it wouldn’t require some sort of Rube Goldberg machine-style planning to do it. There is no conspiracy here.
Well, non-polluting passenger vehicles are happening, and here in Canada by 2035 all passenger vehicles sold will (at a minimum) need to be PHEVs that can travel up to 80km on a single battery charge.
Unless of course idiot voters bring in a Conservative government, and they remove the certainty the Liberal government has given automakers around EV sales in Canada.
You can’t have public transportation that takes everyone everywhere they need (or want) to be. Ever order food delivery? You can’t do that by bus or train. Would you expect the Presidential motorcade to switch to getting on a subway? Do you expect every plumber, electrician, landscaper, and handyman who needs a van or truck to haul their equipment from home to home to do repairs just bring 10 guys on the bus with them?
We’ll still need passenger vehicles, full stop. Should we design cities and transit so that we need less of them? Sure — but it’s impossible to replace all of them, as public-option transport just can’t do everything we use passenger vehicles for today. Public transit is only about moving people, but sometimes those people need to drag equipment around with them, or need additional security, or have need to go somewhere where dedicated transit options aren’t financially viable — and for those cases, we still need non-polluting passenger vehicles.
It’s not an either-or situation; we’ll always need a mix of transit capabilities.
Besides which, transit has many of the same issues, and benefits from the same technologies. We need to remove diesel and gas busses, trams, and trains from the roads as well, often using much the same technologies the anti-EV crowd puts down passenger EVs for.
Everything I stated for why EVs are better for the environment goes for electric driven public transit too.
There is an environmental cost to nearly everything — but the cost for virtually everything related to EVs is significantly less than those of ICE vehicles, especially in a country like Canada where over 80% of our electricity is from hydroelectric sources, and over 90% of it is from non-carbon-emitting sources.
Yes, the batteries (today) need lithium. That’s not likely to be true moving into the future — China is already releasing an 2024 model based on a sulphur battery. However, what many people (and this article) conveniently ignore is that ICE vehicles use rare-earth metals as well. For example, very ICE vehicle uses palladium (one of the rarest metals on earth) for the catalytic converter — a rare earth metal not required in EV production. And Russia produces 40% of the global supply of palladium.
And oil refining uses cobalt as part of the de-sulphuring process. A lot of cobalt. Over its lifetime the average ICE vehicle will use more cobalt than any EV being manufactured today.
EV batteries are recyclable — up to 95% recyclable. But even before disposal is needed, used EV batteries can be repurposed — Nissan in Japan already resells Leaf batteries with >80% capacity as home backup and camping power packs, and elsewhere in the world used EV batteries are finding a new life as solar power generation storage. Sourcing lithium from used EV batteries cells is vastly more economical than mining for new lithium, so we’ll likely hit a steady-state where only minimal mining is required for new EVs. EV battery recycling is somewhat nascent right now as the oldest EVs are barely 12 years old, and many of those are still on the road.
The worries about the environmental cost of EVs is vastly overstated — especially when you set them side-by-side with ICE vehicles. Anyone who unabashedly drives an ICE vehicle but then complains about how polluting EVs are is being completely disingenuous.
And? I’ve never seen anyone anywhere argue otherwise. Even the original CBC article pointed that out pretty clearly.
(Although I’ll point out the Piapot First Nation has recently come out to say her name isn’t on their membership role, so apparently the claims there are highly tenuous).
The problem isn’t that Ms. St.-Marie claims to be native because she was adopted as an adult not a native community — it’s that she has claimed for decades that she was a 60s scoop survivor, born on a Canadian reservation and adopted by white parents — none of which is true. She’s changed her story about her heritage multiple times, at times claiming she knew and visited her indigenous birth mother regularly, and other ties (like now) claiming she doesn’t know who her indigenous birth mother is. She’s claimed to have been from multiple tribes — all before being adopted as an adult into the Piapot First Nation family.
If I had been adopted as an adult by a black family, that wouldn’t give me the right to go around claiming I was a runaway slave from the pre-Civil War southern US, who came to Canada via the Underground Railroad. Ms. St.-Marie doesn’t (and shouldn’t) get a pass for her lies.
She isn’t native by heritage — and that is what she’s been lying about for decades, and that is what people have a problem with. If she “feels” native by adult adoption she just had to say so, and not lie about her actual heritage for the last 50+ years.
McDonald’s for years really stepped up their coffee game.
McDonalds found themselves in a weird place in the 90’s. Drive-throughs were tremendously successful, to the point where they had massive amounts of real estate that was primarily empty inside. People weren’t eating in as much, and so the dining rooms were empty.
Hence refurbishments and the introduction of McCafe — the whole point of which was to encourage more people to come in and use the dining rooms (and by sticking around, maybe buy more stuff than they would if they just came through the drive through). It’s why they introduced baked goods and mini doughnuts — back in the 80’s the only “baked goods” you’d get were apple pies and boxes of prepackaged mini cookies. Coffee and baked goods were the driver to get people to sit inside the restaurants more often — and if you go to any McDonalds in Canada in an area with a decent number of retirees, I’d say it seems to have worked.
Likely nobody had any real need to dig, and had little reason to doubt her assertions that she was adopted out and her birth certificate had been destroyed. These had sufficient “truthiness” about them to pass a basic sniff test.
I do have to wonder if the Advisory Council of the Order of Canada will consider rescinding her membership over this.
I think the fact this is coming out now and is being discussed so much means that a lot of people really care about full/mostly-full blooded native individuals, and that they feel this sort of misrepresentation of heritage is wrong and harmful.
The fact it’s taken 60 years to get to this point says something sad about how much people cared about this in the past — but I’d like to think the attention this story is getting means this is changing for the better, and that most settler Canadians don’t agree that people should be allowed to misrepresent their heritage to the ultimate detriment of the First Nations people of this country.
There is a big gulf between “belonging to a tribe” and claiming to be a Sixty’s Scoop survivor born at a hospital that never existed.
I don’t think anyone (certainly not the CBC) is claiming that the Cree Nation and the Piapot family weren’t allowed to adopt her, and that she isn’t a member of that nation. But the evidence points, beyond the shadow of doubt, that she was born to a white Italian American family in Boston. And that she has a long history of lying about her original heritage (often changing the story when it’s convenient for her), and threatening her own family if they outed her.
So she’s perfectly allowed to be “tribal” — that seems to not be in contention. But she shouldn’t be lying about being a Sixty’s Scoop baby who never knew her birth mother (which is odd, considering she would have been a teenager when the Scoop started in the 50’s), or about being born in Canada and adopted (both her birth certificate and her own family refute this), or about her birth certificate having been destroyed in a fire in a facility that never existed, or about her changing tribal heritage (first Mi’kmaq, then Algonquin, then Cree), or about whether her mother was dead or alive…
The lies are the problem, along with the benefits she’s obtained from those lies. If the relevant Cree Nation wants to keep her, and the Piapot family claims her as one of their own — that’s perfectly fine and within their right. But that doesn’t give Ms. St-Marie the right to rewrite her own personal history. There is a big difference between “citizenship”, “family bonds”, and “heritage” — and it’s the latter of which she appears to have lied about for a very, very, very long time.
We’ve known about this problem for over 20 years now. Alberta has done the bare minimum to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels for electrical generation.
And Alberta still has 12 years to bring new capacity online. That will have been 32 years in which they sat with their hands against their ears and did little but yell OIL OIL OIL!
If the Albertans government was so concerned for those in the north of the Province, they would have got to work decades ago. Global warming isn’t a new phenomenon they’ve only known about for the least 2 years. Other Provinces have successfully shut down their CO2 emitting power plants during this time — Alberta absolutely should not get a pass on this as a reward for doing close to squat for the least 2 decades.
Any full cadaver liver that could have gone to this woman didn’t get thrown into the garbage — it went to someone else who would have died without it.
As for the living donor liver her boyfriend offered, even though he was a match her level of liver failure likely meant that the partial liver her boyfriend could have donated wouldn’t have been successful. Living donors still need a liver for themselves, and we each only have one full liver — so the best they could have done is given her half a liver. Her condition was too poor for this to have a likely positive outcome, which was why this was also denied.
It sucks, but there aren’t enough donor livers for everyone who needs one. The cadaver liver she was denied however would have gone on to save the life of someone else you’re not hearing about in the press — someone else who may have died without it.
If the unfairness of it all upsets you that much, then make sure you’ve signed your organ donor card, and make sure your family members know and understand your desire to be an organ donor. And encourage the people you know to do the same. This is only a problem because there aren’t enough donor livers for everyone — when you have n livers, at best you can save n lives — and thus having a larger number of donor livers allows for more lives to be saved, with fewer qualifications.