Because per capita is the only thing that makes sense.

If China were to split into 10 countries each emitting 10% of what they do now it'd be the exact same emissions, but according to you it would be much better.

Similarly if the EU would become one country, that country would be high up on the list, much higher than member countries now! Oh no!

Looking at per capita emissions is much more fair.

Anyway, China's emissions are falling since last year ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha... ). What's the US doing?

It can't realistically be solved at a per capita level though

Individuals can of course make choices to reduce their emissions, Americans more than most since they're starting higher. Buy less new stuff, eat less meat, fly less, etc.

But policy is where real change needs to be made, and the effects of policy still scale with population in most cases.

Maybe we should start trying before we conclude that.

I disagree, I feel (experienced) developers are excellent at this.

It's always about translating between our own domain and the customer's, and every other new project there's a new domain to get up to speed with in enough detail to understand what to build. What other professions do that?

That's why I'm somewhat scared of AIs - they know like 80% of the domain knowledge in any domain.

Allowing advertising quickly makes everything about getting more eyeballs and therefore more income from advertising. Users aren't the customer, they are the product.

That directly leads to all these addictive dark patterns.

Users can pay for services they use.

If that's not viable enough, so be it.

I write down:

- To-do items (with empty checkboxes)

- Notes about what I did, every so often. Or what I talked to someone about, what was decided.

- If I'm programming, I try to have a kind of plan for the next fifteen minutes / hour in a few sentences. "Going to refactor this now." "Updating the state here so it can hold this information." "Adding a component for this". Just so that I do think about what I'm going to do for a bit.

That sort of thing.

Apart from the to-do's the main point is to keep my focus, when I'm writing thoughts on paper I'm not on Hacker News. It doesn't matter all that much what the writing is, to me.

> In my view nonnegative real numbers have good physical representations: amount, size, distance, position.

Rational numbers I guess, but real numbers? Nothing physical requires numbers of which the decimal expansion is infinite and never repeating (the overwhelming majority of real numbers).

I should've mentioned nonnegative integers, as they correspond to the amount of discrete things.

I don't see any difference between rational numbers and reals. Their decimal expansion has nothing to do if they correspond anything physically existing or not, nor do any other difference between rationals and reals seem relevant.

But you won't have poverty related stress.

There is no actual "panther" animal though, the word is used for several different animals (leopards, jaguars and pumas at least, I think).

They can all have melanistic coats and are then often called black panthers. But that's not a species.

I believe the poster you're replying to understands that. They're noting that the complaint about panther was curiously because they had already listed tiger, which is practically never called a panther, and not because they already listed leopard, which is a cat that is often called a panther. The statement about meaning "any big cat" I would guess to be a confusion based on the name Pantherinae for the subfamily of Felidae of which all these big cats are part. Though the puma, which as you note is also called a panther, is in the different subfamily, Felinae.

I personally just tend to avoid the word panther, because it very often causes confusion as to which cat you're talking about.

I think the bacteria in your gut outnumber the human cells in your body.