If they're already an "enthusiast, grad student, hacker", are they likely to choose the "plumbers and people that know how to build houses" career track?
True passion for one's career is rare, despite the clichéd platitudes ecouraging otherwise. That's something we should encourage and invest in regardless of the field.
I'm not implying this was your original intention, however without providing any commentary other than the Wikipedia quote your reply read to me like a "rebuttal" or counterargument to the OP. Furthermore, it comes across like a lazy one (perhaps explaining the downvotes?).
While interpreting it as such goes against the "assume the best" ethos of HN, in an argumentative thread such as this it's an understandable reflex.
I think this is a good point, however over time I believe less and less of option (2) will be used. Option (1) will become ubiquitous, and it is important it is done well. The researchers signing the letter should be exactly the ones helping improve the models used, as they obviously care enough to consider the inherent biases and societal effects.
Just because they choose to "opt out", it doesn't mean everyone else will. It leaves the task to a smaller pool of competent people (best case), or unscrupulous people out to make a quick buck or push an agenda (worst case).
Another is organisations will keep the same content (as this is what drives clicks and profitability), however change the language used to describe it.
I would say this outcome is worse, as it leads to things like newspeak, muddying of definitions, and an increase in accusations of dogwhistling (accurate or otherwise). We may already be on this path, but it would be accelerated.
That's a cat an mouse game though - Facebook will react by also flagging the new definitions. The problem is the keywords themselves, but the act of Facebook banning them.
The title is far from "clear" or "accurate". Attention-getting for sure.
I had no idea what the premise of the article would be without clicking on it. The article's thesis: "abolish cop shit in the classroom" would make a more accurate title (albeit still inflamatory to those sensitive to the language).
Titles aren't always supposed to be perfect summaries. Nobody reasonable complains that "The Sun Also Rises" is not in fact a book about daybreak. But if you're concerned about people's "sensitivity", then presumably putting "cop shit" in the title is even more important, so that those delicate flowers know not to click.
I think an important point the author is trying to make is that we don't know how this is going to play out, with "scenario planning" being a central theme of the article.
We have only experienced a few of the pandemic's direct effects a few months in, and in many parts of the globe the first wave is still in full swing. The second- and higher-order effects are largely unknown at this point, and many will only be fully understood by future historians.
While the direct comparison to WWI/II may be hyperbolic, I think it's a fair assessment to say that COVID is the biggest, truly global event since. During each war there were many turning points that may have ended them early, turning them into smaller, regional conflicts. The people who experienced the first six months of them weren't to know they would leave tens of millions dead and society changed forever after. Now I'm not suggesting that COVID will be on remotely this scale, however I believe the author's argument that it will likely trigger large societal change, and to try and prepare accordingly, is a good one.
Perhaps you didn't mean it in a literal sense, however you and I have a very different opinion on the term realistic.
I believe a deus ex machina type carbon capture solution is a far more likely scenario than getting industrialised nations, let alone emerging ones, to actually reduce their energy usage.
Good point, I meant "realistic" as the only technologically plausible scenario. Is it realistic from a human point of view, I don't know.
I see what you mean, but even if a magical carbon capture solution was invented, it would take several decades for it to be implemented on a sufficient scale - given that the current emissions don't increase even faster!! I can't consider it as part of any "likely" scenario.
Also, emerging nations don't really need policies to reduce their own energy usage, as long as most of their own energy usage is linked to the production chain of industrialized nations, it will decrease by itself.
That's not the only technologically plausible scenario, we can use nuclear now. It's also way more realistic from a human point of view to have populations accept this rather than a drastic and sudden lifestyle change.
"using nuclear now" is part of the scenario. Any technology that has brought more efficient, less co2-intensive energy thus far has been used to increase the energy usage at a limited impact, instead of decreasing the impact. Only a policy focused on reducing (or at the very least, stopping the increase) energy usage can have positive final results.
À significant part of the population accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months. Suddenly remote work and visio conferences are acceptable alternatives to driving 2tons of metal through 30km of asphalt 2x a day. Change is possible.
I think your second paragraph is misplaced. It's my belief that people "accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months" precisely because it was advertised as a temporary measure.
We're already seeing large numbers of people reject the "stay at home" narrative , simply because they want to, rather than it being driven by improving conditions.
Using this as evidence to suggest that people will adjust to a "new normal" is arguing against your point.
I see what you mean, and I don't think it's gonna be easy either, I don't have false hopes.
Technically though, being locked down is more restrictive than forcing people to move in small electric cars or e-bikes. Just like remote work has jumped up in the lead few months, if proper measures are taken and enforced, demand for bike /rail infrastructures will increase immediately.
People can adapt. How many will resist to change, is the question.
Premiums could be priced in such a way that it takes into account your personal record, to incentivise your own behaviour; your local/metro PD's record, to incentivise them policing each other; and the state's record in an attempt to address systemic and cultural issues.
Your body cam "malfunctioned"? Congratulations, you just increased the insurance premiums for yourself and all your colleagues.
True passion for one's career is rare, despite the clichéd platitudes ecouraging otherwise. That's something we should encourage and invest in regardless of the field.