Exactly, as if you'd have a mad dog that bites others, it's your responsibility to have it on the leash.

Their money comes from somewhere, and that somewhere is many times a source of great suffering. If they had to make that somewhere adhere to rules or abide by law or stop exploiting others - humans or nature - it would cost them a great amount of money.

If that's true it would mean fixing this injustice would just even out who gets to have what. It would not meaningfully reduce consumption, certainly not enough to make a huge difference in CO2 emissions.

(There might be one exception to that: reducing warfare. War is a gigantic waste twice over: tons of energy to fight, tons of energy to rebuild all the stuff we break. But I doubt eliminating warfare would be enough alone to cut emissions enough to matter.)

There's only two ways to reduce CO2 emissions by a large amount in a durable lasting way:

1. Replace CO2 emitting sources of power with those that don't emit CO2.

2. Destroy the middle class.

Actually I guess there's a third: kill a lot of people.

Anything less is a rounding error that won't make much of a difference.

I'll take option 1. Luckily the laws of physics say we can do it. We just need the political will. There's also precedent. Many developed countries' emissions per capita has been falling while growth has actually continued (in most cases) and standard of living hasn't moved much. We just need to do a lot more of what works.

The actual plan is option 2.

Or 3

But if kids refuse to put their phones away during classes, teachers have no right to take them since they are the kids' personal property. And yes, it is in the school rules that you cannot use your phone during class.

My SO teaches English and struggles with it permanently. Kids are on their phones and not paying attention to the lecture. And no support from the headmaster. Other teachers claim they do not have the problem to save face, but then you talk to an expat teacher who was in their class for observation and hear something else.

> But if kids refuse to put their phones away during classes, teachers have no right to take them since they are the kids' personal property. And yes, it is in the school rules that you cannot use your phone during class.

Is this true? When I was in high school, teachers could take away your phones.

Well yes. A teacher can have a box for phones, but kids need to put the phone there themselves. Of course, depends on the relation teacher has with their kids, but that's how you should do it by law.

And even then, if the teacher trips the box, it is on them to reimburse owners for broken phones.

Kid gets two options: hand over the phone, or sent to the principle's office. Parent can pick them up and the kid can come back without the device the next day.

Same effect, a difference with only a nominal distinction.

Right, there can be a religion without spirituality and there can also be a spirituality without religion.

Volunteer. Always had good experiences with it and made some nice memories and connections I would not have otherwise.

This is on my list! I do think that in my current environment I mostly hear what I have done wrong, and helping others would probably give a better outcome.

I know that's a very objective way of looking at it, I mean ofcourse volunteering is a good thing! But I wasn't sure if I was mentally prepared for it. I will definitely reach out to one nearby place that I know of.

Wish you all the best!

I know people who would purchase solar panels and batteries, but they do not have enough capital to do so.

In Australia? The houses are like 30x-100x more expensive than a battery, how would this be possible?

In Czech Republic as well. You need to have driven certain amount of hours, have attented theory lessons, then test, followed by a test drive with a policeman.

Couldn't you build some internal knowledge that would stay and you could teach a model this way. A very fast local memory of some sort. You could also specialize model this way so it is very skilled in your domain. The more you use it, the smarter it gets. I guess the problem is for the model to decide whether the information stored in memory is sufficient or not.

You could, but it's driving in the wrong direction to try to build that knowledge into the model weights because you'll always run into a capacity limit sooner with a small model than with a larger one. The thing the model is specialised for is linguistic understanding and the reasoning process itself, and you max that out at the expense of domain-specific knowledge. If you take "as few weights as possible" as a given, I think the interesting question is how small you can make the model with externalised memory. The openclaw and hermes people are all over this sort of memory problem: using the local filesystem or a local database of some sort is exactly a "very fast local memory" where the more you use it, the more knowledge it gathers. Whether that translates to it being "smarter" is a deeper question than it looks.

My car leaks oil. So I refill it here and there. This fixes issue with any car maker and does not require action of any other actor.

Maybe some of them may have had a purpose. With this one, if you were used to putting your elbows on the table and there were more people around, you just took up too much space and made it unpleasant for others around you.