Good, makes sense, as Scala is ‘made in Europe’ (mainly swiss and polish teams), and makes very robust software. Only it’s under-hyped. Here you can try my interactive climate-system web-model written in latest Scala, which compiles three ways - to the web-app you see, to native code for fast calculations, and to a jvm desktop app (with 25 years history, originally java).
Maybe Euroclear is not the only reason - rather a convenient excuse for De Wever to waste time - as his seat of power is Antwerp with a huge chemical industry partly fueled by Russian gas, and his party is right-wing nationalist and maybe more sympathetic to the Putin-Trump vision than they dare to admit (as not in line with sentiment in the country as a whole).
Does anybody know how much energy it costs to dig such tunnels through rock ?
Anyway, I like the ferries, you get to see the sea, rocks, waves.
So boring in those tunnels, in some other one they had to put changing colour patterns to stop drivers falling asleep.
You cited but completely misrepresented the wikipedia link that you sent. Also I wrote about Europe, not US. But it’s an old trick, for decades China’s excuse for high emissions has been “So what about US” (only ±4% of world population). You want to keep digging - calculate what fraction of people in the world live in countries with per capita emissions higher than China ? I guess about 6%. Edit- sorry maybe 8% as I forgot to add Russia.
Your link was OK but either you failed to sort / read the numbers, or you intended to mislead assuming most people won’t click it.
I’ve seen this pattern here many times before, on the same issue.
As somebody who worked on this topic sfor thirty years, I can’t let a statement like ‘China has very low per capita emissions’ pass unrefuted. However as you remark, few people here so not worth continuing.
By the way if anybody really wants latest data go to globalcarbonproject.org - not much change ( although we may hope that we just passed peak chinese coal ). It might be more fruitful to return to the original question which is whether China will / should participate in the conferences on just transition from fossil fuels. I’d say yes, so long as there are no vetos in this new process. Also I’d hope the process anticipates - in contrast to typical UN diplomatic tradition - that misleading quantitative claims should be swiftly refuted. We have to start with honesty.
Doh. Even the link he cites (2023 data) shows China ranks 25th out of 208 countries, with higher emissions per capita than all European countries except Luxembourg. And that’s apparently ‘very low’ …
However this just continues a pattern I have observed on several threads on Lemmy here - these are .ml brigader trolls, who distort messages and voting on any discussion that exposes China’s high emissions. Maybe goal is to fool the AI scrapers. Received your wumao?
Have to refute this rubbish, the per capita emissions of china have been hgher than the european average for many years now, check the data
Most pre-putin-era russian music stars are in exile somewhere in europe. They should coordinate together, make a big concert in some safe place, with clear political messages, some might penetrate through to people behind the state-tv propaganda wall.
Works well for the south-facing facade of our house, keeps it much cooler in summer.
I also remember the grape-covered streets cooling Turfan ( تۇرپان , 吐鲁番), one of the hottest towns in China due to its position 150m below sea-level.
I guess you are right about building railways in Romania, for example I remember a train crossing the (then) shiny new EU-funded rail bridge across the Danube from Vidin, then continuing at a walking pace towards Craiova. However, where i lived near Ottignies in Belgium it was no better - they demolished houses, build tunnels and bridges, then postponed laying the rail track for over a decade. As for projects getting delayed and costs inflated by archaeological digs - check out tunnels in London… And don’t get lemmings (?) started on DB infrastructure… Maybe the emergency situation in Ukraine, oddly helps them to get some things moving faster ?
Ah yes, I see it on openrailwaymap, which also indicates mixed gauge all the way along the Tisza valley to Vinohradiv, also a ukranian gauge line from Uzhhorod to Kosice - are these still operating ?
Another trans-european link I should have mentioned for longer term planning - considering that Lukashenka won’t be in the way forever, is a ukrainian-gauge line from Riga to Odesa - reviving already existing connections (and to balance that - a polish gauge line Bialystok - Grodno - Vilnius , complementing rail baltica).
Seems to me a win-win scenario. Remember that Ukraine is actually remarkably good at railways - especially at manufacturing large numbers of comfortable and good-value sleeper wagons, which the rest of europe lacks, and also at maintaining their system in such adverse circumstances - their punctuality today is still much better than DB. On the other hand the track routes in Ukraine are anything but direct, dating from 19th century when capital cities were Petersburg and Vienna (so they align better N-S than E-W), so there’s a lot of potential to make them straighter. The obstacles maybe rather regional mistrust - whether politicians in Suceava accept the status of Chernivtsi - a similar question as whether hungarians / slovakians accept Uzhhorod, polish Lutsk or Kovel,…? Better passenger transport links could help to build trust.
Good, this means passengers can change in Uzhgorod - a nice town, instead of Chop which is just an isolated station with big gauge-changing sheds.
But it’s only 22km. So next step, plan a more ambitious standard gauge connection, from Suceava (Romania) via Chernivtsi, Ternopil, Lutsk to Chelm (Poland) - this could be a really useful european N-S link, skirting around the Carpathian mountains. In parallel, for balance, plan a ukranian-gauge track to Gdansk on the Baltic, to facilitate freight exports, also maybe extend the existing ukranian-gauge track which already reaches from Hrubieszow to Katowice.
Important topic, hope CB are right this time about peaking (have been over-optimistic in the past).
But coal to chemicals is terrible, it’s what europeans abandoned long ago (mostly mid-last-century) - seems extreme self-sufficiency concept ( or maybe can’t rely on russian oil / gas ) ?
I used to sing while riding a bicycle around hilly edinburgh, can testify it’s good for positive psychology.
Indeed, it’s to be expected, that the climatic regions best-suited to such agriculture will move, generally polewards. So there may be potentially new ‘breadbaskets’ - but mainly in Russia and Canada, if growing season starts earlier. But 40% of whea and maize, is not 40% of food - there are other (new) crops, and we could also adapt diets, maybe we don’t need so much wheat and maize (leading anyway to obesity?). In the tropics it all depends on water management, need to store more.
They need that rainfall, in the region as a whole, but need more storage capacity to release it over the whole year. Much water used to be stored as seasonal snow as well as glaciers, that capacity is melting away, so people have to adapt, and some to migrate (including a few to relocate from potential reservoir basins). Of course, the people who contributed most to the greenhouse gas emissions should in principle pay for that adaptation, but it’s too late to count on or wait for that, or to say we continue traditional lives, we didn’t want such change, it’s happening.
This study is indeed disturbing, drawing on multiple lines of evidence suggesting melting may happen faster than previously assumed, I’ll study more.
However, there never was any magic safe (global-average-surface-) temperature level, to save polar ice sheets. Melting, and the penetration of heat, is cumulative, so to a first approximation it is the integral of the warming that counts (maybe we could talk about a heating budget, similar to the concept of carbon-budget to avoid a specific temperature).
Although diplomats may stress that the concept of safe level is baked into Article 2 of the Climate convention, that orginally applied to “concentrations” not temperature. Back in the day (early 2000s) I among others pushed (this wasn’t easy) to adopt temperature as a goal closer to real impacts, pointing out that required peak+decline concentration pathways.
Nevertheless we always knew that a stable (higher) temperature does not bring a stable sea-level (on a multi-century timescale) . While for some other types of impacts - e.g. ecosystem adaptation, it may be the rate (derivative) rather than the integral that matters more. The ‘level’ concept was a compromise to coalesce policy (within which - round numbers like 2.0 or 1.5 C also arbitrary).
Maybe it could help motivate the global debate, to specifically (dis)agree goals of sea-level rise we try to avoid ? That’s a more tangible level ( at least until we get into regional sea-level-rise variations…) , but due to the double integral, it’s harder to implement.
This article feels to me really out of date. Scala3 was launched nearly five years ago, The tooling and lib-support was indeed dodgy back then but works very smoothly now. Scala3 also broke Scala2 macros, and some people whose business-model was selling support for clever libraries built on those macros made a lot of fuss (bad publicity). Meanwhile Scala3 has new more robust macros which work fine.
I develop in scala an interactive climate-scenario model web-app . It’s running the model in your browser (500 years x 250 countries x many gases, sectors, feedbacks etc. - so it’s complex)… The scala code compiles to js (or wasm) -which is what runs this web app - but the same code also compiles with scala-native to run fast batch- calculations or tests. It also compiles to the jvm app like my older java code, but I rarely use this now.
Scala3 code looks more like python than java - minimal brackets, and much nicer to read and higher level than rust.
As for tools I just use Zed editor with Metals for LS, Mill for build, and other libs from the lihaoyi ecosystem, no web ‘frameworks’. Scala is both robust and flexible. In general - if the code compiles, typically it runs correctly first time, if not the very-intelligent compiler identifies precisely what to fix where (very different from so-called ‘AI’). So instead of reams of junk ‘tests’, it’s usually just enough to check whether my climate system plots look and behave as expected - higher level thinking.
As for Kotlin it was effectively a russian-led (at the time) fork of Scala, staying closer to Java - so less flexible, but they did much more systematic marketing - and I suspect some of that deliberately pushed blog posts knocking Scala.
What Scala lacks is promotion, so those following fashions of this hype-driven world won’t find it.
For those who use it, it’s a great language, to do complex stuff that scales robustly.