That number likely came from the 2018 IPCC report which said pretty much this: if something does not happen then by 2030 the there is no realistic pathway to stay belos 2C increase in temperature. World would not end in 2030, but irreversible change would be locked in. Obviously AOC might have been simplifying this or whoever reported on it might have dumbed it down or pushed their own agenda.
The point is, beware making quantified predictions. Climate change is real, but when one makes hyperbolic predictions with a quantified timeframe, and then it doesn't happen, the argument is weakened, and skeptics are reinforced.
I'm curious when it was you were there. I was in IBM from 1985-1992, and it felt like the ending of an era. At first, it was a place that invested heavily in its people. Private offices, nice facilities, very good pay, and a _requirement_ that you had to take classes related to your field every year. IBM would hire excellent faculty and instructors from universities and other companies to teach them. They sponsored technical conferences that were really good (actual learning, not just sales). When I was in graduate school, my director had me focus on doing my homework and projects as 80% of my time -- literally getting paid to be a student. My colleagues and I were proud to be "IBMers" at that time.
But things started to change in 1990-91. The company lost money for the first time in its history, and then divided into separate parts. My division became what is now the horrible IBM Global Services. In those last 2 years it became clear to me that it was time to branch out of there. Since then, I've know no IBM employee at all who is happy, much less proud.
All these great old institutions ultimately fade or fail. It used to seem more sad to me, but I've grown to favor "fail fast" more. IBM should just go...sell all the IP and branding off and call it a day. Then, new innovation will happen faster.
> The company lost money for the first time in its history
Seems to be a recurring theme. In my city there's a large steel industry. The companies used to be quite benevolent, they cared about employees and invested in them, and everyone was proud to work for them. It all ended the second they took losses and it never came back. Now they're just normal corporations, the employee pride is gone.
I would be sad to see it go, if only for the fact that they are (afaik) the only ones keeping mainframes alive as a modern thing.
Idle speculation, but I wonder if that could save IBM, if and when the market starts to sour on cloud computing (for cost and/or control reasons). Mainframes have a lot of overlap in terms of functionality (VMs, reliability, similar purchasing model for computing power) with cloud services.
I've been reading these stories of interview questions for 10+ years now, and it seems to get progressively worse over time. It all reinforces for me the decision to be an independent consultant all my career. I get hired because somebody needs help thinking about their product/design, a project completed, or a difficult bug solved. We talk about what I propose for them to do, and I'll explain what I've done in the past that's relevant or useful. I'm not there to join the family, so I deal with Purchasing and Accounting, not HR.
I know LGB people who balk at the TQ.* additions to the acronym. Their arguments are cogent and logical. There seems to be plenty of room to disagree, because not all the constituents of the acronym are really fighting the same cause, or even see the groups as all being one team.
The term has been LGBT basically from the start, hasn't it? Being iffy on new optional extensions is one thing, trying to act like the T is new gets a much less charitable view from me.
According to wikipedia "LGBT" was from 1988 and "LGB" itself was spreading in the "mid to late 80s".
If you have a stronger source I'm open to being convinced, but otherwise I don't find one anecdotal account very convincing. I can't easily get to the cited books to get any more clarity they might have.
As it's Women's History Month, and Google being Google, I'm betting there's a plan for a piece like this to be published every day this month. Boring and empty.
My first impression reading your comment is that it is simply coded resentment that there is dedicated attention given to women.
Assuming that I am mistaken, what makes these stories boring, and why does a predictable topical focus invite scorn? Further, what exactly do you mean by “Google being Google” here?
> My first impression reading your comment is that it is simply coded resentment that there is dedicated attention given to women.
Why is this automatically the reaction you have? Did you read the article titled "Maria Divina O’Brien takes us inside the Caribbean tech scene"? There is not a single thing about the Caribbean tech scene. The only information is a few paragraphs where Maria briefly talks about her involvement with some programs she has in the "scene". This feels like a fluff piece written to ensure the inclusivity check boxes for women's month are checked. It's lazy and dishonest.
> Why is this automatically the reaction you have? Did you read the article titled "Maria Divina O’Brien takes us inside the Caribbean tech scene"? There is not a single thing about the Caribbean tech scene.
The misleading title was already addressed in the parent to their post.
The comment I responded to had no commentary on the content of the submitted article, but instead described an anticipated onslaught of ‘boring and predictable’ articles because of it being women’s history month.
The reason the reaction happened is that it echoes a familiar whinging about diversity initiatives around representation.
I mean, did you read the content of the piece? I know the Caribbean isn't exactly a tech hot spot but this can't possibly be in even the top 50% most interesting work happening in the Caribbean tech scene.
Not OP but "google being google" - typically they will play out a theme for days or sometimes an entire month with various front-page images and related info. That's how I took it, anyway.
Live one day at a time. Consume news to stay abreast of the events and to keep aware, but only sufficient for that purpose -- do not dwell or doomscroll. Eat a healthy diet. Your job, family, and home should fill all your other time. Exercise and sleep. Be deliberate about all these.
We can't control what may come, but maintaining as much of that in our immediate sphere is the best one can do for sanity.
On the other hand, don't underestimate what little regard Russia and China both have for human life. Russia lost 27 million in WWII[1], many times the numbers lost by the West, combined. China's record on human rights also speaks for itself. Xi and Putin both see themselves as messianic, and both have grand visions for their countries gaining power. They want to act, and it has begun. They're thinking in terms of the next century, and great losses of people will just be part of a great reset (as a broken egg is to an omelette). It's what follows in centuries to come that matters to them.
I wouldn't put it past them, and that thinking is of course not mutually exclusive from those who are seeking Armageddon as you note. That both kinds of minds are in charge of each side is downright terrifying, indeed.
One thing is sure: if China still wants to invade Taiwan, they certainly have postponed their plans by a few years, maybe a decade, maybe even more.
How can you be so certain? This reminds me of people saying just 14 days ago "I don't think Putin is going to invade."
Taiwan is not Ukraine, indeed -- Taiwan would be easier to capture because it is an island. There aren't land borders across which supplies and weapons can be brought. They would have to come by ship or plane, which are easier to defeat. It would be easier, militarily, to take Taiwan. China certainly has the will, and it has learned that the worst it would face would be some sanctions.
Some sanctions? The entire Russian economy has disappeared overnight. The only reason it has not been felt yet is due to inertia. There are still just about enough goods in the pipes to support things for weeks or months. But once computers start breaking, planes start breaking, shelves start to empty, and nothing is arriving to replace them, shit is going to hit the fan.
Or have they been? "Unplugged" is a good metaphor, for they currently control the vast majority of energy to all of Europe[1]. We're turning Russia into a gigantic version of North Korea, and with the same major ally, China. What happens if Russia diverts its gas sales to China -- it's Europe that'll be unplugged.
If China is the only available customer, how much do you think China will pay? They will have Russia by the balls. They will pay pennies on the Ruble.
Europe will piss and moan for a while as prices go up, but Europe is rich enough to route around this problem.
I agree though, we're turning Russia into a giant North Korea. What that means for the world, I don't know. In fact, I would say they're getting cut off worse than North Korea. Some of these companies canceling Russia probably operate (with permission) in North Korea.
Certainly recent events have concentrated minds regarding energy security in Europe, and likely self sufficiency (or at least better sources) will be achieved, much as food security was after ww2.
The worst thing, that you don't mention: China has a much stronger economy than Russia. Currently we're cutting Russia from almost everything, but still (as silently as we can) buy its gas - because it would be very hard for us to stop buying it.
Cutting off China? That would hurt both sides to the point I doubt it's even possible... But then again I wouldn't expect cutting Russia the way we did was possible. Still, even individuals boycotting China would probably hurt more than Taiwan is worth?
Chinese people are more likely to rage at the government if the economy goes bad. I don't know why that is considering the media is much more locked up than Russia's has been until now, but you can see local fury every once in a while where the government is forced to concede because of angry mobs
only if you are self sufficient and not facing a opponent that has more that enough fire power to carpet bomb the entire island from a distance or more soldiers than you have bullets.
To counter this claim, I'd ask you to consider which of two similarly sized invasions was easier to achieve: D-Day and the invasion of Western Europe, or Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Eastern Europe. You may also consider why the Nazis never made it to Great Britain, and why Great Britain has been insulated from the Great Wars of Europe more often than it has taken part in the conflicts.
> To counter this claim, I'd ask you to consider which of two similarly sized invasions was easier to achieve: D-Day and the invasion of Western Europe, or Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Eastern Europe. You may also consider why the Nazis never made it to Great Britain, and why Great Britain has been insulated from the Great Wars of Europe more often than it has taken part in the conflicts.
It seems that this paragraph is meant to suggest that Barbarossa was easier than D-Day, but this might not be the best example, since Barbarossa failed and D-Day succeeded. (Of course, a lot of things could have gone differently that could have made the outcomes very different, but I still find this example a little unconvincing.)
Perhaps it would have been simply best to note that island nations are generally insulated from invasion in ways that continental nations are not. Great Britain had the long term national security to forge an empire while the continental nations of Europe were engaged in endless back-and-forth wars (often at the instigation of Great Britain). Japan had centuries of peaceful self-imposed isolation while the continental nations of China and Indochina were engaged in endless wars, which was utilized to build up an empire while safely protected by the Sea of Japan. Being an island nation is an immense geostrategic advantage that is apparently not completely obvious to all observers of history.
> Japan had centuries of peaceful self-imposed isolation while the continental nations of China and Indochina were engaged in endless wars, which was utilized to build up an empire while safely protected by the Sea of Japan.
While Japan had a stable border, it also had many periods of feudal lords fighting each other. Also, the reason Japan became an Empire was that it received and internalized Western knowledges much earlier than many other countries (starting with Rangaku "Dutch learnings" in the 17th century), and later was forced to open its ports by Western powers, which resulted in disagreement over the nation's course, a series of bloody civil wars, and the Meiji Restoration, which made the emperor an iron-fisted ruler of a modern nation.
It's not exactly a story of an island enjoying isolated peace and suddenly emerging as a superpower. Korea was a country that enjoyed almost total isolation during the same period (16-19th centuries) and look where it got them.
UK could be resupplied across the Atlantic by world's preeminenant industrial producer while German power projection of era couldn't comprehensively cripple GBR. German Blitz+blockade didn't achieve strategic goals of destroying GBR industries while also being distracted by land war. TW has even less food/resource security and entirely within range of PRC weapon platforms, who has more industrial capacity than US during peak of WW2 production. Also consider UK managed to hold onto Falklands. It's really about industrial capacity to wage attritional war - TW has an initial defensive bonus but massive resupply penalty. If PRC gains air superiority and deter outside intervention, taking over island is only matter of time. Merchant fleet assets alone is enough to ferry 100,000s anywhere on TW if PRC wants to human wave / million man swim in days. Dunkirk moved 350k bodies on 800 ships in a week. PRC has 50-80k fishing boats that can make the journey. It's hard to overstate PRC industrial advantage relative to TW.
I don't think an island invasion would be easier than a land invasion, but I agree that "China definitely won't invade Taiwan right now" is overly optimistic. It's probably not in their best interests, but Russia invading Ukraine wasn't in Russia's best interests either and they did it anyways.
They're also doing what their regulators in the House and Senate have demanded they do. The line between a private operator exercising their will, and acting on the will of the government, is very thin and quite blurred.
I think of YouTube (and many others) as akin to state media anymore.
