Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more passwordoops's commentslogin

"A recent analysis by the company found that there are “over 50 times more malware from internet-sideloaded sources than on apps available through Google Play.”

Ok, but what's the real damage? In other words, how many installs and how much money siphoned from users and legit apps?


I think that's what the comment meant. Take it metaphorically


Criminal liability with a minimum 2 years served for executives and fines amounting to 110% of total global revenue to the company that allowed the breach would see cybersecurity taken a lot more seriously in a hurry


Would be nice to have executives finally responsible for something.


Internet commerce requires databases with pii that will be breached.

Who is to blame for internet commerce?

Our legislators. Maybe specifically we can blame Al Gore, the man who invented the internet. If we had put warning labels on the internet like we did with NWA and 2 live crew, Gore’s second best achievement, we wouldn’t be a failed democracy right now.


"Biofuels in use, keep atmospheric carbon neutral."

No they do not. The accounting generally doesn't take into account the full emissions of agriculture, which for corn is particularly carbon intense. Not to mention the downstream pollution impacts of over fertilization, such as coastal dead zones


This is the salient point that is glossed over without so much as blinking.

To get 1J of biofuel-based fuel, how many J of fossil fuel is burned? If it’s like 0.9J then you really have to ask how much carbon is released when turning carbon sinks into farmland, because it will take many many crop cycles to recoup that from biofuels.


That is the implementation detail that makes the whole thing a scam, yes. None of that is fundamental to bio-fuels, but rather a property of it being cheaper to do it that way in our current fossil fuel economy, and people not being interested in looking all that closely because they don’t really care.


What is not factored into the above is how much is going to be grown anyway. Corn yield in particular can quickly surprise you. Even if you try to only grow enough for food, there will be years where you still have way more than you can handle.

That is why we started producing corn-based ethanol. It wasn't intended to see people grow corn for it, but rather clean up the unmanageable excesses realized in the due course of growing it for food-based reasons that otherwise would have been left out to rot. In that vein, J is insignificant as it is spent either way.

The problem is that humans aren't very good at moderation. A little ethanol production is quite sensible, but once humans get it into their head something might be sensible in small doses they have to take it to a ridiculous extreme... You see that in everything.


The other issue is people seeing corn for ethanol (especially subsidized) can be waaaay more profitable and deciding to switch crops. Not only do you lose a potentially valuable food crop. But it's replaced by one of the nutrient and GHG intensive crops around


> can be waaaay more profitable

As a corn grower myself, I wouldn't go that far. Ethanol production is really only profitable when corn isn't profitable to grow. In other words, when you have ethanol plants champing at the bit to buy your corn, you are wishing you hadn't grown it in the first place! It can be a profitable crop, but only on the backs of food buyers who are much less price sensitive.

Ethanol does serve as a helpful buffer to step in when corn would be otherwise worthless, where the alternative is to let you see it rot, minimizing the losses — But if you are counting on ethanol to make you rich... Good luck!

Granted, there was that strange period around the early 2010s, in reaction to the early-to-mid 2000s where corn was being left to rot, where the US government was paying ethanol producers to produce ethanol. If you are posting from a time machine from that time, I get what you are saying. But those days are long behind us now.


Good thing they're in New Zealand


Shrinking? China is growing their coal capacity (1). What people mistake is China is not "for renewables". They are for maximizing absolute output. That means they are "for everything"

(1) https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-has-more-than-...


China ist still adding coal plants but their capacity factor is falling.

In fact Chinas emissions have probably already peaked.

https://www.economist.com/china/2025/05/29/chinas-carbon-emi...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-just-put-c...

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants


I didn't mention any shrinking. I just said we'd passed the CO2 per capita peak.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?c...

This means for any human being we are emitting less carbon than we use to. It's not a big win but I'll take any good trend at the moment.


You forgot being too concerned with maintaining environmental and air quality regulations.

There's a reason Shanghai is known for really bad air quality. There's a reason the rate of GHG emissions are accelerating


> maintaining environmental and air quality regulations

Yeah, that's the primary concern for the US, right.

> There's a reason the rate of GHG emissions are accelerating

If you wanted to say that they "produce solar panels with energy from fossils" bring your sources please.


The sarcasm seems unwarranted. The US has better air quality than any other country with over 50 million people and better air quality than the EU on average. Most of the countries above America on the list are either islands directly in the path of tradewinds, largely unpopulated, or the nordics. Now, a lot of this is simply the fact that Americans haven't embraced diesel and that America is a relatively low density country. But air quality is really quite good in most of the US. The Clean Air Act and other environmental legislation was very successful.


> The US has better air quality than any other country with over 50 million people and better air quality than the EU on average

And that remarkable achievement was only possible because the US does not produce evil solar panels on its soil, do I understand you right?


No? I didn't make the parent comment and I was mostly taking issue with the implication in your comment that US air quality was in some way deficient

But since you asked, while manufacturing solar panels does not itself pose a threat to air quality, environmental and air quality regulations obviously raise the cost of doing business in the manufacturing sector broadly, which makes the US less competitive up and down the supply chain than China. That's obviously not the entire story, but it's certainly part of it.


Why would anyone write a book then ask for citations?


Because collecting/formatting citations is not the most fun part of the writing process (?)

And maybe the authors were over-confident in the capabilities of current AI.


The typical answer to Climate Change isn't "thoughts and prayers" but "go fck yourself"


Thing is, rational people have been pointing this out for a decade (at least). The spiral has much less to do with fundamentals than politics. And now that Elon and Trump are back at it, Tesla has both sides of the aisle suddenly scrutinizing the company


> spiral has much less to do with fundamentals than politics

Tesla’s brand has become trash in a year. I have a neighbour who had PowerWalls installed a few years ago. He spray painted over the branding last year because it was embarrassing. (I live in Wyoming.)


[flagged]


This isn't weird, really. Rational people tend to not like being associated with fascists, and with Elon at the helm Tesla is strongly associated with American Fascism at the moment.


> Rational people tend to not like being associated with fascists

This is fair, but I don’t even think it’s that. They just don’t want everyone walking into their garage to immediately associate them with Musk. This is true for folks on the left, who call out his fascism. But it’s also true if someone with MAGA leanings walks in.


> and with Elon at the helm Tesla is strongly associated with American Fascism at the moment

That's overblown. Telsa is strongly associated with an idiot who's so immature and stupid that he's managed to annoy pretty much everyone.


My personal favorite is the Tesla apology bumper sticker. I want to signal I care, but I only care about 20$. Love the virtue signaling while driving round a 50k$ donation to Elon.


I have people posting long apologies on LinkedIn about how they needed a new car but they disagree with (insert rant). It’s embarrassing they even post it. No one on LinkedIn even needs to or cares to know what car you drive, it’s just platitude virtue signaling


FWIW, I’ve covered the branding on everything in my house. I don’t need my home to be advertising corporate brands to me/family/guests.


For what it’s worth, I was putting in solar panels with battery back-up, and PowerWalls were the least-bulky option, and I killed it last year because again, I don’t want to have something that partisan (and frankly toxic) so close.


For a decade? The politics has been a recent problem. For a decade though Tesla has had serious production problems that were dismissable under "but they're ahead".

Except it hasn't happened - they still have trouble with QA and building enough cars cheaply enough, and now the market has caught up with them.

And then into this mix, Musk decided to publicly side with the political aisle which hates his core customer base and his core product line.


And more importantly his core customer base hates his chosen politics.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: