Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mpg33's commentslogin


I could take a guess...


Say more?


Right but Bard is literally available in 230 countries and territories...but not Canada.

https://support.google.com/bard/answer/13575153?hl=en#:~:tex....

We are being singled out because of the Government's Online News Act for tech companies to pay for news links


that wouldn't explain why Anthropic is excluding canada.

I'm guessing the online news act is a contributor, but only to a more general conclusion of our content laws being complicated (CanCon, language laws, pipeda erasure rules, the new right to be forgotten, etc) and our country simply doesn't have enough people to be worth the effort of figuring out what's legal and what isn't.


China is going to be the exception to this me thinks..


What about panic? Could you disable the amygdala real time?


Slightly suspicious. Them wanting to get a message out there that criminals won't get away with far exceeds probability of them retrieving crypto imo.


Texas is also a good example of that density only matters if there is a land scarcity problem.

There are areas in Canada where building massive towers has been premature and also led to increase in costs.


Density also matters if you're trying to avoid sprawl. A city like Houston basically requires you to own a car and drive everywhere, because public transit will never be able to keep up with the construction nor will the density be high enough to make it economically viable.


I sincerely doubt that building towers lead to an increase in costs in the existing housing stock, unless something very strange is afoot.


Cost of building a tower is much more than something like rowhouses, multiplexes. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver bypass the "missing middle". So it's mostly single family homes with various "tower node districts".


Yes, towers are expensive, but building them doesn't make the existing SFHs more expensive. Maybe tower building and rising home prices both coincide with certain economic trends, post hoc ergo propter hoc.


Not really. Dallas is an example of a metro area that has extended sprawl as far as it can go. A ton of new highways have been built out but growth in car usage and population have eaten back all the gains. There will never be enough land to make the sprawl work. As a result home prices there are jumping just like everywhere else. No one wants a 2 hour commute.


Not as far as it can go. It can still go many dozens of miles in every direction, and has, and will continue. Companies are following employees to the burbs and employees are moving even more with the uptick of remote work. Home prices are jumping due to population, but sprawl continues unabated.


Density doesn’t matter right up until you hit the limits of what the highways will handle. Then you’ll suddenly wish you’d built dense enough for light rail to alleviate the load on common routes.


I'm not sure Google knows either. "Smarty city" just smacks of vague buzzwordy-ness idealism. What is it exactly? Are you just going build some condos and stick some wifi around? How is that really different than any other modern city?


You'd think large forest fires would have an impact though in terms of the regrowth.


Tree growth and forest fires are just moving carbon back and forth between the air, soil, and trees. You can’t simply “destroy” the carbon, you have to keep it somewhere. Similarly, humans aren’t “creating” carbon, we are just taking it out of the oil it was in and putting it into the air.


What is the right amount of CO2 to have in the atmosphere scientifically speaking?


Depends on what your utility function is.

If it's "as close to the nature right before apes became humans", it's easy to answer (though hard to justify on any grounds other than quasi-religous belief in Gaia or something). If it's "planet with more plants and animals" it could be quite different, and any honest scientist would answer it "we don't really know, but here are some considerations..."


An amount similar to levels before human impact.


There have been times "before human impact" when atmospheric CO2 was _way_ higher than it is now, though. You'll have to be more specific.


Non sequitur.


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

Search: