The problem is you cannot plant enough trees around the globe to offset our CO2 emissions.
Also, a forest only absorbs CO2 while alive. Once it dies, it emits CO2 too.
You would need to permanently store the wood somewhere (submerging in water, etc).
Planting trees solves both the carbon capture and the emissions issue from different angles. Some examples are:
- With more wood available it’s more economical to use it as a building/manufacturing material over other emissive sources (concrete, steel, plastic)
- We can replant the same area multiple times
- Even if we plant crops for biofuels, it’s closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil anyway
Every move we can make towards planting (and managing) more of the surface of the Earth is an improvement, without waiting for miraculous new technology.
You don’t need to convert it to coal. Use it to build houses, furniture, and other things.
I am currently building a wooden house this way. Wooden frame, wooden exterior, wooden floors, even wood-based insulation (https://huntonfiber.co.uk/). The isolation has the shortest life span and it is expected to last at least 60 years.
If these forests are planted by humans, why do we think the dead trees would just be left to rot like you suggest vs being harvested for wood? The logic does not compute other than trying to make a ridiculous point.
I think this loses the forest for the trees. That is, a single tree rotting isn't what matters its how long the ecosystem the tree is part of lasts. Consider a square kilometer of denuded land turned back into a forest. You can think of the forest as a temporary storage for carbon, its stored in the trees, soil, animals, insects, etc in that square kilometer. Individual trees may die but on average if the forest remains in good health there will be a number of tons of carbon kept out of the atmosphere.
using the wood for heating also releases the CO2. I do think planting trees is a good idea, but it's worth pointing out they can be a carbon source even after harvesting, depending on the usage.
On the other hand if the wood is used for construction or furniture it will not emit.
No, but when built right, log cabins have lasted 100+ years easily. Furniture has lasted that long as well. If you keep it dry, it will last longer than you, your children, and your grandkids. Easily. At that point it is more forever than you
One little appreciated fact is that trees also respirate CO2 when they are cracking their stored sugars produced via photosynthesis. So they don’t sequester all of the CO2 that they consume.
I suppose I’m pointing it out to highlight the trade offs with any of these solutions.
What is unsaid is that we need to sequester CO2 for hundreds of years—often far beyond the lifespan of the trees. Trees are short term storage, and sometimes the storage is a lot shorter than popular imagination purports.
Individual trees are short term storage which is why its important to create healthy ecosystems for them to live in. Turning denuded farmland back into a forest buffers carbon from the atmosphere for as long as the forest stands. It could stay there for centuries or return to the atmosphere if it gets bulldozed for a subdivision.
It's a hugely underappreciated option. I'm not sure how accurate it is (or how legitimate the companies doing biochar carbon removal are), but cdr.fyi shows biochar as the top carbon sequestration method that's actually happening.
No, I don't have any. It is because it was not so much a bug, but a decision about a tradeoff. They compressed by unifying similar looking glyphs. Sure, these glyphs weren't representing the same character, but they did look similar. It is the kind of error an human could also have made, except humans also know that sums are supposed to match, so they take that into account when reading. Also they have a probability score and when they are unsure they read again or ask. This are all things these printers can't do without doing supervised OCR.
The tested scans did look kind of crappy, so if you care about non altered glyphs maybe don't do a lossy compression on a low resolution scan. So these issue can totally happen with any printer if your resolution is too low, the glyphs are ambigous and you use a too aggressive lossy compression. This also happens with other approaches like vectorization or OCR.
Yes and by default your tradeoff should be to have the correct information. And that's actually what Xerox claimed. They said this was false and it was correctly documented. They said only if you select it this would happen. Watch the CCC talk buy the person that figured this out. Turns out they were wrong.
> Watch the CCC talk buy the person that figured this out. Turns out they were wrong.
I already did, although some time ago. Kriesel also has some other interesting talks, e.g. about the German Railway company.
Like I totally think Xerox is at fault, but what they actually did wrong was using bad defaults (and lying when they got told). This can totally occur with any software. From looking at the pictures I think part of the issue was that the input resolution was lower than what the compression was tested with, not the compression part per se.
Also I think the customers are at least partially at fault for digitalizing, but not checking. Don't be stingy on important data. And who in there sane minds throws away the originals????? Like you can throw away copies all the way you like, but NEVER the original. (Except when you really want to "destroy" information.) To me that was the most ridiculous part, assuming software (being famous for bugs like no other tool) can never be wrong and throwing away physical things only relying on your random files to exist.
I haven't watched the talk since I saw it, but my memory was that they did it in a mode where they claimed it wasn't supposed to happen. So it would happen even if the costumer selected the right one. Maybe my memory is bad on that.
I mean I never watched the video (or maybe I did and I don't remember), I only 'saw' the presentation live. And I remember that room being a riot. So I might get some details wrong. Not sure this is correct english.
The FFT is still easy to use, and it you want a higher frequency resolution (not higher max frequency), you can zero pad your signal and get higher frequency resolution.
Zero-padding gives you a smoother curve, i.e., more points to look at. But it does not add new peaks. So, if you have two very close frequencies that produce a single peak in the DFT (w/o zero-padding), you would not get two peaks after zero-padding. In the field, were I work, resolution is understood as the minimum distance between two frequencies such that you are able to detect them individually (and not as a single frequency).
Zero-padding helps you to find the true position (frequency) of a peak in the DFT-spectrum. So, your frequency estimates can get better.
However, the peaks of a DFT are the summits of hills that are usually much wider than compared to other techniques (like Capon or MUSIC) whose spectra tend to have much narrower hills. Zero-padding does not increase the sharpness of these hills (does not make them narrower).
Likewise the DFT tends to be more noisy in the frequency domain compared to other techniques which could lead to false detections (e.g. with a CFAR variant).
> Q: What if I need matrix dimensions (M, N, K) not found in your configurations?
>A: 1. You can find the nearest neighbor configuration (larger than yours) and pad with zeros. 2. Feel free to post your dimensions on GitHub issues. We are happy to release kernels for your configuration.
Lol, this will be potentially much slower than using the general matmul kernel.
However, I like this kind of research because it really exploits specific hardware configurations and makes it measurable faster (unlike some theoretical matmul improvements).
Code specialization is cheap, and if it saves in the order of a few %, it quickly reimburses its price, especially for important things like matmul.
The problem is the same, the relative concentration of oxygen in air is less than 0.05% (~450pars per million). In water much less.
reply