Jethro 🏳️‍🌈

10x developer 10% of the time

X-twitter user --

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

I got tired of seeing ads when looking at weather so I made a forecast webpage with no ads and max transparency https://t.co/cCMmG3VwBE

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@JeffBezos Free markets and personal liberty are noble goals. But we don't really have them. A market that only serves the wealthy isn't free. A person who can't afford to say no isn't free. If we want personal freedom and free markets, we need to start by making freedom real—for everyone.

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@sciencewtg This seems like something you would have posted about but I didn't see a video
https://t.co/YKTBFWgAwY

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@LynnwoodPD whats the deal with the empty cruiser thats been parked with lights on in by Omar's Taquiera for hours? Looks suss

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@Raphfel so coal and trash burning must increase, i guess

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

I'm outie. Find me on bsky if you like my ramblings.

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

I swear in web ui testing there's two kinds of devs
* Idealists that never do anything because nothing meets their ideal
* Pragmatists that never do anything well

I want to be the first but I have to be the second

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

variable naming convention: if someone suggests a variable rename in code review that is otherwise fine and already has an approval and the tests already passed you should use sPoNgEbOb_SnAke_CaSe

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

Note to companies adding obtrusive ill-suited ai features that can't be disabled: could you not?

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@HeavyWingsDX They're kind of gimmicky. Not fun to farm but fine for a story boss

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@XorDev @MomijiStudios Yeah, I been fantasizing of a node based programming experience that allows you to zoom in and create abstrations

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@hitboxteam @RaveRush how about now?

[Balatro @BalatroGame]

Productivity be damned! Balatro is coming to mobile on September 26th

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@ConstanceGame Getting some dustforce vibes and I like it!

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@monsterhunter HH and Lance at PAX probably but I gotta try them all on launch!

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

The internet is just boomers, groomers, doomers, and gooners

[Edward Kmett @kmett]

I like trees. I even just this week went out of my way to plant about as many trees as I reasonably could in my backyard. Did I do any real good for the planet or just arrange for a nice place to hang a hammock or two in a couple of decades?

If you successfully planted -- and kept planted despite them being made out of a useful resource -- 100 billion trees by 2050 you'd offset roughly 0.6% of the carbon emissions produced in the same timeframe.

If you planted, and kept planted, a trillion trees it would only handle about 6% of the carbon emissions by 2050, reducing change in the temperature of Earth by 0.15 degrees Celsius.

https://t.co/wjAn8XNB06

Note: Planting a trillion trees would represent increasing the amount of trees _everywhere on Earth_ by something like 33%.

If we sum over the different tree planting projects, we seem to be only track for something like 250 million trees / year. If we keep that pace we offset roughly 0.1%-0.2% of the produced carbon.

One problem is deforestation currently massively outpaces that. We seem to be losing about 10 billion trees net per year due to clear cutting. (+5 billion -15 billion).

https://t.co/lp12ojWjuB

That is to say, that reforestation efforts aren't currently even enough to amount to a meaningful net reduction in the loss of trees.

Aiming for the trillion tree target by 2050, planted 1 trillion trees, we'd lose ~250 billion of those to current deforestation.

Okay, so let's say you get everyone everywhere to stop cutting down trees, so that you're not just feeding later clear cutting efforts, and that everyone everywhere in all developing countries will by treaty choose not to use this local resource, despite historical precedent, because they totally won't think this is some effort by the developed countries to keep them down.

Even with that, the above just wasn't anywhere near enough to keep up, even if we keep scaling up current efforts like One Tree Planted, the Amazon Project, etc.

But let's say we went all in!

Successfully offsetting all carbon production in that timeframe with trees would take something like ~16 trillion additional trees, multiplying the number of trees on earth by a bit over 6x.

Taking 1,000 trees per hectare as a reasonable average tree density, just the _new_ trees required by this effort would take 160 million square kilometers.

Unfortunately this is ~7% more land than _exists_ on Earth, (149 million square kilometers) even ignoring the fact that much of Earth has large unusable areas like deserts that exist, and there's already ~3 trillion trees sitting on that land today taking up space, as well as people, and this would require us to increase sequestration efforts by well over 1000-fold, sustained for the better part of a century, AND stop all net deforestation cold today.

Trees as much as I like them just aren't a sufficient carbon sequestration technology. They may help on the margin, and their loss definitely hurts, but they don't come close to being the solution to climate change on their own, and most reforestation efforts seem more about slightly slowing the bleeding than being remotely sufficient to the task of actually making a difference.

I think that is probably why Bill is so dismissive of planting trees as a solution.

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

When life gives you lemons, and sugar, and water, and comercial property, and a small business license...

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

@TychoBrahe That's a letter opener

[Jethro 🏳️‍🌈 @jethrolarson]

If your job is to eat a frog learn a good frog recipe