MrKurteous

I've read that it used to be "heels over head" as in upside-down, but then somehow the words got switched around (I found this page that claims the same thing: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/head-over-heels.html ).

Wow this is incredibly cool...!!

Haha oooooh okay, no worries, consider my heart mended!

This article got me to play it, really cool game, I'm impressed by how much it does with quite little. It does feel like there's some secret I haven't figured out despite replying it, so haha I really want to get my friends playing it so I can spawn ideas about it!

I have nothing against old school graphics, I love anything that looks awesome, no need to break my heart like that!

I bet they do, but they can't have them because they look waaaaay to good to give away!

I don't know of any studies unfortunately, but I did want to point out that training is not quite a one time cost in practice, because training has already been done loads times and is still being done! I'm theory, if we stopped training all AI and just kept the ones we have, then indeed the training cost would be bounded just like you say, I'm just afraid we're quite far from that.

Yeah, and I really hope we get those carbon tariffs in place despite China's complaints!

I never meant to say that data does not have value, it definitely tells a country how they could best reduce emissions, like in your example by improving the cleanliness of manufacturing products that are exported.

It does not say how sustainably a specific country is operating (or the EU in this case). If you move manufacture abroad e.g. where it's made with less clean energy so it emits more, when counting local emissions this still counts as an emission reduction. It doesn't matter if it's easier to compute if it's wrong, and it seems to be entirely the wrong statistic to use for this article.

I don't know for sure, but I think most products are not usually made in the country they are sold, but I haven't seen data of proportions. I don't trust that it's a decent proxy just because some people gut feeling tells them it is. Data on consumption based emissions exists, and it should be used.

Ahh I'm worried that this might sound better than it actually is, why would anyone not use consumption-based emissions when talking about this? That's the only way to tell if we've actually made the changes necessary to become sustainable or if we've just exported enough production abroad to pretend we have. Counting only emissions within the EU is ridiculous.

Are you sure it wasn't "brzeczyszczykiewicz" (difference in last two letters)? Otherwise it seems like a little typo, which, to be fair, would be a good idea to keep it safe from Polish people haha

I'll express my last bit of disagreement with your reasoning and then I'll probably leave this argumentation, but I will read if you choose to respond. This is not what cost means, you are basically saying that your gut tells you it should be cheaper without any supportive arguments. If e.g. the train requires more energy to run faster, that alone could make it more costly, even if it has a higher capacity. Since neither one of us seems to have idea of the actual costs of running trains, I don't think we'll get anywhere with this!