I don't mean to be divisive, but this meme-like stream of news articles and comments about Europeans being silly about air conditioning, from the drill-baby-drill nation that refused to even try to do anything about climate change, really grates on me.
I didn’t see anything meme-like in the comment you responded to. Or even anything related to environmentalism. To me, it just looked like good health advice.
In case you don't know, there is a meme in the US that Europe don't know/don't have A/C. We do, but in some coutries there are laws banning A/C below 25°C (77°F) in public places, so (US) tourist don't get the cold air hit when entering a building like a musseum, leaving with the impression we don't know A/C.
No general A/C might be the case in regions that never needed it before (mild summers, cold winters), but their presence is increasing.
Something like 90% of US residential buildings have AC. For Europe, it's around 20% (for good reason, mind you). It's not a meme if it's an actual fact that many European homes are not prepared for these kinds of increasingly common heat waves, and I got the impression that the parent was showing genuine concern.
Are these numbers actually based on the same way of counting heat-related deaths? As far as I have seen Europe looks at excess mortality, while the US only counts deaths explicitly attributed to heat-related issues. If there are different methods in use, I wouldn't be surprised if this accounted for a lot of the difference.
If anything, the AC train wreck is caused by the society being incredibly conformist and conservative, trying to cling to the world of the 20th century that no longer exists.
I just toured Europe and none of the lodgings (private dwellings) had AC. It was not fun when it was 35C out. South of Spain is actually one of the most comfiest places to be in summer despite being hotter on average, because many homes have AC due to it being cheap to install (and to my knowledge being run on near complete renewable energy).Some European countries' stance on this is bizarre, like Switzerland outright not allowing residential ACs.
"Switzerland outright not allowing residential ACs": That's not completely true, though. First, mobile/portable ACs are allowed pretty much everywhere in Switzerland, I think. Then, for fixed ACs, it depends in which canton you live. Geneva is the strictest, but in most cantons, fixed ACs are allowed under some conditions. Where I live, 50% of the AC energy must come from renewables (which is pretty easy if you have solar panels). Anyway, with all those recent heat waves, I'm pretty sure those rules will soon be relaxed in all cantons.
> mobile/portable ACs are allowed pretty much everywhere in Switzerland, I think.
In Geneva even some mobile ACs, such as mobile split units, are banned without a permit https://www.ge.ch/rafraichir-climatiser-batiment/installatio.... The only ones which are allowed are monoblock mobile ACs. Which is ridiculous given that they are the least efficient and consume way more energy than split mobile units or fixed ACs.
I'm well aware of the memes and discourse on Twitter (although I don't seek it out). My point is that that original comment had none of that. No calling people "europoor." Just important advice delivered unsensationally.
To me, it sounded a bit "euro-A/C-ignorant" meme, but maybe I am on the receiving end and thus slightly oversensitive, because El Niño is not scientifically linked to any climate effect in Europe. It is known to cause effects in North America from Canada to Mexico, whole South America, Australia, South and East Asia, and South of Africa. Why it might sound as an attack to an european? Europe is "first world" and has money to buy A/C (and in fact we are doing it). There will be regions that will suffer a lot more than Europe due to this El Niño event.
The problem with Europe is not El Niño. Our problem is that we are the worse region in the world in how fast the temperature is rising, as you can see in this image/page:
We could live without A/C, and many thought that the increase would be bearable. But then we received a slap in the face, with +7ºC (+12ºF) in the western half, +4ºC (7ºF) in the eastern and north. Deaths by heat don't usually happen at someone's house without A/C: they primarily happen either to people in elderly homes without A/C and maybe even impaired to ask for help or to hydrate properly, or people working outside in sun hours. Putting A/C in every room of every home in Europe would do little if elderly homes, many of them public, are not properly adapted.
Statistics in France show that 75% of the heat related deaths happen in people 75 and older, over 90% in people 65 and older. As sad as is might sound, it is seen as a new "natural cause" of death. Hopefully those buildings will adapt.
It's an extreme taboo topic to discuss but I suspect it's going to be a slow fix if at all: society kind of stops functioning at its best when people live until 90 or 100, and spend decades on pension, disrupting inheritance chains when people "need" them: most Europeans inherit apartments but what good does it do if you inherit in your late 60s? The reality is for most of European history, people inherited in their 40s and got their "big, family apartment" that way.
Also, healthcare spend is really spent mostly on elderly: if you look in any given doctors waiting room, people tend to be old.
Do you have a citation for that? I was under the impression that was an "old wives tale". Human's often face huge temperature swings in winter.
In fact we go out of our way to experience these swings with saunas and cold plunges. I have put this up in the same category of "wet hair gives you pneumonia", but I am open to learning one way or another.
It's clearly an op by people who don't want the story to be about a historic heatwave ravaging Europe, so instead they make it about dum Europeans without air conditioning (which they didn't need before).
That's an uncharitable interpretation of the initial comment.
It can also be read as health-sensible reminder given the climate warnings. AC units demand is already up 26% year over year in my country (according to our biggest online retailer, a month ago). Will be a highly profitable year for manufacturers.
That's how I read it as well. It really sucks that one of the ways we will have to cope with climate change is to build a lot of energy intensive, expensive infrastructure, but it seems pretty much inevitable at this point. The silver lining is that solar is cheap and accessible, and produces the most energy at the time where we will want to run AC as well.
The problem with AC units is that they end up producing yet more heat, so whilst it may be "health-sensible" for the people inside, it's not so good for the people outside.
Yes, ACs are loud and put out more heat than they absorb. They are actually fairly antisocial and I can understand that a country that cares so much about its streetscape and its "outdoor rooms" in its cities does not want a wall of rattling machines dripping condensate from the six floors of every building.
It also makes perfect sense that the country would put thermostat limits in place. In America we have "coldness wars" in public places where companies crank the thermostat down lower and lower until you have a situation where everyone's sitting around an office or mall wearing sweaters because it's so cold inside the buildings.
None of this is about "ideology" it's about preserving a particular culture. A culture that maybe is being killed by the climate crisis that is rendering the outside uninhabitable, but again the redirection from talking about global warming to talking about the Silly Frogs is quite intentional and in bad faith. And it's not just from OP it's a coordinated media campaign.
The thing is that both sides have a point. European countries (notably France) have known for at least 30 years that this was coming, but was ideologically insisting not to install proper AC or even ventilation in public spaces and transport. This does not contradict the wider angle about Americans ignoring climate change.
> ideologically insisting not to install proper AC or even ventilation
This is not supported by facts. People won't spend money on equipment they don't need. Most places in France do not need air conditioning (or did not need it).
It makes no sense that a building owner or transit agency would spend limited funds on something that they do not need.
One may argue that the government of France should have imposed some mandate that people install air conditioning, similar to how Texas failed to mandate insulation for its natural gas infrastructure.
Such mandates would not have been popular unless they were funded. And even then I doubt they would have been popular but they also would have come with considerable cost to the taxpayer.
There is additionally a cultural feeling in some parts of Europe (Germany) that conditioned air is stale and unhealthy. This is not "ideology" but it will certainly contribute to the idea that mass spending on rarely used equipment is wasteful.
Finally, the entire world is unprepared for global warning, Including the USA.
If the next massive climate disaster hits the US, say a drought or mega storm will the message be that "US climate denial ideology caused this" or will it be "nobody could have predicted this; random act of God; thoughts and prayers; nothing to be learned?"
It's not just that France isn't installing them. It's that laws prevent installing them, and laws keep offices and schools warm on purpose.
The prevention comes to play with massive restrictions around visibility of the units on facades in order to preserve character of apartment buildings and beauty. In some cases these can apply to private homes, too. Additionally you have the copropriété, where you need the majority of the building to grant you the right to install AC. The cities have rigid enforcement of all these and can mandate clawbacks and of course fines. And we didn't get into what you're even allowed to install - the things installed in the US won't cut it.
Offices and schools. Laws don't mandate AC, but they prevent it from being put too strong. 27C, I believe is as cold as you're going to get.
French people have a sort of cultural revulsion to AC - forget climate change and American influence, it'll make you sick and you'll hurting your health.
Just stating the facts, not defending the US. The US has a religious opposition to climate change actions as strong as the French religious opposition to AC.
And for older people, France sucks. For younger people, arguably the whole situation really sucks.
Ah yeah, my grandparents never used AC even in the car. They just cruised with windows down even in the height of summer: they had the most bizarre ideas that it was somehow "bad for the heart". But cooking with lard was okay for them and it was "healthy".
At least in Germany you have a right to install an AC and the community can't say no. Even if they do the courts can overturn that decision.
Cooking with lard IS healthy. There was never any evidence to the contrary. The USDA promoted the low fat diet to sell cheap commodity crops, ultra-processed foods, and alternative vegetable oils. Those things ARE bad for you. The low smoke point of the oils makes them burn and produce carcinogens. These oils also soak into the food, whereas frying in high temperature lard benefits from the leidenfrost affect, causing water in food to vaporize and create a layer of steam that pushes the fat away from the food.
Except France very much does need AC. They may keep it off 99% of the time, but anyplace that experiences 38C+ temperatures should have AC systems installed for public safety. The cost benefit ratio is extremely in favor of having AC in France even if they don’t fully cool indoor temperatures to 22C, there’s a huge advantage to limiting temperatures to below 30C.
Paris has hit 42+C before, in places without AC those temperatures result in deaths.
On top of everything you mention, AC makes the climate problems worse. Solar reduces the negative impact, but does not eliminate it.
I live in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. 15 years ago, typical summer daily highs made it into the 80s for a week or two, and in 10+ years of being here before that I never saw it hit 90°F. Now we're 90°F almost all summer and we hit 106°F last summer (the forecast says over 100°F by the end of this week). Overnight lows have seen a similar increase. I'm getting older and fans no longer keep me cool enough to function well. As a compromise, I installed evaporative cooling 5 years ago. In our climate (very dry air when it's hot) it works well and takes ~25% of the energy of AC to run (power is only consumed by a large fan motor and a small water pump). But it does consume water, increasing our total water usage in warm months by ~50%. We have plenty of water in our area, but that's been trending in the wrong direction as well, even in wetter years.
It is totally a fact, many people and officials in France believe that AC is a major contributor to climate change. The public (and very well funded) ecology body, the ADEME, has been at war with AC for a long time now[1].
You can see the same dolorism in the national media[2]. While using coal-powered AC is indeed polluting and not the only solution, it's not the case in France due to the nuclear and hydro share in the mix.
It's not the gist of your comment just mentioning that if you never open your windows for fresh air, CO2 levels can quickly rise and impair cognitive functions including ones for strategical decisions.
It would be one thing if Europe immediately stopped using coal, drastically reduced airline usage, quit building gasoline cars, but if anything it is only marginally better than the US. Europe mostly shifted their dirty work to Asia and North America, while restricting themselves from using air conditioning as some kind of virtue signaling. That's the problem as I see it.
I don't expect people outside of the U.S. to keep up on state level politics but it is worth noting that many in the U.S. are trying and given our form of government state level action isn't anything to sneeze at.
Go stand in your local Walmart parking lot and ask ten people if they know what the climate alliance is or if their state is in it. I'll wire you ten fresh bucks if you find one person who has an idea what that is,
Its basically the wealth divide, mapped to a politics divide. It easy being green- when you are rich or some rich persons descendant. Its a matter of being starved out and deprecated socially if you are poor.
The inability to perceive that ones politics is destroying ones societies poorer members and thus in retaliation they destroy the societies structure is monstrous
Hence why I said "Not aimed at all the wonderful, sane and reasonable people of the USA." I know it's not a Europe vs USA divide, just that it pisses me off that the American news and social media is talking about air conditioners instead of climate change.
Even if the US isn't part of any climate agreements, it has still made substantial progress toward achieving climate goals – yes, even under the Trump admin and much to his chagrin. You need only compare the country's emissions and green energy output from 2016 to 2026 to see it.
There is no such thing as a binding 'agreement' like this in the USA system of government. We have treaties. That have to be ratified by the Senate. The governments of the world understood this, and understood that the Paris climate agreement was an attempt by the US executive branch at the time to bluff to a hollow 'deal' (instead of creating a true binding treaty) hoping future politicians would be too embarrassed to go against it. It was incredibly disingenuous/misleading of the United States Executive branch at the time to do play politics this way outside of the actual US system of treaties. It was part of the breaking of American laws/norms by the executive that led us to where we are today (with chaos, tribalism instead of a legal system, and a breakdown of our government).
'we couldn't follow the law because the law's hard, instead we started the gateway for Trump by bending the rules, destroying norms, pretending the meaningless has meaning and creating pretext Conservatives could use for ignoring (first) these fake rules, but later under Trump huge amounts of the the real rules.'.
It was a bullshit agreement, and everyone knew it was, and were knowing in that what they were doing would weaken/damage politics in the USA and adherence to the rules. And they did it anyways. To no productive end but lots and lots and lots of damage.
If you think not having done this (or really anything else except somehow preventing him and the Republican party from gaining power in the first place) would have prevented any of Trump's actions, I have a lovely bridge that just came on the market that I think you would be the perfect buyer for.
> if Europe immediately stopped using coal, drastically reduced airline usage, quit building gasoline cars
we (the EU, not Europe) are indeed phasing out coal (most countries are already done) and EVs are at 24% of the market (June 26) which is about 4x the US EV marketshare and rising fast.
> Europe mostly shifted their dirty work to Asia and North America
There is a carbon tariff (CBAM) for some imports, will be gradually expanded in the next few years.
That' not marginally better, that's way way better.
We literally destroyed our car industry to try to steer the incoming catastrophe a bit, what the fuck do you want more. Germany tried to be the leader of solar but that was stolen err migrated to China, whole world profits now.
While US, China and rest of the world did nothing similar, just stood and let shit hit the fan hard. Gotta milk those petrodollars till the last cent because thats all that counts, fuck our children right. Yeah we are not going to burn ourselves further to the cinder to prove some anonymous yostrovs something he anyway refuses to see.
You destroyed your auto industry by ceding it to countries with higher emission intensity of production. USA, China, Japan have higher intensity than even Germany which is on the upper end of Western European countries. That's not steering anywhere except more sharply into the wall!
You've been lied to by your own ruling class. What else have they been lying to you about, I wonder?
You also turned off nuclear power and stayed with lignite, the dirtiest of coals. Soon you'll stop using coal since you won't have much industry left to power.
Germany seems confused.
In terms of greenhouse it also depends on type of meat. Very acidental but europeans eat much less beef and eat pork/chicken instead. Chicken protein for example is in many cases better than cheese emission wise.
Also i don't think europeans don't use AC to save the planet. It's just expensive and it didn't use to be a problem.
Paris didn’t have air-conditioning because they sit at a latitude of 49 where in the past you might have a week maybe two of sustained high temperatures above 90°, since Paris sits at a latitude of 49 which is north of the United States-Canadian border all the way from Vancouver to the lake of the woods Minnesota.
Which is hardly air-conditioning country above latitude 49 although obviously climate change may change that, but there was no point having air-conditioning that far north in the past for two weeks of possible hot weather, a resident living in the American southwest who will never have a white Christmas ever and air conditioning was always a must.
As mentioned in other comments, what you call the past has been known for at least 30-40 years to be soon obsolete. They had enough time to prepare to this.
Not ethically better, though. At least in the US, 99% of all pork is factory-farmed, and in much of that the pigs live their whole lives in a stall too small to turn around in.
Pigs are as smart as dogs, and have personalities and emotions. I am absolutely a carnivore, but I still balk at eating meat raised through a system that just about tortures intelligent animals.
Anyways: I eat a lot more chicken and plant protein these days.
It should be more grating that Europe's refusal to adopt air conditioning is murdering their most vulnerable at rates comparable to American gun deaths and (unlike climate change or gun violence) there's a trivial solution that would prevent this immediately instead of waiting decades.
These "most vulnerable ones" are the ones who don't want airco or that believe that climate change does not exist because it's summer of course it's hot.
This is completely incoherent, especially since some European governments outlaw or restrict the installation of personal air conditioning in certain kinds of buildings.
Belief in climate change isn't exactly rare in Europe.
I've been thinking the same: the smaller the codebase, the better AI performs. So a way to scale AI is to modularize your architecture to maximize the number of leaf nodes in the dependency tree, and split out separate libraries where it makes sense.
It is huge for token usage also, Claude grepping the codebase for context it doesn't have is the main consumer of input tokens from what I can see.
Perhaps we are putting human intelligence on a pedestal. I have often caught myself having a supposedly original idea only to find I inherited it from something I read months before.
We are mostly autocomplete with a mild capacity to synthesise new ideas. It’s the network effect of communicating that creates the feedback loops which amplify our collective intelligence.
Also if you think intelligent life has to have a regard for truth, not just a regard for self, tune in to any news channel.
Something an older and wiser programmer taught me, is to think of the infrastructure costs as a per-user cost. These numbers look enormous next to my bank balance, but if you save 500k per year to service 1 million users, it's nothing to your bottom line.
Meanwhile there's the opportunity cost of moving. All of the people who put effort into this migration, who could otherwise be building something revenue-generating. I think that's why in many companies cloud costs are a problem, but never enough to make it high up the backlog.
Somehow no one was ever making this argument when companies were spending tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to move their on prem workflows to the cloud.
At that point it was all “you will save the money because you will need such a smaller ops team”.
But once people actually did make the move and noticed that their ops teams didn’t get any smaller, then we started being gaslit into “well the cloud was never about saving money…it was about <fill in the blank>”.
Thenper user calculation is a terrible one. It essentially justifies any inefficiency as long as it’s not some arbitrary multiple of your user base, but inefficiencies add up.
The correct approach, that you even allude to, is to do a complete cost-benefit analysis. And the costs and benefits should include non dollar factors such as time, risk, control, reputational risk, data being available to 3rd parties, etc.
There’s no reason to divide your cost/benefit analysis by your user base at all. You can simply compare the absolute and total values against other potential initiatives and stack rank them based on their net expected benefit.
If you’re comfortable where you are as a business, and not looking for more than steady revenue growth in your core market, then finding efficiencies is a fine use of time.
I know that mindset is antithetical to the VC “make every chart a hockey stick” culture, which is well-represented here on HN. But actually tons of businesses are run that way.
Tech is seen in this very biased lens because Tech seems to be the only place imo that VC's are genuinely interested in seeing very high growth in.
They want to know that they have bet on the next google and they want to know it fast.
Actually, it is real funny that we are talking about this on a forum which is funded by y-combinator/ a lot of this VC nuance.
I don't know man, if I can be honest or not, but I was thinking for a moment and the whole idea of tech seems to be a lot more overflated man... , as a dev, I was just thinking about the influence of money and I was genuinely just wondering what is the fastest way I can make money and It was probably creating a proprietory product and selling the startup / getting VC fund-ed and not organic growth.
I am still very nuanced though, on one hand, both of these go against my personal philosophy, I myself would "love" to open source (preferably MIT but hey AGPL would also cut the deal like the recent redis...) my product and probably have no 0 VC funding.
But on the other hand, I am not sure, A lot of what I feel like building, is probably immature, its better off hidden. I am using Ai to build a lot of stuff for now, and I am not quite proud of it.
I feel, that as someone who has made very meaningless contributions (I guess?) in my past and while I was writing this comment, I was getting this vague sense of an issue being popped up on whatever software I create with "WHY DOESN'T IT WORK" and no issues or nothing.... I don't know, it makes it less lucrative to open source, quite frankly any product.
Maybe I want an AI which can genuinely resolve such very meaningless issues but I also don't trust AI, what if there are some issues which are actually good and AI filters it wrong.
I don't know man. I was thinking about this yesterday and I just realized that I am not thinking this much, I would do whatever I think in the heat of the moment.
They've talked about this at length in both blog posts and podcasts. The gist is that all the Amazon cloud stuff still took effort, their ops team is essentially the same size and they're actually saving all this money.
Also the AWS cloud engineers are so much more expensive because the AWS learning treadmill runs at a 10x speed compared to the on-prem one.
Our cloud engineers spend so much of their time simply keeping up with all the things they need to keep up with, even for workflows that have been running just fine, for years.
The on-prem engineers also need to be up to date, but the changes are more measured and easier to manage.
More money in the company pocket.
More work for the people who did the migration and now maintaining their own cloud. Then when the people who put this together leave, the rest are stuck with one of a kind cloud.
Maybe a good idea, but if it's only saving money that can only happen 1 time, then people expect the same cost going forward ...
They open sourced the entire deployment apparatus that they built to do all of this - it is simple to use. They'll have no issues maintaining it or finding new people if/when needed.
And, if you bothered reading, there's significant annual savings, into perpetuity. Because aws is a racket.
Building revenue generating things is hard (you have to figure out new things that people will pay for). Writing new features also requires generally different skill sets than operating servers. Running software in a datacenter is a more defined problem with straightforward ROI.
I considered doing the same but in the end decided I don’t want to use a platform I have to fight against, while still letting them build brand recognition to my kid.
So I downloaded a bunch of the videos on our desktop and blocked the site. Works for my 3.5 year old, not sure the plan when they outgrow it.
>I considered doing the same but in the end decided I don’t want to use a platform I have to fight against, while still letting them build brand recognition to my kid.
>So I downloaded a bunch of the videos on our desktop and blocked the site.
Downloading videos from youtube and blocking the site seems more like fighting against the platform (and more work) than turning on a whitelist mode. Seems like the end result is the same but with more work.
I did the same and it’s great. At some point normal boredom kicks in and no bad habits are formed. I realized a while ago that many kids are primed early throug so many channels, it’s beyond despicable. At this point a big share of blame needs to fall on the parents turning a bling eye to it all.
He is just one person. He happens to be the most famous scientist working on this field at the moment it became a gold rush, but it's work built on the shoulders of those who came before, whose discoveries are just as important.
I'm nearly certain that the images and the text are AI generated from other sources and perhaps tweaked a bit. The headings are the giveaway. Low signal-to-noise ratio.
Google search results is full of this stuff, but first time seeing it at the top of HN
The article says it was originally written in 1996. It's on the site of the Attention Deficit Disorders Association. The images are generic stock photography.
As a non-american I also thought the same. Reading a synopsis of evidence completely changed my mind [1]. Pipe bombs planted at party headquarters to divert the police, maps of tunnels under the Capitol building and so on. Not amateur stuff.
- Set time limits on apps.
- Block App Store.
- Set a Screen Time pin, then forget it.
Downside: if you need to install a new app, you need to do a iTunes backup, factory reset and restore the backup,. Also apps won't continue to update with this approach.
Worth it though. I don't miss wasting 10-20 hours a week on brain rot apps.
Can't uninstall the browser, and occasionally it's needed for legit reasons. I quite literally can't resist drifting towards mindless scrolling apps, though I know that's hard to fathom for some people.
