Real-world limits tend to preclude taking "every" opportunity. A more realistic approach would be to do things that might help a lot and not do things that take time and effort and won't help much.

That's not how free, democratic societies make policy.

Is there evidence to conclude that enough people in democratic countries and enough leaders in undemocratic countries would support sufficient political action for long enough to solve the problem (according to the climate models)?

The opposite conclusion seems to be true so far.

A common argument is that climate change can be avoided if everyone makes a number of small changes in their lives. These guys have determined that marginal, easily affordable changes in people's lives are insufficient according to some climate models. (Unless there's are large, unforeseeable technological advances.)

In other words, a specific approach or category of approaches won't work if you believe the forecasts of some severe climate models. The obvious response would be to stop advocating the unworkable approaches and/or re-examine the climate models to see if they might be overestimating the challenge.

Perhaps the article communicates this poorly. It's still useful info though.

Some of us get our power from giant french perpetual motion machines that we built from specs on the internet in our back yards. Not like I would expect you to understand. It seems I am clearly without an intellectual equal on this site.

Which one of those is "a software shop"? None of them.

If he were going to start the next Google, he would be talking to his venture capital friends and his other advisors, not to AskSlashdot.

Business is about sales and customers. Everything else you do is completely irrelevant if you don't have sales and customers. If you don't have a good plan to sell your wares, you don't need to spend 5 minutes thinking about how you will produce them.

Spend a few days reading nothing but technology news. Then spend a few days reading nothing but political news. For the first few days you’ll see an exciting world of innovation and creativity where everything is getting better all the time. In the second period you’ll see a miserable world of cynicism and treachery where everything is falling apart. Please explain the difference.

Do you believe in microaggressions? Why or why not? Is a belief in microaggressions helpful or harmful? To whom is it helpful? Who should worry about microaggressions? Who shouldn't? How can someone be certain they are innocent of committing microaggressions? If someone is accused of something like committing microaggressions, are there two sides that must be considered, or only one?

Dude, if this means no more streams of gold invites when I don't want them I'll just be crushed. What will I di with myself if half my facebook experience doesn't involve disabling requests from apps my friends use?

On a side note: people still use Facebook?

European governments are a lot more professional than their U.S. counterparts. European pro-government sentiment and US anti-government sentiment may both be correct and wise.

You can expect some disadvantages from living in North Dakota.

One actual advantage is that you have elected government beholden to a small number of people. If you can get a few neighbors together, you can probably get a meeting with your local officials who deal with CenturyLink. Get them to pressure CenturyLink to do upgrades or to find an alternate solution for you. You might actually get part of what you want if you work at it a little.

An ILEC is a local telephone company. Non-ILECs have no such requirement.

Also, what do you expect in North Dakota? We shouldn't make laws for everyone based on conditions in North Dakota.

Yes, but perversely compelling.