I hate to correct @elonmusk, but his assertion that it takes 20 years to replace the vehicle fleet is wrong. This thread tries to describe why. 1/
This will drasticaly decrease the total size of the global car fleet as the rate of cars retirering will be at least twice the size of the cars being retired 4/
This becomes a feedback loop what will both decrease the vehicle fleet and collapse the value of ICE cars. 7/
More from Tech
Interestingly, this thread below has been written by that.
Let me show you how it looks like. 👇🏻
Recently I just refunded all Poster's sales from Gumroad. Being that said, I decided to not using that service anymore.
— Wilbert Liu \U0001f468\U0001f3fb\u200d\U0001f3a8 (@wilbertliu) November 19, 2018
Here's a little story \U0001f447\U0001f3fb
When you see localhost up there, you should know that it's truly an experiment! 😀
It's a dead-simple thread writer that will post a series of tweets a.k.a tweetstorm. ⚡️
I've been personally wanting it myself since few months ago, but neglected it intentionally to make sure it's something that I genuinely need.
So why is that important for me? 🙂
I've been a believer of a story. I tell stories all the time, whether it's in the real world or online like this. Our society has moved by that.
If you're interested by stories that move us, read Sapiens!
One of the stories that I've told was from the launch of Poster.
It's been launched multiple times this year, and Twitter has been my go-to place to tell the world about that.
Here comes my frustration.. 😤
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
There is a lot of confusion about carbon budgets and how quickly emissions need to fall to zero to meet various warming targets. To cut through some of this morass, we can use some very simple emission pathways to explore what various targets would entail. 1/11 pic.twitter.com/Kriedtf0Ec
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 24, 2020
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
You May Also Like
Five billionaires share their top lessons on startups, life and entrepreneurship (1/10)
I interviewed 5 billionaires this week
— GREG ISENBERG (@gregisenberg) January 23, 2021
I asked them to share their lessons learned on startups, life and entrepreneurship:
Here's what they told me:
10 competitive advantages that will trump talent (2/10)
To outperform, you need serious competitive advantages.
— Sahil Bloom (@SahilBloom) March 20, 2021
But contrary to what you have been told, most of them don't require talent.
10 competitive advantages that you can start developing today:
Some harsh truths you probably don’t want to hear (3/10)
I\u2019ve gotten a lot of bad advice in my career and I see even more of it here on Twitter.
— Nick Huber (@sweatystartup) January 3, 2021
Time for a stiff drink and some truth you probably dont want to hear.
\U0001f447\U0001f447
10 significant lies you’re told about the world (4/10)
THREAD: 10 significant lies you're told about the world.
— Julian Shapiro (@Julian) January 9, 2021
On startups, writing, and your career: