The article did have a lot of opinion in it with limited information based on facts.

They included the opinion of Kaja Kallas. She reads a lot of books and is very smart (according to her own words)

I'm not saying it was completely lacking facts. I am more so referring to the less technical language such as "As winter began in the Arctic, China was celebrating a banner year there"

What are the environmental impacts of this route becoming more and more active?

More open water means ships can move through places that used to be protected by ice. This would have impact on marine life, fisheries, coastal life.

It will have far more impact in the climate of all the world. Ice reflects sunlight, deep water absorbs it, the rate of the planet heating up rises, positive feedback loops should be scary for a reason. At least for something that is not just a new narrow path but a significant portion of ice cover missing on that general area.

Agreed - blog post is more appropriate than a twitter post

Maybe it's me but I couldn't see it.

Go to the link in GP's post then zoom out.

How much deforestation over the past decades has been reversed and is deforestation currently under control?

Per the article:

> China finished encircling the Taklamakan Desert with vegetation in 2024, and researchers say the effort has stabilized sand dunes and grown forest cover in the country from 10% of its area in 1949 to more than 25% today.

The main problem with attempts at reversing the damage is that forests aren't fungible.

An old growth forest has a rich, balanced ecosystem. Newly planted forests tend to be susceptible to catastrophic damage by various critters, as the species mix is much less complex, and their fauna and flora is relatively impoverished.

So you just need to be stubborn until they stick or cleverer in how you go about it?

Biology is complicated, ecology even more so...

An old forest is a result of multiple waves successions after disasters (fire, windstorms etc.), which are really hard to emulate. Some desirable seedlings are hard to grow artificially, others just won't prosper in situ unless/until very specific conditions are met...

After a long enough time, the forest will eventually revert to a fully natural state, but that time is way longer than human lifetime. It is a living organism of sorts and living organisms are much easier to kill than to re-create.

In the grand scheme of things having an old growth forest is probably better than having a new growth forest, but if a goal is to increase carbon absorption, new growth forests beat the pants off old growth forests.

True, growing forests are carbon sinks while stable forests are neutral.

As long as you can prevent forest fires, which would release the CO2 again...

IDK if you can prevent forest fires in Taklamakan, with its relatively high summer temperatures.

This looks awesome.

Thanks!

LLMs have made a lot of coding challenges less painful: Navigating terrible documentation, copilot detecting typos, setting up boilerplate frontend components, high effort but technically unchallenging code completions. Whenever I attempted LLMs for tools I’m not familiar with I found it to be useful with setting things up but felt like I had to do good old learning the tool and applying developer knowledge to it. I wonder if senior developers could use LLMs in ways that work with them and not against them. I.e create useful code that has guardrails to avoid slop

Even if it can sometimes help, I think it is not an excuse for writing bad documentation.

Are there security best practices for each of these tools or is that too early?

“our team was blown away by how much Codex was able to accelerate its own development.”

At what point will LLMs be autonomously self creating new versions of themselves?

To anyone trying this, does this unlock anything you tried to do with the past LLM models but failed and now you can try again? Do you find this as an incremental improvement or something that brings in new opportunities?