安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
49 
举报此帖
Yeah instead giving it all to billionaire corporations who pump fossil fuels.
In summary, he still cares about climate change, but he does not think it is going to destroy humanity in the next ten or so years and thinks there are other priorities that need to be addressed. Priorities that reduce the immediate harm of global warming to people's lives by making developing nations more capable of surviving the consequences of it, and necessitate an increase in carbon emissions because we are not ready to fully cut them out yet even doing as much as we can, and that the existing targets are unrealistic.
There is a tremendous difference between not caring about climate change and saying we need to approach our energy allocation wisely, with due consideration to multiple different human welfare and pragmatic factors.
“Although climate change will have serious consequences – particularly for people in the poorest countries – it will not lead to humanity’s demise,” Gates wrote. “
Doesnt care sounds different.
1. He never carred to begin with.
2. It's not generating enough profits.
This is most likely the reason. The data centers being built will require increasing the generation of electricity by 50%, or maybe even more, and you won't be able to do that with "green" energy.
Just how much processing power is really needed?
I remember the days when people would knock door to door for survey answers.