One silver-lining to the cloud of COVID has been the development of virtual forms of participation. A SIGPLAN blog post by five early-career researchers offers their perspective on what we should do next.
We propose that SIGPLAN form a Committee on Conference Data.
The committee would be made up of: one organizing-committee representative from each of the flagship SIGPLAN conferences, one early career representative, and, crucially, a professional data collection specialist hired by SIGPLAN. The group would identify and collect key data that is pertinent to conference organization, especially with respect to physical versus virtual conference formats. The committee would make data-driven recommendations to SIGPLAN organizers based on the collected data and guided by core tenets such as community building, inclusivity, research dissemination, and climate responsibility.
We realize that this is not a small request, but we are confident that it is both necessary and achievable. If the committee were to form by May 1, 2021, it would be able to start collecting data at PLDI 2021 and continue through the next two years, providing enormous clarity for SIGPLAN organizers at a time when so much is unclear.
Maria Stoian muses on how our reaction to Covid-19 predicts our reaction to the Climate Crisis. Simultaneously downbeat and upbeat. Courtesy of the Nib.
There has been much discussion of how to reduce the carbon footprint of conferences by supporting remote attendance in real time, now accelerated by the advent of coronavirus. Most of the models I've seen discussed are synchronous, supporting virtual attendance in real-time. I was intrigued by this white paper, which proposes an asynchronous model. Talks are grouped into sessions of three, with Q&A panels open for comment for a period of a few weeks.
On average, the pilot conferences’ Q&A sessions generated three times more discussion than takes place at a traditional Q&A. A few sessions generated more than ten or fifteen times more, making clear that, while different from a traditional conference, meaningful personal interaction was not only possible, but in certain respects superior.
This might be an interesting model for SIGPLAN/ACM to explore. Although the white paper suggests it as a replacement for conferences in a physical location, we could also try it out as a supplement to such a conference.
Amidst all the bad news, Naomi Klein shines a ray of light.
Taken together, the evidence is clear: The left just won. Forget the
nomination—I mean the argument. Clinton, and the 40-year ideological
campaign she represents, has lost the battle of ideas. The spell of
neoliberalism has been broken, crushed under the weight of lived
experience and a mountain of data.
What for decades was unsayable is now being said out loud—free
college tuition, double the minimum wage, 100 percent renewable energy.
And the crowds are cheering. With so much encouragement, who knows
what’s next? Reparations for slavery and colonialism? A guaranteed
annual income? Democratic worker co-ops as the centerpiece of a green
jobs program? Why not? The intellectual fencing that has constrained the
left’s imagination for so long is lying twisted on the ground. ...
Looking beyond this election cycle, this is actually good news. If
Sanders could come this far, imagine what a left candidate who was
unburdened by his weaknesses could do. A political coalition that
started from the premise that economic inequality and climate
destabilization are inextricable from systems of racial and gender
hierarchy could well build a significantly larger tent than the Sanders
campaign managed to erect.
And if that movement has a bold plan for humanizing and
democratizing new technology networks and global systems of trade, then
it will feel less like a blast from the past, and more like a path to an
exciting, never-before-attempted future. Whether coming after one term
of Hillary Clinton in 2020, or one term of Donald Trump, that
combination—deeply diverse and insistently forward-looking—could well
prove unbeatable.
The Scottish Government have set a target of 10% of all trips by foot or bicycle, but less than 2% of the Scottish travel budget goes to 'active travel' (the buzzword for getting from one place to another minus a motor). We Walk, We Cycle, We Vote and Spokes suggest you ask your candidate to pledge the following:
To raise the share of the transport budget spent
on walking and cycling to 10% over the course of the next parliament.
See the pages linked above for more info, including hustings you can attend to put the question to your local candidates. A don't forget to Pedal on Parliament on 23 April 2016.
Good news, globally 2015 is likely to be the hottest year ever recorded. And if it is the hottest year ever recorded then it will beat the previous record holder, last year. ...
There is genuinely, genuinely good news about the environment this week, the Paris climate deal has been signed, a global agreement made by 195 countries to try and keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees as we move away from fossil fuels. President Orlande said "History is coming. In fact, history is here." Which I'm not sure is quite how history works. I take his point. And the Prime Minister himself said "This global deal now means the whole world has signed up to play its part in halting climate change." And what inspiring words those are. And with those inspiring words, he beetled off home to see what part he could play in this global effort. And only a few days later he managed to change the law about fracking under Britain's national parks. I know what's happened though, it's a simple misunderstanding. They've heard everyone in Paris talking about how we must move to a fossil-fuel free future and said to themselves "Hang on, there's a bit of fossil fuel left under the Lake District. Better dig that up pronto and burn it." I assume that's what happened. Either that, or it's just like when you go to the gym, and then on the way home you say to yourself "Well, I've earned myself some fish and chips". Except of course the Paris agreement is actually a collection of largely non-binding aspirations for the future, so this is more like saying "I really must go the gym more often. Well that's earned me some fish and chips."
Roy Thompson, FRSE, is Professor Emeritus and Senior Honorary Professorial Fellow, and a former Professor of Environmental Geophysics at the University of Edinburgh, and a friend of my cycling buddy Shane. In his video, available on the University of Edinburgh Social Responsibility and Sustainability page, he opines on the results of Paris. While the Paris accords speak of limiting warming to 1.5C, his model shows that at our current pace we should expect warming of 8C by the end of the century. Experts are divided, but even if all the parties to Paris deliver on their current pledges it will cut the 8C by only 0.1C to 0.5C. Time to redouble the campaign to leave it in the ground.
Without the Paris accords, global temperatures are set to rise by more that 4.5C by 2100. And with the Paris accords? Pretty much exactly the same!
Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:
The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100. "
