Living near Quebec has ruined me for poutine, now I’m back in the GTA I can’t find a reliable spot that can make a good classic poutine.
Not to be a poutine snob, but I hope those curds melted, even the best places sometimes have curds or gravy that’s too cold and doesn’t melt properly!
If anyone in the GTA has a good traditional poutine spot please let me know. There’s some good shawarma poutine floating around, but the only reliable classic poutine I have found is Swiss Chalet. I usually get traditional gravy and chalet sauce on the side for dunking
I have a vendetta against Chromium because of Valve having to cease support for older OSes. They did that because of Chromium being built into the Steam client.
Firefox 115 is the last version to support Windows 7, so Valve using Gecko instead of Blink wouldn’t have made a difference here. Maybe it’s time to move on from a 14 year old operating system on the internet with known zero-day exploits that aren’t going to get patched.
Probably not the crowd for this but I just use YouTube premium at this point. I used ublock previously to manage some of this but the kicker was ensuring I could watch YT seamlessly on all devices (TV - fire stick, ipad, ios). I know I can setup a pi hole but have been moving last couple years. Perhaps soon once I settle.
Of all the streaming services we subscribe to, our family uses YT Premium the most by a large margin. In terms of hours watched/$ it’s easily the best value. And you get YT Music.
I have every *arr in existence, I don’t pay for anything. But I have YT Premium Family. I still use ReVanced for sponsor block and other customization preferences, but I have it for my family so they can be bullshit free on every device.
Yearly. They look at slices generated by compressed layers of snowfall. Thick layer = cold year. They look at more stuff but that’s roughly how it works.
edit: not sure why you’re downvoted. It’s a good question.
Ah yes, approximation is not a record therefore we cannot consider it a factor at all, regardless of it being our best estimate given our current data. You’re right, let’s throw it all out and opt for ignorance. 🙄
i suggested no such thing, you made that last part up for yourself.
i am just highlighting that comparing data from different sources/methods of collection is not proper apples to apples comparison. but sure have a melt down over it lol
I don't mean digital. Just daily readings with a thermometer across the globe v 1cm or whatever per year of a core reading for that location or a few of them.
No you’re acting like we can’t use this as a data point when it’s the data we have. It may not align apples to apples, but we have a recognizable trend that aligns with/exceeds predictions. I don’t see the point in doubting the data we have.
The original toot clarified that they were talking about direct measurements only (but evidence exists that this is the warmest period in the last 125,000 years).
This Wikipedia page honestly has some of the best climate change graphics I’ve seen anywhere. They’re simple, fact-based, concise and paint a pretty obvious and telling picture.
To be fair, everything earlier than 200 years ago is irrelevant. We’ve built our current society and civilization in the current climate. If it changes too fast and too much, we won’t be able to adapt in time and our society and civilization will be damaged or destroyed. That is what we should aim to prevent.
Whether it was even hotter while we were living in caves, or whether a couple million humans could survive the climate apocalypse doesn’t matter. If it comes to that point, we’ve already failed.
I don’t mean to disagree or argue, but I still think this is a delicate point.
We are moving Earth out of the climate in which humanity emerged, survived, lived and prospered.
Some point out how terrible it would be to stop using oil and coal. Which it would. But on the other hand - we survived 200’000 years without oil and coal, but we never had to endure the climate in which we are speeding right now.
I think we mostly have the same point. I just find it worth noting the climate has not been this hot ever in the whole of mankinds existence.
How is this whataboutism? Who said anything about the West or East vs West?
If anything this comment is about how China continues to increase their carbon emissions per capita year over year while the west is doing the opposite.
Edit: In fact the EU produces less then China per capita...
I didn’t get the sense that they’re saying China’s the sole reason for pollution - we all understand that it’s an issue globally - that article is just showing an example of how, instead of fixing the problem, the powerhouse countries of the world are doubling down on pollution.
Instead of agreeing to nebulous things like “limit to 2 degrees”. International politics should have focused on specifics like “hey, at least don’t make any new coal plants”.
Right now deepfakes doesn’t work well when the face is viewed from extreme angles, so you can ask them to slowly turn their face to the side or up/down as far as they can until the face is not visible. It also doesn’t work well when something obstruct the face, so ask them to put their hand in their face. It also can’t seem to render mouth right if you open it too wide, or stick out your tongue.
I base this from a deepfake app I tried: github.com/s0md3v/roop . But as the tech improves, it might be able to handle those cases in the future.
Edit: chance that the scammer use a live deepfake app like this one: github.com/iperov/DeepFaceLive . It also supports using the Insight model which only need a single well lit photo to impersonate someone.
Right now deepfakes doesn’t work well when the face is viewed from extreme angles, so you can ask them to slowly turn their face to the side or up/down as far as they can until the face is not visible.
or, you know, you can just pickup the phone and call them.
You might not be aware of it, but in India (and SEA), using whatsapp video call is a lot more common than calling using your carrier’s phone service. No one would think twice when receiving a whatsapp video calls there.
i am not aware of that, no, but my point is not that the video call itself is suspicious. it is that if you have have a suspicion for whatever reason, normal cell call for a verification is far easier than doing some strange gymnastics the person above suggested (which may or may not work).
I guess that also allows for some ‘benefit of the doubt’ from the point of view of the victim, it’s probably harder to spot artifacts that would be obvious on a TV or monitor screen when the image is v small, and any glitches could be due to the video stream / compression
So why is that? Why do people from other countries use WhatsApp instead of the carriers service? My family in the UK uses it for not only us yanks, but for each other in country as well…why? I’m not gonna download it, they can just email me or text me like a normal person. Like they insist on WhatsApp. I don’t fucking get it.
Unlike in the US, unlimited calls and unlimited sms is not a thing in many countries where WhatsApp is popular. In contrast, WhatsApp calls and messages are free. This was quite significant, especially early on when WhatsApp starting to get popular during the J2ME / Symbian era.
Now that everyone use it, if you don’t use it you’ll be that one weirdo who don’t use WhatsApp and people may choose to not contact you at all (especially if it’ll cost money to call you). Even businesses and banks have WhatsApp account these days, so not using WhatsApp will inconvenience you if you live where WhatsApp is dominant.
I had this attack tried on me. It was a video call from my friend’s Facebook account. If I didn’t know enough to be suspicious, I wouldn’t have answered. Luckily I have that friend on Signal, so I knew they wouldn’t have called me on Facebook asking for money. I tried calling on Signal, but they didn’t answer. They must’ve not had their phone on them. Calling their home phone worked, though, which is kind of a weird thought.
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company. So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
In the last link it literally says: “These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firm”
These concepts only work in relatively small companies. And first off all, this company might be ranked relatively high in Spain, but it still is just Spain.
Further, to my understanding, the group could be actually described as multiple smaller companies housed under a big one. So that explains that party.
I’m just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.
It’s like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things. You’re so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has “mechanisms” for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.
Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some “counter” that, in your mind, confirms that you’ve always been right (it doesn’t), and everyone who’s arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.
It can never just be, “hey I didn’t know that about my country, that’s interesting. Maybe I should reconsider…” Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn’t work is not based in reality. They’re fucking thriving. You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.
The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something… Like it’s protecting itself from new information. It’s fascinating.
I’m just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.
I am a connoisseur of discussion. A man who enjoys discourse. But indeed what I stated are my firm beliefs. And those beliefs have not yet failed me.
It’s like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things.
It always depends on the information. Some information just has less weight to it.
You’re so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has “mechanisms” for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.
Now I feel like I’ve been put on the spot. This might apply on some of my standpoints. But none so far in our discussion here.
Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some “counter” that, in your mind, confirms that you’ve always been right (it doesn’t),
Oh, just because the Information I have given, does not convince you or support your standpoint, doesn’t make it invalid. I’d like to pull up the Infinite Monkey Theorem at this point. A few false informations can also lead to the correct outcome. But now I have lost the thread.
and everyone who’s arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.
And are you not trying to prove me wrong? Is it not, that you claim my standpoints to be somewhat flawed, and yours must be the ultimate ratio?
It can never just be, “hey I didn’t know that about my country, that’s interesting. Maybe I should reconsider…”
I do reconsider when it’s to my benefit. But as said before, my standpoints have yet to fail me.
Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn’t work is not based in reality. They’re fucking thriving.
Average wealth per person in Germany is lower than in Italy or Greece. some german article to back up my claims Germany are not thriving. The German government is thriving.
You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.
Because it has the highest and second highest taxes in many sectors. And the government uses this money to influence other countries to their benefit. My people are not thriving. I wished for a concept similar to Switzerland. Still high taxes, but the money stays in the country without attempts to control European politics.
The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something… Like it’s protecting itself from new information. It’s fascinating.
From my standpoint of course, this is the opposite standpoint.
while I do completely agree with Apple depressing lack of any innovation recently, until modern foldable phones become commonplace, there is only so much you can do with a brick of glass.
That’s kind of a dumb way to make the point. Innovation isn’t necessarily apparent in a photo with no context or information. A bronze sword and a steel sword still both look like swords, but there a huge technological difference between them.
Your implied point was that there wasn’t any innovation, but there was, by your own admission above.
Don’t shift the goalposts by latching onto an analogy I made. The fact is that the technology has progressed quite quickly over the timespan represented in those pictures, and that fact underscores what’s wrong with the post you were responding to - it wasn’t a handful of rich folk that did it, it was the work of hundreds of thousands of people around the world. You had a much better point to make than the one you did.
Honestly, you seem like you’re having trouble being calm. I’m sorry if I played any part in making you feel that way, I didn’t mean to upset you or hurt your feelings. It’s ok if we don’t agree.
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
This is like the “They can just sell their house and move” thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
This is the “war and famine” part of climate change that people don’t often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn’t going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it’s from the secondary effects of killing entire ecosystems and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad…
And you’re right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
This is like the “They can just sell their house and move” thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
My family fled several times in the past. During WW2 they fled from Ukraine to Poland, and when the Russians came, then they fled back to Germany. And then years later from east Germany to west Germany. Leaving everything behind each time. Every time was a goddamn reset. So what. It’s all about survival. Rebuilding has always been possible.
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
So the problem is and always has been overpopulation. Another screw we should have adjusted in the past but refused to do so.
This is the “war and famine” part of climate change that people don’t often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn’t going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it’s from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad…
I know about this part. And it is the only part that concerns me.
And you’re right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
As humans, it has always been our responsibility to adapt. Not the other way around. Every being on this world influences the world itself. We cannot live without influencing our surroundings.
You successfully stole a few minutes of my life. Time I could have spent on studying and working further to my ultimate goal: becoming the next German dictator.
(••) ( ••)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
Keep going, maybe I’ll actually read the next one.
First I need some unrealistic opinions to react to.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ Some more of your beliefs will do just fine.
The ‘future’ is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn’t make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you’re talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It’s all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of ‘termination shock’ and countless others.
This kind of futurist accelerationist thinking hasn’t turned out well in the past: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism?wprov=sfla1It always ends up feeding into Fascism. I wonder why.
Firstly, that isn’t ‘already done’. It’s a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.
Secondly,
Radical solutions such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles could theoretically help reduce temperatures, but could also have major unforeseen consequences, and many experts fear what could happen were a country to experiment with such techniques.
This is from your source ^
So is this:
In a paper last year, researchers at National Taiwan University said that the “lack of proper coordination of weather modification activity (could) lead to charges of ‘rain stealing’ between neighboring regions,” both within China and with other countries. They also pointed to the lack of a “system of checks and balances to facilitate the implementation of potentially controversial projects.”
Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.
Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?
Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn’t be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.
Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.
I agree there are many solutions. I don’t think markets and capital are going to make them happen.
We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.
Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?
Well, a fee could theoretically be possible. Farmers with plants that need shadow could pay for shielding. In the end the end consumer pays the price.
Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn’t be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.
👍
Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.
Let me rephrase it: it’s boring. Nada used old ass Russian rockets for years. So there is not much innovation there anyway.
I agree there are many solutions. I don’t think markets and capital are going to make them happen.
I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions. Such money could also be invested into sun shield projects.
We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.
I agree on the tech solutions. Let’s see them being implemented before chopping on the foundation of our economics.
I’m actually in favour of replacing most jet airliners with rail and maybe electric airships. Most short-haul flights can be replaced by rail; it’s much more pleasant than flying anyway. Jets can be reserved for long-distance journeys. Being able to hop on a blimp would be cool, even if it’s slower. We can make them much better and safer with today’s tech.
I don’t like the ‘green offset’ thing because it makes it look like we’re ‘doing something’ when it’s actually not doing much at all. If you want to be a utilitarian, it would be much more effective to just donate to an effective charity every time you fly.
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn?
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,… Of course the world would continue to turn.
That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?
Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
And that’s a good thing.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Same with medical advancements,
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn’t STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I’m not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.
Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is
None of those links are about Chemistry or Physics. The demos link is Economics, The Entrepreneurial State. The youtube link is about the history of the internet. Maybe try learning something that isn’t STEM. Might broaden your way of thinking.
Sure it would. But it probably wouldn’t change my standpoint.
I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later, although I’m not sure I want to anymore since you clearly have no interest in taking into account new information.
Yes, unfortunately I am extremely stubborn. Sorry.
Also how the fuck can you be interested in technology and say something like this:
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
Because rockets are boring. Bubble and stuff is just extraordinary craftsmanship and black matter will take some time. And I overall hate relativity theory. I am hoping for gravitons. Wave functions rock.
If you know anything about any science you should know how stupid of a point this is
Not stupid. Some sciences simply are idiotic. Do you have any idea how much I hate biologists. Entitled brats. Some of them have an extreme superiority complex. And don’t get my talking about physicists. Buch of weirdos. You should see physicists interact with biologists. It like two different species encountering each other. But communication attempts are futile.
Yes, unfortunately I am extremely stubborn. Sorry.
Fair, you do you mate
Because rockets are boring. Bubble and stuff is just extraordinary craftsmanship and black matter will take some time. And I overall hate relativity theory. I am hoping for gravitons. Wave functions rock.
Well, have fun with that, I will stop arguing.
Not stupid. Some sciences simply are idiotic. Do you have any idea how much I hate biologists. Entitled brats. Some of them have an extreme superiority complex. And don’t get my talking about physicists. Buch of weirdos. You should see physicists interact with biologists. It like two different species encountering each other. But communication attempts are futile.
llmaooo you should do science-themed standup
I only know three biologists and they are lovely people. Never seen them interact with physicists though so you may be right.
And sooner or later I will hopefully have children.
And when the average summer day is 60c and crops fail every single year, and Nestle has taken half our drinking water, and the smoke in the air from wildfires is giving everyone asthma, and deadly storms happen year round, and the coasts erode, and wars break out for the remaining water/etc, what will you tell them? Will you tell them to look at the brilliant ‘innovator’ CEO’s who intentionally shut down electric cars? The CEO’s who found out climate change was happening sixty years ago and intentionally hid it to keep themselves rich, what do you tell your kids about that?
What innovation is worth your children dying early?
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
Here is south Germany, the climate change has led to mediterran plants growing here. The plant life for the climate already exist. And they are spreading (olives don’t make it through the winter yet).
Change is happening, but adapting to it is possible. And solutions for adaptation do not have to be invented, because they already exist.
I don’t believe that those scenarios are that plausible.
lol i think they said the same thing about the Titanic sinking. also the submarine guy said the same thing about it imploding.
Hmm 🤔
also all evidence that’s not conservative propaganda points to us hitting the worst possible outcomes when it comes to climate change. Read the IPCC reports and the worst case scenarios listed within. That’s what’s going to happen over the next ~40 years
I have been reading about the worst case scenario. But even then the oceans would heat up, Oxygen saturation would diminish, big fish would die, algae would thrive on higher CO2 levels and buffer climate change at some point. Humanity and most animals on land should be capable to survive to this buffer point.
You know, as a member of the SSBN force, occasionally during thermonuclear launch exercises I take a moment to regret the death of humanity and the biosphere. People like you, on the other hand, are what steels my resolve to flip the switch with gusto. I hope you know that I’ll be thinking of you, should I receive the order to commence procedures to launch.
Shipmate, I am a Navigation Electronic Technician First Class Petty Officer, fully qualified in both submarines and in my rating. I have been on five strategic alert deterrent patrols over the last three years. I’ve been through fires, flooding, and steam line ruptures. When we set condition 1SQ for Strategic Launch during WSRT, I was the one at the consoles conducting the procedures to do so. I’ve been a helmsman, planesman, Strategic Navigation Technician, and Quartermaster of the Watch.
Of course I wouldn’t have internet while submerged or at sea. Have you ever heard of in-port periods?
Fragile personality or not, I’m the sailor at the switch. What have you done with your life, shipmate?
I still think you are lying. Or you are incredibly stupid. Because your identity and your job should be kept secret. My grandparents were military engineers in the Soviet Union. Do you think anyone knew that? Of course not, because they were instructed to not talk about it. As should you, in case you are the real deal. I myself have followed the path of my father, currently studying to become a chemist in Munich. One ore year to go.
Shipmate, if you look in my post history I literally did an AMA about my profession about a month ago, and a Machinists Mate Chief even jumped in to contribute. I haven’t disclosed any ships movement, naval nuclear propulsion information or even controlled unclassified information. I keep my personal electronic devices physically far, far away from any work device, and we never cross the streams, as the saying goes.
It’s still something that I wouldn’t tell people on the internet.
Especially if you have family. The Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis,… you just elevated the chances that they know about you. And now they also know that you are the sharing kind. A little bit bragging.
Don’t make yourself a target. Not the smartest thing to do.
Sister’s in the marine corps and so is her husband. They can take care of themselves.
I’ll take your advice into consideration. Still, you have again reminded me why I don’t feel the burden of my duty too much. The existence of such organizations only hardens my resolve to flip the switch when the time comes.
Sister’s in the marine corps and so is her husband. They can take care of themselves.
Against Russian agents with Nowitschock or North Koreans using poison as well? I doubt that.
I’ll take your advice into consideration. Still, you have again reminded me why I don’t feel the burden of my duty too much. The existence of such organizations only hardens my resolve to flip the switch when the time comes.
You are a troll. Cannot take you and your persona serious anymore. There is not a single soldier this irrational on this world.
A troll? Interesting. I’ll let my chief and division know. I’d invite you to visit NSB Kings Bay sometime, but you’d get denied at the front gate, let alone the marines at Checkpoint Charlie and the waterfront gate. And I’m a sailor, not a soldier. Soldiers are Army only.
You are stating the most patriotic and naive shit here. I get the impression that you are impersonating US military personnel to paint them in a bad light.
And now this useless statement that I should visit some Kings Bay, but I’d probably not be let in - I do not understand what you are trying to tell me here? Here in Germany you wouldn’t get into some classes at university. Let alone the building. It’s usual practice that in some organisations, entry is restricted.
And for the record, best of luck in your studies. I hold no personal animosity, and a great deal of professional respect, for my counterparts in other militaries. We all have a job to do. If that means one of us has to shoot torpedoes at the other, we’ll cross that bridge when the time comes. I do think, however, that you should never underestimate the willingness of the US to go to great lengths to do what it thinks is necessary.
And for the record, best of luck in your studies. I hold no personal animosity, and a great deal of professional respect, for my counterparts in other militaries.
I do not hold any grudge towards you as well.
We all have a job to do. If that means one of us has to shoot torpedoes at the other, we’ll cross that bridge when the time comes. I do think, however, that you should never underestimate the willingness of the US to go to great lengths to do what it thinks is necessary.
Wars are fought in many levels. And the Ukraine war has already been lost. A financial Desaster to the west. No military power will change that.
Current surveys indicate republicans to be in power next year. And in Europe we also see a shifting in opinion in Schweden, France and Germany towards parties that roan further right and are against weapon deliveries into Ukraine. Quite contrary, they are pro Russia in many ways.
And I don’t judge. But if this development further continues, then all the money wasted on military support is gone. And Russia wins. In a world filled with intercontinental missiles, a war is won politically and economically.
So no matter how wiling and ready the US is, military power cannot rival with economical and political strategies.
Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia’s case by the war. America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex. Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term. Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable. Demographic collapses are not.
Financial? Perhaps. Demographically, however, I believe Russia and Europe have entered a terminal demographic decline, only accelerated in Russia’s case by the war.
Due to immense migration, demographic change is a thing of the past now. France, Germany and other western European countries no longer face this problem. On the other side it comes with new problems, as failed integration has become a huge problem.
And considering Russia, the country has one big ass infantry. And in the Ukraine war, Russia has yet to call for total mobilisation. And the west, even with the help of the US did not yet manage to deliver enough ammunition and weaponry to push back the Russian forces. For me that’s an indicator that Russia is more capable of actual war than the West.
Especially the US had many military missions in the past decades and most of them failed. Afghanistan is just one of the many failed attempts of military control. The US military has shown not to be capable to win wars, but only maintain them.
America, on the other hand, has not lost any soldiers or any significant resources and has increased the industrial capacity of the military-industrial complex.
Well and so did the Russians. The west has more specialised and modern weapons, it these have now proven to be too complicate to be produced in sufficient masses. Russia using old tech with easier produced weaponry has shown to be much more resilient than expected. Making use of the oldschool Propeller for bombs instead of high tech laser measured ignition timers, has proven to be just as effective. The US military has been scammed in many ways by weapon manufacturers into buying over complicated tech for simple applications.
Strategically, from a cold, hard, pragmatic point of view, that counts as a win for my superiors, in the long term.
If your superiors were involved in the last decades military operations of the US, then their word shouldn’t be taken too serious. Afghanistan is just the latest failure of along series of failures. And currently it seems, like the US will fail in Ukraine as well, even before sending troops.
Financial ups and downs are temporary and manageable.
Financial ups and downs can cripple a country’s economy so immensely, that they change a country’s direction for years later.
There is no military without tax payers. And in a broken economy, there are not many willing tax payers.
Demographic collapses are not.
It can be corrected with migration, even though migration poses its own new problems.
In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an “insurgency”. With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
In Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we crippled ourselves trying to protect civilians and establish a local government while fighting an “insurgency”.
What the hell are you talking about? Protecting civilians? Is this some joke? The US never much cared for protecting civilians.  Let’s think about Vietnam and the massacring of thousands. Or let’s remember some “accidental” strikes against “terrorists” that turned out to be civilians.
With Russia, per instruction, we will emphatically not be doing so. A war with Russia will be a concerted effort to fundamentally destroy and erase the current power structure and completely demilitarize the country, as we did in WWII. With thermonuclear weapons, if necessary. The unclassified nuclear doctrine is available for your perusal online.
Yea. Extremely plausible that the US manages to destroy the Russian power structures. Structures that have rivalled the US structures and military for decades in many foreign conflicts. You cannot rly act in a stalemate situation. And that is rly what that is. Just look how Russia can play war in Ukraine and the US and other western countries are only willing the send weapons. This just screams of powerlessness. And it indeed makes sense with the past failures of the US Military. And all that restraint, when Russia is conquering the Worlds Granary. If they succeed, then all of Africa will be under their control. Especially with climate change and less African soil being fertile.
Africa is so gaddamn important, that the Chinese already attempt in multiple African states to take control.
If China and Russia take control over Africa, than they take control over Resources that the US depends on.
And even the idea to demilitarise Russia is ponderous. Maybe if worked with Germany after WW2, because many Germans understand English and German is rather similar to English. So taking influence on the Germans was not too hard. Russian on the other hand is a goddamn nightmare for Roman languages. And the country is so damn big, that influence and control is a matter of unfeasibility.
You’ll never have the clearance to do so, but if you ever happen to on the off chance, look up Global Campaign Plan, and on your free time, you can review the unclassified National Security Strategy. Specifically, the updated revisions.
On the unclassified side, take a look at the analysis of Peter Zeihan sometime on global demographic and resource trends.
Don’t let the troll get to you… I’ve had someone on here a week or so ago tell me I was lying about my expertise. It’s almost like they’re all taking lessons from the same people.
Thanks. And yeah, they’re probably just trying the tried and true War Thunder and Discord method. Or they’re not taking lessons from the same people, they are the same people. Who knows?
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all? Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Do you not understand the system at live in is actively dooming us all?
I don’t think that it is dooming us. I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
Why are you so vehemently defending it? Especially when you can acknowledge that other systems can exist?
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Why would you think that companies going bankrupt is somehow worse than people being increasingly unable to live.
Because tons of lives are also depending on the company to keep on running. Making some people’s lives worse will probably not fix the problems of others. Instead the people that are in need of betterment must get a tailored solution. Tailored towards them without the need to completely overhaul a working system.
Check the planet. It is literally burning right now and we are all going to either die, or have our lives massively changed by this climate catastrophe.
Technically most of the planet is Oxygen in the highest reductive state. Bound in ores of oxidases metals.
Second highest occurrence is silicon, also in an oxidated state as Silicon oxides. Then comes Iron and Magnesium.
None of them will burn.
What you are talking about burning is not the planet, but the biosphere. And 99.9% of the biosphere contains far too much water to actually burn.
So no. The planet does not burn. Only tiniest parts of its biosphere sometimes catch fire. And the smoke actually blocks sunlight and acts as a natural measurement against climate change.
I cannot imagine a system that would lead to more freedom, better education or innovation.
LOL.
Even though I acknowledge that other systems have been tried in the past, I also believe that all of them, except capitalism with a few social tweaks, have failed.
Capitalism fails every ~8 years requiring the use of vast amounts of public funds to keep afloat. I’d also say if fails daily if you look at all the needless suffering occuring in the world today, especially in the most “free market” countries and the countries these exploit. We have “socialism for the rich, capitalism for everyone else,” as Jon Stewart would say.
I personally know people that endured the UDSSR. And those stories are not pleasant.
And seeing the anti capitalistic movement being accepting of radical ideas and the idea of using violence and the belief that the vote of the masses (who are in favour of Capitalism) is unimportant, just makes me believe that anti capitalistic movements all strive for what we saw in the UDSSR and today in China.
I only accept political ideas that have been viable for years in other countries without the occurrence of dictatorship. If you are a US citizen, then the wishful view to Western Europe is the only one I’d accept as reasonable.
And as a Western European myself, I can say that even though we currently face massive problems with immigration, life here is still more enjoyable than in the rest do the world.
Most leftists in the U.S. are democratic socialists, social democrats, are some flavor of anarchists; not authoritarian socialists… Most do not think violence is necessary, except for protection against the increasingly fascist right-wing. Many believe it’s possible to move closer to a socialist-like society by building mutual-aid networks and communities, and promoting candidates for government positions that align with their values; not through a violent revolution.
And yes, I would prefer systems closer to Scandinavian countries, which the right-wing here calls socialism. Ideally, I would like to see some kind of real socialism where the workers own the means of production (factories, stores, farms, etc) and controls it through democratic processes, not the investor-shareholders or the government. I think the term is anarcho-syndicalism, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.
Did you read any of those links? 10% of world GDP. That’s not relatively little. That’s insane.
I have only overflown the Oxford paper. Caught my attention with the affect of increasing taxing the rich. Interesting take, but purely theoretical with no reasonable adaption possibility. The rich would just leave the country and some other country would profit from their taxes.
And stocks doesn’t automatically mean good. How much of that is speculative bubbles and hype-driven overvalued stocks?
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Jokes aside. The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future. Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Rich people are people and most people don’t just up and leave behind places they’ve built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they’re not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That’s a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Who says I haven’t done that already?
The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there’s no need for them. I’ll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
Rich people are people and most people don’t just up and leave behind places they’ve built their lives in unless under extreme pressure. A few billionaires might relocate to the Bahamas but they’re not going to be able to take their mansions and penthouses with them - and they lose out on the markets, infrastructure, and other benefits of their home countries. That’s a major incentive to just pay the taxes.
As I said, it depends on the country and the relative situation to other countries.
If you believe to know which ones are overvalued, then you should try to go buy short positions in them. Maybe you become rich then?
Who says I haven’t done that already?
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
The stock market is relatively precise, it also projects potential into the future.
The stock market is not precise. I have data and papers discussing this - but there’s no need for them. I’ll instead leave you with a simple question: if the stock market is so precise, why is there a major crash every decade?
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Due to that many stocks to combat climate change have risen in popularity and a lot of money has been brought to said companies by purely capitalistic driven motives.
Sure, purely capitalistic motives, which is why a lot of these are impractical venture capital BS and outright scams. It is currently more profitable to greenwash than it is to actually solve the problem.
Companies such as Linde plc are no scam. They existed far longer than the climate drama. Their value just increased because demand in their products increased as well. Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
It’s interesting, but I have to point out that some of the evidence they use is stuff like manufacturers relocating to China, which happens regardless of tax rates.
The stuff about energy costs is also nothing to do with taxes but rather Germany’s energy policy missteps.
Also the author randomly referring to “Genderforschern” und “Gleichstellungsbeauftragten” at the end damages the credibility of the article a lot - seems very culture-war motivated.
I agree that the way in which the taxes are implemented and how the bureaucracy works has a major impact though. But this doesn’t mean taxing the rich is imppssible, just needs to be done right, like all policy.
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
Rich people waste time arguing with morons on the internet all the time! Have you seen Musk’s Twitter feed lately?
In fact the only reason I am doing this is because I have time to kill; and that’s only possible thanks to the fact that I am wealthy enough to take days off work pretty much whenever I want, without fearing starvation. Unlike ~90% of people globally who live paycheck to paycheck.
The idea that rich people are always busy being productive is simply wrong. I know enough of them personally to know that most of their ‘working’ hours aren’t very strenuous to say the least.
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Have you heard of the 2008 crash? Dot com bubble? SVB, FTX and other crypto crap, etc? Markets crash regularly regardless of Corona or wars.
Also the fact that markets fail to consider wars and pandemics, whereas experts were warning about these for years before they happened, is further evidence that we can do better than relying on markets for everything.
There must be some way to develop a system of knowledge aggregation, decisionmaking, and resource allocation that isn’t prone to ignoring very obvious risks.
Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
The stuff about energy costs is also nothing to do with taxes but rather Germany’s energy policy missteps.
Nah. To my knowledge we have the second highest tax on energy worldwide. Has always been this way. It’s a tax thing.
Also the author randomly referring to “Genderforschern” und “Gleichstellungsbeauftragten” at the end damages the credibility of the article a lot - seems very culture-war motivated.
The article is written by a left leaning press. So if you allow yourself to suggest non-neutrality, then they should be in favour of your argument.
I agree that the way in which the taxes are implemented and how the bureaucracy works has a major impact though. But this doesn’t mean taxing the rich is imppssible, just needs to be done right, like all policy.
The rich have yachts and housing all around the world. No tax policy can stop them from running and getting citizenship from a country that take skews taxes.
I do. Because you are still here. Arguing on the internet, a cesspool of morons, you and I included.
Rich people waste time arguing with morons on the internet all the time! Have you seen Musk’s Twitter feed lately?
That dude is actively trying to shape the opinion of people for his own interest. I am confident that this is work to him. He already did this with crypto or with the Tesla stock price. It’s marketing and marketing is work as well. All the political left are already supporting the idea of electric vehicles. Now it’s time for the conservatives. And musk is luring them towards his company.
In fact the only reason I am doing this is because I have time to kill; and that’s only possible thanks to the fact that I am wealthy enough to take days off work pretty much whenever I want, without fearing starvation. Unlike ~90% of people globally who live paycheck to paycheck.
So I guess you are not building something yourself? You just work a well paying job? I can’t rly believe that.
The idea that rich people are always busy being productive is simply wrong. I know enough of them personally to know that most of their ‘working’ hours aren’t very strenuous to say the least.
It what kin of rich are you talking about? Is it the super rich, that people claim need to pay higher tax rates? Or is it the “rich” pharmacist or doctor living next door?
Because events, such as Corona and the ausraube war temporarily lower the estimated gains. Losses are expected. So the value weds to be corrected according to those losses.
Have you heard of the 2008 crash? Dot com bubble? SVB, FTX and other crypto crap, etc? Markets crash regularly regardless of Corona or wars.
Yes I heard about them. But these bubbles exploding because of miso reduction into the future. Prediction that was more plausible in earlier stages. And the stock market is in fact trying to project the future. One cannot invest into the past.
Also the fact that markets fail to consider wars and pandemics, whereas experts were warning about these for years before they happened, is further evidence that we can do better than relying on markets for everything.
Nah, the markets acted according to warnings. Especially he Ukraine war. The values dropped, when Russia collected its soldiers at the border, and when US experts warned of the impending attack, publicly, the value dropped even further.
There must be some way to develop a system of knowledge aggregation, decisionmaking, and resource allocation that isn’t prone to ignoring very obvious risks.
An ideal system does not exist. The one we have is fairly reactive.
Greenwashing is only done in media. Company winnings and numbers don’t lie. (Except if they do. Fuck wirecard)
Nah. To my knowledge we have the second highest tax on energy worldwide. Has always been this way. It’s a tax thing.
Idk about the tax rates but Germany also decided to become dependent on Russian gas, which is a major factor tax or no tax.
The article is written by a left leaning press. So if you allow yourself to suggest non-neutrality, then they should be in favour of your argument.
I’m not ‘left-leaning’, that term is too broad to mean anything at this point.
I looked up the author and all his books are titled something along the lines of ‘In Defence of Capitalism’ so idk man
That dude is actively trying to shape the opinion of people for his own interest. I am confident that this is work to him. He already did this with crypto or with the Tesla stock price. It’s marketing and marketing is work as well. All the political left are already supporting the idea of electric vehicles. Now it’s time for the conservatives. And musk is luring them towards his company.
If you want to believe his shitposting and constant man-child meltdowns are part of a galaxy-brained plan to convince conservatives to buy electric cars, have fun with that. In reality, he’s just a self-obsessed guy seeking more and more attention and that’s plainly obvious.
So I guess you are not building something yourself? You just work a well paying job? I can’t rly believe that.
You’ve never heard of self-employed contractors? If you have a valuable enough skill, people pay quite well for specific projects. Once the project (or your part in it) is done, you can just chill with your money, or accept a new one. It’s pretty straightforward. Won’t earn me billions but is good enough to have a chill life.
An ideal system does not exist. The one we have is fairly reactive.
Who said anything about an ideal system? I want a better one. Mainly one that doesn’t burn down the planet I live on. We need to be working on developing new systems, but that won’t happpen if we keep chanting ‘Capitalism good, Communism bad’.
there is no system resilient against fraud Yet.
Resilience is not a binary. We could make a system that’s relatively more resilient against fraud and/or short-term thinking.
I’m sure it’s within the capacity of humanity to improve upon Capitalism. The only question is: will we do it in time to survive the 21st Century?
I mean, I think they’re definitely still in the minority. It seems like there’s a larger proportion of them here than on reddit. I see more of their opinions here. Maybe that’s just how the algo works here regarding upvotes & downvotes and how comments are displayed.
It’s worst on lemmy.world I’ve noticed. Beehaw was right to defederate. Y’all need to tell them in the kindest possible words to go die over and over again until they don’t come back or you’ll end up like voat.
I don’t know how I feel about it. On one hand, it makes for less of an echo chamber. On the other hand, their thoughts are fucking stupid and it hurts my brain to see them.
Yeah. I hardcore disagree with conservatives as a libertarian socialist myself, but I always want to hear what people who disagree with me (and people who agree with me) are saying, and engage in civil conversation with people who actually believe what they say.
The problem for me comes when shills (people who don’t believe what they say but get paid to say it) come into the conversation, or when people use outright disingenuous arguments (usually strawmans).
If they actually believe it, I would like to argue the factual point, which is very easy to do. If they don’t believe what they are saying, then yes, I have a problem with it.
There is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that climate change is real and that it is caused by humans. If they choose to not listen to evidence and hard facts, then they lost the debate. If they say that big money funded those studies, simply point them to the Big Oil-funded studies claiming that climate change is false, and the fact that they originally found that it was true, and then tried to bury it.
You very well may be correct, but I always like to assume people are good and are arguing in good faith until proven otherwise.
If I can “steelman” (opposite of strawman) their position, and argue against it easilly, I see no reason not to do so, and that also makes for a better argument for other people viewing the comment thread who may believe the false notion that climate change is either fake or not caused by humans.
To me, trying to argue that climate change is fake or not caused by humans is the same as trying to argue that the Earth is flat. Very easy to debunk.
Happy to have them here. I almost never agree with them, but not only is it good to have your opinion challenged (though often wearying to have to repeat yourself), it’s good for THEM to have their opinion challenged too. Maybe only 1/100 will change their opinion after being challenged and seeing that their opinion is very much in the minority, but that’s 1/100 more than if we were all chatting away in a safe space with no opposing views.
(and to be clear, no I don’t think shit like nazis, devout racists etc is an ‘opposing view’ that deserves any debate)
Let me correct you: the innovations that are changing the planet.
Because we cannot destroy the planet. We do not have the means to destroy the planet or it’s ecosphere. No chemical agent could do it. No Carbon could.
The only think, that we might argue on is if innovation and its consequences on the climate will eventually harm humans unproportionally compared to the benefits of said innovation.
Here in the west we are in a rather privileged situation, as climate change will not affect us too much. Extreme weather events will eventually soften up, once the jet stream reestablishes its circular movement closer to the pole.
But adapting to extreme weather events shouldn’t be too hard. Maybe start building European style housing.
Now addressing other climate zones, we shall not forget that humans even exist in deserts. We are very adaptable. The means and solutions to such a life already exist. So adapting is not a matter of innovation, but education.
Saudi Arabia has proven this years in advance now. And we should remember last, that this is the extremest of possibilities.
I take offence in being called a troll. It’s insulting. You can’t just call someone a troll with a different opinion and claim that this invalidates my argument.
This is simply wrong. Basic research comes from universities and institutes.
But most research, Including research with application potential, comes from the privat sector. This includes the Pharma industry, the medical industry, the chemical industry, semi conductor industry and informatics.
It is mainly driven by big companies. In constant need to outperform their competition, or not to fall behind in research and innovation.
Saudi Arabia has ‘proven’ whatever it has proven through insane levels of draconian state intervention in everything, a lot of oil rents, and using imported slave labour.
I don’t think you have been reading a single one of the articles. The first one already is a not so fitting response to m claim that European style houses are ore resilient against extreme weather events.
The first one is about how wet bulb temperatures and extreme heat work. The second one is about Europe. Whether or not they are ‘more’ resilient doesn’t matter.
Also I don’t think you know what Europe is. Scandinavian, Central European and British houses are mostly made to keep heat in during cold winters. They’re not good for heatwaves.
Mediterranean style housing is definitely better for heat. But that doesn’t stop Italy, Spain, and France from having deadly heatwaves.
The first one is about how wet bulb temperatures and extreme heat work. The second one is about Europe. Whether or not they are ‘more’ resilient doesn’t matter.
Yes it does matter. European housing is well insulated. And definitely sturdier than US housing.
Also I don’t think you know what Europe is.
Yea, my bad. As a German I obviously have no idea what Europe is.
Scandinavian, Central European and British houses are mostly made to keep heat in during cold winters. They’re not good for heatwaves.
This is wrong. Insulation goes both ways. In summer it helps keeping the cooler night temperatures inside.
Mediterranean style housing is definitely better for heat. But that doesn’t stop Italy, Spain, and France from having deadly heatwaves.
Mediterranean housing is not especially good against heat. Wrong assumption. Swedes, Germans and the French are doing a much better job than the mediterranes.
Won’t dispute that European housing is sturdier. And yes insulation works both ways - however, you need good ventilation. And shading etc. AFAIK insulation optimised for heat retention is different to that optimised for keeping cool.
If you have a study or something that compares Mediterranean vs other European house designs, please send it to me and I’ll change my mind if I’m wrong.
As a German you should know that heatwaves have killed thousands of people in Germany as well.
Swedes, Germans, and French are also wealthier and have less extreme heat to deal with than Italy, Spain or Greece. You can’t attribute that to house design. Again, if you have a study comparing these, send it to me and prove me wrong.
My comparison on housing insulation is purely based on my experience. Italien housing is not much insulated. Insulation is usually driven by the need to reduce cost when heating in winter. That’s a problem Italiens face not so much. Therefor in comparison to Northern Europe, Italien housing is far less insulated. And because insulation goes both ways, I came to the conclusion that Northern European housing is better suited for warm summers.
But anecdotal evidence isn’t very convincing. I’ve had the opposite experience; found being in Greek and Spanish houses during a heatwave way more tolerable than UK ones, even without AC. Idk about Germany but some older Czech houses feel like ovens when it gets too hot. Lovely for winter though.
This is a good example of the worst kind of pseudo intellectual bs that tricks the uninformed. It’s confidently wrong in so many different areas that I don’t even know where to start.
The demand side of the economy is the consumer population. The consumers decide what they do and do not want to purchase, therefore driving demand.
“Infinite need” implies that infinite supply could exist, or that infinite growth is sustainable, both of which are not true. Infinite need also doesn’t exist.
I will argue that people (for example) needing clean water increases the demand for clean water. This is why companies like Nestle are profiteering off of selling bottled water, and why the CEO said that water should not be a human right.
Wait. But someone has to bottle the water, right? Or is nestle supposed to do it for free?
Furthermore they have to compete with tap water. So the value of bottled water can only be the water itself + bottle + energy used to fill bottle + interest because their “service” is not for free. There is a justified interest to make a profit from one’s efforts.
Also in some places (Flint, MI comes to mind), tap water in undrinkable due to neglect, since fixing it costs more money than ignoring the health of the population. Source: apnews.com/…/health-michigan-rick-snyder-flint-de…
I give you that. Just a few were directly involved in innovation.
But the rich do quite successfully create the framework conditions for innovation and development. Mostly driven by profit, but a world based purely on goodwill fails at the first doubter, the first who does not want to participate. So capitalism is what we got. And so far it has proven to be more resilient than other systems.
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">That didn't happen.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">And if it was, that's not a big deal.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">And if it is, that's not my fault.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">And if it was, I didn't mean it.
</span><span style="color:#323232;">And if I did, you deserved it.
</span>
(no not all conservatives/climate change deniers are narcissists but the overlap is interesting)
There’s a lot of money pushing this idea. I live in a certain US state where an organization has been paying to have billboards up that push this idea for years now.
The most terrible thing is that it’s a half truth. While yes plants grow better with increased CO2, the downsides are so destructive it is not at all beneficial.
Even if they’re right — which we all know they are not — it wouldn’t matter. Climate change is going to devastate human life if we do nothing. If, somehow, the source of the warming wasn’t human-caused, we’d still need to find a way to counteract it. It’s not our fault doesn’t prevent it from being our problem.
“Ok, then let’s prepare for the inevitable, strengthen infrastructure, prepare for mass migrations, improve our crops to sustain bigger variances in weather, evacuate people from flood danger zones, ensure our supply chain doesn’t collapse, fund poor countries so they can survive better, etc. You know, prepare for the crisis”
I had a guy tell me once that maybe climate change is just the Earth getting closer to the sun, and we should send an astronaut up to the Hubble telescope so they can look through it and measure the distance to the sun…
I’ve known this guy for over a decade, and it’s not that he’s stupid, he’s just completely ignorant about climate change and doesn’t put in any effort to learn about science.
It’s not happening. It’s happening but it’s all cyclical. It’s not cyclical this time but it’s not our fault. It’s our fault but global warming is good ackshually. Global warming is bad but there’s nothing we can do about it. We could do something about it but it’s too expensive/late. Maybe it’s not too expensive but THE CHINESE!
If you’re based in the UK, then all you can do is smile at the shit we have to deal with government-wise. If you don’t laugh, you’ll go mad, kinda thing.
That ‘Four Stage Strategy’ is horribly, horribly apt even today.
I’ve found a clever way to counter those folks is to say, “you might be right, and as humans it’s our moral obligation to seize control and protect the natural order of things for as long as we are able to slow the coming of hell on earth. Just like our right to shoot guns. Yee haw.”
What I hear some acquaintances say is like "who cares, I'll go to the beach, turn the AC on, what's the big deal" .
As if the floods we had in Italy this year, or the wild fires, or the storms, or the draughts, or the Alps without snow, the glaciers disappeared, the sea turned green, the invasion of jellyfish weren't connected.
Some people, most people, are just too fucking stupid.
To be fair, I think both sides blow it out of proportion and that can stifle discussion. It won’t be the “end of the world” where everyone will die, but we will have the “end of the world” as we know it.
I think one of the main points that need to be stressed to the kind of people in your example would be droughts.
Droughts will continue to get worse and will affect everyone. With a bad enough drought, we won’t be able to feed entire cities. And that’s when things really start to fall apart.
Yeah, people expect the earth to suddenly start cracking and spitting out hot lava or something.
No, it's gonna be a slow, steady march towards the end, just as it always has been. Slow enough that we feel like we can put it off for another day.
Slow enough that one day we will look up from our phones, see the oceans of fire and shrug. Too late now, just switch on the AC and go back to scrolling.
I think a lot of them also did come over here. No doubt about it, daily records are being broken but sharing without any context feels very on brand for that ole gang.
lemmy.world
Hot