This is a bad take… Regions affected with mass migration, people without solid infrastructure, AC or clean water, people not able to move are in danger. They are not the ones polluting. Hypothetically you have 50% less people. Great. Think about who is still there and if pollution really is in decline then.
Problem is we’re on our way to reach a point where even if we stopped all our GHG emissions, just the melting of the ice caps and thawing of the permafrost will be enough to create a self sustaining global warming event.
Literally our entire human civilization occurs during a stable climate. If the earth were hotter we’d probably never have reached 8 billion, or if we did it would have been through another way. This is going to be a rough ride, especially for the kids.
I know that the international ultra conservative movement wants to erase LBGTQ rights, but this is one I hadn’t considered. Chiseling away the rights of gay parents in order to jealously guard the “traditional” family is mean and stupid.
As someone whose had a lesbian non-biological parent and a birther go to the court over our custody in Texas, I'm thankful the judge recognized my mom's legitimacy as our parent and gave her full custody. But it could have easily turned out differently simply because of the non-biological parent part, but at least her name was on our birth certificates and we had her last name from birth. Can't imagine it would have turned out the same otherwise despite the other person clearly being totally unfit to raise children.
The politicians acting like this isn't discrimination that acts against the interests of children are lying or ignorant of the downstream consequences.
So your argument is completely unqualified conjecture about what a judge might have done differently, given your presumed total lack of legal qualifications?
Biden announced that his administration has secured voluntary commitments
So what’s the enforcement mechanism when these companies break these commitments? This sounds like it was just a big marketing event for tech companies.
Without bothering to read the article or investigate I’m going to say absolutely nothing. Because without legislation and steep fines they will do what they want. But if they’re under scrutiny they might try to be less blatant and hide it better so there’s that, I guess.
The four tech giants, along with ChatGPT-maker OpenAI and startups Anthropic and Inflection, have committed to security testing “carried out in part by independent experts” to guard against major risks, such as to biosecurity and cybersecurity, the White House said in a statement.
That testing will also examine the potential for societal harms, such as bias and discrimination, and more theoretical dangers about advanced AI systems that could gain control of physical systems or “self-replicate” by making copies of themselves.
The companies have also committed to methods for reporting vulnerabilities to their systems and to using digital watermarking to help distinguish between real and AI-generated images or audio known as deepfakes.
These commitments are faster to secure while slower steps like creating regulations through laws can come after.
I don’t disagree, but voluntary agreements really mean nothing. If we were talking about companies with a good track record then sure, but webare talking about companies with a track record of deception and unsavory activities.
Is the alternative that we do nothing in the short term while we wait for new laws? Sure voluntary agreements may not be fully enforced but even if one of these companies followed some of those restrictions then I’d say that it worked.
We need a more up to date government that actually understands technology, the history of these companies and their practices. Until we get that government, this is all just fluff. Unfortunately in the back of my mind, it’ll take decades before we get one and for now these tech companies have been running wild knowing that our current government has absolutely zero understanding of technology.
From the article “Surrogacy is illegal in Italy, and gay marriage has not been legalized. Because same-sex relationships aren’t recognized in law, the non-biological parent has to make a special case for legally adopting their child.”
Makes sense, local government is simply following the law.
As someone who probably would have had to deal with a decade of abuse and neglect as a child if such a change had happened in Texas 20 years ago, I can prefer confidently say yes, it is monstrous.
Who would be abusing you for your birth parents being on your birth certificate? The only people who see that document are the people raising you and the DMV/Passport office.
....do you not understand how an abusive parent being on the birth certificate would have legal and custody implications?
That's not something that only the DMV/passport office sees, family judges see and may use that to determine custody arrangements, which can lead to abuse. I'm not sure how you managed to ignore the biggest and most obvious implications of changing parentage on the birth certificate.
It’s unfortunate that this community just mass downvotes anyone percieved as going against the approved narrative, even if it’s literally just stating facts.
That’s not what it said. It said it only allows biological parents and that adoption by same sex parents requires special permission. Please don’t change the argument until something else.
Please explain. Far as I know, if you’re a citizen of the US you have an ID tied to your DOB (unlike a physical license which in theory is easier to fake rather than having a remote db of this info)
It is inexcusable that this school couldn’t figure out how to positively fucking identify someone’s age. Imagine having children in this era of “we have to account for everyone’s circumstances or nobodies at all”
It’s not blamemeta’s “model of all or nothing”. You asked them to explain why schools don’t require SSN or why some children don’t have them. They told you two reasons why.
During a news conference Friday, Lincoln Public Schools superintendent Paul Gausman said Scheich had enrolled by submitting a birth certificate, an out-of-district high school transcript and immunization records.
“All those documents turned out to be fraudulent,” said Gausman.
Except the slope of your graph looks like a kicker ramp while OP looks more like a quarter pipe, so it really doesn’t look like population growth can account for the uptick in heat deaths
Devil’s advocate: type of population also makes a difference. If that uptick in population is predominantly elderly, for instance, you’re gonna see the rate of susceptibility skyrocket relative to the whole.
But that is not to dismiss the reality of climate change. It just illustrates the potential for dangerously synergistic factors to be considered when evaluating risk that we’ll need to keep in mind as we try to keep existing in this ever-hotter world.
Still a 4x population increase since 1970. The point is op’s graph is misleading not climate change doesn’t exist. Even then you still have to account for demographics and such. Here’s a more dramatic graph for you: https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/846acbf1-0480-4548-8413-8566e641a0f5.webp
And I don’t know if it is misleading, why does it make sense to adjust for population here? Like, objectively more people are preventable dying from heat, and “There would be fewer preventable deaths if fewer people were around to die of preventable causes” isn’t a very satisfying answer to that problem.
When looking at data on causes of death, adjusting for population size provides important context and allows us to make fairer comparisons over time. The raw number of deaths increasing could be due to a number of factors not directly related to topic. While that isn’t the case here, it necessary to factor this in.
However, you raise a fair point - we should not lose sight of the real human impacts and absolute number of lives lost. Behind every statistic is an individual tragedy. We should have compassion for those suffering while also trying to objectively understand the data.
Perhaps there is room for nuance - we can acknowledge that adjusting for population provides useful perspective, while also recognizing that any preventable loss of life to extreme heat is highly concerning and worthy of solution-oriented discussion. If we aim for intellectual honesty and keep our shared goals of truth and human welfare in mind, we are more likely to have productive dialogues on complex issues like this. You’d call out opposing groups if they were to do this, but it’s fine if it supports a narrative you agree with? We know the climate’s changing we’ve all stepped outside. It’s not necessary to use tactics like this to gain public favor.
This was a really well written comment that gave me a bit to think about, so thank you for the effort you put into it. I’m definitely emotionally engaged by this issue, so maybe I just needed to hear someone else say this
we should not lose sight of the real human impacts and absolute number of lives lost. Behind every statistic is an individual tragedy. We should have compassion for those suffering while also trying to objectively understand the data.
Traditional family-first is good approach, I only wonder why care so much about non traditionals, they probably won't make traditional family anyway lol.
NGL… First glance at the chart I thought the left hand scale was temperature with a sudden spike to 250°… no wonder people are dying when your iced tea boils in your glass as you try to drink it!
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.