Your examples of violence are exceedingly rare and sensationalized in our modern society. The fact is we have never seen such a peaceful and cohesive time within society before, and the trend continues in the right direction. There are those who seek to bring back fear and division and it looks like their campaign of propaganda has swept you up. I go out in the real world all the time, in all types of cities and rural settings, and see none of the things you describe.
I think it is you who needs to open your eyes, and if you think violence is something to be seriously worried about, you should probably get off the internet too.
I've had my current smartphone (Apple) for nearly 5 years, finally approaching the time when the combination of slowness and years of wear is forcing my hand to get a new one. I so desperately wanted to move away from Apple and try Android. Not only do the phones appear more capable, I disagree with so much that Apple does, and it's also very good to get practical experience in multiple platforms.
That said, I think I have sadly resigned to having to stick with Apple. As much as it pains me to give Apple another cent of my money, I begrudgingly have to give them credit for being the only company that puts privacy and encryption first.
"It's completely insane that the value of the company stock is based not on analysis and solid numbers" - it is rather ironic that you say this in disgust because it is the exact reason Tesla stock is currently valued far higher than it would otherwise be.
The reason there is such a massive short position in Tesla is because many sophisticated investors look for companies with exactly this profile - valuation far exceeding current earnings. You average investor does not short shares, and the type of investor doing this doesn't gamble. Yet you seem to think these same people haven't seen the same situation a thousand times before, and that the exact same market fundamentals which have brought down countless stocks before it do not apply here.
Emails aren't rude, that's just people being picky about their preferred type of communication (more often you hear "phone calls are rude!"). In many organizations it's very difficult to find a common time for a small group of people to meet regularly and discuss something. Email allows for discussions to continue at a speed each person's time permits, and further, writing allows you to collect our thoughts and lay them out much more effectively.
Sure, you could argue there's some better tool for an ongoing threaded discussion, but that's what email is nowadays anyway.
That is fair, however any plan we're contemplating which may damage the economy in such a way that people simple starve now vs. in the future isn't realistic just to "do something".
In my younger days, I used to be a staunch environmentalist and would ridicule those bringing up economic interests as stupidly "thinking about money" when so much more important matters were on the table. When I got older I realized economic concerns deserve as much of a priority as anything else - "money" is actually a proxy for hospitals, food, infrastructure, energy, education, the list goes on...
Serious question, but do you have any sources for your claim that we can't adapt that quickly? I actually think the opposite, that tens of years is plenty of time to adapt. The changes aren't instantaneous, we can measure rising sea levels (currently in the mm per year range) and plan appropriately for it.
Similarly with nature, tens of years is many generations for most species, how do we know they cannot effectively adapt (which is the one thing organisms have been adapting to do since the start of life)? We've already seen evidence that polar bears are effectively adapting to lower sea ice levels contrary to the hypothesis that they couldn't and would go extinct.
Because you're lying about the -50C. Looking at weather records in Edmonton (one of the coldest major cities in Canada) back to the 1800's, there hasn't been a single recorded day where the temperature reached -50C.
Link: https://www.currentresults.com...
Some fun history: Here in Canada we had a conservative government up until 2015, when we elected the current Trudeau Liberals. There was much hate and an "Anyone But Harper" campaign, in which speaking to the opposition you'd think PM Harper was evil incarnate (data now shows he quite handily outperformed his successor). One of the common refrains was that Harper's government "muzzled" scientists and kept them from speaking the truth. In reality this was a very distorted way to represent new PR guidelines to a number of gov't research groups. I know, someone turning something relatively innocuous into a scandal for political purposes - shocking!!
Anyway, fast forward to 3+ years of new Liberal government, and no scientists have come out with "things they were not allowed to previously say", however I am now far more concerned as to the political neutrality of our research groups with "studies" like these. Not only did it come out to coincide with the new carbon tax, as with ANY change, there are positive and negative outcomes. I see nothing in here that would lead me to believe this is an objective analysis of impacts from climate change, and plenty that it is intended to bolster someone's political agenda.
I should add there were numerous days which broke -40C (-40F) with and without wind chill. Extreme cold winters are still a regularity, no need to exaggerate. Although contrary to the doom projections of climate change, most here would be ecstatic to know we could count on milder winters in the future. February was suffering.
I had a parent (in Canada) diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and started treatment within the week.
There will always be the need for some sort of system in place to allocate limited health care resources; demand always outstrips supply. In the US, the queue of first to last is determined by who has the most money, as opposed to who has the greatest need. Up to you to debate which is the better approach.
Like it or not, if you were told to wait 4 months to start cancer treatment, it is because you do not need treatment for at least 4 months (eg. low-grade prostate cancer), and there is someone in a much more dire situation who needs those resources more urgently than you. It's just that no one likes being told they're problem isn't urgent and they need to wait - we all want to be first in line. Reminds me of the sign I saw at a hospital emergency center desk, something along the lines of: "You should be very, very happy if you are asked to wait instead of being rushed in to be seen first."
Logged in just to comment here on something I actually have experience with. I wore glasses since early grade 2, I had horrible near-sightedness, pretty much to the point of being blind without my thick glasses. Since I had lived my entire life (into my mid-30s) wearing glasses, I didn't actually think they were that big of a deal.
All I can say, is that without any hyperbole at all, the decision to get laser eye surgery was the best money I have ever spent in my life. You have no idea the freedom and "HD" vision that comes as a result. The slight inconveniences are way more than worth it. I just can't tell you enough how awesome it has been - do not discount it.
If you're interested, what finally made me look and take the dive was the fact I started skiing a lot, and the glasses fogging up under my goggles was highly annoying. I likewise could not use contacts for various reasons.
As a Canadian, it makes me especially angry to see US media and law enforcement agencies talk about foreign election influencing. I wonder exactly how they would respond if Canadian law enforcement started issues extradition orders for the thousands of American media personalities who thought it prudent to comment on our last federal election (and whose messages get FAR more visibility than some Russian facebook ads)?
"Post-truth narrative" is just some stupid buzzword; nothing has changed from the past, we're just seeing a new generation formulate the opinion that politicians lie and/or shouldn't be trusted. It amazes me this ever started to go away. I have to laugh at the constant accusation Donald Trump has told a lie - when did you ever look to politicians as truth tellers, trustable, or even someone who would know the facts on any subject????
Politics and politicians were never supposed to be about laying out all the facts and making "scientifically correct" decisions. Nothing at that level is black and white, and everything has pros and cons. The only thing that's getting worse (and perfectly evidenced by your DK comment), is that each side thinks the other side has completely lost it, just doesn't "understand all the facts", and is so stupid their views are not even worthy of respect.
"Wind and solar passed coal in cost effectiveness" Why do I hear this being said all the time, all those studies showing current wind/solar $/kWh as being the cheapest form available, yet this clearly does not align with reality? We do not live in a dictatorship, if it was possible to build a solar farm and erect a bunch of windmills and undercut the local electric utility, you'd see this wholesale and fast across North America.
No, not the case at all.. in every jurisdiction planning a move to greater renewables, the focus is on trying to get the populace to accept greater electricity costs. This is also why it's so hard, especially in a democracy. Sick of hearing this "wind/solar are most cost effective" anyway - if it's better overall make that argument, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Give me a break, the context and timing just reinforce that people are overly sensitive. If you are working a federal government job, then you have stability and stable income. If you needed to leverage a food bank after one month of no paycheck, that's piss poor planning on their part. What happened if a TRUE disaster happened, even so much as god forbid an actual layoff from a government job?
That and the fact anyone with a heartbeat and especially a government job can get credit nowadays, credit history be damned.
Despite the fact that human life expectancy has risen, diseases have been eliminated, terrorism deaths have declined, income distribution has risen, and the world is a better place than it ever has been, a sense of dystopian doom pervades Davos.
Unfortunately, reasonable analysis and critique like this is labelled as "far right", "denier", and from a "conservative rag" even here in Canada. Even those willing to admit they have a point will say "yeah things are great now, but the point is climate change will destroy our future!". One of the most interesting things I found researching some history here is there is ALWAYS a doomsday scenario our population is preoccupied with, this one is just a bit more heavy due to fast information sharing via the internet. People are always scared, news at 11. We have identified an issue and will slowly resolve it, driven by technology, and neither the world nor humanity will end. People talking about future or even current climate change disaster are scared, irrational humans, or trying to score political points, nothing more.
I call BS on your post and your attitude. You're demonstrating exactly why people refuse to associate with Democrats even if it means siding with Trump.
No reasonably intelligent reason eh? This is because you refuse to look and/or understand. Try reading an intelligent author for a change and not WaPo or CNN clickbait: America's resurgence is reshaping the world..
As a Canadian, I've seen our competitiveness erode massively since Trump and Trudeau came into office around the same time. Foreign investment has plunged, mostly due to Trump's support of business and ease of regulation, and Trudeau doing the opposite. The result isn't going to be a destroyed environment (you won't notice the difference from old policy in either country), it's simply going to be a more wealthy America. He's (rightfully) using his leverage to unilaterally renegotiate agreements, and if my leader had that power, I'd damn well expect him to use it. And for all those foaming mouth Americans who fawn over having a TRUE dumbass like Trudeau running the ship, you'll be interested to know his approval rating is far below Trump's.
I was always the prototypical "skinny nerd" through my late teens and twenties. Once I hit 30, I wanted to bulk up a bit, not become a muscle head but at least look a bit better physically. While it might just be me, I struggled to put on weight by exercising and eating more heavily (and trust me, eating 3000+ calories per day when you're not used to it is HARD).
Most interestingly is that I'd always been a no-breakfast type of person, just wasn't hungry until around lunch. Instead of massive calorie loading around dinner time, when I finally starting eating breakfast, weight started to stick like no tomorrow. I put on 25-30 lbs in just two months (mostly muscle). Not sure what this translates into, just an interesting anecdote as it was clearly breakfast which had the effect. Note that I am still unable to eat a good meal for breakfast, my body just isn't hungry and hard to eat food, so I down a meal replacement shake.
I'm a hiring manager and I throw out most resumes I get for a position, probably >90%. But I do read them all, even if it takes one minute to read most resumes. Every single one thrown is because the person has no real interest or motivation in getting the job.
Number one thing by a country mile folks - include a cover letter. Just two paragraphs that you've written specifically to me, on why you're interested in the job and perhaps how you experience applies, and you're almost guaranteed a deep look or an interview. For cripes sake, most people don't think at all and the form-letter style "objective" sections I see all the time make it apparent they're spamming the exact same document to whatever they can find.
My advice: don't listen when the media adds the "far right" qualifier when talking about any group. It may or may not be true, but is highly subjective and I've seen it regularly used for groups whose views are most certainly not far right. It is a term used consistently to try and discredit someone's opinion before it is ever debated. The most common way (and applied to AfD as well) is that anyone opposed to any type of immigration is labelled as far-right.
Ah, but this highlights one of the best features of the deposit model that isn't immediately apparent. Once those pieces of garbage are worth 10 cents a piece (as they are in my province), many homeless will spend a majority of their day walking around town picking them up and taking them in for you at the bottle depot. It's the best form of homeless subsidy ever - they clean up, and basically get paid a commission for doing it. Many homeless here survive completely on the availability of deposit-bearing drink containers littered along the ground. I can bet you a Coke bottle wouldn't last five seconds out on the street of my city.
I bought an Alexa and put it in my living room some months ago, and I get your point. I do feel somewhat ashamed by the privacy aspect of it. I grew up with tech through the 90s and developed just as much of a belief in strong privacy as anyone else here. I shred every document with my name on it before throwing it away. I fought against our government census simply on grounds of principle for privacy. I've been a huge advocate all along.
So what changed? I was honest with myself on this question, and I suppose my answer was.. I just don't care anymore. I've reached an age where if if someone's life is shitty enough to spend their time listening to my private conversations, so be it. I have a good lawyer, hell it might even be a financial boon if someone crosses the line like that. I don't care nearly enough about what people think of me to be worried about something offensive and/or embarrassing being out in public domain.
So it's a handy way to get the weather forecast in the morning and play music. I have nothing to lose.
Hear hear. This story is a couple of days old and amazingly for once, didn't get heavy coverage outside of the usual foaming-mouth anti-Trump sources. I have hope to believe it's because many news outlets rightfully laughed at the conclusions of the report.
I don't live in nor vote in the United States, and I have to say I find much more objective coverage of Trump in my country. We still definitely have some of those same foaming-mouth outlets, but they are generally easier to spot for their heavy left-leaning bias. I think every politician and their policies should be heavily scrutinized, but I can't understand how people still live this "Russia hacked the election and colluded with Trump" given the actual evidence that has come out. If there was any "Trump support" from these online trolls, it was because they clearly hated Hillary vs. liking Trump. But the Senate wants you to believe some online trolls posting memes stole an entire election. Ridiculous.
People like to slag on "big oil" as it's the cool thing to do these days and will get you a lot of hand claps on twitter, but you are spot on. A middle class was not possible until the energy freedom that oil provided, and you can line up graphs showing increase in life expectancy almost perfectly to our increases in oil usage.
I understand that climate is changing, but people was to sacrifice known massive benefits to increased quality of life now, for some potential impact based on a 2C rise decades from now. This should be discussed more than it is, but you'll definitely get labelled a denier, especially on Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Your examples of violence are exceedingly rare and sensationalized in our modern society. The fact is we have never seen such a peaceful and cohesive time within society before, and the trend continues in the right direction. There are those who seek to bring back fear and division and it looks like their campaign of propaganda has swept you up. I go out in the real world all the time, in all types of cities and rural settings, and see none of the things you describe.
I think it is you who needs to open your eyes, and if you think violence is something to be seriously worried about, you should probably get off the internet too.
I've had my current smartphone (Apple) for nearly 5 years, finally approaching the time when the combination of slowness and years of wear is forcing my hand to get a new one. I so desperately wanted to move away from Apple and try Android. Not only do the phones appear more capable, I disagree with so much that Apple does, and it's also very good to get practical experience in multiple platforms.
That said, I think I have sadly resigned to having to stick with Apple. As much as it pains me to give Apple another cent of my money, I begrudgingly have to give them credit for being the only company that puts privacy and encryption first.
"It's completely insane that the value of the company stock is based not on analysis and solid numbers" - it is rather ironic that you say this in disgust because it is the exact reason Tesla stock is currently valued far higher than it would otherwise be.
The reason there is such a massive short position in Tesla is because many sophisticated investors look for companies with exactly this profile - valuation far exceeding current earnings. You average investor does not short shares, and the type of investor doing this doesn't gamble. Yet you seem to think these same people haven't seen the same situation a thousand times before, and that the exact same market fundamentals which have brought down countless stocks before it do not apply here.
Emails aren't rude, that's just people being picky about their preferred type of communication (more often you hear "phone calls are rude!"). In many organizations it's very difficult to find a common time for a small group of people to meet regularly and discuss something. Email allows for discussions to continue at a speed each person's time permits, and further, writing allows you to collect our thoughts and lay them out much more effectively.
Sure, you could argue there's some better tool for an ongoing threaded discussion, but that's what email is nowadays anyway.
That is fair, however any plan we're contemplating which may damage the economy in such a way that people simple starve now vs. in the future isn't realistic just to "do something".
In my younger days, I used to be a staunch environmentalist and would ridicule those bringing up economic interests as stupidly "thinking about money" when so much more important matters were on the table. When I got older I realized economic concerns deserve as much of a priority as anything else - "money" is actually a proxy for hospitals, food, infrastructure, energy, education, the list goes on...
Serious question, but do you have any sources for your claim that we can't adapt that quickly? I actually think the opposite, that tens of years is plenty of time to adapt. The changes aren't instantaneous, we can measure rising sea levels (currently in the mm per year range) and plan appropriately for it.
Similarly with nature, tens of years is many generations for most species, how do we know they cannot effectively adapt (which is the one thing organisms have been adapting to do since the start of life)? We've already seen evidence that polar bears are effectively adapting to lower sea ice levels contrary to the hypothesis that they couldn't and would go extinct.
Because you're lying about the -50C. Looking at weather records in Edmonton (one of the coldest major cities in Canada) back to the 1800's, there hasn't been a single recorded day where the temperature reached -50C. Link: https://www.currentresults.com...
Some fun history: Here in Canada we had a conservative government up until 2015, when we elected the current Trudeau Liberals. There was much hate and an "Anyone But Harper" campaign, in which speaking to the opposition you'd think PM Harper was evil incarnate (data now shows he quite handily outperformed his successor). One of the common refrains was that Harper's government "muzzled" scientists and kept them from speaking the truth. In reality this was a very distorted way to represent new PR guidelines to a number of gov't research groups. I know, someone turning something relatively innocuous into a scandal for political purposes - shocking!!
Anyway, fast forward to 3+ years of new Liberal government, and no scientists have come out with "things they were not allowed to previously say", however I am now far more concerned as to the political neutrality of our research groups with "studies" like these. Not only did it come out to coincide with the new carbon tax, as with ANY change, there are positive and negative outcomes. I see nothing in here that would lead me to believe this is an objective analysis of impacts from climate change, and plenty that it is intended to bolster someone's political agenda.
I should add there were numerous days which broke -40C (-40F) with and without wind chill. Extreme cold winters are still a regularity, no need to exaggerate. Although contrary to the doom projections of climate change, most here would be ecstatic to know we could count on milder winters in the future. February was suffering.
If by "years", you mean a month ago, then yes: https://globalnews.ca/news/500...
I had a parent (in Canada) diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and started treatment within the week.
There will always be the need for some sort of system in place to allocate limited health care resources; demand always outstrips supply. In the US, the queue of first to last is determined by who has the most money, as opposed to who has the greatest need. Up to you to debate which is the better approach.
Like it or not, if you were told to wait 4 months to start cancer treatment, it is because you do not need treatment for at least 4 months (eg. low-grade prostate cancer), and there is someone in a much more dire situation who needs those resources more urgently than you. It's just that no one likes being told they're problem isn't urgent and they need to wait - we all want to be first in line. Reminds me of the sign I saw at a hospital emergency center desk, something along the lines of: "You should be very, very happy if you are asked to wait instead of being rushed in to be seen first."
Logged in just to comment here on something I actually have experience with. I wore glasses since early grade 2, I had horrible near-sightedness, pretty much to the point of being blind without my thick glasses. Since I had lived my entire life (into my mid-30s) wearing glasses, I didn't actually think they were that big of a deal.
All I can say, is that without any hyperbole at all, the decision to get laser eye surgery was the best money I have ever spent in my life. You have no idea the freedom and "HD" vision that comes as a result. The slight inconveniences are way more than worth it. I just can't tell you enough how awesome it has been - do not discount it.
If you're interested, what finally made me look and take the dive was the fact I started skiing a lot, and the glasses fogging up under my goggles was highly annoying. I likewise could not use contacts for various reasons.
As a Canadian, it makes me especially angry to see US media and law enforcement agencies talk about foreign election influencing. I wonder exactly how they would respond if Canadian law enforcement started issues extradition orders for the thousands of American media personalities who thought it prudent to comment on our last federal election (and whose messages get FAR more visibility than some Russian facebook ads)?
"Post-truth narrative" is just some stupid buzzword; nothing has changed from the past, we're just seeing a new generation formulate the opinion that politicians lie and/or shouldn't be trusted. It amazes me this ever started to go away. I have to laugh at the constant accusation Donald Trump has told a lie - when did you ever look to politicians as truth tellers, trustable, or even someone who would know the facts on any subject????
Politics and politicians were never supposed to be about laying out all the facts and making "scientifically correct" decisions. Nothing at that level is black and white, and everything has pros and cons. The only thing that's getting worse (and perfectly evidenced by your DK comment), is that each side thinks the other side has completely lost it, just doesn't "understand all the facts", and is so stupid their views are not even worthy of respect.
"Wind and solar passed coal in cost effectiveness" Why do I hear this being said all the time, all those studies showing current wind/solar $/kWh as being the cheapest form available, yet this clearly does not align with reality? We do not live in a dictatorship, if it was possible to build a solar farm and erect a bunch of windmills and undercut the local electric utility, you'd see this wholesale and fast across North America.
No, not the case at all.. in every jurisdiction planning a move to greater renewables, the focus is on trying to get the populace to accept greater electricity costs. This is also why it's so hard, especially in a democracy. Sick of hearing this "wind/solar are most cost effective" anyway - if it's better overall make that argument, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Give me a break, the context and timing just reinforce that people are overly sensitive. If you are working a federal government job, then you have stability and stable income. If you needed to leverage a food bank after one month of no paycheck, that's piss poor planning on their part. What happened if a TRUE disaster happened, even so much as god forbid an actual layoff from a government job?
That and the fact anyone with a heartbeat and especially a government job can get credit nowadays, credit history be damned.
Among some of the great excerpts:
Despite the fact that human life expectancy has risen, diseases have been eliminated, terrorism deaths have declined, income distribution has risen, and the world is a better place than it ever has been, a sense of dystopian doom pervades Davos.
Unfortunately, reasonable analysis and critique like this is labelled as "far right", "denier", and from a "conservative rag" even here in Canada. Even those willing to admit they have a point will say "yeah things are great now, but the point is climate change will destroy our future!". One of the most interesting things I found researching some history here is there is ALWAYS a doomsday scenario our population is preoccupied with, this one is just a bit more heavy due to fast information sharing via the internet. People are always scared, news at 11. We have identified an issue and will slowly resolve it, driven by technology, and neither the world nor humanity will end. People talking about future or even current climate change disaster are scared, irrational humans, or trying to score political points, nothing more.
I call BS on your post and your attitude. You're demonstrating exactly why people refuse to associate with Democrats even if it means siding with Trump.
No reasonably intelligent reason eh? This is because you refuse to look and/or understand. Try reading an intelligent author for a change and not WaPo or CNN clickbait: America's resurgence is reshaping the world.. As a Canadian, I've seen our competitiveness erode massively since Trump and Trudeau came into office around the same time. Foreign investment has plunged, mostly due to Trump's support of business and ease of regulation, and Trudeau doing the opposite. The result isn't going to be a destroyed environment (you won't notice the difference from old policy in either country), it's simply going to be a more wealthy America. He's (rightfully) using his leverage to unilaterally renegotiate agreements, and if my leader had that power, I'd damn well expect him to use it. And for all those foaming mouth Americans who fawn over having a TRUE dumbass like Trudeau running the ship, you'll be interested to know his approval rating is far below Trump's.
I was always the prototypical "skinny nerd" through my late teens and twenties. Once I hit 30, I wanted to bulk up a bit, not become a muscle head but at least look a bit better physically. While it might just be me, I struggled to put on weight by exercising and eating more heavily (and trust me, eating 3000+ calories per day when you're not used to it is HARD).
Most interestingly is that I'd always been a no-breakfast type of person, just wasn't hungry until around lunch. Instead of massive calorie loading around dinner time, when I finally starting eating breakfast, weight started to stick like no tomorrow. I put on 25-30 lbs in just two months (mostly muscle). Not sure what this translates into, just an interesting anecdote as it was clearly breakfast which had the effect. Note that I am still unable to eat a good meal for breakfast, my body just isn't hungry and hard to eat food, so I down a meal replacement shake.
I'm a hiring manager and I throw out most resumes I get for a position, probably >90%. But I do read them all, even if it takes one minute to read most resumes. Every single one thrown is because the person has no real interest or motivation in getting the job.
Number one thing by a country mile folks - include a cover letter. Just two paragraphs that you've written specifically to me, on why you're interested in the job and perhaps how you experience applies, and you're almost guaranteed a deep look or an interview. For cripes sake, most people don't think at all and the form-letter style "objective" sections I see all the time make it apparent they're spamming the exact same document to whatever they can find.
My advice: don't listen when the media adds the "far right" qualifier when talking about any group. It may or may not be true, but is highly subjective and I've seen it regularly used for groups whose views are most certainly not far right. It is a term used consistently to try and discredit someone's opinion before it is ever debated. The most common way (and applied to AfD as well) is that anyone opposed to any type of immigration is labelled as far-right.
Ah, but this highlights one of the best features of the deposit model that isn't immediately apparent. Once those pieces of garbage are worth 10 cents a piece (as they are in my province), many homeless will spend a majority of their day walking around town picking them up and taking them in for you at the bottle depot. It's the best form of homeless subsidy ever - they clean up, and basically get paid a commission for doing it. Many homeless here survive completely on the availability of deposit-bearing drink containers littered along the ground. I can bet you a Coke bottle wouldn't last five seconds out on the street of my city.
I bought an Alexa and put it in my living room some months ago, and I get your point. I do feel somewhat ashamed by the privacy aspect of it. I grew up with tech through the 90s and developed just as much of a belief in strong privacy as anyone else here. I shred every document with my name on it before throwing it away. I fought against our government census simply on grounds of principle for privacy. I've been a huge advocate all along.
So what changed? I was honest with myself on this question, and I suppose my answer was.. I just don't care anymore. I've reached an age where if if someone's life is shitty enough to spend their time listening to my private conversations, so be it. I have a good lawyer, hell it might even be a financial boon if someone crosses the line like that. I don't care nearly enough about what people think of me to be worried about something offensive and/or embarrassing being out in public domain.
So it's a handy way to get the weather forecast in the morning and play music. I have nothing to lose.
Hear hear. This story is a couple of days old and amazingly for once, didn't get heavy coverage outside of the usual foaming-mouth anti-Trump sources. I have hope to believe it's because many news outlets rightfully laughed at the conclusions of the report.
I don't live in nor vote in the United States, and I have to say I find much more objective coverage of Trump in my country. We still definitely have some of those same foaming-mouth outlets, but they are generally easier to spot for their heavy left-leaning bias. I think every politician and their policies should be heavily scrutinized, but I can't understand how people still live this "Russia hacked the election and colluded with Trump" given the actual evidence that has come out. If there was any "Trump support" from these online trolls, it was because they clearly hated Hillary vs. liking Trump. But the Senate wants you to believe some online trolls posting memes stole an entire election. Ridiculous.
People like to slag on "big oil" as it's the cool thing to do these days and will get you a lot of hand claps on twitter, but you are spot on. A middle class was not possible until the energy freedom that oil provided, and you can line up graphs showing increase in life expectancy almost perfectly to our increases in oil usage.
I understand that climate is changing, but people was to sacrifice known massive benefits to increased quality of life now, for some potential impact based on a 2C rise decades from now. This should be discussed more than it is, but you'll definitely get labelled a denier, especially on Slashdot.