The US has repeatedly interfered in a multitude of elections
Don't forget Canada, 2015. Numerous American commentators joined the "anyone but Harper" campaign, and were part of the reason we're currently stuck with a high school drama teacher leading the country, getting his ass handed to him economically by Donald Trump.
Whenever someone from the USA talks about the Russians "hacking their election" for posting a few memes on facebook, I have to laugh in their face.
The problem you describe about urban sprawl affects many Canadian cities and there was in fact a term coined for it, something like sprawl paradox. And it is a paradox that I have seen studies on (but perhaps no firm conclusions). The paradox is that when asked, nearly everyone (>80%) wants more density, walkable neighborhoods and a vibrant core. Then when it comes time to actually spending their money, nearly everyone again buys a house in the suburbs. What they really want as dictated by their purchasing decisions differs from what they claim to desire.
It's not a central planning function that results in urban sprawl, it's market demand. I have a feeling that while dense living sounds great, having your own space, the practicality of it (a yard for my new kids!), and family pressures result in suburban single family homes being the big sellers.
This is one area I always gave Trump credit for - calling out the Paris agreement as silly and not achievable. Whatever his motivation, he was the only person being realistic about it, because he was the only "non politician" of the group, who typically are more interested in making grand pronouncements.
I read that the EU is close to reporting that my country, Canada, is nowhere close to meeting it's Paris commitments. So basically, our real world performance has been no different from the US, but Trudeau talks a great hot-air game and so gets all the credit vs. criticism for Trump.
As someone pretty well read in current events, meaning ACTUALLY READING and not just Facebook headlines from CNN, yes, I can say Trump often does bring a reasonable view to the table. Your comment highlights the exact problem I see, which is people foam at the mouth over Trump but have no idea why, other than very suspiciously skewed media headlines.
Just saying, but your source is severely biased and written by a SJW with a bone to pick (a never Trumper no-doubt). There GP has a valid argument (though he didn't elaborate), which you'd probably acknowledge if you were more open minded.
Yes yes, if only the other side was more educated, they'd agree with you. I hear that from both sides by the way, and think both of you are idiots. If you fail to understand rational reasons an intelligent person would vote for Trump, you will lose the next election too, because you will still be screaming "Muh Racisms!!!!" instead of understanding and validly countering his proposals.
Frankly, Trump is exactly what I hoped for. A wrench in the overgrown political class who calls things as he sees them (as a normal person would), and not how our masters think we should all behave. God forbid the Democrats regain office before figuring this out.
Demonizing your opponent is a classic strategy that paints you in a worse light than them. If you believe one side of this equation is evil and doesn't have valid arguments, you are the problem.
Nonsense. The fact Trump was elected is our only proof the democratic process is still working. The Republicans clearly didn't want him as their leader, and neither did any of the massive political class in Washington. Tell me, after reading Podesta's emails, that the Democratic party is the one following democratic ideals? I'll laugh in your face. The Republican party is the only one who listened to what voters wanted.
And the US government was intended to be by the people, for the people, all the warts of people included. NOT some elite political class who never does anything wrong (or rather, is good at hiding their humanity). Trump has some huge faults, but is not the crazed lunatic you would believe listening to click-bait CNN. Watch one of his press conferences all the way through. Trump has many reasonable, rational points, and the grown-ups in the room manage to have good conversations except for the toddler (CNN) in the room screaming. Those who believe the "crazed idiot" version of Trump are those guilty of taking all their news from Facebook headlines, not doing any research or critical thinking.
To be fair (which folks don't seem inclined to do with the Trump administration), the NCR 2018 read like it was written by a high school student with an outcome identified before even starting. So many "impacts" listed are not backed up, and do not pass logical muster. Try reading the section on Indigenous peoples; it contains some of the same laughable sentences I've seen in environmental assessments where they argue construction project $X will permanently destroy their way of life (hint: this is always ridiculous hyperbole).
They gloss over (but thankfully acknowledge) that most of the prediction models have not been accurate to date. This is not a "science" report, but a propaganda document written by SJW's. More bad analysis from mainstream media is why it is not presented as such. The "Trump doesn't believe climate science report" gets much more clicks.
My city has tried this, and the problem is that the social-engineering approach to designing neighborhoods and transit doesn't line up with how people want to live and commute (as evidenced by the choices made with their real dollars, eg. buying big houses in the suburbs), and it eventually becomes an expensive disaster.
What is more questionable is that these reports never discuss any positive effects of global warming. Perhaps there are none, however we're a pretty cold planet and our cold climates suffer quite a bit from said cold temperatures - much plant life including crops have very short growing seasons which are completely driven by the first and last frost of the year.
It makes you question whether the authors are being balanced about the effects, or pushing for certain political outcomes, which would make the report itself more a political than a scientific one.
"A cold winter is proof there is no global warming". No, but why don't we acknowledge that those long, cold winters mean than by 2100 and after a worst-case prediction of a 2-5C temperature raise, we will still have long and cold winters?. Last year my major city actually set a cold winter record, over 167 days where the temperature didn't exceed 0C.
Try convincing the large population of earth living in cold climates that a gradual 2C warming is a disaster. You'll definitely get a lot of sympathy for the Al Gore millionaires and their Californian beach front mansions.
I don't care anymore. I trust the data NASA has been putting out, I just don't trust nearly any of the doomsday predictions that follow. A 2C rise in temperatures means nothing. Our planet will still be largely a freezing one which has far more downside than being slightly warmer.
I don't think it's a conspiracy either, just a prime example of groupthink and herd mentality even in scientist circles. Look no further than the polar bear example of how even clear evidence that doomsday predictions are wrong "aren't allowed" in the community and are shot down.
Perhaps, but it definitely does prove we are all too eager to prove it will be a disaster rather than thoughtful analysis. The climate change zealots (who, if you classify everyone with skepticism as a denier, will simply be the label they likewise adopt for anyone who believes we are all doomed) have a vested interest in more and severe impacts being found, and non-impacts or inconsistencies being buried. I've seen this with plant growth, sea level rise, and even polar bears. While the data might be correct, we have seriously miscalculated almost every impact to date, and thus anyone should approach claims we are approaching disaster with proper skepticism, but instead are labeled "deniers" by yourself.
While I agree with your point, your first example of MS and github is wrong. You provided a textbook example of what is defined as goodwill in accounting. It's not an seldom used concept either; nearly every time you buy an entire company, unless it's performing very poorly, it's universally expected you're going to have to pay more than it is actually worth (based on sum of assets, income, etc.). While this may look like a "write down" in the sense it is a non-cash loss, the goodwill remains as an asset on the balance sheet. This is very different than "wasting" money (at least from an accounting sense) or a write-down where you're acknowledging the company has less valuable assets.
I don't think the sum of evidence shows Russia had any interest in supporting Trump. There has been plenty of anti-Trump fervor generated but it only started once the anti-Hillary campaign wasn't the primary objective anymore. I say this not to support Trump but as the most simple and logical explanation of all the information we have been seen. The reason it seems like Trump is soft on Russia is that he doesn't see them as a threat, unlike everyone in the political class which he was not a part of. It's quite clear from Trump's previous actions he see them (for better or worse) as an economic opportunity instead.
What seemed quite clear was that the "Russians" (we still have been given no solid proof of this) had two objectives: #1 damage the reputation of Hillary Clinton and #2 stoke existing social tensions. Again, Trump only benefited from #1 because he was Hillary's opponent, not because they supported him. One of the primary strategies of this group is to create extreme disdain for US leadership and it's working like a charm. Neither Hillary nor Trump deserve much of the hate that is spewed forth at them, but it's easy to see the campaign to discredit Hillary (whom they likely expected to win) shifted quickly to Trump.
"groceries are actually fresh" Can you explain this? Why would you think the produce isn't then sitting just as long on your grocer's shelf versus yours? Whether you buy it today or two days later, it is still the same age since it was picked, no? I highly doubt any grocer gets fresh daily deliveries, that would be horribly inefficient and expensive.
"Why do we live like this?" Because it results in the objectively amazing, easy, and technologically advanced lives we now live. Though everyone likes to bitch and whine about how bad things are, that's just human's pessimistic brains, we were built through evolution to think in terms of worst case (for good reason). Objectively the average person now lives far better than a king of not even one hundred years ago, and it's steadily getting better too.
I remember as a kid, only rich people went to Hawaii, now well within the reach of the middle class, as an example. Next time you eat cheese or grapes, think about how only the richest of people ate those only a few short generations ago...
That you don't find the same value in car culture makes you a very small minority... To me the vehicle is the ultimate expression of my freedom - I can hop in and drive anywhere in the vast country I live in without restriction. I have, many times, over 200,000km in my vehicle. I will agree it's inefficient for daily commute, and I use transit as well (zero of those 200km are from commuting), but owning a vehicle and the infrastructure we've built for vehicle travel is arguably our what makes us truly free.
To call Trump's rhetoric, however over-the-top it usually is, as specifically inciting people to murder others, is as absolutely batshit crazy as the people who believed in pizzagate.
That's a very hard argument to make, since it's correct a president does have limited control and more in the long-term effects. People will still blame the other side; eg. if we had a recession and the economy contracted by 2%, supporters will argue it would have been 4% or greater were it not for the actions of $Party_I_Support.
Remarkably little? As a Canadian I'm a little miffed at that, as Trump has taken away a massive amount of our foreign investment with his reduction of taxes and regulations. To be fair, he's had Trudeau on our side increasing taxes and regulations which has exacerbated Trump's successes, but the data is quite clear. (Examples here and here).
You might think these are just economist talking points but they have significant effect on economic growth and quality of life for each country, and Trump is clearly winning here.
Mod parent up, it's a very astute point that "political leanings have no effect on the economy". Some folks seem to think California's top position is in part to their left political leanings, but look at Canada: the province of Alberta carries much of the country economically, and (at least contains) some of the most conservative political leanings in the country. Heck, in 2015 Alberta elected it's first non-conservative government in decades, and they are almost surely returning to power in 2019. (Aside: I will note having lived there, it's far less hardcore conservative that it's usually perceived, but everything's relative). The GDP per capital of the major cities in Alberta would make nearly any city across the world envious.
I think most people misunderstand the scope and effect of electric cars. Two things:
1. Electric cars will not completely replace the need for ICE vehicles, and convenience/capability wise, still have a long way to go to fully compete.
There are certain, but limited, current use cases electric makes great sense for and it will have to start there.
2. Even if all domestic vehicle transportation moved to electric, this will not significantly reduce our oil consumption.
On use cases, when it comes to cold weather or long-distance applications, we don't have a good replacement for ICE. Personally, I don't commute to work (the best electric use case), and use my vehicle mostly for camping or road trips. I'd still choose ICE over electric given current options.
For oil consumption, reducing it's use for vehicles will simply allow the oil to be used for other more valuable purposes. People forget oil is just a carrier of what we're really after, energy, and it contains a massive amount of that. Energy is what drives all aspects of our quality of life, and we are only ever going to increase that. Technology will make it's use more efficient, but we will always be hungry for every energy source we can get.
Going back to basic economics, imagine that electric vehicles do cause a massive drop in demand for oil; this will commensurately drive price down. When price is driven below a certain point, it will again become the most economical energy source for more applications. It's never going away until we use the last drop.
Slashdot Mirror
The US has repeatedly interfered in a multitude of elections
Don't forget Canada, 2015. Numerous American commentators joined the "anyone but Harper" campaign, and were part of the reason we're currently stuck with a high school drama teacher leading the country, getting his ass handed to him economically by Donald Trump.
Whenever someone from the USA talks about the Russians "hacking their election" for posting a few memes on facebook, I have to laugh in their face.
So what are the positive effects of a 2C rise going to be? There have to be some, why aren't they ever discussed for context?
The problem you describe about urban sprawl affects many Canadian cities and there was in fact a term coined for it, something like sprawl paradox. And it is a paradox that I have seen studies on (but perhaps no firm conclusions). The paradox is that when asked, nearly everyone (>80%) wants more density, walkable neighborhoods and a vibrant core. Then when it comes time to actually spending their money, nearly everyone again buys a house in the suburbs. What they really want as dictated by their purchasing decisions differs from what they claim to desire.
It's not a central planning function that results in urban sprawl, it's market demand. I have a feeling that while dense living sounds great, having your own space, the practicality of it (a yard for my new kids!), and family pressures result in suburban single family homes being the big sellers.
This is one area I always gave Trump credit for - calling out the Paris agreement as silly and not achievable. Whatever his motivation, he was the only person being realistic about it, because he was the only "non politician" of the group, who typically are more interested in making grand pronouncements.
I read that the EU is close to reporting that my country, Canada, is nowhere close to meeting it's Paris commitments. So basically, our real world performance has been no different from the US, but Trudeau talks a great hot-air game and so gets all the credit vs. criticism for Trump.
As someone pretty well read in current events, meaning ACTUALLY READING and not just Facebook headlines from CNN, yes, I can say Trump often does bring a reasonable view to the table. Your comment highlights the exact problem I see, which is people foam at the mouth over Trump but have no idea why, other than very suspiciously skewed media headlines.
Just saying, but your source is severely biased and written by a SJW with a bone to pick (a never Trumper no-doubt). There GP has a valid argument (though he didn't elaborate), which you'd probably acknowledge if you were more open minded.
Yes yes, if only the other side was more educated, they'd agree with you. I hear that from both sides by the way, and think both of you are idiots. If you fail to understand rational reasons an intelligent person would vote for Trump, you will lose the next election too, because you will still be screaming "Muh Racisms!!!!" instead of understanding and validly countering his proposals.
Frankly, Trump is exactly what I hoped for. A wrench in the overgrown political class who calls things as he sees them (as a normal person would), and not how our masters think we should all behave. God forbid the Democrats regain office before figuring this out.
Demonizing your opponent is a classic strategy that paints you in a worse light than them. If you believe one side of this equation is evil and doesn't have valid arguments, you are the problem.
Nonsense. The fact Trump was elected is our only proof the democratic process is still working. The Republicans clearly didn't want him as their leader, and neither did any of the massive political class in Washington. Tell me, after reading Podesta's emails, that the Democratic party is the one following democratic ideals? I'll laugh in your face. The Republican party is the only one who listened to what voters wanted. And the US government was intended to be by the people, for the people, all the warts of people included. NOT some elite political class who never does anything wrong (or rather, is good at hiding their humanity). Trump has some huge faults, but is not the crazed lunatic you would believe listening to click-bait CNN. Watch one of his press conferences all the way through. Trump has many reasonable, rational points, and the grown-ups in the room manage to have good conversations except for the toddler (CNN) in the room screaming. Those who believe the "crazed idiot" version of Trump are those guilty of taking all their news from Facebook headlines, not doing any research or critical thinking.
To be fair (which folks don't seem inclined to do with the Trump administration), the NCR 2018 read like it was written by a high school student with an outcome identified before even starting. So many "impacts" listed are not backed up, and do not pass logical muster. Try reading the section on Indigenous peoples; it contains some of the same laughable sentences I've seen in environmental assessments where they argue construction project $X will permanently destroy their way of life (hint: this is always ridiculous hyperbole).
They gloss over (but thankfully acknowledge) that most of the prediction models have not been accurate to date. This is not a "science" report, but a propaganda document written by SJW's. More bad analysis from mainstream media is why it is not presented as such. The "Trump doesn't believe climate science report" gets much more clicks.
My city has tried this, and the problem is that the social-engineering approach to designing neighborhoods and transit doesn't line up with how people want to live and commute (as evidenced by the choices made with their real dollars, eg. buying big houses in the suburbs), and it eventually becomes an expensive disaster.
What is more questionable is that these reports never discuss any positive effects of global warming. Perhaps there are none, however we're a pretty cold planet and our cold climates suffer quite a bit from said cold temperatures - much plant life including crops have very short growing seasons which are completely driven by the first and last frost of the year.
It makes you question whether the authors are being balanced about the effects, or pushing for certain political outcomes, which would make the report itself more a political than a scientific one.
"A cold winter is proof there is no global warming". No, but why don't we acknowledge that those long, cold winters mean than by 2100 and after a worst-case prediction of a 2-5C temperature raise, we will still have long and cold winters?. Last year my major city actually set a cold winter record, over 167 days where the temperature didn't exceed 0C.
Try convincing the large population of earth living in cold climates that a gradual 2C warming is a disaster. You'll definitely get a lot of sympathy for the Al Gore millionaires and their Californian beach front mansions.
I don't care anymore. I trust the data NASA has been putting out, I just don't trust nearly any of the doomsday predictions that follow. A 2C rise in temperatures means nothing. Our planet will still be largely a freezing one which has far more downside than being slightly warmer.
I don't think it's a conspiracy either, just a prime example of groupthink and herd mentality even in scientist circles. Look no further than the polar bear example of how even clear evidence that doomsday predictions are wrong "aren't allowed" in the community and are shot down.
Perhaps, but it definitely does prove we are all too eager to prove it will be a disaster rather than thoughtful analysis. The climate change zealots (who, if you classify everyone with skepticism as a denier, will simply be the label they likewise adopt for anyone who believes we are all doomed) have a vested interest in more and severe impacts being found, and non-impacts or inconsistencies being buried. I've seen this with plant growth, sea level rise, and even polar bears. While the data might be correct, we have seriously miscalculated almost every impact to date, and thus anyone should approach claims we are approaching disaster with proper skepticism, but instead are labeled "deniers" by yourself.
While I agree with your point, your first example of MS and github is wrong. You provided a textbook example of what is defined as goodwill in accounting. It's not an seldom used concept either; nearly every time you buy an entire company, unless it's performing very poorly, it's universally expected you're going to have to pay more than it is actually worth (based on sum of assets, income, etc.). While this may look like a "write down" in the sense it is a non-cash loss, the goodwill remains as an asset on the balance sheet. This is very different than "wasting" money (at least from an accounting sense) or a write-down where you're acknowledging the company has less valuable assets.
I don't think the sum of evidence shows Russia had any interest in supporting Trump. There has been plenty of anti-Trump fervor generated but it only started once the anti-Hillary campaign wasn't the primary objective anymore. I say this not to support Trump but as the most simple and logical explanation of all the information we have been seen. The reason it seems like Trump is soft on Russia is that he doesn't see them as a threat, unlike everyone in the political class which he was not a part of. It's quite clear from Trump's previous actions he see them (for better or worse) as an economic opportunity instead.
What seemed quite clear was that the "Russians" (we still have been given no solid proof of this) had two objectives: #1 damage the reputation of Hillary Clinton and #2 stoke existing social tensions. Again, Trump only benefited from #1 because he was Hillary's opponent, not because they supported him. One of the primary strategies of this group is to create extreme disdain for US leadership and it's working like a charm. Neither Hillary nor Trump deserve much of the hate that is spewed forth at them, but it's easy to see the campaign to discredit Hillary (whom they likely expected to win) shifted quickly to Trump.
"groceries are actually fresh" Can you explain this? Why would you think the produce isn't then sitting just as long on your grocer's shelf versus yours? Whether you buy it today or two days later, it is still the same age since it was picked, no? I highly doubt any grocer gets fresh daily deliveries, that would be horribly inefficient and expensive.
"Why do we live like this?" Because it results in the objectively amazing, easy, and technologically advanced lives we now live. Though everyone likes to bitch and whine about how bad things are, that's just human's pessimistic brains, we were built through evolution to think in terms of worst case (for good reason). Objectively the average person now lives far better than a king of not even one hundred years ago, and it's steadily getting better too.
I remember as a kid, only rich people went to Hawaii, now well within the reach of the middle class, as an example. Next time you eat cheese or grapes, think about how only the richest of people ate those only a few short generations ago...
That you don't find the same value in car culture makes you a very small minority... To me the vehicle is the ultimate expression of my freedom - I can hop in and drive anywhere in the vast country I live in without restriction. I have, many times, over 200,000km in my vehicle. I will agree it's inefficient for daily commute, and I use transit as well (zero of those 200km are from commuting), but owning a vehicle and the infrastructure we've built for vehicle travel is arguably our what makes us truly free.
To call Trump's rhetoric, however over-the-top it usually is, as specifically inciting people to murder others, is as absolutely batshit crazy as the people who believed in pizzagate.
That's a very hard argument to make, since it's correct a president does have limited control and more in the long-term effects. People will still blame the other side; eg. if we had a recession and the economy contracted by 2%, supporters will argue it would have been 4% or greater were it not for the actions of $Party_I_Support.
Remarkably little? As a Canadian I'm a little miffed at that, as Trump has taken away a massive amount of our foreign investment with his reduction of taxes and regulations. To be fair, he's had Trudeau on our side increasing taxes and regulations which has exacerbated Trump's successes, but the data is quite clear. (Examples here and here).
You might think these are just economist talking points but they have significant effect on economic growth and quality of life for each country, and Trump is clearly winning here.
Mod parent up, it's a very astute point that "political leanings have no effect on the economy". Some folks seem to think California's top position is in part to their left political leanings, but look at Canada: the province of Alberta carries much of the country economically, and (at least contains) some of the most conservative political leanings in the country. Heck, in 2015 Alberta elected it's first non-conservative government in decades, and they are almost surely returning to power in 2019. (Aside: I will note having lived there, it's far less hardcore conservative that it's usually perceived, but everything's relative). The GDP per capital of the major cities in Alberta would make nearly any city across the world envious.
On use cases, when it comes to cold weather or long-distance applications, we don't have a good replacement for ICE. Personally, I don't commute to work (the best electric use case), and use my vehicle mostly for camping or road trips. I'd still choose ICE over electric given current options.
For oil consumption, reducing it's use for vehicles will simply allow the oil to be used for other more valuable purposes. People forget oil is just a carrier of what we're really after, energy, and it contains a massive amount of that. Energy is what drives all aspects of our quality of life, and we are only ever going to increase that. Technology will make it's use more efficient, but we will always be hungry for every energy source we can get. Going back to basic economics, imagine that electric vehicles do cause a massive drop in demand for oil; this will commensurately drive price down. When price is driven below a certain point, it will again become the most economical energy source for more applications. It's never going away until we use the last drop.