There is a reason the oil companies are starting to have trouble recruiting young people for the industry
I work in the energy industry (side note: "oil" companies don't exist anymore, they're all rebranded as energy companies, and what you think of as oil companies are actually the largest investors in renewable energy, far more than whoever you think is your saviour) and this isn't the case at all. Hydrocarbons are still where all the big $$ is however. Energy companies are usually some of the best employers in the world in terms of benefits, compensation, and job enjoyment. Take your lies elsewhere.
While I doubt it represents everything in it's entirety, the most likely explanation is starting to become clear: The Democrats were leveraging their political friends at the top levels of the DOJ/FBI to try and find a smoking gun to lay on Trump, and win the election. Nothing has been found, but they want to keep the "Russia" narrative alive for political gain.
You claim the people on here are running interference for Trump, but so far, the evidence that the DNC and their friend-loaded departments of the FBI/DOJ did shady things to discredit the Trump campaign is stronger than the evidence Trump was doing anything of concern with Russians. Just saying.. reason and all.
Not sure how these conspiracy theories get modded up so high. As I've always said, if things are as dire as you say, let's see a single shred of proof. Otherwise, Occam's Razor applies and the most likely explanation is sour grapes and grasping at straws from those who lost the election.
And since cities usually don't have farmland within them, the rural areas usually send back things like food and other resources the cities need on a daily basis. All this talk here makes it sound like rural areas are leeching off of the cities, whereas the true support relationship is probably the other way around. Not many starbucks hipsters I would think know the first thing about how to get milk for their latte.
Your whole post is the alarmist's handbook to try and push your various agendas. You take some things we have likely shown to be true, and use them to justify all sorts of doomsday scenarios which have absolutely no degree of certainty behind them.
To add, the steady rate of sea level rise has added a whole 8cm to sea levels in more than 25 years. This during a period when we burnt a majority of fossil fuels inefficiently and cut down a great deal of the earth's forests... why does the future seem unmanageable here? Looks like another 8cm by 2050, hardly worth getting worked up over.
I didn't watch the video, but NASA's own published data on sea level seems to agree with the previous assertion. Take a look yourself. That line looks more or less linear to me since the mid 1800's.
Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it
Sounds altruistic and all on the part of the Democrat party, but the way politics are in the US I'm guessing if the Republicans were supporting it, the Democrats would be doing everything in their power to kill it. They don't stand for anything, just the opposite of whatever the other side wants.
Second, exactly how are the European democracies any better? Many have systems of non-proportional representation, and multiple parties, meaning the party candidate that gets elected in an average riding typically has less than 30% support among all voters, let alone the entire population.
It makes perfect sense to me - the United States is exactly that, a set of united independent states. In your example, you're arguing California should have more power/representation than Ohio. The EC removes that, and put states on equal footing, as it should be. Population imbalances shouldn't change that core approach, which has worked better for longer than most European governments.
I think we just need to accept the way it is.. resources are not infinite and our current system directs capital towards what is most valuable. In the case of medical research, it seems to be working as the most common diseases receive heavy funding while smaller ones like this receive little. Sounds harsh, but again it's really just the most efficient allocation of scarce resources.
You simply can't change the culture of a workplace without a significant turnover of existing employees. This is what I've hoped for at the NSA/FBI for years. Keep on calling 'em out.
I have an iPhone 6, and the battery performance was noticeably lower after a year. Why is it that electric vehicle manufacturers claim their lithium ion batteries retain something like 90% charge after 10 years? Serious question, why do Apple batteries suck so much? Do they use cheap batteries? It is usage patterns (in which case it doesn't sound good for using batteries for commercial driving purposes)?
That was a very helpful website, thanks. I have seen it before but I took the time to poke through some of the data.
We've been spending hundreds of years cutting down forests (a natural heatsink), in many cases burning them, have burned a fuckton of oil in the last 60 years, and all sorts of other carbon pollution. Now you're telling me the impact is less than half a degree ON AVERAGE over a year? What disaster exactly do we have coming from all of this??
Furthermore, it shows just how intense locales can handle significant temperature swings, up to 40 degrees or more Celsius over a few short days. Name one plant or animal species given those temporary swings, that you think cannot adapt to a 0.5C change over a twenty year period.
For all his faults and things he can be legitimately criticized for, I always felt this was the reason Donald Trump so incensed those you are referring to... he's a competitor, and sees himself as a winner.
The social structure of the modern left is built on victim status and credentials. To those who refuse to be victims or wallow in failure, they are on the bottom of their class structure.
If simply placing the wrong ideas in front of people causes society to fall apart, then we have already lost. The only way we can possibly be sustainable as a society is when most people can look at any idea, any idea or words possible, and rightly decide what is rubbish and what is a reasonable idea. Thus, education and exposing people to all words and concepts is the only possible way forward.
Those who say that certain ideas are dangerous and want to prevent people from seeing them are the ones to be truly worried about, because what they really wish for is that you do not apply the same rational thinking to their ideas, and rightly decide they are rubbish. They just want to be the ones in control of your thoughts.
Nonsense. You keep lumping together those who have different opinions that you and assuring yourself that they simply don't see and/or recognize facts as well as you do.
My generation (let's say we're 30-40 now) almost all live vastly better lives that their parents. I grew up in a rural area, but many I know were urban as well. Our parents were by and large poor - could not afford fancy clothes, eating out, struggled with bills, etc. If you work decently hard and go to post secondary school (and the only way you can't get in there if your family is too wealthy and you will not qualify for loans), as most of them did, they all live extremely affluent lives compared to their previous generation. The people I know across the middle and upper classes who had wealth handed to them are few and far between (and it's always seen as a negative against them). Most of them are conservative because they want to keep that same ability to do better than the last generation.
"Donald Trump is the son of a successful guy and look how fucked up he is." You mean, took that wealth, expanded it, ensured it lasted beyond his generation, had and overall highly successful life in business, married a smoking hot woman as an old dude, raised successful and smart kids, in still on speaking terms with his ex-wives (a huge demonstration of character), and finally, just voted president of the United States?
What the hell do you actually call success? People always like to beat down those that have done better than them; and especially the modern left where your status is determined by your level of victim status. Trump, having none, is naturally their #1 enemy.
You've accurately described short selling except for one point, when you say the trader would sell them for 20% below market value. No one would ever leave that much money on the table. The action of price drops comes from the fact such a large amount of the asset is being sold, and the volume available for sale exceeds the amount willing to be purchased. The price then starts slipping to find more buyers.
Wait, we're talking 2-3 year old LiOn batteries here, aren't your claims of degradation and lower capabilities against everything the electric car industry is telling us about longevity? Who's wrong here?
Is it just me (living in a very cold climate) or does anecdotal evidence still suggest people are flocking to these warm areas of our planet over the vast frozen landscapes that dominate most of our land mass?
I sure as hell aren't seeing people flock to our winter. And let's be real - the cold here will kill someone far faster than any of these warm spots. The grasping at straws of the climate craze movement to convince we have a coming disaster (and need to hand over all our money to fix it) is getting unbelievable.
Perhaps in some US states, but in Canada at least this is horrible advice. Employment is a contract and breaking that contract has certain ramifications; primarily, if they don't give you long enough notice, they owe severance.
If you retire or quit you are not owed anything since you are initiating the end of the contract, however if they do through a layoff they owe you severance. The best possible scenario is to get laid off with many years' service just prior to when you were going to retire anyway.
Very accurate. Reading every Russia allegation that comes out, I haven't seen even a single thing that suggests the slightest impropriety. It is very clear the outrage is coming from just hatred of Trump and a hope if they keep repeating 'Russia hacking', people will believe the lies.
The James Comey situation is even more clear to anyone who can objectively look at what happened. Like either of them or not, Comey was a bureaucrat/employee of the executive branch, clearly loyal to the Obama administration. When a new leader/management comes into any organization and is so clearly opposed to the policies of the last, is it any wonder Comey did not like his new boss? Firing him was the most straightforward management decision of Trump's early administration, and how people play that into some sort of conspiracy is beyond me. Well, it's actually probably related to the above as well..a hatred of Trump so strong it skews their rationality.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reason the oil companies are starting to have trouble recruiting young people for the industry
I work in the energy industry (side note: "oil" companies don't exist anymore, they're all rebranded as energy companies, and what you think of as oil companies are actually the largest investors in renewable energy, far more than whoever you think is your saviour) and this isn't the case at all. Hydrocarbons are still where all the big $$ is however. Energy companies are usually some of the best employers in the world in terms of benefits, compensation, and job enjoyment. Take your lies elsewhere.
While I doubt it represents everything in it's entirety, the most likely explanation is starting to become clear: The Democrats were leveraging their political friends at the top levels of the DOJ/FBI to try and find a smoking gun to lay on Trump, and win the election. Nothing has been found, but they want to keep the "Russia" narrative alive for political gain.
You claim the people on here are running interference for Trump, but so far, the evidence that the DNC and their friend-loaded departments of the FBI/DOJ did shady things to discredit the Trump campaign is stronger than the evidence Trump was doing anything of concern with Russians. Just saying.. reason and all.
Not sure how these conspiracy theories get modded up so high. As I've always said, if things are as dire as you say, let's see a single shred of proof. Otherwise, Occam's Razor applies and the most likely explanation is sour grapes and grasping at straws from those who lost the election.
And since cities usually don't have farmland within them, the rural areas usually send back things like food and other resources the cities need on a daily basis. All this talk here makes it sound like rural areas are leeching off of the cities, whereas the true support relationship is probably the other way around. Not many starbucks hipsters I would think know the first thing about how to get milk for their latte.
Your whole post is the alarmist's handbook to try and push your various agendas. You take some things we have likely shown to be true, and use them to justify all sorts of doomsday scenarios which have absolutely no degree of certainty behind them.
To add, the steady rate of sea level rise has added a whole 8cm to sea levels in more than 25 years. This during a period when we burnt a majority of fossil fuels inefficiently and cut down a great deal of the earth's forests... why does the future seem unmanageable here? Looks like another 8cm by 2050, hardly worth getting worked up over.
I didn't watch the video, but NASA's own published data on sea level seems to agree with the previous assertion. Take a look yourself. That line looks more or less linear to me since the mid 1800's.
Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of gutting it, and the Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of preserving it
Sounds altruistic and all on the part of the Democrat party, but the way politics are in the US I'm guessing if the Republicans were supporting it, the Democrats would be doing everything in their power to kill it. They don't stand for anything, just the opposite of whatever the other side wants.
Second, exactly how are the European democracies any better? Many have systems of non-proportional representation, and multiple parties, meaning the party candidate that gets elected in an average riding typically has less than 30% support among all voters, let alone the entire population.
It makes perfect sense to me - the United States is exactly that, a set of united independent states. In your example, you're arguing California should have more power/representation than Ohio. The EC removes that, and put states on equal footing, as it should be. Population imbalances shouldn't change that core approach, which has worked better for longer than most European governments.
Sounds like a history lesson could do you well.. I just finished reading a book on the great depression, and would recommend you do the same.
Moving to fiat currency fixed a bug in our financial system, not introducing one.
I think we just need to accept the way it is.. resources are not infinite and our current system directs capital towards what is most valuable. In the case of medical research, it seems to be working as the most common diseases receive heavy funding while smaller ones like this receive little. Sounds harsh, but again it's really just the most efficient allocation of scarce resources.
You simply can't change the culture of a workplace without a significant turnover of existing employees. This is what I've hoped for at the NSA/FBI for years. Keep on calling 'em out.
I have an iPhone 6, and the battery performance was noticeably lower after a year. Why is it that electric vehicle manufacturers claim their lithium ion batteries retain something like 90% charge after 10 years? Serious question, why do Apple batteries suck so much? Do they use cheap batteries? It is usage patterns (in which case it doesn't sound good for using batteries for commercial driving purposes)?
That was a very helpful website, thanks. I have seen it before but I took the time to poke through some of the data.
We've been spending hundreds of years cutting down forests (a natural heatsink), in many cases burning them, have burned a fuckton of oil in the last 60 years, and all sorts of other carbon pollution. Now you're telling me the impact is less than half a degree ON AVERAGE over a year? What disaster exactly do we have coming from all of this??
Furthermore, it shows just how intense locales can handle significant temperature swings, up to 40 degrees or more Celsius over a few short days. Name one plant or animal species given those temporary swings, that you think cannot adapt to a 0.5C change over a twenty year period.
For all his faults and things he can be legitimately criticized for, I always felt this was the reason Donald Trump so incensed those you are referring to... he's a competitor, and sees himself as a winner.
The social structure of the modern left is built on victim status and credentials. To those who refuse to be victims or wallow in failure, they are on the bottom of their class structure.
If simply placing the wrong ideas in front of people causes society to fall apart, then we have already lost. The only way we can possibly be sustainable as a society is when most people can look at any idea, any idea or words possible, and rightly decide what is rubbish and what is a reasonable idea. Thus, education and exposing people to all words and concepts is the only possible way forward.
Those who say that certain ideas are dangerous and want to prevent people from seeing them are the ones to be truly worried about, because what they really wish for is that you do not apply the same rational thinking to their ideas, and rightly decide they are rubbish. They just want to be the ones in control of your thoughts.
Nonsense. You keep lumping together those who have different opinions that you and assuring yourself that they simply don't see and/or recognize facts as well as you do.
My generation (let's say we're 30-40 now) almost all live vastly better lives that their parents. I grew up in a rural area, but many I know were urban as well. Our parents were by and large poor - could not afford fancy clothes, eating out, struggled with bills, etc. If you work decently hard and go to post secondary school (and the only way you can't get in there if your family is too wealthy and you will not qualify for loans), as most of them did, they all live extremely affluent lives compared to their previous generation. The people I know across the middle and upper classes who had wealth handed to them are few and far between (and it's always seen as a negative against them). Most of them are conservative because they want to keep that same ability to do better than the last generation.
"Donald Trump is the son of a successful guy and look how fucked up he is." You mean, took that wealth, expanded it, ensured it lasted beyond his generation, had and overall highly successful life in business, married a smoking hot woman as an old dude, raised successful and smart kids, in still on speaking terms with his ex-wives (a huge demonstration of character), and finally, just voted president of the United States?
What the hell do you actually call success? People always like to beat down those that have done better than them; and especially the modern left where your status is determined by your level of victim status. Trump, having none, is naturally their #1 enemy.
You've accurately described short selling except for one point, when you say the trader would sell them for 20% below market value. No one would ever leave that much money on the table. The action of price drops comes from the fact such a large amount of the asset is being sold, and the volume available for sale exceeds the amount willing to be purchased. The price then starts slipping to find more buyers.
Wait, we're talking 2-3 year old LiOn batteries here, aren't your claims of degradation and lower capabilities against everything the electric car industry is telling us about longevity? Who's wrong here?
Is it just me (living in a very cold climate) or does anecdotal evidence still suggest people are flocking to these warm areas of our planet over the vast frozen landscapes that dominate most of our land mass?
I sure as hell aren't seeing people flock to our winter. And let's be real - the cold here will kill someone far faster than any of these warm spots. The grasping at straws of the climate craze movement to convince we have a coming disaster (and need to hand over all our money to fix it) is getting unbelievable.
Perhaps in some US states, but in Canada at least this is horrible advice. Employment is a contract and breaking that contract has certain ramifications; primarily, if they don't give you long enough notice, they owe severance.
If you retire or quit you are not owed anything since you are initiating the end of the contract, however if they do through a layoff they owe you severance. The best possible scenario is to get laid off with many years' service just prior to when you were going to retire anyway.
Very accurate. Reading every Russia allegation that comes out, I haven't seen even a single thing that suggests the slightest impropriety. It is very clear the outrage is coming from just hatred of Trump and a hope if they keep repeating 'Russia hacking', people will believe the lies.
The James Comey situation is even more clear to anyone who can objectively look at what happened. Like either of them or not, Comey was a bureaucrat/employee of the executive branch, clearly loyal to the Obama administration. When a new leader/management comes into any organization and is so clearly opposed to the policies of the last, is it any wonder Comey did not like his new boss? Firing him was the most straightforward management decision of Trump's early administration, and how people play that into some sort of conspiracy is beyond me. Well, it's actually probably related to the above as well..a hatred of Trump so strong it skews their rationality.