I think the data in your link actually reinforces the fact males may be better at mathematics. It's not like a large number of countries on there have third world education systems - in fact I'd say the one in Canada is more suited to girls.
A more likely explanation of the data would seem to be some sort of cultural or educational system difference there. I'm not going to pretend to know the right answer, but the most logical interpretation of the results is there may be some biological difference based on gender.
New to politics? Why otherwise would this be surprising to you? People generally dislike politicians.
Approval ratings for the premiers (roughly equivalent to governor I suppose) of the Canadian provinces were recently published. Only one managed to get over 50% approval (53%) and all of the major economic provinces had approvals worse (to far worse) than Trump.
While I wouldn't go so far as to call them phonies, it's rather ridiculous to ask the CEO of a large company for his thoughts on any such policy. They are not going to provide their personal view, but rather the line that their position, board, and shareholders expect them to. In fact, this is the reason, other than the CEO, most companies and politicians have communications teams to speak on their behalf, to make sure they don't say anything out of line (regardless of what they think).
Some people may have the courage to challenge orthodoxy, but a CEO almost surely won't.
I took a road trip across much of western North America this summer - about 7500km over a few weeks. Moreover, I drove a large vehicle which brought comfort and ability to bring a lot of convenience items.
I don't really care what powers my vehicle. But if EV proponents think I would exchange a 5 minute, +900km refuel with a 30 minute, +300km refuel... well, it's no wonder EV sales are where they are.
As someone who works in the oil industry, I have no complaints if this were to happen. In fact, if the car MARKET drives us to 50% EV usage, it'll probably be glorious for me, since that means the EV's are highly competitive in terms of price, TCO, performance, convenience, etc.
In short, a 50% market penetration without government intervention means there are some truly fantastic consumer choices. However, I feel this is not the case.. in Canada, after years of EV models being available and heavy infrastructure investment (charge stations), sales are still woefully pitiful (between 1000-2000 out of 500,000 vehicles in a quarter).
So, do you want the government forcing us to buy inferior products through legislation? If your argument is the market will take us there anyway, well then I hope you join the fight against similar legislation.
"the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" - Ironic that you mention cognitive dissonance then post this. Do you know what treason means? Isn't it the job of the president to have discussions with foreign nations? Can you point to any evidence of wrongdoing in any discussion? Might want to take a step back and reconsider that cognitive dissonance comment.
In my country, which has had numerous electric options available for many years (including low cost ones, eg. the Leaf), electric sales remain below dismal (well below 1%). This despite many government incentives. The moment gas prices fell, sales of SUVs & Trucks resumed their steady trend upward. Seems clear the consumer wants bigger, not electric. Are you somehow reading this easily available data differently?
Don't get me wrong, I live in Canada where nearly everything is available cashless and credit card tapping is now the dominant form of payment, but haven't you ever come across a store that has a cash only sign? Or where the internet/terminal/$X isn't working and they can't take debit or credit? Happens to me at least a few times per year.
I think Trump is the only leader among them that doesn't care about the politics. Committing large amounts of resources and and supporting every effort attached to climate change is modern orthodoxy and dare not be questioned, like gender identity.
Look at the focus and scorn given the two other non-signatories within this thread (and I'm guessing most don't know the reasons behind it). Since the treaty doesn't actually require a signatory to do anything, how many do you think signed just to avoid bad press? Or, as the companies listed in the summary, to get some good press?
Passed 100% on to protesters - LOL. Then you don't know how bands work. Band councils are controlled by a small group of closely related people from one or two families. That money was all kept to themselves.\
Now if we said ten people, who were very influential "elders" of their community, were each given nearly $40,000 each to stir up fervent opposition within the band.. well, I bet that $40k would speak louder than any actual reasonable discussion of the merits of the project.
Typically the opposition goes away when the pipeline company offers a greater amount. It's all about the money.
Have any references for the claim that higher CO2 levels are harmful to plants? Genuinely interested.
Also, as for adaptation taking millions of years, just 21,000 years ago the northern limit of tree growth was thousands of kilometers south of where it is today. Sea level was an estimated 125 meters below where it was today. The area I live in was under a kilometer of ice, but pretty complex ecosystems have evolved here since, and ones that can survive 80 degree C temperature swings per year.
Sounds like you give life too little credit when it comes to being resilient, no?
Diversity is one of the most important things in the world, the problem is the concept has been warped. Diversity was always intended to imply thought diversity, and the fact that having different backgrounds and skill sets led to better productivity. Differences were good - until somebody (the true racist?) equated different genitals and/or skin color to mean someone thinks differently.
When I would build software project teams, I'd always get someone who's good at talking to the client, someone who's an expert technical thinker, someone who's good at designing interfaces, etc, etc. That was true diversity.
A scam? Nonsense. You keep talking about rich people, but they make up a tiny fraction of the population. Anyone earning under $200k benefits immensely from tax cuts, in fact the lower someone's income the more they benefit. The money is usually immediately spent on goods or invested into markets (for the upper income bands).
The economic benefits of cutting taxes are well known and logical. Sure, you need balance and to fund public institutions and services. But to demonize cutting taxes rather than making it a goal (if even through more efficient government services) is the scam.
Just like during the election, Trump continues to do things in a way that challenges the modern political orthodoxy. It is very clear that most politicians today conduct themselves in a very similar manner to each other, they're all good at "acting like a politician".
Trump continues to act in a way that is markedly not "like a politician". He speaks his mind (agreeing with what's said or not), nominates businessmen to senior posts instead of bureaucrats, speaks more openly with foreign leaders, etc, etc. Mostly, it's just a different way of doing things.
To a good chunk of the country, arguably even a majority now if some have flipped, they can't fathom anything but political orthodoxy and stories like this, and all of late, send them into an apoplectic rage. To me, I don't really care if there's a rounding error - the comment about a first-year economics student makes no sense. We didn't elect an economist, we elected someone who's going to try cutting the budget instead of successive govt's of both stripes growing them. Like all the Trump stories here I see silly focus on the non-important part of the conversation and quick jumps to demonize without understanding the substance. Just like during the election.
"It seems money is your primary motivating factor. That doesn't speak well of your intelligence." Only someone who's never had to go to bed hungry because they can't afford food would say that.
I agree. I find it odd that the overwhelming opinion in the media, and on here, is that this is somehow shocking. As an outsider to US politics, isn't this just a new administration firing the bureaucrats of the old administration?
In the least, he's doing things differently. How did any of you think the government would ever change without changing the leadership at the top? Maybe the NSA could use new upper management too, and instill a different culture.
I can provide some evidence which disagrees. I will note I haven't research further to see if it's factually correct, but if it helps it was written by an ex Canadian cabinet minister in the federal government.
The major stumbling block to getting this dreadful policy reversed was the European commissioner for climate action. It amazed me that one unelected official had such inordinate power in a union of over half-a-billion people. As a result of extensive lobbying and the presentation of a supportive scientific study, the FQD was finally scrapped — but only after the commissioner retired.
For those who don't want to read further, it was a policy which specifically affected oil exports from Canada at the time, and working in the industry I do know he is truthful there - the policy was based on claims from environmental activists which simply weren't true.
Niche market? Maybe, if niche means "haven't discovered/tried it yet". I'm not a big traveller, ad just got back from a rare trip to a couple different countries. It most definitely IS a better solution to short term private rides; I'm a total Uber convert now. The best part, what you miss above, is that you don't need to worry about payment with the driver - all handled already. Not only that, but the safety of knowing who the driver is and the vehicle type... well, I could go on, but if you really think your above points are good arguments, you should give Uber a try.
But what is exactly so alarming about this? We're talking ice that remains frozen ALL YEAR ROUND here.. I have no doubts most people commenting here have no idea how cold this planet really is and live in warm climates. f anyone here realistically thinks we're in danger of having a unbearably hot climate in anywhere but small portions of the planet, I have some bridges to sell you.
I've seen all the episodes where Trump has clashed with the media over what the "truth" is, though unfortunately I didn't know enough about most issues to determine who's telling the truth.
Then came along an instance I did have some education/background in: hacking. I saw the media reports of "Russia hacking the election", and Trump's responses that there was no proof. You know what? Trump was spot on - the FBI report was garbage and the way the media was interpreting it showed just a plain lack of analysis/intellect on their part. So who is presenting "alternative facts"?
Nice rant, you almost make it sound like reasonable alternatives exist for a majority of our fossil fuel uses. Tell me, what energy source to power airplanes is just around the corner so we can stop investing in extracting fossil fuels?
And despite what you think, electric cars are just not viable yet for a significant part of the population. Maybe if you live and drive all the time in warm California, but the rest of the country is damn cold. The most pretentious ones yet will do a short road trip in July northward the loudly proclaim you can drive them anywhere. Once the actual cheaper and cleaner energy is here, great, and let's keep looking for it. Until then, we still need investment in fossil fuels.
Great, so what you're saying is we can lay back and let the market take care of this? If it truly is a cheaper and/or more reliable energy source, then there's nothing to even talk about, competition will take us there in no time.
Why make this discussion worse and label smart people who question the impact of this as deniers, or worse?
Elsewhere in the thread someone says you can't dismiss the historical measurement adjustments (that make the warming trend seem larger) without examining those adjustments to see if they're correct. Shit, I have a science degree and I'm not prepared to do that. Sure, someone else probably has and there's more for me to read, but anyone not thoroughly obsessed with reading about climate science isn't going to know those or care to read about them. It;s complex stuff.
Why does this matter? Let's face it - the impacts of this to date are INVISIBLE. We're talking sub-degree temperature variations per year. I don't hear Africans complaining it's too hot, and if you didn't notice, we live on a very cold planet, and the vast majority of land mass suffers from long, cold winters. I don't care how much CO2 the atmosphere has, a large portion of our land isn't getting more than a few hours of sunlight per day for six months of the year, and that's the dominant temperature impact. All I hear is celebrities, Californians, Vancouverites, and other hippies screaming about a problem nobody can see or cares to dig into the volume of science that "explains" it.
Funny how people are more willing to work as wage slaves in shitty jobs that destroy the environment than they are willing to just accept a little help from the government.
In a heartbeat. I'd rather slave all day in a mine to earn a living than accept free handouts from the government (which are ultimately taken from someone else). And I have a feeling the world, and particularly the US, would be a much better place if this were the case.
Thankfully, I think you are the minority if you prefer to live off someone else's money and work. For a good example, read up on history of the Great Depression and how people were desperate for any kind of work to avoid being "on the dole".
Slashdot Mirror
I think the data in your link actually reinforces the fact males may be better at mathematics. It's not like a large number of countries on there have third world education systems - in fact I'd say the one in Canada is more suited to girls.
A more likely explanation of the data would seem to be some sort of cultural or educational system difference there. I'm not going to pretend to know the right answer, but the most logical interpretation of the results is there may be some biological difference based on gender.
Actually a good article, written by a (female) doctor, on why the science in the letter is accurate can be found here:No, the Google manifesto isn't sexist or anti-diversoity. It's science.
he man still has a 38% approval rating.
New to politics? Why otherwise would this be surprising to you? People generally dislike politicians.
Approval ratings for the premiers (roughly equivalent to governor I suppose) of the Canadian provinces were recently published. Only one managed to get over 50% approval (53%) and all of the major economic provinces had approvals worse (to far worse) than Trump.
While I wouldn't go so far as to call them phonies, it's rather ridiculous to ask the CEO of a large company for his thoughts on any such policy. They are not going to provide their personal view, but rather the line that their position, board, and shareholders expect them to. In fact, this is the reason, other than the CEO, most companies and politicians have communications teams to speak on their behalf, to make sure they don't say anything out of line (regardless of what they think).
Some people may have the courage to challenge orthodoxy, but a CEO almost surely won't.
I took a road trip across much of western North America this summer - about 7500km over a few weeks. Moreover, I drove a large vehicle which brought comfort and ability to bring a lot of convenience items.
I don't really care what powers my vehicle. But if EV proponents think I would exchange a 5 minute, +900km refuel with a 30 minute, +300km refuel... well, it's no wonder EV sales are where they are.
As someone who works in the oil industry, I have no complaints if this were to happen. In fact, if the car MARKET drives us to 50% EV usage, it'll probably be glorious for me, since that means the EV's are highly competitive in terms of price, TCO, performance, convenience, etc.
In short, a 50% market penetration without government intervention means there are some truly fantastic consumer choices. However, I feel this is not the case.. in Canada, after years of EV models being available and heavy infrastructure investment (charge stations), sales are still woefully pitiful (between 1000-2000 out of 500,000 vehicles in a quarter).
So, do you want the government forcing us to buy inferior products through legislation? If your argument is the market will take us there anyway, well then I hope you join the fight against similar legislation.
"the president treasonously colludes with foreign powers" - Ironic that you mention cognitive dissonance then post this. Do you know what treason means? Isn't it the job of the president to have discussions with foreign nations? Can you point to any evidence of wrongdoing in any discussion? Might want to take a step back and reconsider that cognitive dissonance comment.
The consumers are moving toward electric.
Citation needed.
In my country, which has had numerous electric options available for many years (including low cost ones, eg. the Leaf), electric sales remain below dismal (well below 1%). This despite many government incentives. The moment gas prices fell, sales of SUVs & Trucks resumed their steady trend upward. Seems clear the consumer wants bigger, not electric. Are you somehow reading this easily available data differently?
Don't get me wrong, I live in Canada where nearly everything is available cashless and credit card tapping is now the dominant form of payment, but haven't you ever come across a store that has a cash only sign? Or where the internet/terminal/$X isn't working and they can't take debit or credit? Happens to me at least a few times per year.
I think Trump is the only leader among them that doesn't care about the politics. Committing large amounts of resources and and supporting every effort attached to climate change is modern orthodoxy and dare not be questioned, like gender identity.
Look at the focus and scorn given the two other non-signatories within this thread (and I'm guessing most don't know the reasons behind it). Since the treaty doesn't actually require a signatory to do anything, how many do you think signed just to avoid bad press? Or, as the companies listed in the summary, to get some good press?
Passed 100% on to protesters - LOL. Then you don't know how bands work. Band councils are controlled by a small group of closely related people from one or two families. That money was all kept to themselves.\
Now if we said ten people, who were very influential "elders" of their community, were each given nearly $40,000 each to stir up fervent opposition within the band.. well, I bet that $40k would speak louder than any actual reasonable discussion of the merits of the project.
Typically the opposition goes away when the pipeline company offers a greater amount. It's all about the money.
Have any references for the claim that higher CO2 levels are harmful to plants? Genuinely interested.
Also, as for adaptation taking millions of years, just 21,000 years ago the northern limit of tree growth was thousands of kilometers south of where it is today. Sea level was an estimated 125 meters below where it was today. The area I live in was under a kilometer of ice, but pretty complex ecosystems have evolved here since, and ones that can survive 80 degree C temperature swings per year.
Sounds like you give life too little credit when it comes to being resilient, no?
Diversity is one of the most important things in the world, the problem is the concept has been warped. Diversity was always intended to imply thought diversity, and the fact that having different backgrounds and skill sets led to better productivity. Differences were good - until somebody (the true racist?) equated different genitals and/or skin color to mean someone thinks differently.
When I would build software project teams, I'd always get someone who's good at talking to the client, someone who's an expert technical thinker, someone who's good at designing interfaces, etc, etc. That was true diversity.
A scam? Nonsense. You keep talking about rich people, but they make up a tiny fraction of the population. Anyone earning under $200k benefits immensely from tax cuts, in fact the lower someone's income the more they benefit. The money is usually immediately spent on goods or invested into markets (for the upper income bands).
The economic benefits of cutting taxes are well known and logical. Sure, you need balance and to fund public institutions and services. But to demonize cutting taxes rather than making it a goal (if even through more efficient government services) is the scam.
Just like during the election, Trump continues to do things in a way that challenges the modern political orthodoxy. It is very clear that most politicians today conduct themselves in a very similar manner to each other, they're all good at "acting like a politician".
Trump continues to act in a way that is markedly not "like a politician". He speaks his mind (agreeing with what's said or not), nominates businessmen to senior posts instead of bureaucrats, speaks more openly with foreign leaders, etc, etc. Mostly, it's just a different way of doing things.
To a good chunk of the country, arguably even a majority now if some have flipped, they can't fathom anything but political orthodoxy and stories like this, and all of late, send them into an apoplectic rage. To me, I don't really care if there's a rounding error - the comment about a first-year economics student makes no sense. We didn't elect an economist, we elected someone who's going to try cutting the budget instead of successive govt's of both stripes growing them. Like all the Trump stories here I see silly focus on the non-important part of the conversation and quick jumps to demonize without understanding the substance. Just like during the election.
"It seems money is your primary motivating factor. That doesn't speak well of your intelligence." Only someone who's never had to go to bed hungry because they can't afford food would say that.
I agree. I find it odd that the overwhelming opinion in the media, and on here, is that this is somehow shocking. As an outsider to US politics, isn't this just a new administration firing the bureaucrats of the old administration?
In the least, he's doing things differently. How did any of you think the government would ever change without changing the leadership at the top? Maybe the NSA could use new upper management too, and instill a different culture.
In this article, he claims:
The major stumbling block to getting this dreadful policy reversed was the European commissioner for climate action. It amazed me that one unelected official had such inordinate power in a union of over half-a-billion people. As a result of extensive lobbying and the presentation of a supportive scientific study, the FQD was finally scrapped — but only after the commissioner retired.
For those who don't want to read further, it was a policy which specifically affected oil exports from Canada at the time, and working in the industry I do know he is truthful there - the policy was based on claims from environmental activists which simply weren't true.
Niche market? Maybe, if niche means "haven't discovered/tried it yet". I'm not a big traveller, ad just got back from a rare trip to a couple different countries. It most definitely IS a better solution to short term private rides; I'm a total Uber convert now. The best part, what you miss above, is that you don't need to worry about payment with the driver - all handled already. Not only that, but the safety of knowing who the driver is and the vehicle type... well, I could go on, but if you really think your above points are good arguments, you should give Uber a try.
But what is exactly so alarming about this? We're talking ice that remains frozen ALL YEAR ROUND here.. I have no doubts most people commenting here have no idea how cold this planet really is and live in warm climates. f anyone here realistically thinks we're in danger of having a unbearably hot climate in anywhere but small portions of the planet, I have some bridges to sell you.
I've seen all the episodes where Trump has clashed with the media over what the "truth" is, though unfortunately I didn't know enough about most issues to determine who's telling the truth.
Then came along an instance I did have some education/background in: hacking. I saw the media reports of "Russia hacking the election", and Trump's responses that there was no proof. You know what? Trump was spot on - the FBI report was garbage and the way the media was interpreting it showed just a plain lack of analysis/intellect on their part. So who is presenting "alternative facts"?
Nice rant, you almost make it sound like reasonable alternatives exist for a majority of our fossil fuel uses. Tell me, what energy source to power airplanes is just around the corner so we can stop investing in extracting fossil fuels?
And despite what you think, electric cars are just not viable yet for a significant part of the population. Maybe if you live and drive all the time in warm California, but the rest of the country is damn cold. The most pretentious ones yet will do a short road trip in July northward the loudly proclaim you can drive them anywhere. Once the actual cheaper and cleaner energy is here, great, and let's keep looking for it. Until then, we still need investment in fossil fuels.
Great, so what you're saying is we can lay back and let the market take care of this? If it truly is a cheaper and/or more reliable energy source, then there's nothing to even talk about, competition will take us there in no time.
Why make this discussion worse and label smart people who question the impact of this as deniers, or worse?
Elsewhere in the thread someone says you can't dismiss the historical measurement adjustments (that make the warming trend seem larger) without examining those adjustments to see if they're correct. Shit, I have a science degree and I'm not prepared to do that. Sure, someone else probably has and there's more for me to read, but anyone not thoroughly obsessed with reading about climate science isn't going to know those or care to read about them. It;s complex stuff.
Why does this matter? Let's face it - the impacts of this to date are INVISIBLE. We're talking sub-degree temperature variations per year. I don't hear Africans complaining it's too hot, and if you didn't notice, we live on a very cold planet, and the vast majority of land mass suffers from long, cold winters. I don't care how much CO2 the atmosphere has, a large portion of our land isn't getting more than a few hours of sunlight per day for six months of the year, and that's the dominant temperature impact. All I hear is celebrities, Californians, Vancouverites, and other hippies screaming about a problem nobody can see or cares to dig into the volume of science that "explains" it.
Funny how people are more willing to work as wage slaves in shitty jobs that destroy the environment than they are willing to just accept a little help from the government.
In a heartbeat. I'd rather slave all day in a mine to earn a living than accept free handouts from the government (which are ultimately taken from someone else). And I have a feeling the world, and particularly the US, would be a much better place if this were the case.
Thankfully, I think you are the minority if you prefer to live off someone else's money and work. For a good example, read up on history of the Great Depression and how people were desperate for any kind of work to avoid being "on the dole".