Board selection is purely aristocratic, it's the least meritocratic process in the business world.
If all the people who have ever held board or CxO positions or worked in the upper echelons of the finance industry were grey aliens, or even members of one particular visible minority, the average Joe could easily recognize the commandeering of our economic systems for the benefit of a small in-group. But they blend in just well enough that you have to put a lot of though into putting the pieces together, so few people notice.
The alt-right has sadly turned you to their side by scaremongering with the most extreme fringe examples of far-left nutjobbery out there. I'd like to think you might've had more in common with anything remotely resembling the mainstream left and "SJWs" than the various Social Injustice Enthusiasts looking to roll back every civil rights advancement you voted for back in better days.
This is interesting, if the alt-right starts supporting depopulation, or real anti-illegal-immigration measures (like employer-side checks and liability), the ownership class will switch from collaborating with or at least tolerating them, to throwing them under the bus and organizing opposition to them. The world's economies demand infinite growth in a finite world and that is incompatible with anything but infinite population growth.
Also this argument can't be taken seriously from an environmental/ecological perspective because it's a laughable attempt to sweep the problems it attempts to address under the rug. In fact that analogy is too generous, it's like dealing with a forest fire by putting post-it notes on your house windows to block your view of the flames.
America is not its own planet and turning it into a sustainably-populated white ethnostate will do exactly jack shit to solve global environmental problems, which includes mercury pollution.
OK, let's assume that hydro is not a solution at all. No pumped hydro storage, no traditional hydro. Why is fossil power immediately the only solution again? Why not geothermal, tidal, nuclear (politics again?), biofuel, kinetic storage, pneumatic storage, hydrogen storage, thermal storage (for example solar-thermal with integrated thermal storage), or battery storage (for example solar-PV/flow battery hybrid units)? Why is fossil power immediately the only solution out of all these?
So what would be the alternative base load source be? Hydro's not considered renewable, at least in California... Nuclear? Would love that...
Physics doesn't care about California's laws. Hydro is sure as hell not a fossil power source and seems to match the definition of "renewable," which might explain why the rest of the world defines it as such. Nuclear would be great. Tidal power is also reliable as...the tides...and could work for baseload power. Geothermal is another always-on non-fossil power source.
And for all that stuff about fossil fuels and environmental damage? Lay that on renewables too - because without that fossil fuel base, renewables couldn't survive and provide the power needed. That's the point - you want to remove any damages from fossil fuels from renewables, but you HAVE to rely upon fossil fuels to even make renewables partially viable.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS. WHY WHY WHY. I just linked to a country that used less than 2% fossil fuel over the course of a year, less than 1/5th of their wind power alone. How does this mesh with your assertion that some meaningful amount of fossil power is necessary to use renewable power?
Biased against bigoted asshats hiding behind scientific racism/sexism to create a hostile work environment, as all workplaces are entitled to be, forced by the threat of lawsuits from employees to be, and should be ethically obligated to be. Fuck Damore and his kind. If they want to work with other people, they need to keep those stupid-ass beliefs a deep, dark secret.
Nope. There is a leak of some internal meeting where the employees were fretting over Trump like decent non-deplorable people, and even one where some employees discussed intentionally biasing search results, but zero evidence that the bias made it into the final product. Unless you count hiding factually incorrect conspiracy nonsense as "bias." It would be fair to say that Google is "biased" against post-truth nonsense.
We already have progressive taxation. Ya know, that's why you have to look up your tax rate on the chart... It's evil and it's immoral. Fair would be a single PERCENTAGE for everyone.. But that's not good enough for you jealous assclowns.. 10% of $1000 is a hell of a lot less than 10% of $1,000,000,000.
No thanks, keep your flat tax. We need much more sharply progressive taxation, with a top bracket taxed so heavily that it effectively creates a maximum wage. This prevents wealth hoarding, preventing working-class wage stagnation and keeping the whole economy running better in the long term.
I was kinda hoping you'd say that.. I suspected it, but it's nice to have the confirmation that YOU have decided what is correct and what is incorrect. Fuck the people who vote with their dollars, you and you alone will decide who is a good writer or who is most productive.
Not me, I merely used it as another example to point out the complete disconnect between "achievement" and skill/merit, in this case caused by network effects. The concept of "productivity" is used to plagiarize work, misattributing a ridiculous share of it to the C-suite. We now have regular human beings making hundredths and even tenths of a billion dollars a year for making fairly simple high-level decisions - sometimes terrible ones, as in the cases of Steve Elop and Martin Winterkorn. We should work toward correcting this madness by altering fundamental rules of the economy in a way that doesn't pick winners and losers but creates a fairer game for everyone.
Who's the idiot? You think wealth concentration can be stopped by governments... That's one of the places the wealth concentrates you complete fucking asshole.. Obama is worth around $40,000,000 dollars.. He was supposed to be your (liberals) "man of the people". Yeah, he's right down there in the trenches with the rest of you....
Hahaha you believe exactly what the conservative leadership wants you to, they've really turned you into a perfect useful idiot. And you've tipped your hand on where you get your news and information from - conservative chain emails, the only place you'll find that hilariously inaccurate $40M number. The Obama family's net worth was $1.3M in 2007 and $24M last year. This is not much by private sector standards, most CEOs can make that in a couple years. A middling fiction author can make over 40x more in a short career, as you've pointed out.
The fact that we aren't all equal in ability isn't an excuse to create a hyper-unequal hell. The world will be better for everyone if we artificially spread the wealth around a bit. I'm glad that homeless people can become rich, but decamillionaires and billionaires should not be a thing. And a world without them would have more millionaires and wealthier people on average. Nordic countries have demonstrated that greater equality means greater median wealth. Your world already exists, in Mexico and India.
You continue to assert that the backup source must be fossil fuel. It does not. I don't know where you got the 80~90% base load number from since there are places that already exceed 20% renewable energy:
But if you must include these distant and difficult to estimate costs, let's include them on both sides.
On the fossil fuel side, let's include the flooding, the levy-building/land reclamation costs, the refugee crises, the wars, the oceanic mass extinctions, everything bad that global warming has in store for us. These are about as far off as renewables' storage costs and we don't know exactly what they'll be. Do you think those will be cheaper than renewables and energy storage? Looks like it won't:
At some point renewables will require storage, but it's not until the grid consists of mostly renewables. It's a cost that can be phased in slowly over time. By the time it's necessary to add storage, fossil fuels would probably be more expensive and both renewables and storage would probably be cheaper. So it seems unfair to ask that storage should be accounted for in the present cost of renewables - it just isn't right now, won't be for a long time, and prices will likely be radically different when the cost finally becomes a reality.
First of all, who said that fossil fuel plants are necessary as a backup for a renewable-based grid? They're not. Energy storage (kinetic/hydro/battery), nuclear, biofuel, and traditional hydroelectric can all take that role, no fossil power needed.
Second, remember that we're comparing the cost of renewable to fossil fuels. And now you're arguing that renewable is more expensive than fossil because...some fossil power would have to be kept around? Those plants won't be sitting idle waiting for the sun to go down while everyone collects wages, they'll just be running at lower than peak capacity when renewable power is doing the heavy lifting.
Stop this cherry picking nonsense involving only the last two data points of many, there are only three ways out of this for you:
1: Find a credible source for a graph that backs your assertion regarding the US vs. EU CO2 emissions trends. 2: STFU 3: Accept your status as a liar and continue lying.
I'm not saying that the atmosphere's capability to retain heat isn't affected by greenhouse gases, if I wasn't clear there. I'm saying that human-generated waste heat is a negligible problem compared to human-released greenhouse gases increasing the atmosphere's capability to retain heat, and practically all of that heat comes from the sun.
Currently that backup generation costs nothing, because the sort of power suitable for backup generation makes up most of the existing grid power capacity. Eventually backup power will be needed. We know how much hydro costs, that can be used as energy storage. We now know how much battery arrays cost, those can work too.
Also, regarding your sig, have any Nazis other than Jakiw Palij been deported under Trump?
You might also want to note that he didn't just deport a Nazi, but a Nazi war criminal. People who adhere to Hitler's national-socialist ideology, wear swastikas, and perform Nazi salutes but who have not committed war crimes, have not been deported, but rather referred to as "very fine people" by Trump himself. Very different treatment.
Convince me that trying to *consciously* engineer the atmosphere is not as good an idea as continuing to negligently and now *consciously* make it worse, particularly if we were to make it better by sequestering the CO2 we've released.
We're already centuries into an unplanned and unmanaged atmospheric engineering experiment.
Slashdot Mirror
Board selection is purely aristocratic, it's the least meritocratic process in the business world.
If all the people who have ever held board or CxO positions or worked in the upper echelons of the finance industry were grey aliens, or even members of one particular visible minority, the average Joe could easily recognize the commandeering of our economic systems for the benefit of a small in-group. But they blend in just well enough that you have to put a lot of though into putting the pieces together, so few people notice.
The alt-right has sadly turned you to their side by scaremongering with the most extreme fringe examples of far-left nutjobbery out there. I'd like to think you might've had more in common with anything remotely resembling the mainstream left and "SJWs" than the various Social Injustice Enthusiasts looking to roll back every civil rights advancement you voted for back in better days.
This is interesting, if the alt-right starts supporting depopulation, or real anti-illegal-immigration measures (like employer-side checks and liability), the ownership class will switch from collaborating with or at least tolerating them, to throwing them under the bus and organizing opposition to them. The world's economies demand infinite growth in a finite world and that is incompatible with anything but infinite population growth.
Also this argument can't be taken seriously from an environmental/ecological perspective because it's a laughable attempt to sweep the problems it attempts to address under the rug. In fact that analogy is too generous, it's like dealing with a forest fire by putting post-it notes on your house windows to block your view of the flames.
America is not its own planet and turning it into a sustainably-populated white ethnostate will do exactly jack shit to solve global environmental problems, which includes mercury pollution.
No justification needed these days, they'll just twirl their mustaches and cackle maniacally.
Trump has taken the modern businessman's mask off of conservatism and exposed the face of the ancient evil underneath.
Whats next, letting car's take off their catalitic converters so they can double their gas mileage?
Catalytic converters actually have a miniscule effect on gas mileage.
OK, let's assume that hydro is not a solution at all. No pumped hydro storage, no traditional hydro. Why is fossil power immediately the only solution again? Why not geothermal, tidal, nuclear (politics again?), biofuel, kinetic storage, pneumatic storage, hydrogen storage, thermal storage (for example solar-thermal with integrated thermal storage), or battery storage (for example solar-PV/flow battery hybrid units)? Why is fossil power immediately the only solution out of all these?
So what would be the alternative base load source be? Hydro's not considered renewable, at least in California... Nuclear? Would love that...
Physics doesn't care about California's laws. Hydro is sure as hell not a fossil power source and seems to match the definition of "renewable," which might explain why the rest of the world defines it as such. Nuclear would be great. Tidal power is also reliable as...the tides...and could work for baseload power. Geothermal is another always-on non-fossil power source.
And for all that stuff about fossil fuels and environmental damage? Lay that on renewables too - because without that fossil fuel base, renewables couldn't survive and provide the power needed. That's the point - you want to remove any damages from fossil fuels from renewables, but you HAVE to rely upon fossil fuels to even make renewables partially viable.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS. WHY WHY WHY. I just linked to a country that used less than 2% fossil fuel over the course of a year, less than 1/5th of their wind power alone. How does this mesh with your assertion that some meaningful amount of fossil power is necessary to use renewable power?
Biased against bigoted asshats hiding behind scientific racism/sexism to create a hostile work environment, as all workplaces are entitled to be, forced by the threat of lawsuits from employees to be, and should be ethically obligated to be. Fuck Damore and his kind. If they want to work with other people, they need to keep those stupid-ass beliefs a deep, dark secret.
Nope. There is a leak of some internal meeting where the employees were fretting over Trump like decent non-deplorable people, and even one where some employees discussed intentionally biasing search results, but zero evidence that the bias made it into the final product. Unless you count hiding factually incorrect conspiracy nonsense as "bias." It would be fair to say that Google is "biased" against post-truth nonsense.
We already have progressive taxation. Ya know, that's why you have to look up your tax rate on the chart... It's evil and it's immoral. Fair would be a single PERCENTAGE for everyone.. But that's not good enough for you jealous assclowns.. 10% of $1000 is a hell of a lot less than 10% of $1,000,000,000.
No thanks, keep your flat tax. We need much more sharply progressive taxation, with a top bracket taxed so heavily that it effectively creates a maximum wage. This prevents wealth hoarding, preventing working-class wage stagnation and keeping the whole economy running better in the long term.
I was kinda hoping you'd say that.. I suspected it, but it's nice to have the confirmation that YOU have decided what is correct and what is incorrect. Fuck the people who vote with their dollars, you and you alone will decide who is a good writer or who is most productive.
Not me, I merely used it as another example to point out the complete disconnect between "achievement" and skill/merit, in this case caused by network effects. The concept of "productivity" is used to plagiarize work, misattributing a ridiculous share of it to the C-suite. We now have regular human beings making hundredths and even tenths of a billion dollars a year for making fairly simple high-level decisions - sometimes terrible ones, as in the cases of Steve Elop and Martin Winterkorn. We should work toward correcting this madness by altering fundamental rules of the economy in a way that doesn't pick winners and losers but creates a fairer game for everyone.
Who's the idiot? You think wealth concentration can be stopped by governments... That's one of the places the wealth concentrates you complete fucking asshole.. Obama is worth around $40,000,000 dollars.. He was supposed to be your (liberals) "man of the people". Yeah, he's right down there in the trenches with the rest of you....
Hahaha you believe exactly what the conservative leadership wants you to, they've really turned you into a perfect useful idiot. And you've tipped your hand on where you get your news and information from - conservative chain emails, the only place you'll find that hilariously inaccurate $40M number. The Obama family's net worth was $1.3M in 2007 and $24M last year. This is not much by private sector standards, most CEOs can make that in a couple years. A middling fiction author can make over 40x more in a short career, as you've pointed out.
The fact that we aren't all equal in ability isn't an excuse to create a hyper-unequal hell. The world will be better for everyone if we artificially spread the wealth around a bit. I'm glad that homeless people can become rich, but decamillionaires and billionaires should not be a thing. And a world without them would have more millionaires and wealthier people on average. Nordic countries have demonstrated that greater equality means greater median wealth. Your world already exists, in Mexico and India.
You continue to assert that the backup source must be fossil fuel. It does not. I don't know where you got the 80~90% base load number from since there are places that already exceed 20% renewable energy:
https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/...
And places that have almost gone fossil-fuel-free:
https://mashable.com/2017/01/0...
But if you must include these distant and difficult to estimate costs, let's include them on both sides.
On the fossil fuel side, let's include the flooding, the levy-building/land reclamation costs, the refugee crises, the wars, the oceanic mass extinctions, everything bad that global warming has in store for us. These are about as far off as renewables' storage costs and we don't know exactly what they'll be. Do you think those will be cheaper than renewables and energy storage? Looks like it won't:
https://www.greentechmedia.com...
And that's not even accounting for the wars and such.
At some point renewables will require storage, but it's not until the grid consists of mostly renewables. It's a cost that can be phased in slowly over time. By the time it's necessary to add storage, fossil fuels would probably be more expensive and both renewables and storage would probably be cheaper. So it seems unfair to ask that storage should be accounted for in the present cost of renewables - it just isn't right now, won't be for a long time, and prices will likely be radically different when the cost finally becomes a reality.
I agree. This poster was (incorrectly) concerned about waste heat though.
First of all, who said that fossil fuel plants are necessary as a backup for a renewable-based grid? They're not. Energy storage (kinetic/hydro/battery), nuclear, biofuel, and traditional hydroelectric can all take that role, no fossil power needed.
Second, remember that we're comparing the cost of renewable to fossil fuels. And now you're arguing that renewable is more expensive than fossil because...some fossil power would have to be kept around? Those plants won't be sitting idle waiting for the sun to go down while everyone collects wages, they'll just be running at lower than peak capacity when renewable power is doing the heavy lifting.
You seem to not understand trends. Educate yourself.
You clearly don't understand how trends work:
https://study.com/academy/less...
https://serc.carleton.edu/quan...
Even waste heat isn't a problem beyond individual building scale. Urban heat islands are a problem, but that's not the same as waste heat.
Stop this cherry picking nonsense involving only the last two data points of many, there are only three ways out of this for you:
1: Find a credible source for a graph that backs your assertion regarding the US vs. EU CO2 emissions trends.
2: STFU
3: Accept your status as a liar and continue lying.
In the last year, yes, that's the cherry picking I was complaining about. Look at the larger trend, not just the last two data points.
I do, where do you think I've made a mistake?
I'm not saying that the atmosphere's capability to retain heat isn't affected by greenhouse gases, if I wasn't clear there. I'm saying that human-generated waste heat is a negligible problem compared to human-released greenhouse gases increasing the atmosphere's capability to retain heat, and practically all of that heat comes from the sun.
Currently that backup generation costs nothing, because the sort of power suitable for backup generation makes up most of the existing grid power capacity. Eventually backup power will be needed. We know how much hydro costs, that can be used as energy storage. We now know how much battery arrays cost, those can work too.
Show me a graph that supports your point then. 2017 is just one year, stop cherry picking and show me a trend.
Also, regarding your sig, have any Nazis other than Jakiw Palij been deported under Trump?
You might also want to note that he didn't just deport a Nazi, but a Nazi war criminal. People who adhere to Hitler's national-socialist ideology, wear swastikas, and perform Nazi salutes but who have not committed war crimes, have not been deported, but rather referred to as "very fine people" by Trump himself. Very different treatment.
No, it's a red herring. It doesn't affect the CO2 emissions record.
Convince me that trying to *consciously* engineer the atmosphere is not as good an idea as continuing to negligently and now *consciously* make it worse, particularly if we were to make it better by sequestering the CO2 we've released.
We're already centuries into an unplanned and unmanaged atmospheric engineering experiment.