It's also a leadership methodology used by very experienced leaders. Of people involved in space programs, Korolev comes to mind. Get your engineering team, and then ask them to do the impossible. Offer them infinite support. Listen to them tell you it's impossible anyway. Ask for timetable with infinite resources.
You will very quickly see which engineers are good at their job, as they'll start thinking in ways they haven't thought when they were focused on getting budgetary acceptance. And that's how Korolev got Soviet space program to crush US one early on, and that's how US space program put the man on the moon first after Korolev died. You plant the necessary ideas in engineers' heads, then you take off the constraints and then you see which ones flake out because they can't handle it. Korolev was famous for even literally dumping all rocket scientists when they would tell him the project he proposed is impossible and go head hunting in other fields for talent that wouldn't be locked into preconceptions. That's how the engines that Lockheed Martin people flat out claimed to be impossible to make in 2000s were made in 1970s.
In this case, this report suggests that these two men flaked out. They couldn't start thinking beyond budget constraints and start thinking outside the familiar box when it was called for. Which is understandable, as NASA has been criminally underfunded for last two decades, to the point where if you aren't someone who's primary talent is in "meeting the budgetary needs", you probably quit long ago or were let go.
Are you sure you want to stick to your claim of "dissent from mainstream = nazi"?
Because overuse of this particular word aside, national socialists are in fact well documented for claiming that "dissent from mainstream = enemy of the people".
Because it is beneficial to those states? Are you under some kind of misguided impression that countries neighbouring China are not finding having direct access to the internet far more valuable then trying to sever themselves from the Chinese portions of the internet?
Literally, topic. "Ends in fewer than 60 seconds" implies some kind of a failure with test flight. Most of the first test flight for rotary wing aircraft is literally take off within ground effect, see that it hovers successfully and land.
The point being that if there's unforeseen point of failure, uncontrolled crash would not be catastrophic from that height.
>Wealthy and healthy people have less kids than poor, desperate people
Factually false. Upper class tends to have significantly more children than comparatively poor and desperate highly educated women in the West for example. You need to constrain your criteria quite a bit to reach that particular "popular wisdom" without being factually wrong.
A much more accurate statement that would actually be far closer to reality is that "educated women that have been properly propagandised against family structures and normative views on sex (in historic, global and evolutionary sense) have less children than less educated women who weren't propagandised and so end up being happy in the traditional female aristocrat role".
Which is why poor women in Europe have a lot less children than upper class women today. Upper class go to private schools, and have become fairly segregated from what would qualify as "approximately average person" in favour of being more interconnected with other elites globally. Which grounds them in more normative views on sex, and hence, having more children. Obviously, profession specifics apply here. Some professions require more contact with how poor are propagandised, such as politics, and childless women are becoming fairly common in politics (see Merkel, May). At the same time, even a cursory look at women in modern aristocratic positions who's families act in various industries shows that they are typically having a lot more children than average in their countries. Having five-six children is far closer to norm in these circles than having none.
No literally, read what I said. You failed to comprehend it. And when this was pointed out to you, instead of correcting your statement, you just reacted like a three year old when being pointed out that shitting your pants doesn't make you an adult. You did the digital equivalent of rolling on the ground screaming and beating fists into the ground.
I know that you're utterly insane to the point where in the recent post, you literally said "I'm going to show you how utterly crazy I am so you can't call me "crazy" first", but do try to engage with reality. Do you realise that one of the key reasons why mortality in developed countries is but a tiny fraction of mortality in developing countries (not to even mention the whole crippling effect of disease that isn't rapidly fatal, like malaria) is the whole "cheap, easy, always-on energy that enables everything else"?
Literally everything from being able to refrigerate food to production and distribution of medicines relies on it. Yes, food poisoning is still exceedingly lethal and/or crippling. Yes, people die in droves from preventable illnesses because medicines cannot be reliably and cost effectively delivered to them in developed counties en masse.
And yeah, that's where CO2 emissions overwhelmingly come from. Cheap energy that enables everything mentioned above and much, much more. And now that internet gave people in developing countries the direct window into just how easy and comfortable life in developed countries is, you're not going to stop them from trying to go for it without violence on scale that would make someone like Stalin actually stop and reconsider if ends justify the means.
When you're so deep up the ideological rabbit hole, you call someone who builds premise on the fact that global warming is real and needs to be addressed a "denier".
Are you dumb or insane? Or both?
P.S. My country has socialized medicine. It's probably one of the reasons I'm not as mentally fucked up as you.
When win10 came out, there was a forum for external firewall software that maintained a blocklist for win10 telemetry. I added it manually to my software firewall and it did in fact work.
Until one day, MS updated win10 to the point where it would literally refuse to access the internet with any software until I removed relevant telemetry blocks on the firewall. Literally all internet facing software just stopped having access to the internet until I allowed telemetry through, at which point, it all magically started working again.
So I can vouch for the fact that properly configured software firewall does appear to block win10 telemetry, but MS has some rather nasty tricks if you do it.
There's also the fact that most security fixes for software like VLC are utterly pointless unless you're using some obscure internet facing features that actually have meaningful holes in them.
Most people I know use media players to play files they trust already on their machine. Meaning it is not a security threat even if it's ten years old.
They already have that. Essentially every service your average Chinese citizen uses is now located in China. They could sever themselves from internet entirely and average citizens wouldn't really care. They'll still have their wechat, baidu, etc. Tencent et al have more than enough capability to replace whatever is needed within months should such need arise.
Which is why they can block at will. Their own people won't really care, beyond the certain small percentage. And that certain percentage is exactly the kind of people that authoritarian regime would want to look at carefully and limit freedom of.
Not even close to being enough. First thing that will have to go is commercial flights. Those simply cannot be tolerated. Interconnected world the way we know it today simply cannot exist. It has to end.
Next thing to go is uninterrupted electricity for everyone. That means no reliable internet either. That's the other link that makes people care to some extent about "outsiders" far away from their nations.
Finally you'll have to accept that your very culture is dysfunctional, because we're not ready to commit genocide on the level that would make Hitler, Stalin and Mao look incredibly benevolent in comparison. We will have to cull most of the population in Africa, Asia and South America, because as they will desire to increase their wealth, they will become much more polluting per capita, easily nullifying all the cuts made in the West. We'll have to be the most brutal mass murderers to have ever existed.
It's the last part that most people genuinely are afraid of addressing. It's factually true that most of the people who either deny global warming, or just don't care about it are the overwhelming majority of humanity who are living in poor countries, and who thanks to the internet now know just how wealthy of lifestyles compared to theirs we have. And they want to be like us. And their lives are being uplifted at rapid rate, as globalization has shifted wealth to developing countries at incredible rate. This will have to be severed and destroyed, alongside the masses who already got a taste of better lifestyles afforded to them by the economic growth. Because they can't afford to care about a threat that might materialize in a hundred years. They have to care about immediate threats, like medicine so their children don't die, food so their children don't end up with stunted growth, housing so they actually have a home to be at, social security of some kind so they can afford to think of more than their next meal.
It's a genuinely impossible equation. To make people care about things like global warming, you need to eliminate most of other threats in their lives - disease, food security, energy security, housing, social security, etc. And to do so worldwide, would require CO2 emissions that would make current emissions look absolutely tiny in comparison. Therefore, the only way to equalize the two would be to conduct genocide of unforeseen proportions.
Tell me, do you think that Hitler did anything wrong? Or Stalin? Mao?
Because you'll have to top all of those people put together, several tens of times over for your murderous desire to succeed. You'll have to become someone who people will think of as "Hitler was pretty bad, but at least he wasn't [Anonymous Coward]" in the future.
Are you actually prepared to go that far? Are you truly that far gone?
Sad part is, that's how it's being marketed, when reality is the diametric opposite. To combat global warming, we have to cut down wealth of people, making them less healthy.
The current argument is literally "how many hundreds of millions to billions of people will need to be sacrificed in developing countries to meet the goals". Because developed countries are increasingly irrelevant in this discussion. We'll push our emissions down, but we're but a tiny fraction of the population. Majority of the population will have to live much worse, less healthy lives and die far more for global warming targets to have any hopes of being met.
Which is why it's never marketed like this to the middle class Westerners. Even though it's the reality. We will need to conduct what amounts to historically unprecedented levels of genocide in Africa, South America and Asia to have any hope of meeting global warming goals, with numbers that will put Mao, Stalin and Hitler cumulated to shame.
Most hilariously though, the higher the level of wealth of people, the more they worry about climate change. So if we are to have any hope of addressing it, we will need to make those that survive this culling much more wealthy to make them care. It's a brutal world, and we live in interesting times.
Slashdot Mirror
I see that you do not understand what I was talking about, and aren't really interested in trying to.
It's also how we got the man on the Moon. But did that really happen? I guess not in your world. It's all Juiceros.
It's honestly fairly funny how many ACs are spamming "troll" and missing the message entirely on that post.
I see that you didn't.
I literally cited you a historic example. Did you miss it?
It's also a leadership methodology used by very experienced leaders. Of people involved in space programs, Korolev comes to mind. Get your engineering team, and then ask them to do the impossible. Offer them infinite support. Listen to them tell you it's impossible anyway. Ask for timetable with infinite resources.
You will very quickly see which engineers are good at their job, as they'll start thinking in ways they haven't thought when they were focused on getting budgetary acceptance. And that's how Korolev got Soviet space program to crush US one early on, and that's how US space program put the man on the moon first after Korolev died. You plant the necessary ideas in engineers' heads, then you take off the constraints and then you see which ones flake out because they can't handle it. Korolev was famous for even literally dumping all rocket scientists when they would tell him the project he proposed is impossible and go head hunting in other fields for talent that wouldn't be locked into preconceptions. That's how the engines that Lockheed Martin people flat out claimed to be impossible to make in 2000s were made in 1970s.
In this case, this report suggests that these two men flaked out. They couldn't start thinking beyond budget constraints and start thinking outside the familiar box when it was called for. Which is understandable, as NASA has been criminally underfunded for last two decades, to the point where if you aren't someone who's primary talent is in "meeting the budgetary needs", you probably quit long ago or were let go.
Are you sure you want to stick to your claim of "dissent from mainstream = nazi"?
Because overuse of this particular word aside, national socialists are in fact well documented for claiming that "dissent from mainstream = enemy of the people".
And yet, you have to draw a lot of arbitrary lines on who "rich" are. Which makes you suggestion produce a far less accurate results than mine.
Because it is beneficial to those states? Are you under some kind of misguided impression that countries neighbouring China are not finding having direct access to the internet far more valuable then trying to sever themselves from the Chinese portions of the internet?
I've got nothing. You win.
Let's weep for journalism together.
Literally, topic. "Ends in fewer than 60 seconds" implies some kind of a failure with test flight. Most of the first test flight for rotary wing aircraft is literally take off within ground effect, see that it hovers successfully and land.
The point being that if there's unforeseen point of failure, uncontrolled crash would not be catastrophic from that height.
>Wealthy and healthy people have less kids than poor, desperate people
Factually false. Upper class tends to have significantly more children than comparatively poor and desperate highly educated women in the West for example. You need to constrain your criteria quite a bit to reach that particular "popular wisdom" without being factually wrong.
A much more accurate statement that would actually be far closer to reality is that "educated women that have been properly propagandised against family structures and normative views on sex (in historic, global and evolutionary sense) have less children than less educated women who weren't propagandised and so end up being happy in the traditional female aristocrat role".
Which is why poor women in Europe have a lot less children than upper class women today. Upper class go to private schools, and have become fairly segregated from what would qualify as "approximately average person" in favour of being more interconnected with other elites globally. Which grounds them in more normative views on sex, and hence, having more children. Obviously, profession specifics apply here. Some professions require more contact with how poor are propagandised, such as politics, and childless women are becoming fairly common in politics (see Merkel, May). At the same time, even a cursory look at women in modern aristocratic positions who's families act in various industries shows that they are typically having a lot more children than average in their countries. Having five-six children is far closer to norm in these circles than having none.
Pointless racism. Nice. Show us on this IQ chart just how much smarter average Chinese is than you?
No literally, read what I said. You failed to comprehend it. And when this was pointed out to you, instead of correcting your statement, you just reacted like a three year old when being pointed out that shitting your pants doesn't make you an adult. You did the digital equivalent of rolling on the ground screaming and beating fists into the ground.
You should try reading comprehension. The point you raised has nothing to do with my argument.
I know that you're utterly insane to the point where in the recent post, you literally said "I'm going to show you how utterly crazy I am so you can't call me "crazy" first", but do try to engage with reality. Do you realise that one of the key reasons why mortality in developed countries is but a tiny fraction of mortality in developing countries (not to even mention the whole crippling effect of disease that isn't rapidly fatal, like malaria) is the whole "cheap, easy, always-on energy that enables everything else"?
Literally everything from being able to refrigerate food to production and distribution of medicines relies on it. Yes, food poisoning is still exceedingly lethal and/or crippling. Yes, people die in droves from preventable illnesses because medicines cannot be reliably and cost effectively delivered to them in developed counties en masse.
And yeah, that's where CO2 emissions overwhelmingly come from. Cheap energy that enables everything mentioned above and much, much more. And now that internet gave people in developing countries the direct window into just how easy and comfortable life in developed countries is, you're not going to stop them from trying to go for it without violence on scale that would make someone like Stalin actually stop and reconsider if ends justify the means.
Do elaborate.
Because it's beneficial to them in their view to act this way at the moment?
Literally, the same reason why all states act in any way they do.
When you're so deep up the ideological rabbit hole, you call someone who builds premise on the fact that global warming is real and needs to be addressed a "denier".
Are you dumb or insane? Or both?
P.S. My country has socialized medicine. It's probably one of the reasons I'm not as mentally fucked up as you.
When win10 came out, there was a forum for external firewall software that maintained a blocklist for win10 telemetry. I added it manually to my software firewall and it did in fact work.
Until one day, MS updated win10 to the point where it would literally refuse to access the internet with any software until I removed relevant telemetry blocks on the firewall. Literally all internet facing software just stopped having access to the internet until I allowed telemetry through, at which point, it all magically started working again.
So I can vouch for the fact that properly configured software firewall does appear to block win10 telemetry, but MS has some rather nasty tricks if you do it.
There's also the fact that most security fixes for software like VLC are utterly pointless unless you're using some obscure internet facing features that actually have meaningful holes in them.
Most people I know use media players to play files they trust already on their machine. Meaning it is not a security threat even if it's ten years old.
They already have that. Essentially every service your average Chinese citizen uses is now located in China. They could sever themselves from internet entirely and average citizens wouldn't really care. They'll still have their wechat, baidu, etc. Tencent et al have more than enough capability to replace whatever is needed within months should such need arise.
Which is why they can block at will. Their own people won't really care, beyond the certain small percentage. And that certain percentage is exactly the kind of people that authoritarian regime would want to look at carefully and limit freedom of.
Not even close to being enough. First thing that will have to go is commercial flights. Those simply cannot be tolerated. Interconnected world the way we know it today simply cannot exist. It has to end.
Next thing to go is uninterrupted electricity for everyone. That means no reliable internet either. That's the other link that makes people care to some extent about "outsiders" far away from their nations.
Finally you'll have to accept that your very culture is dysfunctional, because we're not ready to commit genocide on the level that would make Hitler, Stalin and Mao look incredibly benevolent in comparison. We will have to cull most of the population in Africa, Asia and South America, because as they will desire to increase their wealth, they will become much more polluting per capita, easily nullifying all the cuts made in the West. We'll have to be the most brutal mass murderers to have ever existed.
It's the last part that most people genuinely are afraid of addressing. It's factually true that most of the people who either deny global warming, or just don't care about it are the overwhelming majority of humanity who are living in poor countries, and who thanks to the internet now know just how wealthy of lifestyles compared to theirs we have. And they want to be like us. And their lives are being uplifted at rapid rate, as globalization has shifted wealth to developing countries at incredible rate. This will have to be severed and destroyed, alongside the masses who already got a taste of better lifestyles afforded to them by the economic growth. Because they can't afford to care about a threat that might materialize in a hundred years. They have to care about immediate threats, like medicine so their children don't die, food so their children don't end up with stunted growth, housing so they actually have a home to be at, social security of some kind so they can afford to think of more than their next meal.
It's a genuinely impossible equation. To make people care about things like global warming, you need to eliminate most of other threats in their lives - disease, food security, energy security, housing, social security, etc. And to do so worldwide, would require CO2 emissions that would make current emissions look absolutely tiny in comparison. Therefore, the only way to equalize the two would be to conduct genocide of unforeseen proportions.
Tell me, do you think that Hitler did anything wrong? Or Stalin? Mao?
Because you'll have to top all of those people put together, several tens of times over for your murderous desire to succeed. You'll have to become someone who people will think of as "Hitler was pretty bad, but at least he wasn't [Anonymous Coward]" in the future.
Are you actually prepared to go that far? Are you truly that far gone?
Sad part is, that's how it's being marketed, when reality is the diametric opposite. To combat global warming, we have to cut down wealth of people, making them less healthy.
The current argument is literally "how many hundreds of millions to billions of people will need to be sacrificed in developing countries to meet the goals". Because developed countries are increasingly irrelevant in this discussion. We'll push our emissions down, but we're but a tiny fraction of the population. Majority of the population will have to live much worse, less healthy lives and die far more for global warming targets to have any hopes of being met.
Which is why it's never marketed like this to the middle class Westerners. Even though it's the reality. We will need to conduct what amounts to historically unprecedented levels of genocide in Africa, South America and Asia to have any hope of meeting global warming goals, with numbers that will put Mao, Stalin and Hitler cumulated to shame.
Most hilariously though, the higher the level of wealth of people, the more they worry about climate change. So if we are to have any hope of addressing it, we will need to make those that survive this culling much more wealthy to make them care. It's a brutal world, and we live in interesting times.