Not much of a compliment, being smarter than someone who doubles down on his admission of being the dumbest man in the thread that is filled with various trolls.
That makes literally every single "Trump is bad" poster so far irrelevant, and this entire thread pointless. You can do better than argue that you're arguing in a pointless thread, as that makes you the dumbest of the lot. Not only do you "understand that this thread is not worth listening to" but you also "actively wasted time not just reading through it, but replying".
The other way around. Failure tends to associate with socialist and communist government. It's cause and effect. If you focus on redistributing resources too much, productive people start to lack drive to produce resources so they can be distributed.
The opposite end of this is about as bad. When there's little redistribution, you get utter shitholes in third world, where people can literally buy other people because life of someone born into poverty is utterly hopeless and no amount of merit can uplift them.
Could be. Or it could be yet another CIA's failed assassination attempt. CIA has a long history of amateurish failed assassination attempts of Venezuelan leaders. This one matches the pattern.
Another point that lies forgotten is that Maduro still enjoys firm support of around half of his people. Something that is commonly ignored by Western media entirely.
Problem with this statement being, CIA has a long history of attempted assassinations of Venezuelan leaders that go horribly wrong and end up looking utterly amateurish. This one matches much of their earlier work in this regard.
It doesn't mean it can't be a false flag, or something else entirely. But the pattern fits and the interest to kill him remains with the same actor as before.
It's called "critical theory" and it is all the rage in humanities. It's also one of the main reasons why liberal arts have gone from producing somewhat productive people to producing people who can only whine about success of others and demand this success is taken from successful people and given to them.
So you just plain went full retard on point one, pretended really hard that obvious was concealed in point two, just forgot the entire latter part of discussion in earlier post in point three, and finally decided to just go full retard in point four.
>You know it lasts just fine if you keep it out of sunlight, right?
And poor countries are known for their lack of direct sunlight and short travelling distances, absolutely not done on foot. Have you tried doing 2+2 yet?
Or are you of an opinion that crushing majority of humanity lives in developed countries, rather than a tiny fraction?
>You do know that a bunch of our plastic gets put on barges which never actually reach their destinations... on purpose, right? Or perhaps you don't.
I see you didn't read my point at all, and instead just knee jerked as you have been indoctrinated. My point wasn't that people dump a lot of plastic into oceans. Notably not from "barges", but from 10 of the major rivers across the world, 8 of which are in Asia and 2 in Africa. That accounts for something around 80-90% of the plastic waste that goes into the "garbage patches" in the oceans. That study solidly debunked the claim that North Americans and Europeans can do something about this problem by reducing their consumption. They can't, because they're not the source of overwhelming majority of it.
My other point was that plastics that kill birds are actually quite large, a typically measured in millimetres. "Microplastics", the scare of the month that came a couple of months ago is actually about tiny fibres that are small enough to pass through cellular walls that are, as far as we know, completely metabolically inert. They don't do anything. And they don't come from things like plastic packaging. They come from people washing and drying their clothes.
Then you'll probably have to deal with the fact that food spoils really fast in your desert, because you'll only have biodegradable packaging available.
Former suggestion is a massive hit to environment. Food waste and resources needed to produce extra food alone would dwarf the costs of current problems with plastics.
And quality of life in poorer countries would simply crash. Right now, one of the key reasons why they can afford things like toothpaste, shampoo and meat is because it can be easily and cheaply packaged into portions of "one serving" and be distributed such that they do not spoil quickly while cost of the packaging is essentially negligible.
"Plastic is evil" is the new variant of the aristocratic hipster green ideology that is mainly there for the upper middle class youngsters in rich countries who are desperate for ways to showcase their moral virtues in post-religious world. Like most such ideologies, it spells doom for the poorer societies (examples: anti-GMO and "organic" movement, "hydro is evil because it kills fish" and so on). You could see this well in the recent moral panic about "microplastics" which the prominent journalists intentionally conflated with plastics in the oceans killing fish and this in turn was conflated with consumer plastics in the West. Both of these links are factually wrong, but facts never stopped this particular movement before.
No. There are no meaningful ways to wash and sort plastic at the recycler that are even remotely cost efficient. You need slave labour level salaries for it to be workable, and even then, most of plastic will not be recyclable. Only large plastic objects (those that weight several kilos each at least) will be recyclable that way. Smaller will be dumped, as has been the case before.
If you can invent a way to actually do what you're asking, patent it and become a billionnaire. The sheer amount of money to be made by recycling all the landfilled dirty plastic today is astronomical if it was cost efficient.
Certainly. All plastic packaging is unusable, and you'll have to fiddle with bioedegradeable crap that keeps tearing, and keeps letting your products spoil early.
When enough people become free riders in the certain market, everyone begins to suffer, including the free riders.
Yes, that is what recyclers like to advertise. In reality, doing this is exceedingly expensive, which is why it's never done. Which is why China no longer takes the dirty plastic. Not even from nations in Europe, where all plastic has been marked for a long time now.
It will not happen, because overwhelming majority of plastic packaging that ends up in oceans is from 10 great rivers. 8 of which are in Asia and 2 are in Africa.
Both regions have two common things. Poor populace and high temperatures. Former means that people buy their food and their personal hygiene items in portions for a day, or just a single meal, because they can't afford to pay for more than that. That means far more packaging for same amount of product as what you see in the Western countries. Latter means that food and much of hygienic products spoil rapidly unless they're sealed with air tight seals in durable packaging. No alternative packaging is as durable, as sealable and as cheap to make current state possible.
And without this, much of the work that has been done on things like rise of quality of life in poor countries will see reversal. And while some crazed far left environmentalist may buy the "you may need to bring back starvation and infection to save the planet, fuck the poor people, they're cancer on the planet anyway", most reasonable people will never buy it. Most importantly, the people in question themselves will not accept it.
And wealthy countries don't actually dump their plastic in the oceans in the first place. Plastic in landfills is suboptimal, but not harmful in a significant way. The recent hipster scare of "micro plastics" has nothing to do with actual plastics. It has to do with washing clothes.
What high horse? I didn't say anything about European Union, because saying anything about it would be utterly meaningless. Each country has a distinct culture and distinct policies on the issue.
It's like saying "America" meaning every country on both American continents. Do they have common policy on how to handle plastic recycling?
Not sure where "here" is, but here in the Nordics, "socialism" is considered a pretty bad thing. That's why it's only the fringe left parties that advocate for it, and no mainstream politician will touch it with a ten foot pole. Memory of how Eastern Europe ended up is fresh.
Same audience that is playing Fortnite today. Children who have no access to a better device at the moment of playing it. For example, during recess in school.
The actual problem here is that plastic is almost impossible to recycle when it's not properly cleaned and separated. Which is only really possible to to at the point of origin. Essentially the person taking out his plastic trash will have to properly separate it and wash it.
Which is why countries where this is done, such as my native Finland exported almost none of their plastic to be recycled to China, and what we did, we still can export. Because people around here will literally wash their plastic garbage before taking it to the recycling bin. I mean literally wash it with water until it's reasonably clean. Which means that all that recycler has to do is to do a cursory check and then just fabricate it into pellets and it's good for reuse.
Which incidentally is what Chinese still gladly take.
What they will no longer take is general dirty plastic that is all but impossible to recycle without massive manpower investment.
There will need to be a massive cultural shift to actually get people in countries that used to export dirty plastic as "recyclable" to actually sort and wash their own plastic waste so it is actually recyclable at a reasonable cost. Before that, so called "recycling companies" that used to take dirty unsorted plastic and pretend to recycle it will have to go bust because their business model no longer works. And that is unlikely to be in near future, as there are plenty of poor Asian and African states that still have manpower that is exceedingly cheap to dig through landfill full of plastic, separate it, clean it and take it to a dealer.
That is more about the fact that Europe has countries that have a completely different understanding of what "privacy" even means, comparable to for example how homosexuals and blacks have completely different understanding what "civil rights" mean in US.
Same umbrella name, completely different understanding of issues. As a result, EU will always be far more stringent in regulating any potential violations of what they understand as privacy, to the point where to a US citizen, many of the issues regulated should not be regulated at all.
In this regard, your analogy is valid to an extent, but it stumbles on severe cultural differential, making it difficult to apply across the Atlantic. US traditionally tends towards liberty, which means that problems should manifest themselves in some notable way before liberty is curtailed by regulation. It's a cultural choice.
Let me see if I understand your utter failure at basic logic. You are saying that because you have observed growth of governmental debt, and you have observed government spending money on bailing out banks, the only thing that government spent money on is bailing out banks?
Do you understand just how stupid this statement makes you look? Government spends money on a tremendous amount of different things. All at once. "x+y=z" is not the same thing as "x=z", unless "y=0".
Slashdot Mirror
Essentially everyone here, including APK, creimer and even most of ACs?
Not much of a compliment, being smarter than someone who doubles down on his admission of being the dumbest man in the thread that is filled with various trolls.
In security world, changing DNS servers being used without notifying the owner of the machine is known as "hijacking DNS".
How on earth is Mozilla getting away with hijacking DNS?
That makes literally every single "Trump is bad" poster so far irrelevant, and this entire thread pointless. You can do better than argue that you're arguing in a pointless thread, as that makes you the dumbest of the lot. Not only do you "understand that this thread is not worth listening to" but you also "actively wasted time not just reading through it, but replying".
The other way around. Failure tends to associate with socialist and communist government. It's cause and effect. If you focus on redistributing resources too much, productive people start to lack drive to produce resources so they can be distributed.
The opposite end of this is about as bad. When there's little redistribution, you get utter shitholes in third world, where people can literally buy other people because life of someone born into poverty is utterly hopeless and no amount of merit can uplift them.
Could be. Or it could be yet another CIA's failed assassination attempt. CIA has a long history of amateurish failed assassination attempts of Venezuelan leaders. This one matches the pattern.
Another point that lies forgotten is that Maduro still enjoys firm support of around half of his people. Something that is commonly ignored by Western media entirely.
Problem with this statement being, CIA has a long history of attempted assassinations of Venezuelan leaders that go horribly wrong and end up looking utterly amateurish. This one matches much of their earlier work in this regard.
It doesn't mean it can't be a false flag, or something else entirely. But the pattern fits and the interest to kill him remains with the same actor as before.
It's called "critical theory" and it is all the rage in humanities. It's also one of the main reasons why liberal arts have gone from producing somewhat productive people to producing people who can only whine about success of others and demand this success is taken from successful people and given to them.
So you just plain went full retard on point one, pretended really hard that obvious was concealed in point two, just forgot the entire latter part of discussion in earlier post in point three, and finally decided to just go full retard in point four.
Ok. Good luck.
>You know it lasts just fine if you keep it out of sunlight, right?
And poor countries are known for their lack of direct sunlight and short travelling distances, absolutely not done on foot. Have you tried doing 2+2 yet?
Or are you of an opinion that crushing majority of humanity lives in developed countries, rather than a tiny fraction?
>You do know that a bunch of our plastic gets put on barges which never actually reach their destinations... on purpose, right? Or perhaps you don't.
I see you didn't read my point at all, and instead just knee jerked as you have been indoctrinated. My point wasn't that people dump a lot of plastic into oceans. Notably not from "barges", but from 10 of the major rivers across the world, 8 of which are in Asia and 2 in Africa. That accounts for something around 80-90% of the plastic waste that goes into the "garbage patches" in the oceans. That study solidly debunked the claim that North Americans and Europeans can do something about this problem by reducing their consumption. They can't, because they're not the source of overwhelming majority of it.
My other point was that plastics that kill birds are actually quite large, a typically measured in millimetres. "Microplastics", the scare of the month that came a couple of months ago is actually about tiny fibres that are small enough to pass through cellular walls that are, as far as we know, completely metabolically inert. They don't do anything. And they don't come from things like plastic packaging. They come from people washing and drying their clothes.
Then you'll probably have to deal with the fact that food spoils really fast in your desert, because you'll only have biodegradable packaging available.
What goes around, comes around.
Former suggestion is a massive hit to environment. Food waste and resources needed to produce extra food alone would dwarf the costs of current problems with plastics.
And quality of life in poorer countries would simply crash. Right now, one of the key reasons why they can afford things like toothpaste, shampoo and meat is because it can be easily and cheaply packaged into portions of "one serving" and be distributed such that they do not spoil quickly while cost of the packaging is essentially negligible.
"Plastic is evil" is the new variant of the aristocratic hipster green ideology that is mainly there for the upper middle class youngsters in rich countries who are desperate for ways to showcase their moral virtues in post-religious world. Like most such ideologies, it spells doom for the poorer societies (examples: anti-GMO and "organic" movement, "hydro is evil because it kills fish" and so on). You could see this well in the recent moral panic about "microplastics" which the prominent journalists intentionally conflated with plastics in the oceans killing fish and this in turn was conflated with consumer plastics in the West. Both of these links are factually wrong, but facts never stopped this particular movement before.
No. There are no meaningful ways to wash and sort plastic at the recycler that are even remotely cost efficient. You need slave labour level salaries for it to be workable, and even then, most of plastic will not be recyclable. Only large plastic objects (those that weight several kilos each at least) will be recyclable that way. Smaller will be dumped, as has been the case before.
If you can invent a way to actually do what you're asking, patent it and become a billionnaire. The sheer amount of money to be made by recycling all the landfilled dirty plastic today is astronomical if it was cost efficient.
Certainly. All plastic packaging is unusable, and you'll have to fiddle with bioedegradeable crap that keeps tearing, and keeps letting your products spoil early.
When enough people become free riders in the certain market, everyone begins to suffer, including the free riders.
Yes, that is what recyclers like to advertise. In reality, doing this is exceedingly expensive, which is why it's never done. Which is why China no longer takes the dirty plastic. Not even from nations in Europe, where all plastic has been marked for a long time now.
Recycling mark doesn't magically sort the plastic, nor remove dirt from it.
It will not happen, because overwhelming majority of plastic packaging that ends up in oceans is from 10 great rivers. 8 of which are in Asia and 2 are in Africa.
Both regions have two common things. Poor populace and high temperatures. Former means that people buy their food and their personal hygiene items in portions for a day, or just a single meal, because they can't afford to pay for more than that. That means far more packaging for same amount of product as what you see in the Western countries. Latter means that food and much of hygienic products spoil rapidly unless they're sealed with air tight seals in durable packaging. No alternative packaging is as durable, as sealable and as cheap to make current state possible.
And without this, much of the work that has been done on things like rise of quality of life in poor countries will see reversal. And while some crazed far left environmentalist may buy the "you may need to bring back starvation and infection to save the planet, fuck the poor people, they're cancer on the planet anyway", most reasonable people will never buy it. Most importantly, the people in question themselves will not accept it.
And wealthy countries don't actually dump their plastic in the oceans in the first place. Plastic in landfills is suboptimal, but not harmful in a significant way. The recent hipster scare of "micro plastics" has nothing to do with actual plastics. It has to do with washing clothes.
Yes, hot water is worth it.
What high horse? I didn't say anything about European Union, because saying anything about it would be utterly meaningless. Each country has a distinct culture and distinct policies on the issue.
It's like saying "America" meaning every country on both American continents. Do they have common policy on how to handle plastic recycling?
Not sure where "here" is, but here in the Nordics, "socialism" is considered a pretty bad thing. That's why it's only the fringe left parties that advocate for it, and no mainstream politician will touch it with a ten foot pole. Memory of how Eastern Europe ended up is fresh.
Ad-ridden, crypto-mining fake fortnite installers have been a thing on play store for a while, dear pro-monopoly zealot.
Same audience that is playing Fortnite today. Children who have no access to a better device at the moment of playing it. For example, during recess in school.
The actual problem here is that plastic is almost impossible to recycle when it's not properly cleaned and separated. Which is only really possible to to at the point of origin. Essentially the person taking out his plastic trash will have to properly separate it and wash it.
Which is why countries where this is done, such as my native Finland exported almost none of their plastic to be recycled to China, and what we did, we still can export. Because people around here will literally wash their plastic garbage before taking it to the recycling bin. I mean literally wash it with water until it's reasonably clean. Which means that all that recycler has to do is to do a cursory check and then just fabricate it into pellets and it's good for reuse.
Which incidentally is what Chinese still gladly take.
What they will no longer take is general dirty plastic that is all but impossible to recycle without massive manpower investment.
There will need to be a massive cultural shift to actually get people in countries that used to export dirty plastic as "recyclable" to actually sort and wash their own plastic waste so it is actually recyclable at a reasonable cost. Before that, so called "recycling companies" that used to take dirty unsorted plastic and pretend to recycle it will have to go bust because their business model no longer works. And that is unlikely to be in near future, as there are plenty of poor Asian and African states that still have manpower that is exceedingly cheap to dig through landfill full of plastic, separate it, clean it and take it to a dealer.
That is more about the fact that Europe has countries that have a completely different understanding of what "privacy" even means, comparable to for example how homosexuals and blacks have completely different understanding what "civil rights" mean in US.
Same umbrella name, completely different understanding of issues. As a result, EU will always be far more stringent in regulating any potential violations of what they understand as privacy, to the point where to a US citizen, many of the issues regulated should not be regulated at all.
In this regard, your analogy is valid to an extent, but it stumbles on severe cultural differential, making it difficult to apply across the Atlantic. US traditionally tends towards liberty, which means that problems should manifest themselves in some notable way before liberty is curtailed by regulation. It's a cultural choice.
Let me see if I understand your utter failure at basic logic. You are saying that because you have observed growth of governmental debt, and you have observed government spending money on bailing out banks, the only thing that government spent money on is bailing out banks?
Do you understand just how stupid this statement makes you look? Government spends money on a tremendous amount of different things. All at once. "x+y=z" is not the same thing as "x=z", unless "y=0".