It doesn't. Ecosystem is essentially a closed circuit. You don't need a significant influence over specific aspect of the circuit to get it to slowly shift. You just need a small influence that exceeds systems self-correcting capability.
Being intentionally obtuse has nothing to do with command of English language.
P.S. Hilariously I have a certificate from an accredited university that my command of both written and spoken English is significantly better than that of average native speaker. But thanks for playing.
If history doesn't make you confident in our ability to repeal overwhelming forces, you have serious problems with history and historians. Alternatively you lack even basic understanding of military strategy. Take it up with historians or generals, depending on where your failure lies.
As for the rest, you appear to think I'm talking imaginary things here, rather than reality. I'm quoting actual figures from migrant crisis from 2016. We got mostly Iraqis, because this migrant crisis is very much a manufactured crisis, with migrants having active smuggler networks advertising specific states for specific ethnicities. We were primarily advertised to Iraqis.
After they arrived, we had amazing demonstrations from them. They did things like show the kind of porrige that is commonly fed to kindergarten children around here, and stating to the state broadcaster camera "How can we eat this? This food isn't even fit for dogs!" It went down about as well with the middle class who's children are in said kindergartens as you would expect.
And most popular reason for returning to Iraq was "climate".
Now somalis are a whole different breed. We had our batch of this problem culture penetrate our society in 1990s. Like everyone else, we didn't have much luck getting them to even show up at arranged meetings on time, much less actually be productive at rates anywhere near natives. But we weren't marketed to somalis, and Finnish somalis are famous enough in Somalia to counteract misinformation that comes down the smuggler networks. One of them even stood for high tier political post in Somalia some time ago if I remember correctly. They're not likely to be the next wave coming here any time soon.
The first thing that catastrophists like to do is to argue "but globally!!!"
Overwhelming majority of people don't care about what happens in everyday life of someone on the other side of the planet. The country you cite, US, most of its citizenry would struggle to identify countries on the other side of the globe, much less actually care if they have to invest one percent of GDP more into infrastructure. And for those that live in productive states, increase in infrastructure spending is a trivially absorbable cost if threat is actually judged to be significant enough. Refer to what US did to itself during WW2 as example of what can be done when people feel that it is needed for survival.
My country is in fact militarized enough, and has enough experience with invaders that yes, we are ready if threat becomes existential. We have enough weapons to repel invasion over our border with Russia, which is longer than rest of EU's border with Russia in total.
Additionally we're so cold and inhospitable that we have folks from Middle East literally run away from the weather. Not a joke. One of the most common cited reasons for Iraqis returning was "weather". Apparently Middle Easterners and Africans by far and large really can't take the climate.
Most people in general tend to forget that modern "refugees" are an invention of age of overabundance and lack of warfare. The moment either one ends, sympathies for refugees will end with them. We're already seeing this in Southern Europe.
Guns have in fact been invented, as have transport ships. Food can be shipped to those in need, and those who invade regardless can be forcibly ejected or killed, as was the case with every single such effort in history of humanity.
At the same time, our food harvesting ability has increased massively, and nowadays we're shifting to farmed fish across the Nordic states en masse. Norway, the former giant of fishing now produces more salmon through farming it than through fishing it. And farming is growing explosively.
So instead of being hungry, they're going to be shoving high quality Norwegian salmon down their throats, or they're going to grow their own at their coastal and river fish farms. This is what we call "adaptation".
To deny that there are clear cut benefits to global warning is asinine. My country for example is looking at massively increased agricultural production and reduced costs associated with extreme cold winters.
Negatives? Weather patterns become more extreme, so more repairs to infrastructure will be needed. Former is huge for nation's GDP. Latter is tiny in comparison. Add to that the fact that like most nations that sat under the ice during ice age, our land is rising out of the sea faster than sea is rising, there are clear benefits even on local level.
And then there's the whole "new paths for maritime travel" aspect which is bound to increase efficiency by a significant margin.
That's why catastrophism folks like you espouse is just as dangerous as "global warning isn't happening" BS. Both are equally wrong, and both turn people from the sane actions that we actually need to take to make our transition to existing in a slowly but surely warming climate and all changes that brings with it.
Instead we get "we should do nothing" and "we should do everything" idiocy on each side. When sanity is off the table at the start, and all you have is crazy partisans on each side debunking each other's idiocy, no actual discussion on what should be done can take place.
Something most people forget is that things that are harmful to ingest in lungs are often harmless in stomach and vice versa. That's why you make sure you lift the head back before you breathe into the mouth for CPR administration. If you breathe air into the stomach, patient's stomach will evacuate itself as a reflex to air entering stomach. Evacuated material in unconscious person is likely to enter the lungs, causing severe damage.
You are now conflating his behaviour with his ability to show it to the world on what is essentially a monopoly platform.
I would argue that while I think his behaviour was frankly that of an borderline psychopathic asshole, he should be free to air his assholery to the world on said platform. And if some advertiser thinks that this kind of assholery is a good place to advertise on, they should have a choice to do so.
My reasoning is simple. When monopoly platform for publishing is allowed to make complex decisions on morals and ethics of content, they effectively become the arbiter of what is moral and what is not in the society. It effectively shifts morals from being a bottom-up principle coming from the people to top-down principle of aristocracy dictating to the masses what is moral and what is not.
Considering all the testing we had on top-down model of moral policing during last century, I think that bottom-up model for all its flaws is much preferable. It's far less bloody, and self-corrects for catastrophic errors much better.
Just out of interest, what is your view on for profit news organisations doing the exact same thing?
Reminder before you attempt to strawman this one: your argument is that:
"He at least attempted to profit from a stranger's death."
So your criteria is that it's wrong to profit from someone else's death. That is what news organisation have done for essentially their entire existence however.
If you pull your head out of your ass, you'll note that Trump was elected specifically because non-mainstream views were allowed on social media. He is the person that has the actual deep vested interest in non-mainstream views continuing to remain visible.
I can't think of any political actor in US that would have this much of a vested interest in freedom of speech. No one else is even remotely as vilified and lied about on mainstream as a matter of routine.
We had this model of thought before. It's what gave us Trusts. There's a reason why anti-monopoly legislation was forced through as a result of what Trusts did to the economy.
You're talking about compute cards. I'm talking about cards like nvidia's GP (instead of GTX) branded cards. i.e. GP106 being the GTX 1060 without display out ports.
Slashdot Mirror
Email is dated 14.12.2017. Is reading the sources really that hard?
It doesn't. Ecosystem is essentially a closed circuit. You don't need a significant influence over specific aspect of the circuit to get it to slowly shift. You just need a small influence that exceeds systems self-correcting capability.
Being intentionally obtuse has nothing to do with command of English language.
P.S. Hilariously I have a certificate from an accredited university that my command of both written and spoken English is significantly better than that of average native speaker. But thanks for playing.
If history doesn't make you confident in our ability to repeal overwhelming forces, you have serious problems with history and historians. Alternatively you lack even basic understanding of military strategy. Take it up with historians or generals, depending on where your failure lies.
As for the rest, you appear to think I'm talking imaginary things here, rather than reality. I'm quoting actual figures from migrant crisis from 2016. We got mostly Iraqis, because this migrant crisis is very much a manufactured crisis, with migrants having active smuggler networks advertising specific states for specific ethnicities. We were primarily advertised to Iraqis.
After they arrived, we had amazing demonstrations from them. They did things like show the kind of porrige that is commonly fed to kindergarten children around here, and stating to the state broadcaster camera "How can we eat this? This food isn't even fit for dogs!" It went down about as well with the middle class who's children are in said kindergartens as you would expect.
And most popular reason for returning to Iraq was "climate".
Now somalis are a whole different breed. We had our batch of this problem culture penetrate our society in 1990s. Like everyone else, we didn't have much luck getting them to even show up at arranged meetings on time, much less actually be productive at rates anywhere near natives. But we weren't marketed to somalis, and Finnish somalis are famous enough in Somalia to counteract misinformation that comes down the smuggler networks. One of them even stood for high tier political post in Somalia some time ago if I remember correctly. They're not likely to be the next wave coming here any time soon.
I didn't say they were always successful at it. I merely said that this was an option.
Measuring success of such efforts is a completely different discussion, with variables that are completely outside this discussion.
Dyslexia?
Out of interest, is there any idea that goes against far left narrative that far left trolls won't use Red Scare to try to ad hominem with?
The first thing that catastrophists like to do is to argue "but globally!!!"
Overwhelming majority of people don't care about what happens in everyday life of someone on the other side of the planet. The country you cite, US, most of its citizenry would struggle to identify countries on the other side of the globe, much less actually care if they have to invest one percent of GDP more into infrastructure. And for those that live in productive states, increase in infrastructure spending is a trivially absorbable cost if threat is actually judged to be significant enough. Refer to what US did to itself during WW2 as example of what can be done when people feel that it is needed for survival.
My country is in fact militarized enough, and has enough experience with invaders that yes, we are ready if threat becomes existential. We have enough weapons to repel invasion over our border with Russia, which is longer than rest of EU's border with Russia in total.
Additionally we're so cold and inhospitable that we have folks from Middle East literally run away from the weather. Not a joke. One of the most common cited reasons for Iraqis returning was "weather". Apparently Middle Easterners and Africans by far and large really can't take the climate.
Most people in general tend to forget that modern "refugees" are an invention of age of overabundance and lack of warfare. The moment either one ends, sympathies for refugees will end with them. We're already seeing this in Southern Europe.
Guns have in fact been invented, as have transport ships. Food can be shipped to those in need, and those who invade regardless can be forcibly ejected or killed, as was the case with every single such effort in history of humanity.
At the same time, our food harvesting ability has increased massively, and nowadays we're shifting to farmed fish across the Nordic states en masse. Norway, the former giant of fishing now produces more salmon through farming it than through fishing it. And farming is growing explosively.
So instead of being hungry, they're going to be shoving high quality Norwegian salmon down their throats, or they're going to grow their own at their coastal and river fish farms. This is what we call "adaptation".
To deny that there are clear cut benefits to global warning is asinine. My country for example is looking at massively increased agricultural production and reduced costs associated with extreme cold winters.
Negatives? Weather patterns become more extreme, so more repairs to infrastructure will be needed. Former is huge for nation's GDP. Latter is tiny in comparison. Add to that the fact that like most nations that sat under the ice during ice age, our land is rising out of the sea faster than sea is rising, there are clear benefits even on local level.
And then there's the whole "new paths for maritime travel" aspect which is bound to increase efficiency by a significant margin.
That's why catastrophism folks like you espouse is just as dangerous as "global warning isn't happening" BS. Both are equally wrong, and both turn people from the sane actions that we actually need to take to make our transition to existing in a slowly but surely warming climate and all changes that brings with it.
Instead we get "we should do nothing" and "we should do everything" idiocy on each side. When sanity is off the table at the start, and all you have is crazy partisans on each side debunking each other's idiocy, no actual discussion on what should be done can take place.
Because you want to have more than a few cars on the streets.
Incredibly inefficient. Electric heating is much more efficient when done with proper heating systems.
This would be like using rocket engines instead of ICEs in cars to drive around.
Based on your long answer, short answer is in fact "no". You shouldn't lie and then debunk your own lie in next two lines.
Projecting your faults on others will not get you anywhere.
Something most people forget is that things that are harmful to ingest in lungs are often harmless in stomach and vice versa. That's why you make sure you lift the head back before you breathe into the mouth for CPR administration. If you breathe air into the stomach, patient's stomach will evacuate itself as a reflex to air entering stomach. Evacuated material in unconscious person is likely to enter the lungs, causing severe damage.
Horseshoe theory. They're two sides of the same racist coin.
The only thing they diverge on is who is the ubermensch and who is the untermensch.
It would really help if you read what you're replying to.
You are now conflating his behaviour with his ability to show it to the world on what is essentially a monopoly platform.
I would argue that while I think his behaviour was frankly that of an borderline psychopathic asshole, he should be free to air his assholery to the world on said platform. And if some advertiser thinks that this kind of assholery is a good place to advertise on, they should have a choice to do so.
My reasoning is simple. When monopoly platform for publishing is allowed to make complex decisions on morals and ethics of content, they effectively become the arbiter of what is moral and what is not in the society. It effectively shifts morals from being a bottom-up principle coming from the people to top-down principle of aristocracy dictating to the masses what is moral and what is not.
Considering all the testing we had on top-down model of moral policing during last century, I think that bottom-up model for all its flaws is much preferable. It's far less bloody, and self-corrects for catastrophic errors much better.
Just out of interest, what is your view on for profit news organisations doing the exact same thing?
Reminder before you attempt to strawman this one: your argument is that:
"He at least attempted to profit from a stranger's death."
So your criteria is that it's wrong to profit from someone else's death. That is what news organisation have done for essentially their entire existence however.
If you pull your head out of your ass, you'll note that Trump was elected specifically because non-mainstream views were allowed on social media. He is the person that has the actual deep vested interest in non-mainstream views continuing to remain visible.
I can't think of any political actor in US that would have this much of a vested interest in freedom of speech. No one else is even remotely as vilified and lied about on mainstream as a matter of routine.
We had this model of thought before. It's what gave us Trusts. There's a reason why anti-monopoly legislation was forced through as a result of what Trusts did to the economy.
For those of us not into religious thought however, and who prefer reality, his statement makes perfect sense in context he said it in.
You're talking about compute cards. I'm talking about cards like nvidia's GP (instead of GTX) branded cards. i.e. GP106 being the GTX 1060 without display out ports.