>The actual problem is mentioned in the OP - upper middle class, well educated and smart parents. Notably, you just failed the relevant risk assessment, because you failed to note the fact that as long as herd immunity holds, risk is effectively zero. You cannot contract a disease that doesn't exist within contagious range of you. It's only when the game theoretical scenario of "everyone around me is an altruist, therefore I should be an egoist" is figured out by sufficient amount of people in the same area that herd immunity begins to fail. So the conditions that appear to be needed to trigger this particular issue is a combination of understanding of risk assessment and game theory coupled with overestimation/underestimation of your neighbours.
>Places such as those that concentrate a lot of highly educated ideologically very far modern left likely fit because they have what appears to be significant self selected over-representation of outliers in terms of actual high intelligence, high mathematical and logical reasoning skill, and diminished social skills. Upper end of intelligence curve has a significantly elevated tendency to come with significant downsides when it comes to mathematical capabilities in terms of lack of social skills. That means that those are extremely intelligent people that have problems reading people. This profile would also match the recently risen problem with draconian thought control in many Silicon Valley giants. "We don't care about context, we just care about individual words" is literally the problem many of the people who are highly functional autists have in real life, because they have problems comprehending the social context of things being said and done by other people. That's literally what that condition is.
>And such people make brilliant workers for IT companies.
Autism, to my knowledge, is the "haha look at these dumb right wing nut job parents" that modern hysteria-chasing media is selling this as. These people do exist, but they appear to be a fairly small minority in this particular issue.
The actual problem is mentioned in the OP - upper middle class, well educated and smart parents. Notably, you just failed the relevant risk assessment, because you failed to note the fact that as long as herd immunity holds, risk is effectively zero. You cannot contract a disease that doesn't exist within contagious range of you. It's only when the game theoretical scenario of "everyone around me is an altruist, therefore I should be an egoist" is figured out by sufficient amount of people in the same area that herd immunity begins to fail. So the conditions that appear to be needed to trigger this particular issue is a combination of understanding of risk assessment and game theory coupled with overestimation/underestimation of your neighbours.
Places such as those that concentrate a lot of highly educated ideologically very far modern left likely fit because they have what appears to be significant self selected over-representation of outliers in terms of actual high intelligence, high mathematical and logical reasoning skill, and diminished social skills. Upper end of intelligence curve has a significantly elevated tendency to come with significant downsides when it comes to mathematical capabilities in terms of lack of social skills. That means that those are extremely intelligent people that have problems reading people. This profile would also match the recently risen problem with draconian thought control in many Silicon Valley giants. "We don't care about context, we just care about individual words" is literally the problem many of the people who are highly functional autists have in real life, because they have problems comprehending the social context of things being said and done by other people. That's literally what that condition is.
And such people make brilliant workers for IT companies.
As for serious complications for vaccinations, those are really nasty effects, that usually have a significant life long effect if you survive them. Autism is long debunked click bait distraction here. Real problems are things like severe immune system conditions. But they are genuinely one a million or so risk for most modern vaccines given to children. And yet, when you scale it to US for example, statistic projection suggests that there's around 400 people with those conditions who are alive and suffering or dead because of them. And that's just the extremely serious end. Less serious but still very damaging items on the "diverse effects" list are usually around 1/10.000 to 1/100.000. Former would mean around 40.000 people in US. That's no longer an insignificant number.
Final factor in the risk assessment formula is the risk of actually suffering the nastier effects of those illnesses. In case of measles for example, death is about 1/10.000 with proper medical care. Contrast with diverse effects and you'll see where this argument is going.
Which is likely why the modern programs aimed at "eliminating anti-vaccination movement" fail miserably. They're targeting the "anti-vaxxers" known in popular culture, the fairly uneducated families who tend to talk about conspiracy theories. They fail to target what appears to be intelligent upper middle class people who make the aforementioned risk assessment.
Adverse effects (usually around one in a million for most vaccines for severe adverse reactions, one in ten for most mild ones). Correlation here is risk calculation and game theory, not "stupid parents".
First of all, remind yourself that wealthy parents in upper middle class tend to have only one child. That means that "all their eggs are in one basket". That leads to complete change of risk calculation for the child - even utterly minor things like child getting kidnapped by a satanist cult, or severe adverse reaction from the vaccine become meaningful rather than irrelevant.
Note that people in this category do tend to demand absurd levels of safety assurances for their children in those other fields, and not just vaccinations. Correlation is there.
Second is basic game theory. When overwhelming majority of people around you are altruistic (i.e. vaccinated) it makes sense to be egotistical and not take the risks of vaccinating your child, relying on herd immunity instead.
Correlation is visible in the fact that when herd immunity does break and there's an outbreak, numbers of parents choosing not to vaccinate collapse dramatically.
It hasn't been "vastly improved". The primary "improvement" comes from the simple fact that model has been made more accurate by introducing more heavy calculations on error margins. This is not improvement - it's a trade-off. You trade the efficiency of the model for accuracy of the model.
And in modern world with supercomputers we have today, it's a worthwhile trade-off. Which doesn't make it any less of a trade-off rather than a straight up improvement. If you went to 1980s computational power, current models would be useless to the extreme, as it would take decades to crunch the numbers necessary to model what's going to happen in 24 hours.
Which is why comparison being made is misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst.
The issue with complex modelling has traditionally been in computational power vs usefulness. With weather modelling, you can generate a very accurate prediction a week ahead. Problem with it was in 1980, you needed so much computational power, you would get this "forecast" finally calculated a few years after it was relevant. Computational power to do it in time frame that was useful was simply not there.
Today it is there, so meteorologists can get calculations for days ahead done in time frame which is useful, i.e. before the events they're trying to predict occur, rather than long after.
Models improved too, but most of that improvement has actually been "add even more detail to do something with all the increasing computational power".
They can think anything they want. As long as they don't talk about it in public, and don't act on it.
P.S. If you actually got your head out of the propaganda well and into observable reality, you'd know that ROC is 100% on board with "one China" policy. The only point of disagreement that they have with PRC is who is the legitimate leader of it.
I'm glad you discovered the partial hibernation BS that was half baked into 8.1. As I noted however, boot times on 7 are fine, to the point where the retarded functionality you're discussing is one of the first things I turn off in 10.
It makes rebooting much more reliable in fixing occasional driver hiccups as well.
Because non-diehard fans are likely the bulk of donors, and their activity would drive a lot of people interested in seeing the curated English leaks that wikileaks specializes in. Which in turn would have prevented the current insane narrative of them being an agent of Russian government. The only reason that stuck to some extent, is because there aren't enough people invested in wikileaks to debunk the narrative to their friends when US propaganda machine spun on to do its thing.
Deplatforming ensured that this amount of people would not be allowed to get invested into wikileaks, and support would be limited to die-hard fans only.
Fun part is, the current massive uptick in fairly high end cardboard production is in large part due to this trend spinning up. You can't deliver the product packaging in old school brown cardboard, it has to be shiny, with specific texture and that can survive rigours of weeks of oceanic travel without plastic packaging over the cardboard protecting it.
I've even seen a recent news story on paper cups now starting to be made from cardboard only. For those who don't know, current paper cups have thin plastic lining inside because otherwise, seams leak when faced with hot or corrosive liquids. Apparently latest technology allows to make paper cups that can make seams that can take the temperature and even things like mild alcohol for a few hours before starting to leak.
Environmentally friendly technology is popping up in fairly surprising places nowadays, and that's a great thing.
EU actually regulated some of the materials involved in production of electronics some time ago in terms of heavy metals and some other things iirc. It resulted in quite a few changes, some of which were good (less of certain toxic materials) and some of which were bad (less durable hardware).
These are really hard things to get done right, both because of modern form of profit motive being exceedingly short term and because planned (and often enforced) obsolescence is critical for revenue in many areas of electronics.
What is the portion of people out of all users of internet that know how to pay on dark web sites?
It works for determined people buying illegal shit and willing to jump through a lot of hoops and pay a lot for processing their payment. It doesn't work for everyone else.
Bitchute is a site aimed at "everyone else". Ergo, the problem.
It's not just the people who are least smart. The old saying goes that "intellect falls in love with it's own conclusions". People who are very smart and know it are as susceptible to various conspiracy theories as the least intelligent ones. Examples include things like anti-vaccination movement having rooted itself in some of the most intelligent communities in Silicon Valley.
The deciding factor appears to be not intelligence but tightness of social bubble created by like minded people around you. It's why right wing nutjobs were such a big thing pre-internet and why left wing nutjobs are such a big thing now. It seems to be about interaction between algorithmic reinforcement coming from the group cumulating with collectivist mindset, and being closed to information coming from outside.
Algorithmic recommendation systems appear to have had a curious effect, where the traditional right wing nut jobs actually got a whole lot more sane, while left wing went far less so. My personal hypothesis is that this is because right wing in general values individualism, which serves as a very crude inoculation against internet age collectivism, effectively reducing existing biases by algorithmic recommendations, while left wing is overwhelmingly collectivist in its mindset, which lead to severe vulnerability against algorithmic recommendations reinforcing the existing biases. Essentially when your primary value is "individual should be respected", you appear to give much less weight to the effect of "collective appears to demand this" which is the primary effect of algorithmic recommendations systems. And vice versa, if you see the collective as more important than individual, you are much more likely to agree with recommendations which are given to you algorithmically and appear to form a like-minded collective around you.
Unknown, but bitchute already has been deplatformed by all the same familiar actors with far left activists dictating the ideological persecution a few months ago.
It appears to be still up and running fine, which suggests that they successfully secured funding via means that aren't as vulnerable to far left activist pressure.
As we all know, fridges are excellent without power. And obviously, I made the claim that half the planet has no fridges. Because you're sane and coherent enough to find this sort of statement where nothing even remotely like it was ever made.
I suggest sticking to mysticism and just straight up coming out as an idiot before being called out on it.
>it would help if you can point out a developing country that has no electricity for fridges...
Literally one of the main problem with vaccination programs in Africa today is lack of refrigeration due to lack of availability of power. This is why one of the key grants from organisations like Gates foundations was to develop vaccines that can last longer without the need for refrigeration.
Literally first link for me for "vaccines refrigeration Africa"
>“As you know, vaccines are usually kept in cold chains, between 2 to 8 degrees Celsius. And so you have to have the whole capacity around the cold chain: that is freezers, ice packs, transportation fuel, electricity fuel, all of this. Sometimes, it is not only costly, but it is also very challenging to reach remote areas with such constraints,” said Preziosi.
>Health experts said that because of the cold chain requirement, there is normally a lot of wasted vaccine vials during immunization campaigns, particularly during the “last mile” -- the time from when the vaccine leaves the refrigerator at the district health center until it is injected into a person’s arm at the village level.
>Many communities in Africa have no access to electricity and are often too remote to be reached before the ice packs in insulated coolers melt.
Anyway, I'll just leave you to your "electricity comes from the USB socket" understanding of how power generation works. Good luck.
There's just one problem. It most certainly isn't the only alternative, just like global warming is a fairly small reduction in world GDP over next hundred years (a tiny portion of growth that will happen with far greater certainty over the same period of time) rather than a genocide event it was supposed to be right now if you believed the best models and scientific consensus from the 90s. Most people forget, but best models back then predicted mass starvation to be occurring today. Exact opposite actually happened, we're on the very edge of beating starvation due to non-political (i.e. warfare) issues. World hunger is at all times low, beating even the most optimistic projections from a decade ago by organisations that aimed to fight it back then.
The thing to take away from this is that we are really, REALLY bad at modelling the future beyond few years. So to suggest apocalyptic scenario a hundred years in the future based on "best scientific consensus" is as just much of a folly as to try to claim that we're experiencing a mass starvation event world wide right now. Which I stress, was indeed the best scientific consensus modelled projection for ~2020 about 30 years ago.
We as species are extremely good at adapting to slowly changing environment. That is literally why we are the alpha predator on the planet. We have a brain capable of abstraction on levels no other species on the planet can come even close, which allows us as species to adapt in ways no other species has. So the current trend of finding ways to generate energy with lower CO2 emissions at low cost is critical at slowing the speed of global warming. We don't need to halt it. We just need to make sure it stays slow enough that we can adapt to changes it brings at cost that is less than benefits we derive from cheap energy. Human extinction because of global warming is simply not on the cards. There would need to be something far more catastrophic than that to overcome our adaptability.
So things like switch from coal to natgas where possible is an excellent option. About half of the CO2 emitted per energy generated. Nuclear is great if we can ensure political stability and sufficient lack of corruption wind and solar should be used whenever they are viable. Coal should be avoided if possible. Keep emissions low enough so that global warming stays within "easily adaptable" range it is in right now, rather than it would go into "averagely adaptable", or even "adaptable to with some difficulty" levels. That should be the priority. Doomsaying so common today appears to be mainly a PR effort to get democratic majority behind efforts to this end rather than anything based in actual observable reality. Like any such efforts, they tend to overshoot their targets and cause some problems, but they're likely necessary for the purpose.
Problem is that coal is too cheap, too reliable, and just too accessible compared to everything else when it comes to corrupt, low tech societies that exist in developing countries. It's simply the best option for them. That's why Paris agreement was essentially developing countries attempting to pay off developing countries' aristocracy to not build up coal. It didn't actually work out which is very clear now, but it was a good first attempt at adapting to that particular problem. More refined efforts toward this goal should be the next phase.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep reading the replies. You're the third one to point this issue, and I have addressed it twice already.
I addressed this in the follow up post.
>The actual problem is mentioned in the OP - upper middle class, well educated and smart parents. Notably, you just failed the relevant risk assessment, because you failed to note the fact that as long as herd immunity holds, risk is effectively zero. You cannot contract a disease that doesn't exist within contagious range of you. It's only when the game theoretical scenario of "everyone around me is an altruist, therefore I should be an egoist" is figured out by sufficient amount of people in the same area that herd immunity begins to fail. So the conditions that appear to be needed to trigger this particular issue is a combination of understanding of risk assessment and game theory coupled with overestimation/underestimation of your neighbours.
>Places such as those that concentrate a lot of highly educated ideologically very far modern left likely fit because they have what appears to be significant self selected over-representation of outliers in terms of actual high intelligence, high mathematical and logical reasoning skill, and diminished social skills. Upper end of intelligence curve has a significantly elevated tendency to come with significant downsides when it comes to mathematical capabilities in terms of lack of social skills. That means that those are extremely intelligent people that have problems reading people. This profile would also match the recently risen problem with draconian thought control in many Silicon Valley giants. "We don't care about context, we just care about individual words" is literally the problem many of the people who are highly functional autists have in real life, because they have problems comprehending the social context of things being said and done by other people. That's literally what that condition is.
>And such people make brilliant workers for IT companies.
Autism, to my knowledge, is the "haha look at these dumb right wing nut job parents" that modern hysteria-chasing media is selling this as. These people do exist, but they appear to be a fairly small minority in this particular issue.
The actual problem is mentioned in the OP - upper middle class, well educated and smart parents. Notably, you just failed the relevant risk assessment, because you failed to note the fact that as long as herd immunity holds, risk is effectively zero. You cannot contract a disease that doesn't exist within contagious range of you. It's only when the game theoretical scenario of "everyone around me is an altruist, therefore I should be an egoist" is figured out by sufficient amount of people in the same area that herd immunity begins to fail. So the conditions that appear to be needed to trigger this particular issue is a combination of understanding of risk assessment and game theory coupled with overestimation/underestimation of your neighbours.
Places such as those that concentrate a lot of highly educated ideologically very far modern left likely fit because they have what appears to be significant self selected over-representation of outliers in terms of actual high intelligence, high mathematical and logical reasoning skill, and diminished social skills. Upper end of intelligence curve has a significantly elevated tendency to come with significant downsides when it comes to mathematical capabilities in terms of lack of social skills. That means that those are extremely intelligent people that have problems reading people. This profile would also match the recently risen problem with draconian thought control in many Silicon Valley giants. "We don't care about context, we just care about individual words" is literally the problem many of the people who are highly functional autists have in real life, because they have problems comprehending the social context of things being said and done by other people. That's literally what that condition is.
And such people make brilliant workers for IT companies.
As for serious complications for vaccinations, those are really nasty effects, that usually have a significant life long effect if you survive them. Autism is long debunked click bait distraction here. Real problems are things like severe immune system conditions. But they are genuinely one a million or so risk for most modern vaccines given to children. And yet, when you scale it to US for example, statistic projection suggests that there's around 400 people with those conditions who are alive and suffering or dead because of them. And that's just the extremely serious end. Less serious but still very damaging items on the "diverse effects" list are usually around 1/10.000 to 1/100.000. Former would mean around 40.000 people in US. That's no longer an insignificant number.
Final factor in the risk assessment formula is the risk of actually suffering the nastier effects of those illnesses. In case of measles for example, death is about 1/10.000 with proper medical care. Contrast with diverse effects and you'll see where this argument is going.
Which is likely why the modern programs aimed at "eliminating anti-vaccination movement" fail miserably. They're targeting the "anti-vaxxers" known in popular culture, the fairly uneducated families who tend to talk about conspiracy theories. They fail to target what appears to be intelligent upper middle class people who make the aforementioned risk assessment.
Adverse effects (usually around one in a million for most vaccines for severe adverse reactions, one in ten for most mild ones). Correlation here is risk calculation and game theory, not "stupid parents".
First of all, remind yourself that wealthy parents in upper middle class tend to have only one child. That means that "all their eggs are in one basket". That leads to complete change of risk calculation for the child - even utterly minor things like child getting kidnapped by a satanist cult, or severe adverse reaction from the vaccine become meaningful rather than irrelevant.
Note that people in this category do tend to demand absurd levels of safety assurances for their children in those other fields, and not just vaccinations. Correlation is there.
Second is basic game theory. When overwhelming majority of people around you are altruistic (i.e. vaccinated) it makes sense to be egotistical and not take the risks of vaccinating your child, relying on herd immunity instead.
Correlation is visible in the fact that when herd immunity does break and there's an outbreak, numbers of parents choosing not to vaccinate collapse dramatically.
It hasn't been "vastly improved". The primary "improvement" comes from the simple fact that model has been made more accurate by introducing more heavy calculations on error margins. This is not improvement - it's a trade-off. You trade the efficiency of the model for accuracy of the model.
And in modern world with supercomputers we have today, it's a worthwhile trade-off. Which doesn't make it any less of a trade-off rather than a straight up improvement. If you went to 1980s computational power, current models would be useless to the extreme, as it would take decades to crunch the numbers necessary to model what's going to happen in 24 hours.
Which is why comparison being made is misleading at best and downright fraudulent at worst.
How's that in any way relevant to point I made?
The issue with complex modelling has traditionally been in computational power vs usefulness. With weather modelling, you can generate a very accurate prediction a week ahead. Problem with it was in 1980, you needed so much computational power, you would get this "forecast" finally calculated a few years after it was relevant. Computational power to do it in time frame that was useful was simply not there.
Today it is there, so meteorologists can get calculations for days ahead done in time frame which is useful, i.e. before the events they're trying to predict occur, rather than long after.
Models improved too, but most of that improvement has actually been "add even more detail to do something with all the increasing computational power".
They can think anything they want. As long as they don't talk about it in public, and don't act on it.
P.S. If you actually got your head out of the propaganda well and into observable reality, you'd know that ROC is 100% on board with "one China" policy. The only point of disagreement that they have with PRC is who is the legitimate leader of it.
I'm glad you discovered the partial hibernation BS that was half baked into 8.1. As I noted however, boot times on 7 are fine, to the point where the retarded functionality you're discussing is one of the first things I turn off in 10.
It makes rebooting much more reliable in fixing occasional driver hiccups as well.
Boot on win7 is fine, SSD support is fine and you shouldn't use windows task manager but process explorer.
CCCP in was always MPC and ffdshow and later on LAV.
Ffdshow and LAV are still maintained. MPC-HC is basically feature complete. It will work with updates LAV and ffdshow.
Because non-diehard fans are likely the bulk of donors, and their activity would drive a lot of people interested in seeing the curated English leaks that wikileaks specializes in. Which in turn would have prevented the current insane narrative of them being an agent of Russian government. The only reason that stuck to some extent, is because there aren't enough people invested in wikileaks to debunk the narrative to their friends when US propaganda machine spun on to do its thing.
Deplatforming ensured that this amount of people would not be allowed to get invested into wikileaks, and support would be limited to die-hard fans only.
Fun part is, the current massive uptick in fairly high end cardboard production is in large part due to this trend spinning up. You can't deliver the product packaging in old school brown cardboard, it has to be shiny, with specific texture and that can survive rigours of weeks of oceanic travel without plastic packaging over the cardboard protecting it.
I've even seen a recent news story on paper cups now starting to be made from cardboard only. For those who don't know, current paper cups have thin plastic lining inside because otherwise, seams leak when faced with hot or corrosive liquids. Apparently latest technology allows to make paper cups that can make seams that can take the temperature and even things like mild alcohol for a few hours before starting to leak.
Environmentally friendly technology is popping up in fairly surprising places nowadays, and that's a great thing.
EU actually regulated some of the materials involved in production of electronics some time ago in terms of heavy metals and some other things iirc. It resulted in quite a few changes, some of which were good (less of certain toxic materials) and some of which were bad (less durable hardware).
These are really hard things to get done right, both because of modern form of profit motive being exceedingly short term and because planned (and often enforced) obsolescence is critical for revenue in many areas of electronics.
What is the portion of people out of all users of internet that know how to pay on dark web sites?
It works for determined people buying illegal shit and willing to jump through a lot of hoops and pay a lot for processing their payment. It doesn't work for everyone else.
Bitchute is a site aimed at "everyone else". Ergo, the problem.
Your #2 is rather strange, considering that WL was deplatformed from almost every payment system in existence very rapidly under pressure.
It's not just the people who are least smart. The old saying goes that "intellect falls in love with it's own conclusions". People who are very smart and know it are as susceptible to various conspiracy theories as the least intelligent ones. Examples include things like anti-vaccination movement having rooted itself in some of the most intelligent communities in Silicon Valley.
The deciding factor appears to be not intelligence but tightness of social bubble created by like minded people around you. It's why right wing nutjobs were such a big thing pre-internet and why left wing nutjobs are such a big thing now. It seems to be about interaction between algorithmic reinforcement coming from the group cumulating with collectivist mindset, and being closed to information coming from outside.
Algorithmic recommendation systems appear to have had a curious effect, where the traditional right wing nut jobs actually got a whole lot more sane, while left wing went far less so. My personal hypothesis is that this is because right wing in general values individualism, which serves as a very crude inoculation against internet age collectivism, effectively reducing existing biases by algorithmic recommendations, while left wing is overwhelmingly collectivist in its mindset, which lead to severe vulnerability against algorithmic recommendations reinforcing the existing biases. Essentially when your primary value is "individual should be respected", you appear to give much less weight to the effect of "collective appears to demand this" which is the primary effect of algorithmic recommendations systems. And vice versa, if you see the collective as more important than individual, you are much more likely to agree with recommendations which are given to you algorithmically and appear to form a like-minded collective around you.
Youtube tailors your recommendations based on your watching history.
I never get those on recommendations, because I just don't watch them. If you keep getting them, it suggests you're already interested in them.
Human biology, evolution, mental illness rates and outcomes of people diagnosed with that particular mental disorder.
Unknown, but bitchute already has been deplatformed by all the same familiar actors with far left activists dictating the ideological persecution a few months ago.
It appears to be still up and running fine, which suggests that they successfully secured funding via means that aren't as vulnerable to far left activist pressure.
People who make those claims tend to overwhelmingly oppose current American government for ideological reasons.
Last sentence of my previous post demonstrates my full agreement with you.
As we all know, fridges are excellent without power. And obviously, I made the claim that half the planet has no fridges. Because you're sane and coherent enough to find this sort of statement where nothing even remotely like it was ever made.
I suggest sticking to mysticism and just straight up coming out as an idiot before being called out on it.
>it would help if you can point out a developing country that has no electricity for fridges ...
Literally one of the main problem with vaccination programs in Africa today is lack of refrigeration due to lack of availability of power. This is why one of the key grants from organisations like Gates foundations was to develop vaccines that can last longer without the need for refrigeration.
Literally first link for me for "vaccines refrigeration Africa"
https://www.voanews.com/a/revo...
Quote:
>“As you know, vaccines are usually kept in cold chains, between 2 to 8 degrees Celsius. And so you have to have the whole capacity around the cold chain: that is freezers, ice packs, transportation fuel, electricity fuel, all of this. Sometimes, it is not only costly, but it is also very challenging to reach remote areas with such constraints,” said Preziosi.
>Health experts said that because of the cold chain requirement, there is normally a lot of wasted vaccine vials during immunization campaigns, particularly during the “last mile” -- the time from when the vaccine leaves the refrigerator at the district health center until it is injected into a person’s arm at the village level.
>Many communities in Africa have no access to electricity and are often too remote to be reached before the ice packs in insulated coolers melt.
Anyway, I'll just leave you to your "electricity comes from the USB socket" understanding of how power generation works. Good luck.
There's just one problem. It most certainly isn't the only alternative, just like global warming is a fairly small reduction in world GDP over next hundred years (a tiny portion of growth that will happen with far greater certainty over the same period of time) rather than a genocide event it was supposed to be right now if you believed the best models and scientific consensus from the 90s. Most people forget, but best models back then predicted mass starvation to be occurring today. Exact opposite actually happened, we're on the very edge of beating starvation due to non-political (i.e. warfare) issues. World hunger is at all times low, beating even the most optimistic projections from a decade ago by organisations that aimed to fight it back then.
The thing to take away from this is that we are really, REALLY bad at modelling the future beyond few years. So to suggest apocalyptic scenario a hundred years in the future based on "best scientific consensus" is as just much of a folly as to try to claim that we're experiencing a mass starvation event world wide right now. Which I stress, was indeed the best scientific consensus modelled projection for ~2020 about 30 years ago.
We as species are extremely good at adapting to slowly changing environment. That is literally why we are the alpha predator on the planet. We have a brain capable of abstraction on levels no other species on the planet can come even close, which allows us as species to adapt in ways no other species has. So the current trend of finding ways to generate energy with lower CO2 emissions at low cost is critical at slowing the speed of global warming. We don't need to halt it. We just need to make sure it stays slow enough that we can adapt to changes it brings at cost that is less than benefits we derive from cheap energy. Human extinction because of global warming is simply not on the cards. There would need to be something far more catastrophic than that to overcome our adaptability.
So things like switch from coal to natgas where possible is an excellent option. About half of the CO2 emitted per energy generated. Nuclear is great if we can ensure political stability and sufficient lack of corruption wind and solar should be used whenever they are viable. Coal should be avoided if possible. Keep emissions low enough so that global warming stays within "easily adaptable" range it is in right now, rather than it would go into "averagely adaptable", or even "adaptable to with some difficulty" levels. That should be the priority. Doomsaying so common today appears to be mainly a PR effort to get democratic majority behind efforts to this end rather than anything based in actual observable reality. Like any such efforts, they tend to overshoot their targets and cause some problems, but they're likely necessary for the purpose.
Problem is that coal is too cheap, too reliable, and just too accessible compared to everything else when it comes to corrupt, low tech societies that exist in developing countries. It's simply the best option for them. That's why Paris agreement was essentially developing countries attempting to pay off developing countries' aristocracy to not build up coal. It didn't actually work out which is very clear now, but it was a good first attempt at adapting to that particular problem. More refined efforts toward this goal should be the next phase.