Epigenetic traits do not last more than a few generations and cannot contribute to speciation. It is still the genes that are selected on.
That is a very bold claim, given that epigenetic factors can alter or suppress gene expression and those genes might affect other genes and, hence, potentially all the cellular production machinery.
Other than your 'feelings' on the matter do you have any evidence for your claim - and please remember that a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack (of a potential mechanism)...
are you as good at understanding those reports...?
In this instance he's basically correct, and although I might take issue with the separation of on and off-shore wind generation, thereby enabling him to state that bio-energy sits in second place when it comes to overall generation the report does also separate them in this way. He also munged all bio-energy into a single figure dismissed as burning imported wood - but, in fairness, since this does make up about 65% of bio-energy production it's hard not to share his dissatisfaction / disdain for the situation (essentially this is mainly due to the conversion of (one) coal plant to burn wood instead which is, at least, better than burning fossil fuels as it doesn't 'technically' add CO2 to the atmosphere, even if it's far from the ideal solution). Baby steps in the right direction are better than no steps, and far better than backward steps...
On the flip side, the year on year capacity increases in renewables leading to today's headline that they have surpassed fossil fuel capacity must make the dinosaurs and the deniers feel very uncomfortable. Hence it's no surprise that their natural reaction is to be dismissive.
In fact, the data shown in the graph I linked to shows...
In fact the graph on the NASA site you linked to, and the data it's drawn from, disagree with your assertion that the "largest (hole) was in 2017". The largest was in 2006.
Just more propaganda BS.
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle!
What is clear from the graphs & data is that we, humanity, managed to rapidly alter the composition of the atmosphere (basically over the period of a decade), to the detriment of ourselves, and even now, over 30 years after we did something about it (the Montreal Protocol), the atmosphere has barely begun to recover from the 'damage'.
Furthermore, just from eyeballing the graphs it looks like there is a slight trend towards a yearly reduction in the size of the hole in the ozone layer. Now, I haven't done a serious statistical analysis to demonstrate this - for now I'm fairly happy to take the atmospheric scientists who have at their word - but since you assert that there's "no apparent trend" perhaps you'd be good enough to show your working based on the data you linked to.
It's interesting, although perhaps, given your posting history, not too surprising, that while my main take-away from the NASA data was that natural processes take a long time to restore a 'system' to its original state after we've altered it, compared to the time it took for us to cause that alteration, yours is, apparently, to deny, disagree with, or misrepresent the data. Mind-boggling!
The obvious analogy with CO2 induced warming is glaring...
What the article writer seems to miss in my mind is that UBI needs to go hand-in-hand with a reasonable minimum wage.
I actually see it the other way around: to be practicable UBI needs to go hand in hand with the abolition of minimum wage. After all, the only way of paying for UBI is taxation, and, since taxing those you're paying UBI to doesn't make any logical sense, the most likely source of that tax revenue is corporations. Now, because we don't want the corporations to simply raise their prices (in order to maintain their current level of profits) resulting in a vicious spiral of rising prices -> rising UBI to pay for those goods -> rising taxes to fund UBI -> rising prices, the only way for them to make or maintain their profits is to reduce their costs: and the only practicable way to do that is to reduce their wage bills, which means doing away with the minimum wage.
UBI shouldn't be a way for government to simply provide cheaper labour for corporate entities
Again, I see this differently. UBI covers the basic needs of your population: accommodation, food, and healthcare, with perhaps a trivial amount of discretionary spending thrown in. The government should not be in the business of supplying their population with luxuries, or funding an extravagant 'consumer' lifestyle. Companies, on the other hand, will continue to compete for top talent based on the wages they offer, and will pay as little as possible to fill their other job openings. It is worth pointing out though that, since everyone now has their basic needs met, the bottom end of the job market is no longer going to be filled by people desperate to get paid something, anything, in order to be able to afford their next meal. In other words companies will, by necessity, have to pay rather more that you might initially think in order to fill those positions too.
Now, I'm happy to admit that I 'might' be wrong in my analysis, it is after all a very complex political / economic web in which we live, but, in the broad strokes, I don't think so. I would be interested in hearing your, further, thoughts on the matter though...
... the measured polarization of the output photons was consistent with their being no definite causal order between when A and B was applied.
Their what? Their being? Strangely, the sentence would, sort of, make sense if there was a full stop after the word being, but otherwise I think the word you were looking for was 'there'.
Next time a journalist asks why it's so hard to write error-free code feel free to point this gem out.
The Milgram experiment proved that it's trivial for otherwise well-adjusted humans who are polite and civilized to become exactly that kind of monster.
It proved nothing of the sort; the experiements were misrepresented (and 'selectively' reported) both by Milgram himself and subsequent generations, and the intuitively appealing (shock!) idea has entered our culture as a 'scientific fact'.
I'm afraid you'll need a need a New Scientist sub, or access to the March 14th issue, to read the rather less shocking reality of his experiments, and what they did and didn't show about human nature.
Cigarettes are not legal for kids. Not anywhere civilised.
And neither is vaping, not where I live in the UK, nor in the USA.
Nor should e-cigarettes with addictive components be but the law was slow to catch up.
Unfortunately true: it took until 2016 'til the FDA started regulating them. This article is surprisingly balanced and informative when it comes to the benefits and downsides in the vaping / smoking debate.
Nicotine dependence isn't something to encourage in children especially if they are being given the message "this stuff doesn't harm you" which is what e-cigarettes are claiming (though give it 30 years and that might turn out to be a mistake).
While I completely agree with the first part of this statement the second part is only partially true. And, despite what the manufacturers might claim, most governments and health professionals are distinctly more circumspect when discussing vaping: Vaping can be an effective method in cessation of smoking; vaping is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.
I don't think you can argue that children shouldn't be consuming something known to be highly addictive, which shouldn't be available to them, even if the end-result isn't directly damaging to their lungs.
And, no, sugar etc. isn't addictive, and even alcohol isn't nearly as addictive and is regulated for minors just as tough.
People can argue all sorts of shit that's clearly wrong. It's one of the great wonders of the social world in which we live. As to whether sugar is addictive I guess that would somewhat depend on how one defines addiction - tbh I couldn't care less one way or another. It is, or perhaps I should say more than small quantities are, harmful to us however. For all that though I prefer the gentle nudge of taxation to a heavy handed ban for any of these things - I just wish more companies had the stomach to continue to manufacture their soft drinks with sugar and charge the higher price: in the UK now virtually every 'soda' is, for me, undrinkable, as they all contain vile tasting artificial sweeteners rather than sugar. I'd have happily (ok, that's a lie - I'd have grudgingly) paid the extra price, instead I've just stopped buying them - not that the loss of sales of one to two dozen cans a year is going to put anyone out of business. Ah well, at least I will be able to point to this as an example of a government nudge that had the 'desired' effect despite the personal annoyance. </end digression>
But even just in the acknowledgments, there is the claim:
I was exceedingly fortunate to encounter mindfulness at the hands of our extraordinary teachers, [names]; no amount of research could have conveyed to me the wealth of nuances and implications of practice that they embody so effortlessly. For that, and for the true privilege of meeting and working with them, I am especially thankful.
(Emphasis added)
Yeah. OK. At least we're on the same page about how your research sits relative to knowledge that can be conveyed through research.:)
I'd never heard of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory before today, so I'm not in a position to comment on the consistency or otherwise of it, or the validity of their claims for it, but I'm not sure I see why you single out that quote, other than flippancy. The obvious meaning is akin to the distinction between reading about something and experiencing that same thing in person. For many things in life (going parachuting, eating a fine meal, having sex, coming face to face with an angry grizzly bear, etc.) the two are not even remotely comparable.
Why not ask the 'new model' to tell the 'old model' she's history?
And if you can get the confrontation on camera: bonus! That'd be Youtube gold.
As an added bonus, if the 'old model' actually wins you can honestly tell her that the woman she just had that fracas with was a psychopath and that you'll never date anyone but her as long as she's alive...
The patent extends the concept to reduce the rate of false negatives by checking to see if a turn signal would actually even benefit anyone, and if not, not bothering to turn it on... "Is another vehicle in the vicinity that would benefit?"
What about people?
When I'm walking down a road and reach a side road I need to cross if there's a car approaching parallel to me I'll pause and check to see if its indicators are flashing before I cross - call it a sensible self preservation tactic. Not that it's a particularly useful tactic though, as it's almost funny how many drivers only indicate after I've stepped into the road. My right of way at that point is somewhat moot.
Honestly this strikes me as just another aid in training bad drivers to be completely lazy and oblivious to everything around them.
It's largely because I can put myself in my own shoes and because I'm sure that I'm not always going to see pedestrians, cyclists, motorbikes, or even other cars that, when driving, I always indicate when I'm about to make a turn or to indicate where I'm going to exit on a roundabout - both on approach and during transit. Doing otherwise just isn't courteous, and is tantamount to dangerous driving.
Years ago I heard a (probably) apocryphal story about the landlady at a similarly named pub in Hertfordshire. The pub in question, in the village of Tillet, was called the Black Cock, and the landlady's name was Lucy Likes.
Were one to address a letter to her the envelope would read:
One of the better posts discussing the ins and outs, but then you go and make a 'glaring' error...
The only way "data" can be plural is if you treat it as the plural of datum, which only makes sense if you are talking about a specific, countable set of data points. The result of an experiment produces data that is a collection of datum, hence ostensibly countable, so using it in the plural form is acceptable.
If, as in the highlighted example, the word 'data' is countably plural you should have used 'are' as the verb:
The result of an experiment produces data that are a collection of datum
Please clearly define what would constitute a fair world
In any interaction with 'x' number of people be prepared to share '1/x' of what you have* with each of them, should they express a need for such, and they the same.
*Note that the 'what you have' is context based. I'm not suggesting you should give random strangers half the contents of your bank account if they ask for it (though that's always an option should you want to). Think more of sharing half your lunch with someone else, as they share half their lunch with you. Note also that what you share need not necessarily be a physical object - it can be as simple as 'spending' time with someone, 'giving' them your attention, or 'sharing' your ride to town.
then, find 1000 people who will agree with your definition, verbatim.
Haha. One thousand out of how many? A thousand? A million? A billion?
And, since we're talking fairness, shouldn't we only require half of them to agree?
There is a kernel of truth, a sliver of a good idea in such a concept. That's my opinion, good or bad.
I confess I'm not sure I see even the faintest sliver of a good idea in the concept that only property owners should be allowed to vote, or that the amount of votes one has is (proportionally) correlated with the amount of property one owns. Could you, perhaps, expand upon this opinion; show me the good...
People need to CARE. Just, that's a tricky one.
Agreed. Compassion is a positive quality which, when applied locally, benefits all - including the compassionate one. The tricky part is perhaps in getting people to realise this simple truth. After that it's mutually reinforcing self interest combined with selflessness...
I did my research, considered it super safe, super cheap, and no big deal to just take a supplement. No prescription needed, and have been doing in for something like 8 years now.
I agree that vitamin D is a safe supplement. Moreover I'd say (from a completely non-scientific, anecdotal, standpoint) it's beneficial during the winter months, when exposure to natural sunlight falls below the "30 mins & 30% skin exposure" figure I recollect, from many many years ago, as recommended to get the daily dose.
The problem I do have with vitamin D supplements is that they are invariably combined with vitamin E, and I have seen studies that suggest too much of that is actively harmful (albeit we're talking a %age increase of risk of negative effects rather than "this is poisonous and is going to kill you").
However, given the (unverifiable) benefits I feel I'm getting from supplementing my vitamin D intake for a few months a year, I'd say it's worth it - if only because I've persuaded myself it's beneficial and hence, via the placebo effect, it actually is beneficial.
./shrug.
Life is too short to worry too much about fractions of a % of absolute risk, or fractions of a penny a day in cost.
These days obsolescence, (especially among the highest-tech goods), is as much a matter of fashion as it is of product failure
Sorry, but FTFY...
The population at large is addicted to having the latest and greatest, with no thought for future generations.
I'm guessing you don't feel that you're speaking for yourself, and you're certainly not speaking for me. If / when I buy something durability (of use) is just about my primary concern. For example the washing machine I bought was chosen based on the 21+ years (and still going) lifespan of my parents' machine. And you'd probably laugh if I told you how old my mobile phone is...
Of course, taking these actions will have negative consequences for 'The Economy'. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - hence my sig. As a species, we need to start living within our means, and to abandon the notion that uncurtailed economic growth is anything other than a social cancer. Instead, we keep "borrowing", (or, more accurately, stealing), the resources that fuel our (largely) hollow and soul-suckingly luxurious lifestyle from future generations. The early investors live the high life, while the later ones, (many of whom either have no choice or haven't even been born yet), get screwed. Population growth makes even mere survival of mankind an iffy proposition in the long term, so we really need to stop treating the Earth as though it's a broken freezer that needs to have all of its contents consumed before they go bad. Our current habits are making us fat and lazy, and they they may eventually bring about the end of mankind.
Well said! 'The Economy' is as much a social construct as it is a science detailing the actions needed to keep everyone fed, clothed, housed, and 'gainfully employed'. And fortunately societies can choose to change...
It is a truism that new systems arise due to a failure of the old...
... but had you lived at the times when Capitalism was emerging, you'd have been vehemently against it, because it was the new, radical and scary thing.
Capitalism, as in private ownership of the means of production, arose, partly, as a result of the "Tragedy of the Commons". (c.f. The "Inclosure Acts".) Certainly this is one 'solution' to the problem, but it's a solution that comes with its own bag of problems, notably the enriching of a few at the expense of the many.
Funnily enough you mention political conservatism as a beneficiary of capitalism but, while you're not wrong, it's only since the late 1970's that the landscape of the political right morphed from being social conservatism, i.e. those elites considering and caring for the plebeian masses - albeit partially only because it was in their self interest to do so (vive la revolution still being somewhat fresh in people's minds), to free market conservatism, i.e. dog eat dog, may the 'best' man win. Of course the problem with the latter is that capital grows capital: if you're at the top it's relatively easy to stay at the top; if you're at the bottom it's extremely difficult to climb out from under all those lying on top of you.
And yeah, it is obvious that given the scale of human technology today, Capitalism, at least on a planetary scale, has exhausted itself. Capitalism is prone to producing exponential solutions. The problem is, these are unfeasible in a world governed by the laws of physics. You need someone to put, so to speak, limits to growth on this solution if you don't want to die in your own poo. And that isn't something Capitalism can do.
Perhaps not quite how I'd have phrased it, but, yeah, pretty much spot on!
While there are some interesting links in your post (though, alas, I'm not a subscriber to Nat Geo so I have no idea if that's 'useful' or not, or how the waste it apparently refers to compares with waste from, for example, mine tailings and coal ash), I'm going to have to draw your attention to something you wrote:
The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay.
Excuse me for saying so, but, other than being a complete non-sequitur, this is akin to saying nuclear power is bad because we can't swim in nuclear waste cooling pools (which is what Lake Karachay was effectively turned into by the Soviets). Well, duh! Reindeer grazing on 'radioactive' moss is bio-accumulation; Setting aside areas to store nuclear waste is not.
If I post an opinion on Nuclear Power, I check my facts before I post.
Just out of curiosity, how are you at checking and accounting for confirmation bias?
That topic was originally posted yesterday, and stimulated a spirited discussion.
One imagines that the editors re-posted the whole discussion back to today's front page to allow more posters to see it (rather than having to browse to "Older News"), revisit it, or contribute to it.
Unusual, I'll admit, but not a completely daft idea - it does seem to have garnered a few more responses since I read through it yesterday.
The cost of, for example, flood barriers are easy to find. The usage statistics for said flood barriers are also easy to find. This is just one very simple, not hard to think of, example that refutes your original statement. You could also look at what insurance companies, those with a specific financial interest in future risks, are doing. Those figures also suggests you're talking out of your arse. Or you could continue to ascribe Scott Adam's rather Republican views to his comic creation, and pretend everything is all right. After all, since he nailed the frustrations of office life, co-workers and pointy haired bosses he's bound to be right about this... (/s)
All of which is beside the point: Money is not the only thing that matters, it's not even the primary concern, not when it comes to climate change any more than when it comes to making sure that everyone is fed, housed, or treated with dignity. That you apparently cannot see this suggests that it is you, not I, who is the sociopath.
Either way, I suspect that further conversation with you on this subject is pointless. I've got better things to do than waste my time debating someone so unwilling to even acknowledge the problems we're facing, let alone do anything about it.
Oh, and btw, that you can even write "You are extrapolating from an uncontested fact (global average temperatures will increase at a rate of 1C/century)" shows your intellectual honesty is approximately zero. I'm not sure if you're lying to yourself or just to me, but you might want to look into that.
Creating and maintaining a 'do not use' list is an obvious way to eliminate the low hanging fruit, but it's by no means sufficient.
That being said, like many others, I'm going to agree that not only is this not really news, because it contains nothing new and no real information, this announcement is actually tantamount to propaganda and nothing more.
When looking at something of this scale, you can't use today's prices. I found several estimates of the rate of decline of cost in battery storage over the next few years and even the conservative ones put it at 70% of today's prices in 5 years. Since pumped storage is a very mature technology, it is unlikely to experience any decline.
An excellent point, in an excellent post.
A good example of this, and frankly I find the difference in figures to be staggering, would be in the comparison between: (from the summary)
"Lazard, the financial advisory and asset management firm, estimates utility scale lithium-ion batteries cost 26 cents per kilowatt-hour compared with 15 cents for pumped hydro storage"
"The table shows molten salt storage to be 33 times less expensive than an electric battery, when comparing the 833 EUR/kWh (electric) to the 25 EUR/kWh (thermal)".
Note that the costs from the last quote are based not on estimates but on a pilot plant which had been built, and the article was written in March of this year. The difference between the two bolded costs is staggering, even allowing that there may be ulterior (marketing) motives at play here.
Given that the first hydroelectric power plant was constructed at Niagara Falls in 1895 I'd say that it would have been a rather unbelievable oversight to not intend to use the Hoover Dam, built over 30 years later, to produce power.
Moreover, how would you even begin to retro-fit all the necessary machinery if it had not been planned for in advance?
Slashdot Mirror
Epigenetic traits do not last more than a few generations and cannot contribute to speciation. It is still the genes that are selected on.
That is a very bold claim, given that epigenetic factors can alter or suppress gene expression and those genes might affect other genes and, hence, potentially all the cellular production machinery.
Other than your 'feelings' on the matter do you have any evidence for your claim - and please remember that a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack (of a potential mechanism)...
are you as good at understanding those reports ...?
In this instance he's basically correct, and although I might take issue with the separation of on and off-shore wind generation, thereby enabling him to state that bio-energy sits in second place when it comes to overall generation the report does also separate them in this way. He also munged all bio-energy into a single figure dismissed as burning imported wood - but, in fairness, since this does make up about 65% of bio-energy production it's hard not to share his dissatisfaction / disdain for the situation (essentially this is mainly due to the conversion of (one) coal plant to burn wood instead which is, at least, better than burning fossil fuels as it doesn't 'technically' add CO2 to the atmosphere, even if it's far from the ideal solution). Baby steps in the right direction are better than no steps, and far better than backward steps...
On the flip side, the year on year capacity increases in renewables leading to today's headline that they have surpassed fossil fuel capacity must make the dinosaurs and the deniers feel very uncomfortable. Hence it's no surprise that their natural reaction is to be dismissive.
Do the sensible thing: feel sorry for them! ;-)
In fact, the data shown in the graph I linked to shows ...
In fact the graph on the NASA site you linked to, and the data it's drawn from, disagree with your assertion that the "largest (hole) was in 2017". The largest was in 2006.
Just more propaganda BS.
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle!
What is clear from the graphs & data is that we, humanity, managed to rapidly alter the composition of the atmosphere (basically over the period of a decade), to the detriment of ourselves, and even now, over 30 years after we did something about it (the Montreal Protocol), the atmosphere has barely begun to recover from the 'damage'.
Furthermore, just from eyeballing the graphs it looks like there is a slight trend towards a yearly reduction in the size of the hole in the ozone layer. Now, I haven't done a serious statistical analysis to demonstrate this - for now I'm fairly happy to take the atmospheric scientists who have at their word - but since you assert that there's "no apparent trend" perhaps you'd be good enough to show your working based on the data you linked to.
It's interesting, although perhaps, given your posting history, not too surprising, that while my main take-away from the NASA data was that natural processes take a long time to restore a 'system' to its original state after we've altered it, compared to the time it took for us to cause that alteration, yours is, apparently, to deny, disagree with, or misrepresent the data. Mind-boggling!
The obvious analogy with CO2 induced warming is glaring...
"Go." is the shortest complete sentence in the English language.
Q: What is the first person singular pronoun?
A: "I."
Q: Is the quoted factoid correct?
A: "No."
What the article writer seems to miss in my mind is that UBI needs to go hand-in-hand with a reasonable minimum wage.
I actually see it the other way around: to be practicable UBI needs to go hand in hand with the abolition of minimum wage. After all, the only way of paying for UBI is taxation, and, since taxing those you're paying UBI to doesn't make any logical sense, the most likely source of that tax revenue is corporations. Now, because we don't want the corporations to simply raise their prices (in order to maintain their current level of profits) resulting in a vicious spiral of rising prices -> rising UBI to pay for those goods -> rising taxes to fund UBI -> rising prices, the only way for them to make or maintain their profits is to reduce their costs: and the only practicable way to do that is to reduce their wage bills, which means doing away with the minimum wage.
UBI shouldn't be a way for government to simply provide cheaper labour for corporate entities
Again, I see this differently. UBI covers the basic needs of your population: accommodation, food, and healthcare, with perhaps a trivial amount of discretionary spending thrown in. The government should not be in the business of supplying their population with luxuries, or funding an extravagant 'consumer' lifestyle. Companies, on the other hand, will continue to compete for top talent based on the wages they offer, and will pay as little as possible to fill their other job openings. It is worth pointing out though that, since everyone now has their basic needs met, the bottom end of the job market is no longer going to be filled by people desperate to get paid something, anything, in order to be able to afford their next meal. In other words companies will, by necessity, have to pay rather more that you might initially think in order to fill those positions too.
Now, I'm happy to admit that I 'might' be wrong in my analysis, it is after all a very complex political / economic web in which we live, but, in the broad strokes, I don't think so. I would be interested in hearing your, further, thoughts on the matter though...
... the measured polarization of the output photons was consistent with their being no definite causal order between when A and B was applied.
Their what? Their being? Strangely, the sentence would, sort of, make sense if there was a full stop after the word being, but otherwise I think the word you were looking for was 'there'.
Next time a journalist asks why it's so hard to write error-free code feel free to point this gem out.
(Excuse rant, cuppa required!)
I pretty much agree with your post, except:
The Milgram experiment proved that it's trivial for otherwise well-adjusted humans who are polite and civilized to become exactly that kind of monster.
It proved nothing of the sort; the experiements were misrepresented (and 'selectively' reported) both by Milgram himself and subsequent generations, and the intuitively appealing (shock!) idea has entered our culture as a 'scientific fact'.
I'm afraid you'll need a need a New Scientist sub, or access to the March 14th issue, to read the rather less shocking reality of his experiments, and what they did and didn't show about human nature.
Cigarettes are not legal for kids. Not anywhere civilised.
And neither is vaping, not where I live in the UK, nor in the USA.
Nor should e-cigarettes with addictive components be but the law was slow to catch up.
Unfortunately true: it took until 2016 'til the FDA started regulating them. This article is surprisingly balanced and informative when it comes to the benefits and downsides in the vaping / smoking debate.
Nicotine dependence isn't something to encourage in children especially if they are being given the message "this stuff doesn't harm you" which is what e-cigarettes are claiming (though give it 30 years and that might turn out to be a mistake).
While I completely agree with the first part of this statement the second part is only partially true. And, despite what the manufacturers might claim, most governments and health professionals are distinctly more circumspect when discussing vaping: Vaping can be an effective method in cessation of smoking; vaping is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.
I don't think you can argue that children shouldn't be consuming something known to be highly addictive, which shouldn't be available to them, even if the end-result isn't directly damaging to their lungs.
And, no, sugar etc. isn't addictive, and even alcohol isn't nearly as addictive and is regulated for minors just as tough.
People can argue all sorts of shit that's clearly wrong. It's one of the great wonders of the social world in which we live. As to whether sugar is addictive I guess that would somewhat depend on how one defines addiction - tbh I couldn't care less one way or another. It is, or perhaps I should say more than small quantities are, harmful to us however. For all that though I prefer the gentle nudge of taxation to a heavy handed ban for any of these things - I just wish more companies had the stomach to continue to manufacture their soft drinks with sugar and charge the higher price: in the UK now virtually every 'soda' is, for me, undrinkable, as they all contain vile tasting artificial sweeteners rather than sugar. I'd have happily (ok, that's a lie - I'd have grudgingly) paid the extra price, instead I've just stopped buying them - not that the loss of sales of one to two dozen cans a year is going to put anyone out of business. Ah well, at least I will be able to point to this as an example of a government nudge that had the 'desired' effect despite the personal annoyance. </end digression>
Then how do you explain new results that show vaping to be nearly as harmful as smoking, just in very different ways?
Without perusing the 'new results' I'd say any explanation for them is premature.
Unlike the GP, who did provide a link to his sources, you don't say which 'new results' you're referring to though, or where you read them.
Care to share?
But even just in the acknowledgments, there is the claim:
I was exceedingly fortunate to encounter mindfulness at the hands of our extraordinary
teachers, [names]; no amount
of research could have conveyed to me the wealth of nuances and implications of practice that
they embody so effortlessly. For that, and for the true privilege of meeting and working with
them, I am especially thankful.
(Emphasis added)
Yeah. OK. At least we're on the same page about how your research sits relative to knowledge that can be conveyed through research. :)
I'd never heard of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory before today, so I'm not in a position to comment on the consistency or otherwise of it, or the validity of their claims for it, but I'm not sure I see why you single out that quote, other than flippancy. The obvious meaning is akin to the distinction between reading about something and experiencing that same thing in person. For many things in life (going parachuting, eating a fine meal, having sex, coming face to face with an angry grizzly bear, etc.) the two are not even remotely comparable.
We're talking about Japan here. At least make it a Haiku (a polite one of course):
Sorry, so sorry.
Working here was delightful.
A new job calls me.
Why not ask the 'new model' to tell the 'old model' she's history?
And if you can get the confrontation on camera: bonus! That'd be Youtube gold.
As an added bonus, if the 'old model' actually wins you can honestly tell her that the woman she just had that fracas with was a psychopath and that you'll never date anyone but her as long as she's alive...
The patent extends the concept to reduce the rate of false negatives by checking to see if a turn signal would actually even benefit anyone, and if not, not bothering to turn it on... "Is another vehicle in the vicinity that would benefit?"
What about people?
When I'm walking down a road and reach a side road I need to cross if there's a car approaching parallel to me I'll pause and check to see if its indicators are flashing before I cross - call it a sensible self preservation tactic. Not that it's a particularly useful tactic though, as it's almost funny how many drivers only indicate after I've stepped into the road. My right of way at that point is somewhat moot.
Honestly this strikes me as just another aid in training bad drivers to be completely lazy and oblivious to everything around them.
It's largely because I can put myself in my own shoes and because I'm sure that I'm not always going to see pedestrians, cyclists, motorbikes, or even other cars that, when driving, I always indicate when I'm about to make a turn or to indicate where I'm going to exit on a roundabout - both on approach and during transit. Doing otherwise just isn't courteous, and is tantamount to dangerous driving.
Years ago I heard a (probably) apocryphal story about the landlady at a similarly named pub in Hertfordshire. The pub in question, in the village of Tillet, was called the Black Cock, and the landlady's name was Lucy Likes.
Were one to address a letter to her the envelope would read:
Lucy Likes
The Black Cock
Tillet
Herts.
One of the better posts discussing the ins and outs, but then you go and make a 'glaring' error...
The only way "data" can be plural is if you treat it as the plural of datum, which only makes sense if you are talking about a specific, countable set of data points. The result of an experiment produces data that is a collection of datum, hence ostensibly countable, so using it in the plural form is acceptable.
If, as in the highlighted example, the word 'data' is countably plural you should have used 'are' as the verb:
The result of an experiment produces data that are a collection of datum
./troll
Please clearly define what would constitute a fair world
In any interaction with 'x' number of people be prepared to share '1/x' of what you have* with each of them, should they express a need for such, and they the same.
*Note that the 'what you have' is context based. I'm not suggesting you should give random strangers half the contents of your bank account if they ask for it (though that's always an option should you want to). Think more of sharing half your lunch with someone else, as they share half their lunch with you. Note also that what you share need not necessarily be a physical object - it can be as simple as 'spending' time with someone, 'giving' them your attention, or 'sharing' your ride to town.
then, find 1000 people who will agree with your definition, verbatim.
Haha. One thousand out of how many? A thousand? A million? A billion?
And, since we're talking fairness, shouldn't we only require half of them to agree?
There is a kernel of truth, a sliver of a good idea in such a concept. That's my opinion, good or bad.
I confess I'm not sure I see even the faintest sliver of a good idea in the concept that only property owners should be allowed to vote, or that the amount of votes one has is (proportionally) correlated with the amount of property one owns. Could you, perhaps, expand upon this opinion; show me the good...
People need to CARE. Just, that's a tricky one.
Agreed. Compassion is a positive quality which, when applied locally, benefits all - including the compassionate one. The tricky part is perhaps in getting people to realise this simple truth. After that it's mutually reinforcing self interest combined with selflessness...
I did my research, considered it super safe, super cheap, and no big deal to just take a supplement. No prescription needed, and have been doing in for something like 8 years now.
I agree that vitamin D is a safe supplement. Moreover I'd say (from a completely non-scientific, anecdotal, standpoint) it's beneficial during the winter months, when exposure to natural sunlight falls below the "30 mins & 30% skin exposure" figure I recollect, from many many years ago, as recommended to get the daily dose.
The problem I do have with vitamin D supplements is that they are invariably combined with vitamin E, and I have seen studies that suggest too much of that is actively harmful (albeit we're talking a %age increase of risk of negative effects rather than "this is poisonous and is going to kill you").
However, given the (unverifiable) benefits I feel I'm getting from supplementing my vitamin D intake for a few months a year, I'd say it's worth it - if only because I've persuaded myself it's beneficial and hence, via the placebo effect, it actually is beneficial.
./shrug.
Life is too short to worry too much about fractions of a % of absolute risk, or fractions of a penny a day in cost.
These days obsolescence, (especially among the highest-tech goods), is as much a matter of fashion as it is of product failure
Sorry, but FTFY...
The population at large is addicted to having the latest and greatest, with no thought for future generations.
I'm guessing you don't feel that you're speaking for yourself, and you're certainly not speaking for me. If / when I buy something durability (of use) is just about my primary concern. For example the washing machine I bought was chosen based on the 21+ years (and still going) lifespan of my parents' machine. And you'd probably laugh if I told you how old my mobile phone is...
Of course, taking these actions will have negative consequences for 'The Economy'. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing - hence my sig. As a species, we need to start living within our means, and to abandon the notion that uncurtailed economic growth is anything other than a social cancer. Instead, we keep "borrowing", (or, more accurately, stealing), the resources that fuel our (largely) hollow and soul-suckingly luxurious lifestyle from future generations. The early investors live the high life, while the later ones, (many of whom either have no choice or haven't even been born yet), get screwed. Population growth makes even mere survival of mankind an iffy proposition in the long term, so we really need to stop treating the Earth as though it's a broken freezer that needs to have all of its contents consumed before they go bad. Our current habits are making us fat and lazy, and they they may eventually bring about the end of mankind.
Well said! 'The Economy' is as much a social construct as it is a science detailing the actions needed to keep everyone fed, clothed, housed, and 'gainfully employed'. And fortunately societies can choose to change...
It is a truism that new systems arise due to a failure of the old...
... but had you lived at the times when Capitalism was emerging, you'd have been vehemently against it, because it was the new, radical and scary thing.
Capitalism, as in private ownership of the means of production, arose, partly, as a result of the "Tragedy of the Commons". (c.f. The "Inclosure Acts".) Certainly this is one 'solution' to the problem, but it's a solution that comes with its own bag of problems, notably the enriching of a few at the expense of the many.
Funnily enough you mention political conservatism as a beneficiary of capitalism but, while you're not wrong, it's only since the late 1970's that the landscape of the political right morphed from being social conservatism, i.e. those elites considering and caring for the plebeian masses - albeit partially only because it was in their self interest to do so (vive la revolution still being somewhat fresh in people's minds), to free market conservatism, i.e. dog eat dog, may the 'best' man win. Of course the problem with the latter is that capital grows capital: if you're at the top it's relatively easy to stay at the top; if you're at the bottom it's extremely difficult to climb out from under all those lying on top of you.
And yeah, it is obvious that given the scale of human technology today, Capitalism, at least on a planetary scale, has exhausted itself. Capitalism is prone to producing exponential solutions. The problem is, these are unfeasible in a world governed by the laws of physics. You need someone to put, so to speak, limits to growth on this solution if you don't want to die in your own poo. And that isn't something Capitalism can do.
Perhaps not quite how I'd have phrased it, but, yeah, pretty much spot on!
While there are some interesting links in your post (though, alas, I'm not a subscriber to Nat Geo so I have no idea if that's 'useful' or not, or how the waste it apparently refers to compares with waste from, for example, mine tailings and coal ash), I'm going to have to draw your attention to something you wrote:
The various mechanisms the man made radio isotope make it into the foodchain is process called bio-accumulate. If that wasn't a problem then we would be able to swim in places like Lake Karachay.
Excuse me for saying so, but, other than being a complete non-sequitur, this is akin to saying nuclear power is bad because we can't swim in nuclear waste cooling pools (which is what Lake Karachay was effectively turned into by the Soviets). Well, duh! Reindeer grazing on 'radioactive' moss is bio-accumulation; Setting aside areas to store nuclear waste is not.
If I post an opinion on Nuclear Power, I check my facts before I post.
Just out of curiosity, how are you at checking and accounting for confirmation bias?
That topic was originally posted yesterday, and stimulated a spirited discussion.
One imagines that the editors re-posted the whole discussion back to today's front page to allow more posters to see it (rather than having to browse to "Older News"), revisit it, or contribute to it.
Unusual, I'll admit, but not a completely daft idea - it does seem to have garnered a few more responses since I read through it yesterday.
The cost of, for example, flood barriers are easy to find. The usage statistics for said flood barriers are also easy to find. This is just one very simple, not hard to think of, example that refutes your original statement. You could also look at what insurance companies, those with a specific financial interest in future risks, are doing. Those figures also suggests you're talking out of your arse. Or you could continue to ascribe Scott Adam's rather Republican views to his comic creation, and pretend everything is all right. After all, since he nailed the frustrations of office life, co-workers and pointy haired bosses he's bound to be right about this... (/s)
All of which is beside the point: Money is not the only thing that matters, it's not even the primary concern, not when it comes to climate change any more than when it comes to making sure that everyone is fed, housed, or treated with dignity. That you apparently cannot see this suggests that it is you, not I, who is the sociopath.
Either way, I suspect that further conversation with you on this subject is pointless. I've got better things to do than waste my time debating someone so unwilling to even acknowledge the problems we're facing, let alone do anything about it.
Oh, and btw, that you can even write "You are extrapolating from an uncontested fact (global average temperatures will increase at a rate of 1C/century)" shows your intellectual honesty is approximately zero. I'm not sure if you're lying to yourself or just to me, but you might want to look into that.
No software should be 'trusted' for critical tasks*. All software should be treated as being potentially compromised.
Here's a recent example that highlights this point.
Creating and maintaining a 'do not use' list is an obvious way to eliminate the low hanging fruit, but it's by no means sufficient.
That being said, like many others, I'm going to agree that not only is this not really news, because it contains nothing new and no real information, this announcement is actually tantamount to propaganda and nothing more.
*Catch 22: Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?
When looking at something of this scale, you can't use today's prices. I found several estimates of the rate of decline of cost in battery storage over the next few years and even the conservative ones put it at 70% of today's prices in 5 years. Since pumped storage is a very mature technology, it is unlikely to experience any decline.
An excellent point, in an excellent post.
A good example of this, and frankly I find the difference in figures to be staggering, would be in the comparison between: (from the summary)
"Lazard, the financial advisory and asset management firm, estimates utility scale lithium-ion batteries cost 26 cents per kilowatt-hour compared with 15 cents for pumped hydro storage"
and (from here)
"The table shows molten salt storage to be 33 times less expensive than an electric battery, when comparing the 833 EUR/kWh (electric) to the 25 EUR/kWh (thermal)".
Note that the costs from the last quote are based not on estimates but on a pilot plant which had been built, and the article was written in March of this year. The difference between the two bolded costs is staggering, even allowing that there may be ulterior (marketing) motives at play here.
Given that the first hydroelectric power plant was constructed at Niagara Falls in 1895 I'd say that it would have been a rather unbelievable oversight to not intend to use the Hoover Dam, built over 30 years later, to produce power.
Moreover, how would you even begin to retro-fit all the necessary machinery if it had not been planned for in advance?