Even though this sounds outlandish, there is no doubt in my mind that if he says it, it will be true. Vitalik is a genius comparable to the likes of Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange, and so on. Years ago when bitcoin was in its infancy slashdotters were very eager to shoot it down as a non-starter that will never be worth collectively more than a couple thousand dollars. If anything, there is a very strong trend indicating that if something is laughed at at slashdot, it will be a great success.
It'll blast off as soon as crypto currencies become widely used by common people for everyday transactions, like buying their groceries, paying their mortgage, or filling up their car. It'll take off so fast everyone's heads will never stop spinning. Until then, everything is speculation. Bitcoin, Etherium, and the like may be superseded by yet more superior crypto currencies, maybe governments will continue embracing, maybe they will become the most secure way of transacting business, or maybe they will unreliable once it hits mainstream? Whatever challenges come up, I'm sure they will meet them head on and adapt as needed, but who knows what the future will hold.
As for your wide disparaging remarks about slashdot readers, I suggest taking more nuanced approach. Anytime you mention any idea to a wide group of people you're going to get a lot of diversity in opinions. There will always be nay-say'ers. Negative remarks from the few shouldn't lead you to generalize the many. We are pre-programmed to do this at the most primal level so it's not easy to undo. It's why we love to cling to our racism, prejudices, and stereotypes even though we claim to be cured of them all the time.
"Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.
Models are made, data is gathered and compared with the model, models get refined. Welcome to science. That doesn't "admit the models are wrong", merely that there are variables - many of them, in this case - that we don't know with accuracy.
Reading the way you phrased this slapped my brain kind of funny. It's almost as some people treat science like another religion instead of science being just science? When it comes to religion, If you point out something contradictory/wrong in a religious text, that's blasphemy and creates a visceral reaction. The religion's truth is at stake. It creates a shouting match and people hate each other, use it to discredit one another, because the whole thing is at risk of toppling. Science on the other hand is a tad different. You point out something contradictory/wrong in a scientific text, it still creates a visceral reaction from academics that published it, but it's expected. The scientific truth is at stake but if it's found to be false it's just replaced with something that may not be better but at least it's more accurate. They still have a shouting match and hate each other, they still try to discredit one another, but the "wars" never leave the sphere of funding and academic backstabbing. The whole thing is never going to topple, nor is it ever at risk of toppling. But it seems like the people that attack parts of science are under the impression that it will topple?
As it happens, insurance companies are experts at calculating risks and costs. I expect over time they'll get involved in cyber security in a similar way as they are involved in greatly reducing fire risk.
That's quite an imperfect analogy. You're comparing products they sell and underwrite vs their own personal best practices, but let's ignore that for now because regardless the cyber experience is just not there at insurance companies right now. Insurance companies, even those like mine offering cyber coverage, don't have boots on the ground like they did for fire & allied lines. When it comes to fire, insurance companies employ (and still have) claims adjusters who had physical experience from looking at properties damaged in fires and investigating their causes. They do outsource sometimes too but a majority of the time they don't. Should they be hiring claims adjusters that are experienced in cyber forensics? Yes, I'm surprised they're not. Maybe they will *someday* but they don't right now. At my company they rely on outsourcing *all of it* it. The elephant in the room we're all being forced to see here is cyber attacks carry a far steeper and more dynamic sophistication than fires. Don't get me wrong, fires are sophisticated but it's a completely different playing field. I don't think we have to go through the laundry list of why they're so different but we can.
In fact, I'm actually going to take your example and use it to beat you to death with it. Let me point out terribly unfortunate flaws. Insurance companies first started covering fire in the early 1700's. The UL wasn't founded until 1896 and the NFPA wasn't founded until 1896. Yes, that's almost 200 years later. YIKES. So those organizations make awfully terrible examples of "prowess" by insurance companies. As an insider I can tell you when it comes to technology insurance companies lag the rest of the world, not the other way around. But you are right they will figure it out, eventually.
For a thousand bucks or so, Equifax could have had our company inspecting their tools daily, scanning for any accessible systems with security issues, including the issues in the Struts plugins.
I mean that's nice to get a report of vulnerabilities but what about actually patching them up. My company uses services like yours, and yet we have servers staying unpatched for more than a decade. Sure, there are mitigating protocols put into place but there's just so much "technical debt" with old software, servers, processes. Companies don't want to pony up the costs and resources to fix this crap. Good intentions are failing to keep companies secure, perhaps it's time to talk beyond costs and penalties and bring some real punishments into the picture?
He promises human flight to the ISS, then shows us the space, oh wait, I mean flight suit, that will be worn by travelers.
When will he show us what he promised to show us?
If every company showed nothing until everything was done we'd have quite a boring (and probably poor performing) market. This stuff, the sneak peaks, gets people excited about things now and makes them eager to see more. That's how it always works, I'm sure you weren't born yesterday? Instead of criticizing them for not delivering human space flight ahead of schedule, save your criticism for next year when they fail to meet their actual '18 Q2 delivery time. Then you'll actually have some ground to stand on!
I must have read a dozen articles over the past 5 years talking about folks have developed a new battery tech that's "game changing" better than current tech. News outlets love showcasing headlines but never followup on why these things don't pan out.
I don't know what it is for everywhere, but I can tell you what it is for a farm that is producing well. That would be "whatever it currently is." I'm pretty sure the answer will never be hotter. In fact, in my neck of the woods, the peach crop was ruined this year because we didn't get enough cold hours. Provided this is a trend, it will destroy the entire industry here. Take that, and multiply it times every field everywhere, and then you can see the true "cost" of global climate change.
Another prediction that won't come true. From Vice.com no less, the bastion of academic thought. They don't troll for clicks ever.
I think we've reached peak bullshit. This will only discredit global warming further.
Bad science is still bad science, no matter which side of the coin you're on regarding climate change. This just exacerbates the argument for both sides.
Investors are precisely those who IGNORE climate change! It is because of investors that we are in this mess.
I mean I know it's dropping but you're still talking about the majority of Americans http://www.gallup.com/poll/190... There's also plenty of people that know diddly squat about financial markets but still denying climate change, so what about them?
You're also ignoring the fact there are plenty of investors also investing in green energy sources. It's how those projects get off the ground. So really, it sure sounds you're throwing a blanket statement out there with no regard to its accuracy. But I bet it probably feels good being confident about blaming one group of so-called rich entitled people rather a nebulous crowd of everyone and their grandma. I think the group of people you're trying to blame is: all of humanity's, for its lack of foresight and refusal to change after the cheese moved.
If we can use some gas to trap heat, can we use it to maintain extremely hot conditions? Sun-level temperatures? Not questioning the report here (not agreeing with it). But the way summary was posited is dumb. Neither CO2, nor methane trap heat. they slightly increase the drag on the outflow of the heat from the planet surface.
Yes you can actually, *if* you have enough of it and keep adding enough energy going fast enough to keep accumulating heat. Is it going to happen? No, not unless you're God playing minecraft. But yes, you're exactly right that we're talking about *slowing* heat escape, so are the authors. What's essentially happening on almost every planetary bodies in the solar system is balance of energy between multiple sources. While heat is escaping from the planet's core, which warms the surface a little as the body core cools, additional heat is being added to the planet via the sun. The temperate of the planet, or more importantly for us the *surface* temperature of the Earth, is essentially the balance between the two. However this is further complicated by atmospheres, which many but not all planetary bodies have, whose effects work in both directions. Atmospheres mute the drastic changes and also help trap heat, slowing its escape. Our moon doesn't have an atmosphere which is why it sees such extreme variations in temperature. Just another interesting note, the Earth's core temperature is about the same as the surface of the sun (but not the sun's core, which is much hotter). However we don't burn up alive because all that stuff between us and our sweltering core is also trapping heat, i.e. slowing its escape before it reaches us.
If you're picking a bone over the "trap" terminology you can supply your own term but that is already a commonly used term by most people in the community to describe exactly that process. It almost seems like you were accusing experts of making a trivial mistake, but really it was the other way around.
No one is claiming that greenhouse gasses trap all the heat, only that they reduce the heat flow. The term "heat trap" is not intended to imply that all heat is trapped, it is neither insightful not useful to pretend to be confused on the subject.
Easy, he's just ignorant on the topic. He wasn't pretending to be confused, he was confused! Instead, attack his real mistakes which was not only his ignorance of the topic, followed up by arrogance to spontaneously know the topic better than the original authors (because of course he didn't know enough to know he didn't know). Classic Dunning Kruger stuff, which effects us all lol.
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production.
If you would have said warming isn't necessarily *all* bad, you'd be a lot more accurate. There will be some benefits, for sure. But overall the bad is expected to outweigh the good. It's easier to measure the impact in terms of costs, rather than "cans" and "can'ts". Because yes, of course we *can* survive it all and do all sorts of technological wonders combating the negative effects, but what is it going to cost? We're going to having rebuild/retrofit/move our coastal areas which encompass many major cities. We're going to have to shift our agricultural production regions, not just crops but livestock too. "Hot spots" might become quite inhospitable where susceptible people may not leave the house for more than a few hours (infants/elderly) or impede outdoor day jobs for everyone else. Then the oceans, oh the oceans. Don't know where to start on that one, let's just leave it at wild seafood may become a delicacy.
I'm going to throw a dart and say we're talking about not 10's but 100's of trillions of pure USD. Not counting the impact in human costs. That's the problem.
Barely enough to supply power to Ireland
To really make a difference it would need to be about 450GW
You make it sound like that's not an accomplishment? An entire country on one power plant? If that's not making a difference you're not thinking about this in the right mindset.
Anyway, I wonder if anyone has attempted in doing some math on supply & demand for fossil fuels. Pretending they do *actually* build this thing, maybe another or two, which is a big pretend. How is this going to affect pricing of fossil fuels? What will 5% less demand in Europe correlate to, regarding the prices? 5% in lockstep, or more than 5%? Is it going to retip the balance back in favor of using fossil fuels again? That's gotta be on someone's mind, I just haven't come across any studies or articles on it. I imagine turning it into an competitively romantic tango over the next 50 years of who is cheaper. All the while, falling energy pricing might benefit consumers quite a bit.
Dogs are omnivores. They need meat but they do better with a varied diet like us.They love sweet potato for example. However those lunatics who insist their dogs are "vegetarian" are harming their dogs.
Dogs also love chocolate? My friend also love heroin, does this makes him a drugavore? Have you ever seen a horse eat a chicken? It's not a simple A, B, or C answer. It has nothing to do with what they enjoy, it's what their bodies are built to do. Some carnivores can eat plant matter and still some get nutrients out of it. Some herbivores can eat flesh and still get some nutrients out of it. Some carnivores are terrible at digesting "herbivore foods", like cats. Some carnivores are better at it than cats, like dogs. But dogs still have teeth built for tearing flesh, short GI tracts, and don't produce amylase. The reality is, mammals have evolved to maximize their capability for survival which means there is always some flexibility to adapt to their environment. That's why things in reality aren't as simple as they were taught in high school biology class. All that being said, can we engineer a specific diet to let a dog survive on a non-meat diet? Possibly. That doesn't make it an omnivore or an herbivore though.
Ok so, in order to save the plant for their kids, all rational, liberal people will not have kids because it increases their footprint like nothing else and now won't have pets...
I sense an oncoming wave of depression driven suicide attempts culling the herd to make way for Idiocracy.
This is why when I purchased my Prius in 2014 I was also awarded a license to run random people over. It's the fastest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions!
In all seriousness I highly doubt most rational people (liberal or otherwise) are using the argument of the environment as the reason for not having kids (or fewer kids). This is much, much more controlled by their career, perceived costs, personal self interests (e.g. time and leisure), and environment. So that means idiocracy is still coming!:)
Seafood isn't meat? You must be, or were raised, Catholic.
Can't speak for other countries but this language permeates all of the US, certainly not just Catholics (only ~20% of population here). There is often a strong association of meat only coming from mammals. Even sometimes, sometimes, blasphemously even excluding chicken! Heretics. Human language can be such an odd, and very imprecise, thing.
This is why we should all speak in binary moving forward.
The US is a fearful country where the people have more power than the government (relative to China & Russia). Nobody wants it in their backyard. Even if construction costs were cut in half, it would still be an enormous uphill battle. I support safe nuclear energy production but realistically it's just very unlikely to ever happen here in light of the current state of affairs.
That is a nearly meaningless sentence. There is no good way to meaningfully value private companies unless they sell a piece of themselves and even then you really are only getting one party's opinion of what they are worth unlike in a proper secondary market. So hypothetically if I were to buy 5% of SpaceX for $1 billion, I am implicitly saying that I value SpaceX at $20 billion. That is basically what happened here. But that doesn't really mean it is actually worth that in the wider market because of the problem of the winner's curse. Someone ponied up a lot of money in a funding round but one has to be careful to not extrapolate that one opinion too far.
As accurate as your statement is, it will never stop people from making valuations of private companies using *exactly* that logic.
I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.
Or entirely brilliant? Now they can play the victim story of how their right to protest is being trampled on. Nah, I'm probably giving them too much credit.
This is really an excellent thing to do. If they have the resources in counselors to handle it, it's really a great idea, and it could be a real help to the US education system at large. So many of the country's political, social, environmental, and economic problems come from people not thinking ahead. I'd love to see this go into place. I think this would help knock some sense into a lot of people who've never stopped to think for a few minutes about the future. I think something this simple could really nudge a generation of kids into some basic thoughtfulness.
I agree this is an interesting and well intentioned idea but this the wrong way to go about it. Yes, I completely agree that kids not having a clear idea of what to do after highschool is a big problem. So let's force them to come up with an idea in order to graduate? Yeah, that's not going to work... it's a top down solution to a bottom up problem. Why kids aren't *already* planning about life after highschool is the real problem. Kids not having plans after graduation is merely a symptom.
Trying to litigate your way to improving social behavior just isn't very effective. Improving highschool education and improving parenting is the better (but much harder) route.
This does touch on a point I missed. It's not terribly hard to make it look easy to get a cheap degree that will let you find a job that not only pays well but also has healthy demand. Unfortunately people often pick the wrong degrees. In my previous post I spent more effort on trying to explain not everyone needs a degree at all. Like many (not all) of listed here: http://www.lifehack.org/articl...
Point is, people need to get better at picking realistic careers.
His argument was that the CPI isn't a great calculator for inflation, truly, as it applies to the lower classes in terms of mobility, for reasons he listed that seem reasonable. I didn't verify them, but they sound like a good opening salvo for an argument.
You then claim he's wrong by showing CPI calculated inflation.
You hurt my brain, sir.
Whether he's right or wrong, all you've done is shown you can't actually formulate an argument.
Trying to understand your criticism is hurting my brain. All you've done is shown you prefer criticizing instead of trying to understand and you expect other people to formulate arguments in your personal preferred style. So let me try dumbing it down it for you instead.
First paragraph: can't have such a narrow view of benchmarking minimum wage to class mobility. Sure, it has the best of intentions in mind but it's naive and completely ignores actual daily needs.
Second paragraph: blindly throwing post secondary education at everyone is not a silver bullet. People still need to choose a successful path on their own, many paths exist that don't require post secondary education. This is a hard problem because it's also societal, not just financial.
Third paragraph: commentary regarding exploding education costs spiraling out of control, much of the added costs are for purely non-academic reasons
The power companies are still going to charge the same amount people are paying now even though they're buying less energy. I don't know how much the spend on the actual fuel for their power plants but I doubt their overall operating costs would go down much.
You're absolutely right and to make matters worse for them, this is going to only tip the scale away from them even faster. As the cost per kwh climbs, the financial sense of switching to an offgrid system is going to look even more attractive. Should be interesting to see how that unfolds! I'm sure taxpayers will get the short end of the stick regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though this sounds outlandish, there is no doubt in my mind that if he says it, it will be true. Vitalik is a genius comparable to the likes of Newton, Leibniz, Lagrange, and so on. Years ago when bitcoin was in its infancy slashdotters were very eager to shoot it down as a non-starter that will never be worth collectively more than a couple thousand dollars. If anything, there is a very strong trend indicating that if something is laughed at at slashdot, it will be a great success.
It'll blast off as soon as crypto currencies become widely used by common people for everyday transactions, like buying their groceries, paying their mortgage, or filling up their car. It'll take off so fast everyone's heads will never stop spinning. Until then, everything is speculation. Bitcoin, Etherium, and the like may be superseded by yet more superior crypto currencies, maybe governments will continue embracing, maybe they will become the most secure way of transacting business, or maybe they will unreliable once it hits mainstream? Whatever challenges come up, I'm sure they will meet them head on and adapt as needed, but who knows what the future will hold.
As for your wide disparaging remarks about slashdot readers, I suggest taking more nuanced approach. Anytime you mention any idea to a wide group of people you're going to get a lot of diversity in opinions. There will always be nay-say'ers. Negative remarks from the few shouldn't lead you to generalize the many. We are pre-programmed to do this at the most primal level so it's not easy to undo. It's why we love to cling to our racism, prejudices, and stereotypes even though we claim to be cured of them all the time.
"Fully admitting the models are wrong" is curious - no, make that furious - way to spin that study.
Models are made, data is gathered and compared with the model, models get refined. Welcome to science. That doesn't "admit the models are wrong", merely that there are variables - many of them, in this case - that we don't know with accuracy.
Reading the way you phrased this slapped my brain kind of funny. It's almost as some people treat science like another religion instead of science being just science? When it comes to religion, If you point out something contradictory/wrong in a religious text, that's blasphemy and creates a visceral reaction. The religion's truth is at stake. It creates a shouting match and people hate each other, use it to discredit one another, because the whole thing is at risk of toppling. Science on the other hand is a tad different. You point out something contradictory/wrong in a scientific text, it still creates a visceral reaction from academics that published it, but it's expected. The scientific truth is at stake but if it's found to be false it's just replaced with something that may not be better but at least it's more accurate. They still have a shouting match and hate each other, they still try to discredit one another, but the "wars" never leave the sphere of funding and academic backstabbing. The whole thing is never going to topple, nor is it ever at risk of toppling. But it seems like the people that attack parts of science are under the impression that it will topple?
>
As it happens, insurance companies are experts at calculating risks and costs. I expect over time they'll get involved in cyber security in a similar way as they are involved in greatly reducing fire risk.
That's quite an imperfect analogy. You're comparing products they sell and underwrite vs their own personal best practices, but let's ignore that for now because regardless the cyber experience is just not there at insurance companies right now. Insurance companies, even those like mine offering cyber coverage, don't have boots on the ground like they did for fire & allied lines. When it comes to fire, insurance companies employ (and still have) claims adjusters who had physical experience from looking at properties damaged in fires and investigating their causes. They do outsource sometimes too but a majority of the time they don't. Should they be hiring claims adjusters that are experienced in cyber forensics? Yes, I'm surprised they're not. Maybe they will *someday* but they don't right now. At my company they rely on outsourcing *all of it* it. The elephant in the room we're all being forced to see here is cyber attacks carry a far steeper and more dynamic sophistication than fires. Don't get me wrong, fires are sophisticated but it's a completely different playing field. I don't think we have to go through the laundry list of why they're so different but we can.
In fact, I'm actually going to take your example and use it to beat you to death with it. Let me point out terribly unfortunate flaws. Insurance companies first started covering fire in the early 1700's. The UL wasn't founded until 1896 and the NFPA wasn't founded until 1896. Yes, that's almost 200 years later. YIKES. So those organizations make awfully terrible examples of "prowess" by insurance companies. As an insider I can tell you when it comes to technology insurance companies lag the rest of the world, not the other way around. But you are right they will figure it out, eventually.
For a thousand bucks or so, Equifax could have had our company inspecting their tools daily, scanning for any accessible systems with security issues, including the issues in the Struts plugins.
I mean that's nice to get a report of vulnerabilities but what about actually patching them up. My company uses services like yours, and yet we have servers staying unpatched for more than a decade. Sure, there are mitigating protocols put into place but there's just so much "technical debt" with old software, servers, processes. Companies don't want to pony up the costs and resources to fix this crap. Good intentions are failing to keep companies secure, perhaps it's time to talk beyond costs and penalties and bring some real punishments into the picture?
He's like a car salesman that starts by showing you the cup holders.
He promises us the Hyperloop, then shows us the inside of its cabin.
He promises human flight to the ISS, then shows us the space, oh wait, I mean flight suit, that will be worn by travelers.
When will he show us what he promised to show us?
If every company showed nothing until everything was done we'd have quite a boring (and probably poor performing) market. This stuff, the sneak peaks, gets people excited about things now and makes them eager to see more. That's how it always works, I'm sure you weren't born yesterday? Instead of criticizing them for not delivering human space flight ahead of schedule, save your criticism for next year when they fail to meet their actual '18 Q2 delivery time. Then you'll actually have some ground to stand on!
I must have read a dozen articles over the past 5 years talking about folks have developed a new battery tech that's "game changing" better than current tech. News outlets love showcasing headlines but never followup on why these things don't pan out.
I don't know what it is for everywhere, but I can tell you what it is for a farm that is producing well. That would be "whatever it currently is." I'm pretty sure the answer will never be hotter. In fact, in my neck of the woods, the peach crop was ruined this year because we didn't get enough cold hours. Provided this is a trend, it will destroy the entire industry here. Take that, and multiply it times every field everywhere, and then you can see the true "cost" of global climate change.
This was a better response than mine!
Another prediction that won't come true. From Vice.com no less, the bastion of academic thought. They don't troll for clicks ever. I think we've reached peak bullshit. This will only discredit global warming further.
Bad science is still bad science, no matter which side of the coin you're on regarding climate change. This just exacerbates the argument for both sides.
Investors are precisely those who IGNORE climate change! It is because of investors that we are in this mess.
I mean I know it's dropping but you're still talking about the majority of Americans http://www.gallup.com/poll/190... There's also plenty of people that know diddly squat about financial markets but still denying climate change, so what about them?
You're also ignoring the fact there are plenty of investors also investing in green energy sources. It's how those projects get off the ground. So really, it sure sounds you're throwing a blanket statement out there with no regard to its accuracy. But I bet it probably feels good being confident about blaming one group of so-called rich entitled people rather a nebulous crowd of everyone and their grandma. I think the group of people you're trying to blame is: all of humanity's, for its lack of foresight and refusal to change after the cheese moved.
Do we know what the perfect climate would be for everywhere and how that could be achieved and maintained?
Pretty sure that answer wouldn't fit into slashdot post lol. Actually I lied, yes it would. How's this?
It depends.
If we can use some gas to trap heat, can we use it to maintain extremely hot conditions? Sun-level temperatures? Not questioning the report here (not agreeing with it). But the way summary was posited is dumb. Neither CO2, nor methane trap heat. they slightly increase the drag on the outflow of the heat from the planet surface.
Yes you can actually, *if* you have enough of it and keep adding enough energy going fast enough to keep accumulating heat. Is it going to happen? No, not unless you're God playing minecraft. But yes, you're exactly right that we're talking about *slowing* heat escape, so are the authors. What's essentially happening on almost every planetary bodies in the solar system is balance of energy between multiple sources. While heat is escaping from the planet's core, which warms the surface a little as the body core cools, additional heat is being added to the planet via the sun. The temperate of the planet, or more importantly for us the *surface* temperature of the Earth, is essentially the balance between the two. However this is further complicated by atmospheres, which many but not all planetary bodies have, whose effects work in both directions. Atmospheres mute the drastic changes and also help trap heat, slowing its escape. Our moon doesn't have an atmosphere which is why it sees such extreme variations in temperature. Just another interesting note, the Earth's core temperature is about the same as the surface of the sun (but not the sun's core, which is much hotter). However we don't burn up alive because all that stuff between us and our sweltering core is also trapping heat, i.e. slowing its escape before it reaches us.
If you're picking a bone over the "trap" terminology you can supply your own term but that is already a commonly used term by most people in the community to describe exactly that process. It almost seems like you were accusing experts of making a trivial mistake, but really it was the other way around.
No one is claiming that greenhouse gasses trap all the heat, only that they reduce the heat flow. The term "heat trap" is not intended to imply that all heat is trapped, it is neither insightful not useful to pretend to be confused on the subject.
Easy, he's just ignorant on the topic. He wasn't pretending to be confused, he was confused! Instead, attack his real mistakes which was not only his ignorance of the topic, followed up by arrogance to spontaneously know the topic better than the original authors (because of course he didn't know enough to know he didn't know). Classic Dunning Kruger stuff, which effects us all lol.
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production.
If you would have said warming isn't necessarily *all* bad, you'd be a lot more accurate. There will be some benefits, for sure. But overall the bad is expected to outweigh the good. It's easier to measure the impact in terms of costs, rather than "cans" and "can'ts". Because yes, of course we *can* survive it all and do all sorts of technological wonders combating the negative effects, but what is it going to cost? We're going to having rebuild/retrofit/move our coastal areas which encompass many major cities. We're going to have to shift our agricultural production regions, not just crops but livestock too. "Hot spots" might become quite inhospitable where susceptible people may not leave the house for more than a few hours (infants/elderly) or impede outdoor day jobs for everyone else. Then the oceans, oh the oceans. Don't know where to start on that one, let's just leave it at wild seafood may become a delicacy.
I'm going to throw a dart and say we're talking about not 10's but 100's of trillions of pure USD. Not counting the impact in human costs. That's the problem.
Barely enough to supply power to Ireland To really make a difference it would need to be about 450GW
You make it sound like that's not an accomplishment? An entire country on one power plant? If that's not making a difference you're not thinking about this in the right mindset.
Anyway, I wonder if anyone has attempted in doing some math on supply & demand for fossil fuels. Pretending they do *actually* build this thing, maybe another or two, which is a big pretend. How is this going to affect pricing of fossil fuels? What will 5% less demand in Europe correlate to, regarding the prices? 5% in lockstep, or more than 5%? Is it going to retip the balance back in favor of using fossil fuels again? That's gotta be on someone's mind, I just haven't come across any studies or articles on it. I imagine turning it into an competitively romantic tango over the next 50 years of who is cheaper. All the while, falling energy pricing might benefit consumers quite a bit.
Dogs are omnivores. They need meat but they do better with a varied diet like us.They love sweet potato for example. However those lunatics who insist their dogs are "vegetarian" are harming their dogs.
Dogs also love chocolate? My friend also love heroin, does this makes him a drugavore? Have you ever seen a horse eat a chicken? It's not a simple A, B, or C answer. It has nothing to do with what they enjoy, it's what their bodies are built to do. Some carnivores can eat plant matter and still some get nutrients out of it. Some herbivores can eat flesh and still get some nutrients out of it. Some carnivores are terrible at digesting "herbivore foods", like cats. Some carnivores are better at it than cats, like dogs. But dogs still have teeth built for tearing flesh, short GI tracts, and don't produce amylase. The reality is, mammals have evolved to maximize their capability for survival which means there is always some flexibility to adapt to their environment. That's why things in reality aren't as simple as they were taught in high school biology class. All that being said, can we engineer a specific diet to let a dog survive on a non-meat diet? Possibly. That doesn't make it an omnivore or an herbivore though.
Ok so, in order to save the plant for their kids, all rational, liberal people will not have kids because it increases their footprint like nothing else and now won't have pets...
I sense an oncoming wave of depression driven suicide attempts culling the herd to make way for Idiocracy.
This is why when I purchased my Prius in 2014 I was also awarded a license to run random people over. It's the fastest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions!
In all seriousness I highly doubt most rational people (liberal or otherwise) are using the argument of the environment as the reason for not having kids (or fewer kids). This is much, much more controlled by their career, perceived costs, personal self interests (e.g. time and leisure), and environment. So that means idiocracy is still coming! :)
Seafood isn't meat? You must be, or were raised, Catholic.
Can't speak for other countries but this language permeates all of the US, certainly not just Catholics (only ~20% of population here). There is often a strong association of meat only coming from mammals. Even sometimes, sometimes, blasphemously even excluding chicken! Heretics. Human language can be such an odd, and very imprecise, thing.
This is why we should all speak in binary moving forward.
The US is a fearful country where the people have more power than the government (relative to China & Russia). Nobody wants it in their backyard. Even if construction costs were cut in half, it would still be an enormous uphill battle. I support safe nuclear energy production but realistically it's just very unlikely to ever happen here in light of the current state of affairs.
Are they really defects or stages in evolution? Who decides when a mutation may or may not eventually evolve into a meaningful advance for a species?
Survival and propagation of species drives selection. Something humans are really good at disrupting "naturally" these days.
That is a nearly meaningless sentence. There is no good way to meaningfully value private companies unless they sell a piece of themselves and even then you really are only getting one party's opinion of what they are worth unlike in a proper secondary market. So hypothetically if I were to buy 5% of SpaceX for $1 billion, I am implicitly saying that I value SpaceX at $20 billion. That is basically what happened here. But that doesn't really mean it is actually worth that in the wider market because of the problem of the winner's curse. Someone ponied up a lot of money in a funding round but one has to be careful to not extrapolate that one opinion too far.
As accurate as your statement is, it will never stop people from making valuations of private companies using *exactly* that logic.
I guess the anti-Trump protests are neither smart nor well run because all I hear about, even from networks with an obvious agenda like CNN, are antifa causing mayhem.
Or entirely brilliant? Now they can play the victim story of how their right to protest is being trampled on. Nah, I'm probably giving them too much credit.
This is really an excellent thing to do. If they have the resources in counselors to handle it, it's really a great idea, and it could be a real help to the US education system at large. So many of the country's political, social, environmental, and economic problems come from people not thinking ahead. I'd love to see this go into place. I think this would help knock some sense into a lot of people who've never stopped to think for a few minutes about the future. I think something this simple could really nudge a generation of kids into some basic thoughtfulness.
I agree this is an interesting and well intentioned idea but this the wrong way to go about it. Yes, I completely agree that kids not having a clear idea of what to do after highschool is a big problem. So let's force them to come up with an idea in order to graduate? Yeah, that's not going to work... it's a top down solution to a bottom up problem. Why kids aren't *already* planning about life after highschool is the real problem. Kids not having plans after graduation is merely a symptom.
Trying to litigate your way to improving social behavior just isn't very effective. Improving highschool education and improving parenting is the better (but much harder) route.
These 10 degrees are pretty much tickets to the middle class in 2017: https://www.thepennyhoarder.com/jobs-making-money/career/jobs-with-an-associates-degree/
This does touch on a point I missed. It's not terribly hard to make it look easy to get a cheap degree that will let you find a job that not only pays well but also has healthy demand. Unfortunately people often pick the wrong degrees. In my previous post I spent more effort on trying to explain not everyone needs a degree at all. Like many (not all) of listed here: http://www.lifehack.org/articl...
Point is, people need to get better at picking realistic careers.
His argument was that the CPI isn't a great calculator for inflation, truly, as it applies to the lower classes in terms of mobility, for reasons he listed that seem reasonable. I didn't verify them, but they sound like a good opening salvo for an argument. You then claim he's wrong by showing CPI calculated inflation. You hurt my brain, sir. Whether he's right or wrong, all you've done is shown you can't actually formulate an argument.
Trying to understand your criticism is hurting my brain. All you've done is shown you prefer criticizing instead of trying to understand and you expect other people to formulate arguments in your personal preferred style. So let me try dumbing it down it for you instead.
First paragraph: can't have such a narrow view of benchmarking minimum wage to class mobility. Sure, it has the best of intentions in mind but it's naive and completely ignores actual daily needs.
Second paragraph: blindly throwing post secondary education at everyone is not a silver bullet. People still need to choose a successful path on their own, many paths exist that don't require post secondary education. This is a hard problem because it's also societal, not just financial.
Third paragraph: commentary regarding exploding education costs spiraling out of control, much of the added costs are for purely non-academic reasons
The power companies are still going to charge the same amount people are paying now even though they're buying less energy. I don't know how much the spend on the actual fuel for their power plants but I doubt their overall operating costs would go down much.
You're absolutely right and to make matters worse for them, this is going to only tip the scale away from them even faster. As the cost per kwh climbs, the financial sense of switching to an offgrid system is going to look even more attractive. Should be interesting to see how that unfolds! I'm sure taxpayers will get the short end of the stick regardless.