Or, maybe the giants pay the politicians to kill net neutrality, while publicly supporting it (pacs are anonymous after all). They do this knowing normal cows, er, people, like yourself, won't waste the time to click around and voice their support of NN.
Apologies, that site has tons of ads. Someone please search more and find a better link.
Bottom line, after the reading I've done, I've decided that there are a lot of big companies out there that consider their interests in this issue to line up with "the little guy". So, they're really working honestly to protect it, publicly, and with self-interest at heart.
First of all, I would like to apologise to the members of the reddit community for getting htis site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened. I would also like to apologise for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-Semitic. I am in no way this kind of person, I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so for my entire life. I am not the person that hte media portrays me to be in real life, I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on reddit and never meant any of hte hateful things I said in those posts. I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others simply for what they believe in, their religion, or the lifestyle they choose to have. Nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anyone who did.
As time went on it became an addiction as to how far it could go with the posts that were made. This has been an extreme wake up call to always consider how others may think or feel about what is being said before clicking the submit button anywhere online that an opinion is allowed. Free speech is a right we all have, but it shouldn’t be used in the manner that it was in the posts that were put on this site. Just because you are behind a keyboard doesn’t mean you can’t hurt someone with your words or cause a situation such as this one where a simple meme is misconstrued as a calling for violence.
I do not advocate violence against the press and the meme I posted was in no way advocating that in any way, shape or form. Our first amendment protects the press from things like violence, and we as American citizens should respect that even if the opinions of the press are not in line with our own. The meme was created purely as satire, it was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation. I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it an dhten have it put up on the President’s Twitter feed. It was a prank, nothing more. What the President’s feed showed was not the original post that was poted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sound added to it then sent out on Twitter. I thought it was the original post that was made and that is why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalist community and they put their lives on the line every day with the jobs that they do in reporting the news.
The internet and social media is capable of a great many things, and this is an example of the not so great things it can do. Trolling to get a reaction out of people is not the best way to make a point, the way to do it is to present your facts ina manner to convey the message that will not invoke anger. To people who troll on the internet for fun, consider your words and actions conveyed in your message and who it might upset or anger. Put yourself in their shoes before you post it. If you have a problem with trolling it is an addiction just like any other addiction someone can have to something, and don’t be embarrassed to ask for help. Trolling is nothing more than bullying a wide audience. Don’t feed your self-worth based upon inflicting suffering upon others online just because you are behind a keyboard. We as redditors and as Americans are better than this.
So to the members of this community, the site, the media (especially CNN), and anyone offended by the posts, again I apologise. This is one individual that you will not see posting hurtful or hateful things in jest online. This is my last post from this account and I wanted to do it on a positive note and hopefully it will heal the controversy that this all caused. Peace.
‘The more you know yourself, the less judgmental you become’ – Aniekee Tochukwu Ezekiel.
I just want to know some of the stuff he apologized about, but this text is the first statement post 1980 to not be searchable on the internet?? How the heck is this possible?
First, I applaud your logical sentiments. Most people with your views I've seen can't or won't express their ideas in any way that make sense. Your arguments do make sense. I do respectfully disagree though:
Charity has to "hurt" to be charity. Giving when it costs you nothing is certainly being nice, but that's not charity in its truest sense.
I'd say most people who object to government welfare will claim that taxes hurt them personally. But this aspect of the argument doesn't affect my viewpoint. I think I agree with you - taxes don't hurt, because my peers are taxed at about the same rate. If I have a billion dollars, and one friend has 990mil, another with 1.1bil, then I feel ok. If all 3 of us start getting taxed at 40%, and we have that much less money, if we didn't know we were being taxed, we'd feel just as good, because our peers have about the same amount of wealth. This is human nature. It's only through greed that we say, wow I could have so much more if I didn't have to pay taxes.
I cannot support using the force of government to take from the so called "rich" as that is just theft by proxy. It's also has hints of envy, sloth, greed, wrath, and vanity.
I want to support the poor, not just because it's ethical, not just because it's Christian, but I also know that when people have serious problems, those problems tend to affect the people around them. Society at large does better when the people with biggest problems are helped. So I choose to support the poor via my own charity, but I also want the government doing things at a large scale to take advantage of that scale. There are plenty of things that just won't happen charity-wise unless the government does it. You'd think that the people going bankrupt due to illness, turning to a life of crime due to drug addiction and/or mental problems, could just stop by their local church to get help, but it just doesn't work out most of the time. My viewpoint here is the same as the military who want to 'leave no soldier behind'. The week & injured will be helped by the team, because knowing that policy gives the entire team more confidence and a higher success rate. They prove the idea is worth it in the most high stakes situations.
It was the Republicans and the Dems BOTH who shot down Hillary's Single Payer Health Care Bill
Wasting time introducing internet kooks to facts is an endless wast of time, but just FYI, "Hillary-care" as it was called, was not exactly single payer. That is part of the reason why the Sanders wing of the Democratic party wasn't all that enchanted with her in 2016.
It did have the vast majority of Democrats behind it, and Republicans were absolutely terrified that it would prove to the public that the government can solve problems that private markets can't find profit in solving.
The long-term political effects of a successful... health care bill will be even worse—much worse.... It will revive the reputation of... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.
—William Kristol, "Defeating President Clinton's Healthcare Proposal", December 1993
Show this to a poor Republican, "fake news!".
Show this to a rich Republican, "shhh!... I mean, uh, fake news!"
I totally agree that oil wars shouldn't count, but I think I'm ok with the link given about generosity survey.
There's all kinds of corruption everywhere, so false positives in the other countries, and I'm sure there's examples of people forgetting that they contributed so false negatives too. My point is, what better measure is there? Where's your numbers?
Compassion, empathy, and charity through the force of government is not a Christian value.
For people to follow Christ is to encourage charity by example and with conversation, not through legislation.
Why do you think government charity is not a Christian value? If the government is being charitable, Christian values would say don't interfere or try to stop it.
If you want specific Bible verses, not only do they exist, they go further, saying a charitable government will help you prosper. In Psalm 72, King Solomon reflects on his role as a head of state, and asks God to help him rule:
1 Endow the king with your justice, O God,
the royal son with your righteousness....
4 He will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
he will crush the oppressor.
11 All kings will bow down to him
and all nations will serve him. For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help.
Like Jesus, Solomon sees the “weak and the needy” as “precious.” Solomon sees special care for the needy—even special affection for the needy—as a characteristic of government blessed by God.
And the problem with that is? I mean, unless you're a racist turd? Why not have the Muslim street "feel good"? Maybe less jihadis, maybe not, costs nothing.
Who's the racist turd here? I mean that if the Obama thinks that Muslims are so depressed about their past accomplishments that he needs to make it a government policy to "make them feel good" then is that not racism by low expectation? Isn't such a policy treating Muslims like children that need a pat on their head for a "good job" they did crapping in their own pants? I'd think that they should find it insulting.
But if it were me, I would have repurposed the cheapest existing phone on the market. Try to get the price point as low as possible, and expect the market to be completely niche. Write code to make the phone work with a little polish for only the most basic needs, and let people make their own apps to do the rest. Spend as little money as possible on the project, and have everything open source - both aimed to guarantee that it never dies. Expect it to take a long time to gain any momentum. But I guess this sounds like more like a philanthropy project for the greater good (I want a secure linux phone instead of Android and don't get me started on apple).
Omg, the troll factor in this thread. Yes, the Maya did science. And even Fox news admits civil war was a cause of the collapse. Most of the story came from a well-researched book depicting the leading theory a few years ago. But what's the counterpoint? You want people to ignore the real scientists (I am admittedly not one) and do nothing, plan nothing? Where's the proof that climate change doesn't exist, and it won't affect anyone, and even if it did, people would adjust without any trouble at all? Where's your citations?
The point is the higher ground that will have the better farmland isn't necessarily farmland - the people who currently own it need to change what they do. Forcing people to do things can be impossible sometimes. In any case, the transition costs money, and might need to be incentivized by more than coffee profits.
And back to today's farm owner. What if, like many farmers (especially in Ethiopia I'm guessing), they're just barely making it - they don't have enough money to buy the uphill land, which is now more valuable than their current land. They're just SOL trying to eek out a living as it gets worse.
You'd think this is a solvable problem since the timescale is long. And it might be - as long as the leaders make some common-sense decisions as they just make sure the transition is going smoothly - investigate if it needs some incentives. The problems I guess are 1) so many people don't seem to believe that it's happening, 2) questionable Ethiopian government might make it difficult to make these easy decisions. I mean if America can't even agree with 99% of the world because we don't believe in [climate] science, I imagine a much poorer country might have political issues as well.
Don't worry, I laughed at your post too. Funny how you ask for a citation without reading the one I gave, then you don't give any evidence yourself. LOL!
People will want to dismiss this "Oh noes, Ethiopia will be poor." But the truth is this is how things go from bad or barely manageable to absolute hell. Civilized societies turn to civil war and in our time feeding grounds for terrorism. The Yucatan peninsula went from 1.2 million people, with scientists, politicians, and surprisingly advanced civilization at the time, to just over 100k in less than 100 years. Drought was a big part of that.
Imagine what kind of havoc had to have happened for 9/10 of your friends and family to not have descendants. That's serious war and hell, and we see our own human history showing that we're not good at these long term planning challenges. The funny thing is that there were politicians in the Yucatan, in the beginning, that tried to get people to change farming practices to cope with the changing climate, but they were always immediately voted out of office because it would have affected profits.
So laugh and dismiss all you want, but vote for leaders that take this seriously and plan properly.
If you're going to talk about idealogical purity, let's look at what's going on nowadays. The neo-con idea of preemptive war was first tested in Iraq, where over 1 million people have died, millions more becoming refugees. Is that important? What current issue is more important than the death of 1 million people, and the cost of all that destruction and refugees?
The second biggest issue of our time is probably the recent world recession. Bush inherited a balanced budget (surplus even - from Clinton's small tax raise), gave out the biggest tax cut to the rich in who knows how long, and a few years later we had the great recession. If you want to get into details, there's multiple reasons for that, but the one thing it proves is that doling out tax cuts for the wealthy in America can't save the economy, not in our time at least. If you're pragmatic, you have to bet that it actually does a lot of harm.
The right is sooo idealogical. The left, sometimes talks ideology, but usually looks at every situation and tries to choose what's actually best for everyone, even the right. We've seen that trickle down economics, invented on a napkin by politicians, has failed miserably, so we don't believe in it. We've seen that starting stupid wars is... stupid. People die (good people, a lot of righties even). If you're going to war, make sure it's for the right reasons.
But for my state anyway, wind production in Texas, not counting government subsidies, runs from $36 to $51 per megawatt-hour while an average national cost for coal-fired electricity ranges from $65 to $150 per MWh and for gas, depending on the type of plant, from $52/MWh to $218/MWh.
So why continue to scare people with a future that will never come to pass, in order to get them to behave in a way they would have done anyway had you simply left them alone?
Uh, because the carbon levels are already high enough to start affecting us negatively. It is already passing. The alarmists have been trying to get us to cut back for 20+ years, way back when it would have made the biggest difference. If the fossil fuel industries had not fought so hard (like the tobacco companies before them), we could have avoided the affects we're seeing now:
Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.
But it's more than that. The alarmists have been reacting to the scientific research that says it will get much worse. What we decided in the 90's - to ignore the alarmists - affects how bad it will be in 2050 and 2100. Yes, technology is going to push us anyway, but if we just let it happen naturally, it will not be fast enough to avoid real consequences. This is not partisan or alarmist, it's just the best prediction that can be made with the evidence we have. Nothing has been proven wrong about the predictions since the 90's, except the results and new predictions have become slightly worse.
How many real problems could we solve with money being wasted on fear-mongering or redundant promotion?
No. The money invested in developing renewables is well-spent (this is an understatement). We're talking about a technological ~revolution, meaning there's a lot of money to be made. The countries developing the technology will be rich, while those ignoring it will be poor (this is an overstatement, but hopefully it illustrates the point). Germany proved it already - back in the 90's, making solar panels, and they saw a big bump in their stock market and real estate market. It's been very successful for a long time, although China is stealing the market share now.
Citation? I'm probably not going to be swayed much by it though, because the history isn't as important as the present. They are currently controlled by R's, so they should fix it! They haven't because they can't - the strict ideology just doesn't work. Trickle-down doesn't work. Punishing poor people just creates more poverty. Taxing rich people more actually doesn't affect them, we'll whine the exact same amount, unless tax is 0, and then they'll demand more services, and they'll still be ahead of their neighbors, so they'll feel the same.
I get news from a variety of sources. If my mobile device is most handy that's my source. Perhaps the headline should read "80% of US adults get their news on what they use."
Or, "80% of US adults get their news on what's available in the bathroom."
It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.
I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.
So true. But gota admit I still want it.
0-60 3.3 sec.
* drinks more koolaid
...
in a sippy cup b/c it's gona spill at those g's!... and the kids have sippy cups lying around anyway
Slashdot Mirror
Or, maybe we could actually research who's lobying against NN: https://www.dailydot.com/layer...
Apologies, that site has tons of ads. Someone please search more and find a better link.
Bottom line, after the reading I've done, I've decided that there are a lot of big companies out there that consider their interests in this issue to line up with "the little guy". So, they're really working honestly to protect it, publicly, and with self-interest at heart.
My fellow redditors,
First of all, I would like to apologise to the members of the reddit community for getting htis site and this sub embroiled in a controversy that should never have happened. I would also like to apologise for the posts made that were racist, bigoted, and anti-Semitic. I am in no way this kind of person, I love and accept people of all walks of life and have done so for my entire life. I am not the person that hte media portrays me to be in real life, I was trolling and posting things to get a reaction from the subs on reddit and never meant any of hte hateful things I said in those posts. I would never support any kind of violence or actions against others simply for what they believe in, their religion, or the lifestyle they choose to have. Nor would I carry out any violence against anyone based upon that or support anyone who did.
As time went on it became an addiction as to how far it could go with the posts that were made. This has been an extreme wake up call to always consider how others may think or feel about what is being said before clicking the submit button anywhere online that an opinion is allowed. Free speech is a right we all have, but it shouldn’t be used in the manner that it was in the posts that were put on this site. Just because you are behind a keyboard doesn’t mean you can’t hurt someone with your words or cause a situation such as this one where a simple meme is misconstrued as a calling for violence.
I do not advocate violence against the press and the meme I posted was in no way advocating that in any way, shape or form. Our first amendment protects the press from things like violence, and we as American citizens should respect that even if the opinions of the press are not in line with our own. The meme was created purely as satire, it was not meant to be a call to violence against CNN or any other news affiliation. I had no idea anyone would take it and put sound to it an dhten have it put up on the President’s Twitter feed. It was a prank, nothing more. What the President’s feed showed was not the original post that was poted here, but loaded up somewhere else and sound added to it then sent out on Twitter. I thought it was the original post that was made and that is why I took credit for it. I have the highest respect for the journalist community and they put their lives on the line every day with the jobs that they do in reporting the news.
The internet and social media is capable of a great many things, and this is an example of the not so great things it can do. Trolling to get a reaction out of people is not the best way to make a point, the way to do it is to present your facts ina manner to convey the message that will not invoke anger. To people who troll on the internet for fun, consider your words and actions conveyed in your message and who it might upset or anger. Put yourself in their shoes before you post it. If you have a problem with trolling it is an addiction just like any other addiction someone can have to something, and don’t be embarrassed to ask for help. Trolling is nothing more than bullying a wide audience. Don’t feed your self-worth based upon inflicting suffering upon others online just because you are behind a keyboard. We as redditors and as Americans are better than this.
So to the members of this community, the site, the media (especially CNN), and anyone offended by the posts, again I apologise. This is one individual that you will not see posting hurtful or hateful things in jest online. This is my last post from this account and I wanted to do it on a positive note and hopefully it will heal the controversy that this all caused. Peace.
‘The more you know yourself, the less judgmental you become’ – Aniekee Tochukwu Ezekiel.
/me keeps looking...
WOOMMLOL
Fair enough, good point.
Charity has to "hurt" to be charity. Giving when it costs you nothing is certainly being nice, but that's not charity in its truest sense.
I'd say most people who object to government welfare will claim that taxes hurt them personally. But this aspect of the argument doesn't affect my viewpoint. I think I agree with you - taxes don't hurt, because my peers are taxed at about the same rate. If I have a billion dollars, and one friend has 990mil, another with 1.1bil, then I feel ok. If all 3 of us start getting taxed at 40%, and we have that much less money, if we didn't know we were being taxed, we'd feel just as good, because our peers have about the same amount of wealth. This is human nature. It's only through greed that we say, wow I could have so much more if I didn't have to pay taxes.
I cannot support using the force of government to take from the so called "rich" as that is just theft by proxy. It's also has hints of envy, sloth, greed, wrath, and vanity.
I want to support the poor, not just because it's ethical, not just because it's Christian, but I also know that when people have serious problems, those problems tend to affect the people around them. Society at large does better when the people with biggest problems are helped. So I choose to support the poor via my own charity, but I also want the government doing things at a large scale to take advantage of that scale. There are plenty of things that just won't happen charity-wise unless the government does it. You'd think that the people going bankrupt due to illness, turning to a life of crime due to drug addiction and/or mental problems, could just stop by their local church to get help, but it just doesn't work out most of the time. My viewpoint here is the same as the military who want to 'leave no soldier behind'. The week & injured will be helped by the team, because knowing that policy gives the entire team more confidence and a higher success rate. They prove the idea is worth it in the most high stakes situations.
Wasting time introducing internet kooks to facts is an endless wast of time, but just FYI, "Hillary-care" as it was called, was not exactly single payer. That is part of the reason why the Sanders wing of the Democratic party wasn't all that enchanted with her in 2016.
It did have the vast majority of Democrats behind it, and Republicans were absolutely terrified that it would prove to the public that the government can solve problems that private markets can't find profit in solving.
Show this to a poor Republican, "fake news!".
Show this to a rich Republican, "shhh!... I mean, uh, fake news!"
I totally agree that oil wars shouldn't count, but I think I'm ok with the link given about generosity survey. There's all kinds of corruption everywhere, so false positives in the other countries, and I'm sure there's examples of people forgetting that they contributed so false negatives too. My point is, what better measure is there? Where's your numbers?
What data do you have to the contrary? ...what basic needs do we not take care of?
https://web.stanford.edu/class...
Every other advanced industrial nation has virtually universal access to decent medical care, at much lower cost than in the United States.
Compassion, empathy, and charity through the force of government is not a Christian value.
For people to follow Christ is to encourage charity by example and with conversation, not through legislation.
Why do you think government charity is not a Christian value? If the government is being charitable, Christian values would say don't interfere or try to stop it.
If you want specific Bible verses, not only do they exist, they go further, saying a charitable government will help you prosper. In Psalm 72, King Solomon reflects on his role as a head of state, and asks God to help him rule:
1 Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness. ...
4 He will defend the afflicted among the people
and save the children of the needy;
he will crush the oppressor.
11 All kings will bow down to him
and all nations will serve him. For he will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help.
Like Jesus, Solomon sees the “weak and the needy” as “precious.” Solomon sees special care for the needy—even special affection for the needy—as a characteristic of government blessed by God.
And the problem with that is? I mean, unless you're a racist turd? Why not have the Muslim street "feel good"? Maybe less jihadis, maybe not, costs nothing.
Who's the racist turd here? I mean that if the Obama thinks that Muslims are so depressed about their past accomplishments that he needs to make it a government policy to "make them feel good" then is that not racism by low expectation? Isn't such a policy treating Muslims like children that need a pat on their head for a "good job" they did crapping in their own pants? I'd think that they should find it insulting.
No, it actually would help. Proof: Uneducated people were not insulted by the biggest elitist on the planet. How? Trump makes uneducated people feel good about themselves and, as a result, people like him.
But if it were me, I would have repurposed the cheapest existing phone on the market. Try to get the price point as low as possible, and expect the market to be completely niche. Write code to make the phone work with a little polish for only the most basic needs, and let people make their own apps to do the rest. Spend as little money as possible on the project, and have everything open source - both aimed to guarantee that it never dies. Expect it to take a long time to gain any momentum. But I guess this sounds like more like a philanthropy project for the greater good (I want a secure linux phone instead of Android and don't get me started on apple).
Omg, the troll factor in this thread. Yes, the Maya did science. And even Fox news admits civil war was a cause of the collapse. Most of the story came from a well-researched book depicting the leading theory a few years ago. But what's the counterpoint? You want people to ignore the real scientists (I am admittedly not one) and do nothing, plan nothing? Where's the proof that climate change doesn't exist, and it won't affect anyone, and even if it did, people would adjust without any trouble at all? Where's your citations?
I should quit asking, you all seem to have none.
Obligatory xkcd about the changing temp.
And back to today's farm owner. What if, like many farmers (especially in Ethiopia I'm guessing), they're just barely making it - they don't have enough money to buy the uphill land, which is now more valuable than their current land. They're just SOL trying to eek out a living as it gets worse.
You'd think this is a solvable problem since the timescale is long. And it might be - as long as the leaders make some common-sense decisions as they just make sure the transition is going smoothly - investigate if it needs some incentives. The problems I guess are 1) so many people don't seem to believe that it's happening, 2) questionable Ethiopian government might make it difficult to make these easy decisions. I mean if America can't even agree with 99% of the world because we don't believe in [climate] science, I imagine a much poorer country might have political issues as well.
Don't worry, I laughed at your post too. Funny how you ask for a citation without reading the one I gave, then you don't give any evidence yourself. LOL!
Only IF the farms are moved. Coffee prices have quadrupled in the last 20 years, I assume you've already knocked down your house and started farming?
Imagine what kind of havoc had to have happened for 9/10 of your friends and family to not have descendants. That's serious war and hell, and we see our own human history showing that we're not good at these long term planning challenges. The funny thing is that there were politicians in the Yucatan, in the beginning, that tried to get people to change farming practices to cope with the changing climate, but they were always immediately voted out of office because it would have affected profits.
So laugh and dismiss all you want, but vote for leaders that take this seriously and plan properly.
The second biggest issue of our time is probably the recent world recession. Bush inherited a balanced budget (surplus even - from Clinton's small tax raise), gave out the biggest tax cut to the rich in who knows how long, and a few years later we had the great recession. If you want to get into details, there's multiple reasons for that, but the one thing it proves is that doling out tax cuts for the wealthy in America can't save the economy, not in our time at least. If you're pragmatic, you have to bet that it actually does a lot of harm.
The right is sooo idealogical. The left, sometimes talks ideology, but usually looks at every situation and tries to choose what's actually best for everyone, even the right. We've seen that trickle down economics, invented on a napkin by politicians, has failed miserably, so we don't believe in it. We've seen that starting stupid wars is ... stupid. People die (good people, a lot of righties even). If you're going to war, make sure it's for the right reasons.
I agree that we should be doing more nuclear.
But for my state anyway, wind production in Texas, not counting government subsidies, runs from $36 to $51 per megawatt-hour while an average national cost for coal-fired electricity ranges from $65 to $150 per MWh and for gas, depending on the type of plant, from $52/MWh to $218/MWh.
So why continue to scare people with a future that will never come to pass, in order to get them to behave in a way they would have done anyway had you simply left them alone?
Uh, because the carbon levels are already high enough to start affecting us negatively. It is already passing. The alarmists have been trying to get us to cut back for 20+ years, way back when it would have made the biggest difference. If the fossil fuel industries had not fought so hard (like the tobacco companies before them), we could have avoided the affects we're seeing now:
Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.
But it's more than that. The alarmists have been reacting to the scientific research that says it will get much worse. What we decided in the 90's - to ignore the alarmists - affects how bad it will be in 2050 and 2100. Yes, technology is going to push us anyway, but if we just let it happen naturally, it will not be fast enough to avoid real consequences. This is not partisan or alarmist, it's just the best prediction that can be made with the evidence we have. Nothing has been proven wrong about the predictions since the 90's, except the results and new predictions have become slightly worse.
How many real problems could we solve with money being wasted on fear-mongering or redundant promotion?
No. The money invested in developing renewables is well-spent (this is an understatement). We're talking about a technological ~revolution, meaning there's a lot of money to be made. The countries developing the technology will be rich, while those ignoring it will be poor (this is an overstatement, but hopefully it illustrates the point). Germany proved it already - back in the 90's, making solar panels, and they saw a big bump in their stock market and real estate market. It's been very successful for a long time, although China is stealing the market share now.
Bezos: Alexa, buy me olives from Whole Foods.
Alexa: Sure, buying all of Whole Foods.
Bezos: Shit.
Citation? I'm probably not going to be swayed much by it though, because the history isn't as important as the present. They are currently controlled by R's, so they should fix it! They haven't because they can't - the strict ideology just doesn't work. Trickle-down doesn't work. Punishing poor people just creates more poverty. Taxing rich people more actually doesn't affect them, we'll whine the exact same amount, unless tax is 0, and then they'll demand more services, and they'll still be ahead of their neighbors, so they'll feel the same.
I get news from a variety of sources. If my mobile device is most handy that's my source. Perhaps the headline should read "80% of US adults get their news on what they use."
Or, "80% of US adults get their news on what's available in the bathroom."
It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.
I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.
So true. But gota admit I still want it.
0-60 3.3 sec.
* drinks more koolaid
...
in a sippy cup b/c it's gona spill at those g's! ... and the kids have sippy cups lying around anyway
...
God I'm old.