Missing Climate Goals Could Cost the World $20 Trillion
"Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
No, it makes it a scientific prediction, one backed by rigorous and proper study and validated by peer review.
They aren't just pulling $20 trillion and 60% out of their ass. They have a paper where they show how they derive those figures and justify their assumptions. If you want to falsify their statement there's actually a straightforward process to do so. Read their paper to see where those figures came from, find a calculation that's incorrect, a cost they misprojected, an assumption that's unjustified, or some other way in which you can show their results to be false.
Don't just blithely declaring any scientific finding you don't like to be "completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific".
It's in trumps style of negotiation. He's always going to go for the BEST deal that he can get, and this is not at all out of the ordinary for Trump.
Back when it was first announced, Scott adams almost immediately said "expect one of them, probably trump, to walk away at least once before any actual negotiations take place".
Fun to see these types of negotiating dynamics playing out on the world stage.
Trump isn't the one calling the shots here, the South Koreans arranged the summit they had zero expectation of succeeding because they didn't want Trump to start a war instead, and North Korea agreed to the summit because they wanted the photo op with the US President and all the flowery praise that Trump has been giving them the past few weeks (plus sanction relief if they could weasel it).
But Bolton wanted the summit to go away because North Korea is a country, and he likes invading countries. And so the summit that would never accomplish anything is at least temporarily dead and the really unlikely stupid war is slightly more likely and still just as stupid.
I am not so sure. Twitter in this case is either a public forum or not. It could even be argued that they are similar to a government contractor providing the service since as one of the most prominent twitter users, they profit quite a bit from Trump's use of their platform. I think the judge in this case has a decent high level theoretical argument but is completely wrong. I can't see this not being reversed. When you begin to follow each logical implication of this ruling it just gets messier and messier. I'm not sure what the answer should be but... this can't be it.
Even if they were a contractor they'd only be bound by the first amendment to the extent that they were acting on Trump's behalf, ie, when they carry out the action of the block when trump clicks "block" they're bound by the first amendment.
But when they're acting on Twitter's behalf they're still in the clear.
I don't see any significant issue with this ruling and reading the difference between blocking and muting the result seems pretty obvious and intuitive.
To me the first amendment gives individuals the right to say things in public. This ruling seems to require that the recipient listen/read (deal with) what is being said.
Exactly the opposite. Muting (not listening to) IS allowed, blocking (preventing replies) is banned.
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
Except the Judge explicitly said that muting was allowed.
The key differences with blocking is the blocked party can't see the POTUS account or, more importantly, can't @reply to the account. The @reply is the critical bit since it's effectively blocking the person from participating in the conversation, and considering @replies to Trump's Tweets regularly make the news it's actually a pretty significant 1st amendment issue.
Rather than make it all or nothing, what about ramping up a "re-stock fee" based on total quantity and/or value of returned items in the last N months? The more returns, the higher the fee.
Much better to look at the ratio than raw volume, no need to conflate their best customers with abusers.
I maintain my earlier position that anyone who thinks his responses show intelligence must lack it themselves. You know how ridiculous you sound trying so hard to come up with some way to argue he's not a moron?
Do you have any evidence that shows he's an actual moron, and not someone with zero attention span who says moronic things?
Think back to Trump at the debates, or in his speeches and look past the rambling incoherence. He does a really good job of rolling with the crowd or coming up with rejoinders. Very few people are that good at working a crowd or gaining attention during a debate. He has an easier time because he's so comfortable with lying, but he's still coming up with things to say, that actually takes some intelligence. Very few people can do that stuff effectively.
Similarly, I've listened to a lot of actors and actresses who have reputations for being dumb, and in long form interviews they're actually very intelligent, they might have some dumb ideas, but they're clearly intelligent speakers.
The point is to succeed in those social settings does require intelligence, is doesn't mean he isn't the worst President ever, or even that he knows the difference between HPV and HIV. But I do suspect he's smart enough to appear quick in private conversation.
Only the syncophants he surrounds himself with claim he's smart, because it strokes his ego, and that's the first and foremost job of anyone he hires. A few foreign government people have done the same, obviously for the same ego stroking.
I suspect, in an informal one-on-one conversation, he would seem more intelligent than you realize.
When his own appointees describe him as a 'fucking moron' among countless other behind-his-back reports, you know his IQ is room temperature (or just listen to him speak unscripted for a few minutes, and that's self-evident).
I suspect that's because he says moronic things. Someone can be clever and lack the focus or attention span to say something intelligent. Just because the car has a nice engine doesn't mean it goes smoothly down the highway. And Tillerson was probably already well versed in smooth talking salesmen who didn't know what they were talking about.
Quick-witted? You've got to be kidding, or never even heard him speak. He rambles on with stream of consciousness, half the time changing topics mid-sentence. He's so slow witted he makes Bush Jr look like a master orator.
Again, you don't need focus or an attention span to be quick witted. I think that's Trump's problem, he might have a decent brain, and he might have used it at some point, but he does enjoy his sycophants. I don't think he's really been surrounded by people who grill him or force him to defend himself in many years and he's basically lost the ability to focus.
He's a bit like ELIZA. Based on the current sentence he can come up with a good response, but he lacks the focus to retain that information, so what happened two sentences ago is largely irrelevant.
The theory would be that all life on Earth derives somewhat from this extra-terrestrial seeding, and that octopuses are simply a manifestation of the sudden appearance of complex properties previously unobserved which were derived from the seeding. That at least has some plausibility, in that it cannot be easily falsified.
There's a wisdom to the phrase "use it or lose it". Traits that aren't actively selected for tend to get broken by genetic drift. It would be really hard to implant some Octopus genes in the initial seeding and just have them manifest in operational order in one tiny branch.
That said, pansperia is a load of crap: it explains nothing about the origin of life (even if life didn't originate on Earth, it had to originate somewhere, can't be turtles all the way down), has little or no scientific motivation (organic molecules are not life), and is (IMO) only really exists at all as a "theory" because it appeals to the sci-fi fan in many scientists.
I wouldn't entirely agree.
So right now we have a decent idea for how life could have started, primordial soup and all that. And it seems fairly plausible, but it's also a result of us saying "life began on Earth, this is the most plausible life-forming process that could work on Earth, therefore this is how life started."
But that's not necessarily the case, there might be other places in the Universe where for some reason it was much easier to life to form, if so panspermia becomes more likely.
Though I suspect if you go the panspermia route you pretty much have to assume it was either Mars or Aliens. Anywhere else and I don't see how the living cells make it from the super-unusual planet that can create life to the super-unusual planet that can support it.
>"Anyway, him saying Trump is a bit of a buffoon is going to resonate with Trump voters. It'll be a significant hit to Trump's reputation with his base."
Maybe, maybe not. I don't believe being "smart" was high on the list of his base's wishes this time
Maybe, you do hear enough people claim that he's smart in private conversations that I won't discount it. It's possible he's had a mental decline since they knew him, but I think it's more likely that he's legitimately quick-witted, he just doesn't apply himself to learn or analyze anything so those wits go to waste. Either that or he spews out so many facts and pronouncements in private that he sounds like a polymath, they might be complete BS but in a private conversation he ends up sounding smart.
Ultimately I think a lot of Trump supporters look at his wealth and political success and they assume that for someone to pull that off there must be a really big focused brain pulling the strings. Once you want to believe it that's a really hard thing to disprove.
How does this get through peer review with 33 co-authors? I didn't even take a University level biology course and I can tell it's BS.
We can look at the DNA and RNA of Octupuses, we can tell we share common ancestors, if Octopuses came from another planet that would be really really obvious.
WTF? Do they think some Aliens abducted some cuttlefish, cloned them, and then dropped them back on the planet in Octopus form before heading on their way?
Bill Gates has kind of a cult of personality among working class Americans who see him as somebody who came up from nothing to become the richest man on earth. For some reason He's not lumped into the "elites" category like Jobs or Bezos. Not sure why, since he grew up wealthy and used his mom's connections to get an in with IBM and his dad's advice to take advantage of it, but go figure.
Anyway, him saying Trump is a bit of a buffoon is going to resonate with Trump voters. It'll be a significant hit to Trump's reputation with his base.
No one is saying he's not elite, but he's not included with the Silicon Valley elites anymore because he's been semi-retired for 10 years.
People focus on Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk, and Jobs (formerly) not because they're rich, but because they have the power to shape the technological future and they're using it.
But back in Microsoft's heyday Gates was easily as big as any of them.
Next you'll be telling us Trump doesn't know the difference between Kerberos and Kubernetes.
Simpsons Comic book guy scoffs at Trump!
Because knowing the difference between two computing technologies, either of which would be known by only a minority of IT people, is exactly the same as not knowing the difference between two of the most famous STDs on the planet...
Of course, I'm a little skeptical that Trump doesn't actually know the difference I'd expect him to be familiar with STDs since he considered STDs to be his personal Vietnam.
I suspect he was trying to say something else and just muddled the words up.
If you don't like their LEGAL efforts, then,being a Congresscritter, you can work to change the relevant LAWS.
Now, if they're doing illegal things, then you don't need to change the relevant laws, just enforce them. Equally. For everyone. Don't do this silly crap of "enforce the letter of the law if they're Chinese, but ignore the law if they're British/French/German (read: white guys like us).
Or, being a responsible legislator, he could say "Hey, we've identified a potentially serious threat. We need to study it so we can take appropriate action."
Politicians don't have a magic box that gives them perfect unbiased information, they (and their staffs) need to do research and check sources just like everyone else. The right answer might even be "don't change anything but keep monitoring".
...then people should understand that, just like an aviation autopilot or a marine autopilot, it will pilot you straight into an obstacle if you're not paying attention.
Except you get a bit more reaction time in the air or ocean.
Of course, even there, one real cause of airplane accidents is when a situation arises where the auto-pilot needs to disengage and the highly trained professional pilots get confused and screw up. This is because those people, whose job it literally is to pay attention and be ready to retake control, find it extremely hard to do so.
Now Musk might be correct that semi-attentive drivers with the Autopilot are safer than typical non-Autopilot drivers, even if the Autopilot sometimes screws up. But he's hardly a reputable source when he keeps playing this "Look! It's an Autopilot! You don't have to drive!! But you should totally pay attention and it's your fault if it crashes" game.
It's fitting that the story comes from the Washington Post since this has nothing to do with Amazon and EVERYTHING to do with the smear job WAPO has been doing to Trump. Bezos owns WAPO so Trump blames Bezos for everything WAPO does. What amazes me is with all the ammunition Trump freely provides the press WAPO still finds ways to push the envelope on twisting the truth.
You're right, it has nothing to do with Amazon. Trump is punishing Amazon not because of Amazon, but because of the Washington Post.
To be clear. I don't think there's sufficient evidence of collusion, bribery, or obstruction of justice to justify impeachment at this point.
However, I think he is veeeery close with Amazon, and if he actually did order the Postmaster General to double Amazon's rates he's stepped into the realm of trying to economically harm a major business because the owner has a newpaper giving him critical coverage.
If that were to happen I'd say impeach him in a minute.
Not only is it a blatant violation of the 1st amendment but it shows he hasn't the foggiest interest in accepting the responsibilities of being President.
Correlation isn't causation. Many physically demanding jobs (fireman, mechanic, building trades) involve more exposure to toxic chemicals than other jobs.
I don't even think it's that.
This is one of those studies where I think "they're professional researchers who must have done proper controls", but at the same time the class of people who do physically demanding jobs are exactly the people I'd expect to be at risk of early death regardless of the job itself.
It sounds like they didn't make a lot of adjustment for socioeconomic status since they figured that physical labour might be a reason why they die younger: Another explanation for the association of occupational PA with mortality (in men) may be the possibility of residual confounding, as high intensity occupational PA is typically prevalent among blue collar workers from lower socioeconomic positions77 and low socioeconomic status is associated with higher mortality.60 However, instead of being a confounder, occupational PA may actually be one pathway for the known mortality risks associated with low socioeconomic status, and adjustment for socioeconomic position would thus constitute an over-adjustment, introducing a conservative bias.
I can buy this a little bit, the physical fatigue of those jobs might make substance abuse or overeating more common. But I really wonder if they're just measuring the fact that the uneducated people who tend to work physically demanding jobs tend to make more unhealthy choices in general.
So this information was thoughtfully reviewed, felt not to be in the driver's best interest / effective enough to integrate and wasn't. This doesn't seem like an interesting story. This isn't gross negligence, this is just decision making and business.
Elon Musk is saying it was ineffective, but he also keeps calling the system an Autopilot.
This is just more evidence that Tesla is trying to have it both ways.
Informally they say: "Look! It's a self-driving car! You just relax and it does everything!!"
Officially they say: "It's basically just fancy cruise control, you need to watch it like a hawk every second it's engaged!!"
In practice they want and expect people to treat it as a self-driving car, but they need to tell them it's cruise-control for legal reasons.
That's why they ditched the eye tracking and other fancy tech that would keep people engaged. The "pay attention" safeguards are in-effective by design.
Except it's not. I spread from a certain part of Africa to other parts of the Muslim world.
And the Macarena spread from Spain to other parts of the Christian world.
Do you think this means that Spanish dance music is a part of Christianity? Or is a better explanation that groups that share a religion also tend to share cultural practises as well?
Don't know what you are talking about. Christians did wholesale mass-murder in the crusades, for example, in pretty much the mode you describe. There is no larger religion that has not done atrocities and justified them afterwards.
That's really the problem when trying to generalize religions, even among people who claim the same label you find a whole bunch of different groups with wildly different beliefs, especially with things like religion where there's not a lot of evidence to rally people around certain foundations.
That's also the reason things like Flat Earth Conventions end up so chaotic, when you're so detached from reality that you're a Flat Earther it's almost random the collection of beliefs that you end up grabbing. Gather a bunch together in one place you're bound to get some equally wild ideas on other subjects that aren't shared by all present, in-fighting is almost inevitable.
ZTE had been a major international producer long before entering the US market. I doubt elimination from the US market makes it insolvent by any means. Whereas the US market may have possibly been the most profitable, they didn't play nice and got kicked off the playground. Boohoo, wake up, they're just another arm of the party.
The problem is if you're going to build high end tech it's really hard not to have some of your supply chain come from US companies.
For the hardware they might be able to circumvent the sanctions with resellers but I suspect the US companies would be reluctant to sell to them and circumvent the sanctions so blatantly.
And the software is even tougher since you can't exactly sell a phone full of pirated software.
I'm a bit curious about the whole sanctions punishment in the first place, it sounds like the charge of "selling US goods to Iran" is based on the fact that ZTE sold products containing US components, but does that mean the moment the US announces sanctions on a country they now extend downstream to everyone using US components?
I wonder if this plan to help ZTE has more to do with helping US companies, if I was a big international firm I'd be looking at contingencies in case I was told I could no longer use US components. Trump might be realizing that he also sanctioned the US.
Even if you aren't a ShareBlue paid shill, you unfortunately are propagating their ideas. You should really consider signing up with them and picking up a paycheck for doing nothing more than posting your views on your 12 year old account. They pay extra for that kind of authenticity. ShareBlue is the flagship of progressive anti Trump opposition and if you're not on board with them, you should be. You're just working for free, which makes you a sucker.:(
Lets back up a little.
The OP expressed a very common and valid viewpoint.
The AC replied accusing the OP of being a member of a policial advocacy group, seemingly Shareblue, and made a fairly strong implication that the OP was astroturfing.
The OP denied the ridiculous charges.
And now you jump in and suggest... I don't even understand what your argument actually is. That the OP is no longer supposed to advocate for their beliefs because there exists a progressive news site, that you accuse of astroturfing?
Slashdot Mirror
"Could" is the keyword here... Makes the entire statement completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific.
No, it makes it a scientific prediction, one backed by rigorous and proper study and validated by peer review.
They aren't just pulling $20 trillion and 60% out of their ass. They have a paper where they show how they derive those figures and justify their assumptions. If you want to falsify their statement there's actually a straightforward process to do so. Read their paper to see where those figures came from, find a calculation that's incorrect, a cost they misprojected, an assumption that's unjustified, or some other way in which you can show their results to be false.
Don't just blithely declaring any scientific finding you don't like to be "completely unfalsifiable and thus unscientific".
It's in trumps style of negotiation. He's always going to go for the BEST deal that he can get, and this is not at all out of the ordinary for Trump.
Back when it was first announced, Scott adams almost immediately said "expect one of them, probably trump, to walk away at least once before any actual negotiations take place".
Fun to see these types of negotiating dynamics playing out on the world stage.
Did Adams also predict that Trump's newly chosen underling would "accidentally" scuttle the negotiations? (Causing Trump a loss of face in the process)
Trump isn't the one calling the shots here, the South Koreans arranged the summit they had zero expectation of succeeding because they didn't want Trump to start a war instead, and North Korea agreed to the summit because they wanted the photo op with the US President and all the flowery praise that Trump has been giving them the past few weeks (plus sanction relief if they could weasel it).
But Bolton wanted the summit to go away because North Korea is a country, and he likes invading countries. And so the summit that would never accomplish anything is at least temporarily dead and the really unlikely stupid war is slightly more likely and still just as stupid.
I am not so sure. Twitter in this case is either a public forum or not. It could even be argued that they are similar to a government contractor providing the service since as one of the most prominent twitter users, they profit quite a bit from Trump's use of their platform. I think the judge in this case has a decent high level theoretical argument but is completely wrong. I can't see this not being reversed. When you begin to follow each logical implication of this ruling it just gets messier and messier. I'm not sure what the answer should be but... this can't be it.
Even if they were a contractor they'd only be bound by the first amendment to the extent that they were acting on Trump's behalf, ie, when they carry out the action of the block when trump clicks "block" they're bound by the first amendment.
But when they're acting on Twitter's behalf they're still in the clear.
I don't see any significant issue with this ruling and reading the difference between blocking and muting the result seems pretty obvious and intuitive.
against my state politicians for blocking my tweets
And you should win.
An elected politician shouldn't be able to block you from replying to them, they're allowed to mute, but not block.
This question would have come up previously but I'm guessing that politicians historically only blocked trolls so no one really looked into it.
But Trump has been blocking legitimate critics, making the question much more important.
To me the first amendment gives individuals the right to say things in public. This ruling seems to require that the recipient listen/read (deal with) what is being said.
Exactly the opposite. Muting (not listening to) IS allowed, blocking (preventing replies) is banned.
Now every politician, left, right, up, down, cannot block twitter trolls. Go get 'em, 4chan.
Except the Judge explicitly said that muting was allowed.
The key differences with blocking is the blocked party can't see the POTUS account or, more importantly, can't @reply to the account. The @reply is the critical bit since it's effectively blocking the person from participating in the conversation, and considering @replies to Trump's Tweets regularly make the news it's actually a pretty significant 1st amendment issue.
Rather than make it all or nothing, what about ramping up a "re-stock fee" based on total quantity and/or value of returned items in the last N months? The more returns, the higher the fee.
Much better to look at the ratio than raw volume, no need to conflate their best customers with abusers.
I maintain my earlier position that anyone who thinks his responses show intelligence must lack it themselves. You know how ridiculous you sound trying so hard to come up with some way to argue he's not a moron?
Do you have any evidence that shows he's an actual moron, and not someone with zero attention span who says moronic things?
Think back to Trump at the debates, or in his speeches and look past the rambling incoherence. He does a really good job of rolling with the crowd or coming up with rejoinders. Very few people are that good at working a crowd or gaining attention during a debate. He has an easier time because he's so comfortable with lying, but he's still coming up with things to say, that actually takes some intelligence. Very few people can do that stuff effectively.
Similarly, I've listened to a lot of actors and actresses who have reputations for being dumb, and in long form interviews they're actually very intelligent, they might have some dumb ideas, but they're clearly intelligent speakers.
The point is to succeed in those social settings does require intelligence, is doesn't mean he isn't the worst President ever, or even that he knows the difference between HPV and HIV. But I do suspect he's smart enough to appear quick in private conversation.
Only the syncophants he surrounds himself with claim he's smart, because it strokes his ego, and that's the first and foremost job of anyone he hires. A few foreign government people have done the same, obviously for the same ego stroking.
Not just the sycophants, Even Stormy Daniels said "I could tell he was nice, intelligent in conversation." Now that interview was before he sent goons after her so she might have still been well disposed to him, but it's not the first instance of someone saying something like that.
I suspect, in an informal one-on-one conversation, he would seem more intelligent than you realize.
When his own appointees describe him as a 'fucking moron' among countless other behind-his-back reports, you know his IQ is room temperature (or just listen to him speak unscripted for a few minutes, and that's self-evident).
I suspect that's because he says moronic things. Someone can be clever and lack the focus or attention span to say something intelligent. Just because the car has a nice engine doesn't mean it goes smoothly down the highway. And Tillerson was probably already well versed in smooth talking salesmen who didn't know what they were talking about.
Quick-witted? You've got to be kidding, or never even heard him speak. He rambles on with stream of consciousness, half the time changing topics mid-sentence. He's so slow witted he makes Bush Jr look like a master orator.
Again, you don't need focus or an attention span to be quick witted. I think that's Trump's problem, he might have a decent brain, and he might have used it at some point, but he does enjoy his sycophants. I don't think he's really been surrounded by people who grill him or force him to defend himself in many years and he's basically lost the ability to focus.
He's a bit like ELIZA. Based on the current sentence he can come up with a good response, but he lacks the focus to retain that information, so what happened two sentences ago is largely irrelevant.
The theory would be that all life on Earth derives somewhat from this extra-terrestrial seeding, and that octopuses are simply a manifestation of the sudden appearance of complex properties previously unobserved which were derived from the seeding. That at least has some plausibility, in that it cannot be easily falsified.
There's a wisdom to the phrase "use it or lose it". Traits that aren't actively selected for tend to get broken by genetic drift. It would be really hard to implant some Octopus genes in the initial seeding and just have them manifest in operational order in one tiny branch.
That said, pansperia is a load of crap: it explains nothing about the origin of life (even if life didn't originate on Earth, it had to originate somewhere, can't be turtles all the way down), has little or no scientific motivation (organic molecules are not life), and is (IMO) only really exists at all as a "theory" because it appeals to the sci-fi fan in many scientists.
I wouldn't entirely agree.
So right now we have a decent idea for how life could have started, primordial soup and all that. And it seems fairly plausible, but it's also a result of us saying "life began on Earth, this is the most plausible life-forming process that could work on Earth, therefore this is how life started."
But that's not necessarily the case, there might be other places in the Universe where for some reason it was much easier to life to form, if so panspermia becomes more likely.
Though I suspect if you go the panspermia route you pretty much have to assume it was either Mars or Aliens. Anywhere else and I don't see how the living cells make it from the super-unusual planet that can create life to the super-unusual planet that can support it.
>"Anyway, him saying Trump is a bit of a buffoon is going to resonate with Trump voters. It'll be a significant hit to Trump's reputation with his base."
Maybe, maybe not. I don't believe being "smart" was high on the list of his base's wishes this time
Maybe, you do hear enough people claim that he's smart in private conversations that I won't discount it. It's possible he's had a mental decline since they knew him, but I think it's more likely that he's legitimately quick-witted, he just doesn't apply himself to learn or analyze anything so those wits go to waste. Either that or he spews out so many facts and pronouncements in private that he sounds like a polymath, they might be complete BS but in a private conversation he ends up sounding smart.
Ultimately I think a lot of Trump supporters look at his wealth and political success and they assume that for someone to pull that off there must be a really big focused brain pulling the strings. Once you want to believe it that's a really hard thing to disprove.
How does this get through peer review with 33 co-authors? I didn't even take a University level biology course and I can tell it's BS.
We can look at the DNA and RNA of Octupuses, we can tell we share common ancestors, if Octopuses came from another planet that would be really really obvious.
WTF? Do they think some Aliens abducted some cuttlefish, cloned them, and then dropped them back on the planet in Octopus form before heading on their way?
Bill Gates has kind of a cult of personality among working class Americans who see him as somebody who came up from nothing to become the richest man on earth. For some reason He's not lumped into the "elites" category like Jobs or Bezos. Not sure why, since he grew up wealthy and used his mom's connections to get an in with IBM and his dad's advice to take advantage of it, but go figure.
Anyway, him saying Trump is a bit of a buffoon is going to resonate with Trump voters. It'll be a significant hit to Trump's reputation with his base.
No one is saying he's not elite, but he's not included with the Silicon Valley elites anymore because he's been semi-retired for 10 years.
People focus on Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk, and Jobs (formerly) not because they're rich, but because they have the power to shape the technological future and they're using it.
But back in Microsoft's heyday Gates was easily as big as any of them.
Next you'll be telling us Trump doesn't know the difference between Kerberos and Kubernetes.
Simpsons Comic book guy scoffs at Trump!
Because knowing the difference between two computing technologies, either of which would be known by only a minority of IT people, is exactly the same as not knowing the difference between two of the most famous STDs on the planet...
Of course, I'm a little skeptical that Trump doesn't actually know the difference I'd expect him to be familiar with STDs since he considered STDs to be his personal Vietnam.
I suspect he was trying to say something else and just muddled the words up.
If you don't like their LEGAL efforts, then,being a Congresscritter, you can work to change the relevant LAWS.
Now, if they're doing illegal things, then you don't need to change the relevant laws, just enforce them. Equally. For everyone. Don't do this silly crap of "enforce the letter of the law if they're Chinese, but ignore the law if they're British/French/German (read: white guys like us).
Or, being a responsible legislator, he could say "Hey, we've identified a potentially serious threat. We need to study it so we can take appropriate action."
Politicians don't have a magic box that gives them perfect unbiased information, they (and their staffs) need to do research and check sources just like everyone else. The right answer might even be "don't change anything but keep monitoring".
As long as you call it an "Autopilot"
...then people should understand that, just like an aviation autopilot or a marine autopilot, it will pilot you straight into an obstacle if you're not paying attention.
Except you get a bit more reaction time in the air or ocean.
Of course, even there, one real cause of airplane accidents is when a situation arises where the auto-pilot needs to disengage and the highly trained professional pilots get confused and screw up. This is because those people, whose job it literally is to pay attention and be ready to retake control, find it extremely hard to do so.
As long as you call it an "Autopilot" and, despite telling people to pay attention, make sure that people are able to treat it as a full Autopilot and not pay attention, then the media should report every instance of someone crashing because they followed Tesla's implied instructions.
Now Musk might be correct that semi-attentive drivers with the Autopilot are safer than typical non-Autopilot drivers, even if the Autopilot sometimes screws up. But he's hardly a reputable source when he keeps playing this "Look! It's an Autopilot! You don't have to drive!! But you should totally pay attention and it's your fault if it crashes" game.
It's fitting that the story comes from the Washington Post since this has nothing to do with Amazon and EVERYTHING to do with the smear job WAPO has been doing to Trump. Bezos owns WAPO so Trump blames Bezos for everything WAPO does. What amazes me is with all the ammunition Trump freely provides the press WAPO still finds ways to push the envelope on twisting the truth.
You're right, it has nothing to do with Amazon. Trump is punishing Amazon not because of Amazon, but because of the Washington Post.
To be clear. I don't think there's sufficient evidence of collusion, bribery, or obstruction of justice to justify impeachment at this point.
However, I think he is veeeery close with Amazon, and if he actually did order the Postmaster General to double Amazon's rates he's stepped into the realm of trying to economically harm a major business because the owner has a newpaper giving him critical coverage.
If that were to happen I'd say impeach him in a minute.
Not only is it a blatant violation of the 1st amendment but it shows he hasn't the foggiest interest in accepting the responsibilities of being President.
He was elected to lead the country, not own it.
Correlation isn't causation. Many physically demanding jobs (fireman, mechanic, building trades) involve more exposure to toxic chemicals than other jobs.
I don't even think it's that.
This is one of those studies where I think "they're professional researchers who must have done proper controls", but at the same time the class of people who do physically demanding jobs are exactly the people I'd expect to be at risk of early death regardless of the job itself.
It sounds like they didn't make a lot of adjustment for socioeconomic status since they figured that physical labour might be a reason why they die younger:
Another explanation for the association of occupational PA with mortality (in men) may be the possibility of residual confounding, as high intensity occupational PA is typically prevalent among blue collar workers from lower socioeconomic positions77 and low socioeconomic status is associated with higher mortality.60 However, instead of being a confounder, occupational PA may actually be one pathway for the known mortality risks associated with low socioeconomic status, and adjustment for socioeconomic position would thus constitute an over-adjustment, introducing a conservative bias.
I can buy this a little bit, the physical fatigue of those jobs might make substance abuse or overeating more common. But I really wonder if they're just measuring the fact that the uneducated people who tend to work physically demanding jobs tend to make more unhealthy choices in general.
So this information was thoughtfully reviewed, felt not to be in the driver's best interest / effective enough to integrate and wasn't. This doesn't seem like an interesting story. This isn't gross negligence, this is just decision making and business.
Elon Musk is saying it was ineffective, but he also keeps calling the system an Autopilot.
This is just more evidence that Tesla is trying to have it both ways.
Informally they say:
"Look! It's a self-driving car! You just relax and it does everything!!"
Officially they say:
"It's basically just fancy cruise control, you need to watch it like a hawk every second it's engaged!!"
In practice they want and expect people to treat it as a self-driving car, but they need to tell them it's cruise-control for legal reasons.
That's why they ditched the eye tracking and other fancy tech that would keep people engaged. The "pay attention" safeguards are in-effective by design.
Except it's not. I spread from a certain part of Africa to other parts of the Muslim world.
And the Macarena spread from Spain to other parts of the Christian world.
Do you think this means that Spanish dance music is a part of Christianity? Or is a better explanation that groups that share a religion also tend to share cultural practises as well?
The "Earth is a flat diamond shape, supported by pillars", is it? So what supports the pillars?
Government subsidies.
Don't know what you are talking about. Christians did wholesale mass-murder in the crusades, for example, in pretty much the mode you describe. There is no larger religion that has not done atrocities and justified them afterwards.
Totes adorbs, TODAY'S Islam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
You need to grow a brain.
FGM isn't a problem with Islam, it's a problem with a specific region of Africa. It's true there's a fairly high correlation between Muslim Africa and FGM Africa, but it's not perfect. In Nigeria it's actually the Christians, not the Muslims, who are the problem.
That's really the problem when trying to generalize religions, even among people who claim the same label you find a whole bunch of different groups with wildly different beliefs, especially with things like religion where there's not a lot of evidence to rally people around certain foundations.
That's also the reason things like Flat Earth Conventions end up so chaotic, when you're so detached from reality that you're a Flat Earther it's almost random the collection of beliefs that you end up grabbing. Gather a bunch together in one place you're bound to get some equally wild ideas on other subjects that aren't shared by all present, in-fighting is almost inevitable.
ZTE had been a major international producer long before entering the US market. I doubt elimination from the US market makes it insolvent by any means. Whereas the US market may have possibly been the most profitable, they didn't play nice and got kicked off the playground. Boohoo, wake up, they're just another arm of the party.
The problem is if you're going to build high end tech it's really hard not to have some of your supply chain come from US companies.
For the hardware they might be able to circumvent the sanctions with resellers but I suspect the US companies would be reluctant to sell to them and circumvent the sanctions so blatantly.
And the software is even tougher since you can't exactly sell a phone full of pirated software.
I'm a bit curious about the whole sanctions punishment in the first place, it sounds like the charge of "selling US goods to Iran" is based on the fact that ZTE sold products containing US components, but does that mean the moment the US announces sanctions on a country they now extend downstream to everyone using US components?
I wonder if this plan to help ZTE has more to do with helping US companies, if I was a big international firm I'd be looking at contingencies in case I was told I could no longer use US components. Trump might be realizing that he also sanctioned the US.
Even if you aren't a ShareBlue paid shill, you unfortunately are propagating their ideas. You should really consider signing up with them and picking up a paycheck for doing nothing more than posting your views on your 12 year old account. They pay extra for that kind of authenticity. ShareBlue is the flagship of progressive anti Trump opposition and if you're not on board with them, you should be. You're just working for free, which makes you a sucker. :(
Lets back up a little.
The OP expressed a very common and valid viewpoint.
The AC replied accusing the OP of being a member of a policial advocacy group, seemingly Shareblue, and made a fairly strong implication that the OP was astroturfing.
The OP denied the ridiculous charges.
And now you jump in and suggest... I don't even understand what your argument actually is. That the OP is no longer supposed to advocate for their beliefs because there exists a progressive news site, that you accuse of astroturfing?