> Iron fist I never even watched so I guess I can't be too sad that is gone as well.
You're not missing anything, Iron Fist was terrible. Let's cast someone with no martial arts skills in a role as the world's greatest martial artist, and while we are at it, let's make sure they are anything but a compelling actor.
The problem wasn't the actor's martial arts skills or his acting ability. It was casting the wrong actor for the part.
I don't know what they thought the character was going to be, but they seemed to have built it entirely out of traits that were outside Finn's range.
But hey, we got his race correct!
There was a push for an Asian actor but I think Iron Fist was one of the few roles where you really don't want to change the actor's race, or more specifically don't want an Asian actor.
A central point of the character was supposed to be that he didn't belong anywhere. Living in Kun Lun meant he didn't belong in New York anymore, but being a rich kid from New York meant he would never really belong in Kun Lun either.
With an Asian actor a bunch of the audience would see Kun Lun as his proper home instead of seeing him between worlds.
Of course, even with that set up you still need the proper writing, casting, and directing to pull it off.
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
Actually the quote said the West Side highway would be underwater by 2028 if CO2 hit 560 ppm (we're currently at 410 and by the trend line it isn't going to get anywhere close).
Now I don't know how many climate scientists would agree with that statement, I don't know if James Hansen would still agree with it.
But I literally gave you a link that you claimed to have read and you still got the quote completely wrong.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
I don't need a participation ribbon for not being gullible.
As I said it's really easy not to get tricked by fake quotes, just have a reasonable model of the world and don't accept convenient facts uncritically.
A wildlife preserve isn't a wildlife "park". It's basically just government owned wilderness.
But to the original point, given the layout of that area, the unknowns of the actual extent of SpaceX property, and the lack of any ACTUAL course of where the wall will be built...
Except that elected officials have seen a map showing the wall going through the SpaceX launchpad and DHS requested access to survey the property.
What more evidence do you need that DHS is considering a wall through the SpaceX facility?
it's a little early to be wetting our panties over the "terrible tragedy of how this wall is going to go 'right through' a SpaceX launchpad", no? Unless of course unsupported histrionics is one's goal?
Well no, the goal is to raise the alarm and stop a stupid policy decision before it's gone too far to be stopped.
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.
That quote is wrong. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
The reason is they're really easy to avoid.
Fake quotes are popular because they contradict the accepted persona of the person, for instance if a person is a Liberal the fake quote will be a Trump endorsement, a famous atheist will endorse religion, and if they're a climate scientist it will be an extreme prediction or admission of malfeasence.
But that also makes them really easy to spot, when you see a quote that's too good to be true all you need to do is check the sources and you'll figure out if it's real.
You got caught by that fake Hanson quote. Why is it?
Is your model of James Hansen and other climate scientists wrong, so you couldn't recognize a prediction they wouldn't give?
Or were you just too eager to use the quote that you didn't want to look too closely?
I do not think it is a conspiracy. What I think is that mass hysteria makes it difficult to have any meaningful discussion on the subject of changing climate. It is all in the open which makes it difficult for anybody to claim conspiracy.
So where's the hysteria here?
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model. And one of the big reasons is they think the ice caps could start sliding into the ocean and cause a huge sea level rise (MICI).
This group is saying they they don't think that even if the MICI happens it won't cause as big a rise as predicted.
All of that seems like reasonable good science. Sure a study that disagrees with the consensus introduces a bit more uncertainty into the field, but no one has ever claimed that sea level rise predictions were completely reliable.
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
So one group publishes a pair of papers that predict a particular bad outcome of climate change will be less severe than previously predicted.... and climate science is terrible now?
You think this one pair of papers by one group is correct and disproves all the existing sea level rise predictions? You don't suppose they made a mistake in their analysis that some other group will find and publish a response?
For sea level rise in particular it's always been accepted that it's really hard to model which is why there's always massive ranges given.
At the same time I suppose you also think that Climate Science is some sort of conspiracy were they don't let any researchers break the party line. Lucky these folks were able to sneak their papers into an obscure little journal like Nature.
This is how science works, usually everyone is in general agreement but sometimes someone publishes an outlier, usually they're wrong but sometimes they're right and they become the new general agreement.
Hopefully this time the dissenting prediction is right because sea level rise is really bad!
"one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility."
Link? Map?
The link is the article this story is based on.
And there's no map because there is no publicly available map yet. We're talking about the map that DHS is developing for the next set of walls.
Because it seems pretty dumb for them - when the border goes east and south - to build the wall east and quite a bit north, particularly when the terrain is utterly flat and non-contoured and there's no geographical reason to do so.
There's a wildlife park directly below the SpaceX facility. They might be planning to send the fence north because a) putting a fence through the middle of a wildlife park is really bad PR, and b) it might be a wildlife park because it's really hard to build on, unlike the terrain SpaceX built on.
So the USA today map and overflight show that the proposed border wall starts at least a dozen miles from the plotted site of the SpaceX facility.
Someone's astonishingly wrong or lying deliberately.
Yes, the currently proposed and constructed wall starts a dozen miles west of the SpaceX facility.
Now DHS and CBP is proposing even more wall and fencing (after all, the usual narrative includes walling the entire border). And one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility.
I'm sure actual researchers who know how to process climate data know where to get the original data. I don't know what the point of making a misleading and less useful version of the data slightly easier to get is.
You obviously haven't been in Alberta long. I've been here my whole life, and the -34c in winter is normal.
Same here, and -34 is a lot less normal than it used to be.
the +5c in winter is also normal.
And a bit more normal, and a bit longer than usual.
The temperatures this winter are well within the normal range for Alberta (and sure, there may have been a record broken here or there for a specific day, but if the same temperature had happened a few days earlier or later it probably wouldn't have broken the record.)
It's not the temperatures, but the average is definitely warmer. When I was younger long stretches from -15 to -25 were considered pretty typical, now people start treating it like a bit cold snap. And it's not just my imagination, Edmonton is averaging 3C warmer in the winter.
If you ask people around here if they are worried about a 2 to 3 degree F temperature increase, they would say they'd welcome it, especially at this time of year. Last week it hit -35F (actual temperature, not wind chill)
Of course ots not as simple as that, climate change means preciptation patterns change and extreme weather events (floods, droughts and storms) become more common.
In recorded and prerecorded history the climate/weather problem that has killed the most people is drought.
I'm up in Alberta. We love to complain about the cold... but you learn how to dress and its fine. The problem this winter isn't the cold snaps (-34C a couple days ago), it's the warm snaps. A couple days of +5C in the middle of January sounds lovely, until the weather drops the next week and the streets and sidewalks turn into skating rinks.
Global warming also sucks because our economy runs on oil. We can keep pumping the oil the next 5 years, probably 10. But in 20 years? 40? Sooner or later it's going to undeniably start hitting the fan and our oil isn't going to have many buyers.
So 20+ years ago a researcher published a graph (that got a lot of publicity), and the underlying math had some minor statistical errors that didn't actually affect the result much. And methods without the flaws have consistently produced similar graphs since.
Therefore no global warming!
Can we try "appeal to the completely irrelevant"?
But thank you for the Ad Hominem and the appeal to authority.
So you misunderstand how "Ad Hominem" work. You can criticize the person's expertise or character when it's relevant to their argument.
COMPLETELY screw up "appeal to authority". It's appealing to an authority in an unrelated field that is the problem. For instance, appealing to the authority of a climate scientist about climate scientist, you're doing it right. Appealing to the authority of an economist on climate scientist... now you're straying towards "appeal to authority".
Now how do you follow up your complete ignorance of logical fallacies?
Did you want to make it any clearer you don't have the intellectual horsepower to discuss the topic on your own ?
A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.
Well lets forget those decades of research by thousands of climate scientists.
You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!
Clearly he must have found a bunch of issues that the climate scientists weren't aware of and had no idea how to correct for!
ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 indi-vidual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector oftrends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial patternof trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activ-ity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the correspondingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlationsappear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in thedata are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitudewill require further research.
Ohhh! This time he found a small (now defunct) journal and a co-author who is one of the few climate scientists who is a skeptic! (and incidentally is funded primarily by oil companies).
That totally proves that the planet isn't warming and that all those other signals like drought, shrinking glaciers, shifting plant growth patterns, ocean temperatures, etc, etc, are somehow misleading.
If it doesn't hit 1.5C in 5 years, can I criticize the prediction. Well no. They did day "maybe." No matter what happens, they get to claim victory. Nothing presented is falsifiable. No matter what you think of global warming, that ain't science.
No it's not science.
It's a prediction based on science.
Assume the theory was that a coin was weighted to land 60% heads. So you flip it 10 times and get 7 heads. Does that prove or disprove the theory? What if you only get 4 heads?
Now if you flip enough then yes, you do get to do real data. But 10 flips? That's meaningless. If you want to prove or disprove that the coin is biased you don't look at the 10 flips. You look at the person who claimed it averages 60% heads and evaluate the evidence they present.
Hitting or not hitting 1.5C in 5 years doesn't really show anything wrt global warming, it's the stuff that makes those scientists think 1.5C is probably coming in 5 years that you need to contend with.
As many as 115,000 account holders are owed $250 million, which is locked up in “cold storage” only accessible to the recently deceased founder and CEO, Gerald Cotten
At the time of the bankruptcy filing, QuadrigaCX held 26,500 Bitcoin worth $120 million, 430,000 Ether worth $60 million and several million dollars worth of Bitcoin Cash SV, Bitcoin Gold, and Litecoin, according to court documents.
QuadrigaCX’s troubles started early last year when CIBC froze accounts affecting 388 customers worth $28 million, citing confusion about ownership of those funds. Those funds were finally released by an Ontario court in December, according to a statement from QuadrigaCX.
Just days later, Jennifer Robertson announced that her husband Gerald Cotten, 30, had died of complications due to Crohn’s disease in India on Dec. 9, while opening an orphanage.
So already we seem to be looking at a gap of 250 - (120 + 60 ( +28 ? ) ) either 30 or 60 million if I'm reading properly, and then in the midst of these legal issues he's off in India opening an orphanage when he suddenly dies.
Then again this shouldn't be a subject of debate. It's not the 1800s, if someone dies in India the body is repatriated as a standard practice.
If there's a body it's trivial to confirm it's him and it lays some really ugly speculation to rest. If there's no body then a new batch of questions pop up.
Btw, I'm guessing the identity of those "lost" coins are known, if he were faking I don't think he'd be able to dip very far into that bank before people figured out what was happening.
$137 million, and they didn't think to store the password somewhere it wouldn't be lost? They didn't think to ask the guy before he died? What a stupid company.
What kind of security is this?
TRUE security requires TWO factors (or more) so why in blazes didn't they store multiple copies of the key where multiple people have only part of the key? Then your backup to this "offline key" is having multiple partial copies of it in different hands, with the assurance that at least TWO or more people would be required to agree to provide their portion of the key to open the encrypted file.
Handing any one person the key for "safe keeping" is stupid. You should always have accountability and require agreement of more than one person for such things.
It's wonderful security. A password that only you know is a password that you don't have to trust anyone else with. Sure there's a risk that you get kidnapped and tortured for it, or you get a head injury and forget it, but otherwise it's really great security. If you're the founder.
If you're an employee it's less great but still decent, you don't need to bother with the red tape of a distributed system and if something ever does happen to the founder you can just get a new job.
If you're a customer it obvious sucks since the founder can die or run off and take all your money with them. Of course, if you're a customer how are you actually going to know what kind of security and safeguards they have in place. I suppose you could put a bunch of regulations in place to ensure good practices... but doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of cryptocurrency?
Maybe what you see as random is Trump trying different tactics that he think might work. If one tactic fails to work, do you continue to stick with it?
The problem is a) he's choosing terrible tactics to attempt, and b) he's doing a very poor judge of evaluating their success and knowing when to switch.
In the wall situation, he was flexible in his negotiations, while the other side was not willing to negotiate at all.
Not really. Last year I think the Dems offered $27 billion or something in wall money in exchange for DACA and some other stuff. Trump accepted the deal and then blew it up after the hardliners got to him.
For the shutdown he didn't offer anything. How budgeting is supposed to work with US style division of power is you say "I really want X and in exchange I'll give you Y".
Trump's offer was a wall for not shutting down the government. That isn't an offer it's a hostage taking. Not negotiating is exactly what the Democrats should have done.
If Trump wants a wall he needs to offer them something beyond not deliberately breaking the country.
And while doing #2 he tried to get South Korea involved and I think there was some hint of progress on this.
SK never thought anything useful would come of Trump's attempts. They were trying to get Trump to the negotiating table so he'd stop escalating the situation into a war that could kill millions of South Koreans.
I don't think it is over yet, and so I guess we will see on this one. Either way, N. Korea is a bad situation (dictatorship with nuclear weapons) and there are not a lot of good options.
You do what everybody else has done for the past few decades, try to keep them contained until the regime liberalizes and collapses. To this point Trump has been counter-productive since they've gotten a lot of sanction relief and Kim a lot of prestige in exchange for saying the words "denuclearize".
On the wall issue, it is not over yet and so I guess we will have to see what comes of it. I don't think most Democrats care about fixing the border issue (feel free to show me where they are giving credible counter proposals) and so at the very least,
What is the border issue?
Drugs? The wall will do nothing to fix that, drugs come through points of entry. No point carrying crap through the desert when you can hide it in a truck.
Crime? Most studies find that immigrants, legal and illegal, commit crimes at lower rates. In either case it's not a big difference.
Jobs? The source of the decline of the White American blue collar work force isn't illegal immigration, it's mechanization.
Demographics? If you really care about that maybe you could slow the growth of the Latino population, though historically making the border harder to cross actually increases illegal immigration. The reason is that a lot of migrants are seasonal, they want to work in the US a few months and then move back. The harder it is to cross the border the more likely they are to simply stick around.
The alternatives are complex or expensive; strict national ID laws; pressure Mexico to secure their southern border; fix other countries economies; more border patrol; better border technology. And I think Trump is trying these approaches to some extent.
ID laws and drone surveillance would do more to reduce illegal immigration, though I don't think they help as much with overstaying visas.
The wall is actually very poor value compare to just a bunch of drones.
The context of what Trump is talking about in this interview appears to be getting insurance when you have a preexisting condition. It is not clear to me what Trump is saying with his example and the interviewer did nothing to ask Trump to clarify. I don't know what situation Trump is talking about when he says "Because you are basically sayi
While I generally agree with what you are saying I think it is even more complicated. When situations become complex (war, economics, life) you will find experts disagreeing on fundamental courses of action.
Sure, but if qualified people can end up choosing A, B, or C that doesn't mean you should start choosing at random.
Not only are you less likely to choose the right among A, B, and C. But once people learn you're evaluating on the wrong criteria they're going to give you variants of A, B, and C that are much crappier that they should be.
So my point is that it is hard to find the right expert for a given situation.
But Trump isn't even getting the situations themselves right. Look at NK, there are two big directions pushed by the experts. 1) Be harsh and threatening enough that they have too cooperate, and 2) engage diplomatically and try to reduce the threat and liberalize the regime that way.
Trump started with #1 and almost started a Nuclear war by inflaming tensions with personal insults. Then he switched to #2, but he's doing it on the theory that NK is giving up its Nuclear weapons, which absolutely no expert thinks that's going to happen.
So what will happen? Either Trump will keep ignoring the situation, and give NK a deal where they're obviously cheating. Or the deal will fall apart and we'll be back to #1.
Despite what you and a large part of the media say, many people that have worked with Trump say he is a good listener and asks good questions and he expects you to be prepared and know your stuff.
Where is the evidence of this? Maybe it was true decades ago, and I'm sure there's a few current quotes since it's very obvious that he likes to be praised. But I haven't seen a single clip or even quotation that shows sharp attentive questioning.
So I am not convinced that Trump is clueless, but I think that is largely what the left media and Hollywood have conditioned us to believe.
So how do you explain my two original examples? Syria and the shutdown. Any informed person knew how they were going to end.
With ISIS, Trump asked his chosen expert General Mathis to come up with a plan within 30 days to defeat ISIS. While the strategy did not change drastically, things did change.
ISIS was already collapsing when Trump took office.
The military was given the freedom to take action without having to go through layers of decision makers.
Perhaps he did, now here's a question. If he did remove those layers, why were they there in the first place?
If you don't have a deep understanding of what they were actually doing you can't actually be certain removing them was a good thing.
There's a lot of things that sound like really good ideas but never actually get done. And one of the main reasons that happens is that doing them actually turns out to be a really bad idea.
This is one area where Trump's instinct to judge a situation based on a superficial understanding tends to have very bad consequences.
They surrounded the enemy strongholds and destroyed them rather
I have not tried to investigate this issue very much, but I am not convinced. There are many experienced experts (border patrol) who say the wall helps (though it
Because he seems to understand the bigger picture that the US military does not need to be involved in endless policing operations around the world. And maybe Trump made major mistakes in the how the draw down was announced in this case, but it is hard to tell given that a big part of the media tries to report everything he does in a negative light. In the end the policy seems the right one to me and I am glad he is doing the same thing with Afghanistan.
That's not how you do the bigger picture.
How the bigger picture properly works is you go down into the fine details, figure out what is going on, and then you go back out and see the high level details. You then learn to figure out which of the fine details matter and which ones don't, and how to put those details together into getting the big picture right.
Seeing the bigger picture takes a lot of hard work and analysis of all the little bits in that picture.
The mistake that people make, and Trump more than anyone else, is to think that because an expert can summarize the big picture in a few sentences that they are now an expert if they can just say a few sentences on the topic.
Sure the US needs to have fewer foreign interventions. But that doesn't mean you should just rush out of every current foreign intervention. Maybe staying in Syria is the best of a series of not great options. I don't really know, but I do know that Trump doesn't have a clue, he's basically just button mashing.
I don't like what is happening, but at the same time congress has been promising to fix the illegal immigration issue since Reagan. Trump seems to be very determined at fixing it.
No he's very determined at getting a wall. Again if when he actually tries to talk immigration policy he's just randomly stumbling around.
He is in charge of the executive branch and we expect him to enforce the laws. I am not saying it is justified that he refused to sign the funding bill for border wall funding, but at the same time we expect congress to try to help fix this problem regardless of how big of jerk Trump might be.
It's the wall that's preventing the change at an immigration deal.
If the GOP thinks illegal immigration is such a big deal then they should be willing to give the Democrats something worthwhile like DACA. Trump actually had a deal for something like $27 billion for wall funding in exchange for DACA lined up, and then some hardliners wandered into the room and got him to scuttle the deal.
The reason is that the wall doesn't really do much to stop illegal immigration, it's basically just for show. But getting the wall is a big win for Trump, so if the Democrats give him the funding they'll want a big win in return. But the actual hardliners aren't going to agree to a big win for the Democrats in exchange for a white elephant (the Wall, they're already stuck with Trump), so a deal is really tough to make.
Wow.. You nailed all the recent idiotic liberal talking points in one post! Congrats!
AKA, reality.
And we'll see whose caved on Feb. 21st...
Trump again. Either he'll: a) Forget the whole thing. b) Try Emergency Declaration and probably get slapped down by the courts c) Get a deal with some form of "wall" but with a lot of goodies that the Democrats really want.
Whatever leverage he had he's already blown.
But the fact that you think ANY of this stuff is true, means he's won again.. and you people have fallen for it again. How many times does he have to checkmate before all of you on the Left stop playing checkers???
Is that a Scott Adams fan I hear? And how much has Trump really won since the election?
Show us on the doll where the mean orange man hurt you...
My brain.
Seriously, I don't understand this big group of his supporters who can't perceive how comically incompetent he is.
Look at Sryia, the Prime Minister of Turkey gets Trump on the phone and convinces Trump to promptly pull out of Syria without any consultation with his military causing his Secretary of Defence to resign!
Then someone finally clues Trump into the fact that the Turkish Prime Minister just wanted the US out so they could take out the Kurds (the US allies in the conflict), which Trump should have known if he spent 2 minutes reading up on the conflict. So then Trump is frantically backtracking and trying to put conditions on his withdraw.
And then the shutdown, he meets with Democratic leaders, "proudly owns the shutdown", gets talked out of it by his advisors who know it's an awful idea, gets talked back into it by right wing pundits riling up their audience, and then shuts down the government with no leverage and no chance of success. His only possible "out" a declaration of emergency. A plan that was just a transparent ploy by his staffers to get him to sign a spending bill and then yell at the courts for blocking him instead.
Yes, the people of Mexico should have a proper level of concern if there is an outbreak of illness among their northern neighbors that could affect them.
It's funny because of all the racist rhetoric in the US about "dirty Mexicans" bringing in diseases.
And yes, it's perfectly appropriate to "LOL" about serious issues.
What's inappropriate is laughing at the suffering of others or using humour to disguise offensive views.
But using humour to point out a particular racist argument is flawed? That's perfectly legit.
Also, you may want to look at a map. Clark County, Washington is a long way from the southern border.
Clark County is a prosperous suburb of Portland, and not many poor Mexicans can afford to live there. It is only 4% Hispanic, and they are not causing this problem.
LOL, Mexicans literally have to worry about sick Americans bringing diseases into their country!
Slashdot Mirror
> Iron fist I never even watched so I guess I can't be too sad that is gone as well.
You're not missing anything, Iron Fist was terrible. Let's cast someone with no martial arts skills in a role as the world's greatest martial artist, and while we are at it, let's make sure they are anything but a compelling actor.
The problem wasn't the actor's martial arts skills or his acting ability. It was casting the wrong actor for the part.
I don't know what they thought the character was going to be, but they seemed to have built it entirely out of traits that were outside Finn's range.
But hey, we got his race correct!
There was a push for an Asian actor but I think Iron Fist was one of the few roles where you really don't want to change the actor's race, or more specifically don't want an Asian actor.
A central point of the character was supposed to be that he didn't belong anywhere. Living in Kun Lun meant he didn't belong in New York anymore, but being a rich kid from New York meant he would never really belong in Kun Lun either.
With an Asian actor a bunch of the audience would see Kun Lun as his proper home instead of seeing him between worlds.
Of course, even with that set up you still need the proper writing, casting, and directing to pull it off.
That quote is wrong [skepticalscience.com]. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
The quote is not wrong, at most you can say it's off by a margin of error. Your link says New York should be under water by 2028. But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
Actually the quote said the West Side highway would be underwater by 2028 if CO2 hit 560 ppm (we're currently at 410 and by the trend line it isn't going to get anywhere close).
Now I don't know how many climate scientists would agree with that statement, I don't know if James Hansen would still agree with it.
But I literally gave you a link that you claimed to have read and you still got the quote completely wrong.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
Wow, not a single one? Amazing. You should win a prize.
I don't need a participation ribbon for not being gullible.
As I said it's really easy not to get tricked by fake quotes, just have a reasonable model of the world and don't accept convenient facts uncritically.
A wildlife preserve isn't a wildlife "park". It's basically just government owned wilderness.
But to the original point, given the layout of that area, the unknowns of the actual extent of SpaceX property, and the lack of any ACTUAL course of where the wall will be built...
Except that elected officials have seen a map showing the wall going through the SpaceX launchpad and DHS requested access to survey the property.
What more evidence do you need that DHS is considering a wall through the SpaceX facility?
it's a little early to be wetting our panties over the "terrible tragedy of how this wall is going to go 'right through' a SpaceX launchpad", no? Unless of course unsupported histrionics is one's goal?
Well no, the goal is to raise the alarm and stop a stupid policy decision before it's gone too far to be stopped.
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model.
They haven't been very consistent. James Hansen, a very well respected climate scientist was predicting Manhattan would be under water.
That quote is wrong. I wouldn't quite call it a fake quote because the author was trying to be accurate, he just got a number wrong and forgot a critical piece of context.
Scientists are people, and sometimes they get carried away in the emotion of the moment, just like any other people. That's why we have reproducibility, to counter-act the effect of emotion. Reproducibility is the core of science.
On the topic of emotion, I've seen a lot of fake quotes on all sorts of subjects and I'm not sure I've ever fallen for one.
The reason is they're really easy to avoid.
Fake quotes are popular because they contradict the accepted persona of the person, for instance if a person is a Liberal the fake quote will be a Trump endorsement, a famous atheist will endorse religion, and if they're a climate scientist it will be an extreme prediction or admission of malfeasence.
But that also makes them really easy to spot, when you see a quote that's too good to be true all you need to do is check the sources and you'll figure out if it's real.
You got caught by that fake Hanson quote. Why is it?
Is your model of James Hansen and other climate scientists wrong, so you couldn't recognize a prediction they wouldn't give?
Or were you just too eager to use the quote that you didn't want to look too closely?
I do not think it is a conspiracy. What I think is that mass hysteria makes it difficult to have any meaningful discussion on the subject of changing climate. It is all in the open which makes it difficult for anybody to claim conspiracy.
So where's the hysteria here?
Climate scientists have been very consistent that there will be some sea level rise, a big sea level rise is really bad, and that there's a lot of uncertainly about sea level rise, there might be a little or there might be a lot. It's just tough to model. And one of the big reasons is they think the ice caps could start sliding into the ocean and cause a huge sea level rise (MICI).
This group is saying they they don't think that even if the MICI happens it won't cause as big a rise as predicted.
All of that seems like reasonable good science. Sure a study that disagrees with the consensus introduces a bit more uncertainty into the field, but no one has ever claimed that sea level rise predictions were completely reliable.
That the greens have predicted. I never thought you could do worse than economists and still be called a science. Maybe they should change their name to climate studies and be moved in with the gender studies people.
So one group publishes a pair of papers that predict a particular bad outcome of climate change will be less severe than previously predicted.... and climate science is terrible now?
You think this one pair of papers by one group is correct and disproves all the existing sea level rise predictions? You don't suppose they made a mistake in their analysis that some other group will find and publish a response?
For sea level rise in particular it's always been accepted that it's really hard to model which is why there's always massive ranges given.
At the same time I suppose you also think that Climate Science is some sort of conspiracy were they don't let any researchers break the party line. Lucky these folks were able to sneak their papers into an obscure little journal like Nature.
This is how science works, usually everyone is in general agreement but sometimes someone publishes an outlier, usually they're wrong but sometimes they're right and they become the new general agreement.
Hopefully this time the dissenting prediction is right because sea level rise is really bad!
"one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility."
Link? Map?
The link is the article this story is based on.
And there's no map because there is no publicly available map yet. We're talking about the map that DHS is developing for the next set of walls.
Because it seems pretty dumb for them - when the border goes east and south - to build the wall east and quite a bit north, particularly when the terrain is utterly flat and non-contoured and there's no geographical reason to do so.
There's a wildlife park directly below the SpaceX facility. They might be planning to send the fence north because a) putting a fence through the middle of a wildlife park is really bad PR, and b) it might be a wildlife park because it's really hard to build on, unlike the terrain SpaceX built on.
So the USA today map and overflight show that the proposed border wall starts at least a dozen miles from the plotted site of the SpaceX facility.
Someone's astonishingly wrong or lying deliberately.
Yes, the currently proposed and constructed wall starts a dozen miles west of the SpaceX facility.
Now DHS and CBP is proposing even more wall and fencing (after all, the usual narrative includes walling the entire border). And one of the proposed sections would go further east, through the SpaceX facility.
It's too bad your source uses "adjusted" numbers and refuses to use actual measurements.
Why? So some economist can look at the raw data, see noise, and declare it's all nonsense?
I'm sure actual researchers who know how to process climate data know where to get the original data. I don't know what the point of making a misleading and less useful version of the data slightly easier to get is.
You obviously haven't been in Alberta long.
I've been here my whole life, and the -34c in winter is normal.
Same here, and -34 is a lot less normal than it used to be.
the +5c in winter is also normal.
And a bit more normal, and a bit longer than usual.
The temperatures this winter are well within the normal range for Alberta (and sure, there may have been a record broken here or there for a specific day, but if the same temperature had happened a few days earlier or later it probably wouldn't have broken the record.)
It's not the temperatures, but the average is definitely warmer. When I was younger long stretches from -15 to -25 were considered pretty typical, now people start treating it like a bit cold snap. And it's not just my imagination, Edmonton is averaging 3C warmer in the winter.
If you ask people around here if they are worried about a 2 to 3 degree F temperature increase, they would say they'd welcome it, especially at this time of year.
Last week it hit -35F (actual temperature, not wind chill)
Of course ots not as simple as that, climate change means preciptation patterns change and extreme weather events (floods, droughts and storms) become more common.
In recorded and prerecorded history the climate/weather problem that has killed the most people is drought.
I'm up in Alberta. We love to complain about the cold... but you learn how to dress and its fine. The problem this winter isn't the cold snaps (-34C a couple days ago), it's the warm snaps. A couple days of +5C in the middle of January sounds lovely, until the weather drops the next week and the streets and sidewalks turn into skating rinks.
Global warming also sucks because our economy runs on oil. We can keep pumping the oil the next 5 years, probably 10. But in 20 years? 40? Sooner or later it's going to undeniably start hitting the fan and our oil isn't going to have many buyers.
You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!
Yeah that would be the same guy who showed the hockey stick was B.S. while thousands climate scientists were pushing it like the second coming
https://www.technologyreview.c...
So 20+ years ago a researcher published a graph (that got a lot of publicity), and the underlying math had some minor statistical errors that didn't actually affect the result much. And methods without the flaws have consistently produced similar graphs since.
Therefore no global warming!
Can we try "appeal to the completely irrelevant"?
But thank you for the Ad Hominem and the appeal to authority.
So you misunderstand how "Ad Hominem" work. You can criticize the person's expertise or character when it's relevant to their argument.
COMPLETELY screw up "appeal to authority". It's appealing to an authority in an unrelated field that is the problem. For instance, appealing to the authority of a climate scientist about climate scientist, you're doing it right. Appealing to the authority of an economist on climate scientist... now you're straying towards "appeal to authority".
Now how do you follow up your complete ignorance of logical fallacies?
Did you want to make it any clearer you don't have the intellectual horsepower to discuss the topic on your own ?
LOL
Gets hot? Global warming as predicted.
Gets cold? Climate change as predicted.
When did it get cold?
Just because you're individually cold doesn't mean the planet is colder.
That's the whole point of the polar vortex, it's isn't the planet getting colder, it's cold air from the pole coming down and your nice warm air going somewhere else.
A Critical Review of Global Surface Temperature Data Products
The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p...
Or free from extraneous influence
Well lets forget those decades of research by thousands of climate scientists.
You found an unpublished paper by an economist!!
Clearly he must have found a bunch of issues that the climate scientists weren't aware of and had no idea how to correct for!
ABSTRACT: Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 indi-vidual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector oftrends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity(income, gross domestic product [GDP] growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial patternof trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activ-ity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the correspondingIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gridded data, and very similar correlationsappear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in thedata are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitudewill require further research.
https://www.int-res.com/articl...
Ohhh! This time he found a small (now defunct) journal and a co-author who is one of the few climate scientists who is a skeptic! (and incidentally is funded primarily by oil companies).
That totally proves that the planet isn't warming and that all those other signals like drought, shrinking glaciers, shifting plant growth patterns, ocean temperatures, etc, etc, are somehow misleading.
If it doesn't hit 1.5C in 5 years, can I criticize the prediction. Well no. They did day "maybe." No matter what happens, they get to claim victory. Nothing presented is falsifiable. No matter what you think of global warming, that ain't science.
No it's not science.
It's a prediction based on science.
Assume the theory was that a coin was weighted to land 60% heads. So you flip it 10 times and get 7 heads. Does that prove or disprove the theory? What if you only get 4 heads?
Now if you flip enough then yes, you do get to do real data. But 10 flips? That's meaningless. If you want to prove or disprove that the coin is biased you don't look at the 10 flips. You look at the person who claimed it averages 60% heads and evaluate the evidence they present.
Hitting or not hitting 1.5C in 5 years doesn't really show anything wrt global warming, it's the stuff that makes those scientists think 1.5C is probably coming in 5 years that you need to contend with.
Did he actually die...?
Just think about the implications of $137mil of untraceable funds that aren't strictly controlled by any national regulations.
It seems a bit suspicious:
As many as 115,000 account holders are owed $250 million, which is locked up in “cold storage” only accessible to the recently deceased founder and CEO, Gerald Cotten
At the time of the bankruptcy filing, QuadrigaCX held 26,500 Bitcoin worth $120 million, 430,000 Ether worth $60 million and several million dollars worth of Bitcoin Cash SV, Bitcoin Gold, and Litecoin, according to court documents.
QuadrigaCX’s troubles started early last year when CIBC froze accounts affecting 388 customers worth $28 million, citing confusion about ownership of those funds. Those funds were finally released by an Ontario court in December, according to a statement from QuadrigaCX.
Just days later, Jennifer Robertson announced that her husband Gerald Cotten, 30, had died of complications due to Crohn’s disease in India on Dec. 9, while opening an orphanage.
So already we seem to be looking at a gap of 250 - (120 + 60 ( +28 ? ) ) either 30 or 60 million if I'm reading properly, and then in the midst of these legal issues he's off in India opening an orphanage when he suddenly dies.
Then again this shouldn't be a subject of debate. It's not the 1800s, if someone dies in India the body is repatriated as a standard practice.
If there's a body it's trivial to confirm it's him and it lays some really ugly speculation to rest. If there's no body then a new batch of questions pop up.
Btw, I'm guessing the identity of those "lost" coins are known, if he were faking I don't think he'd be able to dip very far into that bank before people figured out what was happening.
$137 million, and they didn't think to store the password somewhere it wouldn't be lost? They didn't think to ask the guy before he died? What a stupid company.
What kind of security is this?
TRUE security requires TWO factors (or more) so why in blazes didn't they store multiple copies of the key where multiple people have only part of the key? Then your backup to this "offline key" is having multiple partial copies of it in different hands, with the assurance that at least TWO or more people would be required to agree to provide their portion of the key to open the encrypted file.
Handing any one person the key for "safe keeping" is stupid. You should always have accountability and require agreement of more than one person for such things.
It's wonderful security. A password that only you know is a password that you don't have to trust anyone else with. Sure there's a risk that you get kidnapped and tortured for it, or you get a head injury and forget it, but otherwise it's really great security. If you're the founder.
If you're an employee it's less great but still decent, you don't need to bother with the red tape of a distributed system and if something ever does happen to the founder you can just get a new job.
If you're a customer it obvious sucks since the founder can die or run off and take all your money with them. Of course, if you're a customer how are you actually going to know what kind of security and safeguards they have in place. I suppose you could put a bunch of regulations in place to ensure good practices... but doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of cryptocurrency?
Maybe what you see as random is Trump trying different tactics that he think might work. If one tactic fails to work, do you continue to stick with it?
The problem is a) he's choosing terrible tactics to attempt, and b) he's doing a very poor judge of evaluating their success and knowing when to switch.
In the wall situation, he was flexible in his negotiations, while the other side was not willing to negotiate at all.
Not really. Last year I think the Dems offered $27 billion or something in wall money in exchange for DACA and some other stuff. Trump accepted the deal and then blew it up after the hardliners got to him.
For the shutdown he didn't offer anything. How budgeting is supposed to work with US style division of power is you say "I really want X and in exchange I'll give you Y".
Trump's offer was a wall for not shutting down the government. That isn't an offer it's a hostage taking. Not negotiating is exactly what the Democrats should have done.
If Trump wants a wall he needs to offer them something beyond not deliberately breaking the country.
And while doing #2 he tried to get South Korea involved and I think there was some hint of progress on this.
SK never thought anything useful would come of Trump's attempts. They were trying to get Trump to the negotiating table so he'd stop escalating the situation into a war that could kill millions of South Koreans.
I don't think it is over yet, and so I guess we will see on this one. Either way, N. Korea is a bad situation (dictatorship with nuclear weapons) and there are not a lot of good options.
You do what everybody else has done for the past few decades, try to keep them contained until the regime liberalizes and collapses. To this point Trump has been counter-productive since they've gotten a lot of sanction relief and Kim a lot of prestige in exchange for saying the words "denuclearize".
On the wall issue, it is not over yet and so I guess we will have to see what comes of it. I don't think most Democrats care about fixing the border issue (feel free to show me where they are giving credible counter proposals) and so at the very least,
What is the border issue?
Drugs? The wall will do nothing to fix that, drugs come through points of entry. No point carrying crap through the desert when you can hide it in a truck.
Crime? Most studies find that immigrants, legal and illegal, commit crimes at lower rates. In either case it's not a big difference.
Jobs? The source of the decline of the White American blue collar work force isn't illegal immigration, it's mechanization.
Demographics? If you really care about that maybe you could slow the growth of the Latino population, though historically making the border harder to cross actually increases illegal immigration. The reason is that a lot of migrants are seasonal, they want to work in the US a few months and then move back. The harder it is to cross the border the more likely they are to simply stick around.
The alternatives are complex or expensive; strict national ID laws; pressure Mexico to secure their southern border; fix other countries economies; more border patrol; better border technology. And I think Trump is trying these approaches to some extent.
ID laws and drone surveillance would do more to reduce illegal immigration, though I don't think they help as much with overstaying visas.
The wall is actually very poor value compare to just a bunch of drones.
The context of what Trump is talking about in this interview appears to be getting insurance when you have a preexisting condition. It is not clear to me what Trump is saying with his example and the interviewer did nothing to ask Trump to clarify. I don't know what situation Trump is talking about when he says "Because you are basically sayi
While I generally agree with what you are saying I think it is even more complicated. When situations become complex (war, economics, life) you will find experts disagreeing on fundamental courses of action.
Sure, but if qualified people can end up choosing A, B, or C that doesn't mean you should start choosing at random.
Not only are you less likely to choose the right among A, B, and C. But once people learn you're evaluating on the wrong criteria they're going to give you variants of A, B, and C that are much crappier that they should be.
So my point is that it is hard to find the right expert for a given situation.
But Trump isn't even getting the situations themselves right. Look at NK, there are two big directions pushed by the experts. 1) Be harsh and threatening enough that they have too cooperate, and 2) engage diplomatically and try to reduce the threat and liberalize the regime that way.
Trump started with #1 and almost started a Nuclear war by inflaming tensions with personal insults. Then he switched to #2, but he's doing it on the theory that NK is giving up its Nuclear weapons, which absolutely no expert thinks that's going to happen.
So what will happen? Either Trump will keep ignoring the situation, and give NK a deal where they're obviously cheating. Or the deal will fall apart and we'll be back to #1.
Despite what you and a large part of the media say, many people that have worked with Trump say he is a good listener and asks good questions and he expects you to be prepared and know your stuff.
Where is the evidence of this? Maybe it was true decades ago, and I'm sure there's a few current quotes since it's very obvious that he likes to be praised. But I haven't seen a single clip or even quotation that shows sharp attentive questioning.
So I am not convinced that Trump is clueless, but I think that is largely what the left media and Hollywood have conditioned us to believe.
So how do you explain my two original examples? Syria and the shutdown. Any informed person knew how they were going to end.
How do you explain him being off by orders of magnitude on the cost of health care insurance.
Or constantly confusing tariffs and interest rates.
How many times has he completely misunderstood some piece of legislation being debated?
He's really not in the loop.
With ISIS, Trump asked his chosen expert General Mathis to come up with a plan within 30 days to defeat ISIS. While the strategy did not change drastically, things did change.
ISIS was already collapsing when Trump took office.
The military was given the freedom to take action without having to go through layers of decision makers.
Perhaps he did, now here's a question. If he did remove those layers, why were they there in the first place?
If you don't have a deep understanding of what they were actually doing you can't actually be certain removing them was a good thing.
There's a lot of things that sound like really good ideas but never actually get done. And one of the main reasons that happens is that doing them actually turns out to be a really bad idea.
This is one area where Trump's instinct to judge a situation based on a superficial understanding tends to have very bad consequences.
They surrounded the enemy strongholds and destroyed them rather
I have not tried to investigate this issue very much, but I am not convinced. There are many experienced experts (border patrol) who say the wall helps (though it
Because he seems to understand the bigger picture that the US military does not need to be involved in endless policing operations around the world. And maybe Trump made major mistakes in the how the draw down was announced in this case, but it is hard to tell given that a big part of the media tries to report everything he does in a negative light. In the end the policy seems the right one to me and I am glad he is doing the same thing with Afghanistan.
That's not how you do the bigger picture.
How the bigger picture properly works is you go down into the fine details, figure out what is going on, and then you go back out and see the high level details. You then learn to figure out which of the fine details matter and which ones don't, and how to put those details together into getting the big picture right.
Seeing the bigger picture takes a lot of hard work and analysis of all the little bits in that picture.
The mistake that people make, and Trump more than anyone else, is to think that because an expert can summarize the big picture in a few sentences that they are now an expert if they can just say a few sentences on the topic.
Sure the US needs to have fewer foreign interventions. But that doesn't mean you should just rush out of every current foreign intervention. Maybe staying in Syria is the best of a series of not great options. I don't really know, but I do know that Trump doesn't have a clue, he's basically just button mashing.
I don't like what is happening, but at the same time congress has been promising to fix the illegal immigration issue since Reagan. Trump seems to be very determined at fixing it.
No he's very determined at getting a wall. Again if when he actually tries to talk immigration policy he's just randomly stumbling around.
He is in charge of the executive branch and we expect him to enforce the laws. I am not saying it is justified that he refused to sign the funding bill for border wall funding, but at the same time we expect congress to try to help fix this problem regardless of how big of jerk Trump might be.
It's the wall that's preventing the change at an immigration deal.
If the GOP thinks illegal immigration is such a big deal then they should be willing to give the Democrats something worthwhile like DACA. Trump actually had a deal for something like $27 billion for wall funding in exchange for DACA lined up, and then some hardliners wandered into the room and got him to scuttle the deal.
The reason is that the wall doesn't really do much to stop illegal immigration, it's basically just for show. But getting the wall is a big win for Trump, so if the Democrats give him the funding they'll want a big win in return. But the actual hardliners aren't going to agree to a big win for the Democrats in exchange for a white elephant (the Wall, they're already stuck with Trump), so a deal is really tough to make.
Dear NPC,
Wow.. You nailed all the recent idiotic liberal talking points in one post! Congrats!
AKA, reality.
And we'll see whose caved on Feb. 21st...
Trump again. Either he'll:
a) Forget the whole thing.
b) Try Emergency Declaration and probably get slapped down by the courts
c) Get a deal with some form of "wall" but with a lot of goodies that the Democrats really want.
Whatever leverage he had he's already blown.
But the fact that you think ANY of this stuff is true, means he's won again.. and you people have fallen for it again. How many times does he have to checkmate before all of you on the Left stop playing checkers???
Is that a Scott Adams fan I hear? And how much has Trump really won since the election?
Show us on the doll where the mean orange man hurt you...
My brain.
Seriously, I don't understand this big group of his supporters who can't perceive how comically incompetent he is.
Look at Sryia, the Prime Minister of Turkey gets Trump on the phone and convinces Trump to promptly pull out of Syria without any consultation with his military causing his Secretary of Defence to resign!
Then someone finally clues Trump into the fact that the Turkish Prime Minister just wanted the US out so they could take out the Kurds (the US allies in the conflict), which Trump should have known if he spent 2 minutes reading up on the conflict. So then Trump is frantically backtracking and trying to put conditions on his withdraw.
And then the shutdown, he meets with Democratic leaders, "proudly owns the shutdown", gets talked out of it by his advisors who know it's an awful idea, gets talked back into it by right wing pundits riling up their audience, and then shuts down the government with no leverage and no chance of success. His only possible "out" a declaration of emergency. A plan that was just a transparent ploy by his staffers to get him to sign a spending bill and then yell at the courts for blocking him instead.
But this goes on for a month and he says We will not cave!.
And then a day later he caves.
And this is just over the past month and a half with a Christmas break thrown in!
He's just stumbling into self-inflicted disaster after self-inflicted disaster.
You get free vacation and get back pay. Why would you want to quit that?
a) The contractors don't get back pay. A lot of them were basically unemployed for a month.
b) People don't like idiot bosses. And Trump is both the biggest idiot and the biggest boss on the planet.
What's so funny, dude?
Yes, the people of Mexico should have a proper level of concern if there is an outbreak of illness among their northern neighbors that could affect them.
It's funny because of all the racist rhetoric in the US about "dirty Mexicans" bringing in diseases.
And yes, it's perfectly appropriate to "LOL" about serious issues.
What's inappropriate is laughing at the suffering of others or using humour to disguise offensive views.
But using humour to point out a particular racist argument is flawed? That's perfectly legit.
the 10's of thousands of medical unknowns flowing across our open southern border and it is no wonder measles, tb and such are making a real come back
Measles vaccination rate in America: 92%
Measles vaccination rate in Mexico: 96%
Measles vaccination rates by country
Also, you may want to look at a map. Clark County, Washington is a long way from the southern border.
Clark County is a prosperous suburb of Portland, and not many poor Mexicans can afford to live there. It is only 4% Hispanic, and they are not causing this problem.
LOL, Mexicans literally have to worry about sick Americans bringing diseases into their country!