In addition to raising starting salaries (basically improving the lot of the same people these companies already love) or having formal training programs another option is to take more risks on people. Just because a person does not have 5 years experience doing what you want them to do does *not* mean they cannot do it and do it well if you just give them some time to be a bit slow at first while they learn on their own. Pretty much any intelligent person is capable of learning without formal training. Experience is always *paid* experience. Another job that you no longer have for some reason. That is a very specific requirement. So maybe a more experienced person at the company has to spend a little bit of time for the first 2-3 months for new hires to help them get up to speed. That doesn't seem like such a huge sacrifice to me.
These companies might ask,"But why should we do any of this? What is in it for us?" I guess the biggest advantage is paying lower salaries at least until the new workers gain a few years experience and can get hired at other places. So that's say 3 years of paying a below market salary for work that is probably at least comparable to much more expensive and experienced people. You are also introducing people to the labor market from which you hire from which will exert a downward pressure on salaries even at the upper end eventually, but that is a part of the big picture. Instead of one more dish washer or grocery bagger you have one more employable person in the labor pool relevant to the company.
If I were hiring people the only requirements I would have would either be actual competence at the job I wanted them to do (perhaps based on testing) or an interview and a short IQ test. I would *not* require them to have some kind of absolute proof that they are competent. I could find that out for myself soon enough. I would want to hire intelligent people who are willing to do the job and are capable of learning.
I graduated from university in the US in the early 90s and was unable to find any job even remotely related to my EE degree or even any tech related job and I looked hard for years. I never went to a single interview because I didn't meet the 3-5 year experience requirement that was the absolute minimum at least at that time. They wanted more experience than that of course, but they would settle for 3 years. A recent EE graduate with an IQ of 138 who is eager and energetic and hard working? They weren't interested. At all. I don't regret studying Electrical Engineering because I find the subject fascinating, but it certainly has never helped me even a little bit to earn money in my life. If anything it has hurt me when looking for jobs bagging groceries and washing dishes or if I'm lucky a construction job.
From my perspective the whole system just doesn't work. The system makes no sense. Companies don't train or hire unproven people because they don't have to. They are focused only on right now. The system takes no account of the future at all. Eventually those skilled; experienced workers they love so much will retire and/or lose their mental acuity. Will there be anyone to replace them? They are only hurting themselves by limiting the supply of intelligent, hard working people. The reduced labor supply means they pay more for the same workers from the labor pool that they've reduced themselves. I'm always curious how university graduates in technical fields got their first job. The whole thing sounds like a myth to me: this idea that any companies actually hire people with no experience for tech jobs. Hell, you usually can't even get a job as a waiter if you don't have experience.
They go to good schools and get impressive degrees, and it's barely enough to get an unpaid internship.
Not sure how things are now, but these unpaid jobs did not exist when I graduated (early 90s). Companies were not interested in hiring anyone who did not meet their exact requirements. Being willing to work for less or even for free in exchange for the experience and the reference was just not relevant. I am skeptical that it would be easy to find such a 'job' even now. Companies also probably figure that anyone willing to work for free can't be any good.
The downside is that nobody is willing to roll the dice on young people with no experience and a proven track-record
So instead of 1 in every 100 million job listings being a 'no experience required' it's just never? You realize that almost no companies in the US hire workers without experience, right?
It is so rare that you could search for a whole decade and not find such a job and of course even if you do find one it will be so flooded with applicants that you better be one serious badass at what you do and have great interviewing skills if you actually want even a small chance at actually getting the job.
>The willing people are there, but you'd have to be a bit daft to hire an unlicensed and uninsured person to work on things that require licensed and insured tradesmen.
This is why if I build a house in the US I want to do it in a state like Wyoming which doesn't require any of that. The only thing you need to actually hire a licensed person to do is septic tank work. Everything else you can do yourself or hire anyone who actually knows how to do what you want. Licensing raises prices and it does *not* guarantee competence. Lack of a license does not guarantee incompetence.
I would do all of your plumbing with 100% code compliance for your state for $15/hour, but I don't have a license. See the problem? It's not that competent people are unwilling to do the work for a reasonable price. It's that systems exist that strongly discourage any price competition or new entry into the field. The fact is residential plumbing is dead easy compared to fields that actually take real skills and training like say Electrical Engineering, which is what I studied at Uni.
$50 an hour for unclogging toilets is not a great example for your case because would *you* be willing to do that work for $50/hour? I wouldn't, but I'll do computer programming and electronics design and teaching for $10/hour and I'd do residential electrical and plumbing and framing work for $15/hour.
I am an American citizen and have a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering which I have never in my life been able to find a job in because every employer has wanted at least 3-5 years (paid) experience since the day I graduated. I have never seen any company even bothering to look for a fresh EE graduate with no work experience in the field. Not saying it doesn't ever happen, but I've never seen it and I looked for many years. I guess they don't need to since there are plenty of people with experience applying.
I've always been a pretty decent computer programmer but without a CS degree forget it. No one would hire me to code anything. Again, I assume it was a supply and demand issue. There were and are just too many programmers with a degree *and* experience. If you don't have at least one of those you are unemployable in that field and even if you have both it still isn't easy I think if you have less than 5 years experience in the specific area that the company is looking for. This is probably true for most fields. There are many people in the world and most of them are looking for work. Not offering it.
This would also work for cars and would make electric cars a lot more practical. If you genuinely want to slow atmospheric CO2 buildup electrified highways powered by modern nuclear power plants (fission or fusion when available) is the only practical solution until or unless entirely new science is discovered. Combined with hyperloop vacuum tunnels for some stretches with compatible vehicles and this could be what our ground transportation might look like in 2116. Although I'd like to think that vacuum tunnel trains would be the default mode of long distance transportation in a hundred years in the most advanced countries. A ground level hot rail could also be used. Basically think of some kind of hybrid between electric trains and cars. You could even have lanes that are entirely rail based for compatible vehicles where you enter and exit at special locations. Whether you use rails or overhead cables this is far superior to relying exclusively on batteries and charging stations. Once we get all our highways wired up the next step is to stop trying to push a thick ocean of air out of our way all the time. It's the 21s century already. Aerodynamics should not be a major factor by now. Dealing with friction is another matter. Hopefully maglev will be made practical eventually.
Practical fusion power is (as always) only 10 years away. As a result, except for the few windy places on the planet where wind or hydro power is practical, renewables will become irrelevant. Incidentally a comet with 3.2 times the mass of Chicxulub will strike the earth in late May of 2023 causing a mass extinction event.
I have to wonder if these guys would still make their prediction if they knew they would face death by fire in 2027 if their prediction did not come true. Aside from hydroelectric, coal is currently the cheapest source of electricity. Considering the fact that most of the world is so poor they can barely afford basic food and shelter I don't see coal generated electricity disappearing any time soon. There is no way that most developing countries have the technical expertise to build or maintain massive solar or wind farms or the money to replace millions of solar panels when they reach EOL in 20-30 years.
If Greenies were really serious about practical alternatives to electricity generated by combustion they would be advocating nuclear rather than solar. Nuclear really could replace coal and oil for electricity generation in some distant, speculative future even without any tech advances. Now it is still too expensive and too highly technical for most countries though. Not just to build, run, and maintain them, but the cost of the electricity itself will be much higher than coal. Much cheaper than solar or wind power though. Solar is a rich person's electricity source and at least without fundamental advances in photovoltaic tech will not be replacing combustion in most of the world at any time in the near future.
Universal Basic Income is starting to become more and more popular and, against all odds, is even getting implemented in a few countries.
Really? Where? I haven't heard about that. Cuba has something like a universal basic income. It's just very small (think like $2-3 USD) and consists of food like rice and beans and some basic 'necessities' like the occasional toothbrush.
People will no longer be forced to take that 9 to 5 day job to work their ass off, they can easily quit without losing their UBI, work a few days here and there without extra administration. The labour market will change quite drastically.
TAINSTAFL. Your dream of a place where almost no one does any work is a reality already in some countries. The result is anything but utopia.
I think we need to get to the technological singularity with robots and ape-slaves doing all hard or unpleasant work before such a scheme could really be viable. Well unless you are expecting minimum basic to be very low. Like say $100 USD per month or something like that. Realistically I'd say a person could survive on about $300 per month if they are willing to live in a poor third world country, but I doubt even a $300/month UBI would be economically viable.
Most of the world works because people choose not to act like cunts
Yes and the homeowners are the ones acting like anti-social cunts in this instance even going so far as to intentionally sabotage an excellent pro-efficiency system that makes society as a whole work better just because they can. They are selfish fucks who are only thinking of themselves. They should just move to a gated community and choose their roads more carefully next time.
BTW have you ever been to a country where many or even most of the people choose not to not act like cunts most of the time? It is interesting, and it's true that pretty much nothing works. All systems break down nearly all of the time. Almost nothing gets done. Ever.
America has the world's most expensive and dysfunctional processes for repairing infrastructure.
I see you've never been to the Philippines. A road construction project that takes 2-3 years in the US would probably take 15 years or more in the Philippines. Or it may never finish at all.
There are still things today that call for vacuum tubes over solid state circuits. Photomultiplier tubes for scintillation detectors and detector tubes for Geiger counters are a couple that pop to mind.
Also high power RF. Military and weather radar. Long distance RF communication with link budgets measured in light years or parsecs rather than kilometers. Think not only magnetrons, but klystrons and gyrotrons. Still very important devices for which there are no solid state substitutes.
It sounds like you've never actually been to a third world country. So let me assure you that third worlders can be counted on to use whatever transportation technology is the cheapest. So if you want developing countries to use it you'd better hope it is the cheapest way to get from A to B.
Can 3D printers create metal objects? If not CADCAM will continue to dominate when people want to make stuff that actually does useful things. Now a 3D printer that works with molten metal--that would be something.
Merely breaking a law is not sufficient for extradition. There are things called extradition treaties and also much of the time law enforcement does not bother to extradite people for relatively minor non-violent crimes. Many extradition treaties also do not allow for extradition over minor offenses.
It's not the problem. It's the solution. At leat for everyone who is afraid of rising CO2 in the atmosphere. In terms of global warming nuclear plants are the ONLY way. Solar is still impractical because it is way way way too expensive and photovoltaics have only relatively short lifetimes compared even to wind generators. Until/unless someone invents and actually starts making a new kind of solar energy generation technology the choices remain either burning fossil fuels or splitting atoms. Pick one. I'm happy with burning coal for the time being because l like cheap electricity and I don't mind the 1c per century temp increase, but a lot of people here absolutely hate CO2.
What the hell is an 'ultracool dwarf star'? Is that cool as in awesome? This is a brown dwarf. Not really a star at all. It has as much in common with Jupiter or Saturn as it has with a star. It is not large enough to fuse (standard) hydrogen into helium. Which is why it has that weird 2MASS designation based on the 2 Micron All Sky Survey instead of stellar catalog number like say Gliese 581 which is a real dwarf (or main sequence) star. Our star is also a dwarf star ffs. A yellow dwarf. 2MASS was a 2003 infrared sky survey that was searching for brown dwarfs like this one.
As far as the orbiting planets' ability to support life there is quite a bit of doubt as to whether even a red dwarf, which is a real star, allows for life supporting planets. So a planet orbiting a brown dwarf is probably even a more improbable location for life at least as we know it. Also if it is orbiting a brown dwarf is it really a planet or just a large moon like Titan?
You forgot the anti-simulationists like me. I can write a computer simulation too, and if I do write one I can pretty much guarantee that *my* simulation will not include mass migrations based on a 2 degree rise in global temperature which certainly seems absurd or at least very counter-intuitive. Somehow the current temperature, the exact one we have now is the only one in which human beings can survive? I call bullshit on that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Maybe my simulation will include aliens from a far more advanced simulation landing to help out equatorial desert countries as CO2 levels increase. Since it is a computer simulation and that is now considered science it can't be wrong. So it will have to be right.
Bad for you maybe. I'm fine with it. So speak for yourself. Probably the biggest problem with all of this 'climate change', consensus science, simulating the climate of an entire complex planetary atmosphere with primitive computers is NO PROBLEM, garbage in does NOT equal garbage out, brainwashing is that older people are sort of immune to it. When I was in university it was not a 100% proven accepted science etc. That's all happened quite recently. So yes to Millennials the entire world is going to end and very soon. Probably even in their lifetime. It's just obvious! It's proven and settled science! Meanwhile the rest of us see global warming the same as we have always viewed it: a possibility and nothing more.
Lots of people end up with permanent brain damage just from slipping on some ice and hitting their head from a normal fall. This guy fell 20 feet. The brain is as fragile as jello.
He almost certainly *is* brain damaged. I did read the summary and I know he 'survived'. With the amount of cognitive impairment he ends up with though he may wish he were dead. Most head injuries that cause permanent disability are much less severe than what happened to this guy. There is no doubt that this guy is fucked for life. Whether he realizes it or not. I just hope he didn't have a high IQ before the accident because in an accident like this it will almost certainly drop 30+ points.
You seem to be assuming that a (motorcycle) helmet would have saved this guy. I don't think such helmets or really any helmets are designed to protect you from such a fall or really any aircraft crash. Maybe a small parachute would have helped though. It's always better to have a helmet in such head smashing situations of course, but it probably would not have made much difference in the severe brain damage this guy has suffered.
We all like to think that our brains are more damage resistant than they really are. The price of so much computing power in such a small space is that it is incredibly easy to damage it's delicate jello-like structure and microscopic filaments that make fiber optic fibers seem like massive bridge cables.
Slashdot Mirror
In addition to raising starting salaries (basically improving the lot of the same people these companies already love) or having formal training programs another option is to take more risks on people. Just because a person does not have 5 years experience doing what you want them to do does *not* mean they cannot do it and do it well if you just give them some time to be a bit slow at first while they learn on their own. Pretty much any intelligent person is capable of learning without formal training. Experience is always *paid* experience. Another job that you no longer have for some reason. That is a very specific requirement. So maybe a more experienced person at the company has to spend a little bit of time for the first 2-3 months for new hires to help them get up to speed. That doesn't seem like such a huge sacrifice to me.
These companies might ask,"But why should we do any of this? What is in it for us?" I guess the biggest advantage is paying lower salaries at least until the new workers gain a few years experience and can get hired at other places. So that's say 3 years of paying a below market salary for work that is probably at least comparable to much more expensive and experienced people. You are also introducing people to the labor market from which you hire from which will exert a downward pressure on salaries even at the upper end eventually, but that is a part of the big picture. Instead of one more dish washer or grocery bagger you have one more employable person in the labor pool relevant to the company.
If I were hiring people the only requirements I would have would either be actual competence at the job I wanted them to do (perhaps based on testing) or an interview and a short IQ test. I would *not* require them to have some kind of absolute proof that they are competent. I could find that out for myself soon enough. I would want to hire intelligent people who are willing to do the job and are capable of learning.
I graduated from university in the US in the early 90s and was unable to find any job even remotely related to my EE degree or even any tech related job and I looked hard for years. I never went to a single interview because I didn't meet the 3-5 year experience requirement that was the absolute minimum at least at that time. They wanted more experience than that of course, but they would settle for 3 years. A recent EE graduate with an IQ of 138 who is eager and energetic and hard working? They weren't interested. At all. I don't regret studying Electrical Engineering because I find the subject fascinating, but it certainly has never helped me even a little bit to earn money in my life. If anything it has hurt me when looking for jobs bagging groceries and washing dishes or if I'm lucky a construction job.
From my perspective the whole system just doesn't work. The system makes no sense. Companies don't train or hire unproven people because they don't have to. They are focused only on right now. The system takes no account of the future at all. Eventually those skilled; experienced workers they love so much will retire and/or lose their mental acuity. Will there be anyone to replace them? They are only hurting themselves by limiting the supply of intelligent, hard working people. The reduced labor supply means they pay more for the same workers from the labor pool that they've reduced themselves. I'm always curious how university graduates in technical fields got their first job. The whole thing sounds like a myth to me: this idea that any companies actually hire people with no experience for tech jobs. Hell, you usually can't even get a job as a waiter if you don't have experience.
They go to good schools and get impressive degrees, and it's barely enough to get an unpaid internship.
Not sure how things are now, but these unpaid jobs did not exist when I graduated (early 90s). Companies were not interested in hiring anyone who did not meet their exact requirements. Being willing to work for less or even for free in exchange for the experience and the reference was just not relevant. I am skeptical that it would be easy to find such a 'job' even now. Companies also probably figure that anyone willing to work for free can't be any good.
The downside is that nobody is willing to roll the dice on young people with no experience and a proven track-record
So instead of 1 in every 100 million job listings being a 'no experience required' it's just never? You realize that almost no companies in the US hire workers without experience, right?
It is so rare that you could search for a whole decade and not find such a job and of course even if you do find one it will be so flooded with applicants that you better be one serious badass at what you do and have great interviewing skills if you actually want even a small chance at actually getting the job.
>The willing people are there, but you'd have to be a bit daft to hire an unlicensed and uninsured person to work on things that require licensed and insured tradesmen.
This is why if I build a house in the US I want to do it in a state like Wyoming which doesn't require any of that. The only thing you need to actually hire a licensed person to do is septic tank work. Everything else you can do yourself or hire anyone who actually knows how to do what you want. Licensing raises prices and it does *not* guarantee competence. Lack of a license does not guarantee incompetence.
I would do all of your plumbing with 100% code compliance for your state for $15/hour, but I don't have a license. See the problem? It's not that competent people are unwilling to do the work for a reasonable price. It's that systems exist that strongly discourage any price competition or new entry into the field. The fact is residential plumbing is dead easy compared to fields that actually take real skills and training like say Electrical Engineering, which is what I studied at Uni.
$50 an hour for unclogging toilets is not a great example for your case because would *you* be willing to do that work for $50/hour? I wouldn't, but I'll do computer programming and electronics design and teaching for $10/hour and I'd do residential electrical and plumbing and framing work for $15/hour.
I am an American citizen and have a bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering which I have never in my life been able to find a job in because every employer has wanted at least 3-5 years (paid) experience since the day I graduated. I have never seen any company even bothering to look for a fresh EE graduate with no work experience in the field. Not saying it doesn't ever happen, but I've never seen it and I looked for many years. I guess they don't need to since there are plenty of people with experience applying.
I've always been a pretty decent computer programmer but without a CS degree forget it. No one would hire me to code anything. Again, I assume it was a supply and demand issue. There were and are just too many programmers with a degree *and* experience. If you don't have at least one of those you are unemployable in that field and even if you have both it still isn't easy I think if you have less than 5 years experience in the specific area that the company is looking for. This is probably true for most fields. There are many people in the world and most of them are looking for work. Not offering it.
This would also work for cars and would make electric cars a lot more practical. If you genuinely want to slow atmospheric CO2 buildup electrified highways powered by modern nuclear power plants (fission or fusion when available) is the only practical solution until or unless entirely new science is discovered. Combined with hyperloop vacuum tunnels for some stretches with compatible vehicles and this could be what our ground transportation might look like in 2116. Although I'd like to think that vacuum tunnel trains would be the default mode of long distance transportation in a hundred years in the most advanced countries. A ground level hot rail could also be used. Basically think of some kind of hybrid between electric trains and cars. You could even have lanes that are entirely rail based for compatible vehicles where you enter and exit at special locations. Whether you use rails or overhead cables this is far superior to relying exclusively on batteries and charging stations. Once we get all our highways wired up the next step is to stop trying to push a thick ocean of air out of our way all the time. It's the 21s century already. Aerodynamics should not be a major factor by now. Dealing with friction is another matter. Hopefully maglev will be made practical eventually.
Practical fusion power is (as always) only 10 years away. As a result, except for the few windy places on the planet where wind or hydro power is practical, renewables will become irrelevant. Incidentally a comet with 3.2 times the mass of Chicxulub will strike the earth in late May of 2023 causing a mass extinction event.
I have to wonder if these guys would still make their prediction if they knew they would face death by fire in 2027 if their prediction did not come true. Aside from hydroelectric, coal is currently the cheapest source of electricity. Considering the fact that most of the world is so poor they can barely afford basic food and shelter I don't see coal generated electricity disappearing any time soon. There is no way that most developing countries have the technical expertise to build or maintain massive solar or wind farms or the money to replace millions of solar panels when they reach EOL in 20-30 years.
If Greenies were really serious about practical alternatives to electricity generated by combustion they would be advocating nuclear rather than solar. Nuclear really could replace coal and oil for electricity generation in some distant, speculative future even without any tech advances. Now it is still too expensive and too highly technical for most countries though. Not just to build, run, and maintain them, but the cost of the electricity itself will be much higher than coal. Much cheaper than solar or wind power though. Solar is a rich person's electricity source and at least without fundamental advances in photovoltaic tech will not be replacing combustion in most of the world at any time in the near future.
Universal Basic Income is starting to become more and more popular and, against all odds, is even getting implemented in a few countries.
Really? Where? I haven't heard about that. Cuba has something like a universal basic income. It's just very small (think like $2-3 USD) and consists of food like rice and beans and some basic 'necessities' like the occasional toothbrush.
People will no longer be forced to take that 9 to 5 day job to work their ass off, they can easily quit without losing their UBI, work a few days here and there without extra administration. The labour market will change quite drastically.
TAINSTAFL. Your dream of a place where almost no one does any work is a reality already in some countries. The result is anything but utopia.
I think we need to get to the technological singularity with robots and ape-slaves doing all hard or unpleasant work before such a scheme could really be viable. Well unless you are expecting minimum basic to be very low. Like say $100 USD per month or something like that. Realistically I'd say a person could survive on about $300 per month if they are willing to live in a poor third world country, but I doubt even a $300/month UBI would be economically viable.
Most of the world works because people choose not to act like cunts
Yes and the homeowners are the ones acting like anti-social cunts in this instance even going so far as to intentionally sabotage an excellent pro-efficiency system that makes society as a whole work better just because they can. They are selfish fucks who are only thinking of themselves. They should just move to a gated community and choose their roads more carefully next time.
BTW have you ever been to a country where many or even most of the people choose not to not act like cunts most of the time? It is interesting, and it's true that pretty much nothing works. All systems break down nearly all of the time. Almost nothing gets done. Ever.
America has the world's most expensive and dysfunctional processes for repairing infrastructure.
I see you've never been to the Philippines. A road construction project that takes 2-3 years in the US would probably take 15 years or more in the Philippines. Or it may never finish at all.
There are still things today that call for vacuum tubes over solid state circuits. Photomultiplier tubes for scintillation detectors and detector tubes for Geiger counters are a couple that pop to mind.
Also high power RF. Military and weather radar. Long distance RF communication with link budgets measured in light years or parsecs rather than kilometers. Think not only magnetrons, but klystrons and gyrotrons. Still very important devices for which there are no solid state substitutes.
It sounds like you've never actually been to a third world country. So let me assure you that third worlders can be counted on to use whatever transportation technology is the cheapest. So if you want developing countries to use it you'd better hope it is the cheapest way to get from A to B.
Can 3D printers create metal objects? If not CADCAM will continue to dominate when people want to make stuff that actually does useful things. Now a 3D printer that works with molten metal--that would be something.
Cash is also used for illegal things. Far more than bitcoin or this guy's website that I never heard of. So what?
Merely breaking a law is not sufficient for extradition. There are things called extradition treaties and also much of the time law enforcement does not bother to extradite people for relatively minor non-violent crimes. Many extradition treaties also do not allow for extradition over minor offenses.
It's not the problem. It's the solution. At leat for everyone who is afraid of rising CO2 in the atmosphere. In terms of global warming nuclear plants are the ONLY way. Solar is still impractical because it is way way way too expensive and photovoltaics have only relatively short lifetimes compared even to wind generators. Until/unless someone invents and actually starts making a new kind of solar energy generation technology the choices remain either burning fossil fuels or splitting atoms. Pick one. I'm happy with burning coal for the time being because l like cheap electricity and I don't mind the 1c per century temp increase, but a lot of people here absolutely hate CO2.
What the hell is an 'ultracool dwarf star'? Is that cool as in awesome? This is a brown dwarf. Not really a star at all. It has as much in common with Jupiter or Saturn as it has with a star. It is not large enough to fuse (standard) hydrogen into helium. Which is why it has that weird 2MASS designation based on the 2 Micron All Sky Survey instead of stellar catalog number like say Gliese 581 which is a real dwarf (or main sequence) star. Our star is also a dwarf star ffs. A yellow dwarf. 2MASS was a 2003 infrared sky survey that was searching for brown dwarfs like this one.
As far as the orbiting planets' ability to support life there is quite a bit of doubt as to whether even a red dwarf, which is a real star, allows for life supporting planets. So a planet orbiting a brown dwarf is probably even a more improbable location for life at least as we know it. Also if it is orbiting a brown dwarf is it really a planet or just a large moon like Titan?
You forgot the anti-simulationists like me. I can write a computer simulation too, and if I do write one I can pretty much guarantee that *my* simulation will not include mass migrations based on a 2 degree rise in global temperature which certainly seems absurd or at least very counter-intuitive. Somehow the current temperature, the exact one we have now is the only one in which human beings can survive? I call bullshit on that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Maybe my simulation will include aliens from a far more advanced simulation landing to help out equatorial desert countries as CO2 levels increase. Since it is a computer simulation and that is now considered science it can't be wrong. So it will have to be right.
The planet is warming, and that's bad for us
Bad for you maybe. I'm fine with it. So speak for yourself. Probably the biggest problem with all of this 'climate change', consensus science, simulating the climate of an entire complex planetary atmosphere with primitive computers is NO PROBLEM, garbage in does NOT equal garbage out, brainwashing is that older people are sort of immune to it. When I was in university it was not a 100% proven accepted science etc. That's all happened quite recently. So yes to Millennials the entire world is going to end and very soon. Probably even in their lifetime. It's just obvious! It's proven and settled science! Meanwhile the rest of us see global warming the same as we have always viewed it: a possibility and nothing more.
Climate science isn't science.
Lots of people end up with permanent brain damage just from slipping on some ice and hitting their head from a normal fall. This guy fell 20 feet. The brain is as fragile as jello.
He almost certainly *is* brain damaged. I did read the summary and I know he 'survived'. With the amount of cognitive impairment he ends up with though he may wish he were dead. Most head injuries that cause permanent disability are much less severe than what happened to this guy. There is no doubt that this guy is fucked for life. Whether he realizes it or not. I just hope he didn't have a high IQ before the accident because in an accident like this it will almost certainly drop 30+ points.
Must have detected a planet that didn't want to be detected.
We can't visit them but we could send messages to promising ones.
You seem to be assuming that a (motorcycle) helmet would have saved this guy. I don't think such helmets or really any helmets are designed to protect you from such a fall or really any aircraft crash. Maybe a small parachute would have helped though. It's always better to have a helmet in such head smashing situations of course, but it probably would not have made much difference in the severe brain damage this guy has suffered.
We all like to think that our brains are more damage resistant than they really are. The price of so much computing power in such a small space is that it is incredibly easy to damage it's delicate jello-like structure and microscopic filaments that make fiber optic fibers seem like massive bridge cables.