In other words, the primary difference between good infrastructure and bad infrastructure.
No, that's just you couching your words in vague, weaselly phrases.
What vague, weaselly phrases? Parroting what I wrote in an inapplicable way is a sign you aren't thinking. Recall that I originally wrote:
Good infrastructure has incentives to encourage everyone to use it in a way that encourages long term preservation.
So how does that "incentive" to encourage long term preservation not include by default addressing prisoners' dilemma issues?
No, fear (emotion) is the primary means for insuring laws, regulations, and such are obeyed. Fear of loss, fear of punishment, fear of pain, etc. Most people follow the law simply because it's the law, without question or being critical of it (as in, taking a rational stance)
If that were true, then the law would be more effective on the emotional than the rational. The converse is true. For example, most violent crimes are emotional in nature (and correlated with drug use including legal drugs like alcohol) and I doubt a lot of the perpetrators considered the legal consequences of their actions before they started swinging.
And people wouldn't willfully break laws that they think are unjust, like speed limits, illegal drugs, and prostitution.
Unless of course, becoming one of the sheep is actually a perfectly rational conclusion (I don't know how one would arrive at that, but suppose there is a way), but that wouldn't sound very good, not for the pro-rational-thinking crowd anyway.
A non sequitur. Nothing you've written so far requires one to be a "sheep".
Um... that's not a prisoner's dilemma. A prisoner's dilemma does not involve one person manipulating the choices of others. It's simply when the individual rational action is to not cooperate, but the collective rational action is to cooperate.
What's a winning strategy for the prisoners' dilemma? To manipulate your fellow prisoner into claiming innocence while you rat him out. That's the best payout for the game from your point of view. That's exactly what's going on in the example above.
Nor is it an example of your assertion that emotion is responsible for some important strides towards freedom and liberty.
Oh, but it is. I'm observing that it's the rational people who do the manipulating and oppression. They join the system instead of fighting it. This leaves the irrational people to fight. They are after all the bulk of the people who are oppressed. It is they who get pissed on, and it is they who eventually get pissed (emotional) enough to revolt.
Nonsense. You are making an assertion not an observation. To demonstrate this, point to an example of an authoritarian government that actually worked that way with the rational siding with the government and the rebellious side consisting of the emotional.
To the contrary, this demonstrates a difference of power between emotion and rationality. The more rational people are, the less beholden they are to such forms of manipulation.
That's not contrary to me. That runs parallel. My view is that being rational doesn't lead to good outcomes to most people (OP's assertion). My view is that being rational lead to good outcomes for you, the individual.
And the society consists of a lot of individuals. Hence, a good outcome for society as well.
You saying being rational makes them less beholden to manipulation doesn't contradict my view. Not being manipulated would one of those good outcomes.
Here is a huge example of how rationality helps make us more free.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
...and the fact that there is little oil left in the ground. And none that is practical to extract.
Then we switch. And we'll be much wealthier and capable of making the switch because we didn't cripple our economy for a few decades. I suppose my viewpoint comes from a study of US economic history. There is a long history of resource depletion and switching to substitute goods over many centuries. I see no evidence that this will somehow work differently for the US's current reliance on fossil fuels.
For example, if we switch to alternatives in 50 years, then we'll have 50 years of wealth built up to help fund that change and any other needs we happen to have at the time (please keep in mind that there are more serious harms out there than global warming, such as poverty, disease, and desertification).
Keep in mind that every economy out there is growing over the long term several percent per year. That wealth so created is being used to improve our lives. When you propose a massive tax on fossil fuels, you are throwing a wrench into the primary tool by which we are elevating everyone on the planet from poverty.
For example, suppose, adjusted for inflation, that the US economy grows by 2.7% a year (as it has since 1973). A trillion dollar cost now becomes roughly $3.8 trillion adjusted for inflation in 50 years. In 200 years, which is about the time frame of significant global warming harm, that money has grown to about $200 trillion adjusted for inflation. That would buy a lot of AGW mitigation.
As a result, you should have very good reasons for such things because there's going to be a huge opportunity cost involved. Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
Again, you don't seem to be getting it. There's no official definition of "long-term" in climatology or in CPC work. From the IPCC link:
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
So no standard time scale from the IPCC. And the "M" in WMO is for meteorology, the study of weather not climate.
But let's go on and ask ourselves, what does the CPC think is "long-term" since that is the crux of the matter. Turns out they think all sorts of time frames are long term (for example, one to five year periods in this graph).
Frankly, it wouldn't have been that hard to consider hurricane records as far back as they were reliable. That's somewhere before 1951 and truly "long-term" in the sense of the word.
You can't also simply assume that such species are headed towards extinction regardless, how do you know this?
Let's use reason for starters.
First, there's no niche that will remain forever unchanging. So an organism that has evolved for that particular niche has to have an exit or it'll eventually go extinct. Either it moves on to some other environment, or it exchanges genes with compatible organisms in another environment.
And from looking through a history of invasive species onto Pacific islands, it appears that species which have evolved to compete in a big environment (such as rats in the wilds and towns of Europe), tend to eliminate species which had evolved to the niche environments of the islands.
Conversely, I see no evidence of species which evolved to a niche, expanding unless there is absolutely no competition (such as species which first colonized those Pacific Islands).
So yes, it sure looks to me like heavy specialization in a niche is some of a death sentence.
Then we witness precisely the kind of storm that scientists have been warning us about. But somehow pointing out the years of research that predicted these kinds of events is "sensationalizing" the event.
Your uninformed opinion is not "pointing out" years of research. This storm is also the sort of storm that would appear, if there is no correlation between global warming and storm severity. The evidence has to distinguish between "global warming helps cause more severe storms" and the null hypothesis. It doesn't here.
What probably *hasn't* been pointed out to you is that climate science uses 30-year averages as their basis for "long term" and to differentiate weather vs climate.
Utter garbage. If you're going to make up shit, could you at least make up something plausible? Googling around, the error seems to come from NOAA data products (which cover 30 year time spans) that are updated every ten years. For your information, the NOAA is not climate science, but a government bureaucracy that happens to find a 30 year period useful not because it considers 30 years "long term".
1981-2010 is the latest complete 30-year set. 1951-1980 would be the prior 30-year set, thus is not relevant to what they are reporting on.
Hurricanes don't turn inland at NY. Except when they do. Which is almost never.
Each such storm is different, there will always be something, such as your observation above, that will make each storm unique. Seizing upon that difference as something significant is just a case of confirmation bias.
The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.
Why in the world do you think that is "practical"? At current gasoline consumption in the US alone, that's roughly $3-4 trillion per year. There are plenty of other taxable fossil fuel-derived fuels as well. Obviously, as a "punitive" tax, it'd greatly reduce demand, but even so I think it likely that this tax would bring in several trillion a year. And what are you going to spend that on? Some renewable energy crap. That's a massive distortion of the economy.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
It doesn't make a bit of sense to advocate such self-destructive measures when the "la la la" strategy works so much better.
The waste water will have lots of sulfer, but that also occurs naturally.
Well, there's a serious concern right there. Dose makes the poison.
And we need to consider what's attached to that sulfur. It usually isn't elemental sulfur. Metals such as iron, lead, copper, etc are usually attached. They're naturally occurring as well, but not in the concentrations dealt with in hydrothermal fluid.
Having said that, it's merely a serious problem that adds cost to the system, not an insurmountable one.
No, it just encourages people to use it. Says nothing whether people would preserve it. For preservation to happen, there can never be a prisoner's dilemma.
In other words, the primary difference between good infrastructure and bad infrastructure.
False dilemma. There are lots of things people can do where they don't preserve civilization while not bringing it down. I could go the way of John Galt and just leave your civilization. Doesn't mean I'm destroying your civilization.
A fictional character who preserved civilization by leaving a dysfunctional, dying one.
Most of those incentives are emotional in nature. Government - the largest and most powerful form of cooperation in society - often appeals to emotion to get people to cooperate (as you noted yourself later).
The laws, regulations, and such, and the punishments for breaking those laws are the primary means for insuring cooperation. Those aren't emotional in nature.
The private sector (in a free market, not the bloated regulated one today) uses a more rational approach, and you can see that cooperation is a fleeting thing. Companies rise and fall. The moment a company falls out from being "good" (like good infrastructure), there's little incentive to try to bail it out and prop it back up. People sell their stock. People look for jobs elsewhere. Just let that company fail.
Competition is among the best forms of cooperation. There's usually considerable net benefit to letting a failing company fail. It allows those resources and employees to go to more productive places.
That's an irrational conclusion. This isn't a high school debate, where some impartial 3rd party judge regulating the proceedings, like some big nanny government. This is the comments section on an Internet website. People are free to post whatever assertions they want, with or without evidence.
No, that's an irrational conclusion. What's the point of posting unfounded assertions that people won't take seriously (unless of course, they already buy in to your opinion)? Having said that, your argument looks much better now.
Here's another. It "must" be? That's a very strong assertion, stronger than what I and the other AC said (a "tendency" leaves leeway for exceptions).
Oh course, but that's because I'm not couching my words in vague, weaselly phrases. And it's worth adding that the term "tendency" is being abused here. I could similarly note a tendency for healthy adults to die of various things. But that doesn't mean that their tendency to die is comparable to the tendency of newborns with grievous birth defects to die. In other words, a group is treated out of context in a way that ends up deceptive.
So sure, among the "consciously rational", there are some "unspoken, unexamined assumptions driving their reason" that could be emotional in origin. But how does that differ from the control group, people who aren't "consciously rational"? Seems to me that someone is seizing on a small flaw while ignoring a huge one.
Because the point is simply to show that rational thinking doesn't always lead to good outcomes for most people (the assertion made by the OP). I don't think anybody is saying emotional thinking has no flaws.
You're basically going "BUT THE OTHER PARTY DOES IT TOO" in partisan politics. Ok... so the other party does bad things. That doesn't change what your side did or does.
Unless, of course, the harm done is greater for those pursuing a less rational route. I think that is the case.
Then I'll note that a lot of authoritarian propaganda and dominance is conjured up and created by rational people.
So what? Such an observation doesn't back any arguments you've made so far. It's a case of prisoners' dilemma, where one person gains by manipulating the choices
You want to throw urination in as a measure of an IV drip too? What a great idea. Oh wait, there's that tiny little problem of the patient drinking. And of course you need to take into account the efficiency rate of their kidneys.
Tell you what. You come up with a better idea, you be sure and tell us.
But this line is priceless. One always knows the actual dosage given to the patient by how much drug they put in. The IV Infuser working properly or not is irrelevent to that datapoint. The issue here is that the RATE OF INFUSION cannot be determined by any blood tests after the fact. All it can do is tell you how much is in there at that moment.
Two things to note here. First, you don't "know" the actual dosage given to the patient any more than you "know" the rate of infusion. The blood test in contrast, tells you what is actually important, how much is in the body. That's the actual dosage.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Patients get PISSED when they need to be stuck with needles more often than necessary. Especially when you go tell them it's because we don't know if that IV device actually works right.
People just love to be guinea pigs.
On top of who's paying for that? Health insurance companies sure as shit don't pay for device diagnostic tests. Nor does it cover the fact that every patient's different based upon their size, composition, metabolism, etc. All those factors play a big role in drug absorption and metabolism. There's no way to get an established set of values to determine a precise numeric value for infusion.
Last I checked, insurance companies pay for a lot of diagnostic tests. And it's worth noting that things go wrong. So diagnostic tests are required for precisely the above reason.
Not to mention, exactly what blood test are you going to use to test for a straight up saline drip?
How often is the patient urinating? But I imagine blood tests would pick up on whether a patient had too much or too little hydration.
The problem here is that the system is not a straight up saline drip (any more than the old style IV drip). It's a means to inject drugs. And one only knows for sure the actual dosage given to the patient via tests that measure that.
It is not unreasonable to have an interest in making the world a better place by the time one dies. It's a means of returning what was given in the first place.
It is also not unreasonable to NOT have such interest. Why return what was given?
So you agree with me? I'll point out an additional issue here. Good infrastructure has incentives to encourage everyone to use it in a way that encourages long term preservation. For example, what's the incentive for a rational person to bring down civilization? Most of the incentives are towards cooperating.
All I see here is a tendency for emotional people to say other people are exaggerating to avoid providing a more rational, analyzed response.
If so, you'll be able to provide evidence of that rather than assertions. In my defense, I was responding to:
There's a tendency for consciously rational people to not recognize that many of the unspoken, unexamined assumptions driving their reason are emotional in origin.
This is typical of any subject that the author thinks is more important than others consider it. It must be lack of recognition even though everyone else also experiences emotions and thus, by default, has some understanding of the issue. But if one pays lip service to the issue, then one is considered to "recognize" the issue.
It also ignores that there's a lot of stuff upstairs that can cause cognitive and observational biases (not just "unexamined" assumptions. Some biases exist no matter how rational we are. Sure there are emotional biases, and sure some of mine are probably "unexamined" to some degree. But you have yet to show that these biases matter.
Ah, but since we got here using BOTH cooperation and deception, reason being less deceptive is not necessarily a good thing. I wouldn't conclusively say reason is more effective.
I would argue some of the most important strides towards freedom and liberty (which creates societies that allow for reason to flourish) is because of emotion: a rational person could just as easily join the oppressive state instead of fighting back.
Why make this argument when it's so easy to note that emotional people eagerly join as well? I'll note that a lot of authoritarian propaganda and dominance is effective appeals to emotion.
I am the OP. And no, I still disagree. While googling, I see high maintenance issues in New York state from road striping.
For example, this 2011 story indicates the New York State Thruway (a toll highway which goes by both Rochester and Buffalo) used an old paint that had to be restriped every two years and replaced that with a new one that goes every three years.
Such maintenance issues don't doom smart road markings. But they do indicate that there are tremendous wear processes on roads which are being ignored in this discussion. And that could mean a considerable maintenance cost which could rule out the technology (unless the part that wears is relatively inexpensive).
The OP is one of many on this thread screaming 'change is bad!'
And the "change is good" crowd apparently never considers that change often has drawbacks larger than the alleged benefits. My suspicion is that ideas for some variation of smart road markings has been around as long as there has been road striping. It hasn't taken hold for most applications simply because of the maintenance costs.
Keep in mind, every single museum exhibit at this place was paid for with money borrowed on behalf of the taxpayer. Now the taxpayer is paying again for the privilege of laying eyes on what what built using loans their great grandchildren never consented to, but nonetheless will be paying back under threat of force.
Sounds reasonable then to charge for services offered. Unless, of course, you think we should pay for this as well with the same flawed tricks.
Petty squabbles are boring to everyone except the participants? Who knew?
As to the red/blue thing, it's pretty much the divide between rural and urban populations. And almost everyone has some sort of rural and urban population with the same sort of division.
I take it you're not black, gay, or a woman. People do still get killed in the US for being "other", but most people who aren't "other" don't tend to notice that it's still happening.
Or white and male. I think the disturbing paradox of this situation in the US is the considerable discrimination by the people supposedly aware of and fixing the problem.
I think that's why the previous poster referred to doing things intended to have consequences after you die - from an enlightened self-interest viewpoint, why would you care what happens after you're dead?
The future doesn't cease to exist merely because you are dead. It is not unreasonable to have an interest in making the world a better place by the time one dies. It's a means of returning what was given in the first place.
There's a tendency for consciously rational people to not recognize that many of the unspoken, unexamined assumptions driving their reason are emotional in origin.
All I see here is a tendency to greatly exaggerate the importance of emotion.
Inexperience with empathy implies potential ignorance concerning empathy and emotion in general.
And critical experience with empathy makes one painfully aware of its drawbacks such as gullibility and irrational behavior. As I've mentioned earlier, understanding of another entity is a more useful goal than empathy.
Question: Reason helps us find ways to get what we want, but does pure reason decide what we want?
Of course not simply because pure reason has no state. Neither does emotion. You ignore here the rest of the world and just how humanity got here in the first place. I guess that would be initial conditions. For starters humans got where they are by intense cooperation and careful deception over millions of generations. Both reason and emotion have been refined over that period and beyond.
In that light, emotion has a place as a helpful state for various human adversities and to of course, encourage the next generation of humanity to come forth. But it also has a place as a double bladed tool of communication via empathy. Empathy not only serves to tune us into others' emotions, but reveals our emotions as well and makes us less resistant to deception. It enables cooperation, but is easy to misuse. Still, it makes for a basis of unspoken communication.
But so does reason. And the latter has turned out to be more effective and less deceptive.
Yeah, must be a bitch with all those northern roads that no longer have any markings on them at all by spring...oh wait, we have lines that seem to last just fine now under heavy plowing.
I doubt you do actually. Especially given stories like this.
It is an epoxy based paint that is more reflective than paint used in years past. should last six to seven years.
UDOT will conduct nightly lane closures between 600 North in Salt Lake City and 10600 South in Sandy. They'll cover up the lines nightly and lay down the new paint in small groves - about 1/8 of an inch deeper than the old paint. They hope it will help the paint stick better when snow scrapes over the top of it.
Note that they're making grooves in the road and putting the paint, in a pretty thick layer in those grooves. Obviously, the smart road stuff would probably work similarly since something that sticks out gets scraped faster. But if a dumb and durable epoxy based paint lasts about seven years, then that probably is an upper limit on how long your smart stuff is going to last in significant winter conditions with snow plows.
There's other doodads that fare worse than lines, for example, road reflectors, raised, reflective studs stuck on a road.
The only thing you have to tell you that it would be bad to selfishly care only about your own well-being at the expense of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. In other words, empathy.
I guess this is an example of how empathy clouds rational thought. After all, we have plenty of examples of people who rationally have subscribed to cooperation and such. Sometimes it's a recognition that cooperation can yield greater rewards. Sometimes it is a desire to accomplish far more than one can accomplish by themselves in a lifetime.
As to "success of the species", it's worth mentioning that that will likely be considered a provincial, backwards attitude in a few centuries when a number of species exist as well as a number of sapients with no identifiable affiliation species-wise.
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
It's a standard label that I gather has been kicking around since the mid 1850s or so. For a long time now, a lot of people having been unwilling to grant the party that particular rhetorical advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, the primary difference between good infrastructure and bad infrastructure.
No, that's just you couching your words in vague, weaselly phrases.
What vague, weaselly phrases? Parroting what I wrote in an inapplicable way is a sign you aren't thinking. Recall that I originally wrote:
Good infrastructure has incentives to encourage everyone to use it in a way that encourages long term preservation.
So how does that "incentive" to encourage long term preservation not include by default addressing prisoners' dilemma issues?
No, fear (emotion) is the primary means for insuring laws, regulations, and such are obeyed. Fear of loss, fear of punishment, fear of pain, etc. Most people follow the law simply because it's the law, without question or being critical of it (as in, taking a rational stance)
If that were true, then the law would be more effective on the emotional than the rational. The converse is true. For example, most violent crimes are emotional in nature (and correlated with drug use including legal drugs like alcohol) and I doubt a lot of the perpetrators considered the legal consequences of their actions before they started swinging.
And people wouldn't willfully break laws that they think are unjust, like speed limits, illegal drugs, and prostitution.
Unless of course, becoming one of the sheep is actually a perfectly rational conclusion (I don't know how one would arrive at that, but suppose there is a way), but that wouldn't sound very good, not for the pro-rational-thinking crowd anyway.
A non sequitur. Nothing you've written so far requires one to be a "sheep".
Um... that's not a prisoner's dilemma. A prisoner's dilemma does not involve one person manipulating the choices of others. It's simply when the individual rational action is to not cooperate, but the collective rational action is to cooperate.
What's a winning strategy for the prisoners' dilemma? To manipulate your fellow prisoner into claiming innocence while you rat him out. That's the best payout for the game from your point of view. That's exactly what's going on in the example above.
Nor is it an example of your assertion that emotion is responsible for some important strides towards freedom and liberty.
Oh, but it is. I'm observing that it's the rational people who do the manipulating and oppression. They join the system instead of fighting it. This leaves the irrational people to fight. They are after all the bulk of the people who are oppressed. It is they who get pissed on, and it is they who eventually get pissed (emotional) enough to revolt.
Nonsense. You are making an assertion not an observation. To demonstrate this, point to an example of an authoritarian government that actually worked that way with the rational siding with the government and the rebellious side consisting of the emotional.
To the contrary, this demonstrates a difference of power between emotion and rationality. The more rational people are, the less beholden they are to such forms of manipulation.
That's not contrary to me. That runs parallel. My view is that being rational doesn't lead to good outcomes to most people (OP's assertion). My view is that being rational lead to good outcomes for you, the individual.
And the society consists of a lot of individuals. Hence, a good outcome for society as well.
You saying being rational makes them less beholden to manipulation doesn't contradict my view. Not being manipulated would one of those good outcomes.
Here is a huge example of how rationality helps make us more free.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
...and the fact that there is little oil left in the ground. And none that is practical to extract.
Then we switch. And we'll be much wealthier and capable of making the switch because we didn't cripple our economy for a few decades. I suppose my viewpoint comes from a study of US economic history. There is a long history of resource depletion and switching to substitute goods over many centuries. I see no evidence that this will somehow work differently for the US's current reliance on fossil fuels.
For example, if we switch to alternatives in 50 years, then we'll have 50 years of wealth built up to help fund that change and any other needs we happen to have at the time (please keep in mind that there are more serious harms out there than global warming, such as poverty, disease, and desertification).
Keep in mind that every economy out there is growing over the long term several percent per year. That wealth so created is being used to improve our lives. When you propose a massive tax on fossil fuels, you are throwing a wrench into the primary tool by which we are elevating everyone on the planet from poverty.
For example, suppose, adjusted for inflation, that the US economy grows by 2.7% a year (as it has since 1973). A trillion dollar cost now becomes roughly $3.8 trillion adjusted for inflation in 50 years. In 200 years, which is about the time frame of significant global warming harm, that money has grown to about $200 trillion adjusted for inflation. That would buy a lot of AGW mitigation.
As a result, you should have very good reasons for such things because there's going to be a huge opportunity cost involved. Not some vague worry, like tropical cyclones might be slightly more powerful and harmful than they've been in the past.
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather", or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
So no standard time scale from the IPCC. And the "M" in WMO is for meteorology, the study of weather not climate.
But let's go on and ask ourselves, what does the CPC think is "long-term" since that is the crux of the matter. Turns out they think all sorts of time frames are long term (for example, one to five year periods in this graph).
Frankly, it wouldn't have been that hard to consider hurricane records as far back as they were reliable. That's somewhere before 1951 and truly "long-term" in the sense of the word.
You can't also simply assume that such species are headed towards extinction regardless, how do you know this?
Let's use reason for starters.
First, there's no niche that will remain forever unchanging. So an organism that has evolved for that particular niche has to have an exit or it'll eventually go extinct. Either it moves on to some other environment, or it exchanges genes with compatible organisms in another environment.
And from looking through a history of invasive species onto Pacific islands, it appears that species which have evolved to compete in a big environment (such as rats in the wilds and towns of Europe), tend to eliminate species which had evolved to the niche environments of the islands.
Conversely, I see no evidence of species which evolved to a niche, expanding unless there is absolutely no competition (such as species which first colonized those Pacific Islands).
So yes, it sure looks to me like heavy specialization in a niche is some of a death sentence.
Then we witness precisely the kind of storm that scientists have been warning us about. But somehow pointing out the years of research that predicted these kinds of events is "sensationalizing" the event.
Your uninformed opinion is not "pointing out" years of research. This storm is also the sort of storm that would appear, if there is no correlation between global warming and storm severity. The evidence has to distinguish between "global warming helps cause more severe storms" and the null hypothesis. It doesn't here.
What probably *hasn't* been pointed out to you is that climate science uses 30-year averages as their basis for "long term" and to differentiate weather vs climate.
Utter garbage. If you're going to make up shit, could you at least make up something plausible? Googling around, the error seems to come from NOAA data products (which cover 30 year time spans) that are updated every ten years. For your information, the NOAA is not climate science, but a government bureaucracy that happens to find a 30 year period useful not because it considers 30 years "long term".
1981-2010 is the latest complete 30-year set. 1951-1980 would be the prior 30-year set, thus is not relevant to what they are reporting on.
The previous NOAA set was 1971-2000.
Hurricanes don't turn inland at NY. Except when they do. Which is almost never.
Each such storm is different, there will always be something, such as your observation above, that will make each storm unique. Seizing upon that difference as something significant is just a case of confirmation bias.
The practical answers is to tack on a punitive carbon tax to fossil fuel.e.g. an extra $4 per gallon for gas and rising.
Why in the world do you think that is "practical"? At current gasoline consumption in the US alone, that's roughly $3-4 trillion per year. There are plenty of other taxable fossil fuel-derived fuels as well. Obviously, as a "punitive" tax, it'd greatly reduce demand, but even so I think it likely that this tax would bring in several trillion a year. And what are you going to spend that on? Some renewable energy crap. That's a massive distortion of the economy.
But if we don't do this, we just have to deal in a century or two with the modest consequences of global warming, some increase in sea level, global temperature, and a slight acidification of the oceans.
It doesn't make a bit of sense to advocate such self-destructive measures when the "la la la" strategy works so much better.
but there is no uncertainty about the increased damage from the higher storm surge due to global warming.
If there's no "uncertainty", then how much extra damage is due to that extra 10 cm?
The waste water will have lots of sulfer, but that also occurs naturally.
Well, there's a serious concern right there. Dose makes the poison.
And we need to consider what's attached to that sulfur. It usually isn't elemental sulfur. Metals such as iron, lead, copper, etc are usually attached. They're naturally occurring as well, but not in the concentrations dealt with in hydrothermal fluid.
Having said that, it's merely a serious problem that adds cost to the system, not an insurmountable one.
No, it just encourages people to use it. Says nothing whether people would preserve it. For preservation to happen, there can never be a prisoner's dilemma.
In other words, the primary difference between good infrastructure and bad infrastructure.
False dilemma. There are lots of things people can do where they don't preserve civilization while not bringing it down. I could go the way of John Galt and just leave your civilization. Doesn't mean I'm destroying your civilization.
A fictional character who preserved civilization by leaving a dysfunctional, dying one.
Most of those incentives are emotional in nature. Government - the largest and most powerful form of cooperation in society - often appeals to emotion to get people to cooperate (as you noted yourself later).
The laws, regulations, and such, and the punishments for breaking those laws are the primary means for insuring cooperation. Those aren't emotional in nature.
The private sector (in a free market, not the bloated regulated one today) uses a more rational approach, and you can see that cooperation is a fleeting thing. Companies rise and fall. The moment a company falls out from being "good" (like good infrastructure), there's little incentive to try to bail it out and prop it back up. People sell their stock. People look for jobs elsewhere. Just let that company fail.
Competition is among the best forms of cooperation. There's usually considerable net benefit to letting a failing company fail. It allows those resources and employees to go to more productive places.
That's an irrational conclusion. This isn't a high school debate, where some impartial 3rd party judge regulating the proceedings, like some big nanny government. This is the comments section on an Internet website. People are free to post whatever assertions they want, with or without evidence.
No, that's an irrational conclusion. What's the point of posting unfounded assertions that people won't take seriously (unless of course, they already buy in to your opinion)? Having said that, your argument looks much better now.
Here's another. It "must" be? That's a very strong assertion, stronger than what I and the other AC said (a "tendency" leaves leeway for exceptions).
Oh course, but that's because I'm not couching my words in vague, weaselly phrases. And it's worth adding that the term "tendency" is being abused here. I could similarly note a tendency for healthy adults to die of various things. But that doesn't mean that their tendency to die is comparable to the tendency of newborns with grievous birth defects to die. In other words, a group is treated out of context in a way that ends up deceptive.
So sure, among the "consciously rational", there are some "unspoken, unexamined assumptions driving their reason" that could be emotional in origin. But how does that differ from the control group, people who aren't "consciously rational"? Seems to me that someone is seizing on a small flaw while ignoring a huge one.
Because the point is simply to show that rational thinking doesn't always lead to good outcomes for most people (the assertion made by the OP). I don't think anybody is saying emotional thinking has no flaws.
You're basically going "BUT THE OTHER PARTY DOES IT TOO" in partisan politics. Ok... so the other party does bad things. That doesn't change what your side did or does.
Unless, of course, the harm done is greater for those pursuing a less rational route. I think that is the case.
Then I'll note that a lot of authoritarian propaganda and dominance is conjured up and created by rational people.
So what? Such an observation doesn't back any arguments you've made so far. It's a case of prisoners' dilemma, where one person gains by manipulating the choices
Yes, you do KNOW the dose. Whether it's mixed with saline, or is a straight up bag of goo, there's a specific amount added.
And you are in error already. That assumption can be wrong.
The better idea, is obviously for a vital piece of equipment found everywhere in hospitals to actually work correctly every time.
An impossibility is not a "better" idea. No piece of equipment, no procedure, no person, nothing found in the real world works correctly every time.
How about MAKING A DEVICE THAT FUCKING WORKS LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO?
Think about it. What device works like it is supposed to?
You want to throw urination in as a measure of an IV drip too? What a great idea. Oh wait, there's that tiny little problem of the patient drinking. And of course you need to take into account the efficiency rate of their kidneys.
Tell you what. You come up with a better idea, you be sure and tell us.
But this line is priceless. One always knows the actual dosage given to the patient by how much drug they put in. The IV Infuser working properly or not is irrelevent to that datapoint. The issue here is that the RATE OF INFUSION cannot be determined by any blood tests after the fact. All it can do is tell you how much is in there at that moment.
Two things to note here. First, you don't "know" the actual dosage given to the patient any more than you "know" the rate of infusion. The blood test in contrast, tells you what is actually important, how much is in the body. That's the actual dosage.
You have no clue what you're talking about. Patients get PISSED when they need to be stuck with needles more often than necessary. Especially when you go tell them it's because we don't know if that IV device actually works right.
People just love to be guinea pigs.
On top of who's paying for that? Health insurance companies sure as shit don't pay for device diagnostic tests. Nor does it cover the fact that every patient's different based upon their size, composition, metabolism, etc. All those factors play a big role in drug absorption and metabolism. There's no way to get an established set of values to determine a precise numeric value for infusion.
Last I checked, insurance companies pay for a lot of diagnostic tests. And it's worth noting that things go wrong. So diagnostic tests are required for precisely the above reason.
Not to mention, exactly what blood test are you going to use to test for a straight up saline drip?
How often is the patient urinating? But I imagine blood tests would pick up on whether a patient had too much or too little hydration.
The problem here is that the system is not a straight up saline drip (any more than the old style IV drip). It's a means to inject drugs. And one only knows for sure the actual dosage given to the patient via tests that measure that.
It is not unreasonable to have an interest in making the world a better place by the time one dies. It's a means of returning what was given in the first place.
It is also not unreasonable to NOT have such interest. Why return what was given?
So you agree with me? I'll point out an additional issue here. Good infrastructure has incentives to encourage everyone to use it in a way that encourages long term preservation. For example, what's the incentive for a rational person to bring down civilization? Most of the incentives are towards cooperating.
All I see here is a tendency for emotional people to say other people are exaggerating to avoid providing a more rational, analyzed response.
If so, you'll be able to provide evidence of that rather than assertions. In my defense, I was responding to:
There's a tendency for consciously rational people to not recognize that many of the unspoken, unexamined assumptions driving their reason are emotional in origin.
This is typical of any subject that the author thinks is more important than others consider it. It must be lack of recognition even though everyone else also experiences emotions and thus, by default, has some understanding of the issue. But if one pays lip service to the issue, then one is considered to "recognize" the issue.
It also ignores that there's a lot of stuff upstairs that can cause cognitive and observational biases (not just "unexamined" assumptions. Some biases exist no matter how rational we are. Sure there are emotional biases, and sure some of mine are probably "unexamined" to some degree. But you have yet to show that these biases matter.
Ah, but since we got here using BOTH cooperation and deception, reason being less deceptive is not necessarily a good thing. I wouldn't conclusively say reason is more effective.
I would argue some of the most important strides towards freedom and liberty (which creates societies that allow for reason to flourish) is because of emotion: a rational person could just as easily join the oppressive state instead of fighting back.
Why make this argument when it's so easy to note that emotional people eagerly join as well? I'll note that a lot of authoritarian propaganda and dominance is effective appeals to emotion.
For example, this 2011 story indicates the New York State Thruway (a toll highway which goes by both Rochester and Buffalo) used an old paint that had to be restriped every two years and replaced that with a new one that goes every three years.
Such maintenance issues don't doom smart road markings. But they do indicate that there are tremendous wear processes on roads which are being ignored in this discussion. And that could mean a considerable maintenance cost which could rule out the technology (unless the part that wears is relatively inexpensive).
The OP is one of many on this thread screaming 'change is bad!'
And the "change is good" crowd apparently never considers that change often has drawbacks larger than the alleged benefits. My suspicion is that ideas for some variation of smart road markings has been around as long as there has been road striping. It hasn't taken hold for most applications simply because of the maintenance costs.
A carrier deck is not exactly the best place for it.
But it really doesn't get much better than that on Earth.
Keep in mind, every single museum exhibit at this place was paid for with money borrowed on behalf of the taxpayer. Now the taxpayer is paying again for the privilege of laying eyes on what what built using loans their great grandchildren never consented to, but nonetheless will be paying back under threat of force.
Sounds reasonable then to charge for services offered. Unless, of course, you think we should pay for this as well with the same flawed tricks.
Petty squabbles are boring to everyone except the participants? Who knew?
As to the red/blue thing, it's pretty much the divide between rural and urban populations. And almost everyone has some sort of rural and urban population with the same sort of division.
I take it you're not black, gay, or a woman. People do still get killed in the US for being "other", but most people who aren't "other" don't tend to notice that it's still happening.
Or white and male. I think the disturbing paradox of this situation in the US is the considerable discrimination by the people supposedly aware of and fixing the problem.
I think that's why the previous poster referred to doing things intended to have consequences after you die - from an enlightened self-interest viewpoint, why would you care what happens after you're dead?
The future doesn't cease to exist merely because you are dead. It is not unreasonable to have an interest in making the world a better place by the time one dies. It's a means of returning what was given in the first place.
There's a tendency for consciously rational people to not recognize that many of the unspoken, unexamined assumptions driving their reason are emotional in origin.
All I see here is a tendency to greatly exaggerate the importance of emotion.
Inexperience with empathy implies potential ignorance concerning empathy and emotion in general.
And critical experience with empathy makes one painfully aware of its drawbacks such as gullibility and irrational behavior. As I've mentioned earlier, understanding of another entity is a more useful goal than empathy.
Question: Reason helps us find ways to get what we want, but does pure reason decide what we want?
Of course not simply because pure reason has no state. Neither does emotion. You ignore here the rest of the world and just how humanity got here in the first place. I guess that would be initial conditions. For starters humans got where they are by intense cooperation and careful deception over millions of generations. Both reason and emotion have been refined over that period and beyond.
In that light, emotion has a place as a helpful state for various human adversities and to of course, encourage the next generation of humanity to come forth. But it also has a place as a double bladed tool of communication via empathy. Empathy not only serves to tune us into others' emotions, but reveals our emotions as well and makes us less resistant to deception. It enables cooperation, but is easy to misuse. Still, it makes for a basis of unspoken communication.
But so does reason. And the latter has turned out to be more effective and less deceptive.
Yeah, must be a bitch with all those northern roads that no longer have any markings on them at all by spring...oh wait, we have lines that seem to last just fine now under heavy plowing.
I doubt you do actually. Especially given stories like this.
It is an epoxy based paint that is more reflective than paint used in years past. should last six to seven years.
UDOT will conduct nightly lane closures between 600 North in Salt Lake City and 10600 South in Sandy. They'll cover up the lines nightly and lay down the new paint in small groves - about 1/8 of an inch deeper than the old paint. They hope it will help the paint stick better when snow scrapes over the top of it.
Note that they're making grooves in the road and putting the paint, in a pretty thick layer in those grooves. Obviously, the smart road stuff would probably work similarly since something that sticks out gets scraped faster. But if a dumb and durable epoxy based paint lasts about seven years, then that probably is an upper limit on how long your smart stuff is going to last in significant winter conditions with snow plows.
There's other doodads that fare worse than lines, for example, road reflectors, raised, reflective studs stuck on a road.
The only thing you have to tell you that it would be bad to selfishly care only about your own well-being at the expense of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. In other words, empathy.
I guess this is an example of how empathy clouds rational thought. After all, we have plenty of examples of people who rationally have subscribed to cooperation and such. Sometimes it's a recognition that cooperation can yield greater rewards. Sometimes it is a desire to accomplish far more than one can accomplish by themselves in a lifetime.
As to "success of the species", it's worth mentioning that that will likely be considered a provincial, backwards attitude in a few centuries when a number of species exist as well as a number of sapients with no identifiable affiliation species-wise.
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
It's a standard label that I gather has been kicking around since the mid 1850s or so. For a long time now, a lot of people having been unwilling to grant the party that particular rhetorical advantage.