How likely is it that Kim would start a war knowing that he'd be obliterated? There's a difference between being a psychopath and a suicide bomber.
Moreover, North Korea is really China's problem, and China would much rather not have a nuclear war adjacent to its border. The Chinese government knows perfectly well what happens if North Korea launches a nuke.
The right thing to do is not to stir up trouble.
And, as far as those hundreds of thousands of North Koreans, the number of civilian deaths in the Seoul area on the first day of the war could easily exceed that. Some problems have no good solution.
It's been far too long that I haven't been able to tell if a headline and picture are from the Onion or a real news source without explicitly looking at the source.
Lots of people don't seem to notice the difference between an economic and regulatory environment that is friendly to business in general and one that is friendly to certain specific businesses.
Supply shortages, in this case, means that more people want batteries than are produced. There are a variety of reasons, including technical difficulties, why the production might be lower than demand. We could examine the figures (I'm too lazy to, myself) and find how battery production is going. It's highly unlikely to have gone down because of technical issues. This means demand is going up.
Carbon taxes are an efficient way of applying market forces to reducing CO2 increases. I'm not sure about the legalities, but imposing the appropriate taxes as customs duties for imported material is probably kosher.
I know you're a nuke monomaniac, but mandating one form of power plant is not a good idea. Use taxes to represent externalities, and let the market figure out how it wants to handle CO2 reduction. The market is VERY good at doing this sort of optimization.
Carbon taxes can be combined with cuts in other taxes to remain revenue-neutral, and to make sure the poorer people in general don't suffer.
We could discuss the proper regulatory environment for nuclear power plants, but that's another discussion.
I'd suspect that the environmental impact is mostly from the continuing harm, in which EVs are far and away the more environmentally friendly. Both EVs and ICE vehicles have to be manufactured, and this is going to cause some harm, but there's no obvious thing that would make the manufacture of EVs a lot worse than manufacture of ICE vehicles.
I'm going to point out two things. First, Auschwitz was only one (although the most murderous) of the Nazi death camps, and Nazi murder was not limited to just the death camps. Second, people process wood and cloth into flat and flexible sheets, put them into packages that allow perusal of both sides of all sheets, and make small dark marks on the sheets (typically before the creation of the package), and these packages can be used to learn things from. Some of these will show all the details you want about Nazi murders.
Alternately, continue working until the market says "You're actually pretty decent". People can improve with practice, and they can increase the number of people who know about them.
I'm a patron to a couple of authors, both of which just won Hugos. Sometimes writing just doesn't pay the bills (although having a Hugo on your shelf helps), and a professional can wind up short of money.
You can thank Anita Sarkeesian for that. She showed the world you can do a lot less actual work than people like Carl and still get paid.
If she showed you that, then you're either pretty young or awfully naive. People have been finding ways to profit off other people's hard work for a long, long time.
How can it be fraud if they tell people up front what they're charging? It may be a bad idea or stupid or something, but it isn't fraudulent. As for calling it a transaction fee, it's the fee Patreon intends to charge per transaction.
I've generally ignored bad artists. Works for me. There's also the fact that my tastes aren't the ultimate in refinement, so something that I dislike can wind up being pretty popular and/or acclaimed.
You can't have good art without bad art. Increase the amount of art, and you'll increase the amount of good art, if only because people with some talent will get more practice.
Also, people keep thinking that a UBI means nobody will feel the need to earn money. I don't want to live on any UBI amount I've seen proposed. I want more money. I'd be working in a job like the one I've got now with UBI (and likely not making any money, net, off the UBI). A guy with a guitar and aspirations and no talent might not want to live on the UBI either, and may want to get a job.
The Icelandic volcano reduced CO2 emissions a touch by making it too dangerous to fly over Europe. Major volcanoes aren't going to have a significant effect. Supervolcanos could, although the crap they spew into the air tends to be gone after a year or three, so they aren't long-term solutions.
Maybe you don't know that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could be imposed, and the measures to make it revenue-neutral could make the rich pay more of it. There's other things we can do, and it would really help if the US was able to contribute towards finding solutions without stupid political distractions.
Settled science is that which scientists don't doubt and which everyone builds on. Obviously, settled science can become unsettled, and has on occasion, but it's fairly rare. The settled science is that we're putting carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels, and that this is warming things up. It goes a bit further than that, but it has its limits. If anyone disputes this, we wonder why. We very often find that there's political paranoia and an immunity to evidence going on, and we call such people deniers or denialists. There are skeptics, but they accept the settled science when they actually take a careful look.
The next question is how bad it's going to get, and that is obviously not settled science, because there are lots of different predictions and scientists match up observations with earlier predictions. If it were settled science, we'd have a model that scientists agreed was pretty accurate, and we don't.
I'm going to get my temperature measurements from websites that actually have a reputation attached, thank you.
Last I looked, the US led the world in CO2 production per capita. Therefore, concentrating on what the US can do is a good idea. Given our massive carbon budget, trimming it is likely to be easier than trimming much smaller budgets.
Attacking the easy target is good sense. That's why some of us profile our software before optimizing it.
It's conceivable that you're the one person on a US forum coming out firmly against mixed-race marriages who isn't racist, but the odds on that aren't good. If you care to make rational arguments, I'll address them.
(Hint: we can't measure intelligence reliably. US IQs rose by 20 points from 1932 to the late 90s, which is masked by renormalization. There is no possibility of massive biological changes in that time period, so intelligence tests can't possibly be accurate enough to measure biological intelligence.)
(Hint: Aristocracy does not produce genetically superior people, and was not designed to. It is not a rigorous genetic selection mechanism. It would have to be far more controlled for that to be true.)
(Hint: most people are not malicious. If you're accusing people in favor of affirmative action of trying to destroy civilization, you're projecting.)
(Hint: you don't know me at all, and all of your speculation about me is not only ill-founded but inaccurate.)
Slashdot Mirror
How likely is it that Kim would start a war knowing that he'd be obliterated? There's a difference between being a psychopath and a suicide bomber.
Moreover, North Korea is really China's problem, and China would much rather not have a nuclear war adjacent to its border. The Chinese government knows perfectly well what happens if North Korea launches a nuke.
The right thing to do is not to stir up trouble.
And, as far as those hundreds of thousands of North Koreans, the number of civilian deaths in the Seoul area on the first day of the war could easily exceed that. Some problems have no good solution.
Which can be fully as dangerous.
It's been far too long that I haven't been able to tell if a headline and picture are from the Onion or a real news source without explicitly looking at the source.
Lots of people don't seem to notice the difference between an economic and regulatory environment that is friendly to business in general and one that is friendly to certain specific businesses.
Supply shortages, in this case, means that more people want batteries than are produced. There are a variety of reasons, including technical difficulties, why the production might be lower than demand. We could examine the figures (I'm too lazy to, myself) and find how battery production is going. It's highly unlikely to have gone down because of technical issues. This means demand is going up.
Carbon taxes are an efficient way of applying market forces to reducing CO2 increases. I'm not sure about the legalities, but imposing the appropriate taxes as customs duties for imported material is probably kosher.
I know you're a nuke monomaniac, but mandating one form of power plant is not a good idea. Use taxes to represent externalities, and let the market figure out how it wants to handle CO2 reduction. The market is VERY good at doing this sort of optimization.
Carbon taxes can be combined with cuts in other taxes to remain revenue-neutral, and to make sure the poorer people in general don't suffer.
We could discuss the proper regulatory environment for nuclear power plants, but that's another discussion.
I'd suspect that the environmental impact is mostly from the continuing harm, in which EVs are far and away the more environmentally friendly. Both EVs and ICE vehicles have to be manufactured, and this is going to cause some harm, but there's no obvious thing that would make the manufacture of EVs a lot worse than manufacture of ICE vehicles.
Mules are often CO2-neutral, depending on where their food comes from. I'm more worried about methane production.
I'm going to point out two things. First, Auschwitz was only one (although the most murderous) of the Nazi death camps, and Nazi murder was not limited to just the death camps. Second, people process wood and cloth into flat and flexible sheets, put them into packages that allow perusal of both sides of all sheets, and make small dark marks on the sheets (typically before the creation of the package), and these packages can be used to learn things from. Some of these will show all the details you want about Nazi murders.
Alternately, continue working until the market says "You're actually pretty decent". People can improve with practice, and they can increase the number of people who know about them.
I'm a patron to a couple of authors, both of which just won Hugos. Sometimes writing just doesn't pay the bills (although having a Hugo on your shelf helps), and a professional can wind up short of money.
If she showed you that, then you're either pretty young or awfully naive. People have been finding ways to profit off other people's hard work for a long, long time.
How can it be fraud if they tell people up front what they're charging? It may be a bad idea or stupid or something, but it isn't fraudulent. As for calling it a transaction fee, it's the fee Patreon intends to charge per transaction.
I've generally ignored bad artists. Works for me. There's also the fact that my tastes aren't the ultimate in refinement, so something that I dislike can wind up being pretty popular and/or acclaimed.
You can't have good art without bad art. Increase the amount of art, and you'll increase the amount of good art, if only because people with some talent will get more practice.
Also, people keep thinking that a UBI means nobody will feel the need to earn money. I don't want to live on any UBI amount I've seen proposed. I want more money. I'd be working in a job like the one I've got now with UBI (and likely not making any money, net, off the UBI). A guy with a guitar and aspirations and no talent might not want to live on the UBI either, and may want to get a job.
Which very liberal news options would that be? As a leftist, I didn't notice them. They all seemed right-wing to centrist to me.
If that's a reaction, it sounds like a rather drastic one for a company that wanted people to be able to take a leak in comfort.
The Icelandic volcano reduced CO2 emissions a touch by making it too dangerous to fly over Europe. Major volcanoes aren't going to have a significant effect. Supervolcanos could, although the crap they spew into the air tends to be gone after a year or three, so they aren't long-term solutions.
Maybe you don't know that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could be imposed, and the measures to make it revenue-neutral could make the rich pay more of it. There's other things we can do, and it would really help if the US was able to contribute towards finding solutions without stupid political distractions.
Settled science is that which scientists don't doubt and which everyone builds on. Obviously, settled science can become unsettled, and has on occasion, but it's fairly rare. The settled science is that we're putting carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels, and that this is warming things up. It goes a bit further than that, but it has its limits. If anyone disputes this, we wonder why. We very often find that there's political paranoia and an immunity to evidence going on, and we call such people deniers or denialists. There are skeptics, but they accept the settled science when they actually take a careful look.
The next question is how bad it's going to get, and that is obviously not settled science, because there are lots of different predictions and scientists match up observations with earlier predictions. If it were settled science, we'd have a model that scientists agreed was pretty accurate, and we don't.
I'm going to get my temperature measurements from websites that actually have a reputation attached, thank you.
Last I looked, the US led the world in CO2 production per capita. Therefore, concentrating on what the US can do is a good idea. Given our massive carbon budget, trimming it is likely to be easier than trimming much smaller budgets.
Attacking the easy target is good sense. That's why some of us profile our software before optimizing it.
Unfortunately, some of the right-wing crazies get elected, while left-wing crazies tend not to be.
tl;dr: I'll believe people believe something when they do exactly as I say. My favorite solution is the only logical one.
The photo evidence is of Franken pretending to grope a woman's breasts. It's more obvious with his left hand.
Your judgment is clearly on completely inadequate information, and is obviously influenced by your politics.
It's conceivable that you're the one person on a US forum coming out firmly against mixed-race marriages who isn't racist, but the odds on that aren't good. If you care to make rational arguments, I'll address them.
(Hint: we can't measure intelligence reliably. US IQs rose by 20 points from 1932 to the late 90s, which is masked by renormalization. There is no possibility of massive biological changes in that time period, so intelligence tests can't possibly be accurate enough to measure biological intelligence.)
(Hint: Aristocracy does not produce genetically superior people, and was not designed to. It is not a rigorous genetic selection mechanism. It would have to be far more controlled for that to be true.)
(Hint: most people are not malicious. If you're accusing people in favor of affirmative action of trying to destroy civilization, you're projecting.)
(Hint: you don't know me at all, and all of your speculation about me is not only ill-founded but inaccurate.)