The thing is, you can’t be forced to stay on a plane. It’s simply illegal to even ask this, it might constitute illegal imprisonment. What the airline can do is impose a fine for this behavior. But as far as I know, it’s also illegal.
NYC is the second biggest tech cluster in the world, bested only by the SF Bay Area.
Nope, Seattle is bigger. NY labor dept puts the number of IT personnel at 73 thousand: https://www.labor.ny.gov/stats... , Seattle and Bellevue have about 100k IT workers.
IT in the Seattle area got so big that software developers are now more numerous than retail workers: https://www.seattletimes.com/s... , NYC is nowhere close to that.
Thermal expansion is predictable if you're confident you can predict the heat accumulation. Heat accumulation in oceanic waters is hard to predict due to multitude of factors, hence chaotic properties of the system.
The heating is due to thermal expansion of deep sea water (past the thermocline) and it IS predictable. The sea water mixing is well studied and we can actually trace it by checking the dispersal of artificial isotopes throughout the water column. What is less predictable is the average sea surface temperature that actually drives the heating, but we can that's why there's a huge uncertainty (50 cm to 1 meter). On the other hand, we know for sure that it's definitely NOT going to be below 50 cm whatever we do.
But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy. Do you remember water-filled Roosevelt tunnel? I do.
First, this article looks only at Antarctic ice melt contribution, while around 2/3 of the sea rise is caused by simple thermal expansion of deep sea water. It's not going to go away. Even in the absolute best case of 15 centimeter sea rise due to Antarctic ice melt, there's still going to be about 50 centimeter thermal expansion based rise.
The 65 centimeter rise will be enough to put low parts of Manhattan under the water during especially high tides. And Sandy-like events will need only moderate storm surge.
Except that the hole still was growing. Every couple of years it set new size records. Now that most of ozone-destroying chemicals are phased out, the growth has stopped and even reversed a bit.
Seattle isn't anywhere near the point where Detroit is, but allowing one company to grow to be such a large portion of the local economy is a huge mistake.
Like, Boeing? "Seattle, death rattle". "The last person to leave Seattle, please turn off the lights". Yeah, these were the good times!
And don't forget that Seattle now also has a huge Google campus, there's Microsoft across the lake and tons of other software companies.
If anything, Amazon affirmed Seattle as a place for IT companies.
We didn't have the issues with homelessness before Amazon came and distorted the housing market. The housing market wasn't great, but people buying in expected to be here for the long haul, not to be buying it in lieu of a rental that they could dump when they left for more than they paid.
Oh, fuck that noise. Most homeless are not pushed out by Amazon, they are simply drug addicts and/or mentally ill. Ironically, Amazon is actually doing better than the city itself in moving people off the streets (see: "Mary's Place").
How many $100-$150k software engineers in NYC are currently unemployed?
It's pretty clear that Amazon will attract more people to the NY. It's also not known for its software companies, so the talent pool is not that deep.
Most of these employees will just be shifted from other businesses, which aren't being subsidized, forcing them to either cut back or leave the city. There may be some net job growth, but it is unlikely it is going to be worth $3 billion.
Nope, Amazon will increase competition which will drive up wages. Higher wages mean more income for the NYC. I still fail to see how NY would lose. And don't forget that Amazon is going to spend a lot of money in NY directly, on new building construction.
Amazon is not a stadium (which are also often funded with public money). It will have employees. These employees will have high salary ($100-$150k) and the city will tax it. I don't see any way for it to NOT work.
Who cares about the general case? In this particular example the city will recoup all the $3B tax incentive investment in about 5-10 years just from taxes on employees' wages. And this doesn't take into account additional income from new businesses, construction work, etc.
Quoting that article: "Besides the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station..."
And this power plant is problem-free. All the issues are with the remnants of weapon production.
The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima and Hanford have shown that humans cannot manage large nuclear plants of any kind. I knew one of the managers at Hanford, so I had facts from inside the organization.
You mean, two most serious disasters that resulted in creation of two natural preserves that are teeming with wildlife?
I have actually tried that. Humans consider sound with more amplitude to sound better. So if you're doing comparisons the first step is to match the amplitude. It's often really hard to do on the old analog hardware, because different inputs can be inconsistent or there can be a biased voltage on the analog loop.
If you do match the amplitudes you won't be able to tell the difference. People tried just that many time.
No. You're inventing your own definitions. "Communism" as defined by Marx is basically an utopia that is not achievable right now. What you're thinking about is a planned economy which _is_ the opposite of capitalism. Historically planned economy was called "socialism" but that's a misnomer.
Socialism is a VERY different beast, Socialism is a system where the state takes capital from people who are judged to have too advantaged, and given by those who are judged to be disadvantaged. Socialism is by definition unstable, as the resources it takes from do not last.... It is the social equivalent of everything people are turning away from these days - consumptive behavior.
Incorrect again. Socialism as practiced in successful countries results in disadvantaged people becoming productive members, thus INCREASING the total amount of capital.
Meanwhile, true unconstrained capitalism results in monopolies, asset bubbles and race to the bottom yielding de-facto slavery. Last century the US was saved first by direct socialistic intervention during the Depression, then by the WWII artificially inflating the demand and finally by strong socialistic after-war policies (GI bill, government-funded Interstate system, Medicare, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, you can’t be forced to stay on a plane. It’s simply illegal to even ask this, it might constitute illegal imprisonment. What the airline can do is impose a fine for this behavior. But as far as I know, it’s also illegal.
And why do you promote genocide? Presumably so that only the Chose Races can remain after it?
This impact can be minimized - electric farming equipment, new nitrogen fixation methods, cheaper desalination, etc.
Yes, this is actually what Hansen was talking about. Read about it.
Look at the history of corporate welfare. Count the successes. Count the failures. Apply evidence-based reasoning.
Actually, there are plenty of successes. Boeing, SpaceX, Tesla - all got big in part because of corporate welfare.
NYC is the second biggest tech cluster in the world, bested only by the SF Bay Area.
Nope, Seattle is bigger. NY labor dept puts the number of IT personnel at 73 thousand: https://www.labor.ny.gov/stats... , Seattle and Bellevue have about 100k IT workers.
IT in the Seattle area got so big that software developers are now more numerous than retail workers: https://www.seattletimes.com/s... , NYC is nowhere close to that.
Thermal expansion is predictable if you're confident you can predict the heat accumulation. Heat accumulation in oceanic waters is hard to predict due to multitude of factors, hence chaotic properties of the system.
The heating is due to thermal expansion of deep sea water (past the thermocline) and it IS predictable. The sea water mixing is well studied and we can actually trace it by checking the dispersal of artificial isotopes throughout the water column. What is less predictable is the average sea surface temperature that actually drives the heating, but we can that's why there's a huge uncertainty (50 cm to 1 meter). On the other hand, we know for sure that it's definitely NOT going to be below 50 cm whatever we do.
But actually New York won't be under water even by 2100.
A large part of New York was under water in 2012 during Sandy. Do you remember water-filled Roosevelt tunnel? I do.
First, this article looks only at Antarctic ice melt contribution, while around 2/3 of the sea rise is caused by simple thermal expansion of deep sea water. It's not going to go away. Even in the absolute best case of 15 centimeter sea rise due to Antarctic ice melt, there's still going to be about 50 centimeter thermal expansion based rise.
The 65 centimeter rise will be enough to put low parts of Manhattan under the water during especially high tides. And Sandy-like events will need only moderate storm surge.
The problem is too many people, all of which need farming, industry, transport and land.
There's plenty of food for all people on Earth. Why are you proposing a genocide?
Except that the hole still was growing. Every couple of years it set new size records. Now that most of ozone-destroying chemicals are phased out, the growth has stopped and even reversed a bit.
Seattle isn't anywhere near the point where Detroit is, but allowing one company to grow to be such a large portion of the local economy is a huge mistake.
Like, Boeing? "Seattle, death rattle". "The last person to leave Seattle, please turn off the lights". Yeah, these were the good times!
And don't forget that Seattle now also has a huge Google campus, there's Microsoft across the lake and tons of other software companies.
If anything, Amazon affirmed Seattle as a place for IT companies.
We didn't have the issues with homelessness before Amazon came and distorted the housing market. The housing market wasn't great, but people buying in expected to be here for the long haul, not to be buying it in lieu of a rental that they could dump when they left for more than they paid.
Oh, fuck that noise. Most homeless are not pushed out by Amazon, they are simply drug addicts and/or mentally ill. Ironically, Amazon is actually doing better than the city itself in moving people off the streets (see: "Mary's Place").
How many $100-$150k software engineers in NYC are currently unemployed?
It's pretty clear that Amazon will attract more people to the NY. It's also not known for its software companies, so the talent pool is not that deep.
Most of these employees will just be shifted from other businesses, which aren't being subsidized, forcing them to either cut back or leave the city. There may be some net job growth, but it is unlikely it is going to be worth $3 billion.
Nope, Amazon will increase competition which will drive up wages. Higher wages mean more income for the NYC. I still fail to see how NY would lose. And don't forget that Amazon is going to spend a lot of money in NY directly, on new building construction.
They've done a pretty thorough job of destroying Seattle
The last time I looked, Seattle is still there.
If this person also commiteed to hire 25 thousand people each of which will pay 5% of their salary to me? Yes, please.
Amazon is not a stadium (which are also often funded with public money). It will have employees. These employees will have high salary ($100-$150k) and the city will tax it. I don't see any way for it to NOT work.
No, in general not.
Who cares about the general case? In this particular example the city will recoup all the $3B tax incentive investment in about 5-10 years just from taxes on employees' wages. And this doesn't take into account additional income from new businesses, construction work, etc.
Like a group that basically has no peer- reviewed papers and is funded by fossil fuel companies?
Quoting that article: "Besides the cleanup project, Hanford also hosts a commercial nuclear power plant, the Columbia Generating Station..."
And this power plant is problem-free. All the issues are with the remnants of weapon production.
The problems at Chernobyl and Fukushima and Hanford have shown that humans cannot manage large nuclear plants of any kind. I knew one of the managers at Hanford, so I had facts from inside the organization.
You mean, two most serious disasters that resulted in creation of two natural preserves that are teeming with wildlife?
So basically very little change, with some of the 2018 numbers explained by unusually mild weather. Yeah, success that.
It makes it louder, in effect causing dynamic compression. Loudness wars happened for a reason.
I have actually tried that. Humans consider sound with more amplitude to sound better. So if you're doing comparisons the first step is to match the amplitude. It's often really hard to do on the old analog hardware, because different inputs can be inconsistent or there can be a biased voltage on the analog loop.
If you do match the amplitudes you won't be able to tell the difference. People tried just that many time.
Wait for the digital horns to reach out of the speakers, grab you by the throat and smack your face around like a soccer ball
Oh, bullshit. You need to tune your analog crap to have the same signal levels and not just amplify artifacts.
Denmark is NOT a planned economy, but it's a socialist country.
communism is the (closest) opposite of capitalism
No. You're inventing your own definitions. "Communism" as defined by Marx is basically an utopia that is not achievable right now. What you're thinking about is a planned economy which _is_ the opposite of capitalism. Historically planned economy was called "socialism" but that's a misnomer.
Socialism is a VERY different beast, Socialism is a system where the state takes capital from people who are judged to have too advantaged, and given by those who are judged to be disadvantaged. Socialism is by definition unstable, as the resources it takes from do not last.... It is the social equivalent of everything people are turning away from these days - consumptive behavior.
Incorrect again. Socialism as practiced in successful countries results in disadvantaged people becoming productive members, thus INCREASING the total amount of capital.
Meanwhile, true unconstrained capitalism results in monopolies, asset bubbles and race to the bottom yielding de-facto slavery. Last century the US was saved first by direct socialistic intervention during the Depression, then by the WWII artificially inflating the demand and finally by strong socialistic after-war policies (GI bill, government-funded Interstate system, Medicare, etc.).
Denmark officially calls itself "Social Democracy", one of their major parties is even called that ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).
You somehow think that "socialism" means "everything bad" (up to and including earthquakes). It's not.