People are excited over all kinds of shit too easily. Bullet trains--high-speed rail--get a lot of attention for "efficiency", but the truth is they're subject to aerodynamic drag, braking force loss, etc. Regenerative braking isn't a magic bullet, bringing back 20%-50% of the energy lost from trying to accelerate your balls off and keep that speed in the face of air resistance; but people talk like regenerative braking generates electricity (i.e. if the Prius got 5%--rather than its 20-25%--people would still say, "Oh it recharges when you hit the brakes!" just like they do now; they don't know you get less than 1/4 efficiency return for regen in the Prius). Line up all these things and you get a big gap between what people imagine they're getting and what they're really getting.
I'm interested in actual comparisons between things--stuff that says X and Y are subject to all kinds of inefficiencies, and Z solves that or doesn't. Bullet trains are subject to loss in acceleration, braking, track maintenance, wind resistance, etc; light rail is subject to loss in running the AC and lights inside the cabin (we can vent waste heat into the cabin in the winter) for a longer trip. Cars are slow and energy-costly--loading a car into a pod and shipping it at 200mpg-equivalent is a direct, comparable gain over driving at 20mpg. Producing a vacuum is costly; producing a partial vacuum is less costly, and this method uses that to achieve higher speeds, at what efficiency?
In the end, does this still suck twice as much energy as the next best thing; or does it consume comparable for a much faster trip, more flexibility, and greater application? I mean if you can efficiently, cost-effectively move cars on individual routing, you've hit gold: I can't drive my car onto the light rail or subway, so a trip to New York or such by rail means abandoning my car and potentially renting one--which is expensive. The energy cost of driving my car the 400 miles is like $100 total versus like $45 for a train ticket each way plus $20/day to rent a car, slightly cheaper to drive it and less annoying to wind up A) without a car; or B) hassling with walking to get a car, renting the car, bringing the car back. Multi-day trips are a waste.
Uh, the shortest distance between two points on the earth is a curved line. In many ways. It's shorter in some cases to go north and then come arcing back south rather than to travel directly westward.
Math isn't common sense. Common sense is looking up, seeing the sun come up over the eastern horizon, move through the sky, and sink to the west. I mean if you spin a gigantic ball that's wet, water flies off it; what madman would come up with stupid shit like "the earth is spinning and the equator moves at roughly 1000mph"?
Typical high-speed rail is increasingly inefficient. Fuel and maintenance costs increase due to track wear-and-tear and increased drag from high speed travel through atmosphere. He's proposing a system that avoids those issues and a number of other engineering problems, so it could possibly be cheaper than the normally expensive and inefficient high-speed rail.
For reference, bullet trains are ridiculously inefficient, while light rail (top speed: 70mph at the straight part of track on a good day) is more efficient than bus.
There's a filing fee for lawsuits. After this has been decided stupid, just throw out the rest but keep the filing fee. Make the morons fund the fences.
Did the article originally cite that bullet trains are a Liberal wet-dream, but are highly inefficient and use way too much energy; and then compare these to show if they're more or less efficient than bullet trains and other methods of transportation?
George Washington believed in slavery and thought there should be a poll tax because poor people are too stupid to vote. The only people in this country qualified to self-govern are the rich and the politicians; all the poor white trash and city blacks should go collect their food stamps and stay out of it.
George Washington is one of the worst human beings to ever live. He conceptualized the ideal of the Party, the Inner Party, and the Proles long before Orwell.
Potentially. The employee may only have an impact on the functional area about to receive layoffs. If he has an impact elsewhere, all stands: Suddenly the go-to man for a bunch of shit has gone-to another place.
Elisia is a planet in Metroid Prime: Corruption whereby the upper atmosphere is breathable, but the lower atmosphere is gas-giant toxic shit. There are giant floating platforms stationed in the upper atmosphere.
If you're black, sometimes someone moves the food tray away, and you have to wait for WIC to move it back.
That's basically it. People have this idea that being black means you're permanently glued to welfare, because the poor cities run by broken administrations where poor people migrate are often full of black people. Poor white people somehow don't look poor; we call them "rednecks", and they blow their $6.50/hr pizza delivery boy salaries on turbochargers for their Nissan sports cars.
The reality is all these people are comfortable. Rednecks have redneck pool parties and sports cars, so they stay in redneckville. City blacks have welfare and food stamps and so they stay in the city living in broken down houses in ghettos. I see some of these folks stand up and walk right the hell out of that as a matter of course, just like growing up--by the time they're 20 they're exactly where I was when I was 20 or better off, and before they're 25 they've moved up to the upper-middle-class. City blacks on a school system that can't teach you to read by the time you're out of high school. You can't read your own diploma. And these people just go, "Nope, fuck that," and walk right out of it and become middle class.
People become what they believe in. We tell people blacks are trampled, downtrodden, and have no opportunities--and they live that way in a welfare state. Rednecks grow up in redneckville and they live almost exactly the same way. The middle class doesn't become rich; everything's so expensive, but they keep buying it while complaining about how poor they are, when they really aren't and never will be.
There is no center for opportunity. There aren't enough opportunities for people in this country. Fortunately most people are universally too lazy to move up or down, and the ones that aren't and are looking will easily find a string of opportunities and no one putting out the effort to move toward them.
I moved to the hood. My neighbors are drug dealers. There's broken sidewalks, abandoned houses, ill-maintained streets, cats everywhere, and shopping malls where 40% of the stores are closed. Trash rolls through the street, it's archived in the topsoil if you start digging.
I planted a tree in my yard. It produces fruit.
I've been tearing out the topsoil. Going to plant new grass, level the yard. It's a 170sqft yard but I have a big cutter mattock and I'll get stronger the more I work at it. The existing soil is good topsoil, but too high; I want to mix in fresh topsoil and manure, have someone come take this stuff for topsoil... mix a little manure in and it'll be good topsoil, I probably should have turned it and stripped less instead of getting new soil.
The city won't clean up the abandoned houses. I've been cutting the weeds down to get rid of the lice and vermin. Patched some of the cement sidewalks too. Hopefully they raze the unfixable houses...maybe I'll buy the next lot and grow pomegranate bushes and cherry trees.
The neighbors, some of them, have started to turn over their yards, maintain them nicer. Some have begun to maintain the city-owned lots. Others are walking the streets picking up trash and recyclables and binning them properly. It's slow. The drug dealers are still sitting on their porch laughing at everyone for being stupid.
Like how there's no possible way the armband could be a genetic object, and thus could be removed or modified to never time-out/terminate (run negative!) by a clever hacker, which there's been motivation to create?
Or how the money boxes seem to be independent and the armband is non-networked (only communicating through physical contact, probably skin-surface currents), so you could hack up an infinite cash source?
Or how being rich sucks because you have to try not to die because you can't hide your money, but you could probably walk around like a poor kid with just enough time to go to the bar and hide your money in a box at home?
The moral decay of America will save us. When people realize sex and orgies are a lot of fun, they'll want more physical contact with other human beings. The natural progression of such a society may level off into something like Europe or Japan (with or without the freakiness), or carry all the way to Greco-Phonecian society where children are involved in the sexual exploration of life rather than simply not obsessively shielded from it. Animals might get involved, because what the hell?
It's like Phlox said: "We actually did invent television on Denobula... it didn't last long once we realized our real lives were more interesting."
Solar power will scale well for leased panels; nobody wants to be a part of that. Leased panels greatly increase the amount of surface you have for cheap, and eliminate homeowner solar panel maintenance and also provide a barrier to keep the hot sun off your roof (extending roof life and reducing cooling costs in the summer). Nobody wants to lose control of part of their property, though; suddenly you can't muck with your roof?
Terrestrial advances will increase much more rapidly than extraterrestrial advances. Take the current work on a new type of heat pump driven by a quantum tunneling junction. The current manufacture produces like 1% usable area, which is of minimal use and high cost; 50% usable area would be excellent. It's constantly 55% of carnot-- it's not affected by absolute temperature (R123a won't boil in Antarctica). Get that working and we'll see new types of dryers, ovens, even cars (I worked out how to use one for a 1000mpg car, with 38kWh ~= 1 US Gal gasoline), the works. The physics this works on--that there's energy around you to move--won't work in space at all; you're in a vacuum, exposed only to radiant energy, and you're probably radiating your heat outward.
For the same reason, cheap energy will likely aim more at what's familiar. Space is some kind of weird, new thing very far away with odd properties that we can't touch outside lab conditions until we have the technology to get there; likewise, things like geothermal and solar are a lab condition thing, while chemical energy and brute-force excavation are more familiar. We'll put in more work to mine methane than we will to harvest geothermal and solar energies (which, by the way, an active harvesting system using a quantum tunneling junction might improve greatly as well, due to how energy works--but the whole concept is again unfamiliar and only the extremely enterprising will pursue it).
It's the same thing with an interview.
You can be the best profile for a job, but you won't be chosen for a totally random reason.
No, the hiring manager just enjoyed the company of the hot black chick more than you. She had a better smile, and nicer legs. You're fat and hairy. Not very random; he's going to see the receptionist every fucking day, who's he gonna want to look at?
I would just shrug and go, "Huh. That was an expensive mistake... managers just don't understand workplace economics these days." Then walk out.
Firing an employee is the worst thing for a company. It removes the employee's expertise, disrupts current operations, then requires retraining of other employees to cope. The hiring of a new employee then incurs a settling period which costs money, along with the further unsettling of the workplace. It takes months for an employee to adequately grasp their job; and even beyond that, many nuances take even years to fixate. A large amount of efficiency is lost, and large costs well beyond the cost of a single employee's salary and disciplinary action are incurred.
Firing an employee generally exposes an even greater cost: the company wasted all of the above sunk cost on a non-productive employee. If this is the case, firing is the correction of an expensive mistake; otherwise, firing is itself an extremely expensive mistake and should be avoided.
The CEO misjudged a risk, overapplied disciplinary action, and cost the company significant profits. Continued behavior in such a manner will impact his legal obligation to maximize shareholder profit, both in the short and long term. The CEO must be disciplined, preferably in a way which increases value to the company. Management retraining may be helpful. Reduction of bonuses in tandem with the estimated cost to the company, plus buffer, plus punitive measures (which will probably dwarf actual costs) may be appropriate.
Well, then the "earth becoming hot" thing turned out to not be a real thing; but the climate does change, so we started talking about "Climate Change". We just replaced the wording.
(although as I recall, there was a memo from a Bush-era advisor who recommended using "climate change" over "global warming" as the latter sounded too dramatic- in other words, the exact opposite PR reason that you thought it were. But it would be too generous to think this changed the terminology, though.)
Sounds like the exact same reason to me: "We don't see global warming, it sounds like you're overstating what's happening... you know, the actual warming thing. That's not really happening, at the very least not in any appreciable way. There's some change going on."
The reason it's called climate change is because "Global Warming" was drilled into our heads as "Driving too many cars and running factories, causing the earth to become hot because of CO2." Well, then the "earth becoming hot" thing turned out to not be a real thing; but the climate does change, so we started talking about "Climate Change". We just replaced the wording.
With the replaced wording, we can see a real thing happening. Because the fairly-believable "Earth gets hotter because of greenhouse gasses" thing was accepted, and the effect has been renamed to something visible, we accept the original reasonable explanation for the new observable thing. The problem here is that the original explanation is less reasonable for this new thing--if "Climate Change" means hurricanes, blizzards, a global drop in temperature, a new ice age, formation of bigger ice shelves, earthquakes, meteor showers, and Three Mile Island suddenly blowing a volcanic vent and sinking 3 feet below sea level, people will accept it as some kind of man-made event because of all the cars we drive. Because it's still "Global Warming" to them and we know what caused global warming.
Europe has long-since rejected Global Warming and is now trying to work out the cooling trend that is coming, and how to survive it.
House Republicans from Texas are claiming Global Warming was never up for debate and is an undeniable fact; while liberal Democrats in congress are shouting out loudly that we need to get away from this fairytale and face real problems with real science--the science of global cooling.
Scientific consensus predicts a protracted decrease in sunspot activity, thought to be the cause of the vicious cooling trend that's made Siberia, the UK, and other parts of Europe unusually cold for the past several years. It's well-known and observed that global temperatures haven't faced an overall increase in 15 years.
This is what I woke up to a week ago. I went back to sleep; I haven't checked to see if I'm back in my own universe yet, but when I saw the political climate I knew something wasn't right. The best part was the actual physics of that bizarro universe didn't seem any different; just the actors were shouting different things. Am I still there?
Slashdot Mirror
People are excited over all kinds of shit too easily. Bullet trains--high-speed rail--get a lot of attention for "efficiency", but the truth is they're subject to aerodynamic drag, braking force loss, etc. Regenerative braking isn't a magic bullet, bringing back 20%-50% of the energy lost from trying to accelerate your balls off and keep that speed in the face of air resistance; but people talk like regenerative braking generates electricity (i.e. if the Prius got 5%--rather than its 20-25%--people would still say, "Oh it recharges when you hit the brakes!" just like they do now; they don't know you get less than 1/4 efficiency return for regen in the Prius). Line up all these things and you get a big gap between what people imagine they're getting and what they're really getting.
I'm interested in actual comparisons between things--stuff that says X and Y are subject to all kinds of inefficiencies, and Z solves that or doesn't. Bullet trains are subject to loss in acceleration, braking, track maintenance, wind resistance, etc; light rail is subject to loss in running the AC and lights inside the cabin (we can vent waste heat into the cabin in the winter) for a longer trip. Cars are slow and energy-costly--loading a car into a pod and shipping it at 200mpg-equivalent is a direct, comparable gain over driving at 20mpg. Producing a vacuum is costly; producing a partial vacuum is less costly, and this method uses that to achieve higher speeds, at what efficiency?
In the end, does this still suck twice as much energy as the next best thing; or does it consume comparable for a much faster trip, more flexibility, and greater application? I mean if you can efficiently, cost-effectively move cars on individual routing, you've hit gold: I can't drive my car onto the light rail or subway, so a trip to New York or such by rail means abandoning my car and potentially renting one--which is expensive. The energy cost of driving my car the 400 miles is like $100 total versus like $45 for a train ticket each way plus $20/day to rent a car, slightly cheaper to drive it and less annoying to wind up A) without a car; or B) hassling with walking to get a car, renting the car, bringing the car back. Multi-day trips are a waste.
Uh, the shortest distance between two points on the earth is a curved line. In many ways. It's shorter in some cases to go north and then come arcing back south rather than to travel directly westward.
What's the math here? It's not going to lose half its energy to double in size I'm sure (in which case the answer is store at high pressure).
Math isn't common sense. Common sense is looking up, seeing the sun come up over the eastern horizon, move through the sky, and sink to the west. I mean if you spin a gigantic ball that's wet, water flies off it; what madman would come up with stupid shit like "the earth is spinning and the equator moves at roughly 1000mph"?
Typical high-speed rail is increasingly inefficient. Fuel and maintenance costs increase due to track wear-and-tear and increased drag from high speed travel through atmosphere. He's proposing a system that avoids those issues and a number of other engineering problems, so it could possibly be cheaper than the normally expensive and inefficient high-speed rail.
For reference, bullet trains are ridiculously inefficient, while light rail (top speed: 70mph at the straight part of track on a good day) is more efficient than bus.
Why would a steam leak kill everyone? It cools as it expands, and it's just water. It's easy to vent somewhere harmless.
He's been on the edge of establishing commercial space flight for tourists for two decades. Fusion is just around the corner.
There's a filing fee for lawsuits. After this has been decided stupid, just throw out the rest but keep the filing fee. Make the morons fund the fences.
Problem with suicidal people?
Did the article originally cite that bullet trains are a Liberal wet-dream, but are highly inefficient and use way too much energy; and then compare these to show if they're more or less efficient than bullet trains and other methods of transportation?
George Washington believed in slavery and thought there should be a poll tax because poor people are too stupid to vote. The only people in this country qualified to self-govern are the rich and the politicians; all the poor white trash and city blacks should go collect their food stamps and stay out of it.
George Washington is one of the worst human beings to ever live. He conceptualized the ideal of the Party, the Inner Party, and the Proles long before Orwell.
Potentially. The employee may only have an impact on the functional area about to receive layoffs. If he has an impact elsewhere, all stands: Suddenly the go-to man for a bunch of shit has gone-to another place.
and the idea of the wealthy living in a place that's inaccessible to everyone else has been a staple of literature for centuries, if not millennia.
You're speaking of Valhalla, yes?
Elisia is a planet in Metroid Prime: Corruption whereby the upper atmosphere is breathable, but the lower atmosphere is gas-giant toxic shit. There are giant floating platforms stationed in the upper atmosphere.
If you're black, sometimes someone moves the food tray away, and you have to wait for WIC to move it back.
That's basically it. People have this idea that being black means you're permanently glued to welfare, because the poor cities run by broken administrations where poor people migrate are often full of black people. Poor white people somehow don't look poor; we call them "rednecks", and they blow their $6.50/hr pizza delivery boy salaries on turbochargers for their Nissan sports cars.
The reality is all these people are comfortable. Rednecks have redneck pool parties and sports cars, so they stay in redneckville. City blacks have welfare and food stamps and so they stay in the city living in broken down houses in ghettos. I see some of these folks stand up and walk right the hell out of that as a matter of course, just like growing up--by the time they're 20 they're exactly where I was when I was 20 or better off, and before they're 25 they've moved up to the upper-middle-class. City blacks on a school system that can't teach you to read by the time you're out of high school. You can't read your own diploma. And these people just go, "Nope, fuck that," and walk right out of it and become middle class.
People become what they believe in. We tell people blacks are trampled, downtrodden, and have no opportunities--and they live that way in a welfare state. Rednecks grow up in redneckville and they live almost exactly the same way. The middle class doesn't become rich; everything's so expensive, but they keep buying it while complaining about how poor they are, when they really aren't and never will be.
There is no center for opportunity. There aren't enough opportunities for people in this country. Fortunately most people are universally too lazy to move up or down, and the ones that aren't and are looking will easily find a string of opportunities and no one putting out the effort to move toward them.
I moved to the hood. My neighbors are drug dealers. There's broken sidewalks, abandoned houses, ill-maintained streets, cats everywhere, and shopping malls where 40% of the stores are closed. Trash rolls through the street, it's archived in the topsoil if you start digging.
I planted a tree in my yard. It produces fruit.
I've been tearing out the topsoil. Going to plant new grass, level the yard. It's a 170sqft yard but I have a big cutter mattock and I'll get stronger the more I work at it. The existing soil is good topsoil, but too high; I want to mix in fresh topsoil and manure, have someone come take this stuff for topsoil... mix a little manure in and it'll be good topsoil, I probably should have turned it and stripped less instead of getting new soil.
The city won't clean up the abandoned houses. I've been cutting the weeds down to get rid of the lice and vermin. Patched some of the cement sidewalks too. Hopefully they raze the unfixable houses...maybe I'll buy the next lot and grow pomegranate bushes and cherry trees.
The neighbors, some of them, have started to turn over their yards, maintain them nicer. Some have begun to maintain the city-owned lots. Others are walking the streets picking up trash and recyclables and binning them properly. It's slow. The drug dealers are still sitting on their porch laughing at everyone for being stupid.
This is what one man can do.
Like how there's no possible way the armband could be a genetic object, and thus could be removed or modified to never time-out/terminate (run negative!) by a clever hacker, which there's been motivation to create?
Or how the money boxes seem to be independent and the armband is non-networked (only communicating through physical contact, probably skin-surface currents), so you could hack up an infinite cash source?
Or how being rich sucks because you have to try not to die because you can't hide your money, but you could probably walk around like a poor kid with just enough time to go to the bar and hide your money in a box at home?
It's obviously possible to disguise robots.
The moral decay of America will save us. When people realize sex and orgies are a lot of fun, they'll want more physical contact with other human beings. The natural progression of such a society may level off into something like Europe or Japan (with or without the freakiness), or carry all the way to Greco-Phonecian society where children are involved in the sexual exploration of life rather than simply not obsessively shielded from it. Animals might get involved, because what the hell?
It's like Phlox said: "We actually did invent television on Denobula... it didn't last long once we realized our real lives were more interesting."
Solar power will scale well for leased panels; nobody wants to be a part of that. Leased panels greatly increase the amount of surface you have for cheap, and eliminate homeowner solar panel maintenance and also provide a barrier to keep the hot sun off your roof (extending roof life and reducing cooling costs in the summer). Nobody wants to lose control of part of their property, though; suddenly you can't muck with your roof?
Terrestrial advances will increase much more rapidly than extraterrestrial advances. Take the current work on a new type of heat pump driven by a quantum tunneling junction. The current manufacture produces like 1% usable area, which is of minimal use and high cost; 50% usable area would be excellent. It's constantly 55% of carnot-- it's not affected by absolute temperature (R123a won't boil in Antarctica). Get that working and we'll see new types of dryers, ovens, even cars (I worked out how to use one for a 1000mpg car, with 38kWh ~= 1 US Gal gasoline), the works. The physics this works on--that there's energy around you to move--won't work in space at all; you're in a vacuum, exposed only to radiant energy, and you're probably radiating your heat outward.
For the same reason, cheap energy will likely aim more at what's familiar. Space is some kind of weird, new thing very far away with odd properties that we can't touch outside lab conditions until we have the technology to get there; likewise, things like geothermal and solar are a lab condition thing, while chemical energy and brute-force excavation are more familiar. We'll put in more work to mine methane than we will to harvest geothermal and solar energies (which, by the way, an active harvesting system using a quantum tunneling junction might improve greatly as well, due to how energy works--but the whole concept is again unfamiliar and only the extremely enterprising will pursue it).
It's the same thing with an interview. You can be the best profile for a job, but you won't be chosen for a totally random reason.
No, the hiring manager just enjoyed the company of the hot black chick more than you. She had a better smile, and nicer legs. You're fat and hairy. Not very random; he's going to see the receptionist every fucking day, who's he gonna want to look at?
I would just shrug and go, "Huh. That was an expensive mistake... managers just don't understand workplace economics these days." Then walk out.
Firing an employee is the worst thing for a company. It removes the employee's expertise, disrupts current operations, then requires retraining of other employees to cope. The hiring of a new employee then incurs a settling period which costs money, along with the further unsettling of the workplace. It takes months for an employee to adequately grasp their job; and even beyond that, many nuances take even years to fixate. A large amount of efficiency is lost, and large costs well beyond the cost of a single employee's salary and disciplinary action are incurred.
Firing an employee generally exposes an even greater cost: the company wasted all of the above sunk cost on a non-productive employee. If this is the case, firing is the correction of an expensive mistake; otherwise, firing is itself an extremely expensive mistake and should be avoided.
The CEO misjudged a risk, overapplied disciplinary action, and cost the company significant profits. Continued behavior in such a manner will impact his legal obligation to maximize shareholder profit, both in the short and long term. The CEO must be disciplined, preferably in a way which increases value to the company. Management retraining may be helpful. Reduction of bonuses in tandem with the estimated cost to the company, plus buffer, plus punitive measures (which will probably dwarf actual costs) may be appropriate.
Well, then the "earth becoming hot" thing turned out to not be a real thing; but the climate does change, so we started talking about "Climate Change". We just replaced the wording.
(although as I recall, there was a memo from a Bush-era advisor who recommended using "climate change" over "global warming" as the latter sounded too dramatic- in other words, the exact opposite PR reason that you thought it were. But it would be too generous to think this changed the terminology, though.)
Sounds like the exact same reason to me: "We don't see global warming, it sounds like you're overstating what's happening... you know, the actual warming thing. That's not really happening, at the very least not in any appreciable way. There's some change going on."
The reason it's called climate change is because "Global Warming" was drilled into our heads as "Driving too many cars and running factories, causing the earth to become hot because of CO2." Well, then the "earth becoming hot" thing turned out to not be a real thing; but the climate does change, so we started talking about "Climate Change". We just replaced the wording.
With the replaced wording, we can see a real thing happening. Because the fairly-believable "Earth gets hotter because of greenhouse gasses" thing was accepted, and the effect has been renamed to something visible, we accept the original reasonable explanation for the new observable thing. The problem here is that the original explanation is less reasonable for this new thing--if "Climate Change" means hurricanes, blizzards, a global drop in temperature, a new ice age, formation of bigger ice shelves, earthquakes, meteor showers, and Three Mile Island suddenly blowing a volcanic vent and sinking 3 feet below sea level, people will accept it as some kind of man-made event because of all the cars we drive. Because it's still "Global Warming" to them and we know what caused global warming.
That's your propaganda lesson today.
Europe has long-since rejected Global Warming and is now trying to work out the cooling trend that is coming, and how to survive it.
House Republicans from Texas are claiming Global Warming was never up for debate and is an undeniable fact; while liberal Democrats in congress are shouting out loudly that we need to get away from this fairytale and face real problems with real science--the science of global cooling.
Scientific consensus predicts a protracted decrease in sunspot activity, thought to be the cause of the vicious cooling trend that's made Siberia, the UK, and other parts of Europe unusually cold for the past several years. It's well-known and observed that global temperatures haven't faced an overall increase in 15 years.
This is what I woke up to a week ago. I went back to sleep; I haven't checked to see if I'm back in my own universe yet, but when I saw the political climate I knew something wasn't right. The best part was the actual physics of that bizarro universe didn't seem any different; just the actors were shouting different things. Am I still there?