Don't worry. The probability of Kamala Harris being the next president is exactly 0%.
If you look at how she is running her campaign, it is obvious she isn't even trying to be the next Barack Obama. She is trying to be the next Jesse Jackson. She wants to be the national leader and spokesperson for the black community. Unlike the presidency, she actually has a good shot at that (there is not much effective competition).
She announced her candidacy in Oakland. Her national headquarters is in Baltimore. That is not what someone interested in building a broad coalition would be doing.
Russia is not under much pressure to kick him out.
America is really not that interested in putting him on trial. A trial would be an embarrassing spectacle, and a lot of official misconduct and incompetence would be publicized.
so assuming 40 year careers and sustained growth, should be at around 40,000 people.
Average job tenure in America is about 5 years. It is likely higher for economists, since longer tenure is correlated with education, and they don't have much opportunity to job hop. So if we assume 10 years, then Amazon would have 1500 economists, or about 4% of the total.
Also, TFA assumes that the size of the talent pool will remain steady in the face of increasing demand. An economist should be able to tell them why that isn't true.
policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken
According to the summary, thousands of these "experts" think that skipping school is a constructive part of the solution.
Perhaps they should be trying harder to maintain credibility.
The denialists are not disputing the meaning of the evidence for climate change, they are disputing the validity of the data and the objectivity of the scientists.
Stupid political stunts like supporting truancy aren't helping.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration is not a very good solution
Indeed. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about sequestration of highly concentrated CO2 coming directly out of power plants and cement factories.
Using Oxy-fuel combustion, which removes the N2 before burning, results in almost pure CO2 in the exhaust. The CO2 can then either be injected into geological shale formations, or sold as an industrial feedstock.
If it the CO2 is injected, it can improve the yield from shale gas fields, which results in even more CO2 reduction as the cheap gas displaces much dirtier coal.
Um, no. The left does not fear that climate change will have a good solution. You're just being silly.
I don't think so. It is not just geo-engineering that the left opposes. They are also opposed to carbon sequestration and nuclear. Both of these use our existing industrial infrastructure, and don't require any big new government initiatives. The economics of building new nukes is questionable, but shutting down working existing nukes was insane.
The left loves big coercive new initiatives. Yet most of the progress that we have made so far, such as LED bulbs, efficient variable speed motors, better insulation, more efficient engines, better batteries, cheap gas from hydraulic fracturing to replace coal, have all come from innovations by capitalists.
The problem with the "Green New Deal" is that it ignores solutions that are working, and focuses instead on spending lots of tax dollars on things that have failed.
The problem is that climate change has become totally politicized. It wasn't always this way. In 2007, a debate moderator asked the Republican candidates if they thought climate change was a "serious problem". All but Fred Thompson agreed. That is unimaginable today. Denialism has become a right wing litmus test.
The left isn't much better. They mostly see climate change as an opportunity to push an agenda for taxes, coercive big government, and centralization. So they reject even considering solutions that don't serve that agenda. They don't fear geo-engineering will have unintended consequences. They fear the opposite: That it will turn out to be a good solution.
I tried to understand the results of Common Core but I can't find any data to determine if it's helping....or if it's just different.
The answer most likely is "neither". It isn't helping much because it isn't different. Common Core is just a standardization of normal math education.
It's too polarizing of a topic to get non-biased data about as far as I can tell.
The polarization is mostly from idiots who have no idea what Common Core is.
Most of the anti-CC kooks on the right think Common Core comes from the UN or the Federal government. It doesn't.
Most of the anti-CC kooks on the left think Common Core means teach-to-the-test, and disempowers teachers. It doesn't. CC doesn't specify any particular tests, and it was designed by teachers.
because the kids are learning math differently (circles and lines everywhere, aka 'common core') than their parents did...
90% of people complaining about "Common Core" don't even know what it is. It is mostly just normal math, and understanding "circles and lines" is a very important part of math. Math is more than just arithmetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry. The probability of Kamala Harris being the next president is exactly 0%.
If you look at how she is running her campaign, it is obvious she isn't even trying to be the next Barack Obama. She is trying to be the next Jesse Jackson. She wants to be the national leader and spokesperson for the black community. Unlike the presidency, she actually has a good shot at that (there is not much effective competition).
She announced her candidacy in Oakland. Her national headquarters is in Baltimore. That is not what someone interested in building a broad coalition would be doing.
He would have been given a military show trial
A military trial for a civilian American citizen would be totally unconstitutional. There is absolutely no way this would happen.
if not assassinated outright.
Who would give the order? Who would carry it out?
Donald Trump has betrayed multiple subordinates. No one is going to commit felony murder on his behalf only to be thrown under the bus.
Russia is not under much pressure to kick him out.
America is really not that interested in putting him on trial. A trial would be an embarrassing spectacle, and a lot of official misconduct and incompetence would be publicized.
The status quo is better for everyone.
theories that have no real grounding in reality or accounting for the human condition.
In the last two decades, there has been a strong shift in research toward "empirical economics" based on real-world data.
Why would any smart person choose to study economics?
Because it is an interesting subject.
Despite what economists tell you, not everyone is motivated by money.
so assuming 40 year careers and sustained growth, should be at around 40,000 people.
Average job tenure in America is about 5 years. It is likely higher for economists, since longer tenure is correlated with education, and they don't have much opportunity to job hop. So if we assume 10 years, then Amazon would have 1500 economists, or about 4% of the total.
Also, TFA assumes that the size of the talent pool will remain steady in the face of increasing demand. An economist should be able to tell them why that isn't true.
displacing much dirtier coal with cheap gas is not a CO2 reduction
Yes it is. Gas has twice the energy per kg of carbon emission.
In America, replacing coal with gas has done more to reduce carbon emissions than everything else that we have done combined.
policy that basically every informed expert on the planet agrees must be undertaken
According to the summary, thousands of these "experts" think that skipping school is a constructive part of the solution.
Perhaps they should be trying harder to maintain credibility.
The denialists are not disputing the meaning of the evidence for climate change, they are disputing the validity of the data and the objectivity of the scientists.
Stupid political stunts like supporting truancy aren't helping.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestration is not a very good solution
Indeed. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about sequestration of highly concentrated CO2 coming directly out of power plants and cement factories.
Using Oxy-fuel combustion, which removes the N2 before burning, results in almost pure CO2 in the exhaust. The CO2 can then either be injected into geological shale formations, or sold as an industrial feedstock.
If it the CO2 is injected, it can improve the yield from shale gas fields, which results in even more CO2 reduction as the cheap gas displaces much dirtier coal.
Who is 'automatically rejecting every technology that might work at scale'?
The participants in the UN conference in Nairobi, for starters.
Climate change is a serious issue, and no potential solution should be summarily rejected for political reasons.
It is reasonable to oppose geo-engineering, since we don't yet know enough about the consequences.
It is NOT reasonable to oppose scientific research on geo-engineering out of fear that it may actually work well.
.That completely ignores that there are storage techniques.
The problem is that the costs of storage negate many of the benefits of wind.
We need better storage tech, but we should also be building a national HVDC network.
Wind turbines don't provide consistent energy.
That is true locally, but not if they are widely disbursed. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
The winds are stronger and steadier at greater heights, so taller turbines produce more reliable power.
Offshore wind is very reliable. Above about about 35N, ocean winds never stop.
Um, no. The left does not fear that climate change will have a good solution. You're just being silly.
I don't think so. It is not just geo-engineering that the left opposes. They are also opposed to carbon sequestration and nuclear. Both of these use our existing industrial infrastructure, and don't require any big new government initiatives. The economics of building new nukes is questionable, but shutting down working existing nukes was insane.
The left loves big coercive new initiatives. Yet most of the progress that we have made so far, such as LED bulbs, efficient variable speed motors, better insulation, more efficient engines, better batteries, cheap gas from hydraulic fracturing to replace coal, have all come from innovations by capitalists.
The problem with the "Green New Deal" is that it ignores solutions that are working, and focuses instead on spending lots of tax dollars on things that have failed.
The problem is that climate change has become totally politicized. It wasn't always this way. In 2007, a debate moderator asked the Republican candidates if they thought climate change was a "serious problem". All but Fred Thompson agreed. That is unimaginable today. Denialism has become a right wing litmus test.
The left isn't much better. They mostly see climate change as an opportunity to push an agenda for taxes, coercive big government, and centralization. So they reject even considering solutions that don't serve that agenda. They don't fear geo-engineering will have unintended consequences. They fear the opposite: That it will turn out to be a good solution.
You sound jealous
You're damn right I am. She spent $80k on a high performance car, and she won't let me drive it.
I tried to understand the results of Common Core but I can't find any data to determine if it's helping....or if it's just different.
The answer most likely is "neither". It isn't helping much because it isn't different. Common Core is just a standardization of normal math education.
It's too polarizing of a topic to get non-biased data about as far as I can tell.
The polarization is mostly from idiots who have no idea what Common Core is.
Most of the anti-CC kooks on the right think Common Core comes from the UN or the Federal government. It doesn't.
Most of the anti-CC kooks on the left think Common Core means teach-to-the-test, and disempowers teachers. It doesn't. CC doesn't specify any particular tests, and it was designed by teachers.
There really is no "pretending". In many ways hybrids, and especially plug-in hybrids, are superior to all-electric.
Plug-in hybrids use no gas for normal day to day driving, yet have the range when you need it. So you get the benefits of both gas and electric.
They also cost less, which means way more people can afford them, and they stretch the world's economical accessible lithium reserves much further.
My wife has a Tesla, and most days she doesn't even use 10% of its range.
because the kids are learning math differently (circles and lines everywhere, aka 'common core') than their parents did...
90% of people complaining about "Common Core" don't even know what it is. It is mostly just normal math, and understanding "circles and lines" is a very important part of math. Math is more than just arithmetic.
Glider experience should be required for commercial pilots. Full stop.
Evidence should be required for new requirements. Full stop.
Is there any data to show that glider experience leads to fewer accidents in commercial aviation?
Sounds completely wrong and obviously the engineering world has lost its collective mind and we are all literally doomed if it's the case.
Yet the statistics show that we are safer than ever. The key to improved safety is to get humans out of the loop.
AA wanted Airbus to take all the blame, Airbus said nope, your pilots were to blame
Shouldn't the NTSB be deciding who is to blame?
will that really be enough to help them Native American communities that suffer from coal plant shutdowns?
Does this new law even apply to the Navaho coal plants? States usually have no jurisdiction on Indian land.
In setting up the LG, I found a setting to reduce the prospect of seeing duplicate ads.
If you want to keep your privacy, then you don't "set it up". You just use it as a dumb TV.
I use my smart TV as a smart TV, because I don't really care if "they" know what I am watching (mostly documentaries). But it is my choice.
If the TV is not connected to the Internet, (either a wired or wireless connection on the LG), can it present ads to us?
Your cable provider (Comcast, Spectrum, etc.) can feed you ads, but LG can't (unless they cut a deal with the cable company).
Adding to that irony is that $10/mo is the price of an entire monthly LTE plan in many countries
This is because most American consumers actually don't care about lower prices for cell service.
We have choices. T-Mobile costs less than either Verizon or AT&T. Yet it has only about 10% of the market, while Verizon and AT&T have about 30% each.
Consumers are clearly voting with their dollars for features other than low price.
they mention Netflix in passing here - so would that mean Netflix playing on this TV would have ads? No thanks!
Netflix already has ads, mostly previews for their original content.
By tracking your viewing habits, they can give you better recommendations.