Always a fun fact about this particularly inane talking point. "Climate change" was a heritage foundation focus group identified term to make the phenomenon seem less scary to average americans. It got into the public lexicon from right-wing shill group "skepticism", and scientists picked it up because things like changing ocean currents would actually cool some(very regional) places, and it was deemed more accurate.
"15 years" worked for them last year, because 1998 was an outlier for global temperature. If you the hottest year ever referenced as a starting point, you might have cause to raise concerns about intentionally deceitful cherry-picking.
Who the fuck mods this +anything, much less "interesting"?
Aside from the fact that it's a wildly ignorant and blindly regurgitated talking point that we've all seen a trillion times, it fails to address the even remotely basic question of what this report actually studied, which is about long term trends outside of the inter-annual noise levels, of specific classes of negative climatic events like flooding and drought.
How does anyone see something that profoundly and purposely ignorant of the very basic of what is being discussed and go "oh how clever!". I need someone to explain to me what possible mental process leads to this kind of post being treated as anything other than purposeful flamebait that adds less than zero to the discussion.
FYI, all other electronic money transfers in the US are required to go through money laundering and terrorist funding checks. By law the bank isn't even allowed to tell you why you can't get your money, if the scan hits a positive.
Now everyone who imagines themselves rebellious for having issues with one of the confused democratic governments in the world is going to love bitcoin now.
Lenin? Yeah. He said shit like that. Stalin, wanting to seem like Lenin? Him too. The fucking KGB, though?? Have you read anything ever written by any kgb directors in defense of their actions?
Obviously there's subjectivity to it. I don't proclaim to be an oracle or arbiter of goodness. And I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
But if one goes back to what the KGB or Nazis were doing, those traditionalist arguments were all over the place. One only needs to look at the arguments presented by slave states in their statements of secession to see the arguments from tradition blown up large.
I have a normal test for "wrong side of history" that I divised by looking at the arguments made from the wrong side of history. It doesn't work on this for reasons that will become apparent.
1. This only applies to public debates. Debates entirely among elites don't count. 2. Ignore all arguments coming from emotional appeals. There's emotion on both sides of right and wrong, and these arguments just muddy the water. 3. Whoever cites more tradition or "stability" in their arguments (proportionally) is going to be wrong.
It's amazingly good at identifying the people doing terrible things, and will be brushed aside by progress.
Isn't chlorophyll tuned to the easiest bands of energy that come from our sun and don't get scattered by our atmosphere? Wouldn't a slightly different stellar color or atmospheric makeup dramatically change how stellar energy would be chemically captured?
When a sequel is made absolutely terrible by awful writing, they don't go "Maybe we carried this series on too long, and shouldn't write without respect to the quality of the underlying plot, counting on the name to do everything"
Instead they go "Welp, we drove off all the people that liked the series and another sequel will have a smaller audience. Solution? REEBOOOOOT with more bad writing!"
Comics are a uniquely suited format for adaptation to film, because they have the same (lack) of depth of characters, plot length, complexity, ratio of action to dialog, and flashiness as your typical action movie. So... that's just too easy a train to ride. We'll find a new gimick within another 10 years.
Kind of. But even given that premise, military technology has changed substantially and in incredibly important ways.
I mean, I feel like we could debate the nature of tactics far beyond my ability to do so, without there being any notable points to change my mind. But even ignoring the small arms conflict, the nature of air support and intelligence asymmetry in warfare, I feel like one word could settle that question.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because there's a debate going on in the public about baby eating. Congratulations, you can't even apply a simple 3 rule test.
Here we go, with enough time and data, and enough willingness to ignore other parts of it it:
you can achieve your dreams
Why is killing people with closed source software morally superior?
Oh, you picked the wrong dataset. I forget which of those it is, but one of them. You gotta cherrypick real hard.
Always a fun fact about this particularly inane talking point. "Climate change" was a heritage foundation focus group identified term to make the phenomenon seem less scary to average americans. It got into the public lexicon from right-wing shill group "skepticism", and scientists picked it up because things like changing ocean currents would actually cool some(very regional) places, and it was deemed more accurate.
"15 years" worked for them last year, because 1998 was an outlier for global temperature. If you the hottest year ever referenced as a starting point, you might have cause to raise concerns about intentionally deceitful cherry-picking.
Peak (US) oil happened. It's part of why we're doing the whole hydraulic fracturing thing.
The historical data of actual oil prices maps pretty damn well to the supposedly "bogus" Hubbert curve.
Who the fuck mods this +anything, much less "interesting"?
Aside from the fact that it's a wildly ignorant and blindly regurgitated talking point that we've all seen a trillion times, it fails to address the even remotely basic question of what this report actually studied, which is about long term trends outside of the inter-annual noise levels, of specific classes of negative climatic events like flooding and drought.
How does anyone see something that profoundly and purposely ignorant of the very basic of what is being discussed and go "oh how clever!". I need someone to explain to me what possible mental process leads to this kind of post being treated as anything other than purposeful flamebait that adds less than zero to the discussion.
Help me out here.
FYI, all other electronic money transfers in the US are required to go through money laundering and terrorist funding checks. By law the bank isn't even allowed to tell you why you can't get your money, if the scan hits a positive.
Now everyone who imagines themselves rebellious for having issues with one of the confused democratic governments in the world is going to love bitcoin now.
Control-f isn't the same as reading comprehension my anonymous friend.
Bullshit.
Lenin? Yeah. He said shit like that. Stalin, wanting to seem like Lenin? Him too. The fucking KGB, though?? Have you read anything ever written by any kgb directors in defense of their actions?
Take a look at how KGB decision making actually occured and acknowledge how wrong you are.
Obviously there's subjectivity to it. I don't proclaim to be an oracle or arbiter of goodness. And I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
But if one goes back to what the KGB or Nazis were doing, those traditionalist arguments were all over the place.
One only needs to look at the arguments presented by slave states in their statements of secession to see the arguments from tradition blown up large.
The lessons we've learned are often in direct contradiction of tradition.
I have a normal test for "wrong side of history" that I divised by looking at the arguments made from the wrong side of history. It doesn't work on this for reasons that will become apparent.
1. This only applies to public debates. Debates entirely among elites don't count.
2. Ignore all arguments coming from emotional appeals. There's emotion on both sides of right and wrong, and these arguments just muddy the water.
3. Whoever cites more tradition or "stability" in their arguments (proportionally) is going to be wrong.
It's amazingly good at identifying the people doing terrible things, and will be brushed aside by progress.
This is a statement I wish were clarified.
I find your re-framing reasonable and helpful. Thank you.
Bacteria evolved to eat the completely artificial substance of nylon. I'd rate the scenario as "plausible"
Isn't chlorophyll tuned to the easiest bands of energy that come from our sun and don't get scattered by our atmosphere? Wouldn't a slightly different stellar color or atmospheric makeup dramatically change how stellar energy would be chemically captured?
A. He's a senator.
B. He's younger than bill gates or steve jobs by almost a decade, and only a decade older than Sergey Brin and Larry page.
I think we can safely say every stupid thing comes from his brain rather than his generational cohort.
That is to say: it's software.
When a sequel is made absolutely terrible by awful writing, they don't go "Maybe we carried this series on too long, and shouldn't write without respect to the quality of the underlying plot, counting on the name to do everything"
Instead they go "Welp, we drove off all the people that liked the series and another sequel will have a smaller audience. Solution? REEBOOOOOT with more bad writing!"
Comics are a uniquely suited format for adaptation to film, because they have the same (lack) of depth of characters, plot length, complexity, ratio of action to dialog, and flashiness as your typical action movie. So... that's just too easy a train to ride. We'll find a new gimick within another 10 years.
A. I don't think you know what "found guilty" means.
B. That is a technicality of the case.
I think human nature is a kind of constant,
Kind of. But even given that premise, military technology has changed substantially and in incredibly important ways.
I mean, I feel like we could debate the nature of tactics far beyond my ability to do so, without there being any notable points to change my mind. But even ignoring the small arms conflict, the nature of air support and intelligence asymmetry in warfare, I feel like one word could settle that question.
Break easy compared to machine code in some specific way?