Do you have any proof of this or is it all conjecture? Let's take some example postings for actual jobs I read in the last week.
Desired qualifications:
At least seven years performing predictive analytics in a specific vertical
Masters or PhD in Machine Learning, Engineering or Statistics
Knowledge of this set of vertical specific applications
How in the world would anybody who is younger than 30 even apply for this job?
The thought police are moderating you down but I get it. If a person simply hires less old people, they can't be charged with a crime. If that person admits they hire less old people because they are old, they can be charged with a crime. It's not the action that makes it illegal, but the motivation becoming public.
Woah guy. Your analogy is flawed beyond belief. Here is a better analogy. Two men kill someone in self defense. One of those men calls the attacker (who they kill) a racial epitaph. The other guy says nothing. Both men did the same thing but one of them will probably be tried for a hate crime and the other probably won't be charged at all (since it's self defense).
This is what happened to me. I was on a jury selection process for a case to determine if a man should be institutionalized. The lawyers on both sides asked questions about people's support or opposition to institutionalization. They also asked what line of work each person is in. I said I was a business analyst. The selection process was winding down and the prosecution side skipped dismissing anybody during their turn. If the defense had done the same, it would have ended the selection process. Instead the defense dismissed another juror. Now the prosecution got to go and they dismissed me. Think about what that says. They didn't see me as a threat until it put their balance off. They didn't dismiss me for a reason other than I was analytical in thought.
You don't need to fix the scientific consensus. You create enough momentum and the rest of the "Scientists" will carry you the rest of the way with confirmation bias. Al Gore runs a climate change non-profit and owns a bunch of solar companies. No conflict of interest at all, right?
That's not legislating from the bench. SCOTUS is allowed to strike down laws if they are actually unconstitutional. Legislating from the bench is like when new rights are created from thin air with no laws or constitutional evidence to back them up.
Correlation isn't causation. One thing happening before another in the timeline also doesn't imply causation. You have no idea if the Civil Rights act would have been legislated or not had the court case not happened.
Have you ever been involved in a jury selection process? I have. The only people left are the ones with no emotions and no coherent thoughts or ideas of their own. They also tend to have a below average IQ. Do you really want those kind of people determining the outcome of your case?
Not always. For instance, CO2 capture is completely different from more regulations on actual pollutants as opposed to a gas that gets expelled from every single human on the planet.
Bikeshare isn't a problem. Powered scooters aren't a problem. It's the people who use those things that lack all common sense and decency that are the problem.
It's amazing how many people don't know about CVC 21208. If there is a bike lane and you are going under the speed limit, you have to ride in it. Very few exceptions apply. https://leginfo.legislature.ca....
That's not how it works. The person making the original positive claim is the one who has the burden to prove their claim. Also, you can't prove a negative. Sure, we could control the climate with infinite resources and a giant heat sink the size of a small planet but that's not the point. The point is can you control the climate while not bankrupting the world economy.
Just because you're not obliged by international treaty doesn't mean you shouldn't do something.
By "Do something" you mean take meals out of the hands of small children and give the money to rich NASA engineers instead in the hope that what they do MIGHT have some effect?
I'll explain this again as I have before countless times. Any money spent on AGW (as opposed to addressing pollution) is taken away from other programs which could save countless lives. You have to look not only at the need, but the opportunity cost and you have to set priorities. Capitalism has saved many lives by ramping up economies that could adapt to the needs of the every growing world population. Still people need aid and if we spend money on AGW, we can't provide as much aid. Or if we provide aid anyways, we dilute the value of our currency which still hurts everyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have any proof of this or is it all conjecture? Let's take some example postings for actual jobs I read in the last week.
Desired qualifications:
At least seven years performing predictive analytics in a specific vertical Masters or PhD in Machine Learning, Engineering or Statistics Knowledge of this set of vertical specific applications
How in the world would anybody who is younger than 30 even apply for this job?
Junior worker has nothing to do with age; it has to do with experience in the job they are applying for.
The thought police are moderating you down but I get it. If a person simply hires less old people, they can't be charged with a crime. If that person admits they hire less old people because they are old, they can be charged with a crime. It's not the action that makes it illegal, but the motivation becoming public.
Woah guy. Your analogy is flawed beyond belief. Here is a better analogy. Two men kill someone in self defense. One of those men calls the attacker (who they kill) a racial epitaph. The other guy says nothing. Both men did the same thing but one of them will probably be tried for a hate crime and the other probably won't be charged at all (since it's self defense).
I'll just go out on a limb here and say that I'm sure this law varies state to state.
True story bro. That's why Tim Pool left that garbage organization.
This is what happened to me. I was on a jury selection process for a case to determine if a man should be institutionalized. The lawyers on both sides asked questions about people's support or opposition to institutionalization. They also asked what line of work each person is in. I said I was a business analyst. The selection process was winding down and the prosecution side skipped dismissing anybody during their turn. If the defense had done the same, it would have ended the selection process. Instead the defense dismissed another juror. Now the prosecution got to go and they dismissed me. Think about what that says. They didn't see me as a threat until it put their balance off. They didn't dismiss me for a reason other than I was analytical in thought.
You don't need to fix the scientific consensus. You create enough momentum and the rest of the "Scientists" will carry you the rest of the way with confirmation bias. Al Gore runs a climate change non-profit and owns a bunch of solar companies. No conflict of interest at all, right?
That's not legislating from the bench. SCOTUS is allowed to strike down laws if they are actually unconstitutional. Legislating from the bench is like when new rights are created from thin air with no laws or constitutional evidence to back them up.
Correlation isn't causation. One thing happening before another in the timeline also doesn't imply causation. You have no idea if the Civil Rights act would have been legislated or not had the court case not happened.
You could, you know, quit?
Have you ever been involved in a jury selection process? I have. The only people left are the ones with no emotions and no coherent thoughts or ideas of their own. They also tend to have a below average IQ. Do you really want those kind of people determining the outcome of your case?
Nevah been done befoh. http://www.powermag.com/two-sc...
So China is going to cease trading with us because of carbon credits? Hold on, I have to peel myself off the floor from laughing so hard.
Addressing AGW and pollution go hand in hand
Not always. For instance, CO2 capture is completely different from more regulations on actual pollutants as opposed to a gas that gets expelled from every single human on the planet.
Pacifism is a self defeating argument. I don't even need to try here. Defense spending also saves countless lives.
Bikeshare isn't a problem. Powered scooters aren't a problem. It's the people who use those things that lack all common sense and decency that are the problem.
That's hot.
That's actually a nice hotel. Have you been to Paris lately? It might be an upgrade even.
It's amazing how many people don't know about CVC 21208. If there is a bike lane and you are going under the speed limit, you have to ride in it. Very few exceptions apply. https://leginfo.legislature.ca....
You make an ass and the ump will tion you. -Will Smith
That's not how it works. The person making the original positive claim is the one who has the burden to prove their claim. Also, you can't prove a negative. Sure, we could control the climate with infinite resources and a giant heat sink the size of a small planet but that's not the point. The point is can you control the climate while not bankrupting the world economy.
Reported. Say hi to the secret service for me.
Just because you're not obliged by international treaty doesn't mean you shouldn't do something.
By "Do something" you mean take meals out of the hands of small children and give the money to rich NASA engineers instead in the hope that what they do MIGHT have some effect?
I'll explain this again as I have before countless times. Any money spent on AGW (as opposed to addressing pollution) is taken away from other programs which could save countless lives. You have to look not only at the need, but the opportunity cost and you have to set priorities. Capitalism has saved many lives by ramping up economies that could adapt to the needs of the every growing world population. Still people need aid and if we spend money on AGW, we can't provide as much aid. Or if we provide aid anyways, we dilute the value of our currency which still hurts everyone.