Smartphones have already been doing the same regarding cell modem for quite some time.
As well as the cheap SOHO wifi routers in everyone's home.
If you've got one of the higher end Quantenna 5ghz chips, you've actually got *2* CPU+Radio combo chips in your router. (Broadcom MIPS + 2.4Ghz, Quantenna ARC + 5Ghz)
And while radio is not invisible by any definition, it is a great idea from insecurity and horrifying complexity is good viewpoint, to bake in a unaccountable programmable radio transmitter inside a CPU.
I don't want to interrupt your Intel rant with any facts or anything, but CPU+Radio combos have been one of the most-produced consumer grade processor types for quite a long time. Every router you've ever owned has one.
/me wonders if this isn't testing the waters for taking a bite of Broadcom's business model.
Which is not me saying that I think this is new or strange behavior- merely business as usual, not something new.
Neoconservatives did it, Third Way democrats did it, and a ton of further subdivisions over the history of the two parties (not even mentioning the extinct party structure before that)
What's more comparing news organizations FOX is the number one rated news channel,
No, Fox is the #1 rated channel on cable news, as watched by people ages 25-54.
The fact that a bunch of angry shit-for-brains are glued to their tube for large portions of the day doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
If you were remotely honest instead of trying to push a narrative, you'd have acknowledged that when you tried to use that shit ass metric of "truthiness"
CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel
You've touched upon the point right there, buddy. Cable news ratings favor bullshit programming for the simpler folk who don't know how to get off their couch, and like being told fantastical conspiracy theories.
despite having similar standards with regard to factuality.
Yes, that must be it.
Answer me this- how the fuck do you hold down a job being so unforgivably stupid? I know that's a crap word to use, but what the hell else do you call someone so incapable of applying even fundamental logic to an argument they're trying to make?
That does not remotely prove your point.
"Something like 95% of the country" may not be farmers, but that does not make them urban or suburban, either.
You're just full of bad logic today, aren't you?
If your argument requires a logical fallacy to even get off the ground, you're probably an asshole.
Printing shit you don't want to hear does not partisan bias make.
The word means one with left-wing political views, an idea that has shifted around so much inception that whenever you and your ilk throw it around, you are almost always referring to people as communists.
But you knew that.
You're trying to brand people who support the Democratic Party as 'leftists', which is absurd, as the vast majority of them are better classified as 'soft right-ists'
This is true.
However, another idea behind our checks and balances, is that no two branches of government would be allied. This is spoken about at length in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and is actually the reason the legislature doesn't elect the President (which was the initial idea, as the executive in parliamentary systems is elected as such)
The US political parties have essentially torn that down.
Not even close. I think you are perhaps looking at the last reported quarter and assuming that is growth for the entire term.
Now, if the last quarter were to continue happening, yes, he would definitely decimate growth under the previous President's term. However, it should be noted that Obama had several 4% quarters, and even a 5% quarter.
Leftists really do live in different worlds, don't you?
Sigh, first off, leftists aren't a thing. I know Tucker and Sean tell you they are, but they just aren't. Stop using the word, it makes you look like a raving lunatic.
Second, no, your opponents are not living in different worlds, especially as long as you're using pure falsehoods to describe your world. You're literally accusing them of doing what you actually are doing. That's called projecting. It's a sign of intense insecurity. You could probably get help with that.
We are a country that runs a MASSIVE trade deficit every year.
I don't think you actually know what that means.
That is unsustainable.
How do you figure?
Our GDP growth alone makes our external trade balance more or less irrelevant.
We generate far more wealth domestically than we ship off to other countries in return for the goods that they have happily polluted their environment instead of ours to produce.
Yes, it's going to be ugly, but what would be even uglier is allowing MASSIVE trade deficits continue until our last dollar bill becomes worthless.
That confirms it. You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I don't know. I agree with the idea that the man should not be able to be silenced. I also take exception to the idea that people should be forced to carry his message.
Even since ye olden days, newspapers have had a right to choose what they publish.
And ultimately- the man was not stopped from self-publishing. He wasn't really silenced. He was kicked out of forums that did not like his decorum.
But still, I do understand the position that modern social media blurs the lines. I just don't think it's helpful to try to argue that by saying his right to free speech has been violated.
I don't know. I'm from the left coast. When I turned 16, my family moved to the heartland, and I stayed. After I graduated, I went to live with them for a year.
I didn't have any kind of preconceived dislike for the people there, and I didn't know anything about them.
I made a lot of friends. And after watching a few football games with the buddies, I figured something out- something I had gone 18 years of my life without knowing-
There are real racists in America. I hadn't seen it before, because, well, I had never seen a damn back person while I was there, but the shit that came out of their mouths was downright fucking shocking. People try to pretend like it isn't all of them, and sure, technically you're right- but it is an ingrained facet of their culture. You can dredge up a thousand other reasons for while heartland people didn't like Obama, but I spent a year there and I know the real reason. Those people blame black people for their culture being decimated in the mid 1800s. They fucking hate them.
I'm inclined to agree with you, however if statute says it shall be considered as such under the law, then it is for the purposes of this discussion. A judge agreed that it did. You cannot plea guilty to a not-crime.
Trump self-financed his campaign.
That isn't relevant.
He would've paid even if he wasn't running for office.
Also inclined to agree with you here.
John Edwards precedent.
John Edwards was acquitted, which means no precedent could have been set.
You are coming across like someone truly *desperate* to gaslight the conversation as much as possible. The desperation stinks. You should go take a walk and enjoy some fresh air or something. I'm worried about your health.
An unrelated quote from Madison, made during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 where the US Federal Government's system of electors for the office of President was proposed by him and adopted... got it.
And actually, if you could read, you'd see I literally factually argued almost every point you attempted to make with your blatant falsehoods.
But ya- why should anyone here be surprised that you respond to losing an argument with "You didn't prove me wrong!!!!!". More gas lighting. Pathetic, dude.
No, it is not.
It was for a brief time, but that ended up being a failing model and was replaced by a federation of states.
You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States second.
No. This was a viewpoint taken by many people who joined the confederates during the war. They lost that argument, however.
By virtue of their complete defeat, they became citizens of the United States first, and citizens of their defeated states second.
The electoral college is set up so as to be more representative of the states wishes for president.
Yes. There's an interesting reason for this though, and it's not what you think.
The 3/5ths compromise, and census-based congressional representative allotment dealt with the fact that the southern states were full of slaves and disenfranchised freemen, but there was no way to give them a voice in the election of the executive. The ideal choice (according to the people present at the Constitutional Convention of 1887) for election of the executive was 'choice from the people at large' (A popular vote).
This wouldn't do for the South, as due to their suffrage laws, had a very small popular vote (only land owners could vote).
The US system of electors was the compromise to keep the Southern States in the Union.
This keeps from only 1-2 massively populous states running complete roughshod over the less populous states.
You have to be pretty goddamn bad at math to think such a thing.
You need the 9 most populous states in order to have an electoral majority, population wise.
This includes several reliably Republican states.
It is also a good thing to be on a state level basis, as that with the massive geography of the US, many states have very different needs and wants based on that alone, amongst other issues.
This makes sense from the perspective of the legislature. It never made sense from the perspective of the executive.
If we didn't have the electoral college, well, the country as a whole would be subservient to CA, NY and maybe 1 or two other states.
Yes, I suppose if CA, NY, and maybe 1 or two other states annexed another 5 or 6 states against their will, and then dissolved the legislature.
Your argument is shit, dude. I hope you don't actually think that way.
Oh I really don't disagree with the use of Wine at all. I think it's fantastic that some Big Money is picking it up to help those guys out. Their job is horridly complex (emulating a more or less undocumented API, with a black box implementation) and it's a miracle it works at all. I've used Wine for many years.
Being this is happening with Steam, which is a large enough distribution platform that developers actually pay it attention- we may see Windows apps even targeted for Wine compatibility... which is the most exciting thing I've heard all week.
I only object to its classification as a toolkit library and a PE loader.
I personally would draw one line between Wine ("Wine is not an emulator") and a same-architecture VMM such as VirtualBox
Why, though?
If we're going to be arbitrarily arbitrary, we can say that KVM is just another set of userspace libraries, with a thick translation layer between the application and the host kernel.
and another line between a same-architecture VMM and an actual emulator.
Why, though?
qemu is capable of fully emulating an x86 binary and interfacing it directly with the host OS. It's basically just an ELF loader, and a translation layer.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong, by any means, just that I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that a toolkit library such as GTK or Qt are equivalent to a massive runtime, with which a program cannot even print an error saying it couldn't find its runtime, without.
From the Wine FAQ:
"Wine is not just an emulator" is more accurate.
Wine doesn't emulate anything at the binary level, but it does emulate the NT kernel in user-space and translate calls to it.
Oh it worked as designed, he's just full of shit about what it was designed to do.
It was designed to give states with slaves and large disenfranchised populations that are counted in the census the voting power of those they disenfranchise.
It worked.
The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown.
You can claim that as a theoretical use of the elector system, for sure. You however cannot claim that is what it was designed for. It's well documented what it was designed for. It neatly implements the 3/5ths compromise in presidential elections, as well as handles the issue that suffrage in the south was limited to land owners, making their popular vote tally quite small.
To quote Mr. Madison, the pragmatist who was the force behind having it implemented:
The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention
We accept your apology for spreading falsehoods.
Assuming faithful Electors, however, their vote is worth about as much as anyone else's.
Sigh. Another lie.
Someone from Wyoming for example: Their vote is worth the vote of 3.18 Americans *not* from Wyoming. Far worse if from say, California.
You're really letting me down, sexy.
Unless their State is stupid enough to tell Electors to vote in a winner-take-all scheme.
Which is literally every state in the Union, minus two. Friendly tip, when you're arguing that reality is a certain way, don't suffix it with "Unless this condition that is actually the status quo is true"
to smooth out the rounding error.
You seem to be confused about what a rounding error is.
Aside from all that, your mention of slavery is entirely misplaced.
No, it's not, as the was clearly discussed during the Constitutional Convention that led to the fucking rules.
You're likely referring to how the population of each State is counted when determining the number of Representatives to apportion to a State.
If only the number of representatives apportioned to a state had something to do with a state's electoral power in a Presidential election... oh wait.
Come on, dude. Come the fuck on.
The bicameral legislature and the Electoral College are entirely separate things from this issue.
Except for the fact that both were apportioned according to that "issue", and that the founders preferred a popular vote for the Presidency, ideologically speaking, were it not for fears of the very limited suffrage in the south. As such, the electoral system was in fact the 3/5ths compromise, applied to the election of the executive, and was never dressed up as anything else until assholes such as yourself in the modern era tried to rewrite history to gaslight the truth behind the odd quirks of our electoral system, birthed in slavery, that favor today's "conservative" (see: antebellum) voters.
You were *so* close to being smart.
What do you think the 3/5ths compromise existed for?
So that states with a lot of slaves could have congressional representation based upon their population and 3/5ths their population of slaves?
Now, where do you think the amount of electors a state has in the electoral college comes from?
Let's just ask the guy who invented it.
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention
We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years
Nobody said the climate was stable.
The carbon cycle was stable, thus the atmosphere's ability to capture long-wave radiation was stable.
The climate includes a billion ways to distribute that energy within the thermosphere.
The (comparatively small) oscillations of the last 800,000 years or so have been based on albedo fluctuations due to ice.
The last major carbon-based climate event was about 50 million years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Smartphones have already been doing the same regarding cell modem for quite some time.
As well as the cheap SOHO wifi routers in everyone's home.
If you've got one of the higher end Quantenna 5ghz chips, you've actually got *2* CPU+Radio combo chips in your router. (Broadcom MIPS + 2.4Ghz, Quantenna ARC + 5Ghz)
And while radio is not invisible by any definition, it is a great idea from insecurity and horrifying complexity is good viewpoint, to bake in a unaccountable programmable radio transmitter inside a CPU.
I don't want to interrupt your Intel rant with any facts or anything, but CPU+Radio combos have been one of the most-produced consumer grade processor types for quite a long time. Every router you've ever owned has one.
/me wonders if this isn't testing the waters for taking a bite of Broadcom's business model.
They both taste great.
Which is not me saying that I think this is new or strange behavior- merely business as usual, not something new.
Neoconservatives did it, Third Way democrats did it, and a ton of further subdivisions over the history of the two parties (not even mentioning the extinct party structure before that)
It was, in a way... But more so because one wing of the party is trying to wrest control from the other, and he is the face of that.
"Trump Republicans" are now a thing, and he is actively seeking to convert the holdouts in Congress over to that brand, or replace them with such.
What's more comparing news organizations FOX is the number one rated news channel,
No, Fox is the #1 rated channel on cable news, as watched by people ages 25-54.
The fact that a bunch of angry shit-for-brains are glued to their tube for large portions of the day doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
If you were remotely honest instead of trying to push a narrative, you'd have acknowledged that when you tried to use that shit ass metric of "truthiness"
CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel
You've touched upon the point right there, buddy. Cable news ratings favor bullshit programming for the simpler folk who don't know how to get off their couch, and like being told fantastical conspiracy theories.
despite having similar standards with regard to factuality.
Yes, that must be it.
Answer me this- how the fuck do you hold down a job being so unforgivably stupid? I know that's a crap word to use, but what the hell else do you call someone so incapable of applying even fundamental logic to an argument they're trying to make?
That does not remotely prove your point.
"Something like 95% of the country" may not be farmers, but that does not make them urban or suburban, either.
You're just full of bad logic today, aren't you?
Objection: Begging the question.
If your argument requires a logical fallacy to even get off the ground, you're probably an asshole.
Printing shit you don't want to hear does not partisan bias make.
I think that says more about you than about liberals.
The word means one with left-wing political views, an idea that has shifted around so much inception that whenever you and your ilk throw it around, you are almost always referring to people as communists.
But you knew that.
You're trying to brand people who support the Democratic Party as 'leftists', which is absurd, as the vast majority of them are better classified as 'soft right-ists'
This is true.
However, another idea behind our checks and balances, is that no two branches of government would be allied. This is spoken about at length in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, and is actually the reason the legislature doesn't elect the President (which was the initial idea, as the executive in parliamentary systems is elected as such)
The US political parties have essentially torn that down.
Trump exceeds Obama growth.
Not even close. I think you are perhaps looking at the last reported quarter and assuming that is growth for the entire term.
Now, if the last quarter were to continue happening, yes, he would definitely decimate growth under the previous President's term. However, it should be noted that Obama had several 4% quarters, and even a 5% quarter.
Leftists really do live in different worlds, don't you?
Sigh, first off, leftists aren't a thing. I know Tucker and Sean tell you they are, but they just aren't. Stop using the word, it makes you look like a raving lunatic.
Second, no, your opponents are not living in different worlds, especially as long as you're using pure falsehoods to describe your world. You're literally accusing them of doing what you actually are doing. That's called projecting. It's a sign of intense insecurity. You could probably get help with that.
We are a country that runs a MASSIVE trade deficit every year.
I don't think you actually know what that means.
That is unsustainable.
How do you figure? Our GDP growth alone makes our external trade balance more or less irrelevant.
We generate far more wealth domestically than we ship off to other countries in return for the goods that they have happily polluted their environment instead of ours to produce.
Yes, it's going to be ugly, but what would be even uglier is allowing MASSIVE trade deficits continue until our last dollar bill becomes worthless.
That confirms it. You literally have no fucking idea what you're talking about.
I don't know. I agree with the idea that the man should not be able to be silenced. I also take exception to the idea that people should be forced to carry his message.
Even since ye olden days, newspapers have had a right to choose what they publish.
And ultimately- the man was not stopped from self-publishing. He wasn't really silenced. He was kicked out of forums that did not like his decorum.
But still, I do understand the position that modern social media blurs the lines. I just don't think it's helpful to try to argue that by saying his right to free speech has been violated.
I don't know. I'm from the left coast. When I turned 16, my family moved to the heartland, and I stayed. After I graduated, I went to live with them for a year.
I didn't have any kind of preconceived dislike for the people there, and I didn't know anything about them.
I made a lot of friends. And after watching a few football games with the buddies, I figured something out- something I had gone 18 years of my life without knowing-
There are real racists in America. I hadn't seen it before, because, well, I had never seen a damn back person while I was there, but the shit that came out of their mouths was downright fucking shocking. People try to pretend like it isn't all of them, and sure, technically you're right- but it is an ingrained facet of their culture. You can dredge up a thousand other reasons for while heartland people didn't like Obama, but I spent a year there and I know the real reason. Those people blame black people for their culture being decimated in the mid 1800s. They fucking hate them.
Frankly, if you're one of those tiki torch wielding motherfuckers, Siberian exile is better than you deserve. Be happy with it.
It wasn't a campaign donation
I'm inclined to agree with you, however if statute says it shall be considered as such under the law, then it is for the purposes of this discussion. A judge agreed that it did. You cannot plea guilty to a not-crime.
Trump self-financed his campaign.
That isn't relevant.
He would've paid even if he wasn't running for office.
Also inclined to agree with you here.
John Edwards precedent.
John Edwards was acquitted, which means no precedent could have been set.
You are coming across like someone truly *desperate* to gaslight the conversation as much as possible. The desperation stinks. You should go take a walk and enjoy some fresh air or something. I'm worried about your health.
An unrelated quote from Madison, made during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 where the US Federal Government's system of electors for the office of President was proposed by him and adopted... got it.
And actually, if you could read, you'd see I literally factually argued almost every point you attempted to make with your blatant falsehoods.
But ya- why should anyone here be surprised that you respond to losing an argument with "You didn't prove me wrong!!!!!". More gas lighting. Pathetic, dude.
Remember, this is a confederation of states.
No, it is not.
It was for a brief time, but that ended up being a failing model and was replaced by a federation of states.
You are a citizen of your state first, and then a citizen of the United States second.
No. This was a viewpoint taken by many people who joined the confederates during the war. They lost that argument, however.
By virtue of their complete defeat, they became citizens of the United States first, and citizens of their defeated states second.
The electoral college is set up so as to be more representative of the states wishes for president.
Yes. There's an interesting reason for this though, and it's not what you think.
The 3/5ths compromise, and census-based congressional representative allotment dealt with the fact that the southern states were full of slaves and disenfranchised freemen, but there was no way to give them a voice in the election of the executive. The ideal choice (according to the people present at the Constitutional Convention of 1887) for election of the executive was 'choice from the people at large' (A popular vote).
This wouldn't do for the South, as due to their suffrage laws, had a very small popular vote (only land owners could vote).
The US system of electors was the compromise to keep the Southern States in the Union.
This keeps from only 1-2 massively populous states running complete roughshod over the less populous states.
You have to be pretty goddamn bad at math to think such a thing.
You need the 9 most populous states in order to have an electoral majority, population wise.
This includes several reliably Republican states.
It is also a good thing to be on a state level basis, as that with the massive geography of the US, many states have very different needs and wants based on that alone, amongst other issues.
This makes sense from the perspective of the legislature. It never made sense from the perspective of the executive.
If we didn't have the electoral college, well, the country as a whole would be subservient to CA, NY and maybe 1 or two other states.
Yes, I suppose if CA, NY, and maybe 1 or two other states annexed another 5 or 6 states against their will, and then dissolved the legislature.
Your argument is shit, dude. I hope you don't actually think that way.
The other big differences:
Oh I really don't disagree with the use of Wine at all. I think it's fantastic that some Big Money is picking it up to help those guys out. Their job is horridly complex (emulating a more or less undocumented API, with a black box implementation) and it's a miracle it works at all. I've used Wine for many years.
Being this is happening with Steam, which is a large enough distribution platform that developers actually pay it attention- we may see Windows apps even targeted for Wine compatibility... which is the most exciting thing I've heard all week.
I only object to its classification as a toolkit library and a PE loader.
I personally would draw one line between Wine ("Wine is not an emulator") and a same-architecture VMM such as VirtualBox
Why, though?
If we're going to be arbitrarily arbitrary, we can say that KVM is just another set of userspace libraries, with a thick translation layer between the application and the host kernel.
and another line between a same-architecture VMM and an actual emulator.
Why, though?
qemu is capable of fully emulating an x86 binary and interfacing it directly with the host OS. It's basically just an ELF loader, and a translation layer.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong, by any means, just that I think it's a bit disingenuous to say that a toolkit library such as GTK or Qt are equivalent to a massive runtime, with which a program cannot even print an error saying it couldn't find its runtime, without.
From the Wine FAQ:
"Wine is not just an emulator" is more accurate.
Wine doesn't emulate anything at the binary level, but it does emulate the NT kernel in user-space and translate calls to it.
Oh it worked as designed, he's just full of shit about what it was designed to do.
It was designed to give states with slaves and large disenfranchised populations that are counted in the census the voting power of those they disenfranchise.
It worked.
The electoral college is designed to keep the masses of morons from voting in some ass clown.
You can claim that as a theoretical use of the elector system, for sure. You however cannot claim that is what it was designed for. It's well documented what it was designed for. It neatly implements the 3/5ths compromise in presidential elections, as well as handles the issue that suffrage in the south was limited to land owners, making their popular vote tally quite small.
To quote Mr. Madison, the pragmatist who was the force behind having it implemented:
The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention
We accept your apology for spreading falsehoods.
Assuming faithful Electors, however, their vote is worth about as much as anyone else's.
Sigh. Another lie.
Someone from Wyoming for example: Their vote is worth the vote of 3.18 Americans *not* from Wyoming. Far worse if from say, California.
You're really letting me down, sexy.
Unless their State is stupid enough to tell Electors to vote in a winner-take-all scheme.
Which is literally every state in the Union, minus two. Friendly tip, when you're arguing that reality is a certain way, don't suffix it with "Unless this condition that is actually the status quo is true"
to smooth out the rounding error.
You seem to be confused about what a rounding error is.
Aside from all that, your mention of slavery is entirely misplaced.
No, it's not, as the was clearly discussed during the Constitutional Convention that led to the fucking rules.
You're likely referring to how the population of each State is counted when determining the number of Representatives to apportion to a State.
If only the number of representatives apportioned to a state had something to do with a state's electoral power in a Presidential election... oh wait.
Come on, dude. Come the fuck on.
The bicameral legislature and the Electoral College are entirely separate things from this issue.
Except for the fact that both were apportioned according to that "issue", and that the founders preferred a popular vote for the Presidency, ideologically speaking, were it not for fears of the very limited suffrage in the south. As such, the electoral system was in fact the 3/5ths compromise, applied to the election of the executive, and was never dressed up as anything else until assholes such as yourself in the modern era tried to rewrite history to gaslight the truth behind the odd quirks of our electoral system, birthed in slavery, that favor today's "conservative" (see: antebellum) voters.
Despicable, dude.
What do you think the 3/5ths compromise existed for?
So that states with a lot of slaves could have congressional representation based upon their population and 3/5ths their population of slaves?
Now, where do you think the amount of electors a state has in the electoral college comes from?
Let's just ask the guy who invented it.
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison, 7/19/1787, US Constitutional Convention
We are fundamentally altering a cycle that has been stable for millions of years
Nobody said the climate was stable.
The carbon cycle was stable, thus the atmosphere's ability to capture long-wave radiation was stable.
The climate includes a billion ways to distribute that energy within the thermosphere.
The (comparatively small) oscillations of the last 800,000 years or so have been based on albedo fluctuations due to ice.
The last major carbon-based climate event was about 50 million years ago.