I wonder if this could be practically used for bicycle pedal assist. The ubiquity of gas stations with air available for free (legally required if you go inside and ask) would make refeuling very easy.
Those games are the paper plates of the industry. Disposable crap not meant to last. They're rarely good in the first place because that same mindset leads to bad decisions for gameplay too.
RimWorld, Stardew Valley, Factorio, Terraria, Minecraft are new(ish) games that have already lasted and will last longer.
If they (the companies) aren't the ones who own the buildings then why are they doing this?
Not rhetorical - from my perspective, it seems like RTO is plainly a money-waster. If you're hybrid or remote and it's working, why take the risk? And, why pour your pockets on things that don't make you money, like office space? Cubicles don't produce your product, people do.
I mean, it just makes so little sense to me. I don't think that means it's a conspiracy. But, clearly, we are missing something that executives are factoring into this decision.
Is that person RFK because it isn't Trump. Trump doesn't give a shit about science, he cares about support. That's why Democrat castoffs (RFK after being antivax was no longer a left wing position and Gabbard for having the audacity to oppose the Clinton machine) found a home under his tent.
Politically, those were great moves. He was able to pull outsider figures from the center-left away from the party that had tripled down on party loyalists.
RFK was a prominent Democrat for for his entire life and was considered/offered various political positions by Democrats which he declined to continue his environmental work. He ran as a Democrat in the primaries less than a year ago.
RFK didn't change his views, some significant world event happened and the Democratic party turned against the medical, health and food skeptics that they previously embraced. RFK didn't move right, MAGA recruited the skeptics of the establishment. RFK being am example of the previously mentioned health establishment skeptic and Gabbard being the foreign policy skeptic. Those positions pre-MAGA were under the Democratic tent.
Have you ever met a raw food afficianado who is antivax and avoids red dye #whatever? That person used to vote for Democrats, now they're MAGA. They aren't Republicans, they're MAGA.
This stinks of circular reasoning. It's bad logic because climate deniers use it and climate deniers are wrong because they only ise bad logic.
The reason the other measurements you mentioned can't be included are often that the measurements are or equal or greater distance between eachother than this entire set. Including this data in one of those sets would demonstrate that there are plenty of times in history where the sea level changed the amount it has in the last 50 years.
If we know so much about why it's rising, what's with all the measurements? We don't "know" nearly as much as you're implying. The reason we don't go around measuring healthy humans body temperature is because we know what it is. The entire purpose of the measurements is to increase understanding.
Current forecasts of Y temperature rise would lead to X sea level rise rely in a static model of all other variables. It should be obvious that the climate is anything but static, considering the entire argument is about climate change.
It's perfectly reasonable to criticize this kind of extrapolatory thinking without denying the fundamentals of climate change.
> Including this data in one of those sets would demonstrate that there are plenty of times in history where the sea level changed the amount it has in the last 50 years
In history? No. Sea levels have never been higher in the written record.
In geologic history? Of course. No serious scientist argues otherwise. The point is returning to those levels means abandoning Baltimore, Houston, much of Los Angeles and most of Miami and multi-trillion dollar projects to protect San Francisco, New York and Boston.
> The point is returning to those levels means abandoning Baltimore, Houston, much of Los Angeles and most of Miami and multi-trillion dollar projects to protect San Francisco, New York and Boston.
Here’s my problem with all this stuff. All the science says LA, NYC, etc. are going to be underwater. Not maybe, not in the worst case, no. All the reporting says this is pretty much a forgone conclusion, and has for many years.
So why have these cities not started working on erecting (say) 50ft tall “future-proof” sea walls? Even if they end up not being needed, it _seems_ like this is the type of climate change mitigation step that would be a prudent thing to do. Certainly more so than the whole lot of nothing currently being done. Surely LA and NYC politicians and voters, being so much more educated than all those dumb red state hicks would be in favor of that, wouldn’t they?
> why have these cities not started working on erecting (say) 50ft tall “future-proof” sea walls?
Because we don’t need to yet? Also, a sea wall doesn’t block, it deflects. Protecting Manhattan means deflecting those surges to e.g. Long Island and New Jersey. That’s a difficult conversation much easier had after a hurricane washes away some of the opposition (and/or generates urgency in the core).
> LA and NYC politicians and voters, being so much more educated than all those dumb red state hicks would be in favor of that, wouldn’t they?
Yes, but they’ll do what those states do with their own climate risks: wait for a catastrophic failure that ultimately costs more but unlocks federal funding and so costs less locally.
In short there's no actual will and people think short term.
A bit longer:
Good luck sourcing that from taxes. People vote, and those projects would A, fall to graft, B piss off many in your voter base both as a consequence of the graft and the general disagreement over their value.
The answer is you would see the people who greenlit the projects voted out and the projects would be scuttled.
People can say they know this is a problem but because its in the abstract most of your voter base just won't go for it and it's squarely in a "people don't actually vote in their best interest" type of problem.
It's a riot trying to get a few new MTA tunnels approved and needed repair and modernization for the NYC subways is always basically just out of the question.
So 50 ft sea walls? Yeah people would actually be under water and still doubting the need for them.
I'm not talking about height, I'm talking about rate if change.
The height is concerning regardless but the rate of change is the link to anthropomorphic climate change. If it's shown that this rate of change is not unprecedented, the link to human causes is less solid.
I'm not here to say CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas and that humans aren't likely responsible for current and future warming, I'm pointing out that there are plenty of people who believe the same as me but to a degree that is not supported scientifically.
The data fits the co2 hypothesis great but Baysian reasoning also must account for other models that fit the data as well and must even include the prospect that there are other unknown causes that could produce the effect, as there clearly are given the thoroughly precedented nature of our current situation.
> This stinks of circular reasoning. It's bad logic because climate deniers use it and climate deniers are wrong because they only ise bad logic.
That would be a good point, if that was what I was arguing but it's clearly not. I am pointing out that this is a common form of argument used by climate deniers, and then, independent of that fact, demonstrating why it's poor logic. My argument regarding why the logic is poor has nothing to do with the fact that's it's a commonly used line of reasoning in climate denial. However the classification of the logic as such is useful to help people quickly identify the common set of erroneous methods used that show up very frequently in online discussions (and sadly, very commonly on HN).
Climate denial arguments do tend to use faulty logic in a similar vein to the way creationists tend to use faulty logic, because the evidence in favor of the alternative hypothesis is so much greater the easiest way to "attack" that hypothesis is through poor use of logic. But clearly that does not imply that all logic employed by people in these camps is inherently faulty.
He said the quiet part out loud but that doesn't change the fact that presidents have been ignoring the constitution for decades.
It's a trivial example but Biden trying to unilaterally declare the ERA law was absurd and his student loan forgiveness was obviously going to be found unconditional and he did it anyway.
Those aren't the actions of someone who takes the constitution seriously.
Whether you agree with it or not, at least the Patriot Act was passed by Congress and not simply Executive Orders because it's too inconvenient to work with Congress on legislation.
It's very difficult to challenge because the secret nature of it.
In order to sue, you have to prove standing and in order to have standing, you have to know you were harmed. It's hard to prove you were harmed if everything is top secret.
You're somewhat implying this but I'm not sure if you know it exactly but others might find it informative...
The reason for that is that the "disorder" part of it is a requirement that it get in the way of normal living. You can have anxiety but if you take a deep breath and you can overcome it, it's not a disorder. If that doesn't help or even if you just haven't tried it, it's a disorder.
I wish some psychiatrists knew that. I had a recent conversation with at least two who do not. One of them is around 35 years old (so quite young).
These days they call hobbies (like drawing) a "distraction" or go as far as call it an addiction. They are so out of touch with the literature and science with regarding to psychiatry, it is wild.
Right, but LLMs are also consuming AWS product documentation and Terraform language docs, some things I have read a lot of and they’re often badly wrong on things from both of those domains, which are really easy for me to spot.
This isn’t just “shit in, shit out”. Hallucination is real and still problematic.
Less red tape, easier to manage 'processes', fewer environmental / labor relations...
It's those last two, impact on the commons and unfair worker treatment, that are examples of where I _would_ support reasonable tariffs. Particularly if funds from those tariffs went to remediating the impact and were agreed to (also observed) by a majority of other leading countries / economic blocks.
reply