461–470 of 540 posts
This is about removing the ability to measure in order to undercut the claims of global warming ("we don't have sufficient evidence")
In the future historians will look back at this administration the way we look at the Roman Inquisition who persecuted scientists for challenging their accepted dogma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you're still assuming market efficiency, but just focusing on governments as the actors.
It seems you've completely lost the plot. Refer to what we're replying to >Can you think of any economically valuable reason why it might be important to know about weather trends or events in advance? Any at all? You're damning me for questioning someone who presumed market efficiency with an appeal to economic value to a government that stands to capture that hypothetical value? The premise of the government acting…
The comment you originally responded to does not presume market efficiency. In fact it carries the opposite assumption - if markets were efficient then the loss of economic value from weather forecasting would be immediately apparent and we wouldn't need to discuss larger-concept models with the goal of overcoming inefficiencies.
That original comment posits an idea of "economic value" that is independent from what can be captured by whomever is contributing to it, which is what you seemed to be rejecting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems you've completely lost the plot. Refer to what we're replying to >Can you think of any economically valuable reason why it might be important to know about weather trends or events in advance? Any at all? You're damning me for questioning someone who presumed market efficiency with an appeal to economic value to a government that stands to capture that hypothetical value? The premise of the government acting…
I don't see how I've "lost the plot." The comment you originally responded to does not presume market efficiency. In fact it carries the opposite assumption - if markets were efficient then the loss of economic value from weather forecasting would be immediately apparent and we wouldn't need to discuss larger-concept models with the goal of overcoming inefficiencies. That original comment posits an idea of "economic…
Of course if the government doesn't care at all about the 'market efficiency' of that value it's not clear why this question is even posed -- a hypothetically irrational rejection of the efficient projection of this value seems to be what the question contends with. The very question relies on a premise of someone somewhere acting with market efficiency on this data. With zero market 'efficiency' from the data, there's no useful market value generated whether you frame it as "capturable" or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused, are you insinuating that the Taliban essentially ran a PR campaign to portray themselves as sheepherders to garner sympathy from the US population to reduce its appetite for fighting them?
No, I am stating that there are strong elements in popular media, news providers chief among them, who seek to weaken US influence and use US public opinion to drive that change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But… why? Climate change is very much real and even stubborn deep-right voters like my father now ‘believe’ in it. Ok, some people make some cash. But wouldn’t they anyway? I don’t understand this need to keep pandering to a minority and to destroy ecosystems.
The government knows it's real, these are generally well-educated people who went to decent schools. But, I would challenge that most right-wing voters know whether it is real. Where I live in rural America the vast majority are pro-fossil fuel, anti-EV. EVs are seen as "gay" or "feminine" by the folks out here. So the choice to use fossil fuels might just be some performative machismo, allowing their pick-ups to out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I am stating that there are strong elements in popular media, news providers chief among them, who seek to weaken US influence and use US public opinion to drive that change.
Why would the US news media seek to weaken US influence (or stop war)? Seems much simpler to assume that "sensationalism sells"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or alternatively, in 2026 Iran would have been hooked on closer economic cooperation and trade, (relative) reformers would be in power, and the deal would have been renewed. Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system. And do that in only 10 years. That's called imperialism. I believe it's no longer fashionable.
> Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system What do you mean culture and value system? You think isolation and nuclear weapons are parts of the Iranian culture???? And yes, Iran had multiple bouts of reformer presidents. Reformer within the limits of what the Supreme Leader would allow of course, but there is still a massive gulf of difference between them and the hardliners. A few years of vis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They only had to cooperate until January 2026, then they were free to carry on with their nuclear ambitions.
This is a great example of where the Israeli perspective diverges from the American. The classic American perspective wouldn't worry about that because being part of our market is so attractive. There is a win-win here, they are not mindless orcs.
I could go on. I know two women whose babies were both burned to death due to Iran. I could tell even worse stories. Suffice it to say that us who actually live under Iranian threat treat the threat seriously. It is not theoretical for us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about if you don't know anything about rolling coal and you don't realize people like to drive loud cars. I've had several friends tell me they just couldn't drive an EV because it just doesn't have a soul, meaning it doesn't have that roar for its performance. It being nearly silent as it accelerates hard is missing half the point. It's a common thing among car enthusi…
[flagged]
You would do well to explore this great nation of ours and realize that a wild and terrifyingly large number of its inhabitants travel in an almost unimaginably different headspace.
The men who roll coal are not doing it in cheap beater cars. A Ram or F-150 Super Duty is a $40-80,000 vehicle which requires $200-$5,000 in modifications so they can pull up next to a Prius ($28-36,000) and belch out thick black lib-ownin' ball-crushin' smoke, damaging their own engine in the process. You may ask them why, to which they'd spit a wad of brown tobacco in your face and scream in primal rage into the air: because f*k you, that's why.