Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 540 posts

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#471

Post by mindslight »

mothballed wrote: post #463
mindslight wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The market efficiency it presumes is that an appeal to value is actually a rational actionable appeal to the government actor. That seems to be the whole point of the question (paraphrased) "can't you see the value of the thing we're losing" and speaking that to someone who stands to capture the value via tax receipts. Of course if the government doesn't care at all about the 'market efficiency' of that value it's no…

> The market efficiency it presumes is that an appeal to value is actually a rational actionable appeal to the government actor. That seems to be the whole point of the question (paraphrased) "can't you see the value of the thing we're losing" and speaking that to someone who stands to capture the value via tax receipts.

Ah, no, but at least this puts our difference in stark relief. One can rationally appeal to government (as a democratic institution with a goal of furthering lofty ideals, like society and the economy in general) without necessarily appealing to government (as a selfish entity) desire to collect more tax receipts. If you must, think of it as appealing to individuals who may or may not support the government, and the government optimizing for that support rather than optimizing for mere tax dollars (which it can always print more of).

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#472

Post by tehjoker »

MrVandemar wrote: post #187
tehjoker wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but the military is being used for bad things not good things in one of the most easily defended countries in the world, a pure waste.

> military is being used for bad things Seems that sending a bunch of people with guns/bombs/etc to another country is almost always bad. The military doing good things like ... um ... helping out during natural disasters or genuine peacekeeping is entirely a rare thing.

Defense is a legitimate thing to worry about. For example, Vietnam defended itself against America. We do not defend, we attack and pillage resources from the global south. Real defense is honorable and to be celebrated. However, the US military is not an institution that does those things and they cloak themselves (well until recently) in rhetoric designed to confuse the public.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#473

Post by sofixa »

dotancohen wrote: post #468
sofixa wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You said that "closer economic cooperation and trade" might lead to "(relative) reformers would be in power". Westerners "reforming" other cultures has not been fashionable for about half a century.

Who is talking about westerners here? What even is your argument, because it seems you're just throwing random catchphrases around.

The topic is Iran. A theocracy with an unelected supreme leader with final say on political decisions and candidates for all elections in the otherwise relatively democratic system. Reformer in their context (hence the relative qualifier I used) is people like Ahmadinejad who are for rapprochement and trade with the world, but without too many concessions. We're not talking about socially progressive or "western" or anything of the like. They are infinitely better than the hardliners aligned with the IRGC who are against anything other than autarky and building more strategic security via stuff like nukes. The reformers got their way with the JCPOA, and were proven wrong by the orange moron destroying that. Since then the hardliners have been in power and they are not going anywhere now.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#475

Post by fnordpiglet »

denismi wrote: post #344
fnordpiglet wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The will of the plurality you mean? He didn’t win a majority of the votes. He is the legitimately elected office holder; but it was not the will of the people, it was the outcome of this particularly electoral process. Many American electoral processes require a run off without a majority for this reason, and it’s an intensely weak platform to claim a mandate from - not only did more people not vote for you than half…

> He didn’t win a majority of the votes Donald Trump plus candidates who withdrew from the race and endorsed Donald Trump DID get a majority of votes though.

I apologize but I don’t understand this metric - you’re saying Trump would have gotten the majority if republicans who didn’t vote for him had voted for him ? That’s some serious squinting and if you do that I’ll just take everyone who voted for Biden in the primary and add it to Harris and now she won close to 70% of the votes? Maybe add in Obama’s last election results and every democrat that ever ran in any races and Trump then got about 0% of the votes.

Sadly you can only count the votes the candidate who ran actually received. And he had a plurality - the weakest of all possible victories other than his victory of Clinton where she had more votes than him and still lost on an arcana.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#476

Post by nancyminusone »

lostmsu wrote: post #447
nancyminusone wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have a read for yourself: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/re... As for me, I don't think you need a phd to read the warning stickers on bleach and isoproponal which say "do not injest" [2] [3] or warnings on germicidal lamps that say "do not expose to eyes or skin" [4]. If you do or have otherwise hidden knowledge why these should be ignored, say so. [2] https://www.thecloroxcompany.com/wp-c…

Why do I have to present evidence for something I'm not claiming? Your response fits the picture drawn by the comment on out of context. > As for me, I don't think you need a phd to read the warning stickers on bleach and isoproponal which say "do not injest" Yes, but you need more brainpower to understand that these warnings are for specific products and can't be generalized without research. The concept that danger…

You are welcome to paint my opinion of trump in any color of light you like as long as it isn't UV-C.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#477

Post by nancyminusone »

lostmsu wrote: post #449
alphager wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absolutely bonkers to think about using UV to disinfect human skin, let alone the inside of the human body. Any UV radiation strong enough to destroy the cells of bacteria is strong enough to destroy human cells. We know that UV-radiaton that's not strong enough to kill bacteria is already harmful to human skin (we call the phenomenon sunburn).

What do you know, certain forms of UV are used to disinfect skin. Too bad the developers of the concept didn't care at the moment they are "bonkers". https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/201... > UV-C has demonstrated the ability to effectively and safely inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus up to 99.9% > There are four methods to disinfect the air with UVGI technologies: 1) ..., 2) irradiating the ful…

Your source talks about the disinfection of air, contains no references to disinfection of skin, and only mentions skin three times, twice to specifically warn against skin damage from UVC exposure, and once to clairify which types of UV light penetrate the skin.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#478

Post by mothballed »

mindslight wrote: post #471
mothballed wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market efficiency it presumes is that an appeal to value is actually a rational actionable appeal to the government actor. That seems to be the whole point of the question (paraphrased) "can't you see the value of the thing we're losing" and speaking that to someone who stands to capture the value via tax receipts. Of course if the government doesn't care at all about the 'market efficiency' of that value it's no…

> The market efficiency it presumes is that an appeal to value is actually a rational actionable appeal to the government actor. That seems to be the whole point of the question (paraphrased) "can't you see the value of the thing we're losing" and speaking that to someone who stands to capture the value via tax receipts. Ah, no, but at least this puts our difference in stark relief. One can rationally appeal to gover…

So you're back to to "fallacy" of market efficiency, expecting private actors to advocate to foot taxes with an expected ROI from capturing the value delivered by government implementation of the program. Yes you can appeal to the government without appealing to tax receipts, but under a value proposition premise we have here it's conditional upon the market being 'efficient' enough that either the private actors realize the tax / inflation paid is worth the ROI and/or the government finds it worth the tax receipts -- a value proposition doesn't make sense if none of the actors expect to realize it.

It seems your thesis here contradicts your prior argument. You're merely flip-flopping -- the private actors are acting with "efficiency" when one argues about government efficiency and the government is the one acting with efficiency when you're arguing the private actors aren't.

>Ah, no, but at least this puts our difference in stark relief.

It does nothing of the sort.

The reason why I introduce the notion of tax receipts is in part because some arguments presented appeared to dismiss the "efficiency" of private actors while still asking me to answer the question of how a private actor might "capture" the value of generating the data themselves even in the face of private buyers not buying it (one answer is: foreign governments or those they represent might be "efficient" enough to buy it). You've grasped onto that notion as if it's a "gotcha" presenting some stark difference. In fact it creates no obligation for the government to act solely on tax receipts, it's merely one more value proposition for a non-private actor to buy the data.

Not much point going much further down this "heads I win, tails you lose" flip-flop reasoning you're presenting, but good luck with that. You've created a logical contradiction at this point no matter which side you try to flip back to.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#479

Post by dotancohen »

sofixa wrote: post #473
dotancohen wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said that "closer economic cooperation and trade" might lead to "(relative) reformers would be in power". Westerners "reforming" other cultures has not been fashionable for about half a century.

Who is talking about westerners here? What even is your argument, because it seems you're just throwing random catchphrases around. The topic is Iran. A theocracy with an unelected supreme leader with final say on political decisions and candidates for all elections in the otherwise relatively democratic system. Reformer in their context (hence the relative qualifier I used) is people like Ahmadinejad who are for rap…

You are talking about reforming Iran. You used the word yourself.

> people like Ahmadinejad

Oh, this guy:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23538717

Let's look at some of his policies:

- Holocaust denial

- Calling for the destruction of the state of Israel

- Provided funding, training and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas

- Condemned by the UK, Germany, Austria, and even the UN

- Condemned the Palestinian Authority for holding peace talks with Israel

- A nice quote of his: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

Thank you for explaining to all those who won't listen to me because I'm Israel and therefore biased, what a "reformed" Iran would look like. Now they can understand just how hateful the current "unreformed" Iran looks like.

Re: U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse

#480

Post by mrguyorama »

throwworhtthrow wrote: post #263
zmgsabst wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $9B figure is total amortized to yearly: research, development, production, and maintenance across the near century of lifetime (1990s-2080s). I took the total number of graduate students, to spread the money across them. We could also look at the same number as, eg, funding an increase from 3.1M to 3.3M or 3.4M graduate students. I stand by my original claim: A 10% increase in graduate salary or number of studen…

$9B/yr is less than half of the Pentagon's more recent estimate of $2T through 2088 for the F-35 program (according to Wikipedia and its sources, which is all I have to go on). And again, the F-35 is not synonymous with the entire air force.

The F-35 is absolutely synonymous with our entire airforce through 2088.

The F-22 is still a viable Air Superiority Fighter but there's about 100 of them. It cannot hold back a peer air force. The primary point of the F-35 was a cheaper F-22 that we could build 3000 of.

4th gen fighters like the F-18 cannot compete in an air war with a large amount of stealth fighters using modern long range missiles, like China is fielding. They would be defeated before even seeing a blip on their radars.

Without the power of Air Superiority, all the rest of our air force is basically useless. B2s and B21s might still be usable, but they cannot maintain a strategic bombing campaign on their own. The money spent on 4th gen missile trucks is pointless.

Giving up the F-35 is equivalent to total abandonment of our "Best Air Force" doctrine and would require a significant shakeup of how we view the military, and billions poured into other parts of the military to make up for giving up the sky. It also means capitulating to China in advance. Though, if we are willing to do that, we could save like half the military budget every year.

Just have to abandon the entire pacific, Japan, and South Korea, and the Philippines, and Australia, and Vietnam, etc etc etc.

Post reply on HN