How many times is "every"? I count maybe a dozen countries, they were either puppet states of the soviet union and didn't have much local control or they were authortarian dystopians both before and after communism.
Maybe the pattern is toltalitarian countries are going to be toltarian regardless of what they call themselves.
As far as crypto goes, there are like a billion different variations on the idea, most are scams, and i dont think i have ever heard anyone say "real crypto hasn't been tried" before this.
Agreed on the B/W laser printer suggestion, The Giver is just HP propaganda. I ditched their color printer after a few months and bought a Cannon B/W printer[0] for ~$75.
It's been a few years now and while I don't print enormous amounts, I regularly do need to print out forms or documents. I still haven't used up the original ink cartridge it came with.
There's also a Linux driver provided by the company for this model.
There's also a Linux driver provided by the company for this model.
Are Linux drivers still a thing? Both our current and previous printers could be used without setting up any drivers through AirPrint. The new printer also scans without any drivers through AirPrint. I'd assume that Linux can also print driverless through AirPrint?
Exactly. The rare occasion I really need to print something I do it in the library or in even rarer cases at work. (My previous employer was stricty paperless and the printer was only accessible for legal and marketing documents.)
None of that sounds particularly attractive. I would rather use nuclear, wind, or solar to capture the carbon until we figure out how to stop making so much of it.
The fact that the whole racist and white supremacist trope gets pushed around this much means that the media has been very effective at lying to entire populace. Think about what else they may have lied about.
I read your link carefully. He never actually condemns white nationalists. He agrees they should be condemned, but never actually condemns them.
There is one exception: A press release he clearly did not write condemns white supremacy.
Again, during the debates (after all the examples cited in that article), he again refused to condemn white supremacy, even when Fox’s Chris Wallace handed the opportunity as a soft ball, and even when Biden reduced it to a simple yes/no answer for him by naming a group to condemn.
All he had to say is “I condemn the Proud Boys” (or any other group he could name).
In the most visible public forum available to him, he chose not to do so, which is the same as condoning them all.
As Chris Wallace is asking him Trump says “sure” three times. He’s interrupting, which is unfortunate, but the goal posts on this have moved endlessly. I’ve never seen you, hedora, condemn white supremacy. Does that mean you support it? By the way, if you condemn it, I’m going to be the arbiter on whether you did it well enough or if you’re still tarnished in the court of public opinion.
Honestly I expect more from HN than to fall into Kafkaesque arguments about these things but perhaps the problem lies within my own expectations.
Ah yes, I must’ve been hearing things all those years ago when Trump called for a “complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the country”. Extremely non-racist thing to say. Get over yourself.
It was 7 counties identified by the previous admin as high risk. Lots of Muslims were still allowed to enter. I should know, I’m middle eastern myself.
We all agree that climate changes. What we are trying to find out is how much humans impact that. You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causing it to deviate from its baseline for a long enough duration. We are in one of the coolest periods in the last 65m years. [1] The curve-fitting is misleading because too many scientists are attempting to make projections using truncated data.
The earth had ice caps about half the time over the last 500m years. Melting and re-glaciation are normal processes. [2]
Let's talk about sea level. Since emerging from the last glacial period, sea levels have been rising for the past 8k-10k years, steadily. There has been no deviation during human industrialization from this trend. When we're shown graphs going back 50-100 years, the fact that this is within trend is conveniently omitted. [3]
The data showing that the climate is behaving abnormally or out of trend is sparse at best. At worst, we don't really have it. What we're working off of is the hypothesis that co2 affects the climate in a meaningful and measureable way--this is what climate models are trying to show. However, thus far the models have struggled to make accurate predictions. [4]
We can go back to ice core samples. We see that current co2 levels are measuring much higher than previously in the ice cores. It seems like this would be a major clue but the methods of measurement are different. The data obtained is not fully reliable. However, let's assume they're reliable. Then it does not explain why temperates are failing to deviate from historical trends in a way related to these samples with regard to the measurements made today. [5]
In the last 65m years, solar luminence increases brought about by the constant increases of heavier elements in the sun notwithstanding, we find ourselves in one of the coldest periods. Current temps are measuring lower than in previous 100k year cycles which means we will either warm further or that this is an extra-cold period out-of-trend.
Most importantly, as mentioned before, the models built off of co2 levels are doing a poor job with their predictive power. For a final thing to think about, consider some of the best data we have about historical temperates (bucketed logarithmic scale) and realize that we are nowhere near out of trend [6] and that the two rightmost data points are not actual, yet rather predictions made by models we've already established to be incomplete.
I work in the field. The fact that I have to make a throwaway account and toe the line in my profession should say enough about how hard it is to have this conversation without regurgitating dogma.
> You have to show that humans are impacting the trend and causing it to deviate from its baseline for a long enough duration. We are in one of the coolest periods in the last 65m years. [1] The curve-fitting is misleading because too many scientists are attempting to make projections using truncated data.
The earth has warmed ~1 degree in a matter of decades. Since you accept this and it's only the human/CO2e influence you doubt then the onus is on you to explain where this tremendous amount of energy has come from. So where is this energy coming from? Which branch of science are you about to shake the foundation of to claim your nobel prize?
I doubt I’ll be getting a Nobel prize anytime soon, but I appreciate the sear, even if not meant entirely in jest. We are trying to explain it and refining our models rapidly. My concern is that much of public discourse has come down to arguing about “how much money to give to government entities to fix the weather.” A large part of this is because the science isn’t “settled” as it is so often claimed.
Really, we’re trying our best but science is messy.
You don't have to refine your models, you have to have even a hypothesis for where the extra energy is coming from if it's not the greenhouse effect. If you had something remotely credible then there's a lot of vested interests happy to shower you with money and show the world. All you have to do is show where the extra energy is coming from.
Climate scientists have observed a massive amount of extra energy, come up with an explanation and tested it. All you've done is say it's not that.
Falsifiability is important in science. I’m sorry that all I can do for now is call into question currently accepted hypotheses. When I say models I’m referring to ones that test other sources of temperature and climate gradation while incorporating current work where appropriate. We have funding but the bulk of money is channeled into co2 research, which I think is misappropriated.
Because of this, current political solutions are the equivalent of debugging a billion line program by randomly changing various functions, where each change costs billions of dollars.
I think when the GP is asking about alternate hypotheses, they are wondering what other sources of temperature and climate gradation you might be considering here. Changes in the sun for example?
You can't say "the data does not support Newton's laws" unless you have another hypothesis like relativity that can provide a better fit to the data. Then you can say that the data favours relativity over Newton, and by how much. You can also ignore the data and use theoretical arguments to say that relativity is a more plausible law to govern the universe than Newton's, but you need a really good theoretical foundation for that.
So if you think theory X is wrong, you must have at least a set of theories Y that you are willing to entertain as being more correct than X.
That's why GP and I are curious about what alternative hypotheses you are evaluating that you seem to think might better explain what's going on than CO2 does.
CO2 has a lot going for it as a hypothesis. It's a simple mechanism, easy to understand, proven to work on Venus, and it's rapidly changing along the same timescale that temperature is changing. It does also have an unfortunate political implication because its atmospheric concentration correlates with the use of particular energy sources. But setting politics aside and just thinking scientifically, I'm interested to hear what has you convinced that CO2 is not an adequate explanation for what we're observing.
Some things that are being investigated are: solar luminosity, the three periodic levels of change in geo orbit, variations in geo magnetic field, as well as more local things such as energy retention properties of various materials used at all levels of construction and seemingly boring things like industrial uses of organic flourides.
One nit: observing that Newtonian physics don’t hold up perfectly at all times would not necessitate having to immediately provide an alternative explanation but would motivate the search for one in the absence of such.
> What we're working off of is the hypothesis that co2 affects the climate in a meaningful and measureable way--this is what climate models are trying to show. However, thus far the models have struggled to make accurate predictions.
This recent meta-analysis found the opposite, that the models are generally fairly accurate:
Additionally, on a practical level, it doesn't matter if there were major warming spikes millions of years ago. Civilization has only existed for ~10k years, at most.
It seems incredibly irresponsible to bet everything on the chance that human civilization won't suffer stability issues from the enormous changes across the planet and to our current way of life that a 4-5° (or more) rapid increase would cause. It's not unlikely that warming of those levels over the next ~100 years could result in hundreds of millions of desperate migrants, drought and other extreme weather, widespread ecosystem collapse, catastrophic breakdown of supply chains and basic infrastructure, major war, etc.
Life on Earth can recover from that. It has done so before. Human civilization probably won't be so unfazed. Let's just fix the damn carbon emissions. It will be much, much easier than dealing with the global crises unchecked climate change will bring. And on the plus side, doing so will also result in new technological development and economic growth.
Sorry I do not at all understand what you mean by:
"""We see that current co2 levels are measuring much higher than previously in the ice cores. It seems like this would be a major clue but the methods of measurement are different."""
How does seeing higher CO2 not indicate that there is indeed higher CO2? The picture in [5] does not clarify.
At this time we’re struggling to correlate measurements in ancient ice core samples with modern air measurements. It’s like measuring cpu utilization % on an m5a.large vs c5.4xlarge (ec2) and comparing the bare numbers. Crude analogy, but it illustrates the point well.
Those of us less inclined toward politics and more toward research are concerned that the solution is being discussed and pursued by society at large may not necessarily yield the desired results after a significant amount of investment. This is why we are struggling to improve our models rapidly because many suspect the picture is incomplete.
