Democracy is a beautiful thing. It's unfortunate people aren't as enlightened as you. Maybe if Dems had some self awareness and proposed policies that actually worked for people rather than demonize the electorate for sitting out or ticking the other box they wouldn't be in this situation.
The Santa Ana winds and the accompanying raging wildfires have been a part of the ecosystem of the Los Angeles Basin for over 5,000 years, dating back to the earliest habitation of the region by the Tongva and Tataviam peoples.
Honest question in good faith: For those that use the reductionist argument of global warming / climate change for every natural disaster, what do they expect to happen if we hypothetically cut all greenhouse gas production to zero? Some kind of climate stasis Garden of Eden scenario?
Imagine a steadily bubbling surface of mixed quasi fluid materials, every thing moves, none the less a pattern of long term "stability" exists wherein various regions have behaviours fixed within local constraints.
California has "behaved" in some manner for twenty thousand years, as has the Pacific North West and the Great lake regions to the north east (in central north america).
Now that the sea+land surface layer has more energy thanks to increased insulation above various parts of the globe are bubbling along more than they have the past; wet forests that have never experienced fire are drying out in a manner previously rare and having fires not experienced in human history, drier areas with a fire cycle (California, Australia) are experiencing more intense and more frequent fire events.
> if we hypothetically cut all greenhouse gas production to zero ..
it will take a lag time for the human added insulation to disapear from the atmosphere, when a new stable equilibrium is reached the energy driving the additional bubbling seen so far to date will be gone and the former equilibrium (of dynamic stability) would resume .. for a few thousand years.
> Honest question in good faith: For those that use the reductionist argument of global warming / climate change for every natural disaster, what do they expect to happen if we hypothetically cut all greenhouse gas production to zero? Some kind of climate stasis Garden of Eden scenario?
I think it's more innocent than that and that your characterization is a strawman. Climate change is real and scary. This type of fire might not be abnormal in LA on generational timescales but it is the kind of thing we would expect to see as a consequence of climate change. So even if this type of fire would have happened anyway it is a real manifestation of a real thing people are rightly concerned about. It's also possible that climate change (and/or the politicization of climate change!) made this fire worse.
The idea of a stable ecosystem is a myth. Yes, in hundreds of thousands and millions of years the region will change dramatically. The difference between natural variability and instability is the rate of change. If left to the "natural" cycles and instability of the earth's climate, you would see gradual changes over tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.
What people like you don't understand is that our man made climate change is 100 to 1000 times faster than anything nature has dealt (except say a meteor hitting the earth).
So yes, the climate has always been unstable over long periods, but never changed as quickly as we are changing it today. We are the meteor now.
I don't really understand the moral issue with a company eliminating jobs. Similarly, I also don't think these companies are doing a moral good for creating jobs in the first place.
I think the issue that most people have is also that companies expect a certain level of respect and dedication from their employees but are not willing to reciprocate.
Make sure to work as hard as possible for us, pleas work extra hours if the company is doing bad. Don't take your vacations when it might impact team performance badly. If you leave give up a big heads up.
However we'll refuse your raises and bonuses if we feel like it. Also must be willing to move and uproot your whole life with no guarantee we'll keep you for long. We'll fire you one day after telling you your job was safe, and close all your company accounts before you get to save any of your documents or say bye to your colleagues. And remember no complaining after you leave, or we'll get you. Happened to quite a few people I know, not me thankfully.
And just "get an other job if you company sucks" doesn't always work. You might not know that your company sucks until you're out the door, or finding a new job in your field or without moving your whole family might not be easy
I never said to just get another job. I know solutions are never as easy as those annoying "why don't you just..." one liners. Those are all bad practices that should be condemned, but what I'm saying is that just firing people is not immoral in itself unless hiring people is also morally good. It just doesn't add up.
The moral issue comes because these jobs are tied to people's livelihoods and ability to provide essentials like food, housing, healthcare, etc for themselves and their families.
So is the company doing a morally good thing when it provides the ability for someone to have food, housing, healthcare, etc? If not, it doesn't make sense to blame the company for eliminating jobs if they also don't get credit for employing people for however many years.
In a system where those things can't be taken for granted: yes. That's why people talk so positively about job creation, and we praise job creators. It's also why we shame and indeed ban companies that don't do those things: for example companies that pay below what is considered a minimum wage.
Of course, we could also discuss whether things like housing and healthcare should be tied to an employer in the first place, but this is a different discussion.
The upcoming generation already have it much harder, with 5 rounds of leetcode interviews, high saturation of devs, offshoring and AI all working against them.
I would expect anyone doing this from 2010 to at least have decent savings and solid experience at known companies. If not, its definitely over for them.
> I would expect anyone doing this from 2010 to at least have decent savings
This is what I don't understand. A lot of developers could easily retire if they saved their money decently well for a decade or even less. Are we all just greedy?
