You can consider it a disaster because iranian drones drilled them a new one. But keep in mind these guys are sociopath with no value for human life besides their own. They would totally send soldiers kill as many as possible while suffering high losses without a second thought.

It’s rationale: how would anyone need unemployment benefit with the best economy the USA, the world, sorry: the Universe have seen since the US exist the creation of Earth by God??

Our economy is not in free fall right now. Everything we talk about here is not for short term. So the question is what do we want our economy to be in the coming years. Answer: great after 10 years, and then until 20 years from now, as we rip the money from oil and gas. But at the same time, declining until…

Free fall as the cost of climate disaster will not only nullify but then dig into the budgets until we’re overwhelmed. Floods, fires, crop failures. Not only is the plan to be totally unprepared, but renouncing climate targets mean we’ll actively contributing to make the situation worse. And all of this is written already. The only way to prevent it would be to abruptly stop all fossil consumption tomorrow morning, and yes, on that we agree: it would be a disaster. We’re not talking hypothetical situations. We’re deciding today how bad it’s going to be, from very bad to absolute disaster. Very bad is we make a very very hard transition right fucking now.
But we decided it’s more pragmatic to bet on future absolute disaster…

But worse even for us: emergent countries are transitioning faster than expected. So it’s possible than 10 years from now, when we built pipelines, the world’s demands will be lower than planned, and we will be the idiots who wasted billions in the fossil industry and are now helpless in front of climate change driven disasters while the rest of the world, regardless how prepared they will be, will struggle just the same, because there is a limit to how much you can be prepared: you can prepare for very bad. You can’t be prepared for absolute disaster.

Every time the same argument. “Let’s keep our unsustainable society without any drastic change until the collapse becomes inevitable and it’s too late to prepare for it” is such a pragmatic approach.

I don’t think it’s that impopular. I’ve never switched to Chrome or any derivative. I never felt a need to migrate, and with Google tightening rules on extensions, I feel even better standing by FF.

I’ve loathed the higher management giving themselves raises while market share was in free fall, but I have no complains about that piece of software. Over time, all the performance and weight issues have been dramatically improved, so what’s greener on the other side??

You realize that from young people point of view, the “hard decision” is “let’s just fuck the young ones and embrace collective suicide!”?

Another way to make history: if the combined behemoth goes down, he will also have checked the largest collapse of Nasdaq ever.

Ukraine had drones capable of recognizing tanks and attack them at their weakest points after losing their signal. They had it for a long time now. That was already a “terminator drone” for the tanks’ crew, but at the time medias didn’t make much noise about it.

Russia still rely on drones connected by optic fibers. They still don’t have autonomous tanks killers, and their drones operators are exposed because Ukraine’s tech has a range advantage: their operators get to stay beyond Russian drones range.

So no, Russia doesn’t have the tech yet.

Ukraine already had drones capable of autonomously recognize tanks, including their type, and attack them at their known weak point. If there are people inside, this can kill them. The only “revolution” here is they can now do it on smaller drones made to track humans.

1. If Russia could have pulled that one before, they would have. They’ve already broken every and any international laws, conventions, etc. that were in their way. The only reason they’ve not used nukes is most likely because China would instantly turn their back on them, and they can’t afford that.
2. Ukraine is under threat of annihilation and they never got half the support they needed from their allies. Everything you point about “long term issue” is secondary to them because if they don’t keep that technological advance on Russia, they won’t exist to see that “long term issue” anyway. You want them to keep some reasonable limit? Write to whatever representative you have in your country and ask for a massive and immediate support to Ukraine. Had they done that on day1, the war would have been over for years and we wouldn’t have seen that massive technological “progress” in military equipment.
3. Nukes were invented during a high intensity war, used, and then countries got reasonable enough to not use them again (so far…). Chemical weapons were invented then banned. Problematic weapons do get banned, though the rules are not always followed. That’s why we need international laws, conventions, etc. These past years they were all but thrown away by a few countries without any consequences, therefore, don’t expect any kind of holding back on terminator drones. They were to happen no matter what, and Ukraine just had the right conditions to be the first to get them. I would be very surprised if Israel was not already working on it.

Why would they be upset by the idea of a trillionaire making campaign donations?

All they need to do is pledge allegiance!

I can only wonder how long she had to practice to say it so naturally!

I don’t know what’s your news are, but I didn’t have the same perception (France and Canada):

There was some anger when Trump floated the idea of “taking” Canada, but he wasn’t taken seriously.

There was definitely an outrage when Trump repeated he would have Greenland by force if needed, and he was taken seriously.

There are mild reactions now when he says he will take an island from Iran because he’s lost all credibility. Fact is I’m not sure he could get his ships close enough to the island before they’re sunk by Iran’s drones…

No matter how horrible the crime Is, time and again, the conclusion is death penalty is still a bad thing.

In the list of things going wrong about killing innocents, you have human errors, bias towards minorities (on purpose or not), framing individuals, abuse of power, and plain political weaponization.

On the policy side, you think you would restrain it to the most horrendous crimes. Look at the current climate in the US administration: criticizing Israel’s genocide in Gaza is “the same as” wishing all Jews dead, and they started comparing Trump to God.
Normalize the death penalty, and see a bench of crimes labelled horrible enough to warrant a death sentence. That may still come, but the fact that today, death penalty is not normalized prevents them from going there faster.

If you want to remove individuals from society, you still have lifelong prison. At least there, society gets a change to mitigate its mistakes.

Oh no! They just happen to have a blindspot for children-rapist billionaires! They monitor everyone but them. Not extremist enough I guess…

Yeah, but then we also need to rally about C-30, that re-authorizes all kind of known dangerous chemicals for the environment but also for our health, and rally against new pipelines, privatization of ports and airports, etc.

Move fast and break (every)thing, so when people complain too loudly, it’s too late, there’s nothing left to salvage, and they’re already putting their hand on something else to divest attention from everything else they broke so far.

Look, I don’t know if you’re a troll or seriously delusional. But planting the solutions as “do nothing” or “give everything left to billionaires so that they follow a plan that addresses global warming but in a way that’s profitable for billionaires without putting any constrain on them” is not just a fallacy, it’s laughingly absurd.

Your plan does not exist, and will most likely never exist. And even if you could find some mad scientist proposing a plan (not backed by a scientific consensus), you have no way to convince billionaires to fund it. They don’t need you to get the 99% money funnelled in their pocket.

But I will store that idea somewhere close to the proposal to burn every fossil fuel left on Earth to supply AI so that AI finds a solution to global warming.

Geo-engineering is taboo. Climate experts are afraid that if we start talking about it seriously we will abandon other, less risky, sustainable solutions. Those solutions are gone now.

It’s really not. There were papers about particles in the sky, nuke near the Antarctic, giant mirrors in orbit, etc. Climate experts just won’t promote unproven solutions that may have even more disastrous unexpected consequences while we have proven solutions that we collectively just don’t want to adopt.

But in practical terms it is. While we were waiting for “radical measures” we blew past 0.5C goal, 1C goal and now we will blow past 2C goal. Turns out waiting for solutions simply does not lower CO2 emissions.

We didn’t “wait”. We collectively elected people who didn’t give a shit, over and over. We still do. So a proposal to “pay the oligarchs” with money we no longer have because they already hoarded most of it, so that they apply solutions scientists propose instead of keep hoarding more, while they’re obsessed with power and are allergic to constrain is ludicrous.

What I’m saying is that we have to come up with a plan they will get behind. They will only support a plan that’s profitable for them

No, they won’t. Because whatever plan you come up with will come with constrains for them. You should have realized that by now. EVs are profitable. Solar panels are profitable. Musk got in both. And he also decided to launch rockets and get in AI, not only nullifying the benefits of the 2 first, but managing a negative overall contribution, all while claiming we have ample time to fix the climate crisis and other stupid statements.

I’m not saying we should ask them to come up with the solution. Scientist will design the solution. It will be extremely expensive. The money will be extracted from lower classes. Private companies owned by the oligarchs will implement it and profit from it massively.

If such solution existed, they would have done it a long time ago. What you propose is what? Public money that we give to them in exchange of a promise they’ll do something useful? Ever heard of Hyperloop or hydrogen commercial planes?

The alternative is to continue demanding the ruling class sacrifice their wealth for the greater good while they ignore us and nothing gets done.

No, the alternative is to elect people who give a damn and know what they’re doing, go after the oligarchs, tax the hell out of them so that states actually have resources to get shit done. While you seem to believe “there is no way”, some countries around the world are doing their transition way faster than expected.

Bad news for you: we’ve been paying the oligarchs for decades. That’s why they’re so much richer now. They could already have done a lot to reduce global warming and they didn’t do shit.

It’s incredibly naive to think they’ll “fix it” by giving them even more money. First because they think they can escape the consequences, second because they have no idea how to fix it: they’ve made many claims over time that were pure stupidity on the topic, third because they would never ever ever do anything that don’t somewhat benefit themselves and their gigantic egos.

By the way: geo-engineering is not a “solution” backed by climate experts.

In theory it’s not too late to stay under +2"C, providing we take urgent and radical measures now. The best moment was decades ago, the next best moment is now, the third is tomorrow morning.

Oligarchs will get all of us killed, including themselves. Yes, they need to be reined in. The alternatives are just modulating how fast we die.

Welcome to China’s huge gap between cities and some rural areas. Where the parents (from where the dog was stolen) live, there may not have been a market for a pet.

But restaurants have needs all the time.