734129837261

Not sure what to make of this article. Nuclear power is by far the cleanest and safest way of generating energy for both humankind and nature. Chernobyl was ancient and outdated, which caused issues. And Fukushima had to withstand an earthquake and tsunami. And even then the radiation only killed 1 person.

Even wind-turbines cause more damage by killing many, many birds. They aren't as reliable and they certainly cause a lot of noise pollution. And they aren't all that pretty, either.

The risk of nuclear is low to none, barring any unforeseen freak accidents.

Yes, if a tsunami hits the nuclear plant, it might break down. If a meteor hits it, it might break down.

By that logic we shouldn't build cities. After all, if a tsunami hits a city many people will die.

I wish politics around the world would just leave the decision-making up to smart people instead of vote-gatherers.

You rely on client-side JS to secure checkouts?

Everywhere I've worked doesn't really care about the frontend (it is merely the first line of defense); everything is validated and authorized on the backend.

In this region of the world we have a guaranteed minimum income, plus the pension that I built up during life. It should be a comfortable retirement even without savings.

But I get your point. In the case of an older failing body I'd probably just go for the euthanasia route. Why suffer when I've already seen and done it all?

I use Google Sheets and my banking app to keep track of expenses.

I'm in my mid 30s, from the Netherlands, and work remote as a software engineer for a company in the USA. My net income is about 4500 a month, rent in Amsterdam (NL) costs me about 1400 a month, then another 1000 a month for all other costs (insurances, food, electricity, car maintenance, parking, water, phone, etc.)

That sounds like I should save about 1600 Euros a month. In reality I also purchase things that aren't part of my fixed expenses. A brand new PC set me back 2000 Euros, a new floor in my home office set me back 600, finally getting a kick ass new wifi router will set me back 400, and I'd like Apple Car Play in my car that will set me back 400 as well.

My car is my own, though. No payments on those except the depreciation in value every second it gets older and every kilometer I drive it.

My biggest issue is my apartment. It's 100 square meters (1076 square foot), 2 bedrooms, an absolutely amazing view, and when I started living here 8 years ago I could rent it with a far lower income because of a financial crisis.

Now, the housing prices have caught up. I'm living in an apartment that I couldn't even rent anymore these days (they exact my net income to be 5x the rent). The value on the buyer's market would be around 500,000 Euros.

So, to get something in the same league of quality and comfort, I'd need to be able to purchase a house at around the 500k mark. I can't afford that and I don't really want to take a big step down when it comes to location, view, comfort, luxury, etc.

I don't buy new cars ever. My own car is a VW Golf from 2017 so the biggest blow of losing its value (e.g. driving it off the lot the first time) has been taken by the first buyer.

When I want something new I wait a minimum of 2 weeks before I decide. I've been wanting a VR Headset for a few weeks now, and just decided that, while I can afford it, I'd rather not.

I've been traveling a LOT in the past year and that ate up about 20k of my savings. Worth every cent. But I'm only left with about 20k in savings now. And I'm not sure what to do with it at all.

Of course I'd love to go into stock trading. I'd buy Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Tesla, and just... I don't know, then what? They rise and... I sell? They lower in value and I buy? Is that it?

There's so much terminology going about in that industry. What's a "short" exactly? Yeah I can Google it but honestly, I don't understand it. Should I instead simply give my money to an Index Fund trading company? Sounds safe(r) at least.

Should I buy a house at half my max in a more rural area and live even cheaper for the next few years and save up about 200k?

Should I instead spend it all on traveling and experiencing life?

Honestly, I've known people in their prime who got the news: "You have cancer, you'll die in a year". Sucks to be rich then, doesn't it? (Note: Health care is fully taken care of here, you don't need money.)

Or what if I get hit by a car tomorrow? I've been in one major accident already that nearly killed me. I don't feel like planning ahead that much. I'm young and strong now and I might not be alive next year. Or in ten years. Or in 30 years.

I'll just apply sensibility in the sense that I don't want to waste all my money. I need a solid savings account. And if it doesn't make life boring, I should spend money working towards a more lucrative future.

But I have no clue as to how.

I wish there was a version control system that didn't need user input beyond a "push". Only branches and pull requests, nothing more. No commit messages, you have one master branch and however many sub-branches you need.

Whatever code is in your branch is what it is. And then there's a layer of magic on top of it all, maybe a UI or command line tool or both, just to be able to easily rewind time. Either per file, per line of code, or folder, or just a folder but not recursive, or the entire branch.

Think of Apple's Time Machine, it should be that simple.

Honestly, I rarely–if ever–read commit messages to begin with. The way I navigate older code is never done by searching for commit messages. That's not reliable.

Instead I simply go to a point in time where I think the thing I'm looking for might be. I'll look at the code, recognise its state, and continue the search up or down the timeline.

And that would cover the needs of most projects I'd say. And it would save us a shitload of time.

Hell, I've been working with git for almost a decade now. I never needed to rebase or merge things, until I recently did need to do it. It's too arcane to make intuitive sense, to me anyway.

Git is good, I'd just welcome a breath of fresh air...

I love Redux, I love your dedication to the community (also on Reddit), and I love your work. But this is the first time I find myself completely disagreeing with you.

The bigger a project gets, the more unreadably TS snippets you run into. The cost/benefit ratio is awful; I've sometimes taken the actual author of the code and myself to analyse it, and it would take us over an hour just to get to the bottom of something that would be incredibly simple in regular JS.

From your article:

> Ah, the joy of reviewing a PR for a lib you maintain, when the PR contains code that you are not even remotely qualified to pass judgment on...

And then that code. Look at that. That's not nice. That's terrible code, horrendous. That should be rejected for the simple reason that it's unmaintainable.

> I begged for help on Twitter, and got a solution from the community that worked. I don't even pretend to understand the type declaration, but here it is:

The problem in larger teams is exactly this:

Some self-important TS lover in your team spends 4 hours tinkering together some arcane magic TS definition by copy/pasting a ton of shit from StackOverflow, is proud that it works, commits and pushed it, creates a PR... and everyone reviewing it is clueless what's going on. But it works.

Hell, if he understands it and it works, it must be good. Accept PR. Merge. Fast forward 3 months. Someone has to add a feature to this particular part of code. They look at the TS definition and 2 weeks later they have a new job.

I've seen people flee projects because of endless amounts of arcane TS...

If I'm imagining the perfect project it's based on a few qualities that I hold dear:

1. Sensible unit testing in place 2. Well defined code review standards 3. Strict naming conventions for code 4. Optional JSDoc where it makes sense 5. Minimalistic but readable amounts of code*

* Meaning that code should be short and concise, functional programming to the max, but not one big clump of inline nested functions.

JSDoc in itself allows you to type parameters and variables, it even adds human readable comments to the mix.

Then, when reading the project's code, you'll stumble upon a beautiful and sleek code base that just makes intuitive sense from the start.

---

I recently had a chat with someone about us developers always inventing the next pain in the ass to deal with. I think TS is a pain in the ass. When I started out with Classic ASP (Visual Basic 6.0) it was basically functional programming (functions and subprocedures) and we'd get everything done in record time, blazingly fast.

If VB6.0 was released by Microsoft today, millions of people would be fawning over it and it would become the next best thing. "What a cool Python alternative, thanks Microsoft!"

Same with Perl. Cool language. Hardly anybody uses it anymore. It's mostly Booking.com recruiting endless amounts of Perl developers because they're almost as rare as the fossils they often are (I worked there, I'd know.)

When we switched to XSLT and XML it was basically Handlebars, except not restricted, full of features, and just gorgeous to work with. But it lost its sexiness for some reason; mostly because JSON isn't compatible with XSLT. So nobody uses it anymore.

Now there's JSX, and that will also disappear over time. Probably for no good reason at all. Look at Angular and VueJS, they offer alternatives that are vastly inferior in many ways (no intuitiveness would be one, you need to learn the damn frameworks before you can get started), but they're the new kids on the block.

TypeScript is too often too easily accepted as the standard addition to a project. And I've experienced it NEVER to be the right call. And I've gotten other developers on said teams to–sometimes after some prodding–agree with my assessment.

Every project would be better off without TypeScript. I fail to see any of the benefits people mention because I've never seen them, I've only seen the exact opposite.

Well, TS does point things out to me in the IDE that make me correct it right there. But, I would have caught that in my browser in under 2 seconds anyway. With proper .map files to debug things it's infinitely more clear what's wrong than with TS's sometimes very cryptic messages.

As for your junior dev, maybe that makes the case for TS. But honestly, I've experienced junior TS developers who were simply overwhelmed by TS. They couldn't be trusted to write proper TS since they already struggled with JS. It just required us to review more code in their PRs.

I'll take a project with naming conventions, proper unit tests & code reviews over TS any day.

If you don't require at least 2 approvals from medior/senior developers for your junior's PRs you're doing it wrong.

TypeScript is not a "little bit" slower, I've seen it take over 3 times more time (and frustrations, even for an experienced TS guru) to get simple things done.

TypeScript is a colossal waste of time that many sheep gladly embrace because they feel they're expected to. Nobody dares to ask "but why?" when someone else comes up with the idea of adding TS to a project. They should.

I wish I had the money to setup 2 teams of 5 developers each for 12 months. One team: JS only. The other team: TS only. Give them the exact same project instructions, same sprint length of 2 weeks, and the same expectations per sprint.

Here is my guarantee:

- The JavaScript team will get much more done consistently over the entire duration of the project; - The JavaScript team will have a higher quality of code that is more intuitive to read; - The TypeScript team will be the only ones that regularly fail to make deadlines; - The TypeScript team will have to be reminded time and again that they should focus on UI and UX details.

And at the end of the road the JS team will have a far superior project, simply because they didn't waste time typing all of their code.

I've seen it so many times already. Once you use TS the devs focus on the code and forego the idea of UX, a11y, i18n, progressive web, offline capabilities, etc.

They'll often pair-program and waste hours of time to figure out how the hell they're supposed to properly type that one complicated piece of code.

Meanwhile, the JS team using React will simply use JSDoc, code reviews, propTypes, and defaultProps and be done with it.

TypeScript slows down a project. Nobody seems to ever point out what benefits it supposedly offers.

My claim: TypeScript offers no benefit. Ever. That's 2 years of fulltime TS experience talking and 18 years of fulltime JavaScript experience, on top of a whole bunch of full stack (Java and .Net with C#) experience.

I think the popularity of TS is going to decline. And I think it's only popular because of the influx of backend developers coming into the frontend. Additionally, because "everybody does it so it must be professional so I should like it".

As for React, well, great argument, I guess?

So, I've worked with JavaScript since 2001. Up until two years ago I never used a strong typed flavour on top of JS.

And I have never needed it. Not in big teams and not in small teams.

At work we recently did a timed programming problem solving competition. 20 Teams got 1 hour each to solve multiple levels of the same problems. Some teams used TypeScript.

None of the TypeScript teams got past level 5. All of the rest got past level 15.

I've been taking job applications where applicants get a limited amount of time to make their project. Let's say 20 hours, and it's a paid job. Everyone gets the same instructions.

Those who use TS are NEVER feature complete.

Coincidentally, those who use TS are also the ones who deliver one big DIV-soup and barely seem to understand CSS to begin with.

Strong typed JavaScript doesn't solve anything, in my opinion. And nobody has been able to convince me otherwise. TypeScript seems to be a reason for many developers to completely avoid documenting their code...

I mean, TSDOC or JSDOC allows you to write human-readable comments AND strong type your code where it matters. But they don't.

In any case, this article was a fun one to read:

https://medium.com/javascript-scene/the-typescript-tax-132ff...

MobX adds a weird new syntax to JavaScript. I don't see why anyone would want that.

Oh, please. The projects I've recently worked on used only Hooks instead of Redux. It was a nightmare to deal with. Files with endless amounts of `useSomething`, you'd need to dive through 4 levels of files to get to something useful.

Redux offers a ton of tooling and developer comfort if you get it right. And getting it right means having proper pull request reviews.

There's a lot of developer tooling (debugging tools), too, and a lot of middleware available to plug and play and GO.

If you're just using Hooks and the Reducer and Context APIs you're setting yourself up for a lot of headaches down the road.

Redux already makes use of those technologies, but wraps it in something easy to consume with a LARGE community for support.

Not using Redux is setting yourself up for failure, in my opinion. I've seen it happen too many times in the past year...

The Asian markets typically have their own news letters. They will report the findings from the State of JavaScript 2019 from the western world, but they'll probably have their own polls.

We are primarily English speaking (myself being European and working in the USA now) and they struggle with English immensely, in general.

Many projects from Japan that I see have faulty English grammar in variable names and is documented only in Japanese characters.

I really don't see the point of strong typed programming. JavaScript is fine without it. I've been working with TypeScript for a while now and I never think "this solves a problem I had!"

On the contrary, I constantly think "why..."

I feel strong typing JS is just a result of backend developers not questioning their upbringings and failing to use proper naming conventions, progressive enhancement in the form of JSDOC comments, proper unit tests, and proper peer reviewing processes.

Honestly, I don't get it. In all my 20 years as a professional web developer (full stack and specialising in the frontend for the past 12 years) I have never needed it...

I really don't understand the charm of it.

Just the fact it uses Handlebars templates disqualifies it as a viable option for me. Handlebars is terrible to work with, especially once you're used to JSX type of options.

HBS = restrictive for nonsense reasons. The separations of Model, View, and Control really don't make sense anymore. It's outdated.

I've worked with it for years and I consider myself familiar with it up until 3 years ago, but I would never go back to EmberJS. And that's why the salaries are higher for Ember developers: they're rare.

Angular ng-is ng-very ng-opinionated and requires a ton of boilerplate knowledge. It requires typescript knowledge, and I've noticed that (finally!) a lot of developers are realising that typescript actually doesn't make life easier at all.

React, on the other hand, is a very intuitive library instead of an all-encompassing framework. You can easily setup a React application in a few seconds and get started, adding whatever you want as you go.

The JSX syntax is infinitely more intuitive compared to the Angular way of doing things. Which also gets me to the point of Angular having a specific way of doing things, "the Angular way".

With React there's less thinking required to get things done. The learning curve is steep (as in: you pick up the knowledge quicker) because the amount of information to take in is relatively low.

Angular takes months to master. It's very opinionated. And it requires typescript.

I for one hate typescript with the passion of a thousand suns. I know it very well because I have to if I want to keep my job, but it's so freaking unnecessary...

I've always been anti-children, I honestly dislike them. Even when I was one myself. They're loud and unpredictable. And if I were to have one it would be expensive and time consuming.

My current GF (I'm in my late 30s, she early 30s) wants children. She changed from "I don't care if I don't" to "I definitely need at least one.

So that's an impossible thing to compromise on.

And I won't. So I'll leave her to figure it out for herself. I'd much rather be alone than in a relationship if it means getting an innocent child involved with a father that doesn't want it.

"But you'll change your mind once you have one!" is a saying I often hear. Yeah, Stockholm Syndrome is what it's called. You have no choice but to say you like it. Fake it 'til you make it.

I've had colleagues and friends admit to me that they regret having children. They would have preferred to save tens of thousands of euros more, travel the world, treat themselves to gadgets and expensive meals, have all the time in the world to do whatever they liked. All the time to read books, play games, go on dates, meet people, or just work, or just do nothing at all.

With children, you're suddenly a parent. Your house is child-safe, your car is child-safe, the people you deal with most are also parents.

Or, how a friend of mine said: "I got a 20-something babysitter, cutest girl I've ever seen. I'm 41. I'd do her. My wife wouldn't approve, of course. But the girl tells me she isn't going to get children, because she sees how little time parents have. And god damnit, she's so right."

If he got to turn back time he would not have his 3 children. And that's not all: he would not stay with his wife, a marriage of 20 years. They coexist "for the children" as they so often do. But in truth it's because he isn't looking forward to paying her alimony and child support.

Right now, he's miserable with 1 child-safe car and 1 car he likes in a house that's too big.

And look at the divorce rates out there. Even if you look at only the first-time divorcees, it seems most marriages fail. I am not looking forward to anchoring myself down by adding a child into the mix.

I'll be single. And if I do turn out to be miserable, I'll just off myself without leaving a dependent family behind.

You're right, air travel is just a drop on a hot plate, and is by far the cleanest way of transporting hundreds of people in (relative) comfort over vast distances. Try taking a Tesla from SF to Amsterdam.

But eliminating all coal plants in the world is not feasible in the short term. Germany tried it a while back. Turns out that some days are too dark to catch enough sunlight. Turns out that sometimes the wind doesn't blow.

Then you'd have to restart the coal plants again because they are reliable sources of energy.

Or we should consider going nuclear. Which makes perfect sense in regions like Europe where there is hardly any danger of earth quakes and tsunamis.

But Europe has bad memories of that because of outdated tech in eastern Europe going haywire.

It'll take another generation or so to get to the point where we can shut down coal plants.

Here's what NOT to do, from my experience in the first decade of this millennium:

1. What came first: More work or more developers? Don't stress your development team for ages without hiring new employees. They'll burn out and hate working for you.

2. Don't focus all your energy on outward appearance. Your work should speak for itself, not your amazing expensive new car and tailored suits.

3. Don't stop innovating. The developers who were there since day 1 who refuse to adopt new tech? Yeah, get rid of them. They're pulling the rest down to their level.

4. Seniority isn't a guarantee for superior knowledge; and being junior doesn't mean their opinion is invalid. Don't fall victim to playing favourites. If you hire people, then they're equal.

5. If you are one of two founders: Don't have sexual intercourse with the wife of the other founder of the company. He will find out and because you have 50/50 shares in the company, everyone needs to pick a side. This destroys the company.

6. And that also means you can no longer afford to lease that $1400/month luxury off road SUV that you only drive in a town without even a single hill in a 100 mile radius.

I was just an employee for this company, I was in my teens when I started working there, and I thought these 30-something owners of the company knew what they were doing. They didn't.

From Western Europe I moved to Mexico City. I work and live here now, and this city suffers intense amounts of pollution almost every day. When you take an Uber somewhere they all drive with their windows open (airco's are expensive to run) and you get the full blast of diesel trucks and older cars' fumes.

I came here for a girl. I'm leaving because of pollution. The city is amazing in its own right, but I feel like I'm breathing lung cancer.

Most of us were hired consultants in the open office that we shared with her. Management and internal staff sat in private offices, mostly. The instructions from my employer were always to not disrupt the status quo. She was their employee, and it was not up to us to complain about it.

I complained to my employer, who did nothing about it because he thought it was funny.

It has also not been researched very much. That said, I've suffered brain damage for which I'm medicated because I didn't have any brakes on my emotions anymore. That helped bringing me back to normal levels of dealing with emotions, and it also reduced the levels of anger I felt dealing with misophonia triggers.

Medicine used: Depakine (valproic acid).

The feeling was absolutely real. The feeling is best described as feeling cornered and attacked, with my only way out being extreme violence.

That said, I've also been tested for all kinds of problems (yay affordable health care + endless supplies of mental care), and I'm completely normal and not dangerous. I just have misophonia.

They did studies on misophonia and I was part of it during another unrelated rehabilitation (accident related) for which I was treated in the same hospital.

Interestingly, it's not a mental problem, it's physical, see: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44084-8

> There are times when I wish I were deaf.

I hear ya (pun somewhat intended), I wish there was an off-switch in my ears. I'd miss music and the voices of loved ones, but the peace and quiet would make me infinitely more productive in life.

My biggest triggers are people who eat crunchy food with open mouths; people who slurp their drinks; people who are oblivious to their environment and sing loudly in open offices.

Colleagues next to me eating hard carrots, chips, anything crunchy. Or Chinese expats who slurp their soup and coffee (normal in their culture; rude in mine)... it drove me crazy.

The singing one drove me insane at my last job. An office lady walked around the office, she would loudly and falsely be singing nonsense like: "LALALALA POMPOM PIEWPIEW LALA" (verbatim) and sometimes fragments from pop songs, in her broken English: "I CAN'T GET NO SASIFICTION LALAPOMPOM".

I wanted to murder her. No joke. If I could get away with it, I would have. The anger was physical and deep. Rage and disgust was the feeling, and I felt personally attacked. It felt like a "fight or flee" instinct, where I'd prefer to fight.

Many angry looks thrown at her (not just from me!) didn't make any difference. She must've felt like she was a rock star or something.

On my last day in the office I mentioned her to the rest of the office. Turns out everyone was annoyed by her. Nobody spoke up.

I have misophonia. The hospital close to my home in Amsterdam did a lot of scientific research into it. And nowadays I work from home, fully remote, as a software engineer. Life is good.

I have the first generation TouchBar MacBook Pro. And I've gotten the bottom part replaced twice: once because I spilled coffee on my desk and my MacBook decided to drink it, and the second time because they didn't attach the bottom plate properly (they forgot 2 screws and 1 other just fell out).

The keyboard they replaced it with is significantly better. It feels softer to the touch, and it's quieter. The keys don't get stuck anymore and it generally feels like a proper nice keyboard.

That said. I rarely use the laptop in an opened-up state anyway. I tend to connect it to a screen + keyboard + mouse and enjoy the computer without that idiotic TouchBar.

Last I checked you can send your MBP back to Apple and they'll replace the faulty keyboard. I did it during a vacation, it only took them 1 week to send the fixed system back.

I've started working in Mexico City as a European software engineer. My job offers 100% remote work and that allows me to work from anywhere. My home includes a girlfriend and her incidental home office, so I went searching for office space for myself, thinking it would be affordable in CDMX. There are like 7 WeWork locations and tons of other state of the art places to work. But for a private office sized to place one desk chair I'd be paying well over €500 euros per month. And it won't be a corner office, it'll be a glass-surrounded cubicle without a view.

So, instead, I went to look on AirBNB. I could rent a full apartment for about the same amount of money, except this would come with a view, with a couch, a shower, kitchen, weekly cleaning service, and all kinds of nice things.

But I kept on looking. There are numerous extremely luxurious buildings in the city where middle to high class people live. And a lot of them have rooms for rent. So I considered my own office room inside an apartment I share with 2 others. I can lock the door and I get 2 pets for free.

Best of all: The building is only 2 years old. They have a full sized gym on the 22nd floor, 7 swimming pools of which 2 olympic sized ones and 2 infinity pools, free saunas, free yoga and spinning lessons every day, a bowling alley and gaming hall, an indoor soccer field, et cetera.

So I took that. The building even comes with integrated office rooms and a full floor with couches and desks and tables and ping-pong tables and table-tennis tables and a grand view of the city. So it's not like they're against people working from there.

The problem with WeWork is that they aren't that interesting, not even in cities that are more expensive. The credits you get only allow you to switch locations until they run out, and then you need to purchase new ones for a lot of money.

They should really do a few things:

1. Look at the area they're in, at the very least be cheaper than AirBNB when it comes to offering a space to work from. 2. Once someone is a member, allow them to work from ALL WeWork locations (in the public areas). No credits cost, nothing. 3. On the website, per location, clearly show how crowded it is and how crowded it is expected to be that day.

They're way too expensive for what amounts to a crowded and noisy library. At least in a library people are expected to keep quiet so you can work. At WeWork I've been told you're to expect people coming up to you.

Side note: WeWork might be a great choice for companies who want to rent their first office space. That's not something I looked into.

A touch screen is pure evil and stupidity and the product of grey old men dictating their products: "We NEED touch, build it in!"

Thing is, roads are bumpy. G-forces make your extended hand go all over the place. A touch screen in a car is pure stupidity. You want to rest your arm and take control of ONE single controller, either an Apple-like quality touch pad, or a knob you can navigate and press.

They'll get there, eventually. When those fossils die.

I've never been impressed by anything that man has done. He just sailed along with the ideas and changes made by Jobs. Ive seems like the typical designer who is unaware of anything hardware related. The trashcan was proof of that. The new cheese grater is probably a royal pain in his rear because it doesn't looks pretty.

Even his voice overs were tacky as hell. Easy to make fun of. Cringeworthy at best.

When Jobs dies Apple's creativity and forward-thinking also died. They started multi-touch, they made touch screens work, they made MacBooks that weren't full of stickers and big humps of plastic, they made smartphones with an OS that actually worked smoothly.

When Jobs died they stopped innovating. Maybe a few remnants of Jobs' ideas were implemented but none of them to the degree of innovativeness and quality during his time.

Jobs would have canned so much crap Apple has released over the years. He would have made certain products so much better by simply spending several billions more on research and development.

Jobs wasn't there to suck up to shareholders. He was not even there for us. I'm pretty sure he was there for himself and his legacy.

Jony Ive was never part of anything impressive. To me, he's just the talking head with a voice who they hopefully took away any control from.

Apple needs to spend some of their countless billions on innovation and setting standards that are 5 years ahead of the competition. Instead, they're twice as expensive with outdated tech. Such a shame.

> This one is provoked by your mindset and it is going to make life unsustainable for everyone you know.

And you fell for that nonsense? They said the same in 1985, we'd all be dead before the millennium. Unsustainable... hardly. People will thrive and will be absolutely fine.

>It is called science bitch.

Name calling is so charming.

I know people with PhDs who believe in homeopathy. That doesn't make it any less of a scam. I know medical doctors who refused to vaccinate their children in the rich west. She's a GP, not an expert in immune systems.

You know where the world will be in 20 years? Right here, just fine. We'll have about 3 billion more people on it.

And in 100 years from now it'll also be here. Probably around 20 billion people in total by then.

I'm a big fan of science and I think climate change is going to cost lives and make it hard to live in some areas, impossible in others, but people will be fine.

People are overreacting immensely and spending resources on all the wrong things. It's pathetic how herd-like we behave in panicky situations...