aniro

English does not lack this distinction.

"Hard Sciences" refers to scientific inquiry that is empirical in nature and has results that can be reproduced and confirmed independently. eg: most physics and chemistry

"Soft Science" refers to the rest. eg: psychology

Ah, yes. It appears the banks that collected monies on mortgages and the landlords collecting rents just paid employees! How stupid of me. That must be why home values and the stock market are testing new highs! All those subsistence employees getting paid.

I made no comment as to whether it was a good or bad thing. I stated a fact.

But the fact that “the Market” has exploded in value while the Federal and State government is making direct payments in order to help a significant portion of the population just survive should be a little concerning, no?

The money sent to households was largely used to prop up rents mortgages or food/transportation/insurance and other consumer goods.

All that money ended up in business coffers.

Curious.. operating cost per annum on the f35 is presumably > $0.

So you don't think those riots, looting, civl unrest etc had anything to do with the militarization of police and the lack of accountability of law enforcement and public officials in general? Not a response to the George Floyd incident or the countless other incidents that are shockingly similar? Just a random media driven mob out there protesting things that don't actually reflect reality?

Because that is what a "whipped up mob" is. Not angry citizens demanding responsible and accountable law enforcement and action toward that end from their elected officials and unelected police forces.

There are a whole host of issues that stem from industrialization that are complex and require organized and disciplined action in order to contain. Cohesive action by the entire community of industrial nations is just not on the table at this point without some absolutely massive dislocation of economics or political power. Force is going to be required for change or desperation is going to force compliance. I can only assume based on history that this will all come to force of arms before any other rational solution (systemic enough that it will a difference) is pursued.

I just don't see any road forward without a horrifying body count. It is not impossible to avert that future, it just seems vanishingly improbable.

I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that "lack of rice" (and lack of clean water) is going to be a major issue whether we build out nuclear or not. I think humanity is in for a dark couple hundred years. The window hasn't closed, but we are hard pressed dealing with all the wrong fights and time is losing.

The less "1000 year tail of disaster" opportunities we can have available when things start to unravel the better. I am less afraid of us killing each other over rice and water than I am of us forcing those that come in the aftermath to deal with our effluence for 50+ generations.

Actually, what you wrote was "..activist groups will quite often ignore viable solutions. This is usually because they wish to keep on being activists and keep on continuing the fight."

You surmise in the text that the rejection of nuclear is just out of hand because solving the problem would end the fight. This is what you stated.

Nuclear may be a viable solution to the energy problem. Whether it is a viable solution to the humans altering the planet irrevocably so they can't inhabit it safely anymore problem is open to a bit more conjecture.

There is plenty of energy readily available on the planet without the necessity of continuing to burn off a billion years of carbon capture or splitting atoms, imho.

I am not sure I understand your point.

The atmosphere does a reasonably good job protecting us from the ravages of open space. One of the positive (for us) results of the particular make-up of that atmosphere is to foster life. Absent that protection (or if we were to act to circumvent it) life struggles to find a foothold. Can't think of anywhere life flourishes other than here.

Places that lack this protection tend to get burnt to a crisp or freeze. Lack of energy is a problem. Too much energy is a problem. The wrong KIND of energy is a problem.

What we call "radioactive material" that is the effluent by-product of nuclear fission is all the wrong kind of energy. I won't recount all the reasons why, but the fact that it is the least likely source of scrambling heritable traits in DNA is actually kind of low on the list (especially given the speed with which it scrambles DNA in living entities).

I am suggesting we shouldn't act to circumvent the protection we have been graciously afforded by the atmosphere. Fucking about with fissile material inside the atmosphere and on the surface is stupid and short sighted.

There is nothing mystical about any of this, it is pure science.

The web of deceit surrounding the Republican Party at this point is undeniable unless you have chosen to abandon reality entirely at the point it chafes your opinion.

I don't generally think we should be splitting atoms on the surface of the planet. It has lots of dirty side effects that far outlast our capacity to grapple with the consequences. Humans on the whole are not prepared at this point to think in terms of decades, let alone plan for events that have consequences counted in Milennia.

Well done.. missing the point entirely. Quite an art.

Exactly. They whipped the mob into a frenzy with lies and bullshit so they could use its power to get what they wanted. Then they lost control of it.

It is the loss of control they regret, not whipping it up in the first place.

I am highly skeptical of them. It was not my intent to defend them.

I do not consider nuclear energy a viable alternative to the hydrocarbon economy. I have considered it and I have dismissed it. You will not change my mind unless you can produce it off planet. I have dismissed it as a non-viable option (apparently the "non-viable" part is inconceivable to you.) This dismissal is not tied to my need to coddle and protect my identity as an activist.

"It highlights the very important point that activist groups will quite often ignore viable solutions. This is usually because they wish to keep on being activists and keep on continuing the fight."

This line dismisses .. pretty much anyone advocating for change. "I proposed a solution that works for me. They don't like it. They must wish to protect the identity." Pure poppycock.

Real talk:

Doses of radioactive elements from high atmosphere Nuclear weapons testing persist in trace amounts in all living things on Earth today. Dispersal of radioactive elements would be faster and point source radioactivity thereby reduced by that due to the nature of the medium into which it was released and the very short duration of the release.

Fukushima because it lacks these characteristics.

Blow up all the shit you want.. nuclear energy (when it fails, and every failure is too often) is way more disruptive then nuclear weapons. Evidence? See Nagasaki today vs Pripyat today.

I gather all of that evidence was collected from Martian samples? Maybe Venus? Was it derived from DNA developed on the Moon?

What does make Earth just right for you to have developed in order to be aware, gain such knowledge, share such knowledge?

Untold eons of carefully controlled radiant energy emitted by our blessed Sun.

The Sun and its ilk are massive emitters of radiant energy. Light is a form of radiation. Heat is a form of radiation. The universe is full of lifeless rocks either burnt by the sun or left out in the cold. In fact, all the ones we know of exist in this state except this one.

I am not advocating some “mystical radiation balance with nature” so much as pointing out that “life” (as we know it) is playing the long game on controlling radiant energy doses. When we muck about with that by playing our dumb little short game without consideration for the consequences we invite disaster upon ourselves. All of this discussion about global warming is pointless if we leave large swathes of the planet uninhabitable by humans.

Have you seen how big the Chernobyl exclusion zone is? are to move your family there?

Have you paid any attention to the after effects at Fukushima? Do you care to realize that we are pushing radiation with unknown effects into the largest body of water (and one of the greatest repositories of life) on Earth? That the effects will likely reverberate for a 1000 years or more?

What is your solution to the problem of accumulating Nuclear waste?

Has it occurred to you that life has succeeded on the planet primarily by a fantastical luck of getting dosed with EXACTLY the right amount of radiation, carefully controlled by an atmosphere that literal took a millennia of millennia in order to develop? That fucking with that balance by inviting disastrous and unknown consequences into that careful envelope might turn some people off?

No. You must be right.. just a bunch of loony activists that are clinging desperately to the activist identity.

How shallow and unconsidered an opinion. Did it make you feel as smug as it sounded when you typed it out?

There are a number of reasons they are not contradictory.. but the most simplistic would work like this:

Day 1: John has $10 and Joe has $100

Day 5: John has $11 and Joe has $250

Day 100: John has $15 and Joe has $1000

They certainly both have more than before, but one of them is much better off (especially if there is some form of inflation in play).

Also, blue collar wages have been largely stagnant or declining when measured against inflation (a very important point) since ~1980 while conversely white collar job incomes have been ballooning against the same measure. In particular, Executive compensation is utterly off the charts comparatively. When tax discount structures that vastly favor investment income over real wages is taken into account, the gains become even more stark (that is, the amount of income that can be retained v must be spent or is taxed).

They did exactly that.

"The money supply measures reflect the different degrees of liquidity—or spendability—that different types of money have. The narrowest measure, M1, is restricted to the most liquid forms of money; it consists of currency in the hands of the public; travelers checks; demand deposits, and other deposits against which checks can be written. M2 includes M1, plus savings accounts, time deposits of under $100,000, and balances in retail money market mutual funds."

From the Fed itself:

https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html

This comment is highly partisan and full of speculative opinion with very little (or zero) evidence to support such wild claims.

Eliminating reserve requirements (the net effect of which is to allow banks themselves to print money at will). This has already been done.

Glitch.

First Amendment guarantees were created to prevent The Government from regulating speech, not to private entities from doing so. Are they private or public entities? Are they required to use their technologies and resources to publish any and all content that isn't explicitly illegal?

What if some content is deemed illegal in some jurisdictions and not illegal in others? If a community decides to ban a piece of art (such as a book, or a photograph, or a movie) should the platform then be liable for moderating that content specific to that location? Doesn't that imply that in order to accomplish that task they MUST track user location? What a win that would be, legislation that requires location tracking in order for compliance to occur.

Should "Legal" be the ultimate arbiter of what is right, or what is just? How has that worked out for us in the past?

More like half of those that cast votes in the last Presidential Election cast votes for the sitting POTUS (well, technically a significant number less than half but that argument is pointless b/c of the electoral college).

It turns out that group represents less than 20% of the population (~63 million out of ~328 million is less than 20%).

If alienating them is an unintended byproduct of simply labeling a verbal invective that incites violence and provably presents lies to the detriment of public health might be a worthy venture in content moderation. The mere act of labeling outright lies and calls to violence as such really shouldn't be so controversial.

It is a massive paradigm shift. That is exactly what leads me to believe that moving to remove/reduce it is going to lead to violence.

I also think it is likely necessary to do so if we intend for humanity to move forward.

I believe you have touched upon the fundamental problem.

We severely reduced inherited political power in the West. It was bloody and painful, but it was accomplished.

We can reduce or remove inherited economic power also. Hopefully it doesn't have to be so bloody (I am not so sure).

The justification for the Fairness Doctrine was that the airwaves were a public resource and that anyone using that resource was required to use it responsibly and in the interest of the public.

You should read the signing statement for the CARES act.

The Executive (created to execute the laws enacted by Congress) states that they WILL NOT execute a portion of Congressional Law (the portion that stipulates oversight of the Executive) because they “don’t understand” and because the Constitution has a clause stating that they (the Executive) must execute the laws faithfully.

I think it is the patent for “what to expect moving forward”.