Yes, in the age where you need more knowledge than ever in order to have a living wage, where menial labor is being automated faster and faster, we need less education. Good point.
Let me put it a different way - the kids campaigning for climate action are not convincing anyone who wasn't already on board. It's literally just a show that's riling up the people who are already supporters. It's harmful to the kids and not accomplishing much else.
And the 'whole idea' amounts to child abuse. A kid her age is not prepared to be a public figure and all the pressures that come with it. She shouldn't be up there period. And everyone who says that 'the adults aren't doing anything so the kids have to', why aren't the adults who use this argument doing something then?
She can pursue it, but I wouldn't let my child skip school to do it..
Also, if it's related to politics there is a ton of misinformation and a child can easily be manipulated into landing on the wrong side of the fence.
I guess what I'm trying to say that is that kids, whether they're right or wrong, aren't really qualified to promote a public opinion on any issue.
You also have to remember that they're being allowed to skip school to do this. When I was a kid, I would have gone to practically any rally if it meant skipping class..
Sad to see. Although, honestly, the parents shouldn't have allowed their kids to put themselves in these 'activist' positions to begin with. What did they expect? And also, a 16 year old girl speaking at the UN? Is that a joke?
I fully support protecting the environment but this is child exploitation for political purposes. These movements should be led by scientists, not children. Is it any wonder people are still skeptical?
They kill journalists who expose their corruption, not that of other countries. They most certainly have someone tracking him, Snowden mentioned that he believes as much in his interview.
The US doesn't win much besides PR by getting their hands on Snowden at this point. The things he revealed have already had their consequences. Similarly, on the Russian side, it doesn't cost them anything to harbor Snowden, but it does make for a flashy middle finger to the United States.
I'm not sure what you mean by shortened distance between speech and action. I know it doesn't make it so legally, I suppose I should have said 'in my opinion, these are non-negotiable'. As far as why, I think that it's because this is what separates us from other countries. There's plenty of things the US has done wrong int he past, but the Bill of Rights isn't one of them.
Inciting violence is unlawful, "hate speech" is not. What is "hate speech"? What are "assault weapons"?
The right to self-defense is non-negotiable, like someone already pointed out. You can use a car to ram into a sidewalk full of civilians. Should we ban cars?
Or maybe we can actually focus on why there are more people that are causing these mass shootings. If guns are the cause, why didn't we have mass shootings 50 years ago? Guns were even less regulated then.
Yes, as long as the government recognizes that the ones who created the problem are the ones who should pay for it, in other words the businesses and not the people.
You can't learn piano this way past the most beginner level stuff. Sight reading actual sheet music is MUCH easier because of how close the notes appear on this visualization, you won't be able to tell what's what from far away. Also, pieces like this are much easier to just memorize before actually bringing them up to speed, and then you won't need to look at what the notes are anyway since you're just relying on muscle memory.
Of course it is a crisis, but the timescale is crucial as far as the kinds of measures we take. Do we ban fossil fuels altogether, raising the cost of living for everyone and plunging developing countries into poverty while we work out a way to make renewable energy affordable? Or do we have the government put money into renewable energy research, lowering its costs and making it a financially more lucrative alternative? The latter would take much longer but I think it's a better solution than making life more expensive for everyone than it already is.. Or maybe there is some other answer.
It's a massive red flag to me when these sensationalist articles are still relying on thermometers for data. I thought they'd have enough integrity to rely on satellites at this point. Same as when you have statements like "99% of scientists agree on global warming". Yes,tthey agree that it's happening and that humans are playing some role, not that we're all going to die in 10 years if we don't turn things around.
Public opinion is not that important. All you need is government money given to research new technology that will make for viable competition. The economics will take care of the rest.
And regarding the public, the public has plenty of reasons to be skeptical. We've been given Iraq WMDs, Obama birth certificate hysteria (more people believed this than you think), now Russia/Trump hysteria. All of this ends up being hot air. So when you tell people they have 10 years to live if we don't do a 180 on our economy, what do you expect them to say?
I see your point but it's not like we ever just mine a ton of gold and flood the market. New gold gets mined but it's not done at a rate that influences that market price. Theoretically yes, there is an unlimited amount, but in practice most of that gold will never be found.
Gold has been the longest most stable 'currency' historically. Governments with some of the largest economies hold large supplies of gold (and they're not trading it for BTC). It's value has been on par with inflation since we've started keeping track of its value. This creates confidence among buyers.
People agree it has value because the most powerful players in the global economy agree that it has value. There is also a limited amount of it.
You're trying to reason about 'alien' intelligence in terms of human traits. What makes you think they are even interested in us at all? Maybe they just came here to re-up on potassium.
I'm surprised how many people in the comments automatically assume that fake meat will be safe to consume. Sure it appears identical but so does a clone of a sheep, and yet they live a fraction of the lifespan of the original animals. I think a little agnosticism, especially given the lack of research and testing on animals/humans would be welcome here.
If you only create a fruit without a full grown plant to have produced it, yes.
If you want to prove that eating fake meat has no additional adverse side effects to real meat, there would need to be studies. Have there been studies? No, there haven't. You can't assert that the two are the same because of a lack of evidence if there has been no attempt to find evidence. Until you have controlled experiments where people are exclusively fed both (preferably for at least a year, IMHO) you can't just conclude that 'well they seem the same so they must be'.
$30,000 is the max that you will pay back, calculated as a percentage of your salary once you are hired. $10,000 is what you will receive over the course of 5 months of training.
It could be that my memory of hypothesis testing is outdated, but being 1 standard deviation away from the mean isn't evidence of a significant difference in skills.
The apps you'd have to uninstall/reinstall manually for updated versions but I did still get a few official Samsung updates come through recently so I guess those aren't tied to the Play Store. I think at least one of those reinstalled some of the apps I had removed but other than that it went ok.