dennis_jeeves

Assuming that I did not misunderstand you, while fight or flee does not exist in plants in the same sense as animals they do react by producing chemicals/sap etc. that works as a defense. So it's more 'fight', but a chemical warfare at that.

Until they learn that the nano-consciousness exists in the air molecules...

Unlikely, unless the fruit is raw. Some ripe fruits are most likely meant to be eaten because that's the mechanism that plants have evolved to disperse seeds, so it would actually be "rewarding" for the plant. Perhaps it would be similar to a little orgasm. Now a raw fruit will most likely feel pain.

>Plants don't have a central nervous system or a brain.

So? does that automatically imply that it does not feel pain?

>What science generally understands under pain and suffering plants simply don't have.

Listen, I don't buy the science say this and science say that kind of arguments. ANY living being ( assuming we can settle for what can be called 'alive') will have a mechanism for self preservation, pain is one of them. The onus is on 'science' or people to prove otherwise.

Valid question only for a person who is vegan for 'ethical' reasons, who believes that some how plants are exempt from pain and suffering.

>but this is speculation from general observation.

Well you are actually correct, the loss of trust is never really addressed, and it cannot be. How can you even trust data from govt/pharmaceutical companies, let alone carefully analyze it?

jokethrowaway, I happened to look through your past comments. You may want to look at my profile and see if my version of non-conformism interests you.

aww_dang, I happened to look through your past comments. You may want to look at my profile and see if my version of non-conformism interests you.

My friend jokethrowaway, mises.org will trigger a lot of people. You have been warned, lol.

Too bad you are being down voted and being misunderstood. I fully agree with you that in this day given our over all productivity, humans should be able to, in theory able to design systems to minimize work without co-coercion. But as you partially correctly observed, typical human nature ( ranging from bureaucratic govts, to seeing survival as a zero sum game ) is a hindrance to achieving this goal. Where I completely disagree is that you will completely not change people's mind en masse even if you showed them a working example, so in a manner speaking any strategizing that one does is moot.

Thanks. These symptoms were always there with respiratory illness forever. And suddenly in 2021 these symptoms were given a new cause.

>In other words - is there something unique about Covid?

No is my guess, based on anecdotes, experience and observation.

Thank you, you have put it well. By no means I'm nature-knows-best person. But in this case nature does a great job in 'removing' CO2 by expending the least energy, with the least negative impact (actually a net positive) to the environment. Of course it's more nuanced than what even I stated. A wise engineer realizes the breadth of the issues and the 'true' engineering approach IMO will necessarily involve ( but not limited) a lot of trees/plants/algae etc.

lol, HN doesn't have a sense of humor, you have been downvoted.

Also the survival rate is calculated based on a 5 year survival after diagnosis. Since detections are made earlier patients will survive well past 5 years even if the treatments don't improve. so it would appear that survival rates are also getting better.

>"When will people wake up?" "Politicians don't care!" "Rich people are just greedy!" "Animals are dying!" "Science deniers!"

lol.

- It seems the debate is about 0.8°C temperature rise since 1880. The figure of 0.8°C in my opinion is not statistically significant for various reasons including thermometer inaccuracies, and normal variations of temperature. There seems to be a general agreement of increase in CO2. It appears that the most significant greenhouse ‘gas’ is water vapor, about 98%. I got these figures from a talk by a noble prize winner, who got around to checking the published figures.

- Statistics can be variously interpreted unless there is a huge significant differences. The 'significant' part is completely subjective.

- Media and govt need to keep the masses engaged on distractions with the news. If govt/people were truly serious about climate (or what ever is the correct terminology) change. They would be making radical changes not tiny changes. Example of a big change work places can be moved to places where people can walk to work. example of tiny feel good change that does nothing: separate recycle form other trash.

- Changing narrative from govt, in the 60s it was global cooling, which changed to global warming, and is now labeled as climate change. Notice that most people who take up these 'causes' are young. They have no any knowledge of what the narrative was in the 60s.

- In addition to manipulating numbers, all numbers can be cooked up with impunity, this is true for corporates, scientific establishments, govts. Barring exceptions there are enough incentives to lie, and generally disincentives if one were to tell the truth.

Note I'm not claiming that there is no climate change, there is not way for me or you to know that. I do know for a fact that the environment is indeed messed up big time. The smell/taste of air/food/water/products is telling. I don't think this is debatable. The environment should be first priority and perhaps the climate change will take of itself.

What I'm also skeptical is about the "mounds of evidence". And no, I didn't start out as skeptic decades back.

Check back my comment (the one that you responded to) some years from now and reach out to me if needed. I skimmed through your other comments on other subjects, you'll probably get there where I currently am. A weird response to your response I know...

Unless I see resonantly well documented rising temperatures, I'm not inclined to believe that there are climate extremes any different from what are normal variations. ( and no this does not mean we get a free pass to mess up the environment, which IMO need to be cleaned up big time).

People have very short memories, and often it is the _current_ summer/winter that appears to be the harshest to them, not the one that happened 20 years ago. Memories are even more shorter when it is generational.

Thanks for the summary.

>I like them.

I too liked them.

>seem really different in tone relative to the other ones.

Well the downfall of Amazon has started. Yes the 2 do stand out and in my opinion.

>They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun.

Fun at work? Which idiot came up with this? The definition of work is, what is _not_ fun. While it is critical to make work as tolerable as one can. Aiming to make it fun is either an exercise in naivety which will infantalize the workforce, or an act of insincerity.

Most firms who are going through a hiring process with you will ask you if you are in the process of being hired elsewhere. I think it's ok to say something thing like you have an existing offer on the table that you have not accept yet.

Why dismiss booleandilemma as misogynistic ?

My observations do match what he had to say, I estimate that a large number of marriages ( 50-80%)are dysfunctional and when a divorce happens, if you are a man in the first world you are screwed up financially and emotionally _permanently_ . The courts nearly always side with the woman. If young men need advice they need to see realty as it is.

> Management insists Jira stories be routed to new Epic.

Agile expert called in, who saves the day(night?)...

>That is a lie! And a very nasty one at that.

Nope. TaupeRanger's overall observations seem spot on.

>It's about recognizing how the entire system is stacked against working people and that these ultra-rich pay 0% in taxes, while I pay 30%.

Rather that have the rich also pay 30%, don't you think that it would be better if you too have to pay 0%?

>Democracy is just violence in disguise. Pure evil.

Slightly better way to put it IMHO: Democracy is the tyranny of the masses.

Simplicity is not for ordinary mortals. How many people did you think can wrap their head around simple taxation rules?

I hear ya...

That's the HN default I think.