fdschoeneman

It might be. Probably. I don't know. All I know is that if people who do believe in the climate apocalypse say that CO2 generation from lng would make the problem worse, not better; whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I accept that they genuinely do believe it to be true. And so, if I do take them at their word, and use their logic, and assume they understand math, then they must also support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear.

If they do not argue for an immediate and massive expansion, I'm forced to conclude they either a) are lying about what they call the science, b) are lying about their belief in apocalyptic scenarios, c) don't understand math, or d) some combination of a, b, and c.

That seems like a circular argument. Solar and storage are cheaper because of massive subsidies, they don't adequately account for externalities like the environmental impact of lithium mining, and benefit from streamlined zoning and aggressive variances. Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to stand up at least in part because the state doesn't favor it.

The state can absolutely reduce costs and speed up plant construction in a way that is safe, and which is less vulnerable to bad weather, and which does not create as many energy storage problems.

Pursue wind and solar at the same time if you like, but the math climate scientists claim to understand requires them to also push for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear.

I find it suspicious that they do not, and that they never have.

That is a fair analysis and a fair opinion to hold. Does this mean you do not believe in one or more of the more apocalyptic climate scenarios? Because if you do, but not in the need for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, you may benefit from further research on the math around world energy production and consumption.

I know enough about what you call the scientific community writ large, and the scientific method, and the specific people who call themselves climate scientists to say that a) I don't pay very much attention to science unless it's falsifiable, b) there is no consensus on which climate models by which environmentalists have predictive value, c) the IPCC has been consistently wrong in its predictions for as long as I've been reading them, and d) that science is not decided by a majority vote.

It's pretty easy to figure out whether or not Republicans might support an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. Since you don't sound like you tolerate Republicans, let alone like you are on speaking terms with enough of them that you could ask, I'd recommend you consult some polls of Republicans on the question. According to one study by Pew, 2/3rds of them support the construction of new nuclear plants. Which is to say, Republicans are more likely to support what you call the right thing than Democrats.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/18/growing-s...

All 8 states are run by Democrats. The bans are ultimately motivated by Democratic Party leaders and influencers who believe a) that climate is changing, b) that this change is for sure going to lead to a climate apocalypse which will kill billions of people and irrevocably destroy the ecosystem, c) that the anthropogenic component of this climate change is decisive, d) that the portion of anthropogenic change due to Co2 emissions is also decisive, and that the decisive factor in Co2 emissions comes from consumption of fossil fuels.

Which are all fine. I don't know enough to question their beliefs.

But I do know enough about math and engineering to know that the only realistic way to deal with the disaster they are predicting is an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power. But instead of arguing in favor of this immediate and massive expansion of nuclear power, which Republicans would likely support, they push stuff like this.

If you believe it was an abuse of human rights, you should have refused to comply.

If "everything" was the same as a technological economy" it would be an accurate paraphrase. But those two are not the same things. And while you're welcome to disagree, you're not welcome to waste any more of my time.

I did read the manifesto, and while we can all benefit from more education, you, specifically, would benefit from learning what a straw man is.

Hint: All I have to do to prove the rebuttal relies on a straw man is to show that it mischaracterized or meaningfully distorts the ideas in the manifesto. I have done that.

I don't know you and I'm not your friend.

I have since read the manifesto and while it was always obvious even without reading the manifesto that the author of this piece distorted it, I can now say for sure that he distorted it.

It's a straw man.

I have now read the manifesto. It is clear that you attempted to pass off a distorted and inaccurate paraphrase as his words. You should not have done that. It was dishonest and you have wasted everyone's time.

I just searched Andreesson's manifesto and I cannot find the phrase you are attributing to him.

It's very clearly a distortion and not a valid summary of the manifest. Monopolies and captured regulators are not the same thing as "guardrails" in the authors summary.

You may benefit from reading about what straw man arguments are before commenting further.

Did Andreesson argue that fire services should be privatized in his manifesto?

Damn. Now I must read it immediately.

Thanks for the assist, amigo

A straw man is a distorted or mischaracterized recapitulation of another person's argument. This distorted argument can then more easily be attacked. It's a very common way for politicians, ideologues, and other dumb people to argue. Sometimes, fair or unfair, a straw man argument can even be effective at winning over a crowd.

In this case the writer is distorting what Andreesson wrote in order to attack it. Here's an example:

"...it’s part of a broader movement that seeks to take all the guardrails off of technological development and push forward with “progress,” whatever the cost may be."

One thing I can say with almost 100% certainty - even though I have not read the manifesto -- is that Andreesson would never make such a stupid argument. Only an idiot would make such a dumb and absolutist argument, and only a politician or other dishonest person would try to assign such a dumb argument to her ideological opponent.

I've no doubt that readers of gizmodo, big government socialists, and many of their fellow travelers found this piece and it's writer to be a fresh new voice for the deep state and managerial classes. But I'm underwhelmed.

Well it did catch my eye. I need to publicize an open source project I'm working on soon, so perhaps I can learn from the techniques used.

Maybe I will write badly on why my project will fail, encouraging rubberneckers...

I'm sure there are intelligent criticisms of Andreesson's manifesto, but this piece doesn't seem to contain any. I stopped reading after the second straw man argument it made.

The best I can say of this piece is that it made me aware of the existence of this manifesto. I don't think I'll be able to sleep without finding and reading it.

I appreciate you for coming to this form and soliciting input. There are a lot of smart people here and they're likely to have good opinions.

My own opinion, though, is that regulations like this should only be written when no reasonable alternative to them exists and as a last resort. And I think there is still plenty of room and time for industry to come up with its own certification programs, kind of like organic certifications in food. What actions have you taken or do you plan to take to encourage industry to take care of this without being forced to at the point of a gun?

I've never heard of anyone quitting because they objected to being told something which they find complicated is "simple," so this seems like a straw man.

I think a lot of people think about how best to teach complicated ideas. Maybe like me, they really aren't that smart, or even just feel like they aren't that smart, and when they read from an expert or an instructor or a professor that a thing is simple, that voice inside their head that is constantly telling them they're dumb or worthless gets louder, and they wonder if that vouce is right, and that the idea they are trying to understand is simple for people who aren't impostors and they should probably give up and shoot themselves.

Your professor used the word "trivially" in a stupid way. Similarly, technical writers and instructors use "simple" in a stupid way. Objecting to stupid language from teachers and technical writers that makes them less effective at their jobs doesn't make me a baby any more than celebrating it makes you an adult.

I don't think people who use words like this intend for their audience to feel stupid. But I don't see how they are helpful.

I mean by language some difference in words or voice. For example, instead of describing what NPR's chief executive did, the author could have written about what his boss did.

I'm not sure I care. To me, state funded is the same as state affiliated. The important thing is not that npr is labelled one way or the other. Everyone knows what NPR is and what the BBC is. Most fair people figure they have a bias but that sometimes they still do good work. The important thing is that by being consistent, and by labelling journalists and media brands like RT and the Chinese state media organs using the same rules we apply to npr and the BBC, we help information consumers understand when they're likely being propagandized.

I think they should make it clear in the first paragraph when they are, in effect, writing about themselves or their employer. That's what I would have done.

You're right. I either missed it or the disclaimer was added after I first read the piece.

I think I'd have preferred it be up front in the first paragraph, and that the writer used language making it clear he was talking about his own company and not NPR as an entity he was able to be objective about. That's what I'd have done.

I'm sure NPR does some good work, and while I believe it is biased, I've found it to be less biased than CNN or MSNBC. I don't understand why NPR objects to being labeled as either state funded or state affiliated. It was established by an act of Congress, for one thing, and according to its own website, and its own disclosures, it does depend on federal funding. And that figure is substantially more than the claimed 1%. The 1% funding figure is misleading because it implies that the only kind of state funding is that coming directly from the federal government. The figure is much higher when you consider indirect state funding, the fact of NPR taking in dues from affiliates that are substantially dependent on federal grants or state and local grants or money that comes from public schools and public universities, all of which are funded by or subsidized by government.

In addition to the 1% figure being a lie, the writer of this piece failed to disclose that he is literally an employee of NPR. I guess it wasn't difficult to find out, but still...

I understand why Biden, his administration, fauci and the CDC lied. The telephone game effect is real. And sometimes lies are well I intentioned, if stupid. But that doesn't change the fact that they all lied to us.

There are some crazy anti vaxxers who are responsible for some of this, but those people were doing their crazy before the pandemic. While they may account for some of this vaccination rate reduction, it's unlikely to account for all of it. Governments worldwide, Joe Biden, his administration, Fauci in particular and the CDC, and all the vaccine makers lied. Some of the lies were big and some were small but so many of them seemed unnecessary. Combined with censorship of legitimate medical and scientific opinion by social media platforms under threat state punishment, therefore, it seems the most likely explanation for this reduction is loss of trust in our medical establishment and authorities. Parents think the lockdowns were stupid. And they were. They think the vaccinations were unnecessary. And they were. They were lied to. And some of them now believe everything these same incompetent liars are saying about other vaccines, including polio and flu, is also a lie.

Trust is difficult to gain and easy to lose. The medical community should have understood this. It should have spoken up. It should not have allowed secret censorship. It have done the right thing. It did the wrong thing and now the rest of have to pay.

Yes, they should search their souls.

Why though? What public interest does this serve? I'm a veteran. I support your right to post links to the location of Elon's jet, or links you can follow to find same, in the same way I'd die to protect some shitbird's right to burn a US flag or kneel during the anthem, but what are you trying to accomplish? Other than to make yourself look like a jerk?

Did you watch the same video I did? It's easy to see this as something other than petulance. It's not complicated. Elon is scared for his family. That's a very human thing. In his place I'd do everything I could to protect them. The elonjet account was a security risk to a public figure in the same way that publishing the home address of Supreme Court Justices is a legitimate security risk -- and in the same way that it led to an attempted assassination of Judge Kavanaugh.

It's not that complicated. This is a credible threat to his family and Musk is scared. I'd be scared, too. I'd have shut down the jet account and any account linking to it as well. If you think you'd have done something different, you're a liar or a robot or a fool.

There are some legitimate things to pick on Musk for. This isn't one of them.

Ad hominem? I don't know if you know this, though you probably don't, but 'ad hominem' is a category of logical fallacy, committed when one argues that one's opponent's argument is wrong because he is, por ejemplo, an asshole or a pedophile or a loser or a dildo. At no point have I argued that your position is logically incorrect because you are an asshole. I've only ever argued that you are incorrect because your logic is dumb.

Move along.