Enormous quantities of elderly people who will need to be hospitalized, and without will get added to the death toll.
1,570 karma · joined November 6, 2014
The United States has a very individualistic attitude. Sure, we can pause travel from Europe, but the current administration is very anti-europe. Can we pause travel in the US? I strongly doubt that we can effectively given the strong anti-expertise attitudes as well.
My guess is that the United States will become a more major hot spot for the virus than other locales. It will spread rapidly and the supply hoarding and sad state of our medical system will mean that in a few months, other nations will be rejecting flights from the US.
It's a prediction, a guess, but there are aspects of our culture that just makes it seem very likely. I'm not going to make any more predictions than the idea that we'll have more cases per capita than any other developed nation.
It's be interesting when I'm proven incorrect over time.
This is exactly the service that I would imagine other gamers would want, as well. It seems almost petty to torrent when this is available.
I'd go further than what Mr. Brooks offers in his assessment of the situation, but like all things ideas exist on a continuum. I would much rather try to build a tribal group than try to find dating partners.
I absolutely see your point, though, this idea that we can give everyone in the United States access to health care is revolutionary! Exciting, compassionate, and revolutionary!
We have the opportunity to clear some of the institutional sclerosis that weighs at our society and economy. I really hope it happens.
1) Understand the material I'm learning. 2) Put explanations of any algebraic procedures (for instance, the dot product of two vectors) as a flip card. 3) Put a single example of doing the work in a flip card.
For important proofs, I put them in Anki using Cloze deletion. I just drop in the whole proof, and knock out portions. This has been extremely effective in remembering and understanding the proofs. I also do this for geometric explanations of procedure.
This is definitely not overkill, and creates cards that you can go over really quickly. Ever since I have begun doing so, I have found that it is far easier for me to apply what I have learned, and that I can more easily understand the options that I have for finding solutions to problems, because I have all of the options available without requiring me to look over old information. It's just there.
Ever since taking Barbara Oakley's classes (Learning How to Learn and Mindshift), I have been a more productive and emotionally stable human being, and my ability to learn and understand the information that I am learning has exploded. One of the most important things I remember mentioned in that class was that memorization and understanding are actually quite tightly linked.
There are things that I have dealt with in the real world that would have been solved by math lessons that I've forgotten since I left University twenty years ago. I was never very good at studying because of anxieties and procrastination. The simple fact that I know I'm going to put information into Anki allows me to concentrate and gives me procedure no matter what I'm trying to learn, regardless of source (readings, lectures, etc.). I wish I had this ages ago.
But why do we even discuss it when there is a whole cohort of salaries that actually make no sense in comparison: All of the VP's, CEO's, etc... even stock holders just wasting efficiency collecting dividends from existing wealth and the productivity of others. Why are tech people trying to defend their salaries when we could just point at the next people up the chain?
I wonder if something like this would be allowed: if all the public information was available in a well-collated format, then can scrapers be blocked? I imagine that will eventually be fought in court as well.
Personally, I don't think it runs up against the first amendment to limit the use of such a blatant emotional/mental hack.
Any issues in plant agricultural production will be felt many times over in prices for meat (either via subsidy or at the counter) than in prices for plants.
When all is said and done and we've defeated climate change, the future generations will look back and wonder how we could have been so callous about the beautiful cacophony of life we had. All of this unnecessary political naysaying won't change it, but if you're seriously asking this question out of frustration that nothing is being done, then advocate.
While my wife and I are doing well financially and professionally at the moment, these events have made us distrustful of the current economic model of low taxes and high wealth, which I am practically certain leads to these hours of economic malaise. We had our first at a relatively young age, and the realities of our wealth and savings are not as good as the author of this piece... We only have one salary, which is a particularly huge benefit.
Regardless, one can only hope we decide that a well educated populace is such an improvement to general welfare that we don't continually stuck the costs of raising children on the parents alone. I know that there are tax benefits, but those are a joke.
The same is true for the huge numbers of empty Walmarts throughout the US. We should have made them escrow demolition costs at the time the building was made.
If you put the costs at the very end then all of the trash will still be produced, but nobody could throw it away. Our entire society saves production and reduces waste if you punish the producers of that waste instead.
This appears to be the only important statement in everything that you wrote requiring some kind of response. I can say, quite certainly, that this is not the case, but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing.
You made a statement about the following:
> > I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding.
> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it?
This is, quite literally, creating a conspiracy from thin air without proof. Climate science is so unnecessarily controversial at this point, that if any evidence existed that scientists were lying to make more money, business leaders would be touting it at every turn. However, there is plenty of evidence that scientists that deny climate change are in it for the money:
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-ma...
> As a Washington Post article explains, “in the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists.”
> The contrarian voice of these funded-skeptics hides the fact that basically the entire scientific community agrees the crisis is real and caused by humans, promoting the myth of disagreement.
Do you hold the same opinion of scientists that deny climate change? Offered evidence, will you change that opinion? This article might not be definitive proof, but proof of these actions by the fossil fuel industry is widely available. With this information, my theory of epistemology can treat scientists who suggest that Climate Change is happening and human caused is fact, and that those that deny it are most likely disingenuous. If you don't agree, then it is likely that we cannot share epistimological solidarity. It's not an emotional statement, just a statement of fact. You might suggest that I am reaching my conclusion illogically. It might even be true. It doesn't change the fact that our epistemologies differ.
IOW, I responded primarily to a statement that is a widespread conspiracy theory, and therefore propaganda, by calling it what it was, not by making assumptions about who you are, and how you think. I simply made a reply based on what you wrote. I, on the other hand, can present a real conspiracy (not propaganda) by pointing out how various industries have disingenuously used media (and thus human emotion and failing human intuition) to argue against human caused climate change. That actually exists, and is a statement of fact, unless you differ from me in epistemology.
Further, you reference the book "Thinking Fast and Slow", while defending a statement of intuition:
> I also happen to harbor this suspicion
In response, I gave you the ultimate 'slow thinking' path that I follow myself: education. Until I have that education, then I must fall back on the expertise of others.
Further, I'm extremely aware of the fact that we need the public to buy in, and that we need political will to deal with Climate Change. Extremely, frustratingly, aware.
I do not harbor this same suspicion, however, I'm determined to learn whatever is necessary to understand it. Not because I can argue a point to completion for someone who doesn't share epistemological solidarity with me, but because it might allow me to aid in whatever needs posterity has in solving the problems we are creating today. In that interest, I will eventually complete the following course:
https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming
Or something like it, especially some atmospheric chemistry courses. I feel as if you should do so as well, as it's the only way to understand the scientific position, if all you are going to do otherwise is attack them with conspiracy theory (which should be easily provable - there will be documented cases of people lying to get their data published... just look at Andrew Wakefield) or using ad-hominem ('they are just trying to make money').
> I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way.
There are also classes that teach you how to climate model and the science behind them. In order to do most statistics classes, they recommend completing multivariable calculus. All of these courses are available for free.
Further, you want to disabuse others of speculation, but you haven't taken the work to do so yourself.
Now, you could go ahead and do all the work above for every scientific point of view that you want to challenge. I myself am currently taking several classes to understand this and the challenges in ML/AI at a deeper level.... OR you can note that 95%+ (and probably well higher than that) of climate scientists recognize that human cause climate science is fact, and appeal to expertise, which is distinct from appeal to authority.
Climate change is real, it's going to be awful, it's changing our ocean chemistry already, and there are more pollution related ecological events to come that will reduce the carrying capacity of our home drastically. If you disagree, do the science, but definitely realize that _you_ are the one speculating.
Regardless, widespread education is of tantamount importance. It will give our society greater meaning.
The inertia that this has created frustrates me deeply. Of course there is value to a broad liberal education that includes STEM, philosophy and art. That should be obvious. The fact that our economic system cannot reward the great effort that people go through to get them is a failure of the economic system, not of the education system (edit: there is plenty to condemn in the education system, for instance the cost, and the fact that many college degrees are only job preparation programs now, and the general free market/business take over of education).
The "employers" are at fault. Until we can release the stagnation of monetary flows in the US, we are going to have these issues. Unfortunately, based on the current state of regulation, I imagine that the monetary flows that are most likely to occur will be the allowance of those already wealthy to take their money elsewhere. Reading Foreign Policy magazine has made me aware of what it will mean to live in a waning US, and this is obviously a symptom.
What should not be learned from this is that there are high caliber people, but instead that these traits call be learned, and I'm certain that there are schools teaching them, but I assume that those are quite foolishly only offered to specific subsets of people here, and that we will see further advancement in other societies as they find solutions to that exact problem by advancing educational practice through scientific experimentation on a national scale.
I've also tried to keep my learning carried with lots of reading. The most academic book of the year I had was"energy and civilization".
I would strongly recommend learning how to learn to help formulate a learning plan and making sure you get the right level of challenge.
Last year, I've been on a learning binge myself, due to the fact that I want to understand the underlying workings of the technologies that are shaping our near future. In this interest, I have taken what little time I have (with a job and two children) to relearn the baseline college mathematics that I've lost from my apathy towards serious continuing education. I first completed the course "Learning How to Learn" and applied the practices within to courses in Calculus and Physics. I'm close to completing Single Variable Calculus on the OCW website on MIT.
I was never a great student, and it could be just because, as I think I've discovered, I'm just a slow learner. My early educational talents and successes were due to a lot of early reading that I did, but it's clear to me that it takes a lot of repetition before I start to understand a subject, and I often have to go back over lectures, then read the associated notes, and run through a ton of practice problems (which I then put into anki) before I grasp a subject. Due to this my learning has been slow (along with the two kid situation), but I'm certain now that I have a much better grasp of the subject matter than I did when I was twenty. I'm not suggesting I'm smarter with age, what I am suggesting is that I didn't have study habits that allowed me to flourish.
Clearly, the current educational models that we are using in our schools are failing students like me who get a good head start due to early reading, but can't learn fast enough to keep up in a classroom environment. It is clear from what I've learned about the learning process from Barbara Oakley and others that the actual processes that we put in place are further suboptimal for the learning process, but the ways that we set up our education system are not the result of experimentation. If I were to surmise their source, I would say that they are explicitly designed to fail, so that we can excuse reduced spending in public education systems.
Still, these self-study courses are great for people like me, as long as you are permitted to study at your own rate. This is important as I'm going to guess that perserverance is as important as intelligence when it comes to advancing to the point where you can aid research teams. I predict that nations that automate educational models (as well as hiring a broad staff of educators, lecturers, and tutors) that are successful will have a much larger impact on the future of the information age than they did in previous eras.
Too many mistakes in it now that I read it again. I shouldn't use my phone for text entry.
I've anecdotally watched the practice of intermittent fasting in the way described (but using a 8 hour window) improve the love of those around me and for preparation for athletic events otherwise. I hope that more analysis in this space allows people to live healthier and more meaningful lives.
We should not default to geoengineering. We should default to reduction of carbon pollution, obviously, then when it isn't enough, start geoengineering, which will probably also be necessary.
The start with geoengineering faction is just a few steps away from the "it isn't happening" crowd.
This is an article encouraging you to calm down and sit down. It's a careful cherry-pick of data, something that the IPCC report is not, and something that is extremely common in contemporary opinion pieces.
We should not be rosy about climate change or other pollution related issues. There exists massive quantities of evidence that can be covered at hacker news, and seeing this disinformation here when we have access to actual scientific information about climate change shocks me.
Ultimately, we have a choice: work hard to build the government that we want, or allow it to falter to the energies of the billionaire class. Or, even worse, allow the billionaire class choose the government that they want.