onethought

If forestry planted it... is it "old growth" ?

And yes, animals could go live in it, even if it was planted.

What's your alternative? boycott wood? Let the trees fall and rerelease their carbon as they rot?

nor Andrew Wiles

It literally was a replacement for portraits.

Logging of the forest that the Tasmanian government planted, to log. Fear not, a Tasmanian tiger never saw the forest they are logging.

Environmentalists trip over themselves on what “old growth” means.

It is a renewable resource, and Tasmanian forestry is one of the most advanced and sustainable industries in the world.

Google incorporated in Ireland to gain tax benefits. They’ve been Irish ever since.

Just want to point out, it’s polarising because it’s a wedge issues that divides voting blocks neatly, and nothing to do with it being The Issue that it is.

More people die from obesity, cars, flu, preventable illness, etc. But we discuss endless this one issue… it’s for political science reasons not humanity/moral/etc reasons.

Duress pin should unlock a benign version with ai generated chats to ai generated friends about the latest benign topics.

In the Age of LLMs we could generate a fake digital existence as fast as we can delete a real one.

The goal is to appear like you complying without any evidence you are not. Graphene — build this feature!

Maybe you need to let them know.

They were founded in NZ by a NZer, they launch from NZ, their employees are NZers. Calling them a US company is equivalent to saying Google is Irish.

I think it’s more nuanced. Even a “coder” spends the majority of their time, not coding.

But you're ignoring the core point (in both your metaphor and in the argument at hand):

- If everyone took a Waymo... Waymo sucks. Not true of trains.

($/MW of power is stupid with nuclear in the age of solar and batteries, with basically zero safety concern... i.e. you can deploy solar and batteries to houses... not so much for nuclear)

Right so it’s not phones at all. We are really saying: turn it down - right?

I think this is the only meaningful point being made in this thread.

The sound from a phone speaker is annoying, more so, than a typical in person talking. To me the solution lies somewhere in fixing that to make it sound more natural.

Everyone else claiming that some how having “loud” conversation is rude, feels like they’ve fallen into some anti-social hole… we are literally the only animal to have developed complex spoken language… it’s part of our humanity.

How is that different than two people talking in person? Do you interrupt them as well?

That’s “widely available” — no one is buying them, so not “widely sold”

Or we could realise that they still have that lead, and they were limited in the US by US government policy that propped up Detroit for union/votes rather than economics/environment.

Meanwhile BYD had US money with a a friendly government enhancing it.

You shouldn’t be angry with Musk, you should be angry with Trump/Biden (ignore left/right they both let Asia take Battery and chip technology on their watch).

Not defending Elon, he’s clearly got some flaws, but Telsa’s expansion has been phenomenal, even with massive head winds against it, just look at Rivian, VW, Lucid, Ford, GM… or anyone if you want to talk about “squandering”.

I’m not sure id call Chevy widely sold, yet. Their full year sales don’t even match a single quarter of Tesla.

This isn’t true: “most” non-lfp batteries in EV context are Tesla. Which means they are cylindrical.

Or are you counting OEMs rather than actual vehicles?

I mean there is benefit to understanding competitor well as well?

But anyone didn't do it... you an expert in software development did it.

I would hazard a guess that your knowledge lead to better prompts, better approach... heck even understanding how to build a status bar menu on Mac OS is slightly expert knowledge.

You are illustrating the GP's point, not negating it.

Love that you are disagreeing with parent by saying you built software all on your own, and you only had 20 years software experience.

Isn't that the point they are making?

your heuristics is "last 50 years of US history", and you've now applied that to "That's how the whole multi planetary blob of humanity will operate".

I think "handywavy logic" is now being generous.

What about widening your heuristics to consider all of human history and see how much more freedom, autonomy and large scale coordination we have in place compared to say... the dark ages, or earlier.

Some handwavy logic there, both on why bubbles instead of terraforming and also why authoritarian control given bubbles.

Or we learn how to make uninhabitable planets habitable. Would also help us “save” this one.

(Funny how we say “save the planet” when we really mean “save people/complex life”).

A mean not to go too deep into whataboutism… but at least they only persecute their own Muslims rather than picking random countries on a map and persecuting them.

Immigration would be another option… but not sure how willing China is to adopt that

Imperialism? Expand.

If you flicked the switch and made voting mandatory. Then you'd find the extreme views on both sides would vanish as everyone would rush to please the middle (the VAST majority of the population).

You can't make statements like "you got out voted" when you actually mean "a few more people from your side turned out and voted, but actually likely the majority of the population doesn't agree with you".

You could argue that apathy is a vote in and of itself, but then you aren't a representative democracy.

You are confusing what "Appeal to Authority" fallacy is. Namely you are ignoring the fallaciousness of it.

The fallacy is where you use an authority in place of evidence. It is not fallacious to refer to consensus or experts.

Else, you end up basically in the "Do your own research"/vaccine denier/climate deniers/flat earth territory. Appeals to experts is not a logical fallacy. It's actually smart, because you get to leverage agreed facts (the earth is round) even though you've never actually been to space to see it for yourself.

Government organisations try to produce public good. Private organisations try to produce profit.

This is why “running a government like a business” is flawed, and treating all large organisations as the same, is also flawed.

> I don't know much about motorcycle riding, but it seems my heuristic works well.

If you don't know much about motorcycle riding, then maybe STFU. Also how could you judge if your heuristic works well, if you don't understand the topic?

GP is actually correct.