rscoots

That's not the US military's position and the linked article doesn't even make that claim.

(Had to wait since I was silently barred from posting due to 'karma'/downvotes. Not a great algo for public discussion imo, although I acknowledge this thread is now in the weeds. At the very least it should be made public and obvious that I cannot reply.)

1. The US did not make any sort of declaration 2. Not everyone with a walkie talkie will have this new guideline applied to them. Even just going off the article, someone with a radio could be treated with suspicion by these new guidelines, as they could be a spotter. 3. They are not defacto a "target" as described above^, although that is what the poster claimed.

The poster's statement was hyperbole to the point of being an outright lie.

Yea but you said the US "declared" "every" person w/ a radio a "target".

This story doesn't show any of the 3 words I put in quotes.

Edit: can I get an explainer on the downvotes to both my comments?

>just bribing the entire population of Afghanistan to not do things that the West doesn't like?

Lol we also did that.

>Then the US declared every man with a walkie-talkie was a legitimate target.

Anywhere I can find info on this?

There is such a thing as criminal negligence in choosing and attacking enemy targets.

But no, adding a whole bunch of emotional baggage to the act does not suddenly make any collateral death a war crime as you imply here.

Bombing runs are woefully innarcurate though, so the good thing is when we have better weapons we'll start using those instead. Unlike insurgency groups who will often kill civilians as a means. Think that was partly the above poster's point.

Why leave the 2nd 'point' go unchallenged because the poster might be stubborn?

Seems like a weird standard for a public conversation. I grant some may find it a less "valuable" one though.

>it’s just not going to be worth it to drive ICE.

You seem to be mixing market forces with government mandate here a bit. Why not still allow 1% ICE and see how the market reacts? Maybe you're right and it would result in near-0 but why enforce 0 ICE?

You asked me what would "make a bigger difference" after I said that surely other initiatives could allow for ay least some gas powered cars.

It seems you already agree with this so why argue?

Hmm so then what about 99%? Is that also "not enough". How could you possibly know?

We're talking about 100% of cars being fully electric, not a % reduction in emissions.

How about converting electrical generation away from coal and natural gas?

Clearly this would have a larger impact than allowing 1% of cars sold to be hybrid or gas.

Now how about a reason you'd want 100% of cars to be electric and not 99? What about 98? Have you done any actual analysis here or are you just reflexively making the largest demands possible?

Yea, looks like that source came out Dec 2019 which is after I first looked into this.

Very interesting & well written write up! Even though Wikipedia says "Better source needed" for whatever reason.

The author still casts a good amount of doubt on her claim though, and even assuming the existing evidence is correct she still couldve been 116 it says.

But yea as long as you don't have birth certificates or baptism records I guess that would always be true.

I remember seeing this article awhile back.

Really made me realize that sometimes simple, trivial things that everyone takes as fact really cannot be trusted.

The notion that Coco the gorilla could do sign language was another one that stuck with me.

Anyways, I think the best evidence 'against' Jeanne is that no other super-old person simply looked (both outwardly and physiologically) like someone 20 years thier junior. All the medical evidence points to her not actually being the age she claimed she was.

I'm of the opinion the 2nd place woman is also not legitimate. She probably just lied about her age so she could marry and then lived incredibly long. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Knauss

There are obviously hundreds of initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, across many countries.

It's up to you to defend the 100% reduction number I'd say, which is the whole point I'm making.

Why not 99% for example?

>no matter how painful.

Why put unnecessary strain on your society to get from a 90% reduction to a 100% reduction if there are other initiatives that can be more easily accomplished and make that 10% look like small peanuts in comparison?

The answer is no one is gonna actually do this and this specific 100% number is just Govt and Businesses cynically trying to bargain.

I only mean that how 'well' billionaires personally decide to spend their money might not be a solid barometer for how tax laws should be written.

Point taken tho

Lol where do you think the vast majority of the money went to? American aerospace engineers' paychecks.

Although I think they should probably be taxed more, those hyper billionaires tend to give huge amounts to charity too. And it's not always for shamefully self-serving/partisan purposes such as Bezos propping up the Washington Post.

Better? Maybe not

More democratic? Yes

PC is a poor descriptor, and yes urgent and extreme action is necessary. But why does that action have to include going 100% electric on an impractical timeline? Surely there are debateble aspects to this approach, and probably other sources of carbon emission that can be more easily reduced, thereby allowing for at least some gas cars.

Do you really believe the entire country of India will be selling no gas powered cars by 2030? Surely this is just an overly-aggressive starting point by governments that they can further bargain on?

You'll note that the current VP and various MSNBC & CNN hosts & contributors casted major doubts on the vaccine when it seemed it would be released in time for Trump's reelection cycle.

It really is turtles all the way down with the media and political parties. It's time to remove the artificial divides in your mind and fight these issues from a more party-agnostic position. We need your help.

>Meanwhile, if I suggested doing housing for all, healthcare for all, etc on an island with only 2000 people, you’d tell me that was too few people and you can’t do it that way.

No?

>Test scores don’t reflect the character-forging aspects of life as a poor teenager;

One of these two is a better metric for who will actually pass college courses though.

I think the variables here are how tenuous the current name is, and also how cool/enduring the replacement name is.

Mt McKinely -> Denali is another great example.

I think these factors will usually be stronger than any moral dimension.

If it means nothing then why change it?

Disagreements about cultural norms have to be fleshed out and argued on some front. Let's be glad we live in a society where it's as trivial as naming telescopes.

Underlying point I'd say is a concern, even if the specific example might not be applicable.

Thanks for the article on that!

>That said, they can ban distribution of misleading content. It's their right, and no one can dispute that. I'm not sure what people hope to accomplish by expressing outrage over this.

Since when is encouraging mega-corporations to act morally a bad thing? Or some sort of waste-of-breath, as you imply here.

>For example, if I create a fake video urging people to vote illegally, or at the wrong time

Just so you know, this is a federal crime so Google is legally required to remove such content. So that specific example doesn't really apply.

>anyone who uses a social network is implicitly consenting to that network's filtering of information.

In what way does this make censorship the morally right thing to do? Think of all the evil large corporations have tried to justify with statements like that^ over the years.

"Our billions of users should have known we were gonna pull the wool over their eyes!"

>many alternatives for sharing information beyond Google drive

You'll be disturbed to learn then that every major social network heavily censors information in an opaque manner.

What about the elderly or others who might only know how to use Facebook or YouTube? Fuck em?