wtdata

Of course they did. For some reason in today's popular culture, we have this strange idea that the common knowledge that the Earth was round, only came to be after the 16th century.

That's totally wrong, common people knew the Earth was round for 2 millennia in the old world.

In the new world, surely the Maia knew it as well given their extremely advanced astronomical knowledge for the time. Incan astronomy, although not as advanced, was still quite sophisticated, they surely understood moon ecplipses well enough to get that the Earth was round.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth

From various other discussions and clear examples in HN, in my opinion: hard sciences aren't political, soft sciences are clearly political.

The ecology of our planet doesn't care about the political leaning of whoever is burning their forests or polluting the planet. Global environment changes exactly the same when it was the hard-left of Lula and Dilma burning Amazon, or when it is now the hard-right of Bolsonaro doing the same.

The real problem here, is that some people are only interested in hearing nice words from whoever is presiding a country, not in what consist the actual concrete actions of a government.

My point is that, at least other governments, were aware of it for a long time. In my opinion they are only raising the concern now for political gain (at least in cases like Macron).

But I agree, let's do it now, it really needs to be done as soon as possible, but, it can't depend its continuation and the countries it gets applied to, on whatever political wing is in power there.

The action needs to be global, with clear rules, and applied on every case, no exceptions.

Besides this, there are reports from serious agencies (NASA is one of them) stating that what is happening on Amazon is on par with what has been happening at least in the previous 15 years (I think that's how far their data goes). [1]

I am lead to believe that all the media attention in this past week to the problem, is a mix of political staging and sensacionalism. If it was really due to environmental concerns, the same responses we are seeing now, would have already happened many years ago under Lula and Dilma governments, given that the scale of the problem is the same.

[1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...

If you are given them while married and then continue to use them after a divorce, no I don't think so.

Imagine it was the keys to her personal apartment she had in her name during marriage. It would not be ok for her husband to enter there after they were divorced.

Can you clarify your rationale about why France banned paternity tests?

Most of the complains seem to be from people preferring a physical medium for their Kanban board.

Well, I agree with them, but I work with a team from all around the world and we only get physically together every 3 months.

Although I am still not sold into all this Agile/Scrum philosophy, the fact remains that it made our remote work as a team actually manageable when before (using email/slack) it was simply not.

Your facts are completely wrong.

China now produces more CO2 that all other 1st world countries together [1], while having increased their emissions by 300% in the last 30 years and are set to increase them a further 30% during the next 10. [2]

USA maintained their emissions during the past 30 years and are set to slightly reduce them in the next 10. [3]

EU reduced their emissions by 25% during the last 30 years, and are set to reduce them a further 20% during the next 10. [4]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

[2] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/

[3] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/usa/

[4] https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/eu/

You mean, with President Temer?

We all want to stop the fires, but the fires are the same as they ever were. This isn't about the fires, if it was, the sanctions would have taken place already during Dilma or Lula's government:

"As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years." [1]

[1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...

Serious question, what do you define as trans hate (in regard to the people you are talking about)?

This is because, what you may be describing as "trans hate" may simply be someone that simply doesn't accept the non scientifically proven theory of gender fluidity. And may be people that simply are stating that transgenderism should be approached and supported like other cases of body dysphoria.

> I think they just overestimated the ability of their employees to respect each other when they hold differing world views. That's kinda natural once you reach a certain size and your colleagues may as well be randos on the street.

I think it is not so much due to size, but due to the extreme ideological polarization of American society during the last decade.

When before it was normal to hear and accept - and god forbid, even stay friends- with people that had different political opinions from yours, as of late, that has become quite difficult.

I am under the impression it was never a debate to start with. A debate implies that both sides are allowed to speak their arguments, yet, Google was actively shutting down and firing people that defended one of the sides.

Sure, why doesn't your second option call for all countries to pay Brazil then? Instead of just western countries.

I can even accept that richer countries could pay somewhat more. But, still, there are a lot of non-western countries that are quite rich. So, why only western countries should pay?

So, you are saying that non-Western countries just don't care about destroying the ecology of our planet?

P.S. My country has been planting vast areas of forest since the 13th century for economic purposes. Not sure what you mean by "Everyone else has had the luxury of exploiting their land", since here (and in most of the EU) we have vast areas of forest and actually took care of them.

Our countries have a lot of forest. This eternal apologizing of the greatest culprits of ecological catastrophe (i.e. mostly non-Western countries), is the actual problem.

People following your ideology don't care about global warming, they care about blaming the West (the ones making an effort to clean things up) at every turn while giving a pass to the countries actually polluting the planet (just as long as they aren't westerners).

This is a rain forest, Western countries don't have those, that's why it's special.

EU, USA, Canada, etc. have a lot of forest per country area, we actually took care of it or at least replanted what was destroyed centuries ago.

How about if Western countries simply stop doing business with you instead? Better yet, how about if Western countries take hold of that territory from you in order to properly manage it?

Why do you have this notion that Western Countries must be perpetually paying up to clean the mess non Western countries do?

Interesting, I always wondered when visiting the UK, why they have such a similar name for such a distinct product, now I understand.

Also, I pretty much identified about the part of the article where they talk about comparing the colour and consistency. As a child I really didn't like the lighter coloured and/or less consistent marmelada, probably because I was used to the dark orange and heavily consistent one - as done by my family. It doesn't say in the text, but in order to be made consistent, it is left to "dry" at the sun (by a window inside the house) covered only by cellophane paper for several weeks.

Do you understand Portuguese? That slide is nothing about what this article is reporting.

For anyone that doesn't understand Portuguese, this slide is about how the government feels threatened by what they see as (even agreeing that would be paranoid) a disinformation campaign orchestrated by NGOs, media, and other actors.

Also, besides this slide having nothing to do with the article being discussed here, it also begs the question on why we should trust an agency that was openly anti Bolsonaro and pro PT (the opposing party) in the elections without any substantial proof but showing a photo of a slide.

That is something that unfortunately happens almost every year: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/437017.stm

I don't particularly trust Bolsonaro, his constant twisting of the truth and his ignorance should put us all on alert.

But seriously, this is an article about an agency that is openly anti-bolsonaro and pro PT [1] (his opposing party) claming to have seen a supposed PowerPoint with incriminating evidence (with no source to the PowerPoint and much less any proof of its origin). We can't allow ourselves to drop to this level, it is no better than a witch-hunt this way.

[1] https://nocaute.blog.br/2018/10/15/democracia-abierta-adere-...

EDIT: It's really interesting to see I am being downvoted for stating an inconvenient truth. Got to love ideological blindness.

You do understand that the title of the wikipedia article - and its main point - is about the rape of French woman by American soldiers on the aftermath of D-Day, right?

It is weird then, that the all world wants (and feels entitled) to come through our borders and live under our western rules instead the other way around.

From the article: "Given that women have been the majority of the undergraduate student body in many countries for the last three decades, one can no longer argue that equality can be achieved by simply waiting for young female scholars to emerge at the end of the academic “pipeline."

Isn't having less men as undergrads and grads, sexism as well? This time against men?

If the principle being proposed by the author of the article, is that "not having equal outcomes is sexism", then one should expect the ones demanding that principle, to extend it to every situation, not only to the situations that suit their personal ideology.

It is a question of basic coherence, really.

I think that once the people running Hollywood realized they can make a consistent profit from running the same stories over and over again, they lost all appetite for risk and for trying out new things.

The end result is endless reboots and sequels at the box office.

> Perhaps if they hadn't raped, pillaged, and plundered their way through Europe they would've seen a bit more celebration from their erstwhile allies.

Makes you wonder why Americans did get that celebration then:

"In 1945, after the end of the war in Europe, Le Havre was filled with American servicemen awaiting return to the States. A Le Havre citizen wrote to the mayor that the people of Le Havre were "attacked, robbed, run over both on the street and in our houses" and "This is a regime of terror, imposed by bandits in uniform."[4] A coffeehouse owner from Le Havre testified "We expected friends who would not make us ashamed of our defeat. Instead, there came only incomprehension, arrogance, incredibly bad manners and the swagger of conquerors."[6] Such behavior also was common in Cherbourg. One resident stated that "With the Germans, the men had to camouflage themselves—but with the Americans, we had to hide the women."" [1]

I wonder if it had anything to do, with the much better implemented propaganda machine, USA had in Western Europe after WWII.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_liberation_of_...

> Trying to reduce the war down to any one side is, IMHO, wrong and suspect.

Exactly. Just look at how many times Allied victory in WWII in Europe is reduced to D-Day. It's highly wrong and suspicious.