ulrashida

Too much grass has been touched if this one hasn't permeated to you yet.

The average age for scientific contributors was 29. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/L...

Did the DOGE 20-somethings also have the benefits of supervision from PhDs in various specialties? It's not the age alone, but the age in combination with other factors that make it concerning.

Please give an example of a statutory compliance item that "changes in real time".

That's not the way regulations work. Your compliance is measured against a fixed version of legislation.

Frankly, that passphrase should already have been established when you were a kid: it would have been used for if a stranger / unexpected person needed to give you a ride on behalf of your parents.

Ah yes, I am literate but I cannot read.

What do you consider shameful about this?

On the surface it looks like Maria fits the mold of previous winners pretty well other than perhaps her efforts are confined to her nation and have less global impact, but that isn't a requirement.

I find it impressive that she has managed to have this impact while at great personal risk.

Why do you think Canadians are restricted from criticizing government?

And yet even here it's not entirely factual -- the correct term is Democratic Senators. "Democrat" is a shortening often used for partisan purposes.

Unfortunately if you're asking this of yourself you are almost certainly burned out. Speaking as someone currently thinking the same thing -- all the times in my career where I was powering through this sort of thing never crossed my mind, it's only come up more recently as the hours have begun to climb.

Being middle age is a risk for sure, but also keep in mind you have only one or two big changes left before you're done. It matters more to get into a spot that can take you where you need to go.

Good luck with it.

Egg, meet face. Pretty funny that this was obviously "Google, find posts that prove my point" with nary a further shred of investigation.

There doesn't appear to be much of a point to the article.

Yes, because as we all remember there were no countries allied with Germany for any duration of the war.

It sounds like you should read the report.

"Life sucking for everyone" is not equal to the government of the day targeting a racial group for the multiple negative policies that were enacted. What level of injustice do you ascribe to taking children away from families if not extreme?

Apparently absent from Gee's approach: reductions to administration and management.

When a university cuts $800k from its library and keeps chartering jets for executives you know this is not going to be about what is best for society or students, no matter how folksy the president wishes to appear.

I would have greatly preferred a non-clickbait title for this.

Some news isn't valuable anymore. In the world we're going towards, wouldn't it be fair to expect that reliable/verified news will increase in value? Similarly, what is the true value of local news that would otherwise go unreported?

It's important to consider what someone would pay for news directly alongside the value that a healthy media ecosystem plays in a healthy society. It's not called the fourth estate because someone thought it would be fun.

It is bizarre that you don't think safe workplaces are a right. The life situation that leads to this view is equally fascinating and concerning.

That's true, but you can support a land tax without the other tenets of Georgism. It's unusually reductive.

I agree, it feels like NASA has been thrown in to create a veneer of respectability for these conclusions. NASA does publish regular sea level assessments (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/) so perhaps that's where this has come from. Nothing in their current reporting suggests that they would have jumped in the 90's from "sea levels are rising" to "countries are going to be wiped off the map tomorrow". It is still fair to say, however, that there are countries that are going to be significantly/existentially impact if the current trend of sea rise continues.

Within any scientific discipline there is a broader consensus and there are more bold exceptional claims on both the high and low points. One could safely argue the consensus view on this topic has been moving too slowly.

Kyoto was in 1995 and predicted 1.5-4.5 degrees of change in the mid-21st century. Hardly "12 years out" mate.

What has become more serious is that the incoming data and predictive models are starting to line up with greater accuracy and those forecasts are very worthy of concern. In the face of warnings that drawing down our bank account is going to leave us broke, is the answer "oh, I've been hearing that for a long time now, what's the worst that can happen"?

You appear to be making up your own narrative here.

In reality, climate science has gone from somewhat uncertain (around 1995: Kyoto) to progressively more certain as measurements have confirmed modellable outcomes.

Our need to change our behaviors has been increasingly important for the past few decades, it's only become an all-out emergency more recently as it's become painfully more obvious that large amounts of humanity are unwilling to change our economic preferences even when faced with obliberation.

McKinsey's product is McKinsey services.

Imagine all the effort that goes into marketing, networking, and greasing the wheels of business that goes into selling this and you'll more readily appreciate why McKinsey keeps appearing in spots they have no business being involved in. Their product isn't a good or sound outcome, it's paying the fee to be able to append "McKinsey said..." onto a decision.

It's hard to see a policy solution for this: if you're an authorized passenger for that seat you'd also be eligible to fly a plane and wreck it when you're not a passenger. There's no material reduction in risk (other than in this isolated instance) to the change.

Oh no! Anyway...

In flood prone parts of Australia it is quite common to list "property sits yy meters above 19XX flood level" as a premium signal to the risk averse.

I would suspect that this isn't standard as most properties are worse off by disclosing this information so it would be a net disadvantage to realtors (who often run these platforms).

This feels very dismissive of the efforts put in by genuine participants into the system. Exceptions and examples of malfeasance are not sufficient to indict all aspects.

At some point this is banging-head-against-wall grade stuff, so I'll probably stop here. You're in the right area on the sales tax example, but it suffers from the same belief construction and expression issues.

Let's play your example out in a conversation:

1: "I don't believe anyone should pay sales tax!"

2: "But you (someone who is anyone) do pay sales tax, are you a hypocrite?"

1: "Of course not. I have to, it's the law."

2: "So you believe nobody should have to pay sales tax, but they must when legally required?"

1: "Yes."

2: "Oh good, that seems reasonable. I also hate taxes."

In both cases it depends on how the belief is formed and expressed.

To build upon your examples:

Case 1 Belief: "I don't believe student loan debts should be forgiven." Action: Accepts student loan forgiveness. Outcome: Hypocritical. Action directly conflicts with the belief, ergo the belief is not truly held.

Case 2 Belief 1: "I don't believe student loan debts should be forgiven for everyone." Belief 2: "I believe I fall in the category of people who should have student loans forgiven." Action: Accepts student loan forgiveness. Outcome: Not inherently hypocritical, provided Belief 2 is expressed alongside Belief 1. Not disclosing belief 2 makes the behavior hypocritical, as to an observer only belief 1 is held.

To link this back to the example of Musk, if he expressed his belief as "I don't believe most firms need subsidies, but the ones to my firm are warranted for reason Y" that would help avoid hypocrisy. To my limited knowledge, that is not the approach he takes.

It's not hypocritical to believe something, but it is hypocritical to act in a way contrary to the belief you are espousing.

A usable definition of hypocrisy is "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform".

In this case, a belief that car companies should not be subsidized by government while simultaneously accepting subsidies from government. The act (accepting subsidies) does not match the stated belief (shouldn't accept subsidies).

To take it a step further, he could be less hypocritical if he changed his stance to along the lines of "there shouldn't be EV subsidies unless the company needs them to stay in business", but to my knowledge that is not his position.

Importantly, I'm asking for the original commenter to clarify their position. I'm not comparing any sort of fruit at this point other than pointing out the disparity at the federal level.

Do you have figures comparing "all-in" funding for both defense and education at the state and federal levels?

From casual inspection of the points posted so far, it seems like a more correct statement is: "The United States, nationally, funds education at about the same level as defense." If correct, I'd argue the initial poster's comment is inaccurate.