countrymacsocularpatdown
Country Mac's Ocular Patdown
countrymacsocularpatdown

The idea that Poynter is trying to hold someone to account for fact checking when their new tool to spot “fake news” was immediately discredited to the point that they had to remove is the best part about this article. Poynter subbed their tool out to the recently discredited SPLC whose staff (in various media pieces

In CA, you would definitely get caught putting up solar. It isn’t particularly discreet to be up on your roof self-installing panels. The panels would then be visible for the city/county to cite you. 

And the fact that you need a new roof first implies it’s an older house, less likely to actually survive through the potential lifespan of PV panels.”

It makes sense in places where wildlife on the ground can be sketchy, but makes almost zero sense in the US. 

Says the person who thinks two different, conflicting studies are actually just a confidence interval. It ain’t that. I am just saying that a projection that can never (or at least currently can’t) be verified against actuals in a meaningful way isn’t a projection one can trust because at no point can you ever

And those employees benefits via wage labor. The entire point of capital is the person investing it is risking it. Employees are high time preference and choose secure regular wages over market risk. So when a company tanks, the investors lose all their money, but the employees don’t. Your argument is only rational if

Explain specifically how, when they admittedly don’t have the ability to track the actuals, do they verify the projections?

When you have almost zero ability to establish confidence in your projections, your projections are functionally useless. In the last 400 years, we only have 800 actual, known extinctions. The idea that you can get an accurate or even close to accurate estimate of extinction rates when all of the variables except time

This is like when China offered to build the African Union building at cut-rate prices and then bugged it. Very helpful for the member states. 

Now playing

“O’Boyle said China’s One Belt, One Road initiative—a global development strategy whereby China is building infrastructure to advance its interests around the world—offers one way to ensure that happens”

Someone else posted a link. We only know of 800 species that have gone extinct in the past 100 years. Those are our “actuals”. Projections put us at a rate of 24-100 species being extincted a day. There is no way to square these numbers. 

But nobody knows whether such estimates are anywhere close to reality. They are based on computer modeling, and documented losses are tiny by comparison. Only about 800 extinctions have been documented in the past 400 years, according to data held by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).”

the rate of global extinction is estimated to be tens to hundreds of times higher now than at any prior moment in human history.”

Then they should switch gigs and try their hand at the State Dept. The DoD isn’t a softpower group. 

Except we know how to build buildings. We don’t know how to miniaturize reactors and operate them safely in. Although we could easily build regular reactors to replace our current electricity needs. It just so happens that the people who “care” about global warming hate the obvious and easy solution more than they

I agree in practice that this is hard to do. I am just saying that we know the solution. Build a shit ton of housing. 

So actual chemtrails?

It helps solve the first problem. Can help the second one, depending on how bad the mental illness or substance abuse may be. Definitely doesn’t help the third problem, but that is also a function of not enforcing quality of life issues. If the city is going to have shooting galleries, they should make sure drug

It is a three fold problem.

I believe some people have made the claim they are unconstitutional because you don’t have a right to face your accuser. I don’t know if that argument holds, but I like it. I’ve also seen people argue that if you never respond to camera tickets, you can win in court, but I don’t know if that works either.