Re: Florida and Texas...
Pretty sure this is not a left/right thing.
There's been plenty of suppression of free speech when it doesn't suit them from "the left" in the USA and Canada.
They are all at it.
981 publicly visible posts • joined 21 Jun 2007
That's interesting. Any idea how far they can go now? I mean I've got an old laptop that basically lasts seconds on the original battery from around 2016 IIRC (I just leave it plugged in when I use it), but technically it's still working. In my experience batteries fail slowly, then all at once. But it could be different for cars. I've never owned one.
I call bullshit.
There's no way in heaven or earth you are going to get a replacement battery for hundreds. It might be fine at 50,000 miles, but it WILL conk out very badly before 100,000. My Diesel will probably be good for 250,000. At least my engine will have some scrap value. I'll have to pay to get rid of that dud battery.
I'm sorry but these scrubbers to remove the nitrogen oxides? Are they real, or just a wet dream from the Green Party? Wishful thinking? Also, hauling fossil fuels around is actually quite efficient. They pack an awful lot of power.
When that fuel mix changes, it changes the equation a bit (if you're environmentally minded) and so it changes things somewhat... for those of us that can afford it.
Why would I want to spend all that extra money, and then have a vehicle which will lose value faster because the batteries conk out. (and will have greater carbon emissions if you include manufacturing for the first 80,000 miles or so)
I'll be sticking with my 2015 Diesel Kia for the foreseeable, but I can't imagine it will last past 2035 by which time I'll be looking for a petrol or diesel, unless there are very significant subsidies.
Not really got anything against electric, it would probably serve my needs but I just don't want to spaff that much extra money to move the emissions from my tail pipe to a gas fired power station. IF they have built a load of nuclear by then, it might be different.
No! What we're doing currently is "running around like headless chickens".
We're switching to all electric cars in the next decade (roughly) without putting the infrastructure in place to cope with it. We need to build a shed load of nuclear reactors, and upgrade the grid substantially BEFORE we stop using petrol/diesel cars (or at least in parallel to phase across to more electric and less fossil). Same thing for heat pumps instead of gas boilers. Although I'm not convinced they are the future for many dwellings.
The exact predictions are actually not that bad, however the press often seem to pick up on the very worst case scenarios and catastrophise about that. It does appear we still have plenty of time to act, and we can do it in a calm and controlled way... without everyone becoming poorer and colder. Without giving up meat. Without causing massive blackouts in December because it's cold and everyone wants to heat their homes, but the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining (this does happen for a couple of weeks sometimes) and we've shut down all the gas fired power stations and rely on wind/solar.
I've jumped out of many tall buildings, and survived with no damage. From the ground floor. I've never attempted to jump off a tall building though.
Unfortunately Climate Science doesn't care about *evidence* unless it backs up the existing beliefs. Go and read the WCD, it's not that long. https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf or even particularly radical. It's not denial, just calling for us to tap the brakes a bit.
I would love to provide a reference to an article in a distinguished scientific journal, but it seems they have all been captured by the religion that is Climate Science and refuse to publish anything which goes against the orthodoxy. This is not science. It was the same for Covid lockdowns and masks for a time, but that's changed since then as enough people have seen through the BS modelling. Or at least it's starting to change. Perhaps that will also happen for Climate Science, hopefully before we all become completely impoverished. Well, all the proles anyway. I'm sure Leonardo DiCaprio will still have enough money to take a luxury yacht or private jet whilst telling the rest of us we need to travel less. (to give just one example).
Yeah, it's a bit long. And El Gato refuses to use capital letters, which grates some people I think. I can summarise.
Climate Science has been captured, and they refuse to even hear any dissenting arguments. Even when Nobel laureates try to put forward arguments, they are denied a platform.
Much of the media has also been captured, and simply buys this story wholesale. The IPCC is not going to play down the "emergency" and the voices that shout the loudest that there's a global catastrophe get more funding. Those who suggest that yes, it's happening but it's almost certainly not going to be as bad as the models suggest, so we could probably mitigate are shut down.
There are some scientists who are bravely willing to stand up and say "There is no climate emergency" under the World Climate Declaration. It's really not that controversial or radical.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
Warming is slower than predicted.
Climate Policy relies on inadequate models.
CO2 is plant food, the basis for all life on Earth.
Global Warming has not increased natural disasters.
Climate Policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
There's more. If you can get past the flowery fluff. Considering how important this topic is, I think it's worth spending a little time reading both sides. If you just read The Guardian and The BBC, you'll probably believe that our children won't survive (literally) because of "global heating" or "global boiling" or whatever they are calling it next.
As much as I'd like to justify reasons for WFH, I'm not sure it being "Good for the planet" is one of them. At least, not in any significant sense.
Here's why. It's a bit long, but well worth a read. I'd love to hear someone refute this, because it seems pretty solid to my layman eyes. Also, using similar arguments to El Reg USED to make.
Please provide detailed arguments as to why you disagree, or if you can't be bothered just don't even bother reading it and give it a thumbs down... because "stupid denier".
Simply, don't do it. Don't be that first mover, bide your time and move in quickly when it starts to actually become useful. The first movers will have burned a ton of cash on powering their data centres.
Also, "a 500-horsepower autonomous vehicle"... that scares the shit out of me. Would not trust that at all, just a way to bring death far more quickly. Perhaps a 50-horsepower, and limited to 20 mph with current technologies and I'd feel comfortable with it. Anyone else?
Well Pret-a-manger have done a similar thing with coffee in the past where you pay a monthly fee and can have up to a certain amount. Works out cheaper if you drink a lot of coffee I guess?
Thing is if someone did that for beer, it would just be another excuse to drink even more and your liver might suffer for it.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
Like big companies would manipulate markets and conspire to keep prices high, and forever charge you as much as they can get away with, whilst aggressively lobbying politicians to keep their monopoly!?
I *used* to be quite open to the idea of not even owning a car, and just hailing a self-driving car (at some point in the future), but now I worry that if I said something crazy and offensive like "A woman is an adult human female", or perhaps I inadvertently used the phrase "Field work" (yes, really - this is considered offensive by some) I might find myself locked out of the service, and unable to travel. OK this is a slight exaggeration, but it's not that far off the mark. Similar thing for banking, as we've seen recently with Nigel Farage.
I don't want companies to be allowed to control what I say, what I buy or where I go. Especially when companies seem to often be on a shallow crusade to promote the "latest thing".
So, yeah I'm swinging back towards owning my stuff instead of renting it. (Although Spotify and Netflix are just too damned convenient)
When they said they would get rid of something like 1/5 of the workforce and replace them with AI?
What actual planet are they living on if they think that's actually going to happen? Firstly, the unions won't have it. Secondly that technology doesn't exist and probably won't spring into existence this decade. I think in the coming decades we probably will have AI which will be able to do a lot of the work that humans currently do. But that probably means we'll just do a lot more, and need a similar amount of people. That's usually how these things work out.
Yeah, the authors of the report are very unhappy that the editors have taken this political stance, presumably under great pressure. The editors have no experience in virology or epidemiology. They have gone against Archie Cochrane's original principals. They editors should probably step down for interfering in this way.
While it's probably not fair to say conclusively "Masks don't work", it's also not fair to say "Masks do work". It seems inconclusive. Which leads me to think that if they do anything at all, it's minimal. If you seem to think they definitely work, as some people do, then I'd ask why you didn't see any difference in North Dakota vs. South Dakota? Same for Scotland vs. England, where Scotland kept mask mandates for many months after England, but saw no significant difference in transmission. Surely if they "work" these natural experiments would have shown some difference?
It would be a bit like if your seat belt in the car snapped in 95% of crashes. You could argue it "Still works", as in 5% of cases it might save your life.
We're kind of getting off topic here, and raking over old old arguments. Again. The point is we should be allowed to have these discussions on social media without the government telling the platforms to shut down anyone who disagrees with them. Even world renowned experts in their field. So, it's nice that we can have this back-and-forth about masks work / don't work (actually, it's not nice it's boring as hell now) but in 2020 / 2021 this was strictly verboten and would get you shadow banned or deplatformed.
It's not hindsight. Some of us were trying to say these things after the first couple of weeks. Once the panic wore off, and we put down the bottle of rum we looked at the stats and could see that really it was not 3-4% of people dying of all ages, it was closer to a tenth of that, and mostly older vulnerable people. People were not literally dropping dead in the streets in China (and putting their hands out just before they hit the ground). This means it's pretty clear those are the ones we should protect (if they want it). Personally if I was 86 and with serious health problems, I think I would choose to take my chances. Others might choose to lock themselves away for a couple of years. (until vaccine?). It should have been up to them, if they are competent to take that decision.
We were trying to say these things, but we were censored, suppressed, pilloried, shouted down and banned. I've had to leave Next Door, and LinkedIN because I was saying perfectly sensible things but got told to shut up.
Lockdowns were never on the pre-prepared plans. We should have stuck to the plan, but it seems that China did it. Italy did it, and then panic set in and almost everyone just caved in and did it too. It was probably the worst single policy error in modern times, and has caused massive amounts of damage. Seriously I could have done a much better job, because I'm the kind of person who tries to dispassionately look at the facts and do the best thing in a situation. However, I'd never make it as a politician because 1) It doesn't pay very well. 2) You have to go into London and 3) I tend to speak my mind, so wouldn't last very long. Apart from that, I'd probably have a crack at it, and make a better job than the clowns we have in charge.
If people like Alex Berenson and the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, and a few hundred others has been allowed to say things openly then perhaps we'd have different outcomes now. I don't think we could have actually saved that many lives from the virus, we're just not that good at science or medicine yet. It's inevitable, and there's little you can do about it. We could have at least avoided the collateral damage to the economy, backlogs in care, children's mental health and education.
With masking you seem to be arguing that it's better to "do something", even if all the previous evidence suggests that it doesn't help. That's not science, it's politics. Better to be seen to look like you're doing something.
"Anti-Vaxers" - Can you define that one? I guess pretty much anyone in the UK who is under 75, must be "anti-vaxers" as we're not taking Covid boosters (they aren't being offered) - or the majority of people who decided to stop taking them, even when they were being offered. Same applies in the USA for anyone who is under 6 months old!? Similar thing for the 'flu jab, which is being offered to pretty much anyone of any age. So, I guess you are an anti-vaxxer depending on which country you live in?
"Climate Change Deniers" - again, please define. Plenty of people seem to think we can put in mitigations, massively increase use of nuclear in the medium term and we'll be pretty much just fine. This "misinformation" comes from those who say it's an extinction level event, and we are the "last generation". Although that never seems to get fact checked.
"Conspiracy Theorists" - there are plenty of conspiracies, from Watergate, MK Ultra, USA meddling in South American countries, etc. etc.
"Brexiteer's" - Seriously? WTF?
"Does he have a degree in Economics?"
How many people with a degree in Economics predicted the 2008 housing crisis? The surveyor who came round to value my house did predict it*, and he didn't have a degree in Economics (as far as I'm aware). Economics is mostly gazing a tea leaves, and occasionally they make predictions which turn out to be right.
* Unfortunately I had no clue as to what he was talking about until a couple of years later. And I'd even helped write Perl software for a Credit Default Swap company back in... checks CV... 2000, so I was perhaps inadvertently part of the problem. To be fair I was just following a spec, and didn't remotely understand the mechanism behind it all.
By putting "pandemic misinfo" in the title, you are really missing the point.
People who said "Masks don't work" were censored. The Cochrane review has since proved they are very likely correct.
People who tried to recommend "focused protection" and the Great Barrington Declaration were censored. This was not misinfo, it was a valid suggestion. Some might even argue that Sweden has proven it would have been a better way to go. Arguably.
People who were concerned about vaccine damage, some who had actually suffered, had their support groups shut down by Facebook. This seems more about protecting Pharma profits, than protecting people from misinformation.
Likewise all the bollocks about wearing a mask sitting down, but not standing up (or was it the other way around? - makes no sense either way), and having a sausage roll or scotch egg as a "substantial meal" - also censored. This was not misinformation, it was just calling out the nonsense that the government was spouting. I'm giving UK examples, but they had equally ridiculous ever changing rules in the US too. They had many examples of the people in power not following their own rules.
I was listening to This Week in Tech yesterday, and Leo was framing it as "Covid deniers". I'm sure there are a few of those, but from what I saw the vast majority of people were asking perfectly reasonable questions as to why we needed to have our liberties curtailed to such draconian levels.
It's not about "misinfo" it's about having a discussion about things which might or might not be correct.
Please El Reg, be on the side of free speech and on the right side of history. That's how we progress as a society, and without free speech real progress is really hard and slow. This is important.
This is hilarious, because I used to work for IBM as a contractor. I chose to drive to Warwick one day a week to get some face time, however some of the others only came in once a month to get their timesheet signed. It worked perfectly well, as we all has chat facilities and could jump on a call. This was 15 years ago IIRC. How things have progressed.
I also seem to remember they made significant savings by renting out the buildings to other companies. Probably not so profitable now.
Surely far more valuable than any qualification is real world experience. And the best way to gain that is through actually doing the job, as an apprentice or junior and working your way up. A degree is a good starting point for some, but it often teaches you a great deal of stuff which you'll never again use throughout your career. Likewise certifications like MCSE really only teach you how to pass certifications, and gain a passing familiarity with the way MS like to do things.
I'd argue this is pretty much the case for ALL qualifications, they teach you how to pass the qualification and you MIGHT pick up some relevant knowledge at the same time. Even more so, since they brought in rankings for schools and universities, which incentivises them to just focus on exam results, at the expense of spending time on learning stuff the the educator has decided is useful for that particular group at that particular time.
I remember learning about simultaneous quadratic equations about 30 years ago, and kind-of understood them at the time. I definitely don't understand them now because as a developer and sysadmin/DevOps I've literally NEVER had to use them, and so I've forgotten. I could probably re-learn them, but what would be the point? Similar thing with designing / developing different sorting algorithms. Just a couple of examples for me personally. YMMY.
It's possible that when all this stuff was going on back in 2016 and before he had most of his marbles, but since then he's lost most of them. He doesn't seem exactly with it a lot of the time. Perhaps it's the stress.
This has really got nothing to do with stealing elections. It's just about what the hell Hunter was doing taking millions from Burisma? Oh, and why did the FBI want to desperately cover it up. Aren't they supposed to be non-partisan?
You seem to have taken every "conspiracy theory" you've ever heard relating to the Bidens and lumped them all together into one huge rant.
"Watergate didn't need a conspiracy theory: it was just a plain and stupid conspiracy."
Actually that's just not true. Watergate was reported by the Washington Post for months and months, and most people just ignored it or thought it was what some would nowadays call a "nothingburger". Perhaps in hindsight we now realise it was a plain and stupid conspiracy, but that was very much not the case in the times leading up to it. At least that's what I've read, as I was a toddler at the time so I don't remember it.
The whole "Let's wait and see" thing is not superiority. If I believe some of the credible things I read on Substack blogs, it seems pretty clear that Biden will be impeached in the next year. Although looking at mainstream media they pretty much all seem to be studiously ignoring the whole thing. Apart from, unfortunately the Daily Mail. Sometimes they are not afraid to go places where other papers won't touch. A lot of the time they are full of shit. How to tell? Wait and see.
My biggest question would be what exactly was Hunter getting paid for by a Ukrainian oil company? Seems like a hellova lot of money to spend on someone, with no oil expertise? Can anyone explain that? And presumably we'd never know about any of this if he hadn't stupidly taken that laptop to a repair shop, whilst presumably... how can I say this... not thinking straight.
Lumping together politicians lying and taking bribes with conspiracy theories like flat earth, moon landing and 9/11 is just a ridiculous argument. We've seen lots of examples of politician being caught lying. You do know birds aren't actually real though? They are just flying reptiles, right?
Of course I could be completely wrong. I've got no skin in this game, I don't live in that country. It just smells really really fishy to me, and it has done ever since the FBI told social media companies to hide the story in the New York Post, because it's "Russian misinformation". If it smells like a conspiracy, looks like a conspiracy and quacks like a conspiracy...
"We considered "Hunter" but decided against it lest it fuel certain conspiracy theories"
I suspect that little comment won't age very well. A bit like someone in the New York Times during 1973 saying "What's all this fuss in the Washington Post about Watergate, it's just a conspiracy theory".
Let's wait and see.
Indeed. Just because "some scientists" have said something, doesn't make it settled. (although the usual suspect seem to think so, being the BBC and The Guardian)
If the OP had changed "we are in a new geological era " to "we might be in a new geological era", I'd have no problems with that.
"The NHS is trying to recover from the demand created by unnecessarily shutting everything down in response to the pandemic."
They could have carried on with regular care, instead of shutting almost everything down and making it a National Covid Service. This was entirely predictable, and in fact was predicted by many of us.
Agree with most of what you've said there apart from the "No, we won't". You just can't know that.
It might be that in 20 years time most software is developed by sitting alongside the people who get to decide what the requirements are and as those requirements are being written down, the software is developed (with the aid of AI) and presented to the user in near real time, and they can then keep saying "Not that!" until you get fed up of saying "Well how about like this then?" It might even make guesses based on similar software. At this point the job of the "programmer" becomes to steer the AI in the right direction, although perhaps at some point in the future they might decide to cut out the middle man.
As for AI advancing the the equal of a programmer with 20 years experience, it seems with current models we're a long way off from that, although it *could* keep getting better to the point where at some point in the distant future it becomes far better than any programmer. It might take decades or centuries, but it will happen at some point.
After that we're all just pets.
The thing about predictions is they are very hard, especially when you are predicting the future.
Probably in the early 1970s people building cars in factories would have mocked the robots being developed, as they did a pretty crap job. Much like people are currently mocking the output of LLMs. However, after years of refinement we are now in a position where no sane company would consider mass producing cars without using robots. A couple of things though, 1) Today's cars have way more stuff in them compared to cars in the 1970s 2) Many of the jobs have moved up the value chain into things like design.
We now have a consistently better product, which does far more than the previous generation of cars could. Cars in the 1970s used to regularly break down / overheat or just plain fall apart from the rust. They would not start on a cold morning. A bit like software today.
So, perhaps in 20 years time we'll be writing software which does what it's supposed to do, in a much more secure and reliable way? We probably won't spend as many hours writing code or tests as much of it will be done by AI?
And probably the same thing for accountants, lawyers, cleaners and hundreds of other roles. So, yeah I guess I kind of agree with the UN on this one. Although try telling that to the thousands of car workers in Detroit and many other places who suddenly found themselves unemployable.
On the other hand I could be completely wrong, as I said predictions are hard.
... or your film gets magically censored because it contains "problematic" scenes, which aren't in keeping with today's standards of wokery. Dam Busters for instance would be a prime candidate or Gone With the Wind, but there are many other examples. If they don't censor out the bits we are too delicate to watch, they'll put a content warning on the beginning.
I seem to remember saying a similar thing about left wing bias on these very forums about 6 months ago and it got tons of downvotes.
It's not really surprising, is it when 90%+ in silicon valley companies identify as democrats.
Similarly a lot of them are white and men.
It's worth being aware of and training out of the models to make them more representative.
Although should models be "populist" or should they be "right". And who gets to decide?
You are getting free speech muddled up with anti-competitive behaviour. And going by all the thumbs up, loads of other people are too. You are allowed to say pretty much what you want on Twitter, including pointing out conflicts of interest at the NIH where they get $$ hundreds of millions in kickbacks from the pharma companies (and don't have to disclose it!!). This is just one example. Try saying that on Facebook, YouTube or even LinkedIN and you'll suddenly find yourself breaking the "coimmunity guidelines"
Not that I'm a fan of Twitter any more, I stopped using it a couple of weeks ago and my wife tells me I'm not such a grumpy old sod any more. It was making me stressed out basically because of all the extreme views on there all the time. It's a toxic mess, along with pretty much all social media platforms. I'm done with them all.