- notadoomer236 parentAmazon reached the same conclusion and widely prefer dynamodb for this reason
- They use signal. They added the wrong person to the chat. Oh well. There’s no real disaster here. No real operational details exposed. Just some politicking that surprises no one.
- They have way, way more employees than they need.
- Our information environments are socially engineered. Reddit for sure. Major news sites. Etc
Or do we only do that in other countries?
- Don’t agree. Sometimes you can observe the world around you, and it’s not pretty. Are they not allowed to observe the truth as they see it? What if they are right?
- I think you’re right on a lot of details here, but here’s a chart of illegal encounters over the past few years. It has boomed under the current admin.
The bipartisan bill would have allowed in two million people a year. It threw a few scraps to border control. Great bill to look like they’re doing something while intentionally allowing the situation to continue.
- Trump says things people directionally agree with, and they forgive the details.
When your border is wide open allowing millions of people in each year, you don’t care as much about the political circus.
When your grocery bills 3x, you don’t care as much about the loose speech.
- Abraham accords. Isis. Tax cuts. Booming economy of 2018-2020. Remain in Mexico. Far lower illegal immigration. People remember the actions too.
“From my understanding, his past performance was terrible too”
Depends on what you focus on. If you listen to soundbites it sounds like a circus. There’s a lot of drama displacing and stepping on toes of the entrenched players in the system.
- This is a great example, and you’re downvoted because liberals don’t like to hear the criticisms of their tribe. They ask why people would vote for Trump, you explain your anecdote, and they downvote you. Classic blue tribe behavior.
- Harris wasn’t just unlikeable. She came across as downright incompetent, a mediocrity elevated to the highest positions by the exact sort of identify focused criteria voters don’t want.
- Millions of desperate people from very different cultures came into the country overwhelming welfare services and small communities, getting paid under the table by greedy businesses undercutting Americans and subverting labor laws. The current party in power allowed this influx to reach record levels, and didn’t do a thing about it. Any path to amnesty for these people down the road will change our political landscape forever, and Americans never voted for this policy.
- I regret that comment. I was upset and shouldn’t have posted it.
But what I would say is: countries have distinct cultures, and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to preserve them, which implies controlling the rate of immigration from different cultures. The U.S. would be quite different if we replaced half the population with people from Iran, China, or even England. There is a happy medium.Pros and cons.
- Yet they haven’t they fixed it. It ballooned during the last four years, including federally funded flights bringing in people from South American countries
- Many of us don’t want to uproot everything - at substantial effort and cost - for unclear or negligible upside. USA is only at 13% of global emissions. And radically overhauling everything, as opposed to incentivizing greener tech over time, is unlikely to move the temperature much if at all. China will not play ball. The developing world will not play ball.
If we were dead serious about this as a civilization threat, we would start building as much nuclear as possible
- If it warms 2-3C as the IPCC predicts, humanity will still be thriving in the 2100s. Capitalism will still be kicking along just fine, and we ll probably be richer than ever.
- But survive and thrive we do. And if you go to many places in North America (or around the world) you can still see large populations of wild animals, many recovering substantially with improved protection policies.
- Why do you think it will warm 5C? Most of the models - which are not especially accurate or battle tested - don’t put us there.
If we bumped to 1000ppm carbon, would the earth warm 5C? That’s a technical question. We don’t know exactly how sensitive the climate is or what feedback mechanisms are at play. I don’t lose sleep over it. But I’m just trying to give my perspective to counter some of the doom, since the doomers are very active online.
- I think the return on investment on most proposed “changes” is negative. I don’t see any evidence that most of the biological world is hurdling towards destruction from climate.
If we turned off the fossil fuel tap today, I think life on earth would get markedly worse for humans, with negligible/no impact on fauna.
- To counter, I think we’ll most likely be fine.
It might be two degrees warmer this century. Life will go on just fine. Possibly better in some ways and places. No problem, relatively speaking, compared to the hazards our ancestors face.
If it warms 5C, we might have a real problem on our hands. I don’t think we can predict that, and I don’t think it will happen over 100-200 year timescales.
Many people seem to think there will be mass die offs, the ocean will become unsurvivable acidic, and crops won’t grow. I don’t think any of that will happen anytime soon. I think there is a very strong “doom” instinct in humans to think this is the last generation, the end of times. This is just the latest manifestation.