Have you considered that it looks better because you’re used to seeing it that way? It’s the same with Fahrenheit vs Celsius, the one you’ve grown up with make more sense and is more pleasing to the eye.

It’s a “job” they themselves created for themselves. That our something they have to do because they own the property, and if they didn’t own it they wouldn’t have to do it. And chances are they won’t even do anything, they’ll just hire someone else to fix it.

You don’t get paid to fix your own property, why should they get paid to fix their property?

Because it’s more of a buzzword than a goal. Carbon neutral, in theory, means a company reduces their carbon output where they can and then reimburse the rest of the carbon they can’t reduce. In practice it means a company can literally do nothing to reduce their emissions, pay someone else to offset the carbon they refuse to reduce and then claim “we’re carbon neutral” while polluting with the same rate as they were before. Carbon neutral simply does not go far enough.

And how do you know it’s magnitudes higher if you haven’t seen any studies taking it into consideration?

On a completely irrelevant tangent, I hate FAFO. I see FAFO and it reminds me of FIFO and then I start thinking “but what does the A stand for?” First appended first out? First added first out? First assigned first out? And then I remember it has nothing to do with systems theory.

Can’t we just spell it out? FAFO just doesn’t have that kick. You spell FAFO and people will go" the fuck? " whereas you spell" fuck around, find out" and everyone goes “oh shit, that guy means business.”

You can correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure nobody gave AOC a suitcase full of cash. She put in the effort and that got her first the district and later the congress. You can dismiss her as the exception, but she’s “the exception” only if you consider her effort to be exceptional. And there was that other guy (literally blanking on the name) who ran as a democrat and is now turning republican after being elected, pretty sure he also did a grassroots campaign. You can absolutely get shit done if you put in the effort.

The “suitcase full of campaign money” is the lie you’re told to keep you from running.

Even BG3 let’s you go back with some exceptions.

It’s pretty public knowledge by now. If you search “ExxonMobil climate prediction” I’m sure you can find a starting point. I recommend finding all the Exxon papers because they’re quite eye opening.

So what are we supposed to do, halt all space flights until we figure this out?

Without further research going into how much damage it’s doing there’s no way to say what our next steps should be. Maybe everything we’re doing is still within acceptable limits? Maybe we need tighter regulation on materials going into space. Maybe some materials need to be outright banned.

The only reasonable thing we can do is study it further. Expecting instant result based on one study that only outlines a potential risk is quite frankly just doomerist behavior.

If you want to get philosophical, society always has to turm authoritarian when it needs to deal with people who reject society. You either forcefully reject the ones who refuse to partake or you let them warp society in their image.

Being anti-vax is the same as being against society. Now, completely trying to get rid of them, like nazis tried with jews, is a bit extreme but penalizing antivaxxers IMO is perfectly fine. You can’t simply endanger others just because you refuse to partake in society.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not defending corporations here. I’m simply stating the fact that climate change denial wasn’t the case of waiting until it’s “fully confirmed”, it was pretty much confirmed back in the 70s. They even had predictions for the next century on how things will go bad if nothing is done and the last time I checked we were pretty on course with their predictions. When it came to the scientific consensus, it was pretty much “fully confirmed”. It was simply the public opinion where it wasn’t “fully confirmed” because corporations deliberately ran disinformation to make it seem like scientists didn’t know what they were talking about.

But this paper isn’t really confirming anything. The paper itself says that the model does not account for all the factors and to literally quote the paper:

As reentry rates increase, it is crucial to further explore the concerns highlighted in this study.

This paper is not presenting a final conclusion, it’s presenting concerns that need further studies. let’s wait for further studies and if there’s scientific consensus about it being an issue I’m all for bringing out the pitchforks. In the mean let’s keep calm and dread over the doom and gloom that is climate change.

We were in the “we don’t know if we’re causing it” phase for a long time because big oil knew about global warming and deliberately ran disinformation campaigns so they could keep profiteering. Had Exxon done the right thing in the 70s we wouldn’t have this looming crisis.

I honestly think the amount of content would be fine if it was fresh, but Destiny gameplay has largely stayed the same since Forsaken. The game has simply grown stale and arguably gotten even worse because instead of letting players experiment Bungie pretty much dictates every season how you should play.

That’s like saying 14 lashes is more favorable than 15 lashes.

And the denazification claim was a stupid one in the first place because how does Russia verify that Ukraine is denazified? If Ukraine kicks out of the government all the suppose nazis, is Ukraine denazified? What if they all denounce nazism. Does that count? What’s stopping Russia from putting more people in their “nazi” list? It was a vague demand and shouldn’t have been a demand in the first place.

The company I work at “supports” Linux in the sense that you’re allowed to use Linux but then you’re essentially on your own when it comes to solving problems. I asked why there’s no proper Linux support and the short answer was “it’s too much trouble”. The long answer was “don’t ask. I don’t want to get into it”.

So my guess is that setting up company wide policies and support for Linux is significantly more work than it is for Windows or Mac.

Do we have to revolutionize to find that 3rd option

Pretty much. It’s against the interest of both parties to have more options because both are near-guaranteed to lose power if there were more options.

And what exactly does Hamas gain by dragging it out?

The movie actually doesn’t care if the asteroid was sent by the bugs, was a false flag or just really unfortunate circumstances because it doesn’t matter. What matters is how the government reacts and the government instantly presents it as an attack.

It’s like with WW1 the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is presented as the reason the war started, but really countries were just looking for an excuse to start a war. Buenos Aires didn’t really matter because Earth was just looking for an excuse to start a war.

But how do you know humanity is being attacked or that the bugs will destroy humanity? Just like you say everything else is speculation that is also speculation. It’s also a speculation that the only thing saving humanity is the military. For all we know we’re actually the attackers and bugs are just defending their homes and if we never attack there wouldn’t be a conflict.

You can’t just take away the whys and hows and say it’s pro war. It’s satire, if you remove all the nuance then of course it’s going to be pro war. The whys and hows make this an anti-war movie.

You’re missing the satire. It’s a satirical anti-war movie. At face value everything in the movie makes sense, the bugs attacked and we’re fighting for our survival. But you really need to take a deeper look at the movie. How do we know the bugs attacked first? The government told us. What do we know about the government? The government promotes a militaristic class society where the only way to be a citizen is to join the military. You regularly see people who have lost limbs, how did they lose them? It’s not a peaceful society, otherwise people in military service wouldn’t lose limbs. You dig and dig and eventually you would have to question what the movie shows you. You can’t really be certain that the bugs attacked first because all you know is what the government tells you and that its in the interest of that government to have this war.

And the movie even backdrops that the war effort is not on the side of humanity. Towards the end of the movie roughnecks get reinforced and those reinforcements are literally children. You don’t send children as reinforcements unless you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel. It’s a very clever hint that humanity is actually losing that war.