Windex007 @ Windex007 @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,113

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't think most people have strictly concluded anything, they've just acknowledged the a significant probability.

You're on a semantic crusade.

Established facts do come with proof. That's how they are established to be fact. You'll notice a suspicious avoidance of the word "fact" in the definition you posted.

He MAYBE fucked around on his one wife causing embarrassment.

He CERTAINLY fucked around with THOUSANDS of people causing DEATH.

It's worthwhile to consider alternatives but it's unwise to paint all scenarios as equally likely.

It's only silly if one misunderstands an assumption to be established fact.

If I hear hoofbeats, I will assume horses, not zebras.

If I see Zebras, I'll say my assumption was wrong. No shame in it. I'm wrong all the fucking time, being right isn't part of my identity.

But until then, if someone says "what do figure those hoofbeats are?" I'm not going to say "50/50 horses or zebras"

Obviously there are many plausible scenarios, but one of them scales significantly differently than the others.

That's a really interesting interpretation of trade

I think what you said makes a lot of sense when you're dealing with a rational actor, and if your facts were right.

Canada is the USAs largest trading partner. Full stop. #1. Canada's retaliatory tariff stick is the largest club that any nation on Earth has to hit back with. Bigger than China's by a factor of THREE.

Secondly, it's irrelevant because Trump isn't a rational actor and it's all gut feel and he hates Mexicans.

I understand why you'd think that the USA "needs" Mexico but not Canada... But that's not right. The USA "needs" illegal immigrants to work for pennies on the dollar, if it "needs" anything... And again he and his base will cut off their noses to spite their face. The exact thing that the USA economy benefits from the most is the exact thing he and his base wants to line up against.

You don't need to do any fancy psychology to understand Trump. He's a hateful spiteful bully with no comprehension of anything who melts like butter when praised.

I guess only time will tell, but I disagree with your assessment and that's why: I think you misunderstand the trading relationships that the USA has in North America and I think you're underestimating how much of his behaviour is driven by primal forces rather than any rational plan.

I hate to say it, because it's gross... But it's probably the pragmatic move for Canada to attempt a bilateral agreement with Trump.

His political base is fueled by trashing Mexico. Build a wall. Mexicans are taking my job. Etc etc. Trump and his supporters will absolutely cut off their noses to spite their face with Mexico.

But, they're pretty apathetic towards Canada.

It isn't pragmatic for Canada to lash itself to Mexico under these circumstances. Ultimately, it's the government of Canada's responsibility to act in the best interests of Canadians. Given the circumstances, that's probably avoiding the situation.

I disagree that being perfectly unambiguous is a feature of a "perfect" language.

Ambiguity creates holes for us to fill, and some people don't realize how good it feels to fill those holes.

You're roughly describing "Cascadia"

The energy is in the form of complex but stable intramolecular bonds

Banners body has a store of extremely high energy particles. When he transforms, they are converted to much lower energy particles and the energy is converted to mass (e=mc^2). When the hulk goes back to banner, is the same process in reverse: mass is converted to much more highly energetic particles.

www.realultimatepower.net

Really informative website from the 90s which was a one-stop-shop for authoritative information about Samurai.

Keep in mind, this was before Wikipedia. Finding high quality information online was much more difficult online in the past, but this was a rare gem.

Anyhow, I was able to use the site for research for a grade school paper, and I can proudly say I got A grade on it.

This is all predicated on the assumption that people already have a familiarity with organizing their thoughts and intentions in a way that even have a prayer of being understood by a machine.

There are a lot of ways people innately organize their thoughts. Some of them translate much more easily than others to code.

For some people, even step 1 is a hurdle that there are insufficient resources to clear.

I don't think it's at all required that someone gained "a level of control". I think the mechanism more likely at play (if this is the root cause) is that some training data included news articles about how these people wanted to remove their presence, and the articles were talking about the legality and morality around it.

Valentine's Day set to bankrupt me this year

The definition as taken to the courts in the USA is:

"Hate speech is any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability, or national origin."

It has more rigorous legal definitions in many other jurisdictions where hate speech is explicitly illegal.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Canada for example.

You characterizing toxicity and hate speech as being related isn't a position taken even remotely seriously by anyone who actually write laws on the subject, and many have been written across the world.

Broadly speaking, hate speech isn't "being mean" in any legal definition... But that is what right-wing talking heads like to strawman it as.

What has always made the dollar so attractive is the perception of US stability and predictability; the idea that the USA really did want to facilitate truly global trade.

Trump weaponizing tariffs and otherwise acting like a lunatic (and that the electorate put him in twice) is really shattering to the fundamental rationale for using the USD as the defacto global currency.

I also hate that. Like, why even bother linking the article if all you're offering is the headline?

Anyways:

LONDON, Nov 26 - U.S. oil and gas producers are unlikely to radically increase production under president-elect Donald Trump as companies remain focused on capital discipline, a senior executive at Exxon Mobil (XOM.N), opens new tab said on Tuesday. "We're not going to see anybody in 'drill, baby, drill' mode," Liam Mallon, head of Exxon's upstream division, told the Energy Intelligence Forum conference in London. "A radical change (in production) is unlikely because the vast majority, if not everybody, is focused on the economics of what they're doing," he said. "Maintaining the discipline, driving the quality, driving the information, will naturally limit that growth rate." Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, pledged during the election campaign to boost domestic oil and natural gas output. Reuters reported on Monday that his transition team was preparing a wide-ranging energy package to roll out in the first days of his presidency. The United States has become the world's top oil producer following a surge in shale oil production, pumping over 13 million barrels per day earlier this year. It is also the world's leading natural gas producer. Relaxing of land permitting processing could provide a short-term boost to production, Mallon said. BP CEO Murray Auchincloss told the conference on Monday that he looked forward, opens new tab to the Trump presidency, saying the Republican leader will help accelerate permitting time for energy projects. Exxon earlier this year completed the $60 billion acquisition of smaller U.S. rival Pioneer Natural Resources, consolidating its position as the largest shale producer. Exxon expects to grow oil production in the Permian shale basin to over 2 million barrels per day, Mallon said. "We see growth beyond the 2 million probably for a couple of years but not at that continuous same rate ... certainly up to 2030 we see it growing," he said.

I live in Canada and tbh I'm with the Chad on this.

Not saying "turn off your furnace" but energy use (and cost) baloons exponentially based on how hot you have your thermostat set at. Lower your thermostat to the point where wearing a sweater indoors is enough and save money. It's not even just about the money, it'sresponsible energy usage.

And I'd be happy to subsidize the first X GJ/mo to help people keep themselves from freezing, but if people want their apartment to be the tropics that's gotta be on their dime.

Same with electricity. I'll subsidize keeping your lights on but I'm not paying you to mine crypto.