nednobbins @ nednobbins @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

364

Joined

2 yr. ago

You're saying this as if the pilot was just hotdogging and was totally ignorant of the risks. That's pretty unlikely.

The Chinese government has been pretty clear about what they think of "freedom of navigation exercises". If Chinese bombers were flying around the coast of the US you can be damn sure we'd be scrambling fighters to crawl up their butts too.

Those pilots got orders and carried them out successfully. You may disagree with the orders but it's silly to accuse the pilot of lack of professionalism.

Dimethyl Cadmium is organic. :)

There are many subcultures around food. It's not like the world is split between vegans and junk food addicts.

The Cheeto and McDonalds eating crowd may have crappy nutrition but they're an extreme. The other extreme is meal-preppers. They know exactly how much chicken, rice and broccoli they're eating.

There are huge communities of people who are very health conscious. Some of them focus their consciousness on science, some of them on other methods. Some of those people are vegans. Some aren't.

So you think that telling someone that they're stupid and should feel stupid is a good way to change their mind?

Has that ever worked for you?

I should clarify then.

There is currently some percentage of people who plan to vote for Biden, some that plan to vote for Trump and some who are undecided.

Most polling shows that, if there was an election today, Biden would lose pretty badly.

If you simply agree or disagree, is that likely to change anyone's planned voting behavior? If you continue to insult the people who do not currently plan to vote for Biden, do you think that will change their minds?

What's the argument that it does?

Do you think that this disagreement is likely to change anyone's mind?

Take a fairly famous example. Bassem Youssef has very publicly embraced the sentiment I'm describing. How does your agreement or disagreement have any impact at all?

I'd argue that it will only have an impact if you choose an action that's likely to induce change. He very clearly says that he considers the threats that "If you don't vote for Biden you're voting for Trump," messages to be a form of blackmail.

He finds it unconvincing so it fails to work on him. As near as I can tell, his attitude is fairly representative of a significant number of voters.

I'm going to try to paraphrase that position to make sure I understand it. Please correct me if I got it wrong.

AI produces something not-actual-art. Some people want stuff that's not-actual-art. Before AI they had no choice but to pay a premium to a talented artist even though they didn't actually need it. Now they can get what they actually need but we should remove that so they have to continue paying artists because we had been paying artists for this in the past?

Is that correct or did I miss or mangle something?

I'd love to see some data on the people who believe that AI fundamentally can't do art and the people who believe that AI is an existential threat to artists.

Anecdotally, there seems to be a large overlap between the adherents of what seem to be mutually exclusive positions and I wish I understood that better.

I took some time to look at who the 2020 Biden voter are who are considering not voting for him.

While there are a growing number of such groups, one of the biggest is Muslims. They get that Trump is a racist and hates Muslims. They're also currently watching Biden going out of his way to support Israel in their genocide. To them, Biden doesn't just represent monsters, he is a monster. They're logic is essentially, "We're fucked either way. Let's get rid of the monster in front of us and then we'll worry about the next monster."

It doesn't matter if you or I agree with that. They're not asking for permission to feel that way. If the Democratic leadership doesn't address those concerns with significantly more empathy than, "don't be stupid", the likely outcome is that Biden will miss out on many of those votes.

Unfortunately Biden has been racking up voter groups that feel betrayed by him. My preference would have been for Biden to find some other Democratic candidate, retire gracefully and strongly back the new candidate.

I can certainly agree that there is no evidence to suggest that China is "one of the most polluting countries in the world". I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that claim. It is entirely baseless.

On the other hand, the claim that China's per capita pollution is lower than that of most industrialized nations is supported by evidence. It is the best evidence we have too, unless you've discovered a better metric in the last few days.

A claim that imperfect evidence is equivalent to no evidence is baseless and will lead to erroneous conclusions.

It’s one thing to refrain from commenting but supporting Israel makes it clear that Germany learned nothing.

I agree that CO2 is an imperfect measure and you don't seem to be making the claim that CO2 has an SNR of 0 (ie it carries no information at all). We seem to agree on the core of your central three paragraphs so I won't comment on them.

You've stated multiple times now that you don't know any better measures than CO2. So even if there are other measures they're just as bad or worse. Given this lack of any better metric, on what verifiable evidence are you basing any of your conclusions?

I’m assuming based on the time you responded to me that you are in China so maybe you can elucidate me on how I get this wrong.

The same way you got your conclusions about China's pollution wrong, by misapplying evidence and jumping to conclusions.

It's interesting that you should phrase your question that way. The cheap answer would be to point out that you're not using "elucidate" correctly. You're missing a preposition. It's also odd to use "get" instead of "got" here. A corrected version of your sentence might be, "...maybe you can elucidate to me how I got this wrong." It's cheap in the sense that personal attacks are easy and do little to advance a conversation. It would be just as silly of me to use your grammar error as evidence that you're a foreign national as it is for you to use the timing of my posts as evidence of my location.

You might then suspect that I might still be a foreigner who's studied too much English grammar. That would be correct. It turns out that when I speak my native language, other native speakers can sometimes pinpoint the exact district in Vienna where I was born. These days, none of my neighbors speak German. They love the Sox and rock their "Dunkies".

Just as in the case of estimating China's pollution levels, cavalier use of evidence leads to erroneous conclusions.

OK It sounds like there's only one metric we can use to evaluate how much China pollutes.

The metric is widely used by various academics, government agencies and independent organizations. We have no better metric and that metric says that China doesn't pollute that much.

That leaves 2 possibilities; the metric actually provides no information at all or it still provides some information.

If it provides no information AND we don't have anything that does (ie a better metric) that means we literally have absolutely no information at all about how much China pollutes at all. That means we can't make any intelligent claims about how much China pollutes or how much they're fudging the number because there's no comparison to make.

If it does provide some information we're left with a situation where all of the imperfect information supports the claim that China doesn't pollute much.

Either way, the evidence as you've classified it, doesn't support the claim that China is, "one of the planet’s most polluting countries," which was the original claim of this thread. It is, by definition, a baseless conjecture.

Because an informed response would have been more interesting.

Remind you of the thing you could literally check by clicking on the "show context" link?

Apparently.

That's too bad.

So you're just going to spew out words without even checking the context of those words?

Brilliant!

Not sure why you're so hung up on dogs or 2 months. The thread still shows up in searches and you're clearly getting updates on it. Unless there's some evidence to suggest the information in this thread is now obsolete, there's no reason not to respond.

@esteeyou@lemmy.world made a claim and provided evidence. Unless there's better evidence to the contrary it's reasonable to accept the claim. My children sometimes still respond to arguments with, "Nuh uh." I generally expect more from adults.

Why not? Have the facts changed since then?

Except when you leave out nuclear in 2020 and add it in 2023 you're not pointing out anything about Biden (or anyone else's) policies. You're just demonstrating that shifting your metrics mid sentence leads to a nonsense conclusion.