Oh dear, are you really so stupid as to need an explanation of the differences? No, I didn't think so. So why make such stupid comments?

God wills it

The actual Nature paper indicates they estimate a 20% reduction in income relative to a baseline without climate impacts. Considering worldwide income has increased 120% in real dollars over the past 25 years, if the next 25 years is more of the same they are predicting a 75% increase in average worldwide income (inflation adjusted) by 2050.

I don't feel that should downplay the wasteful economic effects of increased climate change over the next few decades, but the summary and article posted weren't very clear on what the prediction actually was.

Depends on what land you are referring to. 85% of UN nations recognize Israel as a sovereign state. There is dispute within those nations over Israel's boundaries and what should be considered occupied land, but the overwhelming majority of nations recognize Israeli citizens as the rightful inhabitants of most of the populated land in Israel. Of course if you are bringing up Gaza or the West Bank then most nations recognize those as occupied lands. But then again the list of territorial disputes across the world is extensive.

No it doesn't. 10's of thousands of deaths on either side is not an indication of an existential threat to either the 7 million Jews or 5 million Palestinians in occupied lands.

The Israelis have occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip for decades, and the Palestinian population there has grown from 1.4 million in 1948 to 5.5 million today. That is a very unsuccessful genocide. Israel clearly hasn't shown themselves to be an existential threat to the Palestinian people or a future Palestinian state. They are at best an existential threat to the Palestinians getting the boundaries they want in a future two-state solution.

Palestinians and many nearby Arab nations have shown themselves to be an existential threat to Israel, as they have went to war to prevent the nation from even being formed and leaders have often called for the destruction of Israel.

Not everyone opposes Israel's actions for the same reason. I for instance don't criticize Israel for 30,000 deaths in an urban warfare setting where civilians are used as human shields. But Israel's attempts to cut off food and water from Gaza are abhorrent war crimes, IMHO, which puts me on the side of those who heavily criticize how Israel is conducting this war. Calling my protest of Israeli behavior a display of support for terrorism is idiotic.

Total number of deaths has nothing to do with who was the aggressor. Japan was the clear military aggressor against the US in WW2, and Japan had 20x the military deaths and 50x the civilians deaths as the US. The total amount of deaths on each side is usually a biproduct of the military strength of each side and whose land the fighting is done on. Terrorist organizations and the civil populations who either harbor the terrorists and/or provide a source of recruitment almost always have far higher levels of casualties than the larger countries they attack.

There is no evidence the IDF targeted aid workers intentionally. Accidents happen in war. I'm horrified by many things Israelis are doing in this war, but calling the deaths of these aid workers terrorism is simply ridiculous.

retarded leadership? why we only select the best from what boeing has to offer

people are leaving too quickly for his acquisition bonus to kick in.

It is a bit hypocritical of the West to expect a ceasefire from Israel.
We bombed and shelled the Japanese and Germans relentlessly until they surrendered. We did not ask the Germans if they were Nazis.
Hopefully, Gaza will surrender soon, and unconditionally. Then we can press Israel to be as generous and forgiving as the US was after WW2.
( The Brits and French were in a less forgiving mood, Russians more so for obvious reasons. Fortunately clear heads prevailed. )

Hey, my opinion was just as real as larryjoe's. His opinion was simply informed with a more data than mine, and therefore more accurate. I'd still contend we are both right. :-P

10 Things I Hate About You is especially derivative, considering Petruchio / Patrick, Katherina / Kat, and Bianca's character names were even kept largely the same. But it isn't like Shakespeare's play was even original. Literary critics have found many oral and literary stories which most likely heavily influenced the play, included using the same names as characters from previous works. I'd say today's version of ChatGPT isn't too far from a human's ability to come up with a truly original story.

I took a look at box office returns for the past few years and compared them to 1995-99. In the past 3 years 79% of box office returns from the top 10 grossing movies came from sequels or remakes. In the late 90s, it was 36%. While the studios may be partially to blame based on where they spend their marketing dollars, I feel most of the blame lies on the audience. The studios wouldn't have shifted this dramatically if the audience wasn't rewarding them for it.

One chart shows how little box office returns come from original works. In the past 7 years, 74% of the top 10 grossing movies were sequels. 19% were based on existing IP and 7% were original works (although Oppenheimer was based on real events).