I could find one for you, were I to feel like it. There's a local goatherd who's currently working the the city park, but who also does backyards, or other places that need a short trim.

Sorry, but Amazon took over the market by operating at a deficit for decades. I've heard that they are still operating at a deficit, which, if true, is frankly amazing. How *do* they stay in business.

When most companies use this policy (pricing below the cost of service) the governments put them out of business. Somehow Amazon is allowed to "prosper". (I'm not sure that proper is the right term if they're actually still operating at a deficit. I know they did for over a decade, as there used to be many financial people commenting about it.)

While that's reasonable circumstantial evidence, I don't know that it couldn't have been done by someone else, and the balance of the opinion seems to be that it, indeed, could be done by someone else.

OTOH, it's not clear who else would have a motive. And, governments not being any more monolithic that corporations, it could quite well have been some department (or actor within a department) acting without any knowledge by the official spokesman, and either with, or without, approval by higher organizational figures. And you can't tell. And that's *assuming* (without proof) that China, in some meaning of the term, was behind the attack.

So were I to guess, I'd guess that it was probably China behind the attack, and the spokesman for China didn't know. But please note that this is a guess with a lot of unverifiable assumptions, and I wouldn't even want to guess how much probability to assign it.

Well, it's actually quite plausible. That doesn't mean you should believe it. Lots of things are believable that aren't true.

The interesting thing is, I can't think of how they could either make it believable that they did it or that they didn't do it. In some things there are no good grounds for having a belief in either (any) direction.

The thing is, all the governments I've paid any attention to lie so often that you would do well to use a roulette wheel to decide HOW they are lying in any particular statement. And "They're telling the truth" would be the 00 slot of the wheel. But belief should occur only when there is reasonably grounded evidence...and then it shouldn't be committed belief, because governments are quite able to fabricate evidence when they find it worth the effort.

It has certainly been reported as happening multiple times, and, given the known corruption of the police, is quite believable.

OTOH, these weren't police. This was a military base. I've never heard it claimed in that situation (though I'm rather sure it has happened). In most circumstances the guards are quite civil, even when you don't know the procedures. But they are armed and under orders to use such force as is necessary...including lethal force.

It's my expectation that, if the full story ever becomes known, it will turn out to be some sort of drug deal, and that the people leaving were high. It may well turn out that they had the right to be leaving, but that wouldn't give them the right to pass the guard without following procedures.

Two distinct things here:
1) It was a violent assault on a military gatepost, and deserved an armed response. (I question the desireability of lethal, as it's much better if they can answer questions afterwards.)
2) It was not a shootout. Only one side gave evidence of having guns, and I have heard no claim by anyone knowledgeable that the assaulter had guns.

If you're going to do it on a large scale, why use solar cells rather than mirrors and steam engines. You do loose some power in transmission, agreed, but I think steam engines are probably a better approach than solar cells when you start talking about a large system. The problem is reradiation, because space is an excellent insulator, so you're going to need either a huge radiator or a working fluid with a low temperature difference. (You clearly can't void the fluid the way terrestial steam engines do.) Some people talk about a Stirling engine, but because of the heat loss problem I don't think that would work. Water is good in many ways, but heavy. Perhaps ammonia would be better.

And there's also the question of who benefits? If the main goal is to be able to transmit power to other sattelites in orbit this can be a reasonable thing, and might even be reasonable with solar cells. If you're doing it for customers on earth, you need a geostationary orbit, which means huge transmission problems, or a fairly low orbit which means huge alignment problems, and the need for several power sattelites. (The transmission problems, though lower, are still large.)

10% is a HUGE number in this kind of situation. It would probably be safer to do it over a decade at 1%/year decrease, but that would probably get cancelled (if it ever happened in the first place) before it ever went to completion. Huge changes like that are economically dangerous, and should ideally be done slowly. The problem is if you try to do them slowly, those who don't like them have time to get them cancelled before they happen (which is easier than either reinsating them or maintaining control over the entire decade).

The whole system is designed for the benefit of those currently powerful. (Well, actually those who were powerful during the last several decades, but that changes slowly enough that mostly they are the same people.)

Sorry, my "his" referred to the "GGP", but your "his" referred to the "GGGP". The guy talking about sewers blackflowing was, as you read, talking about sea level rise. An answering post explained that it was due to land subsidence due to draining the aquifers. (And I may have the number of intervening posts incorrect in my GG..P nomenclature, but I *do* have the order correct.)

And so far the sea level rise is measured in inches, which is only significant in unusual events...such as when a hurricane passes by. Or a Tsunami. Or... well, other really unusual things, not things like tides.

I think you underestimate the effects, though causal proof is going to be lacking. (Can't prove, e.g., that this prediction isn't caused by overfishins.) Fish are dying out. So are all sea animals that depend on a calcium skeleton. This is because increased carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water makes it more energetically expensive to extract calcium for the skeleton from the sea water. So I'm also talking about corals. Jellyfish will do well. So will some small animal (you need a magnifying glass, but not a microscope) that use silicon skeletons. Sharks and rays may do alright, but may need to adapt their diet.

On land many plants will not be able to be grown where they have traditionally been grown, but others will do ok. Many plants will become lower in protein and higher in starches as carbohydrates become energetically easier to build. diseases never before heard of will spread from the tropics. Etc.
(N.B.: Some of these predictions are sure things, because they are already happening.) Weather patterns will become more irregular, causing both more dorughts and more floods, longer heat waves and longer cold spells...and in these last two longer often translates into more extreme. Lots of other effects, mainly small, mainly difficult to causally tie to climate change (i.e., global warming). But whose probability of occurance can be reasonably be believed to be increased by global warming. (Do note that this included cold spells.)

Well, you could start by removing subsidies. And special privileges (like having your company offices protected by government troops).

I believe his claim is that pumping out the aquifers is causing land subsidence. This is a VERY reasonable claim. Pumping out oil caued much of Southern California to experience subsidence several decades ago, and aquifers, being closer to the surface, could be expected to have more dramatic (though more focused) effects. And I believe that there are many other cases where that is not in dispute. IIUC it's causing subsidence in California's San Joaquin Valley. Which, in turn, renders the San Joaquin Valley more threatened by sea level rise. I really doubt that the Tethy's Sea will reappear, however, unless much of Antarctica melts.

No, but it does mean you risk going bankrupt fighting an invalid patent.

You can tell me that, but I have noticed that as soon as a particular good investment becomes available to those not "well connected", it stops being a decent investment. E.g., CDs and Treasury bond consistently produce less than the rate of inflation. Back when they were only available to a few they produced quite good rates of return. (And actually, for a few years after they were opened up they still beat inflation...but not for long.)

Willingly is an interesting term. In Rome some people sold themselves into slavery to feed their families. Did they do so willingly? They certainly ended up being slaves.