At the moment, some very large costs are externalized for the fossil fuel companies. And it's the concept that the fossil fuel companies are getting a free ride, profiting without bearing any costs of the impacts, that is the common element with the tobacco companies.

Although not the specific goal of this lawsuit, I could easily see that an end goal is to build a carbon price into the economy to make sure that the costs of the impacts are appropriately assigned.

I don't mean to quibble, but I think you're conflating particulate emissions from the 2-stroker with CO2 emissions from the Dodge. One causes smog, with many associated respiratory illnesses. The other causes a greenhouse effect that traps heat in the atmosphere.

Neither are healthy for humans.

Just to clarify, you're claiming that when scientists attempt to correct themselves based on observable evidence, that the observable evidence seems to always be above the predictions, implying that scientists chronically under-predict. Correct?

If they were chronically over-predicting, would you not be exclaiming: "Wow, these guys are always predicting the sky falling!?". Tell me I'm wrong here. I don't think I am.

So I'm guessing that no matter which way they end up predicting (under or over), you would have a problem with it. Am I right? Have a serious think about whether that exposes your bias or not.

Can you point out where the article expresses absolute certainty? Here's a small snippet from the article to help you: "It’s important to emphasise that both of these issues – [pollution cuts] and climate sensitivity – are areas of deep scientific uncertainty,” he said."

It would help your case if you learned to read before expressing an opinion. It might help avoid other people dismissing you as "full of shit". Not me, of course. I think you're completely onto something here...

The Gartner hype curve is, of course, in massive full swing with AI. But as with a lot of tech, there might be something good come out the other end. Can't blame companies for trying to find what that could look like. And it's open source, so it should be easy to change out the desktop if it doesn't turn out good.

Geez, I never thought I'd ever be a Musk apologist, but you seem to have an inordinate amount of hate that doesn't seem justified from the facts.

• a) This was a test flight to shake down the massive amount (thousands) of changes on Starship
• b) There were no astronauts aboard the vessel

I fully support Indonesia's stance to require more local input into products. Most USians want the same, and to be honest I want the same for my own country, too.

Being realistic about it, though, if every country required 35% of locally made components in their phones, then the major brands would need a factory in every single country. And that's just not going to happen. The supply-chain management would make the entire endevour unprofitable, resulting in China, the US, and maybe India getting phones, and the result of the world missing out. Technology progress would slow to a crawl.

So instead, we compromise. I make the phones, and you make the AirTags. Supply-chains work. Everybody wins.

More than once have I stopped at a pedestrian crossing, waiting for a pedestrian who is standing right on the curb. They're facing the crosswalk, but they're just standing there. How long is it practical for me to yield? The pedestrian doesn't seem interested in communicating their intent.

Or worse yet, sometime pedestrians standing there wave me through, but legally I'm liable if they change their mind, so I always yield. But then you are gesticulating like jerks to each other: you go, no you go, no you go.

My point is, even though the law is clear, in practice it's sometimes not black & white. I get why the Waymo devs have built in a "pedestrian intent" mechanism.

I understand fiat currencies, and I understand stock markets. But I'm going to challenge you on your assessment of Bitcoin.

I posted this earlier in another thread and nobody gave me a good answer, but I'd like you to take a crack at reconciling this please:

As evidence of this, I point out all the discussion on this post about FOMO. So let me ask you this in good faith: Why should a genuine currency have any kind of FOMO attached to it?

It's called a synchronous condenser. They're designed to stabilise the grid by providing the inertia that spinning (fossil-fueled) generators used to provide. And yes, South Australia already has a few.

No country still uses the gold standard. Switzerland was the last country to abandon it (back in 1999). Not arguing for or against the merits of the gold standard, but just pointing out that officially there's 0 countries.

There may be countries that still use it unofficially, but I would wager that it's still in use because it's more stable than the local currency. Hence my argument: what you want out of a currency is stability.

Can somebody please inform me on something.

The people investing in bitcoin do so because they claim it has utility. Because if it had no utility then it would be 100% pyramid scam. And the utility they point to is as a currency of exchange.

When the value goes up by 38% in a month, it destroys its value as a currency, because the number one attribute of a currency is stability (sorry dude, your 1bc won't buy you that pizza because the price went up by 20% overnight).

So it seems to me that these are at polar odds with each other. Crypto-currencies can't be BOTH an investment and an exchange currency.

Am I off the mark here?

What on earth are you talking about? Of course most social media companies have a sue-able corporate presence in Australia:

• https://www.metacareers.com/careers/v2/locations/sydney/?p[offices][0]=Sydney%2C%20Australia&offices[0]=Sydney%2C%20Australia
• https://www.tiktok.com/discover/tiktok-office-sydney?lang=en
• https://careers.snap.com/job?id=R0037150

Did you do any research on this topic before forming an opinion?

... and yet, Australians are not marching in the streets. I wonder why that is? Could it be because you are completely full of shit?

How on earth has this been modded +5, I'll never know. I've never read a larger load of made-up crap and soap-boxing in my life.

The law specifically places enforcement of this law on the social media companies themselves, and goes nowhere near dictating any kind of government digital ID. The government actually has public sentiment on their side here, so if this was a trojan horse effort, then they've completely fucked up because this would have been the opportune time to get such laws in place. AND there is bipartisan support for this across all of our political parties. Further, the social media companies already generally ban under 13's from creating accounts, so there are already mechanisms in place to determine age.

But please, go ahead and spout knee-jerk crap without even reading the law.

So, for an Internet-based cloud company, are they admitting that they haven't really figured out how to work in the cloud?

We're going to have to agree to disagree over this. I, and I think most others, would consider 98% carbon reduction significantly better than 0% carbon reduction.

I also don't see many people on the pro-renewables front accepting of rolling blackouts, either. This has significant ramifications for vulnerable people, hospitals, etc. We all have elderly loved-ones that this would affect. I'd like if you could point out any public utterances of some that consider it acceptable.

And we'll also have to agree to disagree that "administration" is what is killing nuclear from being cost-competitive. This article breaks down the costs, and they're clearly due to the cost of construction, not administration.