If you had no assumptions of my political affiliation, then your remarks about cognitive dissonance make no sense.
Or maybe white people only care when other white people are killed in high concentrations. But that wouldn't fit your partisan philosophy.
Except the Soviet Union, which I mentioned, consisted of other white people. Also, the issue wasn't just that white people "didn't care"; the problem was that some white people explicitly denied that the massacres had occurred. It's not a matter of them just not caring.
Cognitive dissonance is a human trait. You are engaging in it yourself when you try to cast the left as engaging in it more than the right... Your whole argument is itself simply an expression of a double standard when you try to claim the left engages in this more than the right.
You wrongly guessed my political affiliation. I have never voted Republican in my life. Furthermore, I was voted most liberal by my graduating high school class in San Francisco.
Whole Foods is treated differently because of the moral and intellectual double standards which prevail on the left. Leftists and rightists both treat things differently when they are done by people on "our side" and so practice double standards. The left, however, is particularly bad in that regard.
One example of this was the extremely widespread holocaust denial (or something akin to holocaust denial) which is rampant on the left and has always been. I am not talking about the mass murder in Germany. I am referring to the mass murder in the Soviet Union in the 1930s through the 1950s and even after; the mass murder in Cambodia in the 1970s; and the ongoing mass murder and severe political repression in almost all explicitly "socialist" countries which until recently were the darlings of far leftists everywhere. Those mass murders were denied or disputed by considerable numbers on the left. What's more, the denial of mass murder is ignored by a great many other leftists who do not deny that those murders occurred. There is a double standard. Whereas most leftists would vehemently protest (and rightly so) when someone disputes the Holocaust, they are strangely silent when one of their own disputes the mass killings of leftist regimes.
The denial was especially severe with regard to Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge murdered 1/4th of the population of that country within a few years. A whole industry of professors and leftist figures exist to deny the mass-murder there. Even Noam Chomsky tried hard to deny the killing fields, and tried hard to dispute the reports of massacre emanating from that country. The reason for this denial (I suspect) is because the mass murders followed a socialist revolution and were orchestrated by far leftists who had been educated in Paris, and who had been supported enthusiastically by the far left. The fact that it resulted in mass murder is difficult to accept for people who are convinced of their own ethical superiority. Thus, a double standard evolved.
If Noam Chomsky had been a Nazi sympathizer and had denied the Holocaust, he would be a forgotten figure by now, as he deserves to be, for various reasons. However, he spent his time denying the mass murder in Cambodia, so it was forgotten.
These double standards prevail everywhere. My leftist friends cannot stop laughing at young earth creationism, but are in thrall to pseudoscientific nonsense which makes creationism look sophisticated in comparison. There are all kinds of T-Shirts meant to mock creationism, with a "Teach the Controversy" byline beneath a Triceratops attached to a plow. There are not, however, T-Shirts worn by my leftist friends mocking homeopathy, or all kinds of ancient medical quackery, or "energy medicine", or "multiple chemical sensitivity", or the recent widespread belief that vaccines are dangerous and aren't worth it. Granted, these things are not practiced by most people on the left. However, they are ignored by people on the left who have a scientific understanding, who reserve their vitriol for the pseudoscience of the other side.
There are also double standards with regard to doomsday groups. Each side of the political spectrum mocks the doomsday groups of the other side. People who are waiting for "the end times" are mocked by those on the left. However, peak oiler doomers (almost all of whom were on the far left) who assured us that civilization certainly would collapse before 2008 are largely exempt from that mockery.
I suppose double standards are easy to fall into. It's difficult to condemn one of your own.
But other than piloting, what else do humans do, and how automatable is it?
Generally the employees on a ship are divided into officers and crew. The officers include the captain, first mate, and second mate. Also the officers include the engineering department, with a chief engineer, second engineer, and third engineer. Among the crew, there are a bunch of seamen (perhaps 5 or more of them). There is also a steward and a cook.
All of these people are divided into shifts. At any given time, there are 5 or so people working: one deck officer (such as the captain), one engineer (who is maintaining the large engine), and a couple of able seaman, one of whom is on lookout at the front of the ship.
I doubt they could do away with the engineering positions. These ships have large engines which require continuous maintenance. It won't be done by robots any time soon.
Perhaps they could automate the captain/lookout positions. Doing so would reduce the people on a shift from 5 or so, to 3. Perhaps there could be one captain for a convoy of ships, and a single lookout for the forward-most ship in the convoy. Also they could reduce the steward/cook to one person (instead of two) per ship in that case.
In the article they say that drone ships will eventually be commanded by captains on the land.
However, the article includes a CGI picture of a convoy of containerships. I'm guessing the idea might be to have a convoy of drone ships, where a single captain controls 6 different ships in a convoy. Maybe that would be the first iteration, with land-based control coming later.
I should also point out that the statistics mentioned in the article are incorrect. From the article:
Crew costs of $3,299 a day account for about 44 percent of total operating expenses for a large container ship, according to Moore Stephens LLP, an industry accountant and consultant.
A modern containership can cost $200 million, and can consume 300 tons of bunker fuel per day. Thus, the fuel costs are over $100,000 per day, and the costs of the purchase of the ship are over $50,000 per day.
Thus, crew costs are more like 2% of all costs, and not 44% as the quotation indicates.
The only way to arrive at the 44% figure is if you break down containership costs into capital costs (the cost of the ship), bunker costs (fuel), and operating costs (not including fuel). This kind of breakdown is commonly done. If you break things down in this way, "operating costs" are generally about 10% of the total cost of running the ship, and labor costs would be 44% of that ~10%. Thus, labor costs altogether are a few percent of the cost of running a ship.
The article does not spell this out, and gives a mistaken impression.
Drone ships would have very little benefit compared to ships of today, and would save very little labor. That's because crew sizes are already negligible on modern ships. Ships require very little labor for their operation. For example, a massive containership like the Maersk Triple-E might carry 15,000 containers (equivalent to about 7,000 tractor-trailer truckloads) while having a crew of 15, in three shifts. At any one time, there are 5 people transporting 7,000 tractor-trailer truckloads of cargo. If we reduced those jobs, it would make very little difference to costs or anything else.
Bear in mind that three of the 15 positions are the engineering staff who are frequently performing physical operations on a massive engine. Those jobs will not go away by having a single captain for multiple ships.
The number of jobs on a ship is decreasing every year anyway, as ships gradually grow larger. Larger ships generally do not have larger crews, so the amount of labor per unit of cargo keeps dropping anyway. Large containerships today carry more than twice the cargo of ships from 20 years ago, while crew sizes have not grown, so the amount of labor per unit of cargo has dropped by half and continues dropping.
Labor costs are already an extremely small fraction of the costs of operating a ship. It would make little difference to reduce labor costs further.
working to turn both genders feral for the sake of ego-driven identity politics/ideology or profit motive.
How is the profit motive turning both genders "feral"? The profit motive may well be repellent, at least to some, but it certainly doesn't do that.
How is identity politics turning both genders "feral"? It doesn't seem to me that untamed animals participate in identity politics or were made that way by identity politics, or that anyone has ever been made "feral" by identity politics.
Of course, the term "identity politics" is a mostly a derisive way of saying "minority rights", and especially rights for women. However it's difficult to say outright that you oppose rights for certain groups of people. Thus it was necessary to create a bad-sounding term, in order to make the insistence upon rights sound petty or (in your words) "ego-driven".
I wish you luck if you live in the west. You'll need it.
I doubt he will need luck living in the west.
Then something interesting happened. The original researcher responded by looking for subsets of the data from the large study, to find any sub-groups where his hypothesis would be confirmed. He ended up retorting that "keeping a positive mental outlook DID work, according to your own data, for 35-45 year-old east asian females (p<0.05)"... How many statistical tests did he perform to reach that conclusion, while trying to rescue his hypothesis? If he ran more than 20 tests, then you would expect one spurious positive result just from random error, even though his p value was less than 0.05.
One variant of "p-hacking" is "torturing the data", or performing the same statistical test over and over again, on slightly different data sets, until you get the result that you want. You will eventually get the result you want, regardless of the underlying reality, because there is 1 spurious result for every 20 statistical tests you perform (p=0.05).
I remember one amusing example, which involved a researcher who claimed that a positive mental outlook increases cancer survival times. He had a poorly-controlled study demonstrating that people who keep their "mood up" are more likely to survive longer if they have cancer. When other researchers designed a larger, high-quality study to examine this phenomenon, it found no effect. Mood made no difference to survival time.
Then something interesting happened. The original researcher responded by looking for subsets of the data from the large study, to find any sub-groups where his hypothesis would be confirmed. He ended up retorting that "keeping a positive mental outlook DID work, according to your own data, for 35-45 year-old east asian females (peven if the p value was 0.05.
This kind of thing crops up all the time.
Unfortunately, scientists studying nutrition face an ethical conundrum. They feel they must publish (and publicize) preliminary results because it might save lives. Suppose there's fairly good (but not extremely strong) reason to think that eggs are bad for you. Shouldn't you publicize that result? If you don't, millions of people could die needlessly. If you wait until the results are really certain (or at least more certain), then you have denied people the benefit of preliminary information.
Bear in mind that diseases like atherosclerosis develop over decades. It would take decades (and it would be unethical besides) to assign people to different dietary groups, control everything perfectly, and see who drops dead of heat disease. Since those studies can't be done, the results we do have are frequently preliminary or merely suggestive.
Eggs were bad for you because they contain cholesterol, and some peoples' arteries are clogged with exactly that substance. A few scientists made a leap--let's not consume a lot of exactly the substance which is clogging your arteries.
Unfortunately, that was wrong.
These days more publicizers provide tentative wording to suggest that a result is preliminary. For example, there is a campaign in California to get people to eat more nuts. There are signs paid for by the state which say "research suggests but does not yet prove that eating nuts can reduce your chance of a heart attack" and so on. At least that's a step in the right direction, IMO.
That is exactly the problem. The article makes it seem as if pro-nuclear and greenie types are attacking each other. In fact, the attacks are entirely in one direction: from the greenies, toward nuclear power. I don't see many pro-nuclear people protesting the construction of new wind farms. Nor do pro-nuclear people attack solar power. Usually, pro-nuclear people are comfortable with both nuclear and renewables, and want both.
The greenies insist that power generation must be renewable only, and if they don't get exactly that, then they'd rather just burn coal and have global warming (witness Germany).
From the article:
Meanwhile, it’s time to stop wasting ammunition on friendly fire. If activists care about the climate as much as they say they do, they should focus on their areas of agreement, rather than their differences.
But greenies obviously do not care about the climate as much as they say they do. It's not among their top priorities. Their first priority is shutting down nuclear power even if that makes climate change worse (witness Germany). Their second priority usually is making sure that food is grown without fertilizer (??). Climate change is usually about their 10th environmental priority, to be sacrificed for any higher priority.
In California, where I live, greenies protest the construction of new solar power plants. Apparently, solar power plants would ruin the desert. Just solar power isn't good enough. It must be solar power exactly where they want it (apparently not in the desert?), or it's just back to burning fossil fuels.
Ah yes, the right answer using the wrong method.
Nope. You didn't get it. The poster was claiming that Fourier was right about the temperature of the Earth being different from what was expected. Fourier's calculations about that, were correct. Then Fourier generated a hypothesis about the cause of the increased temperature, which was wrong. At no time did he "get the right answer using the wrong method".
Is there anything more delusional than that?
Forming a hypothesis about an observed event is obviously not the same thing as being "delusional".
Do you know who Fourier was? Do you really think he was just "delusional"?
Its amazing watching people with no scientific ability trying to sound scientific.
He's doing a much better job than you are. Your posts are beneath even the very low standards which prevail on slashdot.
Speaking of "no scientific ability":
Its amazing watching people with no scientific ability trying to sound scientific.
Did you actually read and understand the thread? He was responding to the claim that glaciers were calving more quickly because they were growing thicker inland. His citations were relevant to that.
but then that sounds somehow less scary doesn't it?
It's not all just an attempt to scare you.