I'm not convinced that wealth causes poverty, and the article throws that tidbit out there as a fait accompli. Whether one is wealthy or not, individuals generally require the same amount of basic necessities, and the rich aren't stocking up on the basics, they're buying yachts and other luxuries.
Go spout socialist monetary redistribution crap elsewhere.
What will happen is the cesspool that is social media and the conglomerates that host such sites will pull out of the business. The people running those shit shows want to have their cake and eat it too, and they're currently allowed to. It's not a trump card, it's a level playing field.
Protip: when scum are held accountable and the profits are eaten away by a death by a thousand lawsuits, they'll clean up their act
"But the technology industry says the measure is illegal, in part because it would unconstitutionally make private companies host speech they don't agree with."
Okay, I'm good with that, now they have to take legal responsibility for the content of all posts because they agree with them.
..the title of this article would have been:
Growing Plants Accounts For 100% of All Greenhouse Gases From Food Production, Study Finds
Isn't that so much better? Well, it is until you realize that the ecological consequences of feeding people is still a mess you have to clean up, so shut the f up about it and just start cleaning. And get off any high horse you may have had pointed out to you. Virtue isn't in pointing out problems, virtue is in solving them without making it all about you.
Whomever msmach is, they need to make up their minds. One post says time has run out and the next says there is time remaining.
Climate Disruption Is Now Locked In. The Next Moves Will Be Crucial.
Posted by msmash on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @09:51AM from the closer-look dept.
A New York Clock That Told Time Now Tells the Time Remaining
Posted by msmash on Wednesday September 23, 2020 @09:10AM from the how-about-that dept
... require extraordinary evidence. (thanks Carl!)
That's the reason there are climate skeptics.... there's no extraordinary evidence.
Pretending a baby isn't a baby in order to destroy it because of the social costs of recognizing that life is a spectrum
Your glass house has tons of holes.
Says the anonymous coward. How apt.
So, emac or vi? Pick a side and RUMBLE!
"if he didn't collude, the report would have specifically has said so"
How do you prove someone didn't do something? There would be literally, by definition, no evidence whatsoever.
You say "tax breaks" like it's something other than the government not taking as much money from a private company as it says it can in order to stimulate a regional economy
Of course everything's about me! What other perspective can I represent without appropriation?
It's an interesting question - "can you do it?"
My next question would have been - "What would it cost?"
And then I'd have started asking about priorities and what they presently had on the table, etc.
Folks sure are funny though, getting wrapped around the axle 'cause the man asked a question.
"...the T2 chip could render a computer inoperable..." and it went on from there. The hinge of this whole story rests on a "could". Twist the hinge one way, there is no story, the other way, and
You know, stuff that matters.
Except Trumps rhetoric has accelerated it.
You throw that out as the culmination of conclusions supporting some position using some evidence that you haven't provided.
And for that conclusion to matter...for there to be any validity to that claim, certain assumptions have to be made.
First, you have to assume that some member of the public anywhere really cares about what any political figure say, it all sounds like rhetoric unless you believe it enough to have an opinion about it. I don't. I come to no conclusions based on any ability I might think I have - the ability to know what's in someone else's heart - if I can help it. If I can't weigh it, smell it, or measure it, I don't consider it in my conclusions. Actions speak louder than words, sticks and stones, and yada yada yada. It's all lies, all day every day and twice on Sunday.
Then, you have to also assume that results are what some people ONLY use to determine the worth of their appointed representative. I'm one of those. I look at what's been done and I approve. I thought the lack of emphasis on jobs prior to this administration was disturbing and that business wasn't being a priority, because I believe that the most important thing a government can provide is, a right that if a citizen within their sphere of influence wants to work, they have the best chance gov can provide to do so. Secondary, I think the government should be providing, to the best of it's ability, opportunities within their sphere of influence. I think that's a right of it's citizens. Evidence of the gov's priorities for those highest of rights, and others as recognized, should determine what the approval level for that government is. For this world to be perfect, people need jobs and opportunity, and I start there.
All of which serves as at least a valid conclusion for those that disagree with your assertion to have. At that point, you'll need to provide evidence that supports your conclusion. Measure the effect of Trump's rhetoric and provide citations and bring the results back to this discussion... or you're just spreading rhetoric yourself.
In every non-trivial program there is at least one bug.
