The majority of the country are for trans rights
I'm not sure where the majority stands on this, to be honest. I think a more accurate statement might be that the majority of the country opposes wasting time and money on oppressing trans people, and sees oppressing them to be a pointless and stupid thing to do. I'm not sure if that is always 100% the same thing as being in favor of trans rights.
As far as I'm concerned, the world that existed before the bathroom bills started showing up reflects how most people feel. If a person who looks like a woman walks into a women's restroom, who cares if they were born biologically female or not? I'm not sure that we need to codify a law to ensure that people can use bathrooms that match their identity. If we dropped gender designations from all single-hole bathrooms that would likely resolve quite a bit of this, wouldn't it?
And it's going to get worse for the religious bigots because religion is dying.
As I recall, a recent Pew study in the US showed that the fastest growing response for the survey of religions in the US was "none". Granted this includes a lot of things beyond atheists, agnostics, and the sort; it would also potentially include the "Christmas & Easter" Christians and various other people to consult their religion when they feel like it.
Given the comment about "stabbing instructions"...
Actually, yes, it is true.
The rest is just analogies/parodies of the more common denier arguments. There's no honest way to sugar coat it, the deniers are the 21st century version of flat earthers.
If you think Vista was bad you're not old enough to remember NT 4.0.
I remember the sound system crashing on my Vista laptop, sending a horrible, unstoppable screeching through the speakers. Basically it was an audio snow crash. Yet everything else worked normally; I was able to save my work and shut the system down. And I remember thinking, "that was horrible, but so much less horrible than it could have been."
>The thesis of this "scientific paper" is basically like a couple of tokers sitting around in their parents' basement saying "DUUUUDE... what if the money in our savings account DOUBLED EVERY YEAR?!???
Again this is not a critique of the paper, it is a critique of tokers sitting around in their parent's basement. There is no substance in your criticism to address, it really is just an expression of your feelings toward the paper's author. Aside from the fact that you're just name-calling, the numerical basis you've used for comparison is just wrong.
Now it so happens I have you at a disadvantage: I've actually read the paper. It's closer the tokers sitting around saying, "How can we achieve a 7% annual compound interest rate sustained over ten years with our portfolio," which is roughly what doubling your money in ten years takes. The authors are talking about what it would take to half carbon emissions which would be a 6.6% reduction each year, and they discuss methods for reducing them, which they break down into near term no-brainer, near-term difficult, and long term speculative. As is usual the further out you go the less concrete and certain you can be. This is normal in economic projections that go twenty or more years out.
Now you may disagree with the specific means proposed, some of which are quite drastic (e.g. attempting to recover external costs through inheritance taxes). But there is nothing inherently irrational about starting with a goal -- zero carbon emissions by 2050 -- then asking what it would take to achieve that. Nor is there anything inherently ridiculous with coming up with the answer that it'll take a mix of things, some of which looking twenty or more years into the future we can't predict yet.
That's when we switch to either denying entry to the market if they don't pay taxes or just set up import tarriffs. One way or another, they will pay because the market is just too big to write off.
Which will never work, UBI will never work. Why because people will never be satisfied with what they have. They will always want more. The planets resources remain limited. If its no longer a question of how hard they have to work for X; the answer to "why should I not have finer clothes, travel further faster, be warmer or be cooler, eat something nicer, etc will be that I should!"
That sounds a lot like why our current system isn't working!
I;m not so sure it accelerated anything. The rollouts of automation so far are happening without regard to the minimum wage in the area. I would say other factors shifted the economic equation such that it makes sense even at the old wage.
That does suggest that increasing the minimum wage is a stopgap measure, but we need that right now while we implement a longer term solution.
Sorry, no. Texas tried tort reform and the problem got worse than ever as a result. The other key word in your post is wealthy. U.S. healthcare works for the wealthy and leaves the majority of the country with none but for a few charity teaching hospitals.
Americans are going to Mexico for their dentistry and Singapore for major surgery.
The aim of science is to seek the simplest explanations of complex facts. Seek simplicity and distrust it. -- Whitehead.