Youtube it seems has a handful of problems that are hurting small creators and leaving a void for scammers to fill:
1. They demonetise based on a certain set of behaviours such as swearing that are easy to avoid as a bot but hard to avoid when human. This kills off "real" content and allows exploitive content to survive.
2. They incentivise viewing patterns - such as watching the whole video - that are easier to fake with bots than they are likely to occur naturally.
3. They rabbit hole videos - IE if you watch certain videos you will see more similar videos being recommended. Again, easy to game by people in the know but hard to legitimately benefit from.
4. Copyright striking causes an inordinate impact on legitimate channels and little impact on scammers, youtube does nothing to protect their creators from false claims.

Agreed, the focus on Carbon pollution mitigation as the main environmental concern has been a real disaster for environmental reporting. Smog, particulates and as you said, just general livability should have all taken the limelight but instead we are forced into talking about Global Warming - a topic that far too many people just dismiss.

There is a great comic that has a professor talking about global warning and someone says from the crowd "But what if we try to fix it an we're wrong and all we do is make the world less polluted!". It's trying to point out that fighting global warming has great benefits even if global warming is a complete farce but to me it also highlights the communication problem - focusing on global warming instead of quality of life by reduced pollution causes the people that think global warming is a farce to just ignore you.

A solution looking for a problem.

Nah, it's a revenue stream looking for a sucker.

I'm not fully read up on this but isn't the whole point of this debate that the FCC decided Broadband providers AREN'T utility companies and as such removed the federal regulations around net neutrality.

IE: there isn't any law for California to break by enforcing net neutrality.

As someone that was heavily into Math and science in High School, not learning proper public speaking has been an extreme detriment to my career. IT is honestly the difference between a 75k back room support job and a 100k+ consulting position.

"Knowing" is a super important thing for any person. "Demonstrating" that knowledge is often the key to success and if you can't speak publicly, you can't demonstrate.This is why we also teach handwriting and grammar in schools.

I read what you said and I said it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE without some unknown tech to ignore gravity. Just dropping the materials from the sky would require the expenditure of more material than you drop. That doesn't even take into account burn off in the atmosphere, lifting the weight from whatever rock it is mined on and moving it around the solar system.

When you're dealing with materials, "cost effectiveness" is usually directly equatable to "How much material I get" and for space mining, as far as I can tell, that amount is negative if your delivery destination is Earth.

Apollo 11 was powered by a Saturn V rocket which stood 364 feet (101.5 meters) tall. It weighed 525,500 pounds. And we got 800 pounds back. That is not lacking in cost effectiveness, that is actively expending nearly 1000x the mass you acquire. Unless "moon rocks" are 1000x more useful as a commodity than rocket fuel and steel are, then production mining of the moon is impossible.

No, it's absolutely impossible to mine off world without some way to defeat gravity. Let's say we need Lithium. Currently Chile is producing about 13,000 metric tonnes a year. It takes about 9 months to travel to Mars, so let's say each trip would bring 10,000 tonnes back to earth of Lithium.

We can't currently safely deorbit the ISS which weighs about 400 tonnes, best plan is to drop it onto the ocean and hope it doesn't break anything. So how do you get 25 times that weight to earth in a usable form without nuking the landing zone? Short answer is, as far as I am aware, you don't. That is even ignoring the raw fuel costs of accelerating that much mass.

I like this way of spinning it; on average, when compared to AT&T pricing, AT&T caused the price to all Americans to decrease.

PUBG is suing Epic, makers of the engine PUBG uses and supposedly collaborators in some way to the development of PUBG. They are suing because they believe EPIC released a startling similar version of their game in a surprisingly short time span AFTER being exposed to PUBG from an insider perspective.

At the very least EPIC have a large conflict of interest in releasing a "copy cat" product in direct competition of a highly successful customer. Whether that is actionable in court, I don't know but I certainly hope not - Fortnite is the better product of the two.

It's such a baffling thing to say. Diversity can be limited only when there is a barrier to entry. Podcasting has one of the lowest barriers of entry of any entertainment medium. By trying to bring in "underrepresented" demographics wouldn't you actually be going against the wishes of those demographics? I mean to say, nothing is keeping black, gay or female people (or any other demographic) from podcasting right now except their lack of desire to do so.

You're right but I never once said that climate change specifically didn't harm the Baobabs, what I did say was that there is no mechanism mentioned only the nebulous "Climate change" which is generally, warmer temps, more CO2. Surely you would agree that for an incredibly heat tolerant, low water species like the Baobab, those two specific factors increasing should at least have no effect and at best be helpful.

You've thrown in a few other red herrings that are not related to my point: "humidity, soil hydrometry, soil acidity, soil NH4 concentration" the article never mentions these as a mechanism for the death of the Baobab so the fact that they could have been, further proves my point. Your pollinator point is flawed because these are not species failing because of lack of reproduction, they are individuals dying.

I want to reiterate that my main point was that there is no claimed process by which climate change killed these trees, only a statement that it did. That just feels dishonest, "Climate Change" should never be seen as some monolithic beast that just makes bad stuff happen, it makes anyone claiming that look simple.

Except that plant life tends to thrive in a warmer, CO2 rich environment. I'm no Baobab expert but "climate change" IE CO2 increase causing temperature increase, should have a positive impact on the growth of many plants.

Saying climate change killed these plants is pretty farcical without defining an actual mechanism.

from the article: "Between 2005 and 2017, the researchers probed and dated âoepractically all known very large and potentially oldâ ". If we're looking for something that changed, researchers poking and prodding the trees is an interesting possibility that the article doesn't indicate has been eliminated as a cause.

I would disagree with you here, social darwinism is absolutely true, it's just that the selection criteria isn't merit, it is actually level of sociopathy, which most reasonable people will agree is not what we want in our "cream".

Exactly What I was thinking. I'm almost wanting this company to just go, yeah ok, give us a settlement number, we'll pay it the moment no oil or oil product is in use anywhere in your city so that no harm is being caused any longer.

The thing is if the market didn't demand it, it wouldn't sell. Admittedly there is a level of homogeneity in the market so there may not be much choice in the matter but as an example, if no one wanted the S7 edge (I didn't) then they would have bought the standard S7 and I wouldn't be stuck with an edge screen on my S8. Sure you can assume marketing drove the sales of the edge but you can't argue with the results. People buy shit that is less practical based on "cool factor".