In the last ten years, CO2 readings at Maura Loa have increased at more than 2.7 PPM per year, and the rate is increasing. Anything over 400 PPM means human extinction.

We can’t just try to slow the rate of increase with nuclear or solar, we need net negative emissions every year. But that’s impossible with our current technology. Even if everyone stopped eating beef or stopped flying in planes, it wouldn’t be enough.

Had we started addressing this problem in 1900, we might have had a chance. But 2024? No, it’s just too late now. By 2030, maybe 2035, all humans on Earth will be dead. Sorry.

In the late ‘70s, they were. Altair, TRS-80, and Osborne weren’t household names, but Apple became one.

And thatâ(TM)s really the best you can do, but you wonâ(TM)t address my points?

Wellâ¦Jobs helped create functional markets for personal computers, MP3 players, digital music, digital video, digital software distribution, computer animation, smartphones, tablets, and wireless headphones. Those were all niche markets before Apple improved them and made them mainstream. Jobs wasnâ(TM)t Ford or Edison, he was multiple Fords or Edisons. And those guys were dicks too.

Perhaps the greatest industrialists must be sociopaths to succeed?

How many times did Microsoft try to create a tablet market? Three? Iâ(TM)ve lost count. But at least it enabled a functional market for computers with GUIs. That was huge.

To be fair, Steve denied paternity when he and Woz were both centimillionaires, not when Steve kept a few thousand dollars for the Breakout game that Woz created.

Sure, over the last forty years, Republicans have sought to destroy government, and they've done a good job. The Post Office is saddled with providing for retirement now for employees who won't retire for decades, Social Security enrollment takes longer, the USDA has no power to stop salmonella, the CPSC can't stop dangerous products, and 40% of Medicare recipients are enrolled in Medicare Advantage scam programs.

Just how is the government parasitic? You pay taxes (unless you're a billionaire or a large corporation), and you get roads, schools, police, fire, infrastructure...

Remove Republicans from the process, and this country becomes a pretty good place to live, but until we do, Republicans will continue to break government so they can say, "See? We told you. Everything should be privatized."

Are UPS or FedEx more efficient than the US Postal Service? They use the Postal Service for the last mile delivery in many cases.

Are Charter or AT&T more efficient than Internet companies in every other OECD country? Those governments created the infrastructure, and then leased it to the companies, which resulted in lower prices and greater efficiency. Wireless and Internet are both faster and cheaper in Europe and Asia.

Are United Healthcare and Blue Cross more efficient than government run healthcare? Again, virtually every OECD country has government involved in some fashion in healthcare, leading to lower prices and better outcome.

There is just no way that banking at the Post Office would cost what Chase and Wells Fargo charge.

Every time we turn an industry over to private enterprise, prices soar while quality suffers. Every time. There are no exceptions. Can you provide one?

Every core service Americans need to survive today (Internet, electricity, gas, water, education, healthcare, banking, housing, food, work) should have a government-provided alternative.

When parasitic, do-nothing industries like finance and healthcare amount to 25% of the economy, it's no wonder the U.S. is falling behind.

And I'm not some twenty-something poet socialist, I'm a business owner in my fifties.

If the last 40 years have proven anything, it's that privatization of key services drives quality down, and costs up.

Exactly. What if you change your opinion? What if someone you knew twenty years ago is no longer someone you want to be associated with? With a permanent record, there would be no way to make that known or explicit.

Oh boy, as soon as they start quoting Hayek or the Austrian School, we're in trouble...

What does "printed to infinity" mean? I've watched the national debt go from $1T to well over $20T (largely thanks to Republicans, by the way) and the U.S. has never experienced hyperinflation in that entire forty year span. If printing money is so dangerous...where is the hyperinflation we were promised Chicago Boy?

Try reading up on MMT sometime. It's actually a theory which fits the facts.

OK, I am NOT saying we shouldn't try. I'm just saying I think the odds are against us. That said, given that the alternative is our extinction, I'm all for trying :)

We are already seeing water shortages, and we're already seeing decreased crop yields. If you're going to make a claim like "that doesn't mean there's nothing we can do" you should provide evidence for that.

I can provide evidence. Are we reducing the amount of carbon we output every year? No. Are we reducing the 25% of carbon emissions due to industrial farming? No. Is the total amount of greenhouse gas in ppm going down each year? No.

There is nothing we can do as individuals. It would take governments cooperating on a planetary scale to begin reducing our carbon emissions. Of course, it's far too late for that, so that's really just a waste of time. Reducing our carbon emissions reduces the particulates in the atmosphere which reflect light back into space, so a reduction in our carbon emissions actually increases global temperatures, hastening our demise.

This is all happening in 2021, and to add insult to injury, a mass extinction is in progress. Could it be that all those plants and animals are unable to adapt to the rapidly rising global temperatures? Humans might be able to adapt for a time, but we can't survive without plants and animals to eat.

As is human nature, by the time the damage becomes apparent to everyone, and our countries cooperate worldwide, our extinction will be imminent.

When will the lesson be learned? You cannot negotiate with psychopaths or sociopaths, they only respect force. It's like Democrats thinking Republicans will agree to a voting rights bill: WHY would Republicans give up their advantage? They know that they're more likely to win if fewer people vote.

Similarly, Putin knows that our infrastructure is more exposed than Russia's, because we are a more open society, and there is a much larger attack surface. We need a strong President to deal with Putin, not President Milquetoast Joe. For instance, a strong President could threaten to accept more of Russia's neighbors into NATO, or further arm those which are already members. A strong President could threaten to release the U.S. strategic oil reserve and cause the price of oil to plummet. While this would hurt the U.S. economy as the world's largest oil producer, it would hurt Russia much more, as oil is the primary export supporting Russia's economy.

I don't know about that. Apple and Google now charge 15% up to $1M in revenue, and then 30% after that. Between them, that's pretty much the whole mobile app market.

What is a developer supposed to do if he or she doesn't want to pay 15%? I have no idea.

Well...if they don't change it, they'll probably lose the Senate. And the first thing the Republicans will do is modify or eliminate the filibuster.