Those estimates are super low frequency though. I mean, hundreds of years between samples kind of low frequency.

Treating proxy data as if it is as useful as high frequency measurements in the modern satellite era is a category error.

Of course ENSO is a natural variation, and that it's not driven by human activity - it's literally circulation patterns of ocean heat that are hundreds of years long, untouched by industrialization.

I understand that the contention might be "well, our tiny fraction of human impact is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back on top of much more significant natural variation", but the truth is we don't have any really well supported evidence against natural variation - at best we have smoothed proxies that have lost resolution, and an otherwise very short observational period.

Now, I see being pissed at the boomers because of them building a welfare state that transfers all the wealth to themselves, stealing from the upcoming generations with inflation, taxation, unsustainable debt, and destructive social engineering against our shared american christian heritage. Even the natural climate change denial of the boomers is part of this selfishness.

The "New Deal" and "Great Society" and all the other socialist programs, including the "green new deal" were never a solution - they were a selfish programs that willfully cloaked themselves in faux compassion and charity, and destroyed communities, and virtue. Continuing the communist takeover only means that we're the ones giving the fuck you to the future, and pulling the ladder up after ourselves - there is no sustainable, involuntary application of "charity". Charity must be voluntary for it to work, and the failure of government interventions to force wealth transfers over the past 100 years has demonstrated that clearly.

The fact that the boomers have us focused on "climate change" is what lets them continue to extract wealth from future generations.

Averages destroy important details in the data.

In a world where temperatures and local weather conditions vary wildly across ranges that have real world impact for those people experiencing them, averages destroy the exact information you would need to actually make decisions.

If you dial the average phone number in the USA, you will not get connected with the average person.

ENSO is a natural phenomenon.

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6, 2021) concluded with high confidence that human influence has not affected the principal tropical modes of interannual climate variability, including ENSO, beyond the range of internal variability. It assigned low confidence that anthropogenic forcing has caused the observed or paleo-inferred changes in ENSO variability.

These observations should give us a greater appreciation for just how significant natural variation is, compared to any possible anthropogenic impact.

Comcast and Verizon were granted special tax breaks in order to reach 98% diffusion of 'broadband' in PA. By 1998. They still haven't met the 1998 definition of broadband, but Comcast has exclusive licensing to the region I live in. I have only starlink, dialup, or god freaking awful geostationary satellite as an alternative, and it is not legal to start another cable provider, even if I wanted to here.

Those cell companies throttle down to LTE all the time. I tried the T-mobile thing once for about half an hour. It flip flopped connection protocols in the middle of conference calls and dropped in the middle of downloads in order to hop between connection types. It was damned near unusable.

One person can download the whole archive and make it available. Silly talking head man knows that, but doesn't want anyone to panic. I've never actually seen anyone make a security by obscurity argument unironically in defense of a breach.

Not going to happen!!!

Amazon is hoping to fly 80lb behemoths over populated areas to drop things from about 12 feet -- while all-too-often crashing into things. Of course to be fair, how could a drone possibly avoid an apartment building or a crane (twice). Last time it was a ladder strapped to the roof of a van.

These things are not only dangerous but hugely uneconomic. Nothing beats a gig-worker on an ebike!

yes and it maximizes engagement. period. it doesn't differentiate between positive and negative engagement. They have the tech to do that, but it would be expensive to run it at that scale for every comment on every post all day long.

IF they don't pair engagement signals with sentiment analysis on those same ones and treat them like a whole signal together (subtracting points for negative sentiment and adding it to positive) then they will all do this. The algorithm is public. We already know it doesn't use sentiment.

The problem with this argument, from the shop's point of view, is that the UK is in the middle of a shoplifting epidemic. The policing resources simply aren't there to deal with small scale (or even flagrant and much larger scale) shoplifting. It now seems to be rare for police officers to attend reports of shoplifting at all. And so effectively shoplifting becomes legalised, which is obviously hurting the big chain stores financially and potentially devastating for smaller shops.

Shops are trying to find some way to respond to this to protect themselves. They typically tell staff, even security staff, not to get physical with shoplifters as they walk out, not least because the risk of something worse happening and the business becoming liable for it is significant. But then the shoplifters know this and some of them will just walk in and openly empty a shelf into a bag and walk out again without paying because they know no-one will try to stop them.

Shops also know that our court system is completely overwhelmed at the moment and there is little chance of bringing any successful civil action to recover damages from shoplifters who aren't even being arrested by the police and put through the criminal justice system.

So what do they have left? Basically, they're trying to spot the "usual suspects" and refuse them entry in the first place, which is a less risky proposition in terms of potential for physical violence and quite effective because a lot of shoplifting is done by the same people, or they're trying to make it more physically difficult to steal goods, for example by using locking systems or keeping high value items behind counters where customers can't just pick them up. But these systems aren't perfect, far from it, and what we're discussing here today is one of the significant problems.

Obviously this kind of technology can have very bad consequences, as we see here. I don't think it should be used if it's not highly reliable, given the potential harm done in cases where it gets something wrong. But I do have some sympathy with the shops who are looking for something -- anything -- to reduce the threat they're facing because the rule of law has failed in retail settings.

Hrm. It seems like they overlooked a lot of crucial qualifications in the candidate.

I believe the argument is that the due diligence was skipped in the name of DEI.

Ah, the "no true scotsman" :)

How would you strictly define "DEI hire"? Does it require a confession, or can we recognize it through any indirect observation?

You seem to be arguing that racist policies are acceptable if they have only a 1% affect against the discriminated against population.

This is the same argument made back in the day regarding pollution - as long as it is diluted, it's not important enough to pay attention to. 500000 ppm of CO2 is a real danger. 500 ppm of CO2 is a really small number, and we can safely discount it.

It's perhaps an uncharitable way of characterizing your observation, and maybe that's all you're doing - making an observation without a moral judgement.