Let’s see, comparing a movement spawned by very clear science that we are endangering our future to an industrial lobby that is lying to maintain profits.
Sorry. Nope. That is intellectual dishonesty of the first rate.
So many things that underlie society’s ability to function, and one damages them at our collective peril.
The boy who cried wolf is a story that teaches which moral lesson ?
You stop and ask for directions, what if the person deliberately lied to you and sent you to a dangerous place?
There is an implicit web of trust and kindness that comes from our ancient past and underlies all of society. Capitalism and political posturing are poisoning the well of all our drinking water.
How strange that survival is something you have to convince people of the value of.
The mere fact that our collective behavior is what is causing this means that at some point there will be a fight for the steering wheel.
Humanity appears incapable of collective action. Any future historians, perhaps some kind of advanced insectoid races archeologists, will say that humanities Achilles heel was being incapable of collective action.
Piquing that uniquely human pride and arrogance is a deliberate strategy by some, but the consequences are dismissed by the same, as they are unable to grasp that this will lead to their own downfall too.
Even the most dystopian arms dealer must eventually eat.
And your so-called-quality of life comes with the price of extinguishing any future above ground for our grandchildren, mass extinctions, and a whole lot of low quality of life for the vast majority of humanity.
We MUST prioritize R&D for precisely the things you mention, but the onus is on industry to adapt, not stymie necessary conversations and necessary change.
I basically agree, I have. My account of my limited experience is above. I never managed to get recommendations beyond kids dancing to pop songs with their dog
I downloaded it, noticed that the initial content I was shown was some kids and their dog dancing to a pop song. Recorded myself drumming a fancy beat with some stick twirling, edited it to a short loop. (Not sure how these folks do anything musically related, the apps loop point setting was coarse and it took me ages to make it loop properly) I opened the app a few more times, saw more videos of people dancing to pop songs. Saw that I still had zero views two days later. I never managed to find any content that didn’t look like a line dance or a wanna be mc-hammer video. More kids dancing to pop music with their dogs. Never managed to find the addictive content.
YouTube has me fairly pegged, however, I can usually safely skip the channel welcome and plea for likes and subscribe and hit meaty content showing me some woodworking or culinary tricks, etc.
The takeaway for me is that a superficial ADHD format results in or best features superficial ADHD content. It’s not like I couldn’t see the restless nature of it and how it could thrive in our short attention span contemporary society, it’s that I felt it to be one more rung down a ladder shortcutting our race to be bottom.
But I’m atypical, admittedly. I have never owned a tv in my life. Don’t Netflix or HBO or whatever is on these days, and YouTube tutorials are about as “vegging out” as I get. I want less screen time in life, not more.
But yay for the tiktok devs, good job on the successful app
Humans already live in a collective hallucination known as social reality. It’s a distinct overlay, distinct from our physical contextual realities and the phenomena we derive our physical laws from etc. overlay of what? Don’t ask. Variously explained as wiggles or turtles all the way down, or so I was told.
I just wanted to point out that we flap our gums or thumbs a lot and ping concepts in each other’s minds via language, but speaking about stuff is not the same as the stuff itself.
Come on, do you expect me to believe that this sort of activity would occur in a Facebook branded world? You’d be lucky to get anything done the rest of your life. Political arguments with 3 meter tall taking porpoises would occupy any time left as you dodge walking ads.
Both sides? The public vs NSO clients or what? Debate? It’s more like an exposé, hopefully followed by investigations and criminal trials or at least mega class action lawsuits. Their spyware was used for murdering countless humans. The list of target phone numbers was heavy on cartel victims etc, in case you hadn’t heard.
Are you essentially saying that nothing could convince you of the link between extreme weather becoming common and global warming? Because you sound skeptical of the link.
The urgency is real. By the time holdouts from the big oil propaganda are convinced it will be too late. It’s likely already too late, but since there is no up to give, we shall die trying to solve this shame of our ignorant selfish generation.
Contact them as soon as possible. It preserves a character reference and you wouldn’t likely just get to keep it by some bookkeeping mistake, and could later prove troublesome
I would have downvoted here instead of arguing with you as I am doing, lol. I disagree. I strongly dislike moderation ( it feels like an unfair boss coming in and using tricky stuff to avoid directly addressing the moderated party. Cowardice. Injustice. Etc…and such lousy grammatical constructions as “you are posting too fast”. Someone inform the HN bot that quickly is an adverb and that fast is an adjective, many incorrectly written street signs notwithstanding.
Did you just claim that this recent pacific heatwave is not linked to climate change? That puts you in scientific fringe territory as an outlier. Such an event is statistically highly highly unlikely as a singular event. When you tie it into all the other One in a Million events such as extreme flooding in summertime Central Europe and China you start to really have to do a lot of handwaving to pretend that it’s not climate change caused by humans burning hundreds of millions of years of sequestered carbon.
Frankly, such radical statements as you made right here undermine this piece that we should be discussing here. It means that you are one of “those” people (climate change denialism in 2021 is an anachronism not supported by any substantive evidence) and it suggest that perhaps we shouldn’t take this piece here seriously, which is not what I grokked from reading it. You do this piece above an associative disservice if you truly hope it to be taken seriously you should refrain from attaching frivolous false commentary. The recent pacific heatwave would likely not have happened if we didn’t burn petroleum like there is no tomorrow.
This piece above, meanwhile, purports to debunk two studies that are claimed to be methodologically flawed.
The author does not claim that neonicotinoids don’t harm insects, but rather targets the work of specific individuals. I only gave a cursory read, nor do I have access to the materials to evaluate, nor the domain knowledge.
Sorry. Nope. That is intellectual dishonesty of the first rate.