As opposed to the European solution, where you know there's explosives in that field over there but you only deal with the stuff that floats to the surface each year.
It's trivially true though? If you had a functioning justice system, the lynchers would be arrested and it wouldn't happen again.
It's also true in more significant ways, in that lynchings happened because people felt that crimes (or "crimes") were not being appropriately dealt with.
> > You assumed a lot about the parent comment's interpretation. "
> No I did not. That the THE primary argument detractors make when they say that UBI disincentivizes work. Read enough on the arguments against UBI and you will realize that for yourself.
"If you've read enough comments, you can predict the arguments people use. So I wasn't assuming anything."
So a theory I've had for a bit now... Google maps doesn't optimize for ease of travel, or time, or anything like that - it optimizes for engagement, like every other Google product. And how would you do that with a maps product? By making routes too complicated to memorize, too specialized (back streets, etc) to generalize, and then changing things up often to prevent a route from becoming second nature anyways.
Which feels like a lot of what people complain Google Maps does...
And if you are willing to throw out the fissiles, why not a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket? [0] (warning: engineering realities may make this impossible) (one of a very short list of possibilities for a buildable-within-a-century torchship)
Other downsides include "using it for take-offs will leave a large crater that will glow blue for several hundred million years, as will everything downwind in the fallout area", but who really cares about takeoff areas? (That's for the silly plebs left behind on the ground to worry about - you're headed to SPACE!)
The problem is, I can look at the risks of something like this, or olivine beaches with Project Vesta [0], or sulfur dioxide in the upper atmosphere - and the worst cases there are still incomparable to the expected case for climate change. Like, the "I don't know how you would do this deliberately"-tier worst case for Project Vesta would be killing all sea life within 100km of the relevant islands, and that would suck! But with ocean acidification, that's going to happen anyways, and not just around those islands. And that sort of analysis makes me think that either
1. the alternate proposals won't work (at all, which seems unlikely)
2. the expected case for climate change isn't actually as bad as people are saying it is
or
3. people don't actually care about climate change as much as they care about using climate change to push their own agendas
Personally, I lean towards #3. But that still doesn't make me very happy with climate activists.
Comments like this sound like "global warming isn't really a serious problem yet, so the only acceptable way to deal with it is to agree to my demands unconditionally - those alternatives are just too risky" to me.
Okay, and? Raw death numbers, without corresponding usage numbers, are kind of useless. More people die as pedestrians, or in cars, than on scooters after all. Deaths/mile or deaths/hour would both allow some sort of real comparison.
Well, GoLand is $89/yr for the first year, with their standard continuity discounts for further years. $200/yr is only for orgs - if you're paying for it yourself, that's not the price you should be getting.
(I've been using GoLand since when they were calling it Gogland - no complaints so far)
By making a transaction (or series of transactions) that happen to have a binary representation (or destination address, or comment, or...) that decodes to CP - the same way that you'd store any other arbitrary data there.