Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote: Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change.
So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress?
What do you mean by "capacity"?
The rate at which they absorb and store solar energy. If I remember, I think the best one's are still below 50%. They may be higher though.
Edit: I should have used the word efficiency. I did a quick search just now and they are hovering between 15-22%.
Photo-voltaic is just one stick in the technological bundle, but it will probably be pretty good by 2035 or 2040. Fusion is still a possibility. Maybe carbon capture technologies. You never know.
This battery is an intriguing electrochemical mystery. It has its critics, but the point is that weird stuff can still happen. I don't see sufficient cause for pessimism about the future of energy.
Man. I fuck with IEEE. It's been a minute since I've read anything from that org. Thanks for the link and I'll be sure to read up on it tomorrow.
Anything to add about policy changes resulting from better tech to steer from oil?
On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote: Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change.
So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress?
What do you mean by "capacity"?
The rate at which they absorb and store solar energy. If I remember, I think the best one's are still below 50%. They may be higher though.
Edit: I should have used the word efficiency. I did a quick search just now and they are hovering between 15-22%.
Photo-voltaic is just one stick in the technological bundle, but it will probably be pretty good by 2035 or 2040. Fusion is still a possibility. Maybe carbon capture technologies. You never know.
This battery is an intriguing electrochemical mystery. It has its critics, but the point is that weird stuff can still happen. I don't see sufficient cause for pessimism about the future of energy.
I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic so much legitimately concerned that the intersection of profitability and the threat of extinction becoming a promise that triggers the kind of rapid changes we need is happening too late for hundreds of millions if not billions of people that will suffer as a result and that's grossly unethical imo.
Additionally that this threat will be used as leverage by an entrenched class who's exploitative practices against those they are already exploiting are the primary culprits. Even the more progressive solutions like relying on technological advancements in tandem with at least a base recognition of the problem at hand (and social pressure to do something) while better than nothing, it's still woefully insufficient according to the science and political reality (from my perspective) in the US.
History has always been too late for some.
On June 02 2019 15:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Anything to add about policy changes resulting from better tech to steer from oil?
On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote: Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change.
So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress?
What do you mean by "capacity"?
The rate at which they absorb and store solar energy. If I remember, I think the best one's are still below 50%. They may be higher though.
Edit: I should have used the word efficiency. I did a quick search just now and they are hovering between 15-22%.
Photo-voltaic is just one stick in the technological bundle, but it will probably be pretty good by 2035 or 2040. Fusion is still a possibility. Maybe carbon capture technologies. You never know.
This battery is an intriguing electrochemical mystery. It has its critics, but the point is that weird stuff can still happen. I don't see sufficient cause for pessimism about the future of energy.
I wouldn't say I'm pessimistic so much legitimately concerned that the intersection of profitability and the threat of extinction becoming a promise that triggers the kind of rapid changes we need is happening too late for hundreds of millions if not billions of people that will suffer as a result and that's grossly unethical imo.
Additionally that this threat will be used as leverage by an entrenched class who's exploitative practices against those they are already exploiting are the primary culprits. Even the more progressive solutions like relying on technological advancements in tandem with at least a base recognition of the problem at hand (and social pressure to do something) while better than nothing, it's still woefully insufficient according to the science and political reality (from my perspective) in the US.
History has always been too late for some.
And the accountability yet to come for most of those responsible.
As allegedly creatures of reason, I think the onus is on us to do better than we've done and are doing (or plan to).
On June 02 2019 13:47 IgnE wrote: Their "business model" is meeting market demand. If it wasn't these companies it would be others. I don't see the point or the sense in saying that these companies, which sell all the oil and fossil fuels, are "responsible" for global warming. If no one was buying it they wouldn't be in business.
I think the most plausible way out is looking like technological change.
So IgnE, how long do you think it would take for photo-voltaic cells to reach an optimum capacity that would necessitate a move from oil? If that would happen, do you see any specific policy changes being enacted through Congress?
What do you mean by "capacity"?
The rate at which they absorb and store solar energy. If I remember, I think the best one's are still below 50%. They may be higher though.
Edit: I should have used the word efficiency. I did a quick search just now and they are hovering between 15-22%.
Photo-voltaic is just one stick in the technological bundle, but it will probably be pretty good by 2035 or 2040. Fusion is still a possibility. Maybe carbon capture technologies. You never know.
This battery is an intriguing electrochemical mystery. It has its critics, but the point is that weird stuff can still happen. I don't see sufficient cause for pessimism about the future of energy.
Man. I fuck with IEEE. It's been a minute since I've read anything from that org. Thanks for the link and I'll be sure to read up on it tomorrow.
Anything to add about policy changes resulting from better tech to steer from oil?
You're asking the wrong question. The question isn't whether action from Congress is needed *when* photovoltaics reach an efficiency greater that makes them cheaper than burning oil. Obviously market forces are sufficient at that point.
It's whether Congress can do anything to speed up that development. And not just that one, but the development of other technologies that could be useful in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels. Obviously making the use of oil more expensive (by taxing emissions or just straight up taxing oil use) and investing that money into funding alternative energy research would speed things up. Maybe not enough, but right now we are mostly just guzzling oil and saying "sorry, market forces say oil is cheap" instead of even trying.
E: in fact, Trump trying to bring coal back is doing the reverse of what might help.
That's kind of what I meant. The market is currently dictating the pace of this, but what would be a good enough policy proposal to jump start it? You can only give so many breaks and incentives. The GND is a framework that needs a lot of work still, and I don't see trump or his admin doing anything particularly helpful at all in this regard.
That being said, will it take some wealthy person to kick start it? Apple or Alphabet announcing something game changing? I don't know.
On June 02 2019 23:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: That's kind of what I meant. The market is currently dictating the pace of this, but what would be a good enough policy proposal to jump start it? You can only give so many breaks and incentives. The GND is a framework that needs a lot of work still, and I don't see trump or his admin doing anything particularly helpful at all in this regard.
That being said, will it take some wealthy person to kick start it? Apple or Alphabet announcing something game changing? I don't know.
I mean you know the idea I prefer, but the next best option (spitballing a bit) would be a Vietnam era like anti-war movement imo.
If we're striking that from the realm of possibility, and we're trying to work within neoliberal framing, making presidential primary support contingent on support of a GND sized reform would be the next most likely/effective The details can be focused on moving our infrastructure into the 21st century rather than the specifics of how we avoid climate catastrophe. That one's pretty much out the window, but a GND (of more significance than could pass the house today) could be enough to save most people in the US. Obviously the most marginalized would be pretty screwed but all in all we'd have until ~2100 before stuff really hit the fan and we'll probably all be dead or ready to go (meaning like us here being old. should we be so lucky).
Next generation (~2100 A.D.)would hear stories of our Roarin' 20's over slightly radioactive fires and wonder how we could be so selfish and stubborn though imo.
Most users would not be surprised to see that Trump lied or mislead about something. Perhaps the latest example is when Trump referred to Meghan Markle as "nasty" in an interview (see youtube video below for evidence). The media reported on his word choice, referring to her as "nasty." He said other nice things about her, so you could probably make the argument that the media was reporting in an unbalanced manner by harping on his one negative words that he used. How did Trump respond? He denied calling Meghan Markle "nasty," identified the claim as made up by the "fake news media," claimed the media just got caught cold in fake reporting, and specifically fingered CNN and the NY Times, suggesting they should apologize. Here are the two items side by side:
Jump to 1:00
Quote in case the tweet somehow gets edited/removed
I never called Meghan Markle “nasty.” Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!
Remarkably, here is a quote from Fox News: "Despite his denial, there is an audio recording circulating of President Trump saying the exact quote about Duchess Meghan that had been reported."
The White House is trying to walk it back by saying that Trump wasn't actually calling her nasty... he was referring to one particular example of behavior on her part. That defense could work if Trump just said "I didn't call her nasty" and left it at that. It would look pretty bad, but would disappear soon after. However, Trump's decision to start attacking the media with claims of "fake news", even in such a case where at worst there was only a slight misunderstanding on the part of journalists, shows that his accusations of "fake news" are not necessarily founded and should simply be dismissed 100% of the time by all people including his supporters. I think most people already know this, but clearly some do not and this case is a difficult one to overlook.
The other question is, did Trump not realize he referred to her, in some form, as nasty, until provided with the video evidence? Is he not falling into some type of dementia or other problem that could affect his memory? If so, that's not a count against him personally, but the American people need to know.
On June 03 2019 03:24 micronesia wrote: The other question is, did Trump not realize he referred to her, in some form, as nasty, until provided with the video evidence? Is he not falling into some type of dementia or other problem that could affect his memory? If so, that's not a count against him personally, but the American people need to know.
Probably none of the above. He's been repeatedly praised for taking on the media by any means necessary (i.e. lying), so naturally he keeps doing it.
On June 03 2019 03:24 micronesia wrote: The other question is, did Trump not realize he referred to her, in some form, as nasty, until provided with the video evidence? Is he not falling into some type of dementia or other problem that could affect his memory? If so, that's not a count against him personally, but the American people need to know.
Probably none of the above. He's been repeatedly praised for taking on the media by any means necessary (i.e. lying), so naturally he keeps doing it.
Yeah, he seems to be very simple-minded in that respect. As for why he slurs his words and is frequently oblivious to reality, I'm not sure of the underlying causes.
It's a lie because he makes no bones about nasty person based on her behavior or nasty behavior. AND hilarious War Room bad rebuttal. I will continually be astonished that people normally level-headed will reach towards questions of dementia when being presented with circumstances fully explained by lying. An adept politician would easily win by not lying, simply saying her behavior was nasty in accordance with American English's "nice to me" "nasty to me" antonyms.
Is it really astonishing that normally level-headed folks consider old people saying ridiculous things which blatantly contradict reality to be possibly suffering from something like dementia? It's a fairly common condition among senior citizens. Even if Trump lies 100% of the time while healthy, dementia is still a possibility... it's just camouflaged since it looks similar to his normal, pre-dementia behavior. If this is the situation where you can't accuse him of having dementia because his normal behavior would cover it up, then perhaps the American people should be concerned that their president could be coming down with dementia and they have no way of finding out because he's so much of a liar normally.
On June 03 2019 04:20 micronesia wrote: Is it really astonishing that normally level-headed folks consider old people saying ridiculous things which blatantly contradict reality to be possibly suffering from something like dementia? It's a fairly common condition among senior citizens. Even if Trump lies 100% of the time while healthy, dementia is still a possibility... it's just camouflaged since it looks similar to his normal, pre-dementia behavior. If this is the situation where you can't accuse him of having dementia because his normal behavior would cover it up, then perhaps the American people should be concerned that their president could be coming down with dementia and they have no way of finding out because he's so much of a liar normally.
Trump is leader, leader is god. god cannot be wrong.
It sounds stupid but this is basically what (some) Republicans have been reduced to. Even went confronted by simply video proof of him saying something and then denying saying that thing they have to explain it away somehow rather then just saying 'yeah, he lies'. The concept that he might be mentally ill doesn't even bear thinking about in their head.
On June 03 2019 03:24 micronesia wrote:The other question is, did Trump not realize he referred to her, in some form, as nasty, until provided with the video evidence? Is he not falling into some type of dementia or other problem that could affect his memory? If so, that's not a count against him personally, but the American people need to know.
This is something I have been becoming increasingly convinced of for a while now. My granddad had Alzheimer's and in the early days of it he started exhibiting behaviours that we see frequently with Trump. My granddad would say or do something and then 100% forget that he did/said it. If you spoke to him two days in a row, he likely wouldn't remember speaking to you at all the previous day. At first it was only small things he would forget, but as time went on, he forgot more and more, and would insist that we were wrong about him forgetting things.
My granddad also went from being a rather eloquent speaker to barely being able to string together a coherent sentence. For Trump, if you compare audio of him talking 10 or 15 years ago to today, it's like he's a different person. Currently, if he has a script or is heavily prepared for a speech or interview, he seems ok, but the second he goes off-script, all sentence structure and coherency goes out the window. He almost never finishes a sentence, and seems almost incapable of sticking with a single idea. He only seems to be able to speak in general terms now, and gets flustered when asked about specific details. He also frequently will forget words and/or substitute in similar-sounding but incorrect words (i.e. the "Oranges of the Mueller Investigation" instance the other week), which is something I also saw with my granddad and is considered a sign of Alzheimer's/dementia (see #6 in that link).
My biggest concern is that people with early stage dementia or Alzheimer's frequently begin to have big changes in mood and stop making decisions that make sense. We've seen Trump do both. His administration will make a policy announcement one day and then out of nowhere he will contradict his own people on the policy and reverse course, almost seemingly like he forgot about the previous policy decision. We also saw him blow up at Schumer and Pelosi in such a way that Pelosi looked visually shaken up after the meeting a week or so back.
It's genuinely concerning. Anyone who has dealt with people with dementia knows that it only gets worse, and to have somebody exhibit these symptoms while being the most powerful person in the world is pretty scary.
On June 03 2019 04:44 JimmiC wrote: How is it that people think it better that he is compulsively lying rather than has dementia. Both are reasons you should not lead a country!
From a power standpoint lying compulsively is completely fine but dementia (any serious disease actually) is devastating.
Even a serious rumor about bad health is completely crippling for a leader, even in a democracy.
If democrats really want to win 2020 that's the way to do it. Keep making jabs about his memory and temperament, comments like "my uncle was like that before he got his diagnosis" etc etc. It's real dirty but it's probably the one thing that get a core trump supporter to reconsider.
The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics writes a lot about the importance of staying healthy. It's more important for authoritarian regimes but just look how Russia/Putin and their controlled media reacted about a rumor of him having the flu. Illness is not a joking matter when you are at the top because humans will not follow a sick leader.
On June 03 2019 04:20 micronesia wrote: Is it really astonishing that normally level-headed folks consider old people saying ridiculous things which blatantly contradict reality to be possibly suffering from something like dementia? It's a fairly common condition among senior citizens. Even if Trump lies 100% of the time while healthy, dementia is still a possibility... it's just camouflaged since it looks similar to his normal, pre-dementia behavior. If this is the situation where you can't accuse him of having dementia because his normal behavior would cover it up, then perhaps the American people should be concerned that their president could be coming down with dementia and they have no way of finding out because he's so much of a liar normally.
Maybe you should be concerned that you wouldn't know from his lying if it's due to old-age dementia. Fine. The specific case of some interviewer bringing up all the nasty things she said that Trump didn't know? It's too natural to forget about it (he hadn't formed that opinion like on Hillary Clinton), and caught denying something true, to double down. AOC, Tlaib, and Omar do that shit all the time. Even old people deserve a modicum of common sense skepticism ... like a lie designed to preserve ego is just that. Save the dementia lines for uncharacteristic forgetting what day it is or speech patterns, not a pattern of personal behavior tracking back decades.
On June 03 2019 04:20 micronesia wrote: Is it really astonishing that normally level-headed folks consider old people saying ridiculous things which blatantly contradict reality to be possibly suffering from something like dementia? It's a fairly common condition among senior citizens. Even if Trump lies 100% of the time while healthy, dementia is still a possibility... it's just camouflaged since it looks similar to his normal, pre-dementia behavior. If this is the situation where you can't accuse him of having dementia because his normal behavior would cover it up, then perhaps the American people should be concerned that their president could be coming down with dementia and they have no way of finding out because he's so much of a liar normally.
Maybe you should be concerned that you wouldn't know from his lying if it's due to old-age dementia. Fine. The specific case of some interviewer bringing up all the nasty things she said that Trump didn't know? It's too natural to forget about it (he hadn't formed that opinion like on Hillary Clinton), and caught denying something true, to double down. AOC, Tlaib, and Omar do that shit all the time. Even old people deserve a modicum of common sense skepticism ... like a lie designed to preserve ego is just that. Save the dementia lines for uncharacteristic forgetting what day it is or speech patterns, not a pattern of personal behavior tracking back decades.
You mean like not knowing what country you father was born in? Oh wait, he did that to.
He is either constantly lying seemingly without realizing it, or he is demented. Both are not traits that someone fit for the leadership of a country should display.
This mental-disorder-diagnosis-from-a distance thing because someone misspeaks seems very farfetched to me. I don't think Trump is weirder now than he was in 2016.
There's plenty of more important issues with him being president.
EPT
