ThomPete

55 ms·

691.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Just like your individual neurons dont understand Chinese :)
692.
by ThomPete 7y ago
How would that work out in practice? Sounds highly unlikely.
693.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Brave new world is a better description of what is going on than 1984 IMO.
694.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I don't think I did either. Can you try and explain it?
695.
by ThomPete 7y ago
While true it's important to point out that salaries are rising and most for the lowest income. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-wage-growth-for-... https://www.washingtonpost.com/busine
696.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Can you name one scientifically demonstrated consequence of the climate chaning we don't know how to deal with? That's why I say it. By all means. Let me know what we can't handle, but as far as I am aware we know how to hand
697.
by ThomPete 7y ago
It's not a question about whether climate science is wrong. There are plenty of observations that are pretty well established. The problem is that the media only portraits the most catastrophic of the claims. But a lot of climate scien
698.
by ThomPete 7y ago
What's your evidence that you wouldn't have had these spikes earlier in history? If you averaged that last part of the graph like the previous measurements it wouldn't show this spike. That's the point here. It's mi
699.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The problem is that the discussion has gotten completely off the rails and become politicized to a degree that makes it impossible to discuss rationally. The scientific mind is always and should always be skeptical to absolute claims like t
700.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You see that change in the dotted to solid line down in the end? Do you know why that is? That's the difference between temperature averaged over thousands of years and then suddenly measuring year over year. If you think that's a
701.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is becau
702.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Its used because its unspecific, you can lump any notion whether speculated or demonstrated under that category and just claim whatever you want. Your example is as vague as they come which proves my point. No specifics and everything gets
703.
by ThomPete 7y ago
It's non-sensical to use climate change as an explanation when it comes to cost for reasons I have already pointed out. There are multiple obvious reasons for why the cost is going up since the is more to get destroyed before we even g
704.
by ThomPete 7y ago
What I am saying is that the reason the cost can be bigger even if there were less extreme weather is that we have more stuff and we build places we didn't before. We have more stuff to be destroyed. You would have so show the same amo
705.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Thats what I am saying.
706.
by ThomPete 7y ago
This tells nothing about weather or climate and everything about how rich we've become and where we are able to build today. It's simply misleading to put it up this way. Even if the weather was getting less extreme you could expe
707.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The US is looking for allies not protectorates.
708.
by ThomPete 7y ago
First Principle | Senior Javascript/backend developer | New York | Full Time, ONSITE & REMOTE We are a creative venture studio led by Square alumni. We help organisations and entrepreneurs fund, design, build and grow wonderful glo
709.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Sorry but you seem to be the one with the strong language calling people cranks. The point was China though and it's ok if you don't feel you are in a position to talk about that but then you don't really have a base for kno
710.
by ThomPete 7y ago
TPP was horrible and we are better off without it. Economy is doing amazing on almost all fronts. Whats not to like?
711.
by ThomPete 7y ago
So you argument is pointing to someone who disagrees with him? Someone like Krugman who repeatedly have been wrong on almost anything. Why don't you point to something Navaro has been wrong about in the context of this discussion. Desp
712.
by ThomPete 7y ago
What's your base for calling him a crank? He literally predicted the issue with China and got no credit for it. I don't see a single argument in your post.
713.
by ThomPete 7y ago
As long as the trend continues, it's the right direction.
714.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Trade deficits were started by former presidents, what the current administration is doing will hopefully reverse a lot of that. China needs the us more than the other way around. What is dumb is letting the chinese criminal regime continue
715.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Cant we agree that shipping of jobs to china was wrong and that trying to correct it is right? On more or less all metrics the economy is doing better lowest paid salaries are rising faster then managers, people are starting to save again,
716.
by ThomPete 7y ago
the tarrifs are mostly being eaten by china deflating their currency in order to continue selling to the us market. China is more relying on us for their economy than we are on them.
717.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Sure and easy to spot, thats not the point.
718.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The lowest wages are finally rising faster than managers. Also of importance is that the administration is actually deregulating. One new rule means 8 old goes out. On top of that finally dealing with China.
719.
by ThomPete 7y ago
There is only one metric that really matters when it comes to using social media as metrics and that is comments. Those are the actual relevant users.
720.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Yeah, anyone who worked in this space knows that's how it works.

More ›