ThomPete

76 ms·

841.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Because we don't actually have any realistic alternatives yet and the ones proposed would be much more expensive than just dealing with the issues as they arrive. Can you mention one scientifically demonstrated consequences of climate
842.
by ThomPete 7y ago
There is a difference between can be demonstrated in a lab and what can get demonstrated in a larger system. The climate is a non-linear chaotic system it has positive and negative feedback loops. You can't replicate the climate in a
843.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Fossile fuel is used for anything from concrete to cement to textites to pesticides to contact lenses, to ..... solar cells, and..... wind mills and medicin and thousands and thousands of other products. Fossil fuels is the most valubale re
844.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Methane is logarithmic though. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevan...
845.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You are questioning their motives not actually engaging in the argument.
846.
by ThomPete 7y ago
So mind reading is your argument?
847.
by ThomPete 7y ago
There is a destinct possibility of an astroid hitting earth wiping out most humans. Yet we still dont monitor 100% and put all our effort into making sure that doesent happen. If you think thats a tenable position you are on the denier side
848.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Can you mention a single scientifically demonstrated consequence of climate change we dont know how to handle with todays technology let alone in 50 years time? I am not talking about speculated but demonstrates. Thats what they mean.
849.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Exactly or put another way. Companies only use 5% of the features the more sophisticated enterprise software is offering but it's a different 5% each of them use.
850.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Having tried Figma (a Web based design tool) i am beginning to think that this will be over soon for OSs anyway. The battle will be between browsers as they will become the new OSs. My sons school uses chromebooks, which is going to be thei
851.
by ThomPete 7y ago
It's about a public health risk. Which needs to be contracted by how many lives it saved. Thats the only way to look at this if you want to assess whether it was a good or bad idea in the first place.
852.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I didn't know I had to point out something that obvious and when asked I actually answered. And guess what, when I actually answered I was downvoted for that too.
853.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Then you should think it through some more. The point is that it's absurd to only look at the negatives. Just like you wouldn't only be judging wind or the sun on negatives you can't only look at the negatives only of diesel
854.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Nice strawman. I didn't claim it was. So yeah you kind of exposed everything about your intentions here. Thanks for that.
855.
by ThomPete 7y ago
If you actually read what I wrote you would know that's not what I did. I already gave you just some of the positive effects of using Diesel luckily everyone can read for themselves.
856.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Well if you care about CO2 petrol is more than that.
857.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Of course it's the same Things can have both positive and negative properties. Diesel is no exception and has certainly saved more people than it killed.
858.
by ThomPete 7y ago
How many people do you think where brought to hospitals. What do you think the machines that build the hospitals were used for? How do you think we build damns, roads, buildings, how do you think power generators work and I could go on. Exp
859.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You dont ask users about their intent, you monitor how they behave. Thats how google makes their money.
860.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I experienced the same thing Or something similar in august. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20777046
861.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Your own definition of a problem perhaps not mine or the millions who use it every year. Its faster to go around now because manhattan takes some of the traffic, if it didnt do that what do you think will happen with that traffic.
862.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Yes today, because manhattan takes som of the traffic. Forcing it around would increase congestion.
863.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Which proves my point. Try and have kids then we should talk.
864.
by ThomPete 7y ago
How will it become more efficient to force more people onto the trains? You haven't traveled with the L train recently.
865.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You are confusing anecdotes with the bigger system. Holland tunnel is a problem once in a while not all the time.
866.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Manhattan is different in that it connects New Jersey and Brooklyn into a super region, they are dependent on each other to thrive. Banning cars would be an absurd nightmare at least in this situation.
867.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Thats the most selfish idea ever. As a single you can live in on manhattan without any cars sure, but got a family, need to do summer camps in jersey but live in brooklyn. It would make life so much more difficult, and for what? Some wellme
868.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Outsourcing is the step before automation
869.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Read him as a comedian not a philosopher. Adams was a man of perspectives not truthseeking. His writing is more accidentally philosphical. He isn't some profound thinker that should be deciphered and understood, he wasnt trying to say
870.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Was literally thinking about buying a book about EIC. Not interested in the political perspective would rather have a historians. Would it still be a good book or are there other suggestions?

More ›