nothingcorporateThe hottest 14 days ever recorded are the last 2 weeks
Fisting for FreedomMan, I’m so glad this global warming thing is leftist propaganda or I’d really be freaking out right now.
Luckily, we can choose to reject reality and believe whatever makes us feel better.
I feel best believing the biosphere is gonna force humanity to “find out” for the last century of fuckin around with a recklessly unplanned terraform.
genoxidedev1Love how the collective of humanity needs to find out because the richest few fucked around.
very smart IdiotBut the rich are supplying a demand. And a ton of innovation wouldn’t be there without them.
AngrilyEatingMuffinsImagine thinking CEOs drive innovation lmao
But they kinda do. Imagine Samsung or Apple stopping innovation. Company goes bankrupt.
You think Tim Apple is coming up with their innovations? Lol
No, but it takes a person to control a company. A Person to direct the goals of a company.
So I guess Tim Apple is somewhat involved if there is innovation or not.
He’s very good with financials and supply chains, I’ll give him that.
And since the profits can be invested into research, it is somewhat linked.
That’s a good point. You must have a really smart boss to come up with ideas like that.
So you feel entitled and experienced enough to lead a company?
proleNo it doesn’t. Worker-owned co-ops exist. Didn’t you say you’re in Germany? You should know all about that.
I don’t know what you think of us Germans. But we are rational capitalists. And I do believe to know a lot about it.
No, you misunderstand. I’m all for the idea. You just seem to be unaware that it exists. Learn about your own country:
washingtonpost.com/…/in-germany-workers-help-run-…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codetermination_in_Germany
www.ibisworld.com/germany/industry/…/937/
Here’s a non-German example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
In the last link it literally says: “These comparatively low wages can make it very difficult to recruit managers from investor-owned firm”
These concepts only work in relatively small companies. And first off all, this company might be ranked relatively high in Spain, but it still is just Spain.
Further, to my understanding, the group could be actually described as multiple smaller companies housed under a big one. So that explains that party.
I’m just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.
It’s like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things. You’re so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has “mechanisms” for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.
Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some “counter” that, in your mind, confirms that you’ve always been right (it doesn’t), and everyone who’s arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.
It can never just be, “hey I didn’t know that about my country, that’s interesting. Maybe I should reconsider…” Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn’t work is not based in reality. They’re fucking thriving. You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.
The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something… Like it’s protecting itself from new information. It’s fascinating.
I’m just fascinated with how brains like yours work. Assuming any of this is in good faith, that is.
I am a connoisseur of discussion. A man who enjoys discourse. But indeed what I stated are my firm beliefs. And those beliefs have not yet failed me.
It’s like you just refuse to accept new information that may change how you view things.
It always depends on the information. Some information just has less weight to it.
You’re so resistant to admitting (to yourself, it seems) that you might be wrong, that your brain has “mechanisms” for making sure you never even have to consider the possibility.
Now I feel like I’ve been put on the spot. This might apply on some of my standpoints. But none so far in our discussion here.
Every single point anyone makes, you are able to come up with some “counter” that, in your mind, confirms that you’ve always been right (it doesn’t),
Oh, just because the Information I have given, does not convince you or support your standpoint, doesn’t make it invalid. I’d like to pull up the Infinite Monkey Theorem at this point. A few false informations can also lead to the correct outcome. But now I have lost the thread.
and everyone who’s arguing with you is just trying to trick you into admitting you were wrong, or that you learned something.
And are you not trying to prove me wrong? Is it not, that you claim my standpoints to be somewhat flawed, and yours must be the ultimate ratio?
It can never just be, “hey I didn’t know that about my country, that’s interesting. Maybe I should reconsider…”
I do reconsider when it’s to my benefit. But as said before, my standpoints have yet to fail me.
Because, you know, Germany has been the most financially successful EU nation basically since he inception of the Union, so your counter that worker stake in companies doesn’t work is not based in reality. They’re fucking thriving.
Average wealth per person in Germany is lower than in Italy or Greece. some german article to back up my claims Germany are not thriving. The German government is thriving.
You (allegedly) live there, my guy. Learn about why your own country is so successful.
Because it has the highest and second highest taxes in many sectors. And the government uses this money to influence other countries to their benefit. My people are not thriving. I wished for a concept similar to Switzerland. Still high taxes, but the money stays in the country without attempts to control European politics.
The lengths you will go to avoid learning something new or admitting you might have been wrong about something… Like it’s protecting itself from new information. It’s fascinating.
From my standpoint of course, this is the opposite standpoint.
Yeah dude, just look at all the innovations Apple has made to their phones for like the last 10 years…
They got bigger… and the screens are brighter… and there are like 4 more cameras.
So much innovation. :|
while I do completely agree with Apple depressing lack of any innovation recently, until modern foldable phones become commonplace, there is only so much you can do with a brick of glass.
-
before the display - “until you can figure out how to make a faster printer, there’s only so much you can do to get your calculation results from the ENIAC system.”
-
before the keyboard - “until you figure out a way to create punch-cards faster, there’s only so much you can do to enter data into a computer.”
-
before the mouse - “until you figure out a way to make people tap the arrow keys faster, there’s only so much you can do to navigate a screen array of interactive elements.”
-
before GUI operating systems - “until people get faster at typing in “DIR /P” on their keyboards and read the list of possible applications quicker than other folks, there’s only so much you can do to navigate and access a computer’s installed software.”
-
before the iPhone - “Until you figure out a way to make a better keyboard there’s only so much you can do with these Blackberry devices where half of the device is a screen and the other half is a full-size QWERTY keyboard.”
There is room for innovation.
Just because you cannot imagine it, does not mean we have reached some sort of “pinnacle” of design for these stupid little glass screens.
Apple has not innovated since Jobs died. Not because Jobs was some sort of genius engineer or even a great innovator, but because as Apple’s head, Jobs was an asshole tyrant that terrified those below him into doing crazy things he suggested on a whim… and sometimes that meant they came up with dumb shit like the 20th Anniversary Mac and the Newton… and other times it meant they came up with a couple of new good ideas like the iPod, and the iPhone.
That’s kind of a dumb way to make the point. Innovation isn’t necessarily apparent in a photo with no context or information. A bronze sword and a steel sword still both look like swords, but there a huge technological difference between them.
Yeah photos don’t encompass the entirety of evolving technology… but come on… it’s not like Apple has put the iPhone through a literal evolution of metallurgy or material science like the hundreds of years time difference from going between the bronze to steel age.
Your implied point was that there wasn’t any innovation, but there was, by your own admission above.
Don’t shift the goalposts by latching onto an analogy I made. The fact is that the technology has progressed quite quickly over the timespan represented in those pictures, and that fact underscores what’s wrong with the post you were responding to - it wasn’t a handful of rich folk that did it, it was the work of hundreds of thousands of people around the world. You had a much better point to make than the one you did.
Calm down. No one is shifting goalposts. You’re the one who brought up the ridiculous idea of making a comparison between pictures of different types of swords.
My original “implied point” was that there is not the same level of innovation that occurred 20 years ago when we shifted from things like Nokias with tiny screens and not enough space to even hold a midi file to BlackBerry and then iPhone.
The entire tech industry has consolidated over the last couple of decades to the point that every major startup these days ends up being a grift, or quickly gobbled up by one of the FAANG type companies and enshittified to avoid competition and market share erosion.
I didn’t say a handful of rich people did anything. I actually believe the opposite.
Passion drives innovation… not money. Money helps pay passionate people to innovate, but it also sometimes will stifle innovation when seeking profit first.
I was saying with my shitpost pic showing the visual similarity between all the different models of iPhone from the last decade that - at least from a base standpoint, Apple is not really innovating much anymore. No different shapes, bezels, no thickness increases for better battery life… Hell the fucking LIGHTNING port is ancient now and only still there so Apple can keep getting their bridge troll toll for people making iPhone accessories.
For the last 10 iPhone iterations the major features we can easily see are slightly bigger brighter screens, more lenses (and consequently better pictures) and trading fingerprint recognition for facial recognition.
As far as points though, please - by all means, make a better point for me.
Honestly, you seem like you’re having trouble being calm. I’m sorry if I played any part in making you feel that way, I didn’t mean to upset you or hurt your feelings. It’s ok if we don’t agree.
Alright buddy. I get it. My last response sounded patronizing. We can stop pretending to “bless your heart” each other now. I sincerely apologize.
Glad to finally have an actual discussion again online! :)
I do actually want to know though - do you really think the iPhone has had that much innovation over the past decade?
Oh get over yourself.
Okay but we all know iPhones and we all know that’s about it.
Hey, they came up with some interesting colours no one has used in 80 years.
Oh brother
Man I am kinda sorry, that I invade your worldview.
But rich people don’t have all their money stored in a vault like Dagobert Duck. It’s all stocks.
And boy, if one of the companies make losses, then their money goes downhill. It’s volatile.
And due to immense concurrence in innovation in the tech sector, every investor has a huge interest in innovation.
And with many investment, the start of a company is ensured.
The current capitalism is the system that works best.
Especially the US capitalism is one hell of a driver in innovation. I live in Germany and many companies wouldn’t be possible here. Even though we have capitalism, it’s much softer than its US counterpart.
The downside of course is poverty for cheaper labour.
And that’s brutal, but it’s the reality we live in.
Though I wouldn’t want to live in the US without healthcare, on the counter side I wouldn’t want to start a company here in Europe.
UserDoesNotExist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this website is now dumber for having read it. I award you one downvote, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Sorry if you do not understand the system we live in.
Oh brother
I might lighten you up a bit.
The methods to combat climate change are already there. We already have the means for weather engineering.
The future is inevitable. And so is every step towards it.
Lol people like you that believe humanity will always overcome make me laugh. Talk to any environmental scientist and they will tell you we’re fucked. There’s no secret technology coming to save us.
Yea… I know what some environmental scientists are claiming.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
And yes, technology can save us. We have the means to control weather with highly reflective particles. Scientists are currently attempting to make fusion work (even though they are probably using a far too small magnetic field. They should have built it 10x larger in France).
And furthermore environmental scientists do not claim that we are fucked. They only claim that change is coming and that this change comes with a bunch of problems.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
This is like the “They can just sell their house and move” thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
This is the “war and famine” part of climate change that people don’t often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn’t going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it’s from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad…
And you’re right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
But the earth has seen higher levels of carbon already. It has seen higher temperatures and lower temperatures. And we humans inhabit many climate zones already.
This is like the “They can just sell their house and move” thing Ben Shapiro said about what people who live on climate change affected coasts will do. Who will they sell their house to, Ben??
My family fled several times in the past. During WW2 they fled from Ukraine to Poland, and when the Russians came, then they fled back to Germany. And then years later from east Germany to west Germany. Leaving everything behind each time. Every time was a goddamn reset. So what. It’s all about survival. Rebuilding has always been possible.
Humans can inhabit many climate zones, but several of them will become uninhabitable. The ones that contain the most people. And those people have to go somewhere. And all of the food that used to be produced in that place is gone. All of the ecosystems in those areas die, etc. etc.
So the problem is and always has been overpopulation. Another screw we should have adjusted in the past but refused to do so.
This is the “war and famine” part of climate change that people don’t often talk about. Most of the death and chaos isn’t going to be from people literally immediately burning up to death, it’s from the secondary effects of rising temperatures, drought, killing entire ecosystems, and forcing billions of people to leave their homes or die. And the migrant crises that come with all of that. If you thought Syria was bad…
I know about this part. And it is the only part that concerns me.
And you’re right, the earth has seen higher levels of carbon. The earth itself will probably be OK.
As humans, it has always been our responsibility to adapt. Not the other way around. Every being on this world influences the world itself. We cannot live without influencing our surroundings.
Wow, how much time did you waste on this one? Keep going, maybe I’ll actually read the next one.
Wow, how much time did you waste on this one?
Too much.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
You successfully stole a few minutes of my life. Time I could have spent on studying and working further to my ultimate goal: becoming the next German dictator.
(••) ( ••)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
Keep going, maybe I’ll actually read the next one.
I need some unrealistic opinions to react to.
(☞ﾟヮﾟ)☞ Some more of your beliefs will do just fine.
Ok Raiden
Who or what is Raiden?
Your mom
Is this some kind of who’s joe joke? Did I just fail?
Joe mama
The ‘future’ is not inevitable. There have been countless collapses in history. Our technology doesn’t make us immune. The people of the major Bronze Age powers probably thought the same.
Also we do not have the means for weather engineering. If you’re talking about SRM, we have no idea what its consequences will be or how to do it effectively. It’s all theoretical. No aircraft we currently have can do this stuff. Sure, we could design it and build one, but then you need global governance to actually implement it properly. Not to mention the risk of ‘termination shock’ and countless others.
Have a look at the scientific literature: semanticscholar.org/…/e4e5a78335eda8c16557b32af91…
Would you seriously risk the future of life on Earth on something this experimental?
I fear this arrogance will kill a lot of people and cause a lot of suffering.
Also
This kind of futurist accelerationist thinking hasn’t turned out well in the past: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism?wprov=sfla1 It always ends up feeding into Fascism. I wonder why.
China to expand weather modification program to cover area larger than India
China this week revealed plans to drastically expand an experimental weather modification program to cover an area of over 5.5 million square kilometers (2.1 million square miles) -- more than 1.5 times the total size of India.
Firstly, that isn’t ‘already done’. It’s a PR statement from the Chinese government about plans. The stuff they have already done, like reducing hail etc., is nowhere near the same level to what is needed to stop climate change.
Secondly,
Radical solutions such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles could theoretically help reduce temperatures, but could also have major unforeseen consequences, and many experts fear what could happen were a country to experiment with such techniques.
This is from your source ^
So is this:
In a paper last year, researchers at National Taiwan University said that the “lack of proper coordination of weather modification activity (could) lead to charges of ‘rain stealing’ between neighboring regions,” both within China and with other countries. They also pointed to the lack of a “system of checks and balances to facilitate the implementation of potentially controversial projects.”
Think of the geopolitical mess this kind of thing would create. If it works that is.
Well, there is always the option to use sunsails in orbit. These could also be motorised and adapt to the needed parameters.
There are a ton of solutions. And the weather and climate engineering is just one of them.
Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?
Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn’t be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.
Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.
I agree there are many solutions. I don’t think markets and capital are going to make them happen.
We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.
Sure, I like the idea of space megaprojects. I doubt sunsails in orbit would be profitable though. How would you monetise it? Put massive ads on them? Charge everyone a subscription fee?
Well, a fee could theoretically be possible. Farmers with plants that need shadow could pay for shielding. In the end the end consumer pays the price.
Now, governments could probably do something like that, and I wouldn’t be against it if safety and unintended consequences were taken into account somehow.
👍
Also, I thought you believed space exploration tech was useless.
Let me rephrase it: it’s boring. Nada used old ass Russian rockets for years. So there is not much innovation there anyway.
I agree there are many solutions. I don’t think markets and capital are going to make them happen.
I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions. Such money could also be invested into sun shield projects.
We can probably buy time with tech solutions. Long-term solutions will have to involve major fundamental sociopolitical change.
I agree on the tech solutions. Let’s see them being implemented before chopping on the foundation of our economics.
I think that depends on demand. Some airlines already offer climate compensation packages. An additional payment to compensate your emissions.
A lot of those are scams or of questionable value unfortunately
I know that some people claim that. But in their mind they would rather stop airlines and flight overall.
And since this is unreasonable, compensation should be the second best step in your mind?
Because I don’t care. But from your standpoint it should be better than no compensation, right?
I’m actually in favour of replacing most jet airliners with rail and maybe electric airships. Most short-haul flights can be replaced by rail; it’s much more pleasant than flying anyway. Jets can be reserved for long-distance journeys. Being able to hop on a blimp would be cool, even if it’s slower. We can make them much better and safer with today’s tech.
I don’t like the ‘green offset’ thing because it makes it look like we’re ‘doing something’ when it’s actually not doing much at all. If you want to be a utilitarian, it would be much more effective to just donate to an effective charity every time you fly.
China to expand weather modification program to cover area larger than India
China this week revealed plans to drastically expand an experimental weather modification program to cover an area of over 5.5 million square kilometers (2.1 million square miles) -- more than 1.5 times the total size of India.
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn? That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
My dude, your argument boils down to “this is the way we’ve always done it so this is the way it must be”.
But we haven’t done this always. As humans we have tried different attempts. Socialism, communism, monarchy, feudalism, democracy, capitalism, social capitalism, anarchism,…
And here we are now. After all those experiments.
Have you considered the possibility that if innovation were to slow, and companies DIDN’T insist on quarter-after-quarter growth, the world might just continue to turn?
But we humans are not made to chill. We need to advance as fast as possible. My parents and their generation did so. We now have AI becoming increasingly popular. And sooner or later I will hopefully have children. So I have to do my part, that the lives my kin will be better than mine. Better medical tech, better education, better transport, better tech,… Of course the world would continue to turn.
That while the richest individuals may be slightly less rich, the vast majority of people would continue their lives with no negative consequences?
I don’t understand why you always believe that if the rich were less rich, that anything would change. It would not.
Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities. All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme. The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D. Same with medical advancements, material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of:
academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191
Have you considered that this too might be an ‘experiment’?
Yes. It very well might be. But todays world is so strongly interwoven. Tons of conflicts are constantly challenging the system. And it has yet to break. The final test will be the sudden termination of economic growth. This will be the point, where it will be shows how resilient capitalism rly is.
Defenders of monarchy and the divine right of kings used to argue the exact same thing - that we tried democracy before and it failed in the Roman Republic and Ancient Greece - so clearly feudal monarchy is the best, right?
Tell me which system to try next. But pls don’t suggest to repeat another one again.
Yet here we are, experimenting again.
And that’s a good thing.
Why is this joke of a system the ideal? It doesn’t produce innovation - most of the stuff that led to the internet and modern computing came out of DARPA and various govt funded universities.
That was maybe the start. But big companies managed to elevate the importance to another level. The complexity of everything was reinforced and elevated drastically, driven by private companies. Just take a look at AI at this point. AI is innovation, mainly driven by private companies.
All of our space advancements were from state-run NASA and the Soviet space programme.
Because most of it was useless. What kind of innovation did. space exploration bring to humans?
The wealthy CEO types only start ‘innovating’ after taxpayers fund most of the R&D.
As I already stated, this is not the case. Especially pharma, medical and IT is heavily driven by big corporations. Basic research on the other hand, there you are right. As it usually does not feature real world appliances, means that it’s mostly founded by tax payers and the government.
Same with medical advancements,
Especially medical innovation is heavily driven from the private sector. Pharmaceuticals as well. There is not much involvement of any government or tax payer.
material science, physics - almost every single positive innovation has come from state-run, taxpayer-funded, or non-profit institutions.
But as I said, mostly for the basic research. Without much interest in application.
Maybe try reading a little bit more about all this innovation you seem so fond of: academic.oup.com/ser/article/7/3/459/1693191 demos.co.uk/…/Entrepreneurial_State_-_web.pdf yewtu.be/watch?v=oLLxpAZzy0s
I have a good understanding of sciences. Especially in chemistry and physics. Thanks.