Why not keep your data remotely accessible and then go through customs with a blank device? If you’re only out for a few days, then download files as you need them. If you’re out for weeks or months, transfer a few TBs if need be. If you’re worried about internet transfer speeds, encrypt the files, put them on an external hard drive, and mail them to someone at your destination ahead of time.
Kirk didn’t deserve to be shot. In a just world, he would have been tried and hanged for incitement to genocide, just like we did to men like him at Nuremberg.
As a reminder, we hanged people at Nuremberg for doing exactly what Charlie Kirk spent his whole career doing.
What really gets me is we only seem to ever have this hand wringing when it’s a rich person that meets a gruesome end.
Imagine if this person had instead been an ordinary person that did something horrible. Imagine there’s a child molester or a serial killer barricaded in their home, the police outside. They fire a flash bang inside, this causes the house to catch fire, and the monster ends up being burned alive. Would people be here lamenting this fact? No, they wouldnt. It is only when the rich and powerful meet gruesome ends that we start moralizing about vigilante justice. When a monster that isn’t rich meets a gruesome end through extrajudicial violence, no one bats an eye.
Meanwhile, I just wish signal let you set server-specific nicknames.
Yes. These are normally handled by the Coast Guard. There’s a reason the Coast Guard vessels are armed. They can more than handle anything a cartel drug boat is carrying. They’re heavily armed enough that most intercepted vessels surrender without a fight. Actually taking fire is extraordinarily rare.
There is absolutely zero reason to waste US Navy vessels on this. It appears Trump just blew up a random boat that could have easily been intercepted. Even assuming it is a drug boat, this attack is completely detrimental to fighting the drug trade. If you intercept the vessel, you can interrogate the crew, gather evidence from the vessel, and help crack the cartel network they are a part of. But you can’t do any of that with a corpse-filled wreck on the bottom of the ocean.
Yes. That’s exactly it. They assume business as usual. And your source is a landing page, not an actual source. And even then, that site doesn’t discuss any effect of climate change on population projections. You just blindly linked to the UN’s population agency.
For every degree of Celsius warming, farm yields of major staple crops decline 16-20%. We’re already at 1.5C warming, and the rate of warming is rapidly increasing. We’re looking at another 0.5-1.5C increase by 2050. There’s no way this doesn’t lead to mass famine on a Biblical scale.
This paper in Nature predict 4-14% in total global food production by 2050 due to climate effects. And these are using the RPC models, which we’re learning are far too conservative in their predictions. I’m sure if everyone in the world went vegan tomorrow, we could absorb a 10% decline in agricultural production, but not a chance in Hell of that happening.
As far as the UN, they do work on climate change, but their population projections don’t factor it into account. Here is a link to the 2024 population prospects summary
When you pull open that PDF, you won’t find mention of climate change being incorporated into their methodology at all. As far as I’m aware, the UN’s figures are purely based on population pyramids, demographic factors, birth rate projections, etc. Demographers don’t like looking at factors beyond just population numbers, gender mixes, and age distributions. Other things, like war and economic policy, can certainly affect population numbers, but those are generally considered too unpredictable to properly model. The population projections you see are purely demographic models.
As far as I know, agricultural yields are never even part of their methodology. They look purely at what ages people are and how many children people of different ages have. They generally assume that resources will be available for those who want to have children. Do you have any evidence that they do take climate effects on agricultural yields into account when making their numbers?
Do you think the ultra wealthy don’t associate and communicate with each other? Why wouldn’t there be private Signal chats composed only of billionaires? It’s not about shared incentives. The “club” part is very literal.
Those projections assume agricultural yields have no effect on human well being or numbers. They don’t factor in climate induced bread basket collapse.
In the worlds of the immortal George Carlin: it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
“Oh they’re too wide and you’ll have to make the units narrow strips that only have a tiny sliver of window on one side” Do that then.
Some people would be willing to live like that. But the rents per ft^2 or m^2 would be abysmally low. And renovating the buildings would still be very expensive. It may be physically possible to turn those deep floor plate cube farm skyscrapers into housing, but it isn’t financially possible. The money would be better spent tearing the buildings down entirely and just building entirely new residential buildings from scratch.
We are realistically looking at losing between 200 million and 1 billion people over the next 20 years due to climate-change induced famine and heat stroke. Those are realistic estimates. More optimistic scenarios could make that number less, more pessimistic ones could reduce it. We are on the eve of what future histories may refer to as the Great Hunger.
Even for those lucky enough to not live in regions being rendered uninhabitable, the quality of life for the average citizen is collapsing. The developing world will experience mass famine. The developed world will experience food prices not seen since the advent of mechanized agriculture. Home prices will continue to become more unaffordable, as more and more homes are destroyed by rapidly increasing natural disasters. In the US, tens of millions of homeowners are going to have their primary asset, their homes, rendered completely worthless after they become uninsurable. Governments can try to prop up the insurance market if they want, but not even national governments have the resources to subsidize an insurance market in an era of spiraling natural catastrophes.
Leaders around the world see a future of chaos, famine, and strife. Really all the Four Horseman are coming out. In developed countries, leaders fear millions of desperate poor people from developing countries trying to cross their borders. Internally, they fear violence by their own populations, who are seeing their standard of living rapidly collapse.
The borders are being locked down. The walls are going up. People everywhere are being increasingly surveilled and controlled. Political leaders might be cynical enough to deny climate change for political gain, but that doesn’t mean they’re ignorant to the actual future we’re running headfirst into. Technology is also advancing, allowing “mass shooter” type individuals to potentially cause much larger acts of destruction in the future.
Most governments would prefer to maintain power by actually improving the lives of their citizens. That’s the safest and most moral approach. But in a world of rapidly spiraling climate change, governments simply are not capable of on improving the lives of their citizens. They can’t even maintain the standard of living their citizens already have. So, the leaders have to turn to more brute force methods to retain control. Best to be loved. But if you can’t be loved, then at least be feared.
True. But gift economies aren’t really something that can just be implemented by individuals living in a modern state. That requires an entire society to be organized around it. Barter can.
There’s always barter. The vast majority of human beings that have ever lived never once handled currency of any kind.
Notably, Hamas on Oct 7 killed two civilians for every military casualty. By the IDF’s own numbers, the IDF are literally greater terrorists than Hamas. Hamas literally does a better job at avoiding civilian casualties than the IDF does.
Paragon works, but it’s not really a title. Could we make “Paragon” a title? Instead of “Saint Stephen of San Jose,” we have “Paragon Stephen of San Jose.” Sounds odd, but maybe?
Because it has more gravitas!
Someone needs to set off a nuke in Tel Aviv. It will serve as a reminder to future generations of Israelis to not run a fucking Apartheid state.
Can we make “secular saints” a thing? Why should we reserve the title of “Saint” specifically for the Catholic Church? I think we should just get in the habit of referring to any unambiguously good person, who has performed great acts of generosity and selflessness, as a saint. They don’t even have to be religious. If someone wants to interpret it religiously, they can say that anyone so good is almost certainly bound for Heaven, but it need not be religious. Why can’t we have secular saints? Why can’t we have Saint Stephen of San Jose or Saint Fred of Latrobe?
They can inspect the drives if they want. The key is they can’t access anything, as it’s encrypted, and they don’t have control over your physical person.