In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
*from an area north-west of the Palisades connected through underground acquifers to the Palisades (and many other areas).
I just checked strawberry and almond production nearby (highest water usage crops), then checked where the biggest production centers were, verified Oxnard is a huge producing area, verified where they got their water from.
Git it, so you made it up by looking at proximity on a map?
Water Sources
The City of Oxnard obtains roughly 25-30% of its water from local groundwater sources.
About 30-40% is received from the United Water Conservation District.
The City also purchases about 30-40% of its water through the Calleguas Municipal Water District, which imports water to the region.
it's in milan not bologna so probably lucioms cousin and not actually him
this story is much wilder than the headline.
the Lazio team doctor did penis surgery on the guy and I guess he shared the pics to show off the work. he got fired too but it mentions that lots of people contacted the doctor for the surgery.
Git it, so you made it up by looking at proximity on a map?
Water Sources
The City of Oxnard obtains roughly 25-30% of its water from local groundwater sources.
About 30-40% is received from the United Water Conservation District.
The City also purchases about 30-40% of its water through the Calleguas Municipal Water District, which imports water to the region.
Yes the calleguas is the one centered in thousands oaks which I mentioned
Why do you believe the bold, have you seen a complete assessment of pros and cons and determined that, or it's just a "vibe" generated by media exposure?
The prevailing view seems to be it is a net negative at the global level. In response to your specific question, I haven't seen an article explicitly weighing pros and cons. Nor would I have expected to see such a thing. Scientific articles don't tend to be written in that style.
Most people MIGHT declare they find my view "abhorrent" but they actually live and vote and answer in polls according to MY WORLDVIEW not that which they call "abhorrent".
Only tiny minorities of the population in western countries are willing to pay any significant price to avoid Bangladesh getting hotter and that's what you should look at, not at them calling my view "abhorrent".
First, the negative effects of climate change aren't going to be limited to places like Bangladesh. That should be obvious to you. Second, there are a ton of people, including me, who vote in a way that is inconsistent with your worldview. You are deluding yourself if you believe otherwise. When voting, do I assign more political weight to things that affect my life directly than equivalent things that do not? Sure. We all do. But not to the pathological degree that you do.
I am more willing than others to say in the open things because I long ago discarded all "social shaming" dynamics from my existence, I simply truly don't give a ****.
They still play by old style bourgeois social mores according to which you pretend stuff and live according to completely different principles.
It is astonishing how often morally bankrupt people resort to saying, "everyone agrees with me. They are just too cowardly to admit it." No. They really don't. It just makes you feel better about yourself to imagine that this is the case.
Those are the people who say blacks are absolutely perfectly healthy demographic groups then invariably as soon as they have any money move in neighbors with fewer blacks than the national proportion.
Yeah. I don't fall into this category either. Again, it is easy for you to imagine that everyone is a hypocrite. But that doesn't make it so.
Economic policy papers are routinely written in the style of analyzing the positives and negatives of policy.
It's actually incredible to have a conversation about any regulatory policy at all without such analysis making the basis of the conversation.
I hope we agree that assessments about the effects on human quality of life of warming are entirely economical matters at the end, with biology, climatology, virology and everything else contributing their models from their disciplines, and economists alone having the skill set to translate that in quantifiable impacts on human life alone.
It was nordhaus who got a Nobel doing that first you might recall.
I hope you aren't listening to climatologists at all about this.
After they tell you "according to our models x amount of emissions will warm the planet by y; and according to our models y of warming will have k,j,h effects on the climate", they cease to have any skill at all to determine how that translates to what happens to human beings.
A climatologist opinion about how much it's sensible to spend to reduce emissions isn't an expert opinion at all, do you agree?
They are actually among the last people you should ask about effects on human beings, being obsessed because of their work on it they can't avoid huge biases.
I gave you the data, only 23% of people agree with paying 40/month to reduce emissions (which is far less than what we already pay in the EU and UK)
So the vast majority of Americans actually agree with me
Economic policy papers are routinely written in the style of analyzing the positives and negatives of policy.
It's actually incredible to have a conversation about any regulatory policy at all without such analysis making the basis of the conversation.
I hope we agree that assessments about the effects on human quality of life of warming are entirely economical matters at the end, with biology, climatology, virology and everything else contributing their models from their disciplines, and economis
I would listen to climatologists to understand how the climate is changing, and what that is likely to mean for sea levels, natural disasters, etc.
I would listen to economists if I wanted an assessment of the economic impact if the climatologists are correct.
If I were a policy maker, I wouldn't necessarily give economists primacy over all other disciplines. Economics is a soft science masquerading as a hard science.
I gave you the data, only 23% of people agree with paying 40/month to reduce emissions (which is far less than what we already pay in the EU and UK)
So the vast majority of Americans actually agree with me
This is a terrible way to analyze the question you are asking. There are a ton of people in the U.S. who don't trust the government to spend money wisely or efficiently. Thus, they will always answer no to these sorts of questions.
I would listen to climatologists to understand how the climate is changing, and what that is likely to mean for sea levels, natural disasters, etc.
I would listen to economists if I wanted an assessment of the economic impact if the climatologists are correct.
If I were a policy maker, I wouldn't necessarily give economists primacy over all other disciplines. Economics is a soft science masquerading as a hard science.
Which science would you take over economics to try to answer the question "how much is it worth it to pay to reduce emissions"?
And "among all the possible things we can do to reduce emissions, which are the most efficient ones for society in aggregate accounting for all direct and indirect impacts of state intervention"?
Ofc economic isn't as hard as other actual sciences.
Still it's the only set of tools available to even try to answer those questions objectively
When I was first taking econ courses, many of the formulas had a variable that was referred to as a "constant". When asking where the constant came from, the answer was more or less, "whatever makes it work".
I have sad news to share with you about how a lot of constants used in physics are derived.
Which science would you take over economics to try to answer the question "how much is it worth it to pay to reduce emissions"?
And "among all the possible things we can do to reduce emissions, which are the most efficient ones for society in aggregate accounting for all direct and indirect impacts of state intervention"?
Ofc economic isn't as hard as other actual sciences.
Still it's the only set of tools available to even try to answer those questions objectively
Sure, but you are deluded if you believe that economics is inherently more objective than other disciplines. If you have ever done any modeling, you know that the assumptions are the whole game. The rest is just math. Assumptions in economics are just as susceptible to bias as assumptions in other disciplines.
In general, I find you to have a childlike, black/white, right/wrong conception of both science and the law.
In other news, renown radical leftist cartoonist published by most leftist media Darrin Bell, got arrested for possession of child pornography
We will remember him for his great artwork such as this, which got published in the Washington Post
"Every accusation is a confession"
Sure, but you are deluded if you believe that economics is inherently more objective than other disciplines. If you have ever done any modeling, you know that the assumptions are the whole game. The rest is just math. Assumptions in economics are just as susceptible to bias as assumptions in other disciplines.
In general, I find you to have a childlike, black/white, right/wrong conception of both science and the law.
I wrote it isn't as hard as actual science lol, why the bold? economics isn't a proper science because it can't replicate (macro at least, the main questions we would like answer for; we can pseudo-replicate some stuff though, or at least we have enough natural experiments to check in some cases. And outside of macro there are things that can be studied better, more science-like).
It's inferior epistemologically to all the "real sciences". Inferior to physics, biology, chemistry and so on, in terms of how much actual truth about reality it can help us understand/discover.
Keep in mind though climatology is the same, can only observe, can't experiment. And yes plenty of assumptions there as well and no way to re-run the world climate changing parameters.
But it's better than all the human studies disciplines that don't even try to have math at all. Like sociology, psychology and so on.
But when you try to answer questions about "what to do" in human settings with tradeoffs, it's either economics, or you have really absolutely nothing to base any choice upon other that your naked preferences.
And you know that.
As well as you know that climatologists aren't equipped in any way to assess HOW MUCH IT IS WORTH TO PAY to reduce sea increases 10 centimeters in 30 years. They don't even know how to model that question. They are as clueless as anyone with their IQ could be, if not more (because of inherent professional biases). They will go "sea rising is bad, just avoid it", no matter the costs. That's worse than asking a random person on the bus about the topic, he would be more nuanced.
In other news, renown radical leftist cartoonist published by most leftist media Darrin Bell, got arrested for possession of child pornography
We will remember him for his great artwork such as this, which got published in the Washington Post
Are we supposed to draw some larger conclusion from the fact that this guy is a pedophile?
But when you try to answer questions about "what to do" in human settings with tradeoffs, it's either economics, or you have really absolutely nothing to base any choice upon other that your naked preferences.
And you know that.
I disagree. I can have an opinion on the use of torture as a means of extracting confessions or the application of the death penalty to minors without invoking economics.
I guess you could argue that any position that is grounded in notions of morality or decency is just a "naked preference", but that seems like a cheap way of dismissing moral concerns.
Also, you can quit telling me what I do or do not know. I am the world's leading expert on that topic.
In other news, renown radical leftist cartoonist published by most leftist media Darrin Bell, got arrested for possession of child pornography
We will remember him for his great artwork such as this, which got published in the Washington Post
"Every accusation is a confession"
Heh that's actually pretty good. 😀
Pity the artist is a nonce. :(
I have sad news to share with you about how a lot of constants used in physics are derived.
If I recall, constants in physics are mostly derived by experimentation and generally don't change. Econ constants are much more mutable to the point of (at least to an 18-year-old Didace) silliness.
If I recall, constants in physics are mostly derived by experimentation and generally don't change. Econ constants are much more mutable to the point of (at least to an 18-year-old Didace) silliness.
I am not sure which "constants" in econ you are referring to here. Maybe R-star (neutral interest rate)? but that's clearly a value that is a-priori unknown, they say to keep it constant in some simplified models so you work the rest around, but it's a conceptual theoretical value that depends on the specific of an economy, and doesn't hold through time necessarily, at which you have stable inflation and unemployment
I disagree. I can have an opinion on the use of torture as a means of extracting confessions or the application of the death penalty to minors without invoking economics.
I guess you could argue that any position that is grounded in notions of morality or decency is just a "naked preference", but that seems like a cheap way of dismissing moral concerns.
Also, you can quit telling me what I do or do not know. I am the world's leading expert on that topic.
You can have opinions about everything. All of us can. But when it's about tradeoffs of your values, giving up on something you care about to get something else you also care about, what are you supposed to do to justify FORCING YOUR WILL ON OTHERS, because that's what regulation is about?
I mean at the end, whomever has the power will force it upon others definitionally, sure. But if we were to attempt to find any rationality, any objectivity, in social choices, then we need to quantify tradeoffs.
You can add deontological bans to something you hate so much, you don't care about the possibility it might yield great benefits, and torture of prisoners in war might qualify for you, for me other things.
Given those deontological constrains though, how do you assess tradeoffs if not with economic modeling at the end?
How to do you decide as a society if spending X to achieve Y (both X and Y just midpoints of uncertain ranges as well) makes sense compared to all other possible allocations of X, and all other actions you can do to try to achieve Y? which organized discipline of the mind, which set of intellectual tools, are better equipped to try to answer those questions? economics.
You can have opinions about everything. All of us can. But when it's about tradeoffs of your values, giving up on something you care about to get something else you also care about, what are you supposed to do to justify FORCING YOUR WILL ON OTHERS, because that's what regulation is about?
I mean at the end, whomever has the power will force it upon others definitionally, sure. But if we were to attempt to find any rationality, any objectivity, in social choices, then we need to quantify tradeoff
I can decide that certain things are so morally objectionable as to be off limits. For example, even if you could prove to me that legalizing child pornography would have a net economic benefit, I would oppose it. Even if you could prove to me that summarily executing all people age 70 and over would be a net economic benefit (it might be), I would oppose it. And in other cases, such as allowing minors to receive the death penalty, I can know without doing a study that the economic effects are going to be so inconsequential at the macro level as to be effectively irrelevant.
I also would note that this fetishization of of economic cost/benefit analyses is very weird coming from you. I can't prove that communism is slightly more economically productive than capitalism (in part because I don't believe it is). But if I could persuade you of that fact, would you suddenly turn into a communist? Or would you believe that communism is too great an affront to the human spirit to be tolerable, even if it were slightly better economically.
I can decide that certain things are so morally objectionable as to be off limits. For example, even if you could prove to me that legalizing child pornography would have a net economic benefit, I would oppose it. Even if you could prove to me that summarily executing all people age 70 and over would be a net economic benefit (it might be), I would oppose it. And in other cases, such as allowing minors to receive the death penalty, I can know without doing a study that the economic effects are
Oh but all the discourse about that is just preparation toward my own personal conclusion which is that if the best and only way to assess tradeoffs is that (which I think it is), other approaches are even less defensible (naked power grabs), THEN IT FOLLOWS that we simply should never regulate stuff at that scale at all, we should completely give up on attempts at playing the planning god role, and so on.
Exactly because our best tools are not enough for the job, and because utilitarian is moral horrific, and because justifying huge costs today for maybe some different result decades from now becomes just a way to claim whatever you want all the time changing a few assumptions.
The utilitarian tradeoff approach was propedeutic to reach the only defensible solution which is *stop trying to plan society from above and remove the tools for the state to do so, so that evil intentioned people can't abuse then for their own personal gain*.
(As for the first part of your post i accepted that you can put deontological constraints and it doesn't change the approach at all if you do)
