Michael Hardner

1. No, but not because it's far from the mainstream. A woman actor that I worked with once on a play explained to me once that women's lives are/were just not as interesting as men's and that's why there are so few women stories. That has changed of late, In life and fiction, with people discovering examples where women had to strike out towards some challenge. I'm thinking of mad Men, and the arc of Peggy's career from switchboard girl to creative director. No one would want to watch a film about making a nest, patching clothes, and cooking soup while the man is out fighting Vikings. Which story would you rather see? Hers or his? 2. A skillful storyteller could indeed make a lot of a situation where a woman decides to be a tradwife, using current slang. But as Graham implicitly outlines, the effort would be politically based... Whether it was in favor of the choice or not. Given the current context, you wouldn't be able to make a story without having that element. ... As a side note, people try to submit that the woman being at home without employ is a natural state of things. I don't think that's true. The myth of 1950s America continues to affect current day politics. Yes, housing costs in Japan also increased. McLuhan and Marx both have an explanation for what's happening, but as to whether they're helpful... I doubt it.

All solutions cause their own problems

The THANKS is for being honest 🙏

Be careful where you step here on this. There is no single set of sensors. We're talking about temperature readings from all kinds of sources, all over the world. And the data is open. Imagine having The job to corrupt that process.

Great question. What is the legal standing of these things? Let me see if Google is helpful: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowner_association They are legally binding and have authority over homeowners And can also overlap with neighborhood associations... Who are not legally binding. It's all part of the wacky coconuts American culture that rejects government but puts two levels of governance on just having a nice house...

Politicians maybe. But the fact is that it's happening. That's not in doubt. Are people capitalizing on this? Sure, as with any problem that costs money to fix.

I retract my statement. We can't prove anything. But we can predict. Yes, there are extreme claims and unfounded predictions. But we have to look past that. It's not climate science that's making extreme claims about effects, that's a tertiary phenomenon from people who are activists and so on.

How about shaming people into adopting new technology before its effects on the world are known ? That's something that's been happening since we invented the rock for clubbing things. Individual id!ots should not be listened to. That fixes a lot of problems right there. I could choose to single out the dumbest Trump supporter and say "see ! this is who likes Trump". That wouldn't be valid. I could also show you surveys, polls, that indicate they're not well informed, or well educated, or that they're racist. It doesn't matter. They're unhappy and they have a right to their say. The women of Bangladesh have chosen birth control and the Americans have chosen Trump. The rest of us have to adjust.

Well, how about all wars ? But is that a good comparison ? I mean war is about going after a perceived threat, not a scientifically provable one. The Americans hated Afghanistan for awhile, then they didn't care. Same with Iraq, Vietnam, and others. Israel and Palestine, that conflict has more staying power. Is one side or the other scamming someone ? Not sure if this comparison works in the same way. I'm just thinking out loud here. Oops, my bad. I misread what you wrote. Well, yes, data errors happen and they happen often. But they're also corrected and reviewed, and again they feed a predictive model. So although your analogy is correct in theory, in practice it doesn't compare IMO.

I never understood this phenomenon. Of all the things that the USA invented, this is the closest to Communism. Why they put up with it... I'll never understand.

Yes, that's true. But if even one competent peer reviewed your code, the accident would be caught. I worked for a major Canadian transportation company when they instituted code reviews on my team. Support issues went down exponentially. Be assured that the models are tested criticized and adjusted on a large scale, on a global scale. But what you're talking about is true for anything that the prevailing wisdom follows. They're doing it for AI now. Give me an example where the entire world wasted billions on something that was guaranteed to be a sham, and they did it for decades. Willingly. I don't think there is one.

🤔. What's the difference between brainwashing and telling me your opinion. Are all new ideas progressive? If not, what is progressive? Isn't change, even social change inevitable? Is everyone brainwashed? So many questions, honestly.

I answered goddess: funding comes from lots of sources. Governments, universities... Lots of sources. And the models are accurate, from what I have seen in the past. You have to look at the aggregate models, over time. I did it a few years ago.

1. Paid by an uncountable number of governments, research groups, universities, private interests. And this is across the globe. 2. If they find there's no crisis, they become instantly famous and their reputation soars. 3. Based on what? Where did you hear this? I've only seen it asserted by people who think climate change as a hoax. Only a few scientists have tried to say this, and I don't believe it. 4. What you don't understand is that I'm the one who decides what my time is worth. If I thought you might change your mind, or I might from watching this, then I would give it an hour. Hour. Unfortunately, I've already wasted too many hours on YouTube, cranks, and discussing with people on here who wouldn't never believe that it's not a grand conspiracy. You're a nice lady but I'm not giving You that time.

Yes, I indicated that institutions misinform us. But not every institution and not in every case. It's not hard to figure that out. If you can explain how an open process, which is engaged in across the globe by thousands of people has been corrupted, that would help. These conversations tend to drift into conspiracy theory, for which I have zero time.

I used to find it fascinating how people would change their opinion on the Canadian public based on the last election result. Sometimes they're sheep, sometimes they're waking up. All based on whether they elected liberals or conservatives last time. And it's the same people. The citizens of Canada. Wake up sheep, go to bed 1diots. Whatever. There is a marketplace of ideas, and some of them work and some of them do not. I better communicator can get their ideas across and get people to buy into it. People probably need to be a little more diligent about details and following up though. I agree with that.

Well, testing is part of modeling. And then there's peer review. All of this done on a large scale, with hundreds of papers involving thousands of individuals. I guess that would be due diligence. It's built into the process. How do you know I have no knowledge? Is your writing of subroutines relevant? Honest question. As I pointed out in my last post, this process is open and practically impossible to fake.

For which point? Banning Democrats? Model creation?

1. Actually, yes. And we debate the basis for our conclusions. I can't point out where he's wrong, as you asked, because that wasn't provided. 2. Well I can say... 'please show your reasons ' 3. I don't think I have been belligerent. 4. I want to look at reasons. I accept points all the time.

Love that you think writing subroutines for algorithms means something to me Are you familiar with linear regression? Have you participated in this process? Keep in mind we're dealing with predictions in the physical world, so faking isn't easy to do.

Ok there it is thanks.

It's an opinion. I can't speak for his assessment of the risks. And once again you feel it necessary to insult people. I think that I have been fair on this. And you seem to have accepted my suggestions somewhat. That's a good sign.

Why are you tiptoeing around this? It sounds like you want to ban them. Why don't you just say that you want to? I mean, it's a threat. You believe it. So, are you afraid people will think ill of you or something? If something is a threat, you should address it.

You are speaking very vaguely and pretending that climate models aren't scrutinized. I don't think that you know the subject. And you didn't answer my question: how exactly are you supposed to include ALL factors?

What? What Climate lockdown?