Pilfer
> with only relatively minor changes
Relatively minor changes have huge effect on the content of articles. The linked article also addresses how Wikipedia has banned conservative sources from Wikipedia including Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post. "In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted."
Every claim in a Wikipedia article must be accompanied with a source. Claims that are only covered by conservative media and not covered at all by mainstream (liberal) media, cannot be referenced as a source in a Wikipedia article. This leads to conservative viewpoints being removed from articles. Which directly causes articles to become biased towards mainstream viewpoints.
The differences were substantial: in some cases, such as total brain volume, more than a standard deviation. The effect size of d = −1.41 for total brain volume (Table 1) translates to 92.1% of males being above the female mean, and an 84.1% chance that a randomly-chosen male will have a larger total brain volume than a randomly-chosen female.
The graph shows that between 10-250 million years ago, global temperatures were 1-12° C higher than they are today. Given that current projections, which include the 2% relative gain in solar irradiance, expect 3-4°C warming by 2100, the geologic temperature record suggests such increases are not detrimental to life on earth. Let us recall that life was thriving during the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, when temperatures were 5-10°C higher and CO2 levels between 1000-2000ppm. Global temperatures today are actually lower than than average, on a geological timescale.
>the rate of change in CO2 levels was never nearly this swift
No, you can't conclude this. You cannot show there was no other a period in Earth's geologic history where CO2 levels rose by 150ppm (or 150%, whichever is not relevant) in less than 200 years. The geologic record is not detailed enough to make such a claim. It is unknowable if there was a series of major volcanic eruptions that caused CO2 levels to rise rapidly.
And sudden change has always been a part of climate and evolution. Rapid change can occur in just a few decades. For example, the Sahara wasn't even a desert 10,000 years ago. Also see punctuated equilibrium.
This isn't common knowledge at all among non-scientists. Most people have no clue that CO2 levels were many times higher than today, and that earth and the ecosystem in general were just fine. Scientists may be aware of this fact, but why don't they inform the general public of this? Take the submitted article for example. Instead of publishing an article stating, "CO2 levels are higher than 800,000 years ago; but are likely lower than they were at any point from 20-200 million years ago" they only leave in the scary, doomsaying first part and neglect to inform the second part. It is the equivalent of looking at a 24 hour geological clock and only telling people about the past minute while neglecting datapoints from minutes or hours ago. Why aren't scientists informing the public of the historical data?
I understand why the climate change community may not want to bring up this point (it detracts from other issues) but people should be aware of this fact. Humanity, and life in general, will survive increased CO2 levels.
>The question isn't whether [X], it's whether [Y].
I am paraphrasing, but that's largely what your comment is saying. The article premise and its title, is about [X], where [X] is CO2 levels. It seems like the response to historical CO2 levels is to change the topic.
Edit: I don't want to reply to several comments, so I'll respond here.
Why do I believe the discussion should inform people about historical CO2 levels? Largely because I firmly believe CO2 emissions will not decrease through 2040. The incentives to cut emissions are just not there. Petroleum is simply too useful as a resource. The current projections I have seen predict 500ppm by 2050, and likely 600ppm by 2100. Given those numbers, I ask myself the question, how likely is it that humanity will face extinction in the next century? How should I interpret these numbers?
Given the geological data, I find it reassuring that biology and life on earth survived for hundreds of millions of years with CO2 levels between 1000-2000ppm. It means that increased CO2 levels will not cause the extinction of humanity.
I assume you are referencing about CO2 levels. Yes, around ~500 million years ago, CO2 levels reached 10,000ppm, which would be hazardous (but not fatal) to a human traveler. However if you pick a point between 300 million years ago and today, when CO2 levels were at 1000-2000ppm, a human traveler would have no problem surviving in that environment. Heck, it is even possible to hit those CO2 levels in a modern day warehouse or office that is poorly ventilated.
Increased CO2 levels are very survivable and do not mean the end of the human race.
Present CO2 levels are low on a geological timescale.
On a geologic timescale, CO2 levels were many times higher than they are today.
>In very general terms, long-term reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 levels going back in time show that 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 was some 20 times higher than present values. It dropped, then rose again some 200 million years ago to 4-5 times present levels--a period that saw the rise of giant fern forests--and then continued a slow decline until recent pre-industrial time.
CO2 levels over the past ~5 million years are at the lowest point in over 200 million years. On a geological timescale, CO2 levels are returning to normal, not going away from it.
The cost of compliance is less than $0.20
I think there are better arguments for your PoV than this one.
Citing the camera's poor dynamic range, does not imply a human in the same situation would have enough dynamic range to spot a pedestrian in the same circumstance.
High beams would have saved a life here, however in many situations they are illegal to use.
Car headlights can be seen from over 1000 feet away, and at the speed the Uber car was traveling, the pedestrian had 20 seconds to see & and react to the vehicle coming at her.
From the video, it's clear they were not looking for oncoming vehicles while crossing the road.
Not true at all, the person was not standing under lit streetlights and was in the shadows. Humans have problems detecting objects in the shadows, especially at night.
3M made a video illustrating how difficult it is to see people at night. In this video, people wearing bright-colored clothing don't even show up until 250 feet away. According to the national safety council, a human driver traveling at 30mph at night, may take up 500 feet to react to and stop when there is an object in the road.
I reccomend watching this video as it strongly changed my views about night driving.
While you are allowing us to use the information we receive about you, you always own all of your information. Your trust is important to us, which is why we don't share information we receive about you with others unless we have:
• received your permission;
• given you notice, such as by telling you about it in this policy; or
• removed your name and any other personally identifying information from it.
The lawsuit claims Facebook violated bullet points 1 and 2, citing the CA news. The lawsuit uses this point to argue Facebook lied to their investors, did not provide more information on this in their SEC filings, and that investors suffering financial loss when the stock price fell after CA news.
>prioritize Cogent's Panic traffic specifically. Comcast is still the bad guy.
No, from the article it really sounds like Comcast added more capacity to their Cogent-Comcast peering links, at their expense. Comcast was not obligated to do this for Panic in any way. How does that make Comcast 'the bad guy'? Cogent should have worked with Comcast to fix this issue in the first place. Panic is paying Cogent for transit, Cogent should be the one getting Comcast to increase their peering bandwidth. If Panic has to go around the company they're are paying to get their problem fixed, that's terrible service.
I do encourage you to re-read my comments and understand where 15% and 5% come from. They are from different populations, something which you do not appear to notice.
Sadly there’s a litany of basic mistakes in your comment. It’s not worth my teaching people high school statistics, so I won’t be replying.
Google does not publish hiring statistics, but I genuinely believe most Google engineers are hired from the top 5% of the general population. In a statistical sense, that could be considered as above normal. However, in a colloquial sense, there is no clear definition of what is ‘considered normal’, hence you could consider persons with top engineering ability as normal. Heck you could even correctly consider everyone as normal, and therefore all Google engineers are normal.
Since this thread is about a statistical interpretation of a population in the US & India, I hope you can see how your use the colloquial sense of the phrase is misleading here.
A valid point, but that does not apply to Google engineers because their hiring practices directly discriminate for ability, as they select the best ~15% of people they interview. Statistically, someone with better than normal ability is far more likely to receive a job from Google than 'normal people on average'.
> it seems like he hasn't touched the editorial side at all
which on the surface looks true, but under the surface isn't. Bezos has been directing editorial coverage behind the scenes at WaPo. I belive this is what rufus_2 is referring to as 'despicable'. That you said you haven't noticed it makes it more worrying.
While additional Trump coverage may have happened without Bezos interfering, and I agree this would happen naturally, the issue here is that the changes happened at the request of Bezos. Bezos did interfere on the editorial side and did direct the paper to cover more of certain stories and less of others.
Regarding the NYT, its articles regarding Trump are noticeably more tame and fewer in number.
This wasn't just 'a new interest in reporting on The Whitehouse'.
By dedicating so many resources to Trump and the gossip surrounding him, it leaves less resources to cover other, actually important issues. It's made a huge change in the direction of the paper. There's much more about Trump now and less on other important topics. I'm surprised you didn't notice it.
I did notice you tried earlier to change the definition of net neutrality by claiming it "doesn't prevent network operators from stopping malicious activity on their network", when really there is no exception for this. Like netflix tried to do, you can't decide what is and what isn't net neutrality just to fit your viewpoint.
I fully understand why you're trying to avoid this topic by describing at as "extremely unhelpful" because I know it's a sore point many people try to avoid discussing. But I have no qualms pointing out flaws in other people's arguments :).
The alternative, that ISPs should not route unlawful traffic, would require ISPs to search packets and block the ones they find unlawful. That is censorship.
Here's how net neutrality is defined.
"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication."
Blocking all TCP/IP packets with first two bytes set to 25, and not blocking TCP/IP packets with the first two bytes set to 24, is a clear violation of the Net Neutrality principle of no discrimination based on application. If I send a TCP/IP packet with source port 24, my ISP does not block it. However, if I change just one bit in that packet, my ISP refuses to send it.
An ISP blocking an entire class of applications from the internet (in this case, SMTP servers) is most certainly a net neutrality violation.
> If someone is actively disrupting the network, or is otherwise acting maliciously, then clearly as a network operator you're going to be permitted to block that traffic.
Where specifically in the definition of net neutrality does it permit ISPs to block such traffic? Blocking such traffic is a violation of the net neutrality principle that "Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same".
> Most major mail providers will outright block you for existing in [a residential IP block]
ISPs have blocked residential customers from using SMTP for over a decade now, therefore it's no surprise mail providers have little incentive to support residential SMTP servers. They've been forced out of the market.
Also, the port 25 ban directly affects legitimate customers. At least for Verizon, port 25 is blocked for residential customers, but it's not blocked for commercial customers. Over the past decade, many residential customers have called to enable port 25 so they can run their own mail server, and I've read Verizon refuses to unblock the port. Verizon's "solution" for them is to upgrade to their commercial package where it's not blocked.