newswriter99

You ignored their points entirely so I'm not sure why anyone should have to read that BS wall of text.

Ah Wikipedia, the word of god.

"Oh noes, the corporations used science! That's not fair!"

Find me a "credible source" that shows natural gas contaminates water. Go ahead. I'll wait.

> I'll take a step back from "burning", because that seems hard to prove, but it most certainly does contaminate ground water

Fracking wastes (the sluice of water, sand and a scant amount of chems) does not equal natural gas.

Natural gas does NOT contaminate water. Fuck off.

>Yeah, I love lighting my water on fire and fracking earthquakes

Natural gas from fracking does not cause burning tap water.

https://www.cred.org/is-fracking-connected-to-burning-tap-wa...

Fracking-related earthquakes are either minimal or bebeficial

https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/does...

0/10 "green energy" shill. Fracking gave us dirt cheap natgas, which is damn cleaner than coal AND why your electricity prices havent gone up in the last decade. Educate yourself.

I stand by SPIDR.

Found it via 4chan. Comments section get get a bit /pol/ but I think it adds a refreshing reminder of what the internet used to be like before we started posting our names and mugshots. http://spidr.today/

> The place has no life on it, it's barren due to the altitude and the lack of oxygen. No animal, plant or human ever ever lived up there.

Are you lying through your teeth or just uneducated? There's several species of plants that grow on Mauna Kea. There's all kinds of insects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Kea_silversword

Took me all of two seconds on google to prove you wrong. Apply yourself.

Try being white trash in a poor part of the south and get back to me how "easy" things are.

And yet lower income groups, who tend to have junk food diets, also tend to have more unplanned pregnancies.

Jack MacReady: It's obvious the bastard's got lyme disease!

Bill Pardy: What?

Jack MacReady: Lyme disease. You touch some deer feces, and then you... eat a sandwich without washin' your hands. You got your lyme disease!

Bill Pardy: And that makes you look like a squid?

>The rest of the world is already beating us on energy. [citation needed]

We literally usurped control from OPEC thanks to fracking technology, which almost no one else in the world is using.

EDIT: And let's mention our LNG exports while we're at it: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_move_expc_s1_a.htm

I know HN is a mature forum where insults aren't conductive to discussion, but pull your head out of your ass.

Change the word "plan" with "dream" and the article looks a lot less like a one-sided editorial.

Articles like this start off from the angle of "we should do this" and in my opinion that's a BS way to frame a news story. Fossil fuels, especially natgas, serve a very specific function and the idea of putting the US at a disadvantage just so we can pat ourselves on the back as the rest of the world beats us in energy is ludicrous.

They didn't specify what kind of information in the header. So you could either assume ALL information is like junkfood and drugs, or you could assume people are filling up on information and becoming more intelligent (which I assume NO ONE assumed) or make any number of assumptions.

Case in point: the headline is too ambiguous.

TL;DR clickbait is addictive.

“And just as our brains like empty calories from junk food, they can overvalue information that makes us feel good but may not be useful—what some may call idle curiosity.”

THAT is the point of the article. Crap information is addictive.

I knew there was some sort of angle to this.

I wonder how William Gibson feels about coining "cyberspace" only to live in a world where "cyber" has been reduced to chat room banter and low-brow humor.

You're on to something but it's a tiny bit more complicated than that.

Take general assignment reporters for example. They have to learn how to learn.

What I mean is, they're experts on digesting new information. Because they have to write about ANYTHING at a moment's notice, and can't be expected to be experts on everything. THEN they have to write about that topic using only 500 words (or so) to an audience who also probably knows nothing about the topic.

That's a tall order and you shouldn't be surprised reporters get it wrong sometimes.

Probably worth noting I've been in journalism going on a decade now.

It's a bit too easy to simply write off ALL journalists (no pun intended) as "not that bright".

You may as well say most people aren't that bright. Which would be equally unfair.

Likewise, how can you stick a small-town reporter who covers highschool basketball in the same list as a New York Times reporter with an Ivy League background in economics? Make no mistake, I'm not implying the latter is somehow superior to the former, but there is a huge range between the people who make up the journalism industry.

Came across that in audiobook form not long after a really toxic abusive relationship with someone who suffers from a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder.

The chapter about the author's wannabe hustler friend described them like it was a biography.

AP style should really push journalists to use the term "cybercriminals" over "hackers".

I'm not the first to say it but the issue is growing, and it's only going to make the public more leery of any tech-minded but innocent kid or professional pentesting adult who uses the term "hacker".

Yes, I also have a handful of cherry-picked anecdotes about how city-folk are closed-minded, pompous, rude and bigoted.

I guess that means I'm right too, huh?

Not all the time. Source: reporter

It's in the writing. Look at the headline: "Too many people want to travel"

Funny how she didn't give a damn when it was just her group getting to travel. Now that there's the rest of us getting to do it? Oh, that's too many, go back to not traveling you people.

That's my point. From my perspective, the headline isn't: "There are too many humans" Instead it's: "It was better when only us privileged humans got to do this thing"

God forbid we have more people entering the middle class, who want to explore the world.

I hate how preachy publications like Vox and The Atlantic can be. The writers come from these urbanized, upper middle class backgrounds and have no self-awareness. When I (with my small-town highschool dropout roots) read stories like this, I can't help but reword what they're saying in my head:

"Go back to being working-class scum who stays in the same place so us upper-class people can enjoy jet-setting and taking photos in exotic locations only you can dream of."

I haven't clicked the OP's link but I can already answer with confidence: No.

1-Don't write a headline as a question 2-Don't write a headline with a question that can be answered "no".

The headline "Two programmers played a pivotal role in the birth of chaos theory" would have done a lot more to further the right of women to be in the STEM fields.

Pointing out they're female only further makes it look like most women are too incompetent to do math or science.

"Eban advises consumers to research who manufactures their generics and look up any problems that regulators have found out about them."

The whole point of government agencies like the FDA is to perform inspections that consumers lack the ability, time or resources to do on their own.

I get that we're in a complicated interconnected world and you've got to look out for yourself, but that's me. There's about 300 million Americans out there and a good portion of them are busy raising kids and busting their ass working and CAN'T spend hours investigating their prescription meds and inspecting their food.

Also, it's politically incorrect to say this, but a smaller number of consumers aren't intelligent enough to even begin taking care of themselves. They need the FDA more than anyone.

"By year 2030"

So much for "ban all burning of fossil fuels today"

This is the short version of my argument.

>we should ban all burning of fossil fuels today. Doing so would create all the incentives needed to answer the question of storage vs nuclear in a very short time,

That's not how public opinion, politics or economics works and if you're posting on HN you're educated enough to know better.

First question: we just "ban all burning of fossil fuels" what, globally? Is that going to be through a UN agreement or are you going to convince developing nations like China and India that they shouldn't use fossil fuels to catch up even though the rest of the world got to do so during the industrial revolution?

Second question: What's the solution for convincing the public to allow spent nuclear material in their backyard? Are we going door-to-door letting consumers know that they're dum-dum children and we know best, or do we just use some executive orders and imminent domain to force it down their throat?

Third question: Since we just stopped using all fossil fuels, how are we coming up with the electricity demands all the world over considering it takes a decade to build a nuclear power plant? Renewables?

Ok, so how are you going to generate sufficient electricity from renewable sources in dark, windless places WITHOUT using fossil fuels?

Fourth question: Are we supposed to use magic fairy dust to construct the materials needed for the nuclear power plants, solar panels and wind turbines? Because last time I checked you need quite a few plastics and petrochemicals to manufacture the electronics. Not to mention the massive amount of concrete needed in the construction of wind turbines and other facilities, which of course absorbs oxygen like a sponge.