revelio

Presumably if actors pick this as a hill to die on, well, suddenly there'll be even more surplus supply of actors to demand because the easy roles are VFX, and at that point Hollywood can just break the unions with scabs.

So there's nothing to try again here. Your question was answered correctly the first time.

And that's before you get to the way they rewrite the past in the temperature databases. It leads to problems like this:

Jeff Berardelli, WFLA-TV (Tampa Bay) Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist: “In case you missed it. The temperature soared as high as 100 degrees in the Northwest Territories on Saturday, the hottest temperature ever measured north of 65 degrees latitude in the Western Hemisphere”. Tough keeping up with all this climate chaos.”

https://twitter.com/WeatherProf/status/1678635894021005312

100 degrees, hottest ever measured in north of 65 degrees latitude. A factual statement?

No, because it's not true. It reached 100F at Fort Yukon (66.6 degrees latitude) in 1915, according to government logbooks since erased from their websites:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170209162324/https://www.ncdc....

This happens because climatologists engage in data fraud. They not only constantly change how they combine individual readings into global aggregates, but also rewrite the temperature history of every single weather station too. It leads to constant 1984-esque dystopian events, like trusted news sources claiming a new record has been broken when you can find records of that "record" having been previously already been reached or exceeded in newspaper archives and old documents.

https://theconversation.com/insect-apocalypse-not-so-fast-at...

The second is a prediction for 300 years in the future. But we're talking about the claim "the ecology is collapsing", present tense.

macOS does have stronger security, but it's security in the form of stopping apps accessing files until they need permission and things.

There's also the issue that BEST has diverged drastically from satellite observations. It's not possible for both sources to be true simultaneously as they claim to be measuring the same thing.

It's not hugely surprising that they claimed to investigate these concerns and then simply duplicated the bad methodologies that were being criticized in the first place. Berkeley Earth is run by a guy who has said, amongst other things,

"I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium."

In the same article where he said that he observed that anyone who took issue with the Mann hockey-stick history rewrites were attacked and people had engaged in mass resignations simply because papers disagreeing with it were published.

There's a fundamental philosophy of science issue here that can't be resolved with the "one more study" approach. Climatologists don't attempt to improve their source data quality. They don't build and operate weather station networks, they rely on others that were built for other purposes. Although the changes they claim to be monitoring are very small (like 0.1-0.2 C per decade) they don't set up the instruments they need to obtain such precise and accurate measurements. Instead they suck up data from literally any thermometer they can find and then apply algorithms that they claim correct the bias and corruption. This isn't scientifically valid. If scientists have doubts about their source data they're supposed to use error bars, but when did you ever see a temperature graph that had error bars? They never do because many of the stations they use report uncertainty intervals of anywhere from half a degree C to even 5 degrees C. These CIs are much wider than the size of the claimed trend and would thus destroy any ability to detect warming from the ground station network. So, they rely on this algorithmic approach, but that isn't convincing due to how frequently they decided their previous algorithms were wrong and rewrite the history of the climate.

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/08/16/will-the-real-hottest...

There were periods in the past warmer than it is today. Climatologists once knew this, it was uncontroversial. But when they realized they could raise the importance of their field by predicting disaster, this history became problematic and was erased.

https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?Id=BFE4...

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

For sure. But I don't see what's AI specific about it. If the AI doom scenario is a super smart AI tricking people into doing self destructive things by using clever words, then everything you need to do to vaccinate people against that is the same as if it was humans doing the tricking. Teaching critical thinking, self reliance, to judge arguments on merit and not on surface level attributes like complexity of language or titles of the speakers. All these are things our society objectively sucks at today, and we have a ruling class - including many of the sorts of people who work at AI companies - who are hellbent on attacking these healthy mental habits, and people who engage in them!

> Not seen academics get stick before, except in history books.

For academics you could also read intellectuals. Marx wasn't an academic but he very much wanted to be, if he lived in today's world he'd certainly be one of the most famous academics.

I'm of the view that corporations are very tame compared to the damage caused by runaway academia. It wasn't corporations that locked me in my apartment for months at a time on the back of pseudoscientific modelling and lies about vaccines. It wasn't even politicians really. It was governments doing what they were told by the supposedly intellectually superior academic class. And it isn't corporations trying to get rid of cheap energy and travel. And it's not governments convincing people that having children is immoral because of climate change. All these things are from academics, primarily in universities but also those who work inside government agencies.

When I look at the major threats to my way of life today, academic pseudo-science sits clearly at number 1 by a mile. To the extent corporations and governments are a threat, it's because they blindly trust academics. If you replace Professor of Whateverology at Harvard with ChatGPT, what changes? The underlying sources of mental and cultural weakness are the same.

That sort of thing sounds OK for primary/elementary school. You'd expect science at that level to be focused on soft stuff. Expecting kids of that age to do real experiments or care about the philosophy of science is too much, if you can get them out into the garden and looking at insects and flowers then that's a good start.

I think there's a subtle difference between viruses/bacteria and what government officials mean when they talk about infectious diseases. Obviously any good biology curriculum will cover viruses and bacteria at the microscopic level. But when governments talk about "infectious diseases" what they really mean is the macro scale of epidemiology and other social sciences, because they're constantly being told by rich NGOs that we now live in an age of pandemics, and they think about disease purely through the lens of social policy and enforcement. The response to COVID was widely condemned as un-scientific because link between what academics/civil servants recommended to governments and what was actually scientifically known about viruses was nearly non-existent.

Of course in a theoretically ideal system laws are precise enough that governments can't simply make your life worse for getting on the wrong side of them. But nobody seems willing to stomach the level of rigor that would require from lawmakers. Three Felonies A Day and such.

Really why is this so hard to understand. There's nothing special about tech firms in this story except the naivety of their executives, who have ended up looking like utter tools in this whole sorry charade. These idiots systematically suppressed discussion of the lab leak hypothesis for over a year and then once the Biden admin started taking it seriously decided, whoops, maybe it wasn't misinformation after all and stopped banning it. Twitter was systematically banning stuff even whilst expressing serious reservations internally because they knew the claims were true. Yet these firms are nonetheless still doing better than Google, at least Facebook and Twitter realized they were wrong in the end.

This thread seems to be full of FAANG employees desperately trying to come up with some reason why their employers are not in fact easily duped rubes who would sew the mouths of their own mothers shut if a 100% conflicted mid-level nobody at the CDC suggested it.

Whereas, an AI that tries to kill everyone or take over the world or something, that seems pretty explicitly bad news and everyone would be united in stopping it. To work around that, you have to significantly complicate the AI doom scenario to be one in which a large number of people think the AI is on their side and bringing about a utopia but it's actually ending the world, or something like that. But, what's new? That's the history of humanity. The communists, the Jacobins, the Nazis, all thought they were building a better world and had to have their "off switch" thrown at great cost in lives. More subtly the people advocating for clearly civilization-destroying moves like banning all fossil fuels or net zero by 2030, for example, also think they're fighting on the side of the angels.

So the only kind of AI doom scenario I find credible is one in which it manages to trick lots of powerful people into doing something stupid and self-destructive using clever sounding words. But it's hard to get excited about this scenario because, eh, we already have that problem x100, except the misaligned intelligences are called academics.

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/04/17/bee-apocalypse-was-neve...

Mass starvation wasn't "addressed" exactly, because the predictions were for mass starvation in the west, which never happened. Also the people who predicted this weren't the ones who created the Green Revolution.

Ozone hole is I think the most valid example in the list, but who knows, maybe that was just BS too. A lot of scientific claims turn out to be so, these days, even those that were accepted for quite a while.

Basic science like physics and chemistry are a problem for woke authoritarians because you can do experiments in high school labs, and this introduces children to things like standards of evidence, the scientific method, statistical rigor, the idea that some things are universally true and false etc. More importantly it teaches them to think for themselves. Science is at its best when the teacher says "X is true" but then also "and here's why you don't have to take my word for it", which is a powerful introduction to adulthood.

All the replacement topics are united by an inability to do experiments. Instead these fields rely heavily on unvalidated simulations of assumptions. These specific topics are also clearly selected for left wing environmental radicalism e.g. "earth science" means climate change, "infectious diseases" means teaching kids how important and brilliant lockdowns and masks are, "biodiversity" means the importance of not building anything and so on.

Universities are a power base for the left because they strictly teach students to silo themselves and never question professors, especially not those from a different field. High school doesn't teach that mentality to the same degree. If this curriculum does goes through, science will immediately be redefined as "here is what academics say, memorize it, regurgitate in exams, if you do that accurately you're good at science". This is exactly what they want, because if there's one thing that COVID revealed very well it was the rampant fear of those in power of anyone who doesn't define science as blind acceptance of the word of government and academic authorities.

But thanks for illustrating my point so perfectly. All the people who think they're most rational on this topic are actually the least rational. Relying purely on mental shortcuts and social cues works right up until someone figures out how they can game you for profit, which is what's happening here (cry crisis = funding, grants, status, fame).

bash is concise but there are other languages nearly as concise. It'd make more sense to use them rather than go+bash, once you cross the rubicon of not relying entirely on stuff that comes with UNIX out of the box.

Screen sharing and video calls can be handled by other apps like Zoom, Google Meet etc.