wheelerof4te

"Russians now sell a lot of oil to India for rupees (and note that there does not seem to be any initiative to bomb India for engaging in this trade), but then are basically forced to use those same rupees to buy stuff from India again".

That is how the world economy used to work, before the petrodollar.

Now, Saudis or Qatar or pick your favorite Middle eastern monarch sell oil to US and everyone else in exchange for $USD. Since oil is used in nearly every other product line, either for transport or actual product, now world trade depends on how much $USD you have to buy said oil.

Euro is irrelevant outside of Europe.

No, I'm saying that 420 parts per million is still much lower than 3000-9000 parts per million.

Also, even a number they chose is plain trolling. Of all numbers, 420 ppm is what they "calculated".

"I speak German and I can guarantee you that American military presence has approximately zero influence on German politics."

Then why the fuck did they put sanctions on Russia? Why the fuck did they agree to buy a much more expensive liquid gas from the US when they had a cheaper alternative that allowed them to have such a great economy? And why did they not react when Nord Stream pipelines, the source of that cheap gas, got blown up?

What, they just sucked it up and said "hell, it's worth it, at least Russia is bad!"?

They tanked their own economy because Uncle Sam told them to do so, and not a single rational decision has ever been made by the German government since February 2022.

You can't argue with "the truth" here. Global warming has been a mainstream scarecrow for decades now.

In truth, it was just a way to slow down the growth of rival industrialized countries, or countries that are yet to industrialize. By promoting expensive, inefficient "clean" energy sources (but not nuclear!), they are stunting the growth of developing nations.

So, in addition to ignoring the very solution nature gave us, you argue that we must bury the dead plant matter because the CO2 will be released back into the atmosphere if we don't.

You realize there are bacteria and insects that eat this matter and that it is used as a fertilizer?

Of course we don't have a clue.

But people will pull all kinds of crazy out of their ass to justify the climate-change hoax.

"Had the South survived I would suspect it would be much poorer today than the North as its economy would probably get stuck in extraction and labor exploitation"

You do know how the US economy works today? You know why everyone accepts the US dollar, a literal piece of paper, in exchange for real, tangible goods?

Because they will be sanctioned and bombed to oblivion if they don't. Now, tell me how this is not a "wealth extraction" economy.

"Neither Japan nor Germany are in any sense of the word American vassal states."

Both states harbor huge US military bases. Bases that were established after literal military occupation and not by choice.

It's safe to say that they can't truly be free and choose their own policies. By definition, they are both occupied states.

The US did benefit from slavery and the fact that most of Europe ended up destroyed in WWII.

However, it did not use green energy to build up its huge industry. It used fossil fuels. If it did use carbon-free energy sources, I would have agreed and wouldn't be such a climate-change skeptic now.

"there is a curious lack of verifiable quantitative data in your comment"

Sorry, the climate-change megalomaniacs have skewed every discussion about this in the mainstream media. You will have to search for the data in the alternative sources.

"because to the rest of us it looks like you are mistaken"

I don't see any big changes when compared to the last 30 years, do you? What I do see is one big hysteria by the first-world countries who are imposing expensive, inefficient green energy on the rest of the world. Curiously, they are not doing anything to reduce the emissions they produce.

The article debunks the CO2 quantity from only one such emission. There are hundreds of active volcanoes on the Earth's surface and possibly thousands more in the oceans.

"I think it is safe to say we are already well equipped with it, and whatever our plans for its reduction are, we won't eliminate it."

The CO2 current levels in the atmosphere are 0.04%. Levels in the past were well above 1%.

"As a point of reference, pre-industrial CO2 levels were around 280 parts per million (ppm) and today, we stand near 420 ppm.

The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different."

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

They somehow knew that the Sun was cooler then, so that was not a problem. Yeah, right. But now, it would be.

"the US economic boom is largely attributable to slavery and WW2 decimating its rivals and forcing them to agree to quasi-vassality. Should we bring back slavery and start a new world war? So that it's "fair" for the developing countries?"

Ah, another strawman I have to argue on the internet. I did not say that, so don't put it in my mouth, please.

Tell me why you think that things science already confirmed are "lunacy" to you?

1. Fossil fuels can't just run out because they are produced continuously by dead matter decaying over time. It's in the name.

2. Carbon dioxide is good for the plant life. Plants are literally "breathing" it and producing oxygen. As with everything in nature, this is balanced by the fact that animals breathe oxygen and release...you guessed it, carbon dioxide.

3. Vulcanic eruptions all over the planet release three orders of magnitude more CO2 than all of humanity combined over a period of one year. These eruptions happen in the Earth's oceans, as well, where they are more frequent as there is simply more ocean floor than there is land on the surface.

So, please stop with the disinformation already. Or just reduce the carbon footprint in the most developed countries in the world and leave the developing world to go through the fossil fuel phase that those countries went through.

This usually happens to me when I wake up, then try to sleep shortly after. I hear a loud cracking noise, like something snapped in the back of head.

Then I suddenly rise up and wait a bit in order to calm down.

Pulling the probes required every time since 1 zealot simply doesn't beat 6 zerglings.

Pylons are indeed beautiful when they power my buildings in Starcraft with their blue psi-glow.

Chatbots assistants make you too reliant on a service which reliability you can't control.

First, there is the fact that ChatGPT and it's cousins require an active internet connection, unlike some other tools that similarly boosted human productivity (like a calculator program).

Second, it is server-based utility. Meaning, even if you have internet connection, server might be down for some reason.

Third, while training your mind to be reliant to ChatGPT, you gradually lose the patience and ability to think outside the box. If your first move when you face a problem is to ask ChatGPT for a solution, then it's no good.

The third one may seem like harmless since we are already using Google, but it's not. Google still requires you to filter the data and go through each listed page manually. In other words, you still are using your brain somewhat. With chatbots, you lose even that "do it yourself" analysis.

You win the thread.

Finally working as intended. Perhaps now people will use their brains more, instead of relying on stupid chatbots.

"They potentially broke up a great company and product for nothing."

Wake up, the AI chatbot craze phase is over. Find some other ways to boost your productivity that are more reliable and will not turn your brain into pudding.

How do you explain the continued presence of US military inside Syria?

Iraq, Syria comes to mind. Yes, the US is still in Syria. They would have tried that shit with Venezuela, but Ruskies got there first.

Yes, western governments have NATO, so they can just "borrow" it whenever they like.

As always, whoever has the biggest guns will control this resource as well.

If someome resists, they will end up just like anyone who opposed the US's quest to take other nations oil.

As Donald used to say:

"Take the oil, then get out". They took the oil and stayed.

East India Company is surely one of the biggest plagues ever on mankind. As the name says, it was a private megacorporation, with it's own navy and private army.

Nation states kill for the ideals. Private companies that have the power of a state kill, enslave and pillage only for more profit.

Right time was around 20 years ago.

Now they have too much power. They are practically running a part of the government.

"falling into the arms of state actors that won't be so moral about it?"

What do you mean by "moral"? State actors have interests, major corporations also have their interests. Very few of them can be called moral.

Big tech was always about power and money. No morals there.

Someone said it, amen.

I would care what China would do if China was going around the world killing millions of people in the name of "national security".

Alas, so far that privilege went to Great Britain, France (Napoleon), Germany, US and recently Russia and Isreal.

Still no China on that radar.

Wow, all this drama over a glorified chatbot.

I can't wait until people realize how much of a nothingburger ChatGPT really is.

"Underground bunkers" are actually underground cities. There are a bunch of them all over the world.