Let's say we establish an AI that has the purpose of interpreting the data. Its only job is to read and conclude the data to be correct. Now, it hasn't any kind of perception like humans do, and the output will be a binary "yes" or "no". "Is there a Higgs particle?", it answers "Yes". — Christoffer

The AI would still be human-made to emulate a human scientist. It wouldn't be in effect very different from a human scientist. It would be able to fail, in particular. It would also rely on data fed to it, by a system which can fail. This system is also man-made and based on human theories and perceptions.

And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize
— Olivier5

Which is irrelevant. — Xtrix

I think it is the reason we are in this mess.

There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming.
— Olivier5

There’s every reason to believe it in fact.

You mind giving us a few examples?

They have and continue to defend coal.

The perception you describe is reading the conclusion on a screen at CERN or conceptualizing the meaning of the particles existence outside of the scientific logic behind the detection of it. — Christoffer

Yes, there needs to be someone reading the data, and interpreting the data. Machines don't do science. They do not bypass human perception either, they just enhance it. And the logic behind the apparatus itself and its design and correct operation is theory-based and theory-ladden. The questions that are being tested, the theories that are built to make sense to the data, are all human ideas.

This is not to say that there is no "outside reality" (outside of what, exactly?). Reality is whatever there is, and to my knowledge, that includes ideas, which are real, and stuff that are not ideas.

https://twitter.com/leonidvolkov/status/1548697349676998656

At the very least with regards to the legislation Manchin just killed, it seemed like union workers were pretty excited about the bill, in particular for it's legislation to help the miners transition to new cleaner jobs on the coalfields they used to work on: Coal miners want Joe Manchin to reverse opposition to Build Back Better. — Mr Bee

The concerns of miners, as described in the article you posted, and the reasons why they support the BBB bill have nothing to see with climate change: they are naturally about pensions, healthcare and jobs. They are not going to go on strike to save the planet.

Mostly true, but irrelevant to what I was talking about -- as quoted above. The solutions I mentioned mostly apply where people/governments want to decarbonize -- not 100% everywhere, but it generalizes well enough. — Xtrix

And what I was talking about was that the US does not actually want to decarbonize, or they would have started doing so a long time ago not to emperil the human race.

Without strikes, or the threat of strikes, nothing will happen. So if European unions aren't doing that, then yes -- what's the point? — Xtrix

The point of labour unions is to defend their membership in collective bargaining with capitalists. It is not to save the human race. A coal miners union will defend the use of coal. There is no reason to believe that labor unions will help reduce global warming.

What an utterly hopeless piece of thinking. — Banno

What part did you fail to understand?

You lump together imagination with logic, but logic is not a human concept. — Christoffer

Logic is a very human concept. Maybe you mean to say that logic is not limited to humans, which I would agree with.

If we build a detector, like the one in CERN, to detect particles we cannot possibly perceive, our perception does not dictate its function, which is what you mean with what you say when you lump in human perception with science.

I think you would agree that a group of blind and deaf people could not build and operate the CERN accelerator. Even if they could, how would they know what the results of their experiments are?

We can build tools to expand on our senses but someone still needs to look into the telescope. With one's eyes.

jerking — boethius

You got that word right.

Excellent piece.

This proposal is not balanced, it is way too favorable for Russia, who in any case does not seek peace. I see zero chance for it.

Just saying it as I see it... Many Americans are only discovering the problem now, and they are unaware of the fact that the US has had an oversized contribution to this problem.

I noticed that the website of the American Cancer Society has:

Studies have shown that keeping a positive attitude does not change the course of a person’s cancer. Trying to keep a positive attitude does not lead to a longer life and can cause some people to feel guilty when they can’t “stay positive.” This only adds to their burden.

I do think a positive attitude, if not forced, can help make cancer easier to deal with emotionally and it can make it easier for friends and relatives to cope. Whatever that's worth. — Tom Storm

Thanks, also to @L'éléphant. I stand corrected.

I'm speaking about the US, of course -- but it's true elsewhere as well. — Xtrix

What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere. The climate Armageddon was literally made in the USA. It is because of the constant opposition of your country, your politicians and media, including those pretending to be "democrat", that the whole world is now doomed. You own this one. For three decades now, you guys did everything in your vast power to frustrate the efforts of those trying to address the issue, and you consume 3 or 4 times more carbon by person than Europeans do, on average.

So by all means, do do something! Better late than never. Do unionize for instance, although we in Europe have had labor unions for a long while, and they don't do much that I can see against climate change...

You could also do a revolution and size power for the people and away from corporations. It's called a democracy.

Beg your pardon, but it reeks of defeatism. I realize you feel it's 'realism,' but the truth is that things can turn around very quickly indeed, and even heal. The window is shutting, true -- so all the more reason to do something. — Xtrix

By all mean do something. I am doing something too. As for things turning around quickly... I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't see much recognition of real actions and solutions. — Xtrix

Why don't you get a go at it? What are these real actions and solutions?

something fascinating — Tate

I guess this is important. The fascination of doubt, the sinking feeling one gets when contemplating one's cosmic ignorance. Socrates realized soon enough that we don't know much for sure. Oddly enough, one can get hooked on the contemplation of one's one insignificance, ignorance or confusion.

And yet, we still *know* some stuff for (almost) certain. We can approach certainty, apparently, or at least we all function daily -- and argue -- as if we could approach certainty.

Science certainly does so. It is predicated on the idea that careful human observation of phenomena and the careful application of human reason to such observations (classifying, comparing, theorizing) can help make sense of the world. If you don't believe in that, you're not a scientist.

I think of it as like being in a room and you're really preoccupied with something fascinating. Every now and then you glance at the walls and realize there's something wrong, but you don't pursue it. You just go back to being fascinated. — Tate

Something like this?

There are plenty of solutions, and people working very hard at those solutions -- and making progress. All while being told that there "are not solutions," that we're already doomed, that there's nothing we can do except continue with the status quo because leaders won't listen and corporations are too powerful, etc. The typical defeatist, hopelessness-encouraging bullshit you can see daily in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

So sure, we can go with your narrative and thus justify doing nothing. — Xtrix

I'm not trying to "justify doing nothing". I'm just realizing that there is a fairly high chance our civilization will fall, whatever we do at this stage. It's more a question of when and how.

If we had acted decisively two or three decades ago, i.e. if the US had not fought tooth and nail against Kyoto and other agreements (including of course the WSJ), then maybe we would have had some chance of averting the worse global effects.

A miracle may still happen, I guess. But at this stage, to prepare for the worst is perfectly rational. While still hoping for the best of course, and still trying to avert the worst.

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre ni de réussir pour persévérer.

A fairly obvious point when you think of it, but then few people do think of it.

Nothing ever comes as gifts from above. Ever. When our institutions and our leaders fail, we work harder to circumvent them and create a crisis for them. I don't see any alternative beyond giving up and guaranteeing the worst case happens. — Xtrix

Once the number of Homo sapiens on the planet is severely reduced due to the consequences of climate change -- as is bound to happen in the coming decades or at best centuries -- the forces driving CC will then progressively abate. It may take a few thousand years for the climate to cool down though. There are no short term solution that I can see.

Indeed, science is based on human perception, logic and imagination. So if human perception, logic and imagination are deemed problematic, then so should science be.

These are just empty speculations. I'm not interested in your FSB-sponsored confusion, nor in your wet dreams of nuclear holocaust.

Everybody knows that our cities were built to be destroyed
You get annoyed, you buy a flat, you hide behind the mat
But I know she was born to do everything wrong with all of that

Maria Bethânia, please send me a letter
I wish to know things are getting better
Better, better, Beta, Beta, Bethânia
Please, send me a letter
I wish to know things are getting better

She has given her soul to the devil but the devil gave her soul to God
Before the flood, after the blood, before you can see
She has sold her soul to the devil and bought a flat by the sea

Maria Bethânia, please send me a letter
I wish to know things are getting better
Better, better, Beta, Beta, Bethânia
Please, send me a letter
I wish to know things are getting better

Everybody knows that it's so hard to dig and get to the root
You eat the fruit, you go ahead, you wake up on your bed
But I love her face 'cause it has nothing to do with all I said

Maria Bethânia, please send me a letter
I wish to know things are getting better
Better, better, Beta, Beta, Bethânia
Please, send me a letter
I wish to know things are getting better

Quoi?
De notre amour fou ne resterait que des cendres?
Moi,
J'aimerais que la terre s'arrête pour descendre
Toi,
Tu me dis que tu n'vaux pas la corde pour te pendre
C'est à laisser ou à prendre

Joie
Et douleur c'est ce que l'amour engendre
Sois
Au moins conscient que mon coeur peut se fendre
Soit
Dit en passant j'ai beaucoup à apprendre
Si j'ai bien su te comprendre

Amour cruel
Comme en duel
Dos à dos et sans merci
Tu as le choix des armes
Ou celui des larmes
Penses-y, penses-y
Et conçois que c'est à la mort, à la vie

Quoi?
De notre amour feu ne resterait que des cendres?
Moi,
J'aimerais que la terre s'arrête pour descendre
Toi,
Tu préfères mourir que de te rendre
Va donc savoir, va comprendre...

Maybe I'd be dead in a nuclear fire, but I'd be burning with a minimum respect for the people who triggered WWIII. They said they cared about Ukrainian sovereignty and they fucking followed through. — boethius

You're bat shit crazy.

For a good review on the HIMARS: (put on the automatic translation)


https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/07/19/en-ukraine-la-logistique-militaire-russe-perturbee-par-des-missiles-americains-himars_6135351_3210.html

I just explained exactly how it had to do with Nukes. I can explain it again if you want.

Already the threat of nuclear war precluded NATO boots on the ground and planes in the air (the common sense way to "defend freedom and democracy" a la WWII, which is the West's own preferred analogy). — boethius

WWII is Putin's favorite analogy. He sees Nazis everywhere.

But this has nothing to do with the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine. The reason Biden is being cautious is because he wants to avoid WWIII, i.e. a war between Russia and NATO.

I think even you can understand the difference between WWIII and the use of nukes against Ukraine. Those are two very different hypotheses.

Of the arms and intelligence support Ukraine has gotten ... why only HIMARS now? ... and not literally the first day of the war?

The answer is because HIMARS can be introduced now maintaining a Russian win.

That's the paranoid answer, but it's not the only one.

The most annoying part of that hypocrisy is that Western media frame the "expansion" of NATO Eastward as not-an-expansion as it was just countries joining out of their own volition, NATO agency and planning had nothing to do with it. But ... again ... why not Ukraine? They wanted to be let in too? — boethius

The funniest part of your hypocrisy is that you see NATO as not expansionist enough. You are asking: why don't they expand to Ukraine?, while in the same para you reproach them for their covert expansionism... :groan:

Indeed, I don't think you can cure, say, siphilis with just a positive attitude to life. But i believe that our immune system can be physically affected by our sense of self worth.

Sorry about your sister-in-law. I am surprised about what her doctor said on the absence of correlation between mental attitude and cancer survival. I have heard the opposite said many times by doctors. Would you have a link or remember a reference?

1. Any oncologist will tell you that the patients that beat cancer are the fighters, those who want to live, while some other patients seem to give up on life and die quickly.

2. It is I believe a proven fact that some ailments are purely psychological, ie psychosomatic.

... which has nothing to do with the use of nukes against Ukraine. Thank you for your constant obfuscation.

I'm not interested in speculating about what I see as a totally unrealistic assumption.

Russia using nuclear weapons is completely realistic. — boethius

No, it was not realistic, not in the way you fantacized about, i.e. as a way to break Ukrainian resistance.

Even the small gesture of a no-fly zone was taken off the table due to the threat of nuclear weapons. — boethius

Nothing to see with your argument back then, when you mused about the possibility to break Ukrainian resistance with nukes.

That's the problem with so-called "realists". They never agree on what is realistic. There is no criterion for realism, so generally it just means that their personal fancy is realistic but not others'... :-)

That was in response to you equally unrealistic musing about Russian use of nukes against Ukraine.

A realist simply doesn't let their subjective values taint their attempt at objectively estimating and predicting actions and consequences on the world stage. — Tzeentch

Well then, I'm a realist alright. That's exactly what I try to do.

I am concerned with how states act and why they act that way. — Tzeentch

As a realist, you ought to have nothing to worry about, no values to defend, nothing you really care for is at stake here. Reality will continue to unfold in a real way, the way it tends to do... And that will be it.

As a realist I'll say that that's exactly what they'll do. (Note: there is no "should" in there) And lowe and behold, you just summed up United States foreign policy. — Tzeentch

And as a realist, you think that policy is wise, correct?

From your link:

Two advisors present you with options. One of them recommends that you punish the foreign government, arguing that the United States should prioritize supporting those who are fighting for human rights and freedom around the world. The other encourages you not to intervene, arguing that it is more important to preserve your relationship with the foreign government, which encompasses billions of dollars in trade and a security partnership that has helped maintain regional stability for years.

This difficult decision reflects two schools of thought in foreign policy: idealism and realism.

So as a realist, are you saying that US presidents should keep on making profitable deals with dictatorships, human rights be damned? Kindly confirm whether this is what you mean by "realism".

to suggest such ideals should be a driving factor behind the decisionmaking process is, you guessed it, typically idealist.

This couldn't be farther from the realist perspective that argues actions and consequences, not ideals, are what matter. — Tzeentch

That is a category error. Actions and consequences must be assessed against some sort of value scale in the end. Otherwise, how do you know which option is the best? Realism is a means to an end. And the end is defined by your value system.

Why would you send thousands and thousands of one's soldiers into battle — Agent Smith

Why did W do it in Iraq?

Hubris.

but do I really need to explain to you the difference between realism and idealism, which is where we fundamentally differ? — Tzeentch

I'd love to see you try, because the way I see it, it's your idea of what is realistic vs. the rest of the world's. A facile example: it is IMO ridiculously unrealistic and even lunatic to suggest that Ukrainians are sacrificing their lives to uphold Wayfarer's personal ideals.

In reality, it just so happens that Wayfarer agrees with the values for which Ukrainians are fighting.