I always get frustrated with climate discussions, because there are two very important things that I never see discussed:
- Radiative heat loss is proportional to temperature to the 4th power.
- CO2 concentration is the rate limiter for photosynthesis because Rubisco is a dumb protein. This means that doubling the concentration of CO2 approximately doubles the rate of photosynthesis.
These two things mean that it's pretty much impossible to have runaway greenhouse gas effects from CO2. There may be some local effects and ocean acidification (where iron concentration ends up being the photosynthetic rate limiter), but the planet isn't going to explode because we burn fossil fuels.
And no, methane release isn't an issue either because it only has an atmospheric half life of 9.1 years.
The only thing you can do to people that aren't engaging or can't engage in good faith is to give them "mind worms". Say things that will burrow deep down as nagging questions that their ideology can't answer. You probably won't be around to see them change, but you can at least plant the seed and hope for the best instead of giving up and doing nothing.
Any leftist apostates have suggestions for what was the seed for them?
I Hate Hip-Hop has a similar vibe to Ill Mind of Hopsin 5 (for those who haven't seen it), although I think my favorite by him is Whiteboy.
He's a pretty good artist in my opinion. Definitely a little out there, but then again most good ones are :P
Let's have a little economics lesson, because I swear to God there are a lot of people that need one.
TL;DR: Limited supply commodities make for bad money because they cause deflation, fiat currencies try to fix that by manipulating the supply to maintain a consistent value, people are assholes that abuse that manipulation, crypto might be able to fix it.
Money has three primary functions: a medium of exchange, a store of value, and a unit of account. Its functions as a unit of account and medium of exchange are pretty obvious, so let's talk about the store of value stuff, specifically in the context of a fiat currency.
In any economy, supply and demand forces work on the money as well as on the goods. Demand is largely determined by the volume and value of transactions occurring within that economy. Determining the supply is where it gets tricky.
One way to supply it is to use a commodity as your money, ie gold. Unlike a lot of commodities, gold doesn't deteriorate over time. It's rare enough that people can't just get more of it without significant effort. But when the economy (and therefore the demand for money) grows faster than the supply, it causes a strong deflationary pressure on the value of that money. There are a lot of problems that can arise from this, but the biggest one is that existing debt becomes increasingly expensive to pay off, which makes fewer people want to take on additional debt, which means the productive capacity of that economy goes underutilized (I can go more into this if someone would like for me to). (Incidentally, this is also the fatal flaw of bitcoin. The limited supply means that its value will increase indefinitely, which means it will almost always be better to hold your bitcoin than to use it.)
The way that most governments have solved this problem is by introducing a fiat currency that can be worked to be mostly stable with a slight inflationary pressure. If carefully controlled, this can be great for an economy, but if you get people in power that are willing to manipulate the currency, you get what we have now.
Cryptocurrencies are trying to fix the problem by tying their supply / value to something that has a greater potential to scale with an economy (specifically the price of electricity and computing power) and making the generation of more of that money tied into its use in transactions rather than the whim of a central bank. It's a good solution, but I haven't been overly impressed with any particular implementations so far.
It's been cucked for way longer, woke-ism is just a symptom of a much worse disease.
The goal of many officers that enter the Army is to serve 20 years so they can earn a retirement. That means you have to make O-5 (unless you were prior-enlisted, which means you can retire at O-4), because the latest you can promote to O-5 is at 18 years.
Only 20% of all officers that enter the Army make O-5. Twenty. Percent. There's a decent amount of attrition after junior officers complete their initial contracts, and again at about 8 years by O-3s that can market their experience as a company commander to become a mid-level manager in the civilian sector. After that, it gets very cutthroat.
Promotions are determined by your officer evaluation reports (OERs). If you aren't "top block" on at least the evaluations for your time in leadership, don't expect to make O-4. If you aren't "top block" for the majority of your positions, don't expect to make O-5.
What this ends up causing is disgusting levels of brown-nosing. The only thing an individual officer is incentivized to care about is the opinion of their rater and senior rater. It can be made into a functional system if people in positions of authority genuinely believe in their mission and care about their subordinates, but if you allow a few shitbirds to rise through the ranks, the rest of it quickly topples.
My experience is relatively recent, so I don't know how far along the dominos were when I started to see it, but I can't help feeling it's quickly coming to a climax.
I thought MLK was the FBI?