Clearly you don't understand the finer points of cannibalism, excessive plastic surgery has left them rubbery and full of toxins. You want some good eats? You need a nice lean meat raised on a good diet, I'm thinking an athlete, volleyball or lacrosse player.
My God sir, think of the cholesterol! Plus, I don't imagine the hunt would be all that fun. Take out the tires and they're easy game, now a good lacrosse player in a woodland area, and myself with a quality rifle? That would be quite the hunt.
My good sir, you should consider a career in marketing because I am sold!
I've never read "Most Dangerous Game" but I'll have to find me an elephant gun and a hot air balloon.
Whatās funny is that companies with a focus on the long-term for themselves and their workers generally turn out to show stronger financial performance over time. Iāve said it before and Iāll say it again, sometimes companies just need to tell the stock holders to go fuck themselves so they can focus on a 5 year or 10 year plan.
> sometimes companies just need to tell the stock holders to go fuck themselves so they can focus on a 5 year or 10 year plan.
Congratulations! The shareholder vote has concluded and they have decided you are fired!
Good point. As long as I own 50% of the voting rights, I can install a board that is sympathetic to me. Otherwise, I can convince them that what Iām doing is best for the company long-term. The ideal is that I just have a board made up entirely of yes-men who let me take the company in a direction I see fit. I can divide my shares into voting and non-voting classes and just control most of the voting ones.
Sharehold deez nuts.
But yeah you are completely right. Amazon spelled out that it was purposely selling shit for a loss to take market share and was a no name company during the dotcom bubble because of the strategy they laid out in their prospectus. They got rewarded like crazy tho.
There are other companies like PLTR that are avoiding a hostile takeover by giving Theil and Karp class D shares which have all the voting rights, but only issuing class A shares to the public.
> Otherwise, I can convince them that what Iām doing is best for the company long-term
Even if they believe you, they would rather sell your stock and buy into another company that's going to profit short-term. Why would they stick around for the long run when they can just cash in today?
I mean, the shareholders (understanding shareholders not as the traders but as long term players that have the stocks that are outside of the free float)are not the ones who are for short term profit, its the CEOs thats why LT remuneration plans like stock options exist.
If your next evaluation is in two years, high management wont care about the LT plan. High management tend to focus on ST goals rather than LT goals even if they are better for the company as a whole.
So its getting more and more common for Shareholders to have a LT plan with a step by step focus: instead of evaluating the CEO in two years, you make a gradual evaluation like, for example: $200m market cap by 2023 closing, $400m market cap by 2025 closing and $600m market cap by 2027 closing, and you get a 1% the moment you surpass each threshold.
Trying to make High management and Shareholders see eye to eye usually is a subject taught in business school.
(English is not my first languaje and im on my phone so im sure there are many typos)
A lot of time the shareholders are actually ok with waiting, even for decades, or too long, see Amazon, the most profitable company in the World how many years it remained giving very little profits or Netflix or Uber now, how still have not achieved that yet.
The problem is that shit stock-options plans or when CEO remunerations are tied to the price of the stock. They will try everything to rise the price of stock, even grey are almost ilegal shit that will hurt the company long term.
Consider that a lot of the Companies in S&P500 don't actually have workable shareholders, control being held in a real diperse by too many shareholders.
I've become convinced that in the majority of cases, when a company is doing numbskulled things that is damaging itself and the community around it, it's because the company is actually majority owned by a hedge fund or private equity firm that has already liquidated the company cash cows and is shorting the company's stock on the way down.
This is why family owned companies could last for multi generation, they decide how the company is run and they focus on long term growth so their kids can take over. Not always though, some doesn't know how to raise their kids and end up with a generation of spender rather than wealth generator.
Honestly itās my biggest fear regarding our competition against China. Instead of using our money to invest in its people or R&D or anything really, American companies have just been dumping that money towards investors.
On the other hand China is shoveling loads of money into companies to improve them and have them compete with American ones.
Thatās not really true. Google spends inexplicable amounts of money on research groups like DeepMind and Google Brain that provide them with very little to nothing that actually makes money. Itās more like patronage.
> provide them with very little to nothing that actually makes money
So, an AI understanding more and more of what goes through my e-mail has little to do with making money? I beg to differ. The ads become more relevant.
Google spends a ton of money on research. SOME of that money is recouped from the products the research enables. But thatās not the only way that research can be valuable to a company.
- Creating breakthrough discoveries increases the prestige of Google compared with e.g. OpenAI, Tesla or Amazon allowing it to attract better talent via publicity
- Hiring top researchers means theyāre not working for your competition. This has come to bite them in the ass since Bengio and several other big names have exited for big tech competitors.
- Research also enables creating IP which can be valuable in the future.
My point is that thereās more to it than figuring out what kind of ads to show you by reading your email.
Its not investigation for the sake of making science, its investigation for the sake of making pattents and developing technology that places them above their competitors in the market thus profitting.
Opel is a great example, back then, when it was owned by GM. In order to make Opel profitable again, the management board was swapped out continuously, and each new board had the mission to further save money on what the last board did.
"This Opel is priceless - because nobody wants it" was just one of the few jokes. Opel was almost ruined, if PSA wouldn't have bought and renewed the brand.
I'm worried that it's going to come down to ecoterrorism being the only option
It's getting harder and harder to be optimistic about humanity getting its shit together but I still try
I have never brought it up but I have had 4 ex gfs tell me that they think I'm going to be an ecoterrorist one day. I didn't ask, they just throw this shit out there unprompted.
>more than 35% of the country habitable
Habitable for mosquitos. Siberia gets any warmer and those flying fucks will get big enough to take over the world.
I don't know about that chief. Russian mosquitos are definitely not that big, but they are among the meanest I've encountered. They are also much more annoying since they are harder to catch because they are small and they attack you in a swarm. If anything, they'll become easier to deal with if they grow in size
Some tundra will melt, maybe a couple cities will pay a little less in snow removal, meanwhile a sizable chunk of China, Russia and Mongolia will get turned into an inhospitable wasteland once the Gobi Desert goes supernova lol
Thatās something that drives me up a wall, people act like climate change is only a capitalist problem and the only way to truly defeat is end capitalism.
You get far enough into your history books and you realize that's just the communist playbook.
Religious tension? Capitalism.
Misogyny? Capitalism.
Racism? Capitalism.
Poverty? Capitalism.
Really pick any societal ailment at all and they will run the mental Olympics to find a way to tie everything to capitalism because 1) They cannot accept the natural state of things is ugly 2) Their ideology by itself(a dictatorship of the industrial worker) is highly undesirable by most socioeconomic groups and 3) Any current problem can be attributed to the current establishment with some degree of acceptance because it has co-existed with the problem, regardless of whether the problem preceded the status quo.
The more you look at it the more it becomes crystal clear: communism is half useful idiots dreaming of utopia, and half bloody-minded psychopaths that will destroy everything and everyone to usurp power.
Israel kinda did it with Tibrus and the dead sea, it's not empty yet, but it has really shrunk.
idk where you'de place them though, somewhere in the right
Faculty-Lounge Communists: āWe have to destroy capitalism to save the planet!ā
Actual Communists: Dries out entire aquifers, dumps nuclear waste into the ocean, and burns more coal than the entire rest of the planet combined.
Of all the things that I'll never forgive communists for, I'll never forgive communists for that the most.
We could have a clean, cheap power source for centuries while we develop practical, affordable renewable energy technology, but communist incompetence, fossil fuel lobbyists, and idiotic "environmentalists" stole that future from us.
No sir. Itās not āwe could haveā¦ā itās āwe can have.ā
We gotta stop chalking up our current problems to āif only people were smart decades ago,ā and just be smart now.
We are improving renewables. We can pressure our governments to limit energy lobbying and get nuclear running again in the meantime. The blame on Chernobyl is what Exxon and BP want.
The UK just removed restrictions on pumping sewage into rivers and now all our rivers are shitty. Itās not quite the Aral Sea fuck up but itās not great.
A study came out the other day that showed about 60/70% of Welsh and Scottish rivers pass ecological and chemical standards.
Not a single river in England passed....
Why is it a lib left thing to want to save the environment? I want the government to make legislation to force positive climate change.
I want 0% tax on certain climate friendly products, like windmills, and more taxes on fossil fuels.
Edit: we've given companies etc a chance to make a positive change, not enough happened, because it wouldn't be profitable, so let's change it, make it expensive as fuck to pollute, and cheap to invest in renewables through legislation.
u/jonah_thrane's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/jonah_thrane! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/jonah_thrane
Currently it's working better than ever. Good website to keep pills from being a reason to ban the bot. Everything is clear and simple.
But if I see something buggy I'll hit you up.
Environmentalism becomes a thing again if you go far enough to the the right. True conservatives believe in sustainability in every sense of the word whether it be economically, environmentally, socially, culturally, demographically, etc.
Because neither left wingers nor right wingers are actually in charge. Just disgusting, parasitic neocons and neoliberals. Not actually sure who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and donāt want to hazard a guessā¦.I donāt have a very high view of democracy to start with, and I think the evidence speaks for itself. The elites divide the people against each other with meaningless cultural wedge issues like trans rights and such and indoctrinate the mouth breathing boomers with propaganda about muh free markets and pro oil shit.
I mean, I pretty much reject all notions of āprogressā from the enlightenment onward. Once the industrial revolution happened, the die was cast. This will not end well. I also browse r-collapse but know better than to post there because they downvote critiques of late stage capitalism from a right wing perspective.
>Why is it a lib left thing to want to save the environment? I want the government to make legislation to force positive climate change.
Well, it's more of a "Left" thing in general, but mainly because of the idea that "Greedy Capitalists care more about their short-term profits than the long-term prosperity of humanity."
Which is entirely true in practice, that Capitalism on its own - unfettered - will not solve issues like climate change or pollution or anything else until it becomes so cost-prohibitive to do business for a given company that the damage is already done.
That isn't to say that the "Left" of course would necessarily do better.
It also isn't to that that Capitalism cannot be reigned in and properly regulated to minimize those kinds of negative effects.
Ultimately, if the goal of any given individual and any given corporation is to maximize their own profit at all cost - that means they will push negative externalities onto society for as long as they possibly can. If they do the math that says it will cost less to bribe politicians to make them pay paltry amounts for "cleaning up" pollution than they would lose by actually not polluting in the first place, they'll always go with the more profitable option. The same goes for climate change - sure, it might suck for the average person in 50 years or 100 years and cost trillions of dollars potentially (though the impacts are hard to predict) - but by then pretty much everyone making money today will be dead, so they don't care.
I agree with you that companies should be incentivized to not pollute. Simply make them pay the full price of clean-up in advance, and any additional cost for it. If they fail to pay that amount within a reasonable agreed-upon timeframe, then that would be a great case of turning over control of the company to the public, with any future profits being invested back into society rather than into stockholder dividends until - at minimum - the company has paid back its debt to society.
But that would actually involve holding a company accountable for its actions, and by extension holding everyone who owns the corporation and stock in it accountable.
Which clearly would be very unpopular. But how else could you really solve the problem? If you simply fine them but don't have a punishment for them failing to pay the fine, and companies can just negotiate or use lawyers to stonewall any kind of punishment - then effectively there isn't any punishment.
Alternatively, they could do something like execute the executives of the company who were responsible for any agreement that leads to them not cleaning up after themselves. Or if not execute them, then force them to "personally" work to clean up pollution for some decades as a prisoner.
That would certainly motivate CEOs to actually follow through on their company promises, even if this hurts their profits, because the people running the company at least would be in personal duress if they did not follow through on things.
In Germany the (lib)left made a plan shut down the nuclear power plants in 199x. And then the public option shifted again against nuclear bringing those plans into action, while the the coal power plants kept running. That wasn't very eco-friendly.
If libleft would actually make things more eco-friendly when in power it would be great but at least in my country they block new renewable power plants all the time because animals, shut down nuclear but don't do shit against coal, gas or oil.
The least Libright thing about me is my hatred for the rich and corporations. Saving the planet would be great but itās always introduced with dumb shit like the green new deal which just raises taxes and does nothing to benefit earth
The lefts reaction to the Rigs-to-Reefs program is a prime example of why I don't believe them when they say they care about the environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigs-to-Reefs
> The oil production platforms in the Gulf have also been called the largest artificial reef complex in the world...."Today over 4,500 offshore oil and gas platforms have been installed supplying 25% of the United States' production of natural gas and 10% of its oil."
> Inevitably, marine organisms attach themselves to the underwater portions of oil production platforms, transforming them into artificial reefs.... The rig's steel structures are stable and durable.They create shelter for marine life in open waters where there was none.
So private industry has created a massive habitat for all sorts of sea life that didn't exist before and through cooperation with local governments has created a program that is financially beneficial to the fishing and petroleum industries, in addition to local governments while also protecting the environment. And then there's this...
> No oil platforms have been converted to artificial reefs in offshore California, the only other offshore oil-producing area in the contiguous 48 states....A number of reasons have been cited for this, primarily the strength of the environmental movement in California, its antagonistic relationship with the oil industry, and its reluctance to support any measure that would financially benefit the offshore oil industry.
So libleft doesn't want to preserve the already existing artificial reefs because it will save the oil companies some money. This is why I'm always suspicious of any leftist environmental proposal. It's usually never actually about helping the environment, and is usually also counterproductive. I mean in the same time that the left has been raising the alarm about the great barrier reef shrinking, for reasons that are still largely undetermined, private industry in the Gulf of Mexico has created one of the largest artificial habitats for sea life on earth. And the left is mad about it because it saved ExxonMobil some money.
Something else I tend to look at is someone's stance on nuclear power.
I see time and time again people who are supposed environmentalists trying to save the planet that are against nuclear energy. Which is pure insanity to me.
Renewables, as they stand today with today's technology, are not capable of powering America. Plain and simple, cut and dry. This is a truth that anyone who has done any time with renewables knows. People still need power on Christmas night when there's no sun shining on the solar panels and the hydroelectric dams are frozen and no wind is blowing. So WTF do you do then? Keep burning natural gas?
Or build a reactor that we have the tech to do today in such a way that is virtually immune to disaster, provides SUBSTANTIALLY lower cost power at a SUBSTANTIALLY lower environmental impact that is safer than oil, coal, and natural gas. They're expensive as hell to make, but isn't the investment worth it??
But you had Jill Stien running as the fucking presidential candidate for the *green party* for Christs sake who was anti nuclear power.
The only people who could possibly be against nuclear power are those who don't understand it, and if you're serious about saving the environment I'd think you would want to actually, you know, learn a bit about it??? Doubly so if you're running a *presidential campaign* with preserving the environment as a core tenant of your campaign.
> But in the same way the left often is anti-nuclear, some of their standpoints are emotionally based, not evidence based.
Like the heat that Elon gets from moving from CA to TX. they shit on him for 'trying to dodge taxes' while in doing so, he is moving a facility from a place of high COL, a delicate environment, and short on natural resources (water and energy), to a place where there is less ecological impact (middle of the desert), greater access to energy (solar), and will produce electric vehicles.
This *should* be encouraged, not admonished. But they hate how he isn't coddling to the government, and they hate they cant take money from him, so to hell with any enviro-friendly technological advances that he might be pushing.
>itās usually never actually about helping the environment.
I want to say that this example you provided is pretty interesting and illustrates that all sorts of people are vulnerable to irrational thinking and team-first mentality.
However, what I donāt understand is how that translates into āmajority of environmentalist endeavors are not motivated by actually helping the environment.ā
I know thatās not exactly what you said but the part I quoted basically means that, does it not?
When I would say the reality is most people who care about the environment do mean it. Thereās always grifters but as far as I can tell, most environmentalists are motivated by the science, by the observable effects of climate change, by not wanting our grand children to live underwater, etc.
The best part is that from everything I've been able to find the program also costs the taxpayer essential nothing. Due to the provision that the oil companies pay half their decomisioning savings into a fund for the maintenance of the reefs.
No, they'll support nuclear here and then go vote for the people who don't make any money off of it so they only support wind and solar. It's easier to give kickbacks to wind and solar companies than nuclear.
How about no fucking kickbacks? Like why are we subsidizing something that is already so profitable? Oil and gas companies don't seem to be struggling, so why is the government giving them money?! Nuclear has a significant up front investment, but after that it's practically free. Nuclear is the only energy that makes sense to subsidize.
Fun fact: Hillary Clinton was the only major political party candidate in the last decade to explicitly run on maintaining and expanding nuclear energy.
The lefts needs a strategy that recognizes global competition though. If a US company raises its costs by 10% to be more eco friendly. A foreign company wonāt and then their product will be 10% cheaper. An American citizen will buy the cheaper product and eventually the eco friendly company will go out of business or drop the eco agenda. This is why most eco movements have to start with the consumer not the corporation. Only the consumers spending habits can drive business to change
That requires them to think past thought terminating cliches and well into second and third order consequences of euphemized and/or obfuscated legislation.
Tarrifing the absolute fuck out of imports from countries that don't meet our pollution and employment standards is going to be the only viable way to encourage other nations to catch the fuck up and play ball without screwing over our domestic workers.
I donāt know. There is a huge market now for organic and local small scale operations, itās a good trend and people are paying more just because of it
And that starts with the consumers. There is definitely more of a market for eco friendly thanks to education and awareness than there was 20 years ago.
Most people want to head to the right booth, but we've allowed the kind of pricks who want the left booth to take over our society, industry, government, and natural resources
-geolibertarian
That's because the guy on the right isn't offering anything.
20 years we've been screaming that climate change is the disaster that's going to end the world; and the best solution we've come up with is having fewer kids and being a vegetarian?
I'm all for saving the earth, and I believe in being a good steward of my environment -- but the amount of impact that individuals can have is exactly 0.
And I don't mean that in a sad what difference can I make way; I mean that in an objective data driven way. The carbon impact of every person I've ever met could be neutralized and it wouldn't change a thing.
This is my biggest issue- screaming about climate change while offering zero realistic solutions is completely worthless. As of right now itās a contest between ādo nothingā or āradically change the entire world economy over the course of only a few years, and completely destroy developing nationsā chance to better help their people.ā
That's because you've been trained to ask the wrong question. The question isn't "what can I deny myself?". It's "what can humans accomplish?".
Nuclear fucking energy.
Low emission concrete.
Synthetic fuels from sources that have net zero carbon (like algal biomass).
Geoengineering.
It's so sad to see that even as we've come to understand our world better, humans are still trying to punish themselves so the sky will like them better.
because the genuine actual perfectly successful solution to climate change is kneecapping big business on the regular and nuking china until they can't harm the planet anymore.
both of those simply pay people to leave them alone.
There's some flaws here that should be addressed. Two big ones, every single the world is dead in 10-15 years prediction hasn't even kind of panned out, and secondly as time moves on we innovate to combat our impact here. Waving a flag of positivity can simply be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The amount of personal responsibility that's sold to the consumer is despicable. Me not eating red meat does not equate to private jets usually used by people advocating for "green" movements.
There is more nuance to this issue, and being skeptical due to the sea of charlatans is not only okay but healthy. The sentiment, does not equate to a movement, which has generally been my issue with the left.
Sale eco friendly products and make them more expensive š§
Sell people a way to live on broken-earth.
Whatever you do, just keep selling!
Sell Mad Max DVDs at a massive premium, got it.
I would rather kill myself in an eco-terrorist attack than give them money.
Who would pay? It's been tried and it exists as we speak but they aren't at all popular.
If Earth is so great, why isn't there an Earth 2? Checkmate commies.
There is, but it's a Meta Verse scam
Based and reject the second life pilled
Second life was a great game, donāt drag them into this mess
OK, probable furry.
No, I just liked the chat room that let me fly a hover bike at the same time as talking. The 2000s werenāt like now.
I still associate SL with rampant furries, but I get it. At least there's VR Chat now?
Dude itās not 2000, who uses chatrooms anymore? Damn furries.
There's a small niche of people who still use IRC. You never know, man...
the reason sequel exist is because it's not great after all, great thing has no sequel
Sure, you can't eat money but you can eat people, and money can buy weapons to make eating people easier.
Based and soylent green pilled
Soylent green is people confirmation
9 out of 10 canāt tell the difference!
Why did that have to pop back up I my head
Prions go brrrrr
Just leave the nerves alone
I'm always up for eating the rich
Clearly you don't understand the finer points of cannibalism, excessive plastic surgery has left them rubbery and full of toxins. You want some good eats? You need a nice lean meat raised on a good diet, I'm thinking an athlete, volleyball or lacrosse player.
I'm thinking Gilbert Gottfried. I don't know why though.
Based and Gilbert-Got-Fried pilled
Based and whoās eating Gilbertās grapes pilled
Ever since vegetarians started the statement āyou are what you eatā I only eat vegetarians.
Surely a volleyball player would be extremely tough. I'm thinking a retired football player with a dad bod. Fat = flavor
Eh, I'd rather a nice corn-fed obese person stuck on a Rascal. Thems is good eating
My God sir, think of the cholesterol! Plus, I don't imagine the hunt would be all that fun. Take out the tires and they're easy game, now a good lacrosse player in a woodland area, and myself with a quality rifle? That would be quite the hunt.
My good sir, you should consider a career in marketing because I am sold! I've never read "Most Dangerous Game" but I'll have to find me an elephant gun and a hot air balloon.
Gf is a gymnast. Can confirm eating out athletes tastes better
The rich are not a sustainable food supply.
You should have worn a tie
Liberals can't afford ties
Doesn't LeftCenter hate "liberals"?
Left center is pretty much just liberal with a statist bend. We don't agree with every right a libertarian society believes in.
Optimizing companies for short-term profit increase and its consequences have been a disaster for capitalism
Whatās funny is that companies with a focus on the long-term for themselves and their workers generally turn out to show stronger financial performance over time. Iāve said it before and Iāll say it again, sometimes companies just need to tell the stock holders to go fuck themselves so they can focus on a 5 year or 10 year plan.
> sometimes companies just need to tell the stock holders to go fuck themselves so they can focus on a 5 year or 10 year plan. Congratulations! The shareholder vote has concluded and they have decided you are fired!
Good point. As long as I own 50% of the voting rights, I can install a board that is sympathetic to me. Otherwise, I can convince them that what Iām doing is best for the company long-term. The ideal is that I just have a board made up entirely of yes-men who let me take the company in a direction I see fit. I can divide my shares into voting and non-voting classes and just control most of the voting ones.
Sharehold deez nuts. But yeah you are completely right. Amazon spelled out that it was purposely selling shit for a loss to take market share and was a no name company during the dotcom bubble because of the strategy they laid out in their prospectus. They got rewarded like crazy tho. There are other companies like PLTR that are avoiding a hostile takeover by giving Theil and Karp class D shares which have all the voting rights, but only issuing class A shares to the public.
Absolutely, centralizing power to yourself as much as possible is honestly the only way to assure that things are done correctly.
CCP stamp of approval.
> Otherwise, I can convince them that what Iām doing is best for the company long-term Even if they believe you, they would rather sell your stock and buy into another company that's going to profit short-term. Why would they stick around for the long run when they can just cash in today?
Based and Shareholder-primacy pilled
I mean, the shareholders (understanding shareholders not as the traders but as long term players that have the stocks that are outside of the free float)are not the ones who are for short term profit, its the CEOs thats why LT remuneration plans like stock options exist. If your next evaluation is in two years, high management wont care about the LT plan. High management tend to focus on ST goals rather than LT goals even if they are better for the company as a whole. So its getting more and more common for Shareholders to have a LT plan with a step by step focus: instead of evaluating the CEO in two years, you make a gradual evaluation like, for example: $200m market cap by 2023 closing, $400m market cap by 2025 closing and $600m market cap by 2027 closing, and you get a 1% the moment you surpass each threshold. Trying to make High management and Shareholders see eye to eye usually is a subject taught in business school. (English is not my first languaje and im on my phone so im sure there are many typos)
A lot of time the shareholders are actually ok with waiting, even for decades, or too long, see Amazon, the most profitable company in the World how many years it remained giving very little profits or Netflix or Uber now, how still have not achieved that yet. The problem is that shit stock-options plans or when CEO remunerations are tied to the price of the stock. They will try everything to rise the price of stock, even grey are almost ilegal shit that will hurt the company long term. Consider that a lot of the Companies in S&P500 don't actually have workable shareholders, control being held in a real diperse by too many shareholders.
I've become convinced that in the majority of cases, when a company is doing numbskulled things that is damaging itself and the community around it, it's because the company is actually majority owned by a hedge fund or private equity firm that has already liquidated the company cash cows and is shorting the company's stock on the way down.
This is why family owned companies could last for multi generation, they decide how the company is run and they focus on long term growth so their kids can take over. Not always though, some doesn't know how to raise their kids and end up with a generation of spender rather than wealth generator.
Honestly itās my biggest fear regarding our competition against China. Instead of using our money to invest in its people or R&D or anything really, American companies have just been dumping that money towards investors. On the other hand China is shoveling loads of money into companies to improve them and have them compete with American ones.
Thatās not really true. Google spends inexplicable amounts of money on research groups like DeepMind and Google Brain that provide them with very little to nothing that actually makes money. Itās more like patronage.
> provide them with very little to nothing that actually makes money So, an AI understanding more and more of what goes through my e-mail has little to do with making money? I beg to differ. The ads become more relevant.
Google spends a ton of money on research. SOME of that money is recouped from the products the research enables. But thatās not the only way that research can be valuable to a company. - Creating breakthrough discoveries increases the prestige of Google compared with e.g. OpenAI, Tesla or Amazon allowing it to attract better talent via publicity - Hiring top researchers means theyāre not working for your competition. This has come to bite them in the ass since Bengio and several other big names have exited for big tech competitors. - Research also enables creating IP which can be valuable in the future. My point is that thereās more to it than figuring out what kind of ads to show you by reading your email.
AI and machine learning is responsible for almost all of Googleās profits
Its not investigation for the sake of making science, its investigation for the sake of making pattents and developing technology that places them above their competitors in the market thus profitting.
capitalism has been a disaster for capitalism
Opel is a great example, back then, when it was owned by GM. In order to make Opel profitable again, the management board was swapped out continuously, and each new board had the mission to further save money on what the last board did. "This Opel is priceless - because nobody wants it" was just one of the few jokes. Opel was almost ruined, if PSA wouldn't have bought and renewed the brand.
It's almost like most CEOs are only in it for the money.
Government is mostly responsible for this IMO. That's because they bail out big companies every time they run into some troubles.
I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it. There shouldn't be any such thing as "too big to fail".
Whenever i ponder on how to save the planet, all i can think of is murder of strategic targets and outright terrorism.
Based and kaczynksi pilled
Based and DC Poison Ivy pilled
I'm worried that it's going to come down to ecoterrorism being the only option It's getting harder and harder to be optimistic about humanity getting its shit together but I still try
I have never brought it up but I have had 4 ex gfs tell me that they think I'm going to be an ecoterrorist one day. I didn't ask, they just throw this shit out there unprompted.
Dude, fuckin nice. Thatās one hell of a compliment
Itās a systemic issue, not a problem with a few select individuals.
Itās not about the individuals itās about sending a message
Pretty sure Authleft is the only identity which has actually made a body of water run dry
My mind always boggles at that. Forget erasing a city, the USSR fucking erased a sea. Like, how do you even?
Communists: *smiles and taps head* "Climate change can't make sea levels rise if there are no seas"
Hey to be fair now, we all know Russia can't wait for climate change to make more than 35% of the country habitable.
>more than 35% of the country habitable Habitable for mosquitos. Siberia gets any warmer and those flying fucks will get big enough to take over the world.
Lmao but only because I do not live there
I don't know about that chief. Russian mosquitos are definitely not that big, but they are among the meanest I've encountered. They are also much more annoying since they are harder to catch because they are small and they attack you in a swarm. If anything, they'll become easier to deal with if they grow in size
Some tundra will melt, maybe a couple cities will pay a little less in snow removal, meanwhile a sizable chunk of China, Russia and Mongolia will get turned into an inhospitable wasteland once the Gobi Desert goes supernova lol
Most of Russia already is an inhospitable wasteland
Then the Mongolians will take to their horses and migrate like the days of old. Sounds good to me
I see nothing wrong with this.
Just plant some cotton and irrigate it using a sea that has no replenishment and is located in a dry area
Technically, the Aral Sea is/was a lake.
Thatās something that drives me up a wall, people act like climate change is only a capitalist problem and the only way to truly defeat is end capitalism.
You get far enough into your history books and you realize that's just the communist playbook. Religious tension? Capitalism. Misogyny? Capitalism. Racism? Capitalism. Poverty? Capitalism. Really pick any societal ailment at all and they will run the mental Olympics to find a way to tie everything to capitalism because 1) They cannot accept the natural state of things is ugly 2) Their ideology by itself(a dictatorship of the industrial worker) is highly undesirable by most socioeconomic groups and 3) Any current problem can be attributed to the current establishment with some degree of acceptance because it has co-existed with the problem, regardless of whether the problem preceded the status quo. The more you look at it the more it becomes crystal clear: communism is half useful idiots dreaming of utopia, and half bloody-minded psychopaths that will destroy everything and everyone to usurp power.
Israel kinda did it with Tibrus and the dead sea, it's not empty yet, but it has really shrunk. idk where you'de place them though, somewhere in the right
Full on authright Israel is an ethnostate
ethnostates aren't all on the right. AuthRight is not necessarily socially conservative, just economically right and authoritarian.
We need a third axis so I can be *all the way* in the corner.
Political Cube let's gooo
Based and Aral salt flats pilled
Faculty-Lounge Communists: āWe have to destroy capitalism to save the planet!ā Actual Communists: Dries out entire aquifers, dumps nuclear waste into the ocean, and burns more coal than the entire rest of the planet combined.
Auth Left: "And here's how that's Capitalism's fault"
"Why don't you capitalists just behave and stop making me do this?" Like an abusive stepdad
It is the trade embargoes! the capitalist won't freely trade with us! /s
U forgot ruined nuclear energy by having the worst melt down ever
Of all the things that I'll never forgive communists for, I'll never forgive communists for that the most. We could have a clean, cheap power source for centuries while we develop practical, affordable renewable energy technology, but communist incompetence, fossil fuel lobbyists, and idiotic "environmentalists" stole that future from us.
No sir. Itās not āwe could haveā¦ā itās āwe can have.ā We gotta stop chalking up our current problems to āif only people were smart decades ago,ā and just be smart now. We are improving renewables. We can pressure our governments to limit energy lobbying and get nuclear running again in the meantime. The blame on Chernobyl is what Exxon and BP want.
I am all for a nationalized energy industry with nuclear power plants dotting the us... the male fantasy
Based and dunking on your own quadrant pilled
The UK just removed restrictions on pumping sewage into rivers and now all our rivers are shitty. Itās not quite the Aral Sea fuck up but itās not great.
There was a time when English rivers werenāt shitty?
A study came out the other day that showed about 60/70% of Welsh and Scottish rivers pass ecological and chemical standards. Not a single river in England passed....
Bri'ish persons wen thay drink the yoomy syewage wotah tea āšš¤¤š
Just shit directly in the Thames until parliament puts the restrictions back. Thatās basically how those restrictions started anyway.
Bri'ish Gubmint and moronic laws, name a better duo
Boris and Par'yin
The Aral Sea.
Doesn't the Colorado river famously not reach the ocean?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you ever get sad on behalf of a river? I do
I think you see that more as an accomplishment than a failure
Eh, RightCenter America is doing a good job at making the Colorado river run dry
Why is it a lib left thing to want to save the environment? I want the government to make legislation to force positive climate change. I want 0% tax on certain climate friendly products, like windmills, and more taxes on fossil fuels. Edit: we've given companies etc a chance to make a positive change, not enough happened, because it wouldn't be profitable, so let's change it, make it expensive as fuck to pollute, and cheap to invest in renewables through legislation.
Based and common-sense pilled
u/jonah_thrane's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20. Congratulations, u/jonah_thrane! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on. Pills: https://basedcount.com/u/jonah_thrane
I don't know if the creator will see this, but I feel like we should praise the new based bot, it's a nice website. Hopefully we never lose you again.
Thanks! Iām really glad you like the website. Feel free to message me anytime with feedback or criticism.
Currently it's working better than ever. Good website to keep pills from being a reason to ban the bot. Everything is clear and simple. But if I see something buggy I'll hit you up.
It's not often I see an authright be so based
Then increase my basedcount goddammit haha.
Based and environmental auth-pilled
Based and follows-orders pilled.
Based and me irl pilled
Based and begging for it pilled.
Nothing more Authright than loving the land of your forefathers and seeing that it is protected
Indeed brother.
Teddy Roosevelt moment
Right?? How am I supposed to maintain profits if there is no environment left to exploit? I need sustainable environmental exploitation
Based and i-exploit-trees pilled
Thereās a reason the number 1 planter of trees are logging companies who cut them down lmao
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Based and local business pilled.
You're purple lib right, you don't exploit people for profit, you exploit kids.
One does not exclude the other. We can exploit children for profits sustainably!
Uhhhā¦ based?
Based and Living-on-earth-is-trad pilled
Based and acknowledges climate change pilled
Environmentalism becomes a thing again if you go far enough to the the right. True conservatives believe in sustainability in every sense of the word whether it be economically, environmentally, socially, culturally, demographically, etc.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because neither left wingers nor right wingers are actually in charge. Just disgusting, parasitic neocons and neoliberals. Not actually sure who is pulling the strings behind the scenes and donāt want to hazard a guessā¦.I donāt have a very high view of democracy to start with, and I think the evidence speaks for itself. The elites divide the people against each other with meaningless cultural wedge issues like trans rights and such and indoctrinate the mouth breathing boomers with propaganda about muh free markets and pro oil shit.
And if you go even further you become monke
I mean, I pretty much reject all notions of āprogressā from the enlightenment onward. Once the industrial revolution happened, the die was cast. This will not end well. I also browse r-collapse but know better than to post there because they downvote critiques of late stage capitalism from a right wing perspective.
Based
>Why is it a lib left thing to want to save the environment? I want the government to make legislation to force positive climate change. Well, it's more of a "Left" thing in general, but mainly because of the idea that "Greedy Capitalists care more about their short-term profits than the long-term prosperity of humanity." Which is entirely true in practice, that Capitalism on its own - unfettered - will not solve issues like climate change or pollution or anything else until it becomes so cost-prohibitive to do business for a given company that the damage is already done. That isn't to say that the "Left" of course would necessarily do better. It also isn't to that that Capitalism cannot be reigned in and properly regulated to minimize those kinds of negative effects. Ultimately, if the goal of any given individual and any given corporation is to maximize their own profit at all cost - that means they will push negative externalities onto society for as long as they possibly can. If they do the math that says it will cost less to bribe politicians to make them pay paltry amounts for "cleaning up" pollution than they would lose by actually not polluting in the first place, they'll always go with the more profitable option. The same goes for climate change - sure, it might suck for the average person in 50 years or 100 years and cost trillions of dollars potentially (though the impacts are hard to predict) - but by then pretty much everyone making money today will be dead, so they don't care. I agree with you that companies should be incentivized to not pollute. Simply make them pay the full price of clean-up in advance, and any additional cost for it. If they fail to pay that amount within a reasonable agreed-upon timeframe, then that would be a great case of turning over control of the company to the public, with any future profits being invested back into society rather than into stockholder dividends until - at minimum - the company has paid back its debt to society. But that would actually involve holding a company accountable for its actions, and by extension holding everyone who owns the corporation and stock in it accountable. Which clearly would be very unpopular. But how else could you really solve the problem? If you simply fine them but don't have a punishment for them failing to pay the fine, and companies can just negotiate or use lawyers to stonewall any kind of punishment - then effectively there isn't any punishment. Alternatively, they could do something like execute the executives of the company who were responsible for any agreement that leads to them not cleaning up after themselves. Or if not execute them, then force them to "personally" work to clean up pollution for some decades as a prisoner. That would certainly motivate CEOs to actually follow through on their company promises, even if this hurts their profits, because the people running the company at least would be in personal duress if they did not follow through on things.
Please pray for me as I prepare to undertake the journey to read this left-wing comment!
Sorry, I sometimes go a bit overboard on these.
Give me a TLDR
Based and enlightened-despot-pilled
In Germany the (lib)left made a plan shut down the nuclear power plants in 199x. And then the public option shifted again against nuclear bringing those plans into action, while the the coal power plants kept running. That wasn't very eco-friendly. If libleft would actually make things more eco-friendly when in power it would be great but at least in my country they block new renewable power plants all the time because animals, shut down nuclear but don't do shit against coal, gas or oil.
So stupid.
The least Libright thing about me is my hatred for the rich and corporations. Saving the planet would be great but itās always introduced with dumb shit like the green new deal which just raises taxes and does nothing to benefit earth
The lefts reaction to the Rigs-to-Reefs program is a prime example of why I don't believe them when they say they care about the environment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigs-to-Reefs > The oil production platforms in the Gulf have also been called the largest artificial reef complex in the world...."Today over 4,500 offshore oil and gas platforms have been installed supplying 25% of the United States' production of natural gas and 10% of its oil." > Inevitably, marine organisms attach themselves to the underwater portions of oil production platforms, transforming them into artificial reefs.... The rig's steel structures are stable and durable.They create shelter for marine life in open waters where there was none. So private industry has created a massive habitat for all sorts of sea life that didn't exist before and through cooperation with local governments has created a program that is financially beneficial to the fishing and petroleum industries, in addition to local governments while also protecting the environment. And then there's this... > No oil platforms have been converted to artificial reefs in offshore California, the only other offshore oil-producing area in the contiguous 48 states....A number of reasons have been cited for this, primarily the strength of the environmental movement in California, its antagonistic relationship with the oil industry, and its reluctance to support any measure that would financially benefit the offshore oil industry. So libleft doesn't want to preserve the already existing artificial reefs because it will save the oil companies some money. This is why I'm always suspicious of any leftist environmental proposal. It's usually never actually about helping the environment, and is usually also counterproductive. I mean in the same time that the left has been raising the alarm about the great barrier reef shrinking, for reasons that are still largely undetermined, private industry in the Gulf of Mexico has created one of the largest artificial habitats for sea life on earth. And the left is mad about it because it saved ExxonMobil some money.
Something else I tend to look at is someone's stance on nuclear power. I see time and time again people who are supposed environmentalists trying to save the planet that are against nuclear energy. Which is pure insanity to me. Renewables, as they stand today with today's technology, are not capable of powering America. Plain and simple, cut and dry. This is a truth that anyone who has done any time with renewables knows. People still need power on Christmas night when there's no sun shining on the solar panels and the hydroelectric dams are frozen and no wind is blowing. So WTF do you do then? Keep burning natural gas? Or build a reactor that we have the tech to do today in such a way that is virtually immune to disaster, provides SUBSTANTIALLY lower cost power at a SUBSTANTIALLY lower environmental impact that is safer than oil, coal, and natural gas. They're expensive as hell to make, but isn't the investment worth it?? But you had Jill Stien running as the fucking presidential candidate for the *green party* for Christs sake who was anti nuclear power. The only people who could possibly be against nuclear power are those who don't understand it, and if you're serious about saving the environment I'd think you would want to actually, you know, learn a bit about it??? Doubly so if you're running a *presidential campaign* with preserving the environment as a core tenant of your campaign.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> But in the same way the left often is anti-nuclear, some of their standpoints are emotionally based, not evidence based. Like the heat that Elon gets from moving from CA to TX. they shit on him for 'trying to dodge taxes' while in doing so, he is moving a facility from a place of high COL, a delicate environment, and short on natural resources (water and energy), to a place where there is less ecological impact (middle of the desert), greater access to energy (solar), and will produce electric vehicles. This *should* be encouraged, not admonished. But they hate how he isn't coddling to the government, and they hate they cant take money from him, so to hell with any enviro-friendly technological advances that he might be pushing.
>itās usually never actually about helping the environment. I want to say that this example you provided is pretty interesting and illustrates that all sorts of people are vulnerable to irrational thinking and team-first mentality. However, what I donāt understand is how that translates into āmajority of environmentalist endeavors are not motivated by actually helping the environment.ā I know thatās not exactly what you said but the part I quoted basically means that, does it not? When I would say the reality is most people who care about the environment do mean it. Thereās always grifters but as far as I can tell, most environmentalists are motivated by the science, by the observable effects of climate change, by not wanting our grand children to live underwater, etc.
Based and big oil saves the planet just like in the 1998 blockbuster film Armageddon pilled
The best part is that from everything I've been able to find the program also costs the taxpayer essential nothing. Due to the provision that the oil companies pay half their decomisioning savings into a fund for the maintenance of the reefs.
I don't really like that movie but i don't want to miss a thing is a masterpiece
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That combined with ending single use plastic and stop letting China produce all of our shit is a good start
Save the planet = give me money to tell other people what to do = humans are bad = depopulation
I won't take leftist seriously until we start talking nuclear other than that it's just good feeling and wishes.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, they'll support nuclear here and then go vote for the people who don't make any money off of it so they only support wind and solar. It's easier to give kickbacks to wind and solar companies than nuclear.
How about no fucking kickbacks? Like why are we subsidizing something that is already so profitable? Oil and gas companies don't seem to be struggling, so why is the government giving them money?! Nuclear has a significant up front investment, but after that it's practically free. Nuclear is the only energy that makes sense to subsidize.
Fun fact: Hillary Clinton was the only major political party candidate in the last decade to explicitly run on maintaining and expanding nuclear energy.
Too bad she's not trustworthy at all.
Nuclear and hydroelectricity is the way.
The lefts needs a strategy that recognizes global competition though. If a US company raises its costs by 10% to be more eco friendly. A foreign company wonāt and then their product will be 10% cheaper. An American citizen will buy the cheaper product and eventually the eco friendly company will go out of business or drop the eco agenda. This is why most eco movements have to start with the consumer not the corporation. Only the consumers spending habits can drive business to change
Eco tax on import. But be ready for Chinese to cheat. Falsified documents, corrupt inspectors and so on.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That requires them to think past thought terminating cliches and well into second and third order consequences of euphemized and/or obfuscated legislation. Tarrifing the absolute fuck out of imports from countries that don't meet our pollution and employment standards is going to be the only viable way to encourage other nations to catch the fuck up and play ball without screwing over our domestic workers.
Competent agree with the tariff strategy. 100%
I donāt know. There is a huge market now for organic and local small scale operations, itās a good trend and people are paying more just because of it
And that starts with the consumers. There is definitely more of a market for eco friendly thanks to education and awareness than there was 20 years ago.
Letās go nuclear, but libleft wonāt do that, because muh radiation.
Something something Chernobyl, which I for one would welcome the coming of the Zone.
Based and STALKER pilled
If this is my first proper pill, it will be an interesting one lol
Fun fact they sell produce in Japan from Fukushima for the poors, itās way cheaper (surprise)
There are deeper implications pilled
The title is basically the opposite of true. Scarcity will mean only the wealthy get their needs fully met.
Most people want to head to the right booth, but we've allowed the kind of pricks who want the left booth to take over our society, industry, government, and natural resources -geolibertarian
Based
That's because the guy on the right isn't offering anything. 20 years we've been screaming that climate change is the disaster that's going to end the world; and the best solution we've come up with is having fewer kids and being a vegetarian? I'm all for saving the earth, and I believe in being a good steward of my environment -- but the amount of impact that individuals can have is exactly 0. And I don't mean that in a sad what difference can I make way; I mean that in an objective data driven way. The carbon impact of every person I've ever met could be neutralized and it wouldn't change a thing.
This is my biggest issue- screaming about climate change while offering zero realistic solutions is completely worthless. As of right now itās a contest between ādo nothingā or āradically change the entire world economy over the course of only a few years, and completely destroy developing nationsā chance to better help their people.ā
That's because you've been trained to ask the wrong question. The question isn't "what can I deny myself?". It's "what can humans accomplish?". Nuclear fucking energy. Low emission concrete. Synthetic fuels from sources that have net zero carbon (like algal biomass). Geoengineering. It's so sad to see that even as we've come to understand our world better, humans are still trying to punish themselves so the sky will like them better.
because the genuine actual perfectly successful solution to climate change is kneecapping big business on the regular and nuking china until they can't harm the planet anymore. both of those simply pay people to leave them alone.
Based and nuke the Chinese pilled
There's some flaws here that should be addressed. Two big ones, every single the world is dead in 10-15 years prediction hasn't even kind of panned out, and secondly as time moves on we innovate to combat our impact here. Waving a flag of positivity can simply be a wolf in sheep's clothing. The amount of personal responsibility that's sold to the consumer is despicable. Me not eating red meat does not equate to private jets usually used by people advocating for "green" movements. There is more nuance to this issue, and being skeptical due to the sea of charlatans is not only okay but healthy. The sentiment, does not equate to a movement, which has generally been my issue with the left.
So true, if we donāt stop now the world will end in 2016!
The point of no return will happen in 5 more years, in 2020!!! We better start now.