leicsmac

They did, of course not being helped by both a moving target and numerous meat shields moving in the way to defend him. Of course, this has next to no bearing on the grotesque consequences that are already being felt and will be felt more by everyone as time goes by - caused by, and the sole responsibility of, the direct actions of this administration.

As per above, because they're either ignorant of the consequences, or malicious enough that they're willing to accept the death and suffering of a great many people so long as they personally benefit in the short term.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly3pnjyzp4o Kemi Badenoch has said it is "impossible" for the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050 - a goal set by a previous Conservative government. The UK is legally committed to reaching net zero by 2050 under a law passed by Theresa May in 2019. It means the UK must cut carbon emissions until it removes as much as it produces, in line with the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. Badenoch said net zero cannot be achieved by 2050 "without a serious drop in our living standards or by bankrupting us". Then I hope you have something better in mind for the UK to do its part in averting horrible consequences, Mdme Badenoch. Also, Tice et al still following the Trumpian line of letting the world burn so they can be king of the ashes while using other nations as an excuse to join them in a race to the bottom.

...is anyone particularly surprised? This is who the man has always been and I have to assume that people who don't get that and continue to back him now are either too ignorant to see the malice, or so malicious themselves that they agree with what he's up to and let countless people suffer so long as they themselves get what they want - or they're exactly like him.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78el01zd03o King Charles gave a warm welcome to the new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney when he visited Buckingham Palace. It was another symbolic gesture of support for Canada from a King, wearing a red tie, who has to send coded signals rather than spell things out in words, as Canada faces threats from US President Donald Trump. But the King has sought to make clear his commitment to Canada - and if it had not been for his cancer diagnosis, the BBC understands he would have travelled there for an intended visit in 2024. There are also suggestions that once Canada's election is out the way, a visit to Canada will be a priority, where he can further demonstrate his support. There's quite a few Canadians annoyed that the King didn't go more overt in support for Canada against Convict#47, but I think that's a job for ministers and the diplomatic corps, rather than him.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/06/global-warming-isnt-natural-and-heres-how-we-know/ 'Many people say, “but the planet has warmed naturally before” as if that automatically means that our current warming is natural, but nothing could be further from the truth. In technical terms, this argument commits a logical fallacy known as non sequitur (this is the fallacy that occurs whenever the conclusion of a deductive argument does not follow necessarily from the premises). The fact that natural warming has occurred before only tells us that it is possible for natural warming to occur. It does not indicate that the current warming is natural, especially given the evidence that it is anthropogenic (man-made). To put this another way, when you claim that virtually all of the world’s climatologists are wrong and the earth is actually warming naturally, you have just placed the burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that claim. In other words, simply citing previous warming events does not prove that the current warming is natural. You have to actually provide evidence for a natural cause of the current warming, but (as I’ll explain shortly) no such mechanism exists.'

Indian Wells one of the two Masters events that Murray didn't win, too. Hopefully he does have a Slam or two in him, it would be nice if someone carried the torch.

Two of the tenets of a fascist movement... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge4l109r3o Denounce and marginalise impartial voices as "partisan" And https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz03gjnxe25o "Other" and marginalise anyone outside the idealised for power in-group (white men). It's not just the Canadians who should be telling them to fvck off in as many ways as possible.

I think that is considered as a qualifier in a lot of scientific discussions of it tbh - we have a great many possible reasons to explain it, some, all or none might be true because there's no empirical data beyond the absence of alien contact.

That's all pretty much spot on. It is a terribly difficult problem to deal with within the parameters of a democratic system, but doing nothing about it will end up worse. This is true. Though I would add the rather obvious caveat that when the change is or may be overwhelmingly negative, that requires attention.

I think that one reason why most governments aren't grasping the nettle wrt the aging demographic issue is because, as far as I can tell, there is no good option to deal with it, only bad ones. It's about choosing the best bad idea, which then they'll have to carry the can for. So they're kicking the can down the road and praying it won't be them that has to deal with the fallout when it all goes tits-up. The same could, sadly, be said of quite a few other issues with difficult solutions requiring long term thought. A rather unfortunate flaw in fixed short term democratic systems.

Splendid work from Jack the Ripper.

Sadly so. But dystopia doesn't have to be an inevitability. People believing that it is will only help make it such.

That at worst, The Expanse (where safe water and even oxygen have a price) at best.

And on the same topic, there is the superb Kurzgesagt: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9NJUJVSrAcZCkIcGnLoKDQcl0iZZPPPG&si=pAU50HWqntizBpcq

There's a couple of quality videos from the good Professor on this topic, would very much recommend. Needless to say, I agree with his viewpoint pretty much to a T here.

I believed that a while ago. Now I'm not so sure. Reasonable people believe that such systems can last forever, but history shows quite clearly how oppressive regimes can take control in so many places - usually after people have sworn it could never happen. But you could be right. I really hope that you are. For the sake of our species itself.

I honestly think that pretty much anything Trump does short of full on invasion of another country/legislative coup/other completely beyond the pale thing can be spun as a success to enough people, combined with successful voter suppression, to carry almost any election henceforth. Look at the way the current economic woe is being spun, and that is the usual hottest button Issue. And look at how what was functionally a coup attempt on January 6th 2021 is being spun now. That being said, four years, to say nothing of more, is a long time and I hope that I'm wrong.

Relentless, brutal and absolutely thorough.

Rigged directly? Probably not. Through voter suppression, capture of the legal system overseeing the election and skilled use of social media manipulation? That, I believe, is possible. He'll want a legacy, and given he and his ethos really "should" have been a memory after 2021, then I believe underestimating it and the damage it can cause at our extreme peril.

Assuming the next election is free, fair and legit.

The latter, because diminishing resources and increased inequality will feed from that into the former. It's reasonably obvious that higher global pressures, either human or natural caused, can and will result in higher incidents of nationalist warfare and destruction as "tribes" attempt to protect what is "theirs" - be it resources of any kind or vital territory. Any study of geopolitics has to include the above otherwise it misses an utterly critical element imo.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2g88y52y8o SpaceX founder Elon Musk has said his Starship rocket will head to Mars by the end of next year, as the company investigates several recent explosions in flight tests. Human landings could begin as early as 2029 if initial missions go well, though "2031 was more likely", he added in a post on his social media platform X. I'll believe it when I see it. It would be nice, but never will the phrase "in spite of, rather than because of" have applied more.

Very thorough from England so far.

The usual suspects, for accusing NASA of politicising the plight of two astronauts. Slander scientists and engineers with more integrity than you'll ever have again, cvnts.