leicsmac

I think that timebomb will only become more acute if (as predicted) resource scarcity really starts to hit a lot of places, because I think a lot of it really just comes back to fear and malice based on self-interest.

I think it's also because some people simply view the problem as abstract right up to the point it punches them in the face. Again, empathy not progressing beyond ones line of sight spatially or temporally. That being said, the massive elephant in the room wrt carbon emissions and their consequences is still energy generation; international travel, while a piece of the puzzle, is a rather smaller one.

Yep. Don't bother to spend on redundant systems, because you won't need them... ... up until the day that you do.

I've talked about this before, but it's rather unreal how almost everyone takes the mechanics of civilisation - from the production line that produces a single pencil to a system like this - so effortlessly for granted. "In an urban society, everything connects. Each person's needs are fed by the skills of many others. Our lives are woven together in a fabric. But the connections that make society strong also make it vulnerable." - Narrator, Threads.

Apparently Trump would like the idea of the US joining the Commonwealth. I'm beginning to think that the seeming envy/affection he has for the monarchy is something that could really be used by the UK to help neutralise at least some of his worst excesses.

Quite right, such is why (to use an extreme example) the law makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter based on intent. However, I do think that effect matters more in a lot of instances, and also beware those using a shield of incompetence to disguise their malice (there's a lot of that going round right now).

Very much so, however any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

I guess we'll see at the end of next year. In the meantime though, he seems perfectly happy to be his idea of an unaccountable king governing by proclamation.

Does he have enough of a majority on both Houses of Congress to make it easy for himself? I don't remember off the top of my head. IIRC you need 60+ in the Senate to be filibuster-proof.

I think - and fear - that the advanced mechanics of civilisation are so complex that they run on more "Single Points of Failure" than folks realise. It's likewise too costly and complex to be otherwise.

No doubt he'll do his best. Yep. Enough of the population in enough places wanted Project 2025 and aggressive acts towards friendly nations, so that's what folks are getting. Trump was certainly clear enough on what he intended. Which rather gives you an insight into the mindset of the aforementioned voter. Well, I might suggest that the UK starts by proving, conclusively, that it was an act of sabotage before responding further.

Thankfully he can't do it without an Act of Congress, but he'll surely try.

Social media could have been so much better. Instead, it is allowing a proliferation of digital information that is, I think, heavily contributing to the nasty political climate at the present time. However, knowing the problem, I've no idea what the solution is. The Chinese have theirs, but I'm not sure how many people want that.

I hope that he continues to do advocacy work in that area. Goodness knows that in this era it's needed. There's a generation or more of young lads at risk of backsliding into knuckle-dragging attitudes towards women, and that's consequential.

https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/nih-grants-mrna-vaccines-trump-administration-hhs-rfk/amp/ National Institutes of Health officials have urged scientists to remove all references to mRNA vaccine technology from their grant applications, two researchers said, in a move that signaled the agency might abandon a promising field of medical research. The UK, among others, should be offering these groups of researchers whatever they want should they choose to leave the US. And they will, given the obvious current situation.

Further to the bolded: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8j0vwpkwkxo The chief justice of the US Supreme Court has released a rare statement in response to President Donald Trump's call to impeach a judge who ruled against his administration over migrant deportations. "For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement. He added that the "normal appellate review process exists for that purpose".

Given the current makeup of Congress, what exactly can they do? The judiciary as a check and balance is creaking, it may only be public opinion on the economy that might be able to help. I can understand the frustration here, but things going to hell in a handbasket, as they are, is, solely, on Trump and his administration that a lot of people warned about in the clearest possible terms. Decent people who will end up being victims shouldn't, and won't, carry the can for some kind of accusation of not being effective enough opposition. NB. That being said, should things go proper sideways, then those who are left are probably going to hold everyone from our time culpable anyway, and they might be right to.

"Collateral damage", apparently.

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.