leicsmac

Or Eden, or Chamberlain, or...

Fairly so. But then take at least some comfort in the fact that tribalism and division based upon it is incompatible with the future. So, one way or another, these dark times will end, no matter how much some members of our species wish to pursue the idea of demographic superiority. Either they lose, or everyone loses, including them.

Hopefully by the time the challenges are finished, Trump and his destructive ideology will be much less of a factor.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgjw0kpd89o Areas across the UK from Cornwall to County Down have seen their wettest January on record continue with heavy rain in February. The deluge the country has been experiencing in the last week has been put down to a blocked weather pattern - a high pressure system over Scandinavia is preventing the wet weather from moving away. The Met Office estimates that at current levels of global warming, wet winters like 2023/24 have gone from being once in 80-year events to once in 20 - and with further warming this could become even more frequent. This could have significant impacts for housing, transport and food supply. One farmer in Somerset told the BBC that he was living on a "knife edge" as his crops were days away from rotting in the floodwater. Welcome to the future, everyone. Arriving ahead of schedule.

It's a problem that stretches much further than immigration policy, but seeing as that's the talking point... I guess the answer to the above comes down to how much value one places on "victims" of any stripe, whether based on number or "tribe". Because the consequences of a lack of empathy for those in need across the world, suffering and dying as we communicate here with the privilege of treating that as a purely theoretical matter, far far outweigh the consequences outlined above in terms of number. Of course, the classic counterargument is that "isn't our problem" and "we can't help everyone", but that automatically places a higher value on one human demographic over another. How comfortable a person is with that idea is clearly up to them.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqxdwlqx8qqo US President Donald Trump's multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the BBC has been scheduled to go to trial in February 2027, according to court documents. The trial date comes as a Florida judge rejected the BBC's application to delay the process of discovery in the case. Trump is suing the BBC for defamation over the way an episode of Panorama edited two sections of a speech together, which made it appear that he had directly encouraged his supporters to storm the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. The trial is scheduled to last two weeks and take place in Miami. A BBC spokesman said: "As we have made clear previously, we will be defending this case." The statement added: "We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings." The BBC has indicated in previous filings that it will submit a motion to dismiss the case by 17 March 2026. The latest order does not impact that forthcoming filing. That's a way away. Perhaps the midterms will have meant decisive action happens before then.

Lack of foresight and empathy, and how it's bleeding into policy decision making more and more.

I'm saying that rather shortly, there may well be not enough water for everyone, yes. And I think that's a probable enough threat to take very seriously. And yes, Mad Max is exactly where we end up when we take such basic resources for granted, no matter how complex the mechanics of civilisation are at any one time. I absolutely agree that proliferation and misuse of AI is one possible route by which we might end up there, too.

It surely would be, but at least the possibility exists, unlike much sharper matters of scarcity where the possibilities are almost universally bad. Time is likely the biggest "human created" resource there is (that's what money buys you, your own time to do things you want to do), I agree. There is still, however, a distinction to be drawn between something important but still constructed (like time) and an absolutely physical vital resource, like water. Scarcity of the former still allows our species something of an element of control, at least theoretically. Scarcity of the latter does not.

It won't be just about finding places in the world that are habitable, it will also be about massive critical shortages of potable water in places where it is critically needed. Without fresh and potable water, you have nothing on which any kind of civilisation can be built. Ironically, AI and data centres are causing consumption issues on that score as well already. Additionally, wrt recent discussion: This still applies imo.

Very, very hard on Afghanistan, that.

Well guys, I fear it might get a bit bad out there tonight.

All short track seems to be a wildly random demolition derby. I'm still annoyed that Elise Christie got unfair treatment from the judges for at least four of the six events she completed in over two Olympics.

The world that a single man managed to build remains unparalleled. Tolkien is the legend that wrote legends.

Think the only way that happens is if Trump leaves office early, for whatever reason. On the other side, I really do want to see Booker run for the Dems but he doesn't seem interested this time.

Again, I don't disagree. But it is a problem that needs to be worked on alongside transition to more renewable infrastructure. Or maybe get on with Gen III or IV fission. Or both.

"I've suffered, so life is suffering and everyone in the future must suffer too."

True, as is the case with any single point of failure in any engineered system. That doesn't mean such transitions aren't necessary to prevent far worse disasters than that.

Impressive. Remembrance of the ancient kings of Harad and even the black Numenoreans is a dying art.

WhatonearthhaveIstarted.gif

Yes, a real mystery, that.

I'm sure that both of us have been called worse during our time on here (I know I have), but for what little it might mean, once again, that was certainly not the intent.

Clearly the phrasing hit a nerve there. Not my intent and I apologise. That being said, I don't think it's controversial to say that it's a matter of record that any individual looks at the past and has a positive bias in some respects towards it, therefore it might not be the most reliable indicator. That's just human.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn5gzepnw4lo US lawmakers say files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were improperly redacted ahead of their release by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Members of Congress on Monday were allowed to begin a review of the unredacted versions of the approximately three million pages of files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) since December. Surprised? Not really.

I'm sorry, let me clarify. My argument isn't that things have changed, it's that things have always been a low trust society because of that economic inequality and anecdotes looking fondly back at some imagined past are an exception rather than the rule. That's only a working hypothesis on my part, though, I can't prove it empirically.