(I don't necessarily disagree with you, but there's a difference between thinking outside the box and trying new ideas, and literally ignoring factual reality and repeated clear feedback from people who actually know what they're talking about.)
> Stock market reporting is always pretty funny. "Stocks went up because the Democrats won!" "Stocks went down because the democrats won!"
Both of these can be true. The reporting is just capturing the sentiment driving the market. There might be a relief rally that things will stabilize now, followed by a panic that data centers will not be built according to the expected schedule.
Last time I went to China, a friend left her phone in a taxi (I guess a "didi") near a train station. She ran to the train station's police station, pestered them into looking at the recordings, got them to tell her the license plate of the car, and figure out how to call the driver. Her phone was back 20 minutes later.
If you're going to be surveilled 24/7, at least you gotta make it work for you.
> If you're going to be surveilled 24/7, at least you gotta make it work for you.
I don't get it.
There was CCTV at the station, your friend arrived in a taxi. And we're supposed to be amazed you can call up the taxi company and quote a numberplate off CCTV ?
Can be done anywhere in the world.
Would have been far more impressive story if she had arrived in a private car, dropped off by a work colleague or something.
> And we're supposed to be amazed you can call up the taxi company and quote a numberplate off CCTV
No. It was just a thing that happened to me that I thought was funny and interesting, because running to the train police station and asking them to track the didi was not something I'd ever have thought to do.
> I'm sorry my little anecdote didn't satisfy you.
It wasn't that. Its that you made a reference to the Chinese surveillance state in the same post. Your example didn't fit the evil-bogeyman narrative you were aiming for.
> Your example didn't fit the evil-bogeyman narrative you were aiming for
What in the world are you talking about. If anything, I wasn't sure if recollecting that anecdote was minimizing the harm of being surveilled constantly. The last thing I expected was being accused of an "evil-bogeyman narrative."
> Sorry if I was unclear there.
Yes, thanks for clarifying. Now I understand that this has nothing to do with me or what I wrote and is 100% projection on your part.
I don't quite understand the question. If she had had her phone, she could have called the driver using the information from the didi app, but she had no phone, so she didn't know who to call.
Downs syndrome is indeed highly heterogeneous, one of the sadder aspects is the accelerated dementia specifically Alzheimer's.
I've known a few people with Dawn's syndrome and the striking often abrupt and rapid tragectory is shocking.
As much as the slow decline of dementia that it's often incidents months apart before things fall apart. Is sad.
So is it in people with Downs syndrome when at 35 their often bright and cheerful life loving demeanor seems to vanish over the course of a few months.
As I understand it it's because chromosome 21 carries the genes associated with Alzheimer's so they get an extra copy, but also structure issues with the brain, increased risk of sleep apnea and other toxic conditions.
Your argument was not that it's bad for an average person with Down syndrome to have children. It's that they "absolutely shouldn't try to get pregnant, they'll be incapable of looking after the child." My response is that your argument, stated in this extreme way, is factually incorrect.
"Not all car crashes are the same. People sometimes live because they weren't wearing a seatbelt."
The point of these statements is to make an outlier appear as if it is part of the norm. They're bad statements to make, because at heart they are just misleading.
> The point of these statements is to make an outlier appear as if it is part of the norm
Please don't lie about what I wrote. I explicitly said that 117 was "the highest measured IQ of a person with Down syndrome." My own comment says that it is an outlier.
> They're bad statements to make, because at heart they are just misleading
Please note the context of my comment, which was somebody saying that people with Down syndrome are "incapable of looking after the child." I pointed out that this does not apply to all people with Down syndrome, which is not misleading; it's correct.
TBH, I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment was, other than to start a moronic fight that does not need to be fought by lying about what I actually said. I'm not interested in having that fight.
Right, and there are people who live in car accidents because they didn't have on a seatbelt.
But no one counters "You should always wear your seatbelt" with "Some people have lived because they didn't have one on". It's a meaningless statement that doesn't change anything about the original statement.
I don't know why people don't understand this, but something being true doesn't mean it can't also be hurtful, and it doesn't mean it has to be said. Gabe clearly already knows that he is different; there's absolutely no point in telling him this, other than to hurt him.
I look at it through my parenting lens. You can’t just ignore it. You have to prepare them for a harsh world where they will constantly hear it, feel it, and possibly worse. I’d feel my role would be to fully acknowledge it, overly embrace it, almost to a theatrical level. This would be privately in the home and while they’re young but the idea is to make them understand their difference has lots of benefits/positives to it. It’s kind of a super power. So they have a positive self image and relationship with their difference before they have to deal with the external stuff. Then, of course, they’ll still get upset when a name caller or bully confronts them but you can lean on the foundation of this is just who you are and who you are is awesome. It still hurts ofc but that’s inevitable in this world, how you respond is controllable. Someone simply vocalizing a fact shouldn’t ruin their day if they’ve been properly “coached” to have the fortitude.
I agree with your comment in general, except this one point: you sometimes absolutely can just ignore it. The instance from the article is one such example.
I didn't read it that way. The subject seems to feel overwhelming grief/dispare for being different and notices it everywhere he goes. What good is there in ignoring it? I'd address it. Own it. It seems that the subject generally has had a supportive family/community and has not had much adversity other than just feeling stuck in his life.
That was a singular event in the article. The article goes on to say how he sees and feels his difference everywhere. He notices in most places, everyone else is the same and he is different. I did not make the interpretation that he only notices this because once someone told him he was different. I interpret that he would have noticed this whether someone said it or not. This is why I personally would address it versus pretend it doesn't exist. From a young age, I would have presumed there is no scenario where he could live a life ignorant of his difference.
To be clear, I'm saying it can't be ignored as a parent. Gabe can ignore it, but that usually requires some proper preparation and understanding of how to deal with the emotions it may generate when someone says it. Hence the parenting part.
> Gabe clearly already knows that he is different; there's absolutely no point in telling him this, other than to hurt him.
That’s from top of thread, and what I’m disagreeing with. My stance is he should be told so he can understand, process, ask questions, be supported, in a safe positive environment.
Never discussing it is the same as ignoring it and he will notice or be told by someone. It might just be some innocent 3 year old on a playground, but he will be told. But you’re letting him deal with that in the moment unprepared if you don’t proactively address it as a parent. All kinds of bad could come from that.
It’s where I entered. The parent of that is more in tuned with my opinion of addressing it in a positive manner. You introduced the idea of concealing it/never mentioning it on that comment, there’s nothing new you’re saying here and based on other posts you’re just argumentative with everything so I’m done here.
There's a gulf of difference between burying/hiding truth and going out of your way to unnecessarily bring up a fact that serves no good purpose in context.
All of which to say, you can affirm it by being a dick, but that's not the only way to acknowledge the truth. Nor should we pretend the facts aren't there.
We're not living in the bad timeline; we're living in the absolute clown timeline.
1.9. Super Intelligence (SI)
Small businesses are increasingly leveraging SI products and services to extend limited resources and run an efficient, competitive, innovative business. For example, SI systems are often used to write code, automate workflows, generate content, or provide customer support.
Fortunately, I can use Even Superiorer Intelligence (ESI) to fix this PDF and replace this dumb-ass term with the proper nomenclature.
I'm happy they're doing this, and it's good and admirable to see people be able to change their minds on something they once believed so strongly, but this should have happened 30 years ago.
>People only "change their mind" when it becomes an existential crisis.
If only. There's people and parties (not in the UK) who would rather see the rest of the country suffer than admit they were wrong, so they feel compelled to die on that hill and take everyone with them, because defending their principle is more important.
Which means new nuclear is about the worst thing we can spend our limited resources on since it won't be coming online until the 2040s, and then at a ruinosuly expensive price.
Meanwhile renewables and storage are reshaping our global energy system due to being the cheapest globally scalable energy source in human history.
We also need to keep in mind nuclear supply chains. After 21 sanction packages the EU still haven't sanctioned Russia's nuclear industry.
We're simply too deeply entangled across the entire supply chain: nuclear fuel, enrichment, reprocessing, technological partnerships, reactor maintenance, new construction and more.
Unlike fossil fuel power plants, NPPs don't depend on a steady supply of a high volume of costly consumables just to keep running. Reactor fuel loads last months to years, naturally buffering any price shocks or supply chain issues. And you can maintain an "energy security" stockpile of nuclear fuel that would add you even more years of runaway.
To have your nuclear power disrupted, you have to face an adversary that's both capable and willing to hit targets on your soil, and on top of that, is willing to target NPP infrastructure specifically.
A random rogue state lobbing mid-range drones over a strait wouldn't cut it. Neither would a war halfway around the world.
We're talking about Germany shuttering their nuclear power plants despite USA warning them repeatedly that Russia was going to weaponize the Nord Stream gas dependence against them. Which is ultimately exactly what happened.
Nuclear power replaced coal in Germany, not gas. A big dependence exists because people heat their homes with gas and lots of industry needs gas, nuclear doesn’t help with either.
That is not really the case. Germany certainly wanted cheap gas, but there was also the theory that integrating Russia economically will prevent conflicts. While ultimately a wrong decision, it was not entirely stupid.
But regarding gas, one has to understand that a tiny fraction (15%) of gas is used for electricity and most for heating. So nuclear power is completely irrelevant here.
I also would like people realize that many nuclear plants in Europe and elsewhere still depend on fuel from Russia. So energy dependence is a bit more complex.
> But regarding gas, one has to understand that a tiny fraction (15%) of gas is used for electricity and most for heating. So nuclear power is completely irrelevant here.
You know that homes can be heated with electricity from nuclear power? The reason why Germany uses gas for heating is because it was historically very cheap compared to electricity, because it came from Russia. Good, while the attached strings could be ignored..
Sure, but we are talking about what was the reality in Germany. And gas was and is needed mainly for heating (and also industry), so shutting down the nuclear plants did not increase dependency on Russian gas despite what people repeatedly claim. Also gas usage for power production did not increase afterwards, while Russian gas imports were stopped. Both simple facts contradicting this myth.
It's a bit more complex, I think. When gas imports started from the USSR, nuclear power plants were still being built in Germany, for example. There were gas imports for a long time.
if the germans want to shoot themselves in the foot they are allowed to do this, yes. what is the point of your comment? it's not even remotely relevant.
I was trying to point out that societies make and are free to make decisions that others don't like or that aren't great for them by some metric - and that there is nothing wrong with that. Why is that not relevant when it comes to energy?
so your point is that it's fine that germany ceeded energy independence and gave power to russia, because they're a country and countries have the 'right' to make bad decisions?
we have the right to criticise countries too right?
If Germans don't want energy independence - you can criticize that but that's how nation states work or is there some UN Charter violation in there, for example?
im still so confused what your point is. it's like talking about the consequences of someone's alcoholism, and someone chiming in "well they have a right to die of the booze if they want" like...ok???
So any nation state needs to be energy independent? Is that your point? Or have cheap energy and energy independence? If people want low growth, expensive energy etc., why is that like alcoholism? What is intrinsically bad there? Not like life expectancy in Germany is low, for example.
> So any nation state needs to be energy independent?
It is obviously a good thing if a democratic nation state is independent from a totalitarian dictatorship.
> Not like life expectancy in Germany is low, for example.
It's not about life expectancy. They now have to make a choice between supporting an aggressive totalitarian state vs. suffering damage to their economy due to higher energy prices. That is obviously a bad position to be in.
And by “the war against Russia,” you meant when Russia violated its treaty and invaded a sovereign country on the EU’s doorstep? That war “against Russia?” What an interesting phrasing you’ve chosen.
The Russia/Ukraine war started because Russia invaded Ukraine.
Ukraine said that Russia invaded Ukraine. Russia said that Russia invaded Ukraine. And Russia has a long history of invading its neighbors - that's why it's already so big. We have no reason to doubt that Russia invaded Ukraine.
Or more probably, it's imputable to biology and the natural replacement of the "old guard" by adults who didn't grow up during nukes schizophrenia. Or in other words, I doubt that those folks reasoned themselves out of the irrational fear for nuclear energy that they did not reason themselves into.
I'm not sure it's irrational. It's perhaps oversensitive. There are dozens of nuclear power incidents rated at levels of 5+, affecting the wider region.
In the UK, Sellafield was a nightmare. Lots of less serious slip ups and malfunctions punctuated by a few critical incidents, between 1954 and 2003. You might understand why yesterday's Green Party might think it an issue worth pursuing.
I believe more recently there was an expose about some other politicians at that time having links to Russia, although don’t have them to hand right now.
As other people have mentioned, it's very likely not the same people; but rather more anti-nuclear people leaving the organization or dying, and more pro-nuclear people joining.
reply