First, I congratulate you for the historical review of the issue. Too much political commentary has the attention span of a gnat. This analysis reminded of stuff I had forgotten.
I think one of the wrong steps was the alliance with the green plutocrats. The temptation for funding for the causes was difficult to resist but there were definite downsides. First, the hypocrisy was blatant as seen in the hundreds of private jets at climate conferences and the economic impacts from which the billionaires would be insulated. Second, as we have seen, the plutocrats are plutocrats first and green only if it did not upset their position. The embrace of the WEF did not help the cause.
I tried three times to read that piece and never got all the way to the end. And I'm a reader. It was flabby writing that did not succinctly state the policies, programs, or underlying ideas, or the differences between factions and parties.
Perhaps of interest to activist and government types who already are immersed in the arguments and are adept at Bullshit Bingo, but not to someone who'd have liked a crisp survey of the issues. I rate it a swing and a miss. Reading it reminded me of one of those corporate "visioning" meetings that I would find excuses to miss.
Good analysis. Anyone reading my stuff knows I've been warning about Democrats' "Civil War #3" (which was the Tech Bros v. Green) over the power demands of AI for over a year. It is an inevitable split. Bloomberg now reports China is building coal plants like McDonalds, and the WSJ admits China is getting "Power security" (meaning energy. This is absolutely impossible with wind and solar. In the next 50 years, energy demand (regardless of falling populations) will soar, probably by more than 50%. The fewer humans there are, the more they will require robots and AI, and the more than will mean coal and nukes.
Why so many trillions of computations? What makes A.I. need to many trillions, as opposed to other areas like manufacturing and finance, to name a couple. I'm not as dumb as I might sound, but in this case I am starting from scratch, and when that happens I start with simple questions.
It's how AI works. It posits one set of 0/1 per computation, but needs trillions of those to answer a complex question like "has there ever been someone killed at Mount Everest by another person?" Beyond that, you'll have to talk to a real techhie about how the guts of these computers really work.
Or, as we see LA burning again, we see a continuation that the Democrats have no viable plan to govern this country. Far fetched? quite simply, SS:DD for Democrats and a failed incompetent party except for the elites. What [policies have they brought forth to show they could govern? Nothing. Note the difference between the extant of damage with troops and no troops. This is the epitome of what the national guard is meant to do. And the Dems have set the stage for acceptance of deployment of those troops to protect Federal property and personnel because the Dems would not. It is all connected. Unlawful to deploy the national guard that protects small business and poorer neighborhoods. Newsome, Bass and the rest are a catastrophic clown show.
I'm watching the riots in L.A., naturally described as mere "protests" by the media "progressives" who love riots except for the one four and a half years ago, and who generally don't much care for this country.
I am amazed once again at the ability of the Democratic Party to pick the wrong side of almost every issue or controversy. Say what you will about Trump, but the man has an unerring instinct to align himself with the American public. No matter what happens in L.A., the situation will be a win for him. His approval rating will rise as a result.
Quite the iconography this time, with "peaceful protesters" standing in riot scenes waving Mexican flags. So this is what the Democrats stand for. Wow. Good show, "progressives." Do you have a political death wish, or what?
The Dems created Trump and kept him in the public’s eyes. Dems created the professional rioters also. And when they can’t control their creations, they blame everyone else. I’m sure the small business owners are appreciative of the national guard protecting their livelihood. Just their presence is enough I believe. I’d love to see what would happen if the Marines went in. I think the knowledge they are ready to go is enough to make the rioters think twice.
One thing occurs to me: Why doesn't anyone use Ye Olde Water Cannon? That would have taken care of almost all the rioting of the last few years, including the latest. By the way, I suspect this bunch of rioters knows how to stay away from the Rooftop Koreans of 1992.
The fact that the mentioned “climate activists” never protest against China’s many imperialistic policies (emissions, censorship, forced labor, exploitation of developing countries etc) suggests to me that their priorities are more anti- western civilization than they are for reducing global emissions or improving human rights.
The only green policy worth anything is government investment into green technologies that can then be used in the private sector.
If climate change is real (and there's lots of evidence it is), technology is probably the only way to either solve it, or make humans capable of surviving it. So invest in that technology and make it profitable.
However, I always give everyone, regardless of political persuasion, a warning borne out by history: humans are big procrastinators. They usually refuse to deal with something until it hits them right in the face--then they get very creative and solve problems. They're a bit like a student who doesn't apply himself until the day before finals, and then engages in a heroic cram session (and/or essay/thesis/dissertation-writing marathon) to secure a passing grade. My guess is that we will probably put off dealing with climatological issues until we are being pummeled into oblivion by unstable weather and resource shortages. We'll walk right up to the edge of apocalypse--then we'll get to work inventing a way out of our predicament.
Believe it or not, we've been there before. Malthus predicted we'd all starve to death because the world didn't have enough food. A lot of people did indeed starve to death...and then we invented technologies that made food plentiful for everyone. It's what we do.
GM and Ford face supply chain challenges in making the transition to electric vehicles. Securing critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, nickel) for batteries and building robust domestic supply chains are challenging. Geopolitical tensions with China further complicate this challenge.
Ramping up EV production, particularly for new battery technologies and dedicated EV platforms, involves manufacturing challenges, including retooling factories and training a new workforce.
First, I congratulate you for the historical review of the issue. Too much political commentary has the attention span of a gnat. This analysis reminded of stuff I had forgotten.
I think one of the wrong steps was the alliance with the green plutocrats. The temptation for funding for the causes was difficult to resist but there were definite downsides. First, the hypocrisy was blatant as seen in the hundreds of private jets at climate conferences and the economic impacts from which the billionaires would be insulated. Second, as we have seen, the plutocrats are plutocrats first and green only if it did not upset their position. The embrace of the WEF did not help the cause.
I tried three times to read that piece and never got all the way to the end. And I'm a reader. It was flabby writing that did not succinctly state the policies, programs, or underlying ideas, or the differences between factions and parties.
Perhaps of interest to activist and government types who already are immersed in the arguments and are adept at Bullshit Bingo, but not to someone who'd have liked a crisp survey of the issues. I rate it a swing and a miss. Reading it reminded me of one of those corporate "visioning" meetings that I would find excuses to miss.
Good analysis. Anyone reading my stuff knows I've been warning about Democrats' "Civil War #3" (which was the Tech Bros v. Green) over the power demands of AI for over a year. It is an inevitable split. Bloomberg now reports China is building coal plants like McDonalds, and the WSJ admits China is getting "Power security" (meaning energy. This is absolutely impossible with wind and solar. In the next 50 years, energy demand (regardless of falling populations) will soar, probably by more than 50%. The fewer humans there are, the more they will require robots and AI, and the more than will mean coal and nukes.
Not a fan of the article, but I do have a question: Why does A.I. need so much electricity?
It is the phenomenal computing power that must run trillions of computations 24/7.
Why so many trillions of computations? What makes A.I. need to many trillions, as opposed to other areas like manufacturing and finance, to name a couple. I'm not as dumb as I might sound, but in this case I am starting from scratch, and when that happens I start with simple questions.
It's how AI works. It posits one set of 0/1 per computation, but needs trillions of those to answer a complex question like "has there ever been someone killed at Mount Everest by another person?" Beyond that, you'll have to talk to a real techhie about how the guts of these computers really work.
The A.I. I've seen so far doesn't impress me. Seems like a waste of some trillions. LOL
Falling fertility rates will probably do more to ameliorate the climate issue than all of the climate policies combined.
Or, as we see LA burning again, we see a continuation that the Democrats have no viable plan to govern this country. Far fetched? quite simply, SS:DD for Democrats and a failed incompetent party except for the elites. What [policies have they brought forth to show they could govern? Nothing. Note the difference between the extant of damage with troops and no troops. This is the epitome of what the national guard is meant to do. And the Dems have set the stage for acceptance of deployment of those troops to protect Federal property and personnel because the Dems would not. It is all connected. Unlawful to deploy the national guard that protects small business and poorer neighborhoods. Newsome, Bass and the rest are a catastrophic clown show.
I'm watching the riots in L.A., naturally described as mere "protests" by the media "progressives" who love riots except for the one four and a half years ago, and who generally don't much care for this country.
I am amazed once again at the ability of the Democratic Party to pick the wrong side of almost every issue or controversy. Say what you will about Trump, but the man has an unerring instinct to align himself with the American public. No matter what happens in L.A., the situation will be a win for him. His approval rating will rise as a result.
Quite the iconography this time, with "peaceful protesters" standing in riot scenes waving Mexican flags. So this is what the Democrats stand for. Wow. Good show, "progressives." Do you have a political death wish, or what?
The Dems created Trump and kept him in the public’s eyes. Dems created the professional rioters also. And when they can’t control their creations, they blame everyone else. I’m sure the small business owners are appreciative of the national guard protecting their livelihood. Just their presence is enough I believe. I’d love to see what would happen if the Marines went in. I think the knowledge they are ready to go is enough to make the rioters think twice.
One thing occurs to me: Why doesn't anyone use Ye Olde Water Cannon? That would have taken care of almost all the rioting of the last few years, including the latest. By the way, I suspect this bunch of rioters knows how to stay away from the Rooftop Koreans of 1992.
The fact that the mentioned “climate activists” never protest against China’s many imperialistic policies (emissions, censorship, forced labor, exploitation of developing countries etc) suggests to me that their priorities are more anti- western civilization than they are for reducing global emissions or improving human rights.
One major change in the last 25 years has been to see "progressives" become enemies of personal freedom.
The only green policy worth anything is government investment into green technologies that can then be used in the private sector.
If climate change is real (and there's lots of evidence it is), technology is probably the only way to either solve it, or make humans capable of surviving it. So invest in that technology and make it profitable.
However, I always give everyone, regardless of political persuasion, a warning borne out by history: humans are big procrastinators. They usually refuse to deal with something until it hits them right in the face--then they get very creative and solve problems. They're a bit like a student who doesn't apply himself until the day before finals, and then engages in a heroic cram session (and/or essay/thesis/dissertation-writing marathon) to secure a passing grade. My guess is that we will probably put off dealing with climatological issues until we are being pummeled into oblivion by unstable weather and resource shortages. We'll walk right up to the edge of apocalypse--then we'll get to work inventing a way out of our predicament.
Believe it or not, we've been there before. Malthus predicted we'd all starve to death because the world didn't have enough food. A lot of people did indeed starve to death...and then we invented technologies that made food plentiful for everyone. It's what we do.
GM and Ford face supply chain challenges in making the transition to electric vehicles. Securing critical minerals (lithium, cobalt, nickel) for batteries and building robust domestic supply chains are challenging. Geopolitical tensions with China further complicate this challenge.
Ramping up EV production, particularly for new battery technologies and dedicated EV platforms, involves manufacturing challenges, including retooling factories and training a new workforce.