The US also depends on several bases in Europe and other countries. If the decision is made to close them, they're going to have a harder time projecting all that power. I may not be a military expert, but i'm guessing that would also influence operations in the Houthis region.
Under the impression that a lot of climate scientists are quick to disregard the effect variations in solar activity has on climate. To be clear, I'm not denying the effects of CO2, but it still seems possible that the role of CO2 has been exaggerated to some extent. The rise in global temperatures in the past century has coincided with increases in both CO2 and solar activity. And it's probably not a coincidence that last time we had a long period with a quiet sun (the Maunder minimum) was also a very cold period here on earth.
Not sure why people think scientists would miss obvious things. If a non-specialist can think of a probable objection, chances are the specialist in that field has already study that objection in their intro classes.
Plus: unlike most other measures, we have 400 years of actual observation of the sun's activity. It takes some effort to translate the many ways it's been recorded, and it's not perfect, but the data is there. Climate scientists know the sun had an extended period of low activity through the late 1600s and early 1700s and can form hypotheses.
If we go through another, it's not a big shocker. It's an opportunity to test those hypotheses and develop a better understanding of the impact of solar cycles on the planet's climate. If they're wrong, it's not some grand indictment of climate science. It's just...science. But if they're right and we don't take measures to prevent the worst heating, then we might not get another chance until we recover from the floods and resource wars and the loss of knowledge.
Well, 'just science' is easy to say when you're not suffering the direct impact of climate politics. Looks more and more to me like they're trying to hold back the economic development of many of the poorer countries in the world. The models they base this on at least better be correct.
“Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders.”
The risk if you're wrong: conflicts over shrinking arable land, resources, and climate refugees fleeing disasters could escalate into a world-ending war. Or regional wars that completely erase all that economic development.
The risk if climate scientists are wrong: we make a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable world for nothing.
The risk if climate science is wrong: In the west, we only make a bunch of imaginary problems for ourselves that waste the time and money of the average citizen on a daily basis. But in the global south, billions of people are forced to live in perpetual and worsening poverty with no chance of economic improvement.
If climate science was right and we still allowed carbon to burn, yes the world would heat but if we used our minds I'm sure we could solve a lot of the challenges as they appear.
The solar irradiance varies by less than two parts in thousand throughout the cycles, see [1], it goes up and down by about 0.5 W/m2 around it's mean value.
On the other hand, if we hit 500 ppm CO2, that'll contribute about 3.7 W/m2. The Wikipedia page on Radiative Forcing has quantitative data, including the effect of the solar cycle...
It’s fundamentally a Unixism, like the tilde and some other characters used in C family languages that don’t exist on many European keyboards.
If you look back 30-50 years, most of the popular programming languages like Pascal and BASIC used a very limited character set. Instead of symbols like various brackets and tilde and backtick, they used keywords. This was intentional because they were designed to be possible to type on various Latin keyboards.
But Unix and C were developed by American hackers who had no reason not to use all the ASCII characters available on the Teletype-whatever connected to the PDP-whatever. And that’s the path we ended up on.
In the 1980s the C standard committee tried to address this problem by adding support for trigraphs. There’s a whole set of three-character symbols (identified by a prefix of two question marks) that can be used in C code in place of curly brackets and all the rest of the exotic ASCII set. But I’ve never seen anyone use this, and I think trigraphs are scheduled for removal in C.
It's the closest thing to a quote without being a quote. Enabling interpolation for old syntax would break old websites that display strings that aren't intended to be interpolated.
If you're curious enough, I'm sure you can find the TC39 proposal.
Isn't it on the right side of question mark? On my nordic keyboard it is and you just need to press shift and backtick key. I don't see how it's too difficult.
Yes. But to me it feels far away compared to the quotes. And depending on the editor, it may end up above a letter if you forget to press space. For example "à". It can be a bit annoying.
Try the Neo layout, optimized for writing german, english and programing. It places the most used letters and symbols under your strongest fingers. Absolutely worth the effort, QWERTX is a pain in comparison.
Backticks are used for certain letters in several European languages. à, ì, ù, ò. Depending on the editor, it's kinda annoying. Normal quotes or double quotes usually don't do that. Also, the key is right beside the backspace key, which feels kinda far away for my hands (which of course also depends on the keyboard).
I grew up in a city that was once an important part of the salt trade routes to Bohemia. These routes were called "Goldener Steig" (golden path), and salt was considered "white gold". Entire wars were fought for salt. And now it's so abundant, that we're sitting on mountains of it, not knowing what to do with it. Thinking about that feels kinda unreal.
Did you guys actually read that article, or only the pretty colorful boxes? Because the text right before that fancy box explains why that phrase came into existence.
> dealing with misogynistic comments and just overall disappointing behavior from quite a few less than stellar men was a regular occurrence at work for me and my female coworkers.
Subjective judgements on behavior, from someone who complains that there are too many white scientists.
Pardon me if I take their judgement with a grain of salt.
The entire article is incredibly poorly written, to boot. I was expecting to see a credit card advertisement any second. “Use my referral code and you too can fly to Antarctica for free!”. Actually - the majority of points/credit card referral sites have higher quality writing.
I mean, let's view this charitably. It makes total sense for a woman, who feels like she received misogynistic comments from men at her workplace, to have a poor opinion of the men there. I also don't know if it's really good faith to dismiss a woman saying something was misogynistic as subjective. Of course being a bigot is kind of subjective-- the bigot just thinks their prejudice is normal/true. I wouldn't trust any of the male scientists to say "no of course misogynistic comments didn't happen"; they're guys and, speaking as a guy, it's a blindspot for most men when they make women uncomfortable.
I also charitably don't think there's anything wrong with being suspicious of a very obvious lacking in racial diversity. Globally, white people are a minority of people, and they're likely not the overwhelming majority of all scientists even. So it would obviously be a statistical anomaly if only white people were on a specific research trip. [edited to add: a commenter below clairified this particular station is operated by the US, which is majority white, and scientists even moreso. I was assuming stations are operated with international cooperation :) ]
> Globally, white people are a minority of people, and they're likely not the overwhelming majority of all scientists even. So it would obviously be a statistical anomaly if only white people were on a specific research trip.
This was a trip to McMurdo Station, which is operated by the US, which is majority white as of the 2020 census (58.9% "white alone, not Hispanic or Latino"). In 1956, when McMurdo was established, the US was nearly 90% white. If anything, it would be a statistical anomaly if there were too few white people, considering that the science community is whiter than the country as a whole.
The GP's point stands, still: though the OP's article doesn't explicitly say that the lack of racial diversity in McMurdo is a problem, it's implied. Why is it a problem? I don't think anyone at McMurdo is complaining about minorities coming in.
Not only that, but racism/sexism is too good to let go. People will always find another casus belli. White people still have most of the world's wealth, so, even when whites are the minority, they still deserve to be subalterned. And hey, they did that to other races for most of history, so it's all fair!
The only winning move is not to play these shitty games.
Oh okay, I thought this was a station that was hiring internationally or something like that. I guess I'd be curious then if the station was significantly whiter than the science population of the US. Again, this is trying to observe this in a good faith as a reasonable thing to say/do. I'm assuming this is a reasonably competent person, and I can definitely see in modern day it might be something worth commenting as noticeable to be in the company of almost exclusively white people.
One of the greatest fallacies of the modern identitarian movement is that every subsection of society, no matter how you slice and dice it, must reflect the composition of the society as a whole. There's no reason why this should be the case, because different cultural subgroups value and prefer different things.
"Too many white scientists" carries exactly the same amount of meaning as "too many black NFL players" (over half are black, compared to 13.6% of the population) or "too many male roofers" (95% are male) or "too many female special ed teachers" (84.2% are female); that is to say, it carries no meaning at all.
Once you free yourself from the plausible-sounding but false idea that the composition of subgroups must necessarily reflect the composition of the whole, a lot of today's racial divides and those who fan those flames are evident for what they are: those with agendas that benefit from pitting people against one another.
> I'm now convinced you have a mental disability. Are you high or retarded
We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. You can't post like this here, regardless of how wrong someone or how right you are, or you feel they are, or you feel you are.
> Why exactly should the expectation of justification go one way but not the other?
The existing conditions in Antarctica.
The idea that sexism is an absolute abhorrent behavior (with a focus on either or both genders) is not something to promote, despite the fervor in recent years. The sexes have a different representation in the arctic and pointing them out is akin to pointing out that a lot of left handers apply to NASA. I wouldn't call something garbage because I'm offended someone held up a patch that says "Only left handers are in their right mind".
Getting upset at this writer/article/situation is not constructive. Nor is the condemnation a fair editorial critique, imo.
Language is contextual. A woman who has seen repeated instances of male misbehavior is within her rights to record her feelings about it — “the men here are mediocre” in this context is clearly not talking about all men but her feelings about the shitty men she encountered, and also pointing at a pattern of what happens when there are a large number of white males vs more diverse settings (this isn’t unique to Antarctica — Google has this problem). Mistreatment of women in such settings is well documented.
It’s like if you say “my job sucks” — not all parts of your job may actually suck, just the parts you hate. Or “the government is corrupt” most folks would infer that you are talking about a specific subelement.
If we lived in a society where women routinely mistreated men then flipping the statement wouldn’t be offensive. What makes it offensive flipped is mostly that generalizations about women typically encode harmful falsehoods that come from generations of patriarchy. You could not flip her statements in good faith because women do not treat men the way she described anyway.
As a progressive I hate that it isn’t simple as much as everyone else. But to fight for equality is to understand that the origins of the fight come from unwanted asymmetry and of course that’s going to be reflected in discourse.
