biasedbrain's comments

Unfortunately, [3] mentions the 97% consensus nonsense, making the rest of it less credible as well.

Still, nothing life threatening has happened so far, all the doomsday things are projections of the future.

There is a huge difference between "humans affect the climate" and "we are all going to die within a couple of years because of human's effects on the climate".

No, headlines like that is how "believers" argue. Just cut out the hyperbole and present reasonable, verifiable arguments, not appeals to authority.

And you think it is important that it should have been clicked and read? Why?

Announcing the paper with such hyperbole makes me less likely to want to read it. It just makes it very unlikely to live up to the hype.

I wonder if you have read the paper, btw?

One group of scientists, who can't imagine that their self invented model could be wrong, can't imagine any other reasons than man made changes for the results of their model simulation.

How you get from that to "removes almost all doubt" is beyond me. Such hyperbole does more damage than good.

I don't know anything about those scientists, I don't know anything about their model and their assumptions, so I am sorry, but for me it doesn't remove "almost all doubt".

There seem to be companies that embrace WFH, so if I was in that situation, I would strive to become employed at such a company.

I have nothing against work just being work, but I think there are different types of companies for a reason. If you want work to just be work, you can choose a company that treats work just as work and doesn't expect you to become one big family.

Like if you give the example of young people and old people - fair enough, then maybe young people are better of looking for jobs where they work together with other young people, and people in their 50ies are better off in jobs with other old people.

Ultimately companies are not created for the benefit of employees, but to create stuff. They try to be good to employees to be able to attract and keep talented staff.

If they learned that they have awful coworkers, they can quit again.

I just don't get the sense of entitlement many people seem to have.

Didn't they choose their jobs, and with that, their co-workers?

I'd like to see them argue "I don't want to come to the office because I don't like to be surrounded by people like you" as well. Is that a common argument?

I think people who are unhappy with their working conditions should just look for another job. It's fine to try to convince bosses that changes would be beneficial, but I don't have much sympathy for all the whining.

Still, it is mostly a cosmetic problem, while we are supposed to believe that global warming will kill us all in a short amount of time. So the priorities should be clear.

No it doesn't. The interest on the mortgage can be as low as 0.5%, so even if you pay in cash, you would only be at 1,5% yields (with my generous example of achieving 1% yields via the rent).

The "appreciation" is not a given and not risk free at all. Certainly not 9% per year - for how many years do you think that would continue?

Where can you get 9% yield on housing? Where I live, you can only buy houses at prices that are above what you can get back in rents. You are very lucky if you can get to 1% yields, which is below inflation and not technically a good investment. The only way it still makes "sense" is by speculating on rising prices for real estate. Which is not risk free at all.

He is rich because he provides you with stuff you want and are willing to pay for. Nobody forces you to buy from Amazon.

It is not your money anymore if you gave it to him in exchange for his services.

The headline says there was a swatting, though.

"then there's this overall trend of stagnating wages for everyone except owners of capital."

So people should better buy some capital!

Also the lament about stagnating wages glosses over the amount of people that have been added to the workforce. The average wage per person may have stagnated, but the sum of wages that are being paid out has increased a lot.

I think it is not a small achievement to provide jobs for so many more people.

I don't get what is so depressing from the article? Because the rich can afford it, and the poor can't? How do they imagine it should work instead?

The ideology is that differences in behavior are merely the result of oppression (via social norms) by the mythical patriarchy (which apparently isn't perpetrated by men, according to you, so who is it?). Not that behavioral differences have a biological foundation.

However, there is no point in arguing. I don't know what kind of feminist literature you encounter. Maybe you just choose to read it with pink tinted glasses, or you only see the moderate ones. You get to choose your own view of the world, of course.

"I feel safe in the assumption that it is “men unfairly push to women while they go off to have fun at work” in precisely zero of them."

But you don't actually know the reasons?

"yes, the article we’re already discussing in this thread."

Is that a feminist article? What makes it so?

"Academics consider these concerns to be the effect of deeply ingrained and highly damaging stereotypes around gender"

As expected, they don't dare to mention the real reasons (female privilege). It is not "just" societal constructs, it is the negotiation position of the wombs.