Agree Democrats are largely ineffective and incompetent.
But countering propaganda is way harder than spreading propaganda.
It's easier to spread all over right-wing media that Democrats are working tirelessly to protect an MS13 gang member than to protect due process and the rule of law for all Americans while defending a man that most likely has no ties to MS13 or crime in general and was wrongly deported.
It's like the Fox news defamation case loss against Dominion. They spread those lies (while knowing they were lies) for weeks and millions of Americans believed them. Those same Americans have no idea they paid close to a $1 billion settlement for those lies.
Propaganda fits nicely in 3 sentence memes that are designed to invoke fear and emotion but is hard to counter without long and sometimes complex explanations that involve nuance.
How many conservative still believe there are public elementary classrooms that have litter boxes for kids to identify as cats?
Americans still think other countries pay for Trump's tariffs. Why? Because it's easy for Trump to tweet lies 40 times per day about how good tariffs are and it's finely time for these countries "to pay their fair share". How easy is it to counter with a rational and thoughtful economic discussion of why the tariffs will fail to achieve any stated goal?
I don't know much about coups actually work, but a general does not make an army.
A general that wants to stage a coup seems like they must still require the support of the troops.
Speaking anecdotally, every unit I've been in not a single man would follow the questionably illegal orders of any general unless they had full respect and confidence in that general, and typically the troops only have full respect and confidence in a subset of their immediate leaders (which are not typically generals). I guarantee a LARGE percentage of troops would treat the highest ranking general as an enemy combatant if their direct (low ranking) leaders who they respected convinced them that the general's orders were illegal or against their oaths. Soldiers don't die for generals, they die for each other, and "each other" is usually enlisted or low-ish ranking officers (maybe captain and below in the US). A professional and disciplined soldier will charge a hill risking certain death on the orders of a general, but a professional and disciplined soldier will not stage a coup on the orders of a general alone.
I agree that soldiers don't stage a coup on the orders of a general alone.
You need a general with likeminded officers, and a convincing excuse for the rank and file to go along with their officer's orders.
Something like "the election was stolen, the winners weren't legitimately elected, we've got to defend our country". It doesn't need to survive detailed scrutiny, a few hours is long enough for the major scrutineers to accidentally fall out of windows.
There is absolutely no possible way that you (or any other person) would notice a 4 inch GLOBAL AVERAGE rise in sea level over the last few decades. I don't care if you literally spent 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, 365 days per year on your belly at the high tide mark.
The data is the data and you need a lot more than "living on the beach" to refute it.
And yes, the sea level is different in different parts of the Earth. Why? Because forces are different in different parts of the Earth. Current (which impart forces) alone is enough to make a difference in sea level in two different parts of the Earth.
And yes, land changing elevation is colloquially part of sea level rise.
The problem with using your brain is it doesn't make you an expert in things, or able to refute expertise without actual knowledge. And simple observations do not amount to much knowledge on anything but the most simple subject.
Absolutely no way huh? There are literally corals (East Florida rock reef) that are barely covered in water at high tide, and these same corals were the same amount covered in 1988. I would notice. I would also notice my best friend's seawall become inundated every high tide now. I know these things are uncomfortable to hear, because a panel of dubiously grant-funded "scientists, who otherwise do nothing but produce irreproducible white papers, said differently.
4 inches is no joke for a small Florida beach town. It's not like California, where you have 80 foot cliffs and wide beaches. My favorite childhood beach spots would have been halved. Instead, they're exactly the same. 4 inches would have ruined much of our town's waterfront property.
Go look up pictures from Liberty Island, 1918. The water level is at the same brick as it is at high tide today.
"The most obvious problem with the pics is that unless they were taken at the exact same point in a tidal cycle they say nothing about average sea level rise,". Raymo said that the old photo could have been taken near high tide and the recent photo could have been taken near low tide. We just don’t know.
All one needs to do, in order to prove the theory correct, is to take a new photo at a high springtide[1]. If it's no higher than the old photo, then the theory is correct. If it is higher, then we don't know (because the old photo could have been taken at a lower tide).
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. Without any disrespect intended, anybody, who thinks the ocean is meaningfully rising because of human activity, I'd rather not have living in my town; they're likely to vote to raise my taxes because the TV told them that if they give money to the government the weather will be gooder.
> Without any disrespect intended, anybody, who thinks the ocean is meaningfully rising because of human activity, I'd rather not have living in my town;
Without any disrespect, perhaps you would think differently if you'd had a career in exploration geophysics for mineral resources and energy spanning a few decades as I have had.
I started out with continent wide surveying to peg old pre-GPS maps to WGS84 and have worked on mapping the global magnetic field, the geoid (mean 1G gravity surface), continent wide tidal models and radiometric references, etc.
It's clear enough that human activity is causing more heat energy to be trapped in the lower atmosphere and upper sea levels, the artic and antartic are slowly shrinking back .. and none of this is as yet readily perpectabe to the casual human eye - good instrumentation and records tell a different story, as was peer linked in a comment here.
I have little interest in convincing you, this is just a factual statement of my experience and yourself and your town can continue to believe whatever you collectively choose - it has zero impact on what is actually happening and what the next generations will have to deal with as a result of a century of excessive fossil fuel consumption.
A new generation has come up since Al Gore's fictional movie from 2006, presumably starting production in 2005. I have seen zero evidence of the predicted calamitous events that would distiguish this day from those in 2005. however I have seen the evidence of widespread problems in children who are having nighmares of a future "planetary emergency" which never seems to arrive. If children with emotional problems are the preferred social outcome of this political science, then the science is a success
Surely you would suspect any photo of being photoshopped?
Satellites take millions of "photos" around the world every day, and combined with local measurements, we have a pretty accurate record of how the sea level around Manhattan has changed over the last century: https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=8518750&c_date=1900/1...
Given how vehemently wrong you are I can only imagine you don't understand what's being communicated and don't want to learn what's being communicated.
Are you saying that locations of the hurricanes have not changed, it's merely that there are now people/structures there so it's now noticeable? Or that humans are altering storm paths based on structural changes to the environment?
Mostly the former. with more developed coastline and more people living there, more damage is going to happen. Could storms be altered by human activity? Sure, but it's very difficult to reconcile how much is human action vs a hurricane making landfall in an area that wasn't urban 50 years ago.
Just making the observation that there are more humans and a larger built environment. When there is a natural disaster, there's likely to be more human impacts now than 50 years ago, regardless of the location or cause.
I feel like there is no good way to market the fact that some school districts are banning the dictionary to comply with all the "word" and "thought" ban laws.
Like how do you spin that so it's a good thing that some teachers can't even have books in their classrooms to avoid running afoul of the law?
How do you spin book bans as a good thing in any circumstance?
How do you spin the laws that remove parents rights to make medical decisions for their children when the medical decisions conform with the current state of the art and evidence based treatments?
Other than that, I think most people just treat Florida as a meme thanks to the Florida man stereotype.
Isn't that a different problem entirely?
The original is that the host reveals a door without the prize.
Aren't you modeling an entirely different problem as opposed to modeling the same problem with a different model, since the problem states the parameters and you are changing those?
> Aren't you modeling an entirely different problem...
Not really, but read on:
You correctly state that in the Monty Hall problem, the host reveals a door without the prize. That's the same situation which I described in my previous comment.
Try thinking about it this way: Say you are the contestant on that show. You have never played the game before, and you will never play it again. So you don't know how the host behaves. You pick your door, he reveals another door, there is no prize behind it. You would have to ask yourself: did he deliberately open that door because it had no prize? Or did he just happen to open a door that had no prize?
Your best estimation of your odds of winning changes completely depending on how you model the behavior of the host.
However, with any type of host, the situation whereby "contestant opens door with no prize, host reveals another door with no prize" can still occur, and regardless of whether you deem that the 'original' Monty Hall problem or not, it is the most interesting way to define the Monty Hall problem. Call it the extended Monty Hall problem if you want: the situation described above has occurred, and you have to both define a model for the behavior of the host (and game) and calculate your odds under that model.
Here's a challenge for you: Can you find a model under which the contestant has 100% chance of winning by not switching to the unopened door?
It's typically considered an anti-American, anti-freedom ideology in the US to require people to carry any sort of documents, including ID.
Of course, this idea is slowly being eroded by authoritarian ideas and if you are not white (in the southwest US at least) you better have an ID unless you want to risk being unlawfully detained/arrested by border guards or police. This has been a big deal in some states for quite a while now.
But it used to be that in the US, having to show authorities an ID was a horror straight out of the USSR or East Germany.
That's because the center doesn't work for many things.
If you support individual patients making their own healthcare decisions with their doctors, how do you find the center with someone who wants to take that right away for reasons that have zero effect on them?
If you support a consenting adults right to love and marry whichever consenting adult they want, how do you find the center with someone who wants to tell people which consenting adults they can and can't marry?
If you think people should not be denied jobs or housing based solely on what's in the their pants, how do you find the center with people who think it's okay to deny people jobs and housing based on what's in their pants?
How do you find the center with the Nazi party?
The center is meaningless for most issues that actually matter.
On par? I mean, alcohol will literally kill you if you drink too much or have prolonged exposure. Alcohol makes you sick and fat.
If anything, alcohol is far worse than cannibas. Time will tell what effects it has on the wider population, but keep in mind cannibas use has been pretty wide spread for centuries and has been legal in many places in the US for over a decade.
Have you ever served? In combat? I have, USMC infantry. I want a professional fighting force with smart of professional fighters and support. Yes, you need mental toughness. But if you are so mentally weak that you can't handle a course on sexual harassment then you are not mentally tough. You need a "non-woke" safe-space.
What you describe is what Russia wants and needs. Look how well that is working out for them.
The military gets stronger by having a disciplined, smart fighting force. Not some frat-house where being "manly" is the only requirement.
But countering propaganda is way harder than spreading propaganda. It's easier to spread all over right-wing media that Democrats are working tirelessly to protect an MS13 gang member than to protect due process and the rule of law for all Americans while defending a man that most likely has no ties to MS13 or crime in general and was wrongly deported.
It's like the Fox news defamation case loss against Dominion. They spread those lies (while knowing they were lies) for weeks and millions of Americans believed them. Those same Americans have no idea they paid close to a $1 billion settlement for those lies.
Propaganda fits nicely in 3 sentence memes that are designed to invoke fear and emotion but is hard to counter without long and sometimes complex explanations that involve nuance.
How many conservative still believe there are public elementary classrooms that have litter boxes for kids to identify as cats?
Americans still think other countries pay for Trump's tariffs. Why? Because it's easy for Trump to tweet lies 40 times per day about how good tariffs are and it's finely time for these countries "to pay their fair share". How easy is it to counter with a rational and thoughtful economic discussion of why the tariffs will fail to achieve any stated goal?