Clemens benefited from being popular long before the advent of Poe's Law. If he were alive today, they'd be posting meme pictures with his face photoshopped to be 50% of its original size and making fun of the fact that he wasn't married until age 35.
Sarcasm is only recognized within in-groups. The modern world is far too large for any in-group to span even some large chunk of that.
I think some of these people mistook your comment for a suggestion, when it was a command.
Afaik most people just use them for torrents.
It's the only thing they could be useful for. While obviously commercial services are insufficient protection against state-level actors if you were Alquaeda (does anyone believe that the US intelligence agencies don't have undersea fiber taps everywhere?), it's even insufficient for the purposes of run-of-the-mill whackjobs making bomb threats. A few years ago some jackass was doing those to get out of final exams at some US university. The FBI got him within a half-hour.
How is that possible if these places "don't keep logs"?
So, even routine criminal activities can't be safely conducted via commercial VPN.
Privacy nutcases are shit out of luck too. Ever tried to access your bank account with VPN? They go absolutely apeshit if their shitty GeoIP library thinks you're trying to look at it from Romania. Same with Facebook. Google's barely usable, unless you like putting in a captcha every 10 seconds.
Still useful for torrents, but that could change. We're less than 5 years away from either legislation forcing VPNs to do the sort of tracking the copyright maximalists would love, or these commercial VPN services voluntarily doing so. Basically, by the time the hoi polloi became aware that VPNs were useful, that was already turning out to no longer be true.
Selfish
There is a world of the future, 200 years from now... my (many) descendants live there. You have none, you are only known from history (in general even, no one knows your name specifically), and only as a fool who voluntarily chose extinction. Your views are told as a cautionary tale, so that people can avoid your sort of mental illness.
The price you pay for a bigger goal.
Your goals are not mine.
I am not pro global warming as wind energy does not create co2 emissions.
Nuclear creates none either. It comprises approximately 20% of worldwide electricity production. Tossing it would mean that it'd end up getting replaced with coal or natgas.
It is a difference if you fight with nuclear weapons in your back pocket or a kitchen knife, see the difference … War is never useful, everyone should know that.
"War is never useful" is certainly useful to warmongers who would have pacifists not defend themselves. War is useful to those who have already been attacked and wish to make it stop with something more than unicorn farts and rainbow wishes.
Rapist do not need uranium based weapons, also not guns to do the crime…
Rapists' would-be victims are often smaller and weaker than the rapists. While the rapists may not need guns, their would-be victims are made just as strong as their attackers... you're condemning them to violation so you can fantasize about juvenile utopias.
Climate change will not be solved with nuclear.
Won't be solved by discarding what amounts to 20% of the global electricity budget either.
Most likely you'd not even need to do so. If renewables are so awesome, then surely they are cheaper and cheaper always wins out over more expensive, barring perverse incentives.
I think that anyone who attempts to interfere in my procreation is an enemy of mankind, and should be slaughtered and left unburied for the carrion feeders to dismember.
My own children tell me that they want lots of babies when they grow up. You're welcome to have fewer to offset that if you like.
Declare [...] nuclear illegal,
So basically you're pro-global-warming. Gotcha.
War should be declared - useless - and we should work together.
What will you do when other people declare it useful, then attack you? Will you say "but this is useless" as they mow you down?
Getting rid of all weapons in the world should be a long time goal.
The rapists of the world will certainly laud you as a hero should you succeed.
would not call potential solutions or ideas bullshit, you improve tech over time … baby steps… always baby steps
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of technology. Yes, LEDs will get brighter and smaller and use less energy... and whatever the limit to that improvement is it's pretty absurd and grounded in physics.
There is another class of problems. It is scaling. It starts when someone says "I can make an amazing widget, it's beyond incredible!". The first question you ask shouldn't be "how much does it cost". Because indeed, cost will come down with time. It shouldn't be "how efficient is it", because that too will improve.
The question is "how many can you make". Ask that. And the truth here is that they couldn't ever hope to make enough. And that jets are fast approaching or have already met the fundamental limits of physics as far as being fuel efficient.
This means that this can never be a solution. We're not going to suddenly have less interest in flying. It's fucking convenient to be able to pay some company $300, and be in a city a 2000 miles away in just 4 hours. There won't be fewer people (or, if so, not until 2100-something, when falling fertility shows everyone that we're on a path to extinction).
This can't ever be a solution.
it is like genocide people will resist even if that is more or less what would help the planet on a larger scale.
I don't know how to respond to the assertion that fighting for survival against genocide is comparable to fighting for your right to fly to Italy and have your idiot friend take the picture of you pretending to hold up the Tower of Pisa.
I do not see life or death as good nor bad.
I suspect that this is a symptom of profound mental illness. Life is, without reasonable dispute, wonderful. I acknowledge that when people are tortured and tormented that they seem to change their opinion on that, and they have my deepest sympathies. I hope to live to see effective treatment for their illness.
I do not understand those who hold this opinion minus the torture, but perhaps ennui and middle-class wankery over the "meaning of life" is its own special kind of self-torture. I blame the weird parenting fads of western culture.
the irony is that in the process maybe other plants and others got killed to create us
Then your crime's all the greater, to have been given what they were denied, and to waste it.
what they are proposing and that they considered climate related things. I trust science and scientists more
The linked article was not written by Science with a capital S. It's an abstract concept (and not even unflawed). It was not written by scientists. Generally, they are too busy to write articles for public consumption, and also generally, they are untalented at the sort of writing needed for the public to be able to understand it. Furthermore, to be good at science requires a certain sort of personality that embraces the sort of tunnel vision that makes them difficult to understand.
Thus, you are not listening to scientists here. You're not listening to someone who listened to scientists. My own bad estimate is, that for a typical article like this, there is a chain of up to 4 interpreters between you and the scientists, starting with the administrative staff of major research institutions, their public relations department, science journalists, and then editors themselves.
I do not see why billionaires should get any priority,
That's ok. They get it whether you see why or not. They already have the priority, and you can't take it from them.
there are other things that are more important like heart transplants,
If I were coldly-calculating, I'd tell you that those things aren't important at all. Why would they be? It's someone already half-dead who, even if the surgery is successful, will always be in ill health and needing to take expensive immune suppressant drugs. Sure, maybe one or another of them is a genius of the sort you can't just let die, but as often as not they're some utterly replaceable worker who doesn't warrant the sorts of expense you propose to allocate to them.
Point is you and I have no solution without crippling air travel
If the climate crisis is as big of a deal as you and the rest make it out to be (I remain skeptical), then which of us is the bigger fool here? You're saying that it's so important that everyone must give up air travel... BUT HOW DO WE DO THAT WHILE STILL GIVING THEM AIR TRAVEL?!?!?!.
It's bizarre. Sure, supposing that this is some sort of slow motion disaster, it's always possible that someone will come up with some miracle technology that solves this. In the "1-in-a-number-so-big-that-there-are-fewer-atoms-in-the-universe" sense of possible. That ain't going to happen. And the longer you wait to figure that out, the worse things get.
Every school kid knows that but this is not how you approach society problems because those methods are not practical.
Well, here's a thought. Instead of fellating press releases about sustainable aviation fuel, you could ignore them and if anyone ever asks why you (and the others you convince to ignore them) why you are doing that... you can say that it's because you can smell bullshit. You can't, but they won't know that if you fake it really well.
Giving in to the public lie, pretending you believe it too, just makes it more powerful. Make them own up and be honest, that they're ruining the planet and that they don't give a shit if they do.
If you want my end solution, that is killing every single human including myself which would be ethical correct solution for our earth but this is not how you address it.
That's ok. Most people have arrived at the same solution, they're just planning on being the exceptions to it. My ethics forbid doing such, or suggesting such, they allow me to acknowledge that I've recognized others as having thought of it.
My plans are for my descendants to still be here once all of that nonsense is sorted out, so for those of you who think that it should be "everyone without exception", you should prepare for disappointment in your final moments.
Some problems are intractable. They have no solutions. For instance, the problem you pose as "without removing airplanes".
Relax the constraint. Remove airplanes. There, problem's no longer intractable. The solution doesn't even need to be spoken aloud once you do that.
But if you say I'm cheating, I can do better. I can almost solve it without removing them. It looks something like this:
"Only the billionaires and VIP government officials (heads of state, essentially) get air travel." Because that's about how far this trick scales. Yes, you still have the problem of the shoeless peasants mucking around in the shit-covered fields while Hillary Clinton rides to her next campaign stop in a biodiesel limosine, but hey, can't have everything. You're a sacrifice she's willing to make.
I know enough to know better than to believe fluff science journalism is equivalent to science proper, or worse... to think of a press release as science. Like, wtf.
I was going to criticize your choice of units there, but after thinking about it some I decided this was probably correct and that my criticisms were in the wrong. Touche, you win again.
There's no need. They're using one of a half-dozen obscure commercial services that mapped out all the exit point IP addresses and have blocked them half a decade ago.