mindhog @mindhog@liberdon.com

This!

https://reason.com/2020/02/08/instead-of-removing-trump-from-power-remove-power-from-the-presidency/

@ChristianAnarchist I haven't checked your numbers, but jumping straight to the conclusion:
You arrive at an increase of roughly 0.0008 total atmospheric mass. Current CO2 composition is only about 400ppm, or 0.0004 of atmosphere by volume. Given that most of the atmosphere is nitrogen, and CO2 is 3.14 times the mass of Nitrogen, I expect you'd be looking at an increase of 0.00025 by volume, or over 50%.

@patrissimo So, I would. But I think this is generally a good question. I find it frustrating that Mastodon conflates "identity federation" with "topics."

To frame Trump's impeachment proceedings in terms of whether he is guilty or innocent of some offense is to miss the point.
The impeachment is a political matter, not a criminal one. The House impeached him for political reasons and the Senate will almost certainly acquit him for political reasons.

Classic case of "unintended consequences:" plastic recycling.
This was forced upon us by environmentalists, even before the infrastructure was in place, under the assumption that it was viable.
But apparently it was not very profitable in the US so we shipped most of the plastic off to China where a lot of it got dumped into the ocean or burned into the atmosphere.
Turns out we'd be better off putting it into landfills:
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/07/15/why_its_probably_better_for_the_planet_to_throw_plastic_in_the_trash.html

@rimugu I haven't personally experienced this, but I wouldn't be surprised. I have a m.s account, but avoid discussing politics there. There's just no point in it :-)

@gunkslinger @Neel2000 She just had to bring up Aleppo.

@gmcgath From the article: "Unexpectedly, Trump chose that option, the official said, adding that the president’s decision was spurred on in part by Iran hawks among his advisors."
All I've heard Paul say regarding Trump's decision was that he "got bad advice," which would be consistent with the statement above. Has he weighed in more strongly than that?

Debate on Capitalism vs Socialism: https://youtu.be/szW61MGb-mI?t=34m30s

Econtalk on Free Market Healthcare:
https://www.econtalk.org/keith-smith-on-free-market-health-care/

What I find interesting is that so many of the people who favor drastic, intentional intervention in the sphere of one of these complex systems (economics) are terrified by the prospect of even unintentional effects of human activity in the others.

The sciences of economics, ecology and climatology have a lot in common. These are studies of complex systems where it is difficult (if not impossible) to perform controlled experiments. They also all have a very problematic political component. Differing political factions are heavily invested in particular hypotheses that are not clearly provable.

@gmcgath She's a poster child. Elevated by alarmists and scorned by detractors.

Among other things, this would decriminalize and deschedule cannabis.

The US House Judiciary Committee just approved the "Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act"

@phicyclist Do you mean in its current form? How so? (SegWit was activated 2 years ago, SegWit2x was the more aggressive proposal that failed)

@incognitum I'm quite content with Marx's definition which appears to be "private ownership of the means of production." I think that, like Marx and his contemporaries, many modern proponents of Socialism conflate the term with cronyism and oppression of the poor and working class.