This reads like a French version of Burn After Reading.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ukraine has the chance to do the funniest thing ever.So Andrew Tate is doing PR for the Russian military, by getting driven around in a tank.
Well, on to the Ukrainian front then. If lucky, he might very briefly become a cosmonaut too.
Oh, and Candace Owens was also in Moscow. New orders, I guess.
Andrew Tate Is in Russia — and Almost Everyone Hates It - The Moscow Times
The arrival of British-American social media influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan in Russia has drawn criticism from figures across the country's political spectrum, from Kremlin critics to pro-government commentators and nationalist bloggers.www.themoscowtimes.com
This Bricks & Minifigs story has been absolutely ludicrous. The American Fork police and judges are corrupt to a degree that, had all of this happened in a movie, I'd have dismissed it as "stereotypical hick town" garbage turned up to 11. I think the crown jewel of the whole thing was a judge allowing the company to serve someone a subpoena by Email.
Parts of Pentagon locked down in 'hazardous materials' incident
The Pentagon was locked down in a \
www.usatoday.com
As traditional synchronous machines with rotating mass like natural gas, coal and hydropower plants, are replaced with IBRs like wind and solar projects, system inertia is reduced, “making the risk of frequency swings higher,” NREL explained. IBRs using today’s grid following inverters do not significantly address those changes, but GFM detects them and adjusts power flow to limit them, NREL added.
As reliability concerns with renewables rise, upgrading inverters is urgent, analysts say
The variable output of renewable energy resources requires “grid-forming” inverters to protect power system current flows, engineers and others agree.
What she says is perfectly inline with what engineers in the field say...
If you're saying they don't see/report all subsidies, that would also be the case for renewables. Just giving me a number for how much fossil fuel subsidies there are with any context whatsoever is a meaningless number.
Scientists self-censor all the time. And the climate scientist I mentioned that got smeared, Roger Pielke, was not being paid by fossil fuel companies at all. Funny how the IPCC cited his research but then stops when his research no longer agrees with the narrative they are trying to push. Harvard has a "heart attack" every time someone says red meat or full-fat dairy is healthy, this is the clown world we live in. Scientific consensus does not mean what you think it means.
Interview: The Threat of Self-Censorship in Science
Behavioral scientist Cory Clark argues that scientists are often afraid of offending their peers' political views.
undark.org
I love it when you post articles that do my work for me. That article outlines how the issue is overcome.As traditional synchronous machines with rotating mass like natural gas, coal and hydropower plants, are replaced with IBRs like wind and solar projects, system inertia is reduced, “making the risk of frequency swings higher,” NREL explained. IBRs using today’s grid following inverters do not significantly address those changes, but GFM detects them and adjusts power flow to limit them, NREL added.
As reliability concerns with renewables rise, upgrading inverters is urgent, analysts say
The variable output of renewable energy resources requires “grid-forming” inverters to protect power system current flows, engineers and others agree.www.utilitydive.com
Ok, then let's see what "engineers in the field" you're talking about, then. Give me an engineer in the energy sector saying that renewables are so incompatible with our power grids that we should stay away from them. Even though hundreds of countries are already successfully using them.
I already explained why and how the overlooked forms of subsidy favour fossil fuels over renewables. Go back and reread, or don't repeat points that have already been addressed.
Ah, so now we're talking about "self-censorship" rather than outside forces. In short, you speculate that scientists agree with you and are keeping silent, though you can't provide a shred of evidence.
Roger Pielke agrees that anthropogenic climate change is real and severe. He supports measures to combat it. His chief difference of opinion is that he doesn't think measures can limit the rise in less than a couple of decades, but he still supports those actions. He's miles closer to my position than yours.
Not only was OP and likely many of it's users, sociopathes when it came to defending UHC by gaslighting and obfuscation. Even if they were correct, UHC is by no means an ethical company.
www.propublica.org
UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings.
After a college student finally found a treatment that worked, the insurance giant decided it wouldn’t pay for the costly drugs. His fight to get coverage exposed the insurer’s hidden procedures for rejecting claims.
www.propublica.org
So, would that make solar boilers a "good" kind of solar by that reasoning? It's using lenses or mirrors to focus sunlight to heat a boiler that makes steam to turn a turbine, meaning it has a rotating mass involved in generating power (aka a turbine). They lack most of the rare earths that can sometimes be an argument against solar by certain types as well, since they are just a boiler->turbine pair like fossil fuels have with a bunch of mirrors focusing light on the boiler to supply the heat instead of burning fossil fuels.
Simu Liu had some choice words in response to a guy on Threads who was, to put it mildly, pushing some very dumb stereotypes about Asian women.
www.threads.com
Simu Liu (@simuliu) on Threads
dumbest fucking thing i ever read in my entire life. my mom made more money and worked harder than your ***** ass ever will. she didn’t compete with men she ran fucking circles around them. quit the internet you fucking moron
www.threads.com
Man I want another Shang Chi movie.Simu Liu had some choice words in response to a guy on Threads who was, to put it mildly, pushing some very dumb stereotypes about Asian women.
View attachment 14713
Simu Liu (@simuliu) on Threads
dumbest fucking thing i ever read in my entire life. my mom made more money and worked harder than your ***** ass ever will. she didn’t compete with men she ran fucking circles around them. quit the internet you fucking moron
OP there is upset because dem gurlz keep showing him up and he wants them to stay home and be diffident.Simu Liu had some choice words in response to a guy on Threads who was, to put it mildly, pushing some very dumb stereotypes about Asian women.
View attachment 14713
Simu Liu (@simuliu) on Threads
dumbest fucking thing i ever read in my entire life. my mom made more money and worked harder than your ***** ass ever will. she didn’t compete with men she ran fucking circles around them. quit the internet you fucking moron
The rare earths argument is a furphy. Solar panels have no rare earth elements. Wind uses magnets. Batteries uses the most.... which gets to the ridiculousness of the argument. Way more rare earth materials are used in phones, cars, TV and fridges. We use them everywhere and it wasnt a problem. Its only a problem now because being Anti-green is an identity
Side note: There looks to be a company doing sodium based batteries instead of Lithium. They figured out reduce the friction issues by changing the structure of the anode. Its still made of cardon but in a messy configuration with a small coating. It also deletes the bleeding of the carbon during colder climates
These will be good for cars and house batteries but lithium is a much smaller molecule which means it will still be used for small batteries in phones
At 1901, there were about 4, 000 cars in the US. 80% of them were electric cars. Petrol cars were almost impossible to refuel as there was no need to create what we now call petrol stations. Logisitically, it was impossible to get fuel to your house. The owners of these cars were rich so they electricity to the house so it was way easier to refuel that way
Not only that, turning on a petrol car required a crank. These were so dangerous that they regularly broke arms. There was no lead in fuel at this time so there was knocking and then whole engine block broke. Quickly.
These were a bunch of problem with petrol cars. If we took Phoenix point of view, there is no way, in 1901, for petrol cars to become viable, let alone dominate. We today can look at this today that this is stupid. We can also see that this change had very bad consequences like lead leading to high crime rate, increased climate change, complex logisticis allowing offshoring and a LOT of deaths to car accidents. That does not mean we should not have done it
And this was in response to technology you detailed that can overcome these problems... which Phoenix just did not understand
Thank you for proving my point that "rather than addressing the argument itself, you're repeatedly trying to explain why people supposedly arrived at it. You're substituting speculation about people's motives for engagement with their evidence" and then using that as a pretext to dismiss that evidence out of hand.
I laid out for you why there's a rational basis for an accusation of corruption, including the basis for which lawyers and judges alike are describing the case and 'settlement' alike as an outright fraud against the courts.
You falsely claimed that I substantively agreed with your position that the case itself was only a "legal hiccup" and the 'settlement' a non-issue entirely.
And now that I've made it clear that doesn't even remotely resemble my position, you divorced the issue entirely from the facts of the case to treat it as an abstraction, hyperfixated on a single piece piece of supporting data - out of many - that I invoked, as if it was was instead the crux of my argument (or at least strongest point) and then used that as a vehicle to dismiss the entire thing out of hand without consideration.
In actuality, I had invoked:
- litigation conduct
- adverseness concerns
- DOJ role conflict
- withdrawal timing
- post-withdrawal executive action
- amicus/judicial concern
- structure of the fund itself, including
- Expiration at the end of Trump's term, conspicuously making it only usable by his administration
- The double-speak about it being:
- A governmental fund but not subject to governmental oversight or liability
- A legal settlement but not overseen by the courts
- Nominally controlled by an independent commission...that happen to be chosen by Blanche - who has been acting more as Trump's personal lawyer than AG - and whose members Trump could dismiss at any time without cause, ultimately making Trump its final arbiter
- Nominally to address "weaponization", which this administration has pointedly used as a buzzword for any litigation they don't like, with no regard for legal merit and with a clear double standard that almost beggars belief.
- Eg. - as just one of many examples - trying to prosecute Comey for posting a picture reading "86 47" on instagram, casting it as "knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States", and insist that's the case regardless of what Comey says of his intent. But then they turn around and say that a conservative influencer (Jack Posobiec) who tweeted "86 46" during the Biden administration would never be interpreted "as anything other than as it was meant - impeachment and 25th Amendment". The double standard is brazen.
- And of course any and all prosecution against Trump or his base being spun as necessarily "political weaponization" right out the gate. Trump's accused of business fraud? Declared to be political weaponization as a matter of principle! Trump's accused of sexual assault? Political Weaponization! The people who broke into the Capitol are indicted for the act? Political weaponization! Tax audits into Trump, his business, or anyone even tangentially related to him? Political Weaponization! Criticism of Trump ignoring the legal requirement for congressional approval on projects? Political Weaponization! etc.
- Which is to say that this administration has made no secret of the fact that it's using the term as a vague buzzword without consistent criteria, making the stated purpose of the fund equally vague and subject to the same concerns of open partisanship.
- The scope of relief being well beyond both claimed damages and statutory limits.
You just went out of your way to literally ignore the reasons for suspicion, for the sake of casting aspersions on my character for holding those suspicions.
Last edited:
You really need to make a decision here, cause you're trying to do two things that contradict at the same time. I am telling you again, very explicitly, that I do not think there is substantive disagreement between us, and that the things I am arguing against don't resemble your position. What you are saying is different than Hades, or Silvanus, or Congressional Democrats.
Your two options here:
A) I am correct, and the snip from your post above is correct, that my disagreement isn't with your position at all, and we don't have to argue any further.
B) I am incorrect, and you do agree with all those people, and you want to defend against my complaints even if they aren't specifically what you personally said.
I know you haven't said the same things as them, I don't have disagreement with you here by my understanding, so either take up the mantle of their terrible arguments or be content to be told that your arguments are good and move on.
Not in that post, but in the previous post, I asked you to set aside your own position and look at somebody else's. I'm obviously not attacking your character by talking about other people's positions.
In the case of the part you snipped, the claim of how people would treat it if Democrats did the same thing down the line, that's my position being described. If I'm casting aspersions on a character there, it would be my own. Don't get me wrong, sometimes politicians do make illicit slush funds for themselves, but they don't make a big public show of that. If Democrats made a mass settlement fund for "victims of the Trump administration" and then advertised it as an accomplishment, that wouldn't be about stealing from the taxpayers to line their own pockets, that would be a political move to appeal to their base. And all the right-wingers who insisted on scrutiny would be just as justified as you, and all the right-wing talking heads claiming it's a slush fund for pedophiles would look like absolute lunatics.
Last edited:
You. Are. Not. Corrrect.
How many times do I have to say that?
I have told you repeatedly and unambiguously that your characterization of my position as "the method the settlement took justifies scrutiny, the end result infinitely less so, but now it's rescinded so there's nothing to scrutinize," DOES NOT REFLECT MY POSITION.
Especially not when you make it clear in surrounding posts that you mean "scrutiny" in the weakest possible terms, diminished to nothing more than "an interesting legal hiccup, but not terribly pertinent to the question of corruption", WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT MY POSITION.
I have told you repeatedly and unambiguously that you STRAWMANNED my position in describing it as "the issue is not [the end result], the issue is [the particular method that got there]" and that your characterization DOES NOT REFLECT MY POSITION.
I have told you repeatedly and unambiguously that when you characterized my position as ""focused specifically on the "how", but most people upset were upset at the "what"" THAT DOES NOT REFLECT MY POSITION!
But rather than even letting that sit as an agree to disagree thing, you keep on acting like you can give me the goddamn runaround and convince me that I actually hold those positions you're falsely attributing to me!
The irony here is that you've spent much of this discussion arguing that people reach conclusions about Trump because their worldview predisposes them to see corruption in him, regardless of the evidence.
But after repeatedly laying out the evidence I find persuasive, your response is still not primarily about the evidence. It's about why you think people like me must have reached the conclusion illegitimately.
At some point it becomes fair to ask whether you've constructed the same sort of worldview in reverse.
Now, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you hold a worldview in which Trump can do no wrong, but that your rhetoric reflects one in which allegations of wrongdoing are presumed to originate from anti-Trump prejudice and are therefore can be dismissed by explaining them away psychologically, and that consequentially any evidence they invoke in support of their position simply doesn't matter.
Because I've spent multiple posts discussing litigation conduct, adverseness concerns, conflicts of interest, judicial concern, withdrawal timing, executive action, and the structure of the fund itself. All of which was invoked as evidence that provided rational basis for the allegation of corruption in both the litigation and the fund itself.
Your response was pointedly not to engage with those points at all. It was to tell me that if the parties were reversed I would think differently.
That is an explanation for why you think I hold my position. It is not an explanation for why my position is wrong.
Last edited:
Phoenixmgs just throws around arguments that he hopes will get us to agree that things should stay exactly as he likes them, because this world is meant for him.
This is what Tstorm does- he assigns things that he wholly made up in his head to other people, so that he can "defeat" those things he made up and "win" arguments.
Both of these people are on my ignore list and should be on everyone else's. Neither is open to any sort of actual argument.
