We are getting very close to approval of Melanoma vaccines. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/14/health/moderna-merck-melanoma-vaccine-immunotherapy/index.html
For those not aware, Melanomas are not only one of the deadliest and most common cancers, it isn’t really very treatable with chemotherapies or radiation. And yes, Fuck cancer - we’re coming for you, bitch!
2 Billy? Those are rookie numbers. You gotta pump those up!
They look poised to destroy Magic: The Gathering as well… as an investor, I’m PISSED - all about short term gains for shit C-class execs.
OK, I’ll bite one more time:
i posted it is because it’s not a common position, but one that appears to correspond with legislation. For example, California just passed a measure to reduce subsidies for rooftop solar.
Well, we’re switching venues to Solar, but for this specific comparison, the legislation for “Net Metering 3.0” was driven by PGE and Utilities because they don’t want to compete. And saying “corresponding to legislation has it backward” - legislation should lead to outcomes that people want. This was an incredibly unpopular decision in California, especially home owners with rooftop solar. In this case, a huge marketing FUD campaign to curtail rooftop solar is the cause, so it’s a bit like saying “if enough fossil fuel folks throw money at killing offshore wind and legislation follows, then clearly the legislation was right”
the first one is whataboutism
Come on… really? I’m literally pointing out that this article headline is screaming that $20B/Year subsidy for offshore wind will crush our economy and add to our debt and that by that VERY SAME MEASURE, the subsidies for Fossil Fuels are an order of magnitude larger, but you’ve seen no outcry from the article saying those subsides impact our deficit almost 40x as much. I’m making a 1:1 comparison using the article’s own criteria. That’s not whataboutism. I didn’t go “solar and wind good, oil bad” to make my argument. I’m saying it takes a dishonest tone to imply this $20bn subsidy is a jobs killer or deficit crusher when your own backers get far far more of those same subsidy dollars!
couple things for the second: 1 - yeah, probably a fossil fuel funded source
OK, I guess we agree on something.
2 - does that mean they’re wrong? American Oil predicted climate change in the 30s. They weren’t wrong then. Who gets to choose when they’re right and when they’re wrong?
Wrong about what? If I’m sticking to the article and not going off on this other tangent, then the article is saying that offshore wind is going to soak up more subsidy dollars to get off the ground? I’ll 100% take that on good faith that they aren’t misreporting and that it will indeed cost more for these projects than originally anticipated.
American Oil predicted climate change in the 30s. They weren’t wrong then. Who gets to choose when they’re right and when they’re wrong?
Is this an argument? I never once claimed that the article was wrong about offshore wind taking more dollars. If you want to delve into who and when “someone” gets to choose what’s right and what’s wrong, 97% of scientists agree that human activity (namely Carbon) injected into the atmosphere on a massive scale in the last 150 years. That consensus was reached and has been proven out in global temp rises over the last 30 years, the last 10 of which surpassed each other in terms of “record hot”. So I guess we let scientists who know their shit decide based on the science experimentation and analysis.
covered in the the previous bullet
I disagree that your previous argument covers this.
I said the examples are based, not the article
You did at that. I never disagreed. Offshore Wind is going to be pricier than anticipated. ANYTHING done on water ends up costing more. That one item doesn’t detract from the fact that it’s a fossil fuel backed propaganda arm using one example to smear all renewables and the political agenda to get more renewables on line in face of us rapidly crossing an agreed 1.5 deg. Celcius increase that will change the face of human history.
if someone has motivation to say something, it doesn’t mean they’re wrong. it means something else.
This is a pretty self-service statement, isn’t it? I guess I’ll say thank you for sharing this article and discussing it. The article takes one mildly negative piece against one renewable resource and tries to bury the lede of it’s own industry subsidation. Are the wrong about that one negative? I didn’t say they were. I’m saying it’s FUD and propaganda by an industry deathly afraid of losing their cash cow. I’m not making this personal about you, not even for posting. I think it serves as a useful example for critical thinking and how we can all be manipulated to share the bullshit someone wants us to spread along with a small nugget of truth…
Ah yes… more of the “both side of the argument”. Let’s pick this apart and there’s absolutely nothing “lib” about my claims that this is a bullshit “article”. Let me bullet point this:
Despite spiraling deficits – almost $2 trillion in the fiscal year that ended this past October – green energy subsidies will be financed with still more government debt.
I actually think the article is FUD, but the examples they use are based.
If you think the article is FUD yourself, and this example is “based”, I implore you to look at who’s saying it and why. Fossil Fuels want to live and linger as long as they can because it makes a handful of people very wealthy at the expense of our environment. I’m not dismissing the article. I’m saying I can pick it apart with facts and I’m saying look at the comparables for how much we spend to keep Fossil Fuels alive. If we didn’t spend 7.5 Trillion in a decade on fossil fuels and instead put that into green energy or just let those die out, we wouldn’t need to subsidize Green Energy… it would win as the lower cost alternative. Renewables are winning today despite the money being thrown into oil and coal and NG!
Now, I invite you to explain exactly where my line of discussion is flawed. I have ample articles, many by our own military, GAO, and can even find begrudgingly admitted articles in right-leaning news to back it up. I’m not trying to slam you personally - in fact I hope to share just how influential stuff like this is because it’s looked at uncritically or one piece of the article resonates for a person and they take the rest as gospel.
Get the absolute fuck out of here with this Fossile Fuel FUD. I don’t even know where to start, but I suppose I will begin with the fact that this “news source” is a Fossil Fuel Dark Money site evangelizing Fossil Fuels. This isn’t some neutral source…
Do your own critical thinking Lemmings. Renewable subsides are in the 2 figure Billions and Fossil Fuel subsidies are still more than 10 times that, amounting to TRILLIONS in your tax dollars over the decade. Unlike this bullshit article, there’s ample evidence across government agencies and reliable news sources.
Solar has quickly become the cheapest energy resource, even cheaper than NG which the US cranks out like crazy. Wind is close behind. Coal is dying… even among the energy producers, they are replacing coal plants with NG because natural gas is cheaper and more profitable.
Can articles stop referring to this as disputed? It’s disputed by literally one entity, China, who has no claim to their “land grab” of most of the South China Sea when they have no historical claim or international maritime agreement to any such claim. This was already settled, so it’s just China being a big fucking baby on the International Stage. Everyone else is just trying to keep China from steam rolling them in the region and hold on to their Internationally Recognized and Historical claims to their waters.
It’s not even saber rattling at this point, but at some junction one of their overly aggressive and unprofessional mig pilots is going to fucking cause chaos when they trigger a collision.
International pearl clutching INTENSIFIES
Lack of abortion access breeds poverty. Poverty breeds the human grist for our military industrial complex mill. +Tie in to for-profit prison slave labor and inability to break the economic cycle of generational poverty and feed a cheap labor economy
Similar reasons and similar propaganda.
[edit: typo on prison]
They have a population of 30 Million men with no prospect of a Chinese wife due to the one-child policy that favored male birth. I’d say your take is pretty spot-on.
That would be a pretty bad marketing move given the overall popularity dip that WiiU brought. Stronger option? Switch DS XL…
Linux Gaming is now a truly viable force thanks to Steam (Proton). The PC Gaming market will be fine without Windows.
This is the Internet. We don’t need proof.
A legit guffaw this early in the day? Thank you for that.
The better question is can we have picture controls to rotate/drag-to-enlarge with in-line media?
The group said the costs “simply cannot be absorbed by the business model.”
They can do business, just not be as profitable if they can’t pay slave wages. The problem here is in the quote… they don’t want to change the model where the franchisee’s earn a little less and their crews can actually afford rent.
There’s a wide range of options to go against NVIDIA when using Linux:
I decided to go AMD 6+ years ago, and gaming is consistently good, I have spent a total of zero time fucking with drivers, and appreciate that AMD invests in the community vs. just profiting from it and the bang for the buck is a nice addition.
I tell everyone I know considering a gaming rig build to just go AMD - near same performance, better pricing, better drivers and company support / policies
Is Limewire still a thing?
Been on Calyx 1.5 years myself. Been a solid experience thus far and highly recommended. We have 2 phones on it here now.
Thanks for posting - I didn’t know this existed.