Pffffft, alarmist my hole.

The poles are a terrible gauge of measuring Climate Change, as they fluctuate wildly in growth and receding rates so that no discernable pattern can be made. One year they grow, the next they recede and then another year the largest chunk of iceshelf suddenly becomes an iceberg. This happened last year while I was fucking studying it for Glaciology.

But it's not iceshelves or SEA ICE that is the problem...immediately. You see, sea ice is exactly that, it already was sourced FROM the sea, so melting sea ice doesn't contribute to a rise in global sea levels (though a dramatic decrease in reflective white snow and ice and being convert into dark blue heat absorbing water would be a concern, though at that point you'd already have global warming, and would then be concerned with a runaway warming effect that is self sustaining).

Glacier retreats are what should be concerning. LAND ICE melting and returning to the oceans. Iceshelves can act as an anchor or simply a barricade to glaciers, or tied into their existence completely. When the Larson C shelf seceded to becoming A68, the glaciers behind on Antarctica's landmass increased speed, dumping more ice straight into the oceans to melt. It's estimated that when that ice is dumped, it will contribute to global sea levels by 10cm. What's worse, it's increasing speed. On the plus side, this urgency has lead to increased research projects on glaciers across the world, but only because it's predicted we won't have European glacier by the turn of the century.

And finally,this. It's locked behind a paywall so you can only see the abstract unless you've got some uni student login, but it summarised here quite excellently, particularly the chart of glacier about midway through the piece. Now why are glaciers our best study of climate change? Because we've been studying them since the 19th century, with personal accounts and general observations as far back as the late 1700's.

What bugs me more is the short sightedness of that forbes article. If I read it correctly, the Earth will experience a global cooling event - but only for a quarter of a century as the ocean cycle flips... great, we'll have 25 years of returning to slightly lower average temperatures, but nothing I doubt that will get us to pre-industrial levels and everything will be hunky-dory as we justify it to continue using our fossil fuels and ignore greener alternatives. It's fine to accept these short term cycles will affect the global temperature, but it's irrefutable that we have contributed to greenhouse emissions, and that they are linked to global warming.

I don't want to wait-n-see while the next cycle ticks over and then we get a double-dose of warm periods.

• Use his more money than needs to rent/buy a deposit on a house somewhere else (Solves the parents problem)

Plan on saving that mad bank he's got if it isn't immediately doable, and if he can't sustain himself alone on his wage then there's a perfect excuse to just leave that says "I leave because I have to, not because I want to" vibe. Might even be an opportunity to get  a better raise if they really want him there.

• There is no obligation to be loyal to the company (Though America's a bit fucked with the whole capitalism thing, workers rights, etc..., then there's professionalism in general, if the manager's a cunt then there's not much you could do whether he left before or now.).

If he looks for another job right now while still working currently, then he can claim when he leaves that they had better benefits/packages/whatever. Workers can be poached and it's a problem with the company, not the worker if someone else offers a better deal. That's if he really has trouble with just leaving, but it means staying there longer then trying with the first point.

He has no friends at work at all, and they gave him a raise? What does he do? It's hard to console or remedy without a bit more to go on.

It just goes to show talk does better than petrol bombs for unification.

Shame that the talk came from the British side/the DUP, but ah well.

So why is that belief still held today, if the money = power thing isn't regulated to just Jews (e.g. The Catholic Church being one of the richest institutions in the world, whoever the hell is on the Forbes richlist, religions in general not having that much of a grip on daily life or political influence...)?

I've heard about Jewish lobby groups in the US that keep the US' support for Israel, anything related to that sort of thing, etc... Now I don't know if any of that is true, but if the idea of it alone is being spread, why is it that it's just accepted and targetted, and not say... the NRA and their actual lobbying of gun laws, for example. Or any of the other groups that use their money for power today?

Just curious.

Fleeting

Or like "Life is Fleet.inc"

I always thought it would count time leaving it open in a tab.

Hell I have 4 tabs permanently open on my mobile internet while I'm doing sonething else.

You can't, you're fucked.

So find what you can do to dig yourself out of that position.

Same boat here, took a bachelor's in a saturated market coming out of an economic collapse ("graduate" positions asking for Masters or 2-5 years experience, have to be a silver-keyboarded devil to write why you wanted to work with Generic Company A since you were a child... etc...), though fortunately all I need to dig myself out is a driver's license.

If what you need is not attainable and you are truly stuck, well... don't jump is the best advice there. I doubt it's that bad considering you are intelligent. You'll figure a way out.

By your definitions, a lot.

Quote from: Doug.al on October 03, 2018, 11:10:32 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 08:29:50 AM

Quote from: Eli on October 03, 2018, 07:50:25 AM

Quote from: FatherlyNick on October 03, 2018, 07:26:32 AM

Taxes are a shit way of dealing with this. Most money will probably go directly into the pockets of waste-of-space politicians.

There should be direct contribution charges from the top 20% of earners.
They could literally pay for everyone's healthcare if they had a mandatory contribution charge of 30% of their earnings.

You mean like taxes

Taxes is just a sum of money that goes who the fuck knows where.

With a dedicated contribution charge for X service - 100% of the money will go to X service and not to the chums who are already paid enough by taxes.

Sounds nice, but then the Health Service becomes overfunded while the roadways have to scrounge for maintenance costs.

People would then choose what they *think* is priority, not what really needs funding (or in equal measures, which would make the freedom of choice irrelevant).

Even if it were limited to "€/£/$Xk earners get to choose", then the other taxes from poorer folk would get funnelled into the deficits...

So then the poor have less control over what funding goes where, and likely is going to go to the military or a nuclear deterrent, for example, something not everyone would be happy to do or have on their conscience.

What if we let the bottom 85%, decide where the Contribution of top 15% go?

Still the same problem, except now the 85% are the largely uninformed deciding where money goes with no control to the 15%

"Sorry Bill and Melinda Gates, we're substituting the money from Africa in the form of aid, to cruise missiles and hellfire drones, the will of the people and all that".

Fuck off yada yada turning me into the new Deci yada yada...

Would Brexit affect the job if you took it?

Also, would it cut into your streams, and how much do you enjoy doing those (on top of everything else you consider important in your free time)?

I don't think

I got bonuses in pragmatism and veganism funnily enough...so this test also shows I'm a hypocrite in that regard. Niiiiice.

What a shitty looking flag though, I wouldn't die on a hill for that.

It's nice to see it getting brought up, and as a campaign point in America no less. Knowing nothing else, he sounds like an alright candidate.

Kurzgesagt did videos on these topics, and while they don't directly relate, something will inevitably have to be done about the increasing amounts of unemployment that KZ suggest would make half of America's workforce redundant, and their explanation of UBi generally fits the bill. They suggest simply swapping over the administration fees of current benefit systems and using that for UBI, as there isn't as much overhead (i.e. All you need would be some form of ID and residency status, rather than taking into account your income, employment status, rent costs, disability, etc...) but obviously that would differ between countries (e.g. Finland almost works on this system already, by having tax rates at 50% for high earners).




Unfortunately, I doubt this guy is gonna get a shot at it. He directly targets hi-tech companies benefiting the most from automation, which if the Kurzgesagt video is anything to go by, will be most current mega-companies that have massive lobbying power in the US... you can already see where this is going. All the best to him for 2020.

There's also other concerns. The UK has been rolling out the Universal Credit scheme which is only supposed to combine payments into one, like a UBI would (it doesn't just give you free money though), and it has been slandered as a complete disaster which has increased suffering, suicides, and an increased use of food banks, simply because the system is automated and doesn't into account individuals needs very well if they have multiple problems that require financial support.

It has to be done correctly first time, or millions will suffer who already jump through hoops of current systems.

Is this a permanent move or a temporary one just for uni? Is it miles and miles from your parents house?

Moving out isn't always "the next stage in life". I moved out for 3 years while I went to Uni, and after moved back home because it didn't make sense to pay rent without a job to jump straight into to cover it.

Although my home was too far away to visit often, I knew I had a place at home if/when I came back for Easter, Christmas, etc... If there ever was a real problem it was just a 3-4 hour trip home. It cut me off from my friends a bit as I couldn't always come down for birthdays etc, but you're moving in with your best friend so it's sorta balanced out.

Moving out doesn't cut you off, unless you wanted to. Being "away" feels odd for a while but after about a week or two you get into the routine and have some new things to add (e.g. dropping down for dinner or calling every few days).