But those who itemized before lost big money. Now the standard deduction is almost always the best you get, not the case before….bait and switch is all that was, a shell game, not a give back.

Where’s my tax form I can fill out on a postcard in 5 minutes? Where’s the promised simplification so ordinary people don’t have to spend hundreds or thousands to get their taxes done? And when do those higher standard deductions run out, without the return of previously deductible offsets?

*crickets*

What’s he mean “young people”? I’m 50, I’ve felt that way since 1990 because I pay attention. We are addicts, addicts use until they die, they don’t quit because their health suffers.

At 3 degrees some developing countries won’t be able to feed their population!?! WTF?! That was the case before any climate changes, dummy. It’s bad now. It will be apocalyptic relatively soon…like decades, not centuries.

WILL cause trillions in damage!?….guess again, already happened. It WILL cause tens of trillions in damage per year, eventually outpacing global gdp.

What scientists are he counting when he says “most agree” we won’t see this kind of future? Certainly not climate scientists, they agree it’s happening, and none see it even slowing, much less getting better. From what I saw, they just went on strike because they’re sick of being ignored.

Leveled off, eh? Look at your own graph to see that China’s coal consumption went up by 5000 twh equivalents since 2010, and is insanely massive…it went up by more than the US used at its highest levels (in his timeline). But he calls that “leveled off”. Who is this guy? He’s insane or lying through his teeth.

Solar and wind have been better than coal economically for decades, but we haven’t switched over, have we?

Where does he get his statistics, because every time I see real numbers we’ve only slowed our increased emissions by 4%, we have not actually reduced them….like saying Obama reduced the military budget because he didn’t increase it as much as previous administrations. It’s asinine.

India isn’t building trillions in solar, they’re building fossil fuel power plants and hydro electric, also disastrous for the environment….and useless after their glaciers fail.

The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for 300-1000 years, carbon capture is a ridiculous pipe dream that completely ignores the scope of the problem. Methalhydrate is already destabilized, and it’s 25 times as potent as CO2. The total global amount of methane carbon bound up in these hydrate deposits is in the order of 1000 to 5000 gigatonnes – i.e. about 100 to 500 times more carbon than is released annually into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). It’s melting now faster every day, and will surpass human carbon emissions.

None of his “requirements” are happening. What we need is less people….like 90% less.

Progress is being made, minor progress in small amounts on tiny scales…so are increases in emissions but on massive scales and unfathomable amounts….emissions that needed to be at zero decades ago to save civilization as we know it. Climate refugees exist today in huge numbers, think how difficult 1 million Syrians were for Europe to absorb, now multiply by 2000 or more when all equatorial nations become uninhabitable. Where will we grow food with refugees covering every bit of land? Get real.

He admits that stopping warming below 1.5 degrees is impossible, and 3 degrees before 2021 likely (many say by 2050). Did he forget that 1.5 degrees warming is where we lose control and feedback loops make our emissions moot?

Do you even science, dude?

He gave me zero hope, because I know most of his pie in the sky “hope” is utterly ridiculous and runs contrary to reality and human nature. I wanted some good news, I got pablum.
Booo Kurzgesagt. Try being honest and not ignoring the facts, please. BOOOOO!

We are not hoping Putin will reverse his course, we are hoping (rich elite and military) Russians will decide they would be better offf without war and threatening to destroy the world.

Switching of SWIFT is not a total ban on transactions but is very annoying for russians.

Dependency of Europe on Russian oil and gas is a direct security danger, they do use it to extort (and bribe - see Mr. Schroeder) the west.

China gets paid mostly in dollars, it would be a pain for China to use anything else to buy oil and gas. But nothing is ever certain forever.

Russia will need dollars in any form, even if they have to be black market dolars so they will gladly take Chinese payments in dollars. Also their stock market and currency is... f***ed.

A German mark had value….until it didn’t. Your opinion of “fiat money” isn’t universal by any stretch. You say it’s universally better. I wholeheartedly disagree, and point to Germany and Venezuela as proof. They aren’t outliers either, (looking at Africa).

Gold is useful and valuable. Digital footprints aren’t. Paper notes aren’t. Printed circuits, connectors, anti oxidation, actual physical money, jewelry, etc. gold has intrinsic value, a dollar bill has about 13210 joules, so its intrinsic worth is about 1 small 1 gram stick as kindling and little more….no matter if it’s a $1 or $500 bill or a check for billions. Again, see Germany, where bills were more valuable as firewood than money.

This deflation idea again. Give me 3 examples of deflation harming/ending a nation on the gold standard please, I’ve never heard of it happening. (Edit: as far as I can find, I’m no economics professor, for the most part the gold standard was abandoned worldwide in the early 1930’s and the last remnants removed in the early 70’s by Nixon)

Explain how unsecured notes guard against speculation….don’t just claim it. I don’t see it, people made a mint short selling Venezuelan (and other failed) dollars….speculating they would crash….they did. What?

GDP is the metric that imparts value to unsecured notes offered by countries.

I think you had a mini stroke, the paragraph starting USofA is a word salad with no meaning.

Name 3. I named Germany post ww1….they didn’t get to borrow or ignore their debts. What are you talking about?

So, the only ones that don’t/can’t borrow are all the ones that need to.

Pretending basing your dollar on Bitcoin is the same as basing it on gold is outrageous idiotic bullshit. Just nonsense. Utterly moronic and pure fantasy. Don’t try moving the goalposts, that’s what you said.

Yes, the fed will take gold. They don’t take Bitcoin, do they? How about shells? Pebbles?

Jesus, you just want to argue. You’re rambling, switching positions and going off on tangents.
It’s not about whether someone might accept it, it’s about whether it’s universally accepted at one value and about holding its accepted long term value. People once gladly accepted beanie babies as payment….stupid people.
Arcata Ca printed up Arcata dollars….you could get them cheap, businesses took them. Wanna put your nest egg into them? You say that’s good money, as good as dollars. I’ll sell them to you for gold, and let’s see who’s doing better in 10 years. Or I’ll sell you pebbles for gold. Any currency you want, I’ll sell you for gold. How’s that working with pebbles or shells? Can you buy currency with them?

It has everything to do with how much it’s worth. Stop jumping subjects because your point is failing to convince. An economy based on pebbles fails because their neighbors don’t value pebbles, but if their pebbles are gold, they succeed because gold is valued universally.

What are you talking about, the gold standard’s ability to keep up? Huh?! No keep up necessary, no slow down required, gold trades exactly as fast as everything else. What is this nonsense?!?

You mean you can’t overspend and go deep into debt?! And that’s bad?! In your opinion, not many economists….and what makes you think you can’t borrow against gold? Secured loans are easier and cheaper to come by. WHAT?!?

Yes, unsecured paper money can just be printed forever, you CAN “sell the universe”. (Or sell dollars who’s overall value is based on your country’s value) over and over, then print more and sell 9/10 again, print more, sell again. Eventually that money is worth less than it costs to print, and your creditors get paid off in dollars worth a tiny fraction of what they lent you. Not if it’s backed with gold.

Miracle cure?!? Quote it. I think you misread. Secured notes being better than unsecured notes is not “miracle cure” or perfection, it’s just measurably better, safer, and more stable. No system is perfect.

For new cars, probably correct, but old combustion engines aren’t just going to dissolve away. I have two over 50 years old in my driveway. They can last a long time.
Also, India and China don’t seem very interested in skipping their turn at combustion engines (sad), so tack 50+- years on before the entire world even really wants to switch over.

I don’t deny average electric vehicles should soon outperform average normal gas engines (let’s ignore exotics as exotics). My point is switching technology across the board is a slow, painful, expensive process that won’t likely happen in 5, 10, or even 20 years IMO….and electric motors won’t ever totally replace combustion for all applications as some suggest.

Um….the horse and buggy still exists. It’s the main transport in many (often poorer) places, even some in America (Amish country).

You’re insane if you think the internal combustion engine is dead. Even if that was the worldwide goal, it would take decades upon decades to pull off and tens-hundreds of trillions in subsidies….and even then there are hundreds of applications where electric doesn’t work for hundreds of reasons.
If you believe that, why do you support expanding oil exploration and offshore drilling? Why destroy the few places left unadulterated for a horrendous energy source you claim is phasing out soon. That’s incredibly short sighted and dumb.

Besides, you might be unaware, the electric car was more accepted than combustion engines before, at the turn of the last century. We’ve seen this movement before. It didn’t turn out as you predict.

Electric is great, but it’s not a panecea, and it’s not a painless switch.

You're absolutely right, my comment should have targeted the live launch, sorry.
Still, that covers about 20 (shaky cam) seconds of the launch before they switch to an animation (!) of the launch.
Which brings me back to my original gripe: The Ariane 5 is an old vehicle which doesn't have onboard cameras. Private rocket launch companies have eclipsed it. And I think The European Space Agency is not keeping up.
As to cameras on the JWST itself, it looks like they didn't attach any for a reason: https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-no-cameras-reason
Didn't know that...

Interesting, but then they switched when the guitar and bass weren’t playing exactly the same thing, so not really impressive. Try again, and don’t pussy out with the solo.

It wasn’t so much a discovery as a realization, no one told me…I never believed in magic, the supernatural, or mythological monsters, so the first serious examination of what Santa allegedly did was enough to understand it was just a cultural fantasy. I’m embarrassed it took me so long to consider….I might have even been 6.

Eventually I forgave them, but at the time I remember telling them I was very disappointed in them for lying to me, especially over something so dumb.
They were surprised, I think they apologized, and explained they were just trying to make things fun, not trick me somehow. I reminded them of the part about coal and switches if I was bad, and Santa knowing everything. I don’t remember their response to that, but I imagine on some level they were proud I figured out it was really about behavioral control at that young age.

Nah I dont see a bait and switch. I see people thinking electricity goes down wires while the underlying real world is fields propagating through space.

It really is a difference if you have the lightbulb 1 meter away or 1 light second away. We have a tendency to think abstractly of these situations, freely giving things ideal properties that they dont have and taking away the properties we dont like to use in our petty examples.

If you had enough voltage to overcome the drop in "ideal" 1 light second long cables they sure as hell would induce enough current in parallel cables 1 m away to light a bulb :-)

All that said people do under-appreciate how fast the speed of light is, just as they under appreciate how much a billion of anything, especially money, is.

The speed of light is getting to your destination instantly from your own point of view.

This is also a trick question, and in a way that I kinda dislike because it additionally confuses matters by the setup.

Specifically, any change to the electrical field in the wire triggered by something like flipping the switch IS always limited to propagating at the speed of light, and as such WILL take 1s to travel the ~300,000km through the wire.

There's a bait and switch here though, were if the wires are close enough, and the power on the wire is high enough, there is a strong enough magnetic field in the wire to reach across the 1m distance to the end of the wire by the light bulb. That magnetic field will induce a very small electric field on the wire as well. Calling that 'lighting' the bulb though is 100% a trick question though as no existing light bulbs are sensitive enough to light up from that little current unless the 'live' side of the wire is both in very close proximity and running very high voltage.

The part I dislike, is too many people believe that electricity running in a cable is 'faster' than light, and the trick here kinda re-inforces that rather than helping to clear that up for people.

Lol. Talk about lack of self awareness.
Bob, you not only don’t ever know what the truth is on any topic…you don’t know what truth is. You’ve gone so far down the rabbit hole of lies you excuse and ignore that you’ve lost your grasp on the difference between reality and partisan propaganda….not that it was ever a firm grip. Actually congratulating the president for lying under oath, which you admitted he did, was 100% proof that truth and honesty mean nothing to you, only partisanship.
That’s why I won’t talk to you privately anymore, lest you forget. You say and act one way in private, and another in public. The thing is, private, somewhat reasonable Bob can’t be forgiven for what public dishonest agitator bob says constantly….it makes it worse knowing you have the capacity for rational thought but publicly denounce it.

Truth, and the truth, aren’t on internet troll sites that put “news” in their name…but they’re the only place you EVER look. It’s made you a ridiculous caricature of a Republican, a ridiculous delusional laughing stock….so insane you claim Clinton loving Democrat Trump who switched parties for convenience because Republicans will believe any lie you feed them (his words) is a real Republican, and all those in office pre 2016 are RINOs.

"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat", explaining: "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans." In a July 2015 interview, Trump said that he has a broad range of political positions and that "I identify with some things as a Democrat." - DJT. Another pretty bad disaster under Republicans, the worst ever. 2020 was the worst year in history on uncountable fronts all due to Trump’s lack of rational leadership.

If you put Trump’s political affiliations by year next to his presidential campaigns, you might notice he quits the Democratic Party a year or so before each one, starting in 87, then wanders back later. That’s because he knows Democrats are too intelligent to vote for him, but Republicans are just his kind of dumb rube….willing to believe anything if it’s posed as an anti liberal idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump

https://slate.com/technology/2017/11/why-conservatives-are-more-susceptible-to-believing-in-lies.html

Ruh-roe
Remember Brandon Straka? The creator of the fake #walkaway movement, who claimed to have been a democrat but became disillusioned, switched parties, and became a far far right wing liar, faking his movement using stock photos and made up people who #walkedaway with him.

He was a speaker at the “stop the steal” rally, a coordinator for the violent mob, and a leader at the “stop the steal”riot.

He’s flipping on the “let’s commit treason for Trump” crowd. Threatened with 6 months in jail, he’s turning over any and all communications he has with fellow rioters and anyone in Trump’s administration or organization. As a leader of a (fake) right wing movement, and a speaker, he would have been in communication with the Trump team if not Trump himself. There’s a reason Trump wants no one to testify, because when there’s proof he coordinated and facilitated the failed coup attempt, as we all know he did, he could end up before a firing squad.

I bet he wishes he paid his lawyers now, he needs a bunch of really top notch lawyers, and can’t find any decent lawyers that are dumb enough to work for him, they like to be paid.

D’oh!

What's wrong with using stainless steel, cast iron, etc to cook? Banning non-stick is no big deal even if I currently use it for some low heat cooking, don't mind perma switching.

Duh....install as many high power using carbon sequestering designs as there's room for. Use that surplus clean power to offset some of the enormous dirty power emissions...suddenly there won't be enough wind and water power again.
Too much clean power is only a problem for the completely unimaginative.

He touched on why I've said for 20+ years that it's already too late to stop out of control climate change or save civilization as we know it. Even if we managed to produce more clean energy than we can distribute, switching older polluting technology over to clean energy is a bigger problem than clean generation. Assume we had the ability to power every form of transportation using clean and cheap energy....it would still take decades and tens if not hundreds of trillions to replace the combustion engines alone, with the corresponding new ecological issues of creating, building, and implementing a new power usage method across the board. In order to reverse the carbon trend, we needed an excess of clean energy and the desire to use it exclusively decades ago, because the change over will take decades after the clean power generation ability exists.... decades we no longer have.


Side note, aren't they worried all those wind turbines are going to give them all cancer?