SecondJon @SecondJon@social.cleverlibre.org

Hmmm.

Beverage company will pay you $100,000 to ditch your smartphone for a year | FOX31 Denver

https://kdvr.com/2018/12/12/vitaminwater-will-pay-you-100000-to-ditch-your-smartphone-for-a-year/

U.S. internet speeds rose nearly 40 percent this year - Recode

https://www.recode.net/platform/amp/2018/12/12/18134899/internet-broafband-faster-ookla

@zerohedge
“They thought we could read their mind. This caused some discomfort and resistance in the beginning,” she said.
They probably had this strange idea that they could read their minds because they were literally reading their minds.

@stsmith Haven't seen anything about this in nearly a year since that article was written. Curious what he's up to, if this is a dead issue.

@Saederup92 Sometimes I think by our late fees and paying for lost books we solely fund our local branch. 😂

@Saederup92
Not the way my family uses the library.

@trianglman I agree 100% on facts mattering - that was my initial objection. NPR listed some facts (emissions in China) but not what seemed like the most relevant ones (emissions in the US).

I believe in clarity over agreement, and am not a zealot on either the pro-Trump or anti-Trump side of things. I'm just looking for clarity and truth.

I'm trying to understand your position on this, so please correct me if I'm misreading:
- Obama policies were proven good when US emissions went down (5 years), that's proof his policies worked.
- When US emissions went up (3 years) under Obama, that's not on him, that was caused by economic factors beyond his control.
- With US emissions continuing to go down in 2017, that's Trump being proven bad, because it's not as fast as a drop as under the previous 2 calendar years under Obama.

For clarity on my position: I don't believe that a president is solely responsible for for carbon emissions. (Or most things, for that matter.)

There must be a huge number of factors involved. I don't think Trump gets sole (if any) credit for the drop in emissions his first year. I don't think that Obama gets sole (if any) blame for the 3 years that emissions went up during his presidency.

I suspect that US industry and local policies are at least somewhat responsible for the continued drop. The facts are that Obam's final term saw emissions go up two years in a row, which put emissions up higher than Obama's first year; then it dropped down two years in a row. When it went down it dropped by 2.7%, then slowed to a 1.6% drop. Under Trump's first year continued the trend to a 0.92% drop. There's been ups and downs under Obama, I suspect there will be ups and downs under Trump.

" #notmydoctor " - the year 2019

“I’ll be home for Christmas” will always have a special meaning for Sussie Bea Patrick. And no doubt chocolate bars will always be her favorite candy.

https://www.lifenews.com/2018/12/07/miracle-baby-born-at-22-weeks-and-weighing-just-one-pound-goes-home-for-christmas/

@trianglman I gotcha - so emissions under Trumps first year are lower than any year under Obama, during whose time emissions actually increased 3 years interspersed with 5 years of drops.

But whether emissions go up as they did 3 years under under Obama, or down like they are now, either way confirms an anti-Trump stance, because emissions could hypothetically have been even lower. Under Obama when they went up, we'll assume that they'd have gone up even higher under Trump, so the spikes under Obama are good while the drops under Trump are bad.

The only way for the anti-Trump perspective (which isn't a bias) to be proven wrong is an impossible number of 0 emissions, so the perspective is impenetrable.

For clarity/reference, these are the numbers I'm looking at - I'm not expert on these numbers or the source. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

I'm not arguing pro Trump, I'm pushing back on what feels like bad/biased reasoning pushed by a particular media source. I push back on my pro Trump connections the same way. Sometimes I'm able to get clarity on something I'm misunderstanding in the other's views, often it just confirms my initial suspicion that there's room for better reasoning.

Are you familiar with Thinking Fast and Slow? I've been thinking about the availability heuristic and halo effect as I've observed and engaged in discussions around media and politics.

So glad @NPR is highlighting the relationships between state and media. Since there's no media bias, looking forward to them highlighting non-fox connections to political and bureaucratic people too.

I'll wait.