🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@darwinwoodka

I mean, if you think the republicans, or the democrats, for that matter, are actually doing something youa re welcome to thast very wrong opinion no matter what side it falls on.

@Litzz11 @georgetakei

@Litzz11

The Republicans dont do anything, and the democrats act in ways that make it worse.. both sides are guilty in that sense.

@georgetakei

@georgetakei I'm not sure I'm following... It is a tragic situation isnt it? Very tragic.

Eating my first meal for the day at 8pm, especially with how active ive been all day, has been rough...

@hasmis

Me: If you keep eating mcdonalds in 5 years you will be fat!

You: Oh in that case I will stop eating McDonalds...

<five years later>

You: Clearly eating McDonalds doesnt make me fat because you predicted 5 years ago when I was eating McDonalds I would be fat, and look im not! I can go back to eating McDonalds now!

It amazes me you cant see the idiocy in this line of thinking.. Of **course** models adapt as the conditions adapt, if they dont their not a model.

@admitsWrongIfProven

Truth

@Lunatech

@bufalo1973@xarxa.cloud

If he meant that they would be paying mroe in taxes then they make in income (the tax rate would be above 100%)

@MisterWanko @rbreich

@holybear

If I pay 100$ tax on 200$, and then make 800$ I will pay 400$ in tax... as my income increases my tax burden also increases. Assuming of course you are already in the highest tax bracket

@MisterWanko @rbreich

@hasmis No thats not what your saying.. the model is a static thing that can be proven wrong... its **prediction** is of a "rate of change" not of a value at a point of future... it claims "the rate of change will be X so long as the input is Y".

The model never changes, it always states a relationship between X and Y and that relationship doesnt change... X and Y (the real world) does change, and thus the prediction for the future does.

Do you not fathom how idiotic what your arguing sounds like to anyone with any degree of common sense here.

"The model predicts if we keep pumping CO2 levels at the rate we are temperature will raise by 5 degrees! .. (5 years later after reducing emissions by 20%)... See the model was wrong! Temperature didnt increase by 5 degrees"... that sounds like a level of idiocy I cant even argue with, OBVIOUSLY the temperature isnt what the model said 5 years ago, we reduced emissions and prevent the outcome it warned against! But guess what, if you plug in what the temperature should be into that same model with a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions all of a sudden the model is right, AS EXPECTED... to use that as an argument that model is wrong is just so idiotic I have to think it is intentional.

@Lunatech

Omit age, improve tests, monitor future and historic demonstration of capabilities.

Age is the leqast fair of all since it discreminates explicitly against age. Tests may be bias but atleast it is incidental and possible to improve it.

@Hyolobrika@berserker.town

As long as it is cold enough out that you have to run a heater you have 0 enviromental impact, 0 additional electricity cost, and income rather than expense from running a cryptominer.

Its really the only scenario where you can argue cryptomining has no negative enviromental impact.

Of course this doesnt count the impact of manufacturing the GPUs though.

@lore

@eris

By that logic doing anything that makes you money is a scam :)

@lore

@eris

How ya figure? The user doesnt invest anything, they get a free space heater and get paid money. How can that be a scam?

@lore

@MisterWanko

Umm thats exactly how taxes work already...

@rbreich

@lore Actually this rabbit hole goes much deeper than people think.

A cryptocurrency miner is almost exactly as efficient at heating a room as a space heater, except it pays you when it does. So if we replaced all space heaters with cryptominers then you would get payed to heat your home rather than paying to heat your home.

In fact there was a company that did exactly this, they sold space heaters that were cryptominers. I wish I could remember the name.

@hasmis See this is why you should be asking scientists and not just making assumptions. Everything you just said is wrong.

Models make predictions, the prediction of a model changes day by day as the inputs to the model changes. Lets makeup some arbitrary placeholder numbers to show what I mean..

Say some model claims Y = X*2. then Y will only be a straight line when X doesnt change.

Models about weather claim things like "If we keep pumping CO2 at the current rate into our atmosphere then the temperature will rise by X degrees a year"... that is a prediction the model makes at the **current** state of things... **obviously** if people actually make an effort to improve our CO2 emissions then temperature will rise by **less** than the model predicted back when we were producing more CO2.

So any model will change year by year based on how people change year by year.. as we improve our emissions the model will predict less, as we do worse it will predict more.

Again if you are showing a straight red line you are **not** showing a model, you are showing a fixed prediction of a model at a fixed point in time, the model itself is only claiming that prediction to be true if we do not change our behavior, which we do, and therefore you are blatantly wrong in your interpritation,.

@jaysonmassey Subtlety never won an election :)

@hasmis The redline is clearly **not** a model, it wouldnt be a straight line. Models are by definition adaptive, they define how temperature would change as the response of the public changes.. if its a straight line it is very clearly not a model you are showing.

@hasmis https://qoto.org/@freemo/106825140617586262

@hasmis Uhh no.. th3e models predict a number, anyone can check how close the real number is to what the model claims.. its hardly exclusive to scientists.