olofscience

Relatively? No...I think I'm just one of those people who seem to remember quite a lot compared to the average person. Many people call it photographic memory - but the more accurate term is actually eidetic memory. It's just how I've always been, and it's a separate, but also interesting discussion

And since the site is shutting down, I think we need to compile a list of this band's greatest hits! Some good ones that I can remember: trying to lecture a semiconductor engineer from Qualcomm about the Shockley–Queisser limit (which he really knew nothing about) linking an academic paper and proclaiming its contents as "facts and observations, not models!" when it was not, and the word "model" was in the paper title predicting Tesla to go bankrupt by 2025 predicting 2023 "won't even hit the top five" warmest years not knowing what a temperature anomaly was (despite posting graphs of it for years) starting his "hurricane season" thread earlier and earlier in the year He's spent thousands of hours trying to say that "it's not warming up at all", cited hundreds of links, made thousands of posts, and it was all for naught. He's now just started a new song: "yes it warmed up but NOTHING is happening" (with his arbitrary, movable goalpost of "nothing" where he's the judge and jury), but the site shutdown will cut that short while he screams into the void... As for me, I'd rather listen to Nickelback.

I wonder who Brent is talking to? ..."Old man yells at cloud" edit to add: yes, I definitely believe that you can go on all day Whether anyone's there to listen, or not

He's too angry to notice, even in the other threads. The impeding shutdown of this site must have hit him hard. He spent years and thousands of posts here saying that "global warming isn't happening" and when he turned out to be completely wrong, he now has to move the goalposts to "yeah it's warmed up but NOTHING is happening!" and without the forums, how can he continue to attempt to get the validation that he so desperately needs?

It's hopeless. He's not actually engaging with you, he's arguing with M. Mann, CSU, and imaginary lefties. That's why he has to declare he's winning all the time (and how could he lose, it's all in his head right?)

Did you miss the part where I said...oh never mind Predictably this is how Brent ends his time in SC, and probably in general - shouting against imaginary opponents

For the umpteenth time, YES that would be a good thing. If - and a big if - it's true. (But given the record of your ability to analyse data or...read, you're the last person I'd go to for that information) Tthe fact that you have to keep setting up strawmen makes it almost seem like the person you're trying to convince is yourself.

He was trying to say, "whoosh".

Whatever it is, you won't get it from a random opinion article and a single photo of a paid-for billboard...

Remember The Hundredth Monkey? He was posting some of the worst hate here...he's passed now.

Not "allowing" people to wander out of the bad areas is unlawful imprisonment. Are you sure this happened before? And are you not only okay with it, but you want it to happen more?

That's like saying you'll only consider fixing a gushing fire hydrant when you've finished drying the street. It's never going to happen or be solved until you fix the root cause. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody likes being a homeless addict. Nobody is given any incentives to be a homeless addict. You're angry and upset, it's understandable. But you should listen to yourself - you're not making any sense.

Popularity or voting doesn't really invalidate a particular argument. Only facts do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Then they'll have to answer for their violence and thefts through the legal system. As for being drug addicts, as nigel99 said, that's a medical and mental health problem, not a criminal problem. Then offer them something that actually improves their current situation. Like treatment for their addiction, safety, and some hope. It's not the homeless people's fault is it? It's also pretty unrelated. So are the homeless people. Also, where do you think homeless people come from? Most of them used to be "innocent people in the residential neighbourhoods" too. You can ship all of them out into the desert, and you think no more homeless people will be created? You're just looking at the symptoms, not the root cause.

Neither do homeless people. Who you're describing are criminals and yes, they do need to be responsible for their actions. But not all homeless people. You've just decided to paint all homeless people as criminals...yet you voted for one.

And once you do that, there'll DEFINITELY be no more homeless, right? /s There's a reason they "prefer" to be homeless. There's also a reason they do drugs - it's because every other alternative they have is worse. What you're suggesting is like jailing people for getting cancer. They didn't ask for it, getting cancer is punishment enough, and what you don't realise is what separates us from them is just sometimes...luck.

It's weird how some people think "more punishment" is the solution to the homelessness problem. It's not like people want to be homeless. Nobody, I repeat NOBODY does. Thinking that they need to be punished so they'll be motivated not to be homeless is the most messed up thing ever.

For individual companies they're looking for the potential to have 10x returns (i.e. 1000%) but (at least in the UK) they do expect 9 out of 10 startups to fail so they just roughly break even, so I guess they aim for slightly more than that. The high BoE interest rates have been brutal on the startup scene here, but they were swimming in money as recently as 2020. I even know of one who managed to sweet-talk a VC into investing in 2019 when they had no prototype, and not even a real product.

When you can just put your money in a savings account and get 5%+ interest (like now) risky startups aren't very attractive. When you make close to 0% on your money due to low interest rates (2010-2018) then startups were relatively more attractive and VCs had lots of business. Yet base698 here thinks that Trump (who wants control of the Fed so he can print money) or a VC (Vance) would change that somehow.

Sorry, I misunderstood this statement you made: Agreed on this, but this has absolutely NOTHING to do with who's in power whether dem or republican. I can argue that the "money printing party" already stopped when the Fed hiked interest rates to 5+%, so the new administration can do nothing and keep it that way. But given Trump's history, and Vance being a VC, I think it's unlikely.

Wait...so the man you're hoping to stop the "money printing party" and stick it to the banks, hedge funds, and VCs...is an actual VC?

Interesting how you didn't comment on my post about Trump wanting the Fed to print money in 2019...

I was being too specific, I guess - I think base698's meaning is generally "the rich" and hedge funds and VCs were just the representatives. In any case, I meant the rich - the rich will win, no matter who you vote for. Even bankruptcy is just a tool used by the rich to avoid liabilities.

Oh, I'm definitely aware of that. But...do you remember what Trump wanted? Zero or negative interest rates. Back in 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-11/trump-calls-on-fed-to-cut-interest-rates-to-zero-or-less https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/business/economy/bonehead-trump-jay-powell.html I'm not saying that voting Democrat would make things better for most people - they won't. For VCs and Hedge funds, it's heads they win, tails you lose. They'll win, no matter who you vote for. Years later you'll be looking for another outsider, the crazier the better. Then they'll win while leftists like me keep despairing why people don't vote for our non-solutions.

Not sure you understand where VCs and hedge funds get money from, but I'll be bookmarking this to return to in a few years.